Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 053

Saturday, September 19 1998

• [none]
• Re: R: The Chassam Sofer *Does* Say That & Methodology of Psak
• Forwarded mail....
• Re: Disputing previous generations and the Conservaitve Movement.
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• RE: Methodology of pesak/ the silence of the Rishonim/women in MA
• Tireifos Consensus and the Sternberg Article
• First Use of "Rishonim"
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• RE: Methodology of pesak/ the silence of the Rishonim/women in MA
• Re: More on Sheva Berachot
• Kaddish Shalem
• being choshesh for the daas hamachmir

I apologize to all dikduk purists for the tza'ar I just caused by writing
moavis and mamzeret (AWA mitzrit) in the same post.

AP

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> In your  curt response do you mean: (a) you find assuming that the rishonim
> dealt with their historial realia distasteful (b) the assumption that women
> had inferior status in the middle ages distasteful  (c) the notion that
> women's status has changed since the middle ages distasteful?
>

A.

Brand me a frummie, but I cannot countenance the Ritva and NY paskening
this matter on the basis of some emotional denigration of women - which,
even if true, needs to be proved in order to serve as an halachic factor.
Have a look - see if you can deduce any sociology at work in their
writing.

BTW, the implication is that the CS was far more broad minded on women's
status...

> Obviously I think you are incorrect whichever you choose, but I just
> want to be sure where you stand.  If there is some ptur of a women qua
> being a woman, such as by edus, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. 
> However, if the ptur is sociological - i.e. the geder hadin is simcha
> and the rishonim simply disqulaified women bec. their presence at a
> public gathering was on the sidelines, then I don't see why you reject

Yes, but unless you can prove your theory, the burden of proof is on the
side that would introduce the beracha.

BTW, if we have any bona fide Hungarians on line, why don't you check out
if in Pressburg they followed the CS?

> the notion.  A theoretical question: would the presence of an eved
> constitute panim chadashot, e.g.  lets say the famous Tevi was at R'
> Gamliel's sheva berachot?  Wouldn't you argue that a slave does not
> constitute a significant person viz. the din of panim chadashot?  And

It depends on status vis a vis "Makheilos" - the basis for the CS line of
thought as well. It is, thus, an objective standard, not subjective.

> isn't is reasonable to say that it is the same thinking that lead to the
> exclusion of women?  And since Chazal laid no hard and fast rules here
> but simply provided a broad geder of panim chadashot/simcha we are free
> to expand that definition should sociological notions change, much like
> many women work despite the Rambam writing that leaving the home is a
> breach of tzniyut, or women doing haseiba on Pesach as an isha chashuva
> though the gemara gives a ptur? 

No, because the laws of berachos do not have some Rishon like the Ritva at
the end of Kiddushin who says tzeni'us is relatve!

Prosecution ready for cross examination.

YGB

> 
> Defense rests.
> 
> -CB
> 
> -CB
> 
> 
> 
>           You are a lamdan. Figure one out. The reason you gave, to say the
>           least,
>           is extremely distasteful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

From my cousin, R' Eli Silberstein, who is having e-mail problems.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 12:12:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: cs32@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu
To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

	A.Somebody asked a question that if misasek by shabbos is exempt
from chiuv under the principle of mleches macsheves than why is misasek
potur by all other aveirus as well; and if it is a legitimate exemption by
other aveiros ( as the gemoro derives from 'asher choto' prat lemisasek),
than why do we single out the reason of mleches machsheves by shabbos? I
believe this was the thrust of his question. (Unfortunately i lost his
original posting). 

	This question is dealt with at great length in Tshuvas R. Akiva
Eiger 8.and cites also a Tosafos in Shabbos about this. R. Akiva Eiger
comes up with a Chidush that the ptur of misasek does not mean that it is
not an issur, but rather that there is no chiuv korbon. By Shabbos, on the
other hand, a misasik has no issur in the first place because mleches
machsheves. 

	  B. WHy does Chabad not say slichos after RH? The Tzemach Tzedek
was asked this very question and answered that up until RH our tshuva
consists of dibbur, after RH it is through maaseh. On another occasion he
said that berore RH we do tshuva be'dibbur whereas after RH we do it
be'machshovo. 

	Kesiva vachasimo tovo and regards to the whole family. 

		Eli. 

I believe this is a practical and public relations danger - no different
than that presented by any other religious movement - be it Reform
Judaism, or even another religion. They are certainly real. I meant there
is no *Theological* or *Halachic* danger from a movement whose scholarship
is farcical.

