<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>If we cared about how people could construe things, then eilu va'eilu is<br>
altogether out. </blockquote><div><br>How so? Specifics please! <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Once you allow plurality, anyone will argue that their position is simply another "eilu".<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Inded you havearuges just so many times to me. Please explain how this is different?! <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Bottom line is that R' Rackman innovated two things that have no basis,<br>
regardless of our differences in how to trate things that do:<br>
<br>
1- Considering a later personality change, career failure, or other<br>
issue to be "mekach ta'us" rather than "nistapkha sadeihu".</blockquote><div><br>Imagine personality can mamash CHANGE within JUST ONE liftime, but human nature cannto change in 1,500+ years of history! I am indeed perplexed by this paradox!<br>
<br>Maybe Rackman holds taht a sociopath NOW was ALWAYS so, jsut like tav lemieisav cannot change. how about that counter-argument?!<br><br>Just last nigh's Star Trek had varous officers debating whether Captain Kirk's persona had been swapped. Despite no objective evidence, Spock realized he MUST be differnet, [a mind meld with the later ego did help] yet McCoy certified the Captain as fit. Lema'aseh huvrar davar lemafrei'a that the persona HAD bee nswitched after all! <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
2- Hafka'as qiddushin where (1) the husband did no ma'aseh attempting<br>
qiddushin or geirushin, and (2) on a casewise basis rather than a general<br>
policy set in advance that whenever X, the marriage is annulled.</blockquote><div><br>Se Hoshen Mishpat [2-5] where BD has great powers to make a hora'as sho'oh EVEN w/o precedent when things are considered to be out-of-hand. Such powers are always within the purview of a BD when there are abuses withi nthe Torah [naval birshus hatorah]. If hte Halachah has a loopwhole that is explitable a BD can at least temporarily enforce a closure, EVEN if it is not based upon Halachic norms. <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Both of us should agree that places his position objectively outside the<br>
fold. </blockquote><div><br>I fail to understand how your heuristic read of Halachic Judaism how ANYONE is completely objectively IN or OUT of anything normative.<br><br>I find dancing on Shabbas mroe obejctively outside the pale than Rabbi Rackman's p'sak ecause this is LITERALLY to'eh bidvar hamishnah. <br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">There is no maqor. It's his own invention. </blockquote><div><br>Yes I saw that the Kitzur Misgeres hashulchan accused the Kitzur SA of the same a few days ago. He says [in the R. Mordechai Eliyahu edition] Taht there is NO MAQOR in poskim fro this decision. And what does that prove? A snif here and a snif there and presto it's Halachah!<br>
<br>Whe'res' the Taz's Meqor for making late Ma'ariv on Shavu's? Indeed we may daven early Maa'riv on Sahbbas itself! <br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Our debates over how do<br>
decide between answers that actually have mechanics which trumps which<br>
and how has nothing to do with this.</blockquote><div><br>Really? how so?<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
RER's belief that he has justification doesn't change the fact that<br>
according to everyone else's rules, he doesn't.</blockquote><div><br>There are a lot of "Da'ss Yachid" types out there. Does being a Da'as yachid preclude eilu v'eilu? WAs the B'al Hama'ors biur hametz erev Pesach via eating outside Eilu v'eilu?<br>
<br>Does consensus count in p'sak And ven if it DOES count, who says there can be ZERO dissent?<br><br>Who besides RYBS read teh Rambam literally taht one must sit for Ashbrie at Mincha? The Tur/BY quote the Ramba w/o metnioning this prat which implictly means they agree wtih Rambam but do not consture sitting as a requirement, but perhaps as an option.<br>
One MAY sit NOT one MUST sit. This is obvous, but RYBS changed that read w/o aFAIK any meqor.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
: Or he could say that any woman protesting her fate vociferously is part of a<br>
: minority that prefers isolation to suffering an abusive relationship.<br>
</div>...<br>
: The point is taht RYBS said that tav lemseisav is an aboslute. WADR, I<br>
: disagree.<br>
<br>
The essential issue is NOT tav lemeisav, although that came up in part<br>
of the mekach ta'us argument. Everyone discusses RYBS's reply about it<br>
because his reply has philosophical content and is therefore more<br>
interesting than the lomdus.</blockquote><div><br>OK <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
But according to RALichtenstein, the iqar of RYBS's objection is that if<br>
one could simply invoke hafka'as qiddushin in this way, we could throw<br>
out much of Yevamos, Gittin, Even haEzer, etc...</blockquote><div><br>ein hachi nami, in a hora'as sho'oh you MAY throw them all out. But I do belive R. Rackman never meant to throw it all out<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The Chasam Sofer and CI<br>
didn't simply resolve problems through hafka'as qidushin. Are we wiser<br>
than them?</blockquote><div><br>See remakrs about innovations above by Kitzur, Taz and RYBS. Were they wiser?<br>Why on the page of the Tur re: Hilchos Shavu'os the Tur/BY/DM/Drisha-Presiha/BaCh<br>ALL omit davening Ma'ariv late! Magen AVraham did not Know of it either because he requires repeating Shema ayain sham!<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> RYBS described it as cutting off the branches of the very<br>
tree one is sitting in. IOW, there is a basic problem of precedent and<br>
halachic process here.</blockquote><div><br>since when have you yourself subscribec to ANY prescirption or dexcription of Halchic process. AISI, it is all the eyres of the beholder or poseik to quote the paytan<br><br></div>
<div><div style="margin-left: 40px;">Hinei Hadin beyad haposeik<br>Birtzoso mechazeik uvirtzoso memacheik<br><br></div>In a heuristic system one may WEIGH Heter agunost to trump other principles wbecasue even in the Talmud itself heter Agunos trumps the requiremetn for 2 iedim mamash and allow an isha etc. Certailny it is w/o precedent in eidi ishus to allow a woman but to mattir agunos the Talmud says it's OK. Halachic preecedent is trhown wawy provding itself in turn anew haalchic preceent allowing one to throw away Halachic precdent because of the over-whlming nautre of the suffering entailed.<br>
<br>And since kol demkeidsh ada'as derabban mekadeish, if rabbis dems it so, it IS so. So says Rav Ashi re: the case of being mevateil qiddushin that was done vai shtarr or bi'ah<br><br>The requirement of having to process at least a Passul Get IS in Rashi and Rishonim but not explicit in Shas. Why not ignore Rishonim? <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
To put it in my own words: lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah doesn't apply to<br>
cases where someone claims there is something 3 feet across sitting<br>
three inches in front of your face. -Micha<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br>See YD 1:1 the machlokes BY and Shach on lo ra'inu eino raya. I'm not sure I get your mashal [or nimshal!]<br> </div></div>RYBS certainly had no eye witnesses for sitting for Ashrei. and Lo Ra'ainu is certainly the case for Techeiles. I don't know how ANYONE can revive this w/o a definitive masorah, and RYBS and I are in agreement on this [as well as many many psoqim] but some have found the ability to refresh TEhceiles w/o any certainty of what a hilzaon is. Perhaps we can over-ride problems re: birds and Chagavim based upon research instead of masorah/qabbalah, too! <br>
<br>Or to put it another way, if resarch can ID a chilazon w/o a precedent - why not Chagavim?<br><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>