<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Chana Luntz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chana@kolsassoon.org.uk">chana@kolsassoon.org.uk</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">RMB writes:<br>
<br>
> IOW, the Sepharadim are complaining that the typical Ashk<br>
> methodology is different than theirs. More development of one<br>
> idea and its justifications than of the list of shitos.<br>
<br>
</div>Well it is more than that, because, stepping back from the<br>
Askenazi/Sephardi divide, the question really becomes - to what extent<br>
is it appropriate to ignore what has previously been said. The argument<br>
for those who list shitos is that we stand on the shoulders of giants,<br>
so how can we not take what they say into account - and so even if you<br>
want to disagree based on lomdus, it is important to grapple with those<br>
of your forebears and contemporaries who appear to say differently (or<br>
to find comfort from those that disagree).<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
Regards<br>
<br>
Chana</div></blockquote></div><br>To me it's not essential to list every shita every time. <br><br>What bothered me in RMF/IM's tehsuva on eating matza ashira erev pesach he gave the 4th hour as a slam-dunk time limit for matza ashira. This is a matter of dispute. RMF imho did not have to mention the dispute in detail. I would have been OK had he simply said that this is in dispute and *I* pasken like this! <br>
<br>No secular scholar would be able to state a matter of dispute as a matter of fact! If a Talmid of mine stated a disputed fact as a matter of Halacha I would ream him out. MANY times a Talmid has told me that Being Hshmashos Bgein at Shki'a. I immeidately challnge him waht is his source and what does he mean by shekia. To say what WE call sh'kia is the beginning of bei hashmashos is a BIG ahalchic dispute. I would NEVER accept anyone trying to slip in one shita as a fact when communities TODAY still differ! It might be a different case if the matter had been setllted 400 years ago!<br>
<br>I do not mean to pick on RMF. This is just an example. I don't think BY, would casually mention something like this w/o attirubtion. Even the Tur in several places states that Ta'am K'eikar is d'oraisso, but iirc he prefaces it by saying KAYMA LAN or something like that. <br>
<br>IOW there is nothing wrong with a poseik taking sides. Waht I find distrubing is either the case where the poseik takes a position as THE undisputed position or where a poseik outlines a dispute w/o proper attribution. [see MB on Zecher/Zeicher. There are 2 yeish omrim w/o any names at all!] <br>
<br>I hate to think that academics are more machmir on things like "davar behseim omro" but it sure looks that way. Again, the ROYs and the Kaf hachaim's generally DO give a panorama of sources. As does the Darchei Teshuva on YD. And in the cases when such tangents would be onerous then simply mention the conflict and take a side. <br>
<br>If these kinds of things were not important the be'er Hagolah on SA and the Shaar hatziyun on the MB would never have been written.<br> <br>-- <br>Kol Tuv - Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
<br>