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Harry Maryles wrote:

> As to the later post of YGB questioning the dangers of Conservative
> Judaism: 
> 
> YGB writes: 
> 
> >What danger? 
> 
> >From a movement that has no longer has *any* scholarship to ground it
> >and >follows the winds of current morality in determining its stances? 
> 
> >The days of danger from the Conservative movement have passed,
> >eternally, >into history. 
> 
> >YGB
> 
> 
> 
> Those dangers certainly do exist! Perhaps their "scholarship" has
> declined in recent years but their influence has increased,. I was
> recently at a wedding of a relative where half of the sheva brachos
> under the chupa were made by women.  the Eidi kedushin were 2 men and 2
> women, all apointed by the Chasan (and Kallah).  Both bride and groom
> are members of the conservative movement, one a "musmach" of JTS and the
> other a candidate for smicha (the bride).  It was a double ring ceremony
> (she said "Harei Atah Mekudash li Kedat Moshe VeIsrael") The Mesader
> Kedushin was the Vice Chancellor of JTS. The kesuvah was Pasul... 5
> eidim signatories: 2 men, 3 women. Many of the freinds of the chasan and
> kalah,who are, also, either musmachim of JTS or candidates for smicha
> themselves) are in Chinuch and are teaching their brand of judaism in
> community schools in small towns that have all three "branches" of
> Judaism attending. Traditional concepts of modesty in dress and
> activities... non existant, even in the bride. (There was social dancing
> on the part of all the unmaried JTS students.) 
> 
> These are serious and sincere people teaching their members the ways of
> "Authentic Torah Judaism" (according to them).  They "Darshaned" that
> women can be eidim. Their Gitin are pasul. Their children of remarriages
> are mamzerim, possibly. 
> 
> The Conservative movement used to be a comfortable place for an
> unaffiliated jew to go and only a very few of the leadership were
> corrupted and corrupting.  But, with the advent of the Solomon Schechter
> school system, more and more of the unobservant conservative layman are
> sending their children to these dayschools. and a lot of them are
> becoming "Frum" conservative Jews.  They all walk around with yarmukees
> and you cant ebven tell them apart from the orthodox. They interact and
> intermingle with orthodox and its hard to tell who's who without a
> scorecard.  I am told that this is especially true on the upper west
> side of New York. And what about all the pressure on Israel by the
> conservative movement ot recognize their converts? 
> 
> Need I go on?  I think the danger are very real. 
> 
> HM
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Ma'ariv is a tefillas *reshus* - optional, not a *nedava* - a gift. I know
the distinction might sound hairsplitting, but it is real, and, hey, if
we can't split hairs here, where can we?

YGB

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Steve. Katz wrote:

> It is distateful for me to disagree with my Rebbe, but I thought that
> only Shemoneh Esrei of Mariv is Tefilla Nedava the other SE's are
> chiyuvim.  Shabbat Shalom and Birchas ketiva vechatima tova
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-09-18 15:23:13 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Ma'ariv is a tefillas *reshus* - optional, not a *nedava* - a gift. I know
 the distinction might sound hairsplitting, but it is real, and, hey, if
 we can't split hairs here, where can we?
 
 YGB
  >>
Not to split hairs even further but I believe that tosfot holds that reshut
doesn't really mean optional but a "lower level" mitzvah-I'll look up the cite
at home but I think his basis was if it were really optional why does the
gemora ask about having to repeat it (or have a tashlumim for it) in certain
cases.

Shabbat shalom  and a ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich

As the person who  inadvertently opened this thread, I would like to
respond to one of R. YGB's arguments.  He writes:

>3. Which, leads to the next point, that is that I am convinced that the
>ambiguity of the other Rishonim is because the issue was not one they felt
>compelled to deal with, because, lo ala al hada'as - until the
>extraordinary Chassam Sofer that R' Aryeh Frimer cited (who, btw, does not
>require even "isha chashuva" - a kattan suffices as well, so long as there
>is heightened simcha) - to count women as panim chadashos. While I hope
>others can comment on this more knowledgably, seeing how desperate we are
>for ponim chadashos with relatively high frequency, were there such an
>opinion that had been ala al hada'as, it would have come down through the
>ages.

>(Let me make clear that I am not using the "historical" point as a
>decisive argument against women as panim chadashos - one is entitled to
>reopen an issue even hundreds of years later - but as the rationale for
>other Rishonim - especially those who are primarily parshanim, not poskim
> - - to suffice with ambiguity.

