Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 073

Thursday, December 20 2001

• Torah Temimah
• RE: Sarah w/o womb
• EEZ vs AAZ
• comparative liturgy
• Re: yimach shimo
• Re: yimach shimo
• Re: Rambam
• Re: TIDE and TuM
• Re: R Chaim as social worker
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Re: Rav Berkowitz
• Re: Rav Berkowitz
• Re: Dr's SZ Leiman, Lawrence Schiffman and Marc Shapiro to speak
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Abrogation of the Shulchan Aruch
• Re: Halacha Methodology
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: halacha methodology

I heard R A Feldman give his opinion of the Torah Temimah. He feels there
is a chiyuv to let people know that the seifer is not as valuable as it
looks. (And therefore I feel okay about repeating this.) That while the
liqut from Shas is a great idea, many of the peshatim given are his and
his friends and are -- again in RAF's opinion *I would not say this on
my own* -- "downright silly" (an exact quote).

Anyone else hear someone of note question the TT's (the sefer, not the
person) merit?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

[Forwarded by R Moshe Feldman.- mi]

Here is a response to Gil Student's inquiry about Sara's infertility

The two Midrashic lines (1- Sara had complete absence of her uterus
[breishis 11:30], 2- Sara was post-menopausal [breishis 18:11] when
she gave birth to Yitzchak) do not necessarily have to agree with
each other. For example, Rashi, who comments on 18:11 that Sara was
post-menopausal, does not bring the Midrash about congenital absence of
uterus in his commentary on 11:30. Conversely, Orach Chaim on 11:30,
who mentions the Chazal that Sara was an eilonis, does not mention in
his commentary to 18:11 that she was post menopausal.

re: terminology 
"aim" - clearly refers to the uterus 
"beis velad" - the place where the fetus is housed, another synonym for
the uterus
ikar '"matrin" - also refers to the uterus i.e., she had no uterus. In
ancient anatomical terminology, the uterus was called the matres (like
maternal), latin for mother, hence the Hebrew anatomical term "aim,"
simply a translation of matres.
"ne'ekar" - likely means prolapsed, or removed from its usual location

See my article "The Halakhic Chapter of Ovarian Transplantation" in
Tradition 33:1 1998, notes 61, 84, and 90.

It is important to realize that Sara's pregnancy was biderech neis. (see
the opinion of R. Deutch cited in my article above at note 61). I
assume you are trying to configure the neis in a minimalist fashion to
be biderech hateva. In my opinion, none of these theories of uterine
presence, or absence, or ectopic or inverted, can be substantiated. The
discussions revolve around the interpretations (diyukim) of the two
phrases in breishis above.

I hope this is helpful, and please feel free to e-mail me if I can be
of further assistance.

Kol Tuv, 
Eddie Reichman 

From: Claude Schochet <claude@turing.math.wayne.edu>
> Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sfard (both via Rinat Yisrael) have the
> shehechiyanu ending "laaz'man hazeh" whereas Nusach Ari has "leez'man
> hazeh." Similarly on the second bracha on Chanukah where we find
> "baaz'man" in Ashkenaz and Sfard and "beez'man" in Ari...
 
And then there are the Lubavitchers, who say "shehakol nihyah bidvaro",
rather than "nihyeh".  Do Sefardim say nihyah or nihyeh?

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> ...., a more systematic comparison would show that this nusach Sefard
> is primarily nusach Ashkenaz with many such additions. Aside from
> the question of the need for embellishing certain phrases in a well
> developed nusach, one can question the legitimacy of such changes. By
> whose authority were these additions and changes made?

> Merely stating that there were kabbalistic reasons for such changes
> is inadequate. What were the reasons? ... Why is the talmudic adage
> of "kol ha'mosif - gorei'ah" not applicable here?

Good question.

BTW besides the well known Chabad Nussach Ari, the Munkatcher Rav - the
ME z'l - also went through the nusach hatefilah and 'cleaned it up' -
leshitoso. I think it bring much of his nussach back closer to Ashkenaz.

In his sefer "Chamisho Maamoros" there is one section called Maamar
Nusach hatefila which is very interesting material for those who are
looking into this topic.

Also interesting, the Belzer nussach - at least for SE - is except for
Kedusha, not saying Ledor vodor and adding Ov Horachmon at SK basically
nusach Ashkenaz.

