<div dir="ltr"><div>RMB wrote:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"There are two kinds of new chumros: are you talking about something<br>people start doing knowing it's lifnim mishuras hadin, or a new<br>stringent pesaq?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Me: I am considering the chumra which may have started as a personal stringency, but morphs into normative practice, so that a lenient deviation is now considered a kulah from the "normative psak".</div>
<div>"In the former case, there is no reason to limit oneself to halachic<br>process, as long as one is sure not to apply the chumrah in cases where<br>he is being meiqil on something else."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Me: And therein lies the rub, because once it becomes the practice of everyone in a particular group, all others are either forced to accept or be labeled as meikilim.</div>
<p>"In the latter case, the problem is quite real. It's non-trivial to say<br>that generations of ancestors were doing it wrong and we know better.</p>
<p>What usually happens is that something is taught as lifnim mishuras hadin,<br>but by the time the students -- or subsequent generations -- get to it,<br>they forget that bit.</p>
<p>: It just sounds like a way to justify the results we want, rather than have a<br>: consistent methodology.</p>
<div>Or, that giving significance to the evidence of minhag, or the<br>legislative weight of minhag, is part of that methodology. At per RRW<br>and my interminable debate.
<p>I believe that's what is happening with saying "LeDavid".</p>
<p>Tir'u baTov!<br>-Micha"</p></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Me: I am taking the "Rupture and Reconstruction" idea further, and saying that the loss of Torat Imecha works in only one direction, chumra. But lenient sources are ignored and Torat Imecha reigns supreme, because obviously the Gedolim know and rejected the lenient sources sub silentio. As I said, sounds result oriented.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Shabbat shalom</div>
<div> </div>
<div>David I. Cohen</div></div>