It seems that R. YGB is arguing as follows: when many Rishonim disregard
an issue we cannot interpret their silence as disagreement with a rishon
who does address the issue.  On the particular question of women being
panim hadashot, he adds what he calls a "historical point" that "lo ala
al ha-da`at" -- it never occurred to them that women could or would be
panim hadashot.

I certainly agree that the Rishonim did not face the challenges faced by
contemporary posekim posed by twentieth century feminism.  But this did
not prevent from addressing women's fitness to participate in a wide
variety of religious functions.  Moreover, I think R. YGB's contention
is utterly refuted by the fact that Ritva and the Nimukei Yosef (R.
Yosef Haviva 14-15th c.) did discuss the issue, notwithstanding the
absence of feminists or egalitarian branches of Judaism in their day.
Why was it oleh al da'atam?  I cannot say.  But it was.  And
historically speaking, there is no reason that they should have thought
of it, while other Rishonim and early Aharonim did not.  (Indeed, the
same could be said for the Hatam Sofer, who fought early German Reform
Judaism at a time when the distinction between sexes had not yet been
attacked by that movement.)  And, of course, once they had thought of
it, the issue was one every later authority was aware of, even if, as R.
YGB assumes, it was not halakhah le-ma`aseh for them.  Yet, no one cites
either Ritva or the Nimukei Yosef!

As has been noted, there is no discussion in the Tur or Shulhan Arukh on
the international date line question.  But there is one on panim
hadashot -- EH 62:6-7.  To say that it never occurred to the Mehaber
that a woman should qualify for panim hadashot is to beg two questions:
1) why did it occur to Ritva and Nimukei Yosef? and 2) once it occurred
to them, how could he ignore it if he agreed with them?

Chaim Brown has raised an interesting issue regarding the sociological
status of women in the Middle Ages.  However, Ritva's reason for
excluding women from panim hadashot is that they do not count toward the
asarah necessary for birkot hatanim.  Therefore, I think CB's discussion
of medieval sociology should give way to the halakhic question: is
counting for a minyan a necessary requirement to be panim hadashot.  In
the opinion of the Rishonim who say Shabbat, yom tov and a derashah all
qualify as panim hadashot, obviously not.  Since these opinions appear
in the Shulhan Arukh and nosei kelim and Ritva's does not, I believe
that we can safely conclude that Ritva's view is rejected by the
majority of authorities..

Warmest wishes of ketivah va-hatimah tovah to all,

Eli Clark

In a recent posting Eli Clark referenced an article by S. Sternberg : 

<In a provocative "book review" in BDD (Be-khol Derakhekha Da'ehu), no. 4, a
learned mathematician named Sternberg departs from this consensus. The article,
which is informative and fun to read, collects a wide range of sources dealing
with the science-mesorah tension and tries to categorize various posekim in
terms of their attitude toward science and changes in scientific understanding.
 However, in my view, the analysis is flawed in its failure to recognize the
special staus of Hazal's terefot list.>

Actually i did not get the same flawed impression from Sternberg's article.
While perhaps not stated as emphatically and certainly not with the same depth
of coverage provided this topic by R. Gutel in his recent sefer - who as also
devotes explicit ink to exploring the differences between tireifos biheimoh and
tireifos ho'odom - Sternberg clearly artculates his recognition of the
traditional special status of the tireifos list.  See P. 94 "In reality, there
is no possibility of any such updating for a combination of historical and
polermical reasons."   Of course i do agree with the Elis re the interesting
dichotomy between a poseiq's acceptance of halakhic changes based on either
evolving scientific understanding or evolving reality itself and the same
poseiq's non-receptivity to changes which reflect on hilchos tireifoh.


Mechy Frankel			frankel@hq.dswa.mil

The Dor Shivi'ie, Dr. David Glasner - writes:
 
<I suppose that receiving a complement one one's erudition from Dr.
Michael Frankel is like (well, sort of like) receiving a complement from Dr.
Frankel's commander-in-chief on one's lexical virtuosity.>

The compliment was meant most sincerely (as ever), although, as David is
clearly alert (as ever)to exercises of lexical leadership, I am surprised that
he would identify the leading secular practitioner of this art as my very own
maximum leader.  (actually the methodology of some of these now public
di'yuqim, though not the specific application li'havdil, remind me a bit of
shiur - aren't some of those lawyers jewish?)  Unless i missed something back
in 6th grade civics class (come to think of it, this is not very farfetched) we
both toil, albeit in somewhat different lines of work, for the same vineyard
and ultimately for the same boss.  Or was I on travel the week the FTC seceded
from the executive branch? 