When I (who follows NA) have to davven at the omud in a NS minyan -
I follow that nusach and when questioned claim to be davvening the
Belzer nussach.
(Funny how when a Belzer chosid - in the full garb davvens similarly -
no one asks any questions...)

SBA
  Please note new e-mail address:
        sba@iprimus.com.au

From:  RabbiRichWolpoe
> Yimach shmo etc. is based upon the half-passuk
> V'sheim Reshaim Yirkav
> Saying ZL, and of course ZTL is from the other half-passuk
> Zecher Tzaddik livracha 
> both are seen as imperatives

If yimach shemo is based on shem rishoim yirkav, why don't we say 'yirkav
shemo' or similar? Why the loshon of mechiah? Yirkav, IIC, means will rot.
Michiah has a somewhat different meaning I believe.

Mordechai

In a message dated 12/18/01 8:34:32pm EST, Phyllostac writes:
> If yimach shemo is based on shem rishoim yirkav, why don't we say 'yirkav 
> shemo' or similar? Why the loshon of mechiah? Yirkav, IIC, means will rot. 
> Michiah has a somewhat different meaning I believe.

Neither Zachur latov nor Zichrono livracha are literally ZTL either
Nor is Zehcer Tzadiikik V'KADOSH livracha mamash ZTL and I have posted
by added v'kadosh we are mekayeim kol hamosif gore'a because it is no
longer a pasuk.

Rashi mentions ZTL applies to Noach ish Tzaddik, IOW wehn we mmentoin
a Taddik we say nice things about him

Conversely when we mentoint the name of a serious Rashah we sayh
seomthing bad.

Your questoin about Yirkav is not a big deal, there is no evidence
that the imperative was meant DAVKA bezeh halashon, The imperative to
give shalom is based upon Hashem Imachme and Yevarechah Hahsem - neithr
forumal we use today


To summarize:

ZTL is the sources for saying anything nice about a Tzaddik
Shem Reshaim Yirkav is the source for saying nasty things about a rasha
Hashem Imachem etc. is the soruce for Shalom Aiiechem

How the exact formjuale evolved is a good question - IOW
Why Yimach shmo? That I do not know DAVKA. My point was to point to the
source of the imperative.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 09:09:40PM +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
: According to the Moreh 3:18, knowledge of HQBH is what defines "person"
: WRT the notion that all people are subject to hashgachah peratis. He
: is clear that he is speaking in terms of a spectrum, people with greater
: yedi'ah recieve more hashgachah...                      Note also the
: position he puts philosophers in 3:51. It would seem that while yedi'as
: hobrei is the ultimate, a secular philosopher is still "closer to the
: palace" than someone with little knowledge.

Earlier, I glossed over an important point. Note how in both peraqim,
the Rambam does not speak in the have vs have-not terms necessary to
define the YS vs the rest of us.

The Rambam is clear in 18 that defining personhood is a fuzzy set,
that one can be more or less a person and therefore get more or less
hashgachah as he has more or less yedi'ah. He also likens various
people as being at various distances from the place -- not in vs out.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:08:08PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Bottom line RYBS had aun underlying search for a unitary ratoinal reason,
: instead of seeing things as flowing out of series of minute decisoins
: nad parallels taken on by kehillos over time. This need for reason is
: remiscent of Frankl's eaarch for meaning, IOW the presumptoin is there IS
: an underlying meaning. This belief might be Torah based but I am clueless
: as to how. It sounds like an academic's search for a unified theory.

It is also very Brisk. Paskening based on theory rather than from precedent
of kehillos. Building that theory from common underlying principles that
are uniform across multiple inyanim.

-mi

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 10:48:10AM -0800, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I do not beleive R Chaim was a social worker in our terms of the word...

This model of rav is at least as old as R Akiva -- gadol hador and
gabai tzadaqah.

: I think that R. Chaim would do what was necessary to help people.
: There is also the story of how he played "horse" for kids that jumped on
: him.....
: R. Eliyashiv is famous for his hasmada and not wasting time which he
: why he is so protected by his gabbaim. Nevertheless I once heard a story
: of how he spent an hour with some stranger who was despondent...

Both stories show that the gedolim in question were baalei chessed. Not
that they defined such chessed to be central to their role as rav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 08:36:53AM -0500, Allen Gerstl wrote:
: I would add that the derech of Chachamim and the mark of a talmid chacham,
: which includes being a yireh shamayim and an anav is to therefore consult
: with others.