David also queried:
<Query.  When was the term Rishon as a descriptive term first applied to
the Rabbinic authorities of a certain era and by whom?>

Quite tricky.  there has never been any patent on the use of the word rishonim
to characterize earlier and greater personages. thus the talmudic aphorism that
"tovah tzipornon shel rishonim mikireison shel acharonim", or the assertion
which got us into that yeridas hadoros thread "im rishonim binei malochim..".
As well, the gemoroh already uses the term to distinguish earlier and later
generations of chazal, thus (eruvin 53a) rishonim - r. aqivoh, acharonim - r.
elozor bem shamuoh and other places as well.  Within the rishonic period itself
we find rishonim (from our perspective) referring to earlier rishonim as
"rishonim" and themselves as "acharonim" (see Sh"uT HaRashboh, ch 1, s'391).
But if i had to pick one reference, which probably would qualify as the
earliest usage, inferentially, by an individual to characterize the whole, more
halakhically authoritative generation of which he was no longer a part of, it
would be the Maharil (late 1300s-early 1400s) (responsa s'67) who, in the
course of decrying the right of someone to dispute the halakhic determinations
of the generations prior to the black death when there were still "geonei
eretz" around, paraphrases the talmudic aphorism by declaring tziporneihem of
rishonim being preferable to torohson (sic) shel acharonim.  While not quite a
direct description, the Maharil and other posiqim did not have historical
taxonomy as their primary focus and this quote seems both close enough and
certainly the earliest.  See also Sh"uT R. Yisroel MiBrunoh , s'228 (mid-1400s)
which seems to en passant reference this era-split (the tishuvoh focused on the
right to establish a yeshivoh devoted to the torah of rishonim in a town where
the rov didn't want them). By the time the 16th and 17th century roll in we
have corrspondingly more references in the modern sense. In any event the
common acceptance of the term as a periodic appellation certainly took root
slowly and over some period of time.

watching my shul back even more closely  - and may i say once again how much I
admire the independent spirit and iconoclastic creativity of the Dor Ri'vi'ie. 
  

Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil

 
  

Subject: Minhag Nitra and Selichos
	This is a bit late, but...
	FWIW, the Nitra community (at least the group in Mt. Kisco NY)
says selichos on a ta'anis tzibbur in the chazaras ha-shatz in the
bracha of slach lanu, right before the "baruch".  Selichos for the
Yamim Noraim period are said before davening, as usual.  I found that
interesting, because the rest of Nitra davening the year round is
straight minhag Ashkenaz.
	K'siva vachasima tova-Herschel Ainspan(ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

Subject: Re: Tefillos Nedava
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:36:15 -0500 (CDT), sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
wrote:
 
>Only the Shemoneh Esrei's - that correspond to Korbonos have potential to
>be Tefillos Nedava, if I am not mistaken. Not other berachos.

>YGB

I believe that only the shemoneh esrei's that correspond to korbonos
yachid have the potential to be tefillos nedava.  Thus any SE on
Shabbos and any musaf SE (on any day) cannot be said b'nedava, since a
korban yachid cannot be brought on Shabbos and the musaf is a korban
tzibbur.

Good Shabbos and K'siva vachasima tova - Herschel Ainspan
(ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

Not holding now either, but doesn't that have to do with kibluhu k'chova?

YGB

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Not to split hairs even further but I believe that tosfot holds that
> reshut doesn't really mean optional but a "lower level" mitzvah-I'll
> look up the cite at home but I think his basis was if it were really
> optional why does the gemora ask about having to repeat it (or have a
> tashlumim for it) in certain cases. 
> 
> Shabbat shalom  and a ktiva vchatima tova
> Joel Rich
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> It seems that R. YGB is arguing as follows: when many Rishonim disregard
> an issue we cannot interpret their silence as disagreement with a rishon
> who does address the issue.  On the particular question of women being
> panim hadashot, he adds what he calls a "historical point" that "lo ala
> al ha-da`at" -- it never occurred to them that women could or would be
> panim hadashot.
>

Correct.
 
> variety of religious functions.  Moreover, I think R. YGB's contention
> is utterly refuted by the fact that Ritva and the Nimukei Yosef (R.
> Yosef Haviva 14-15th c.) did discuss the issue, notwithstanding the
> absence of feminists or egalitarian branches of Judaism in their day.
> Why was it oleh al da'atam?  I cannot say.  But it was.  And

Well, let us grant that for a moment.

Perhaps they had their reasons to discuss it from that point on.

Following your approach further, we can deduce that the earlier Rishonim
felt no compelling practical need to address the issue.

You are thus limited to later Rishonim and early Acharonim in your quest.

But, perhaps by that time, not living in Spain or Provence but in Turkey
and Poland it was once more no longer an issue, and that is why no one
again felt a need to address the point...

> counting for a minyan a necessary requirement to be panim hadashot.  In
> the opinion of the Rishonim who say Shabbat, yom tov and a derashah all
> qualify as panim hadashot, obviously not.  Since these opinions appear
> in the Shulhan Arukh and nosei kelim and Ritva's does not, I believe
> that we can safely conclude that Ritva's view is rejected by the
> majority of authorities..
> 

I cannot agree, but I agree to disagree :-).

> Warmest wishes of ketivah va-hatimah tovah to all,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

Likewuse, YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-09-18 16:48:54 EDT, you write:
I don't think so-see tos d"h halacha in brachot 27b and d"h taah on 26a
shabbat shalom ktiva vchatima tova
Joel Rich
<< 
 Not holding now either, but doesn't that have to do with kibluhu k'chova?
 
 YGB
 
 On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
 
 > Not to split hairs even further but I believe that tosfot holds that
 > reshut doesn't really mean optional but a "lower level" mitzvah-I'll
 > look up the cite at home but I think his basis was if it were really
 > optional why does the gemora ask about having to repeat it (or have a
 > tashlumim for it) in certain cases. 
 > 
 > Shabbat shalom  and a ktiva vchatima tova
 > Joel Rich
 >  >>

Gershon Dubin asks  <<< why is only Kaddish with Tiskabel called Kaddish
Sh'l'm' and not Kaddish Yasom, which has the same yehei shlama raba and
oseh shalom? >>>

Our Mara D'asra, Rabbi Elazar Meir Teitz, of Elizabeth NJ, has commented
on many occasions that the proper name for Kaddish Yasom is actually
"Kaddish Shalem B'li Tiskabel".

Akiva Miller

I have been having some problems posting to the list (which I think,
with the Help of Micha, we have managed to solve), but in the meantime
some of my postings, although they were sent to my correspondant
privately, have kept bouncing.

So although these relate to very old discussions, I thought I would
resend them anyway.

Kasiva v'chasima tova

Chana
In message , Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> writes
>What I believe was meant when it was said that we follow all shittas when
>possible is that all shittas which aren't contradictory are to be followed

Clearly this is not a problem - on rereading my post I realised that I
should perhaps have quoted further in the gemorra in Eruvin, which goes
on to say that where the shittas do not contradict, then you can follow
two different shittas - but it gives two examples there of shittas that
do contradict.  The first one is the maklokus beis hillel and beis
shammai as to whether or not a spine or skull is whole with the loss of
one chulia.  Beis Hillel holds that with even one chulia missing one it
is no longer considered whole, while Beis Shammai holds that you need
two chulios missing for it to no longer be considered whole.  This means
that for issues of tumas ohel, Beis Hillel is makil, as with the loss of
one chulia, there is no tumas ohel, while Beis Shammai is makmir, as you
need to have lost two chulios for there not to be a tuma problem.  On
the other hand, with regard to treifos it is the opposite - if an animal
is missing one chulia, then according to Beis Hillel it is treif, but
according to Beis Shammai it is not.

The second example is the case of Rabbi Akiva in Rosh Hashana - and the
two shittas were when the rosh hashana for trees was - on the first of
shvat or the 15th - so he didn't know which type of ma'aseh to give when
he picked it on the first of shvat - so he gave both, and it is clear
this would have been being choshesh for two shittos if it had been the
case the beis hillel had held one, and beis shammai had held the other,
but the reason he could do it was because he didn't know what it was
that beis hillel held.

Now, going back to the thread that started all this off - namely Rabbanu
Tam versus the Gra.  If you hold that the ikar is like the Gra, but you
are choshesh for Rabbanu Tam (or vice versa) how does this differ from
the cases above? - it seems to me to be precisely the cases cited here.
I mean everybody would agree that if you went l'kula for both the Gra
and Rabbanu Tam, you would fit into the category of a rasha - so why is
it that lots and lots of frum communities around the world follow the
chumras of both? (and certainly tosphos makes clear in Rosh HaShana that
one is considered a fool even if one knows what the ikar shita is, and
just does the other to be machmir).