Such anivus must not get in the way of paskening, however. Treating a
she'eilah as a safeiq (with rules of rov, safeiq de'Oraisa, etc..) is
/avoiding/ pesaq. I do not see how the ET considers it a means of
horaah. Pesaq is a means of birur, not living with the safeiq.

Chazal give us a cautionary tale against this kind of undue anivus;
it lead to churban bayis! When the anivus is due, only a ba'al ga'avah
would run the risk of pasqening wrongly.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

> Anyone else hear someone of note question the TT's (the sefer, not the
> person) merit?

Had a long talk on this topic with the former head librarian of the Aguda
Library who had read through the TT very carefully. He said not to rely
on anything stated in the sefer without looking up the original. There
are quotes of non existent statements of Shulchan Aruch or the statement
are at times the opposite of what the original said. He also said the
TT comments at times are simply wrong. In other words it is not to
be viewed as a primary source but merely of ideas which need further
verification. In regards to his other sefer Makor Baruch - R' Nosson
Sherman told me that he is an accurate source as to the fact that an
event happened but that he had a tendency to hyperbole.

                            Daniel Eidensohn

Harry Maryles wrote:
>It is rather well know that Dr. Berkowitz was considered an Apikores in his 
>lifetime by many Gedolei Israel. I saw a Ksav
>Yad in english from R. Gifter clearly labeling Dr. Berkowitz an Apikores. 
>When I asked Dr. Berkowitz about it, he of course vehemently denied it and 
>said that his positions were misunderstood and he explained why. I believe 
>that he WAS indeed misunderstood and that he was likely NOT an Apikores.
>But he was definitely not mainstream. He was radical in his thinking and a 
>Daas Yochid, which of course he had every right to be.

I am just about finished reading through R. Berkowits's Not In Heaven
and I understand why Gedolei Yisroel called him an epikores (not that I
am endorsing this title). Many times throughout this study he explicitly
states that Chachmei HaTalmud distorted Biblical mitzvos. In some cases,
he is clearly correct. No one will disagree that rabbanan can be oker
a mitzvah min haTorah. However, the "offending comments" are along the
lines that Chazal made up derashos because they found certain mitzvos
offensive. For example, ben sorer umoreh. He does not say that there
was any tradition regarding the application of this mitzvah. Rather,
he very openly says that Chazal found this mitzvah offensive in their
historical context so they darshened it out of existence. Similarly,
they did not like the death penalty so they created many conditions
necessary to be executed so that it was essentially nullified. Granted,
he said that the source of their discomfort was from Biblical sources
(deracheha darchei noam, etc.). Never the less, his understanding of
how Chazal's derashos radically changed mitzvos is, I believe, why he
was labeled an Apikores. Whether this label is accurate is a question.
It could be seen as denying part of an oral tradition, but IMHO that would
be a stretch. However, I do not see how it is *significantly* different
from the traditional Conservative (positive-historical) approach. If one
were to call Zechariah Frankel an epikores, I don't see how R. Berkowits
can evade the title as well. Again, I am not calling him an epikores.
I am explaining why he was called such.

Frankly, I found the first chapter of his book to be in dire need
of lomdus.

His citation of very different sources to prove the existence of an
ethical force in halachah is IMHO wanting. I don't deny his basic
premise. But how can the petur from sitting in a Sukkah because of
mitztaer show that Chazal had concern for a person's social needs?
Teshvu ke'ein taduru is very different from being oker a mitzvha.
And what does R. Berkowitz have against milsa de'avida le'igluyei?

Gil Student

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:55:53AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: I am just about finished reading through R. Berkowits's Not In Heaven...
:                           Many times throughout this study he explicitly
: states that Chachmei HaTalmud distorted Biblical mitzvos. In some cases,
: he is clearly correct. No one will disagree that rabbanan can be oker
: a mitzvah min haTorah. ...

I want to categorize the potential "changes":

1- A gezeirah to violate a chiyuv besheiv vi'al ta'aseh. This is only
   done as a gezeirah protecting a lav di'Oraisa. This is the /only/
   mechanism I believe creates actual change. (However, see #6, below.)

:                                 the "offending comments" are along the
: lines that Chazal made up derashos because they found certain mitzvos
: offensive. For example, ben sorer umoreh....

2- There is a subtle but critical difference between saying that derashos
   are discovered vs saying they could be invented. While the hamon am
   seems to think that all derashos are mesoros miSinai, it is pretty
   clear from Rus Rabba (4:1, 5:3) that "Moavi velo Moavis" was not.
   They were given at Sinai, however, we do not necessarily know them
   (or at least, know the derashah's effect on halachah) because of that.