I agree with you that if we can genuinely say they different shittas do
not contradict, then my kasha isn't a kasha - but it seems to me that in
many of the cases in which we are choshesh for all shittas when in fact
they do conflict in the way referred to in the gemorra.  Take another
classic case - the size of various shiurim - these have various chumras
and kulas attached, and the shittas directly contradict.  


>so we can be yotze as many opinions as possible. We do this all the time,
>by We I mean the Mishnah Brurah for sure and to a large extant even the
>shulchan aruch does this. Any in depth analysis of halacha will show this
>to be true.

Agreed, this is precisely my question.  The Mishna Brura for sure, and
lots of communities around the world. I am not sure about the Shulchan
Aruch - after all, his stated purpose was that he was taking the three
(Rambam, Rif and Rosh) he clearly regarded as greatest in chochma, and
then following the marjority (minyan) of those three.  One could perhaps
argue that where he brings more than one shitta then either he doesn't
think they conflict, or he thinks a choice can be made.

> The rishonim had rules in which to posken halacha (ie. rav in
>issur, shmuel in mamon etc.) but we, when settling a dispute between
>rishonim or achronim often follow as many shittas without making a
>contradiction. I
>believe the gemara in eruvin as well as the others all are cases where
>holding like the two opinions create a contradictory psak, it is there
>where we are walking in darkness if we do like both, but to be choshes for
>as many non contradictory shittas as possible is most common.

Maybe in a number of cases boils down to what is a contradiction. Why,
for example, is X type of shofar blowing not considered a contradiction
to Y type of shofar blowing - ie just as either rosh hashana for trees
is 1st Shvat or 15th Shvat, depending on whose shitta you follow, the
correct type of shofar blowing is either X or Y, depending on whose
shitta you follow.  So why is blowing both X and Y in fulfilment of the
mitva not a contradiction?

However I do agree that some of the cases do fall into a different case,
ie when in the case in question, the circumstances are such that there
is no contradiction to be choshesh - eg a man making havdala for a woman
on the basis that it is clear he has an obligation, and can be motzei
others, and we are choshesh for the opinion that she does not have to
make - so he makes for her.  That is fine this week, but next week when
there is no man around, either she makes for herself or she doesn't make
at all, ie we can't be choshesh for both shittas that way .  And even if
you say she makes for herself on the basis of Rabbanu Tam, the next
week, when she finds herself with a man who has a chiyuv but is not
capable of making himself for some reason, should she be motzei him or
not? Again the shittas contradict.

This is not to say that we could not spin this out for a another little
while, but it seems to me that almost inevitably, somewhere down the
track, we are always going to find a situation, however unusual, where
the two shittas will flatly contradict, and you will have to hold by one
or the other - simply because, when you are dealing with different
shittas that relate precisely to the same matter, there has to be some
nafka mina, and so even if you can arrange it in some circumstances that
you don't need to get into the question of the nafka mina, it is still
not accurate to say that the shittas don't contradict. 

So is there really such a thing as a non contradictory shitta when it
relates to the same matter?

So maybe the answer is that in the kind of cases you are thinking of we
are not really *choshesh* for all shittas, but what we do is to act in
such away as to avoid getting into the halachic question - eg if the man
makes havdala for the woman, we don't need to even ask the question as
to what the woman's obligation is and so don't have to face the
contradiction.  

The equivalent for Rabbi Akiva would then be, that one would avoid
picking etrogim from 1st to 15th of Shvat, so that we never got into the
question as to what we would need to posken (and his action does beg the
question - what *was* he doing picking etrogim then anyway?).

On the other hand, if taken to extremes, I suppose one would have
difficulty eating anything, because there are so many potential shialas
about food - or working, because there are so many potential shialas
about business halacha. But then we always seem to run into halachos
that force us to face the contradictions (eg one has obligations to eat
at various times, and obligations not to rely on tzedaka etc).

I guess thinking about it further, it shares similarities with any other
geder, ie the whole purpose of a fence is so you don't get into
problematic situations, it is just extending the problematic situations
from ones of metzias and temptation to ones of psak. ie the regular
geder is that one does not do X because one might come to do Y (the
issur), whereas here, one does not do X because one might come to a
situation where one might have to make a decision between psak Y and
psak Z. 

Which brings us to a quasi hashkafic question, as to why is one
considered a fool that walks in darkness if one is machmir for two
contradictory shittas - should one not be said to be praiseworthy? And
if one should not be machmir for contradictory shittas, is it
praiseworthy to avoid dealing with them?

>Elie Ginsparg
>

Regards

Chana
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]