   We find that later doros foreswear using derashos that they did
   not recieve from mesorah. I assume this is because we forgot how
   to identify them. The braisa in Cheilek mentions gezeira shava in
   particular as requiring mesorah. Yet, "Amoni velo Amonis" is itself
   a gezeirah shava. Perhaps GS's details were the first to be forgotten.

   In any case, they do not represent a means of imposing a new ethic on
   halachah. (That's the critical difference.) It is a means of paskening
   open she'eilos in accordance with the original Divine Intent.

:                                                           Similarly,
: they did not like the death penalty so they created many conditions
: necessary to be executed so that it was essentially nullified.

There are two inyanim here: the first is the existance of derashos,
the second is that they changed the metzi'us. Which brings us to:

3- The metzi'us changed in some halachically signifcant way. New situation,
   new pesaq. It only looks like we are doing something new in response
   to the same case.

On to issues that did not come up in RGS's email:

4- A new mechanism is discovered/promulgated by which one can force a
   category #3 "change". The popularization of the heter iska as an
   example. (Perhaps pruzbul, if it applies to shemittah de'Oraisa.)

5- A change in practice due to a shift in lifnim mishuras hadin
   priorities. Such as the shift from yibum to chalitzah. The letter
   of halachah is being followed, however, it is clear that chalitzah is
   the Torah's 2nd choice. Abba Shaul found that ba'avonoseinu harabim,
   a 2nd issue makes yibum the 2nd choice. But only because the actual
   din could still be satisfied.

6- Eis la'asos. I do not believe this was ever used to change halachah
   ledoros. Rather, it was only used in conjunction with #5. I have
   argued here that the writing of TSBP is 'merely' "eino reshai",
   not assur. Which would mean that need created a shift in lifnim
   mishuras hadin priority to record it.

   I realize this position is debatable; if you disagree then this is
   a 2nd form of real change. However, it would still be limited to
   all-or-nothing risks.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

R. Gershon Dubin wrote [offline -mi]:
>> May I suggest D Sperber's *Minhage Yisrael* vol 4 (first section) to
>> resolve your mystery.>

>      Aw c'mon on, tell us <g>

Reading over the article, I must apologize for having jumped the gun in
referring RAF to it. RAF asked why <davka> the Alt Neu shul says it twice.
Sperber leaves it, indeed, as a mystery. He does, though, explain what
prompted the minhag bi-khelal.  
Basically, it was based on minhag ha-Ari (who based it no doubt on R.
Hanina at Shabbat 119a but added a kabbalistic reason as well) who would
be mekabel Shabbat twice: once in the fields and again at home over the
set table. There are written testimonies of the double kabbalat shabbat
in Tsefat and, later, in Yerushalayim.
Now, in the past, the Ari's minhag had been explained simply bec the
distance from the fields to the house/shul was great so that the first
(in fields) was not "halakhic" [being too early] and the one at home was
halakhic Shabbat. The Alt Neu shul minhag had been explained by saying
that since there was a minhag to play kelei zemer accompanying Lekhah
Dodi, perhaps this was likewise the case with Mizmor Shir and therefore
to be mekabel Shabbat officially, they had to say it again.
Since the part of kelei zemer being used for Mizmor shir is mere
speculation, Sperber seeks the answer elsewhere. [See midrash Tehilim
92 and Yalkut Be-Shalah 261] Sperber shows that some communities had
the minhag to be mekabel shabbat
literally outside (either in fields or in the yard outside the shul).
Other communities rejected such a minhag. Thus, in those communities that
went outside to be mekabel, they could still return and repeat Kabbalat
shabbat inside, as per minhag ha-Ari.
Since what often separated the two kabbalot was Ba-meh madlikin, and
since minhag Ashkenazim was to say BM *after* Maariv, what happened
at the Alt Neu [Ashkenaz] shul was that the two mizmor shir's ocurred
consecutively, separated later only by a kadish. Thus, nothing to do
with Maharal and golem; but why davka in Prague and perhaps davka in
the Alt Neu shul there, remains a mystery to Sperber.

I would add: there is some academic debate as to whether, and to what
extent, Maharal was influenced by Kabbalah at all [there have been
books/articles written; in fact, one dissertation is in the works at
Hebrew U]. What is pretty well agreed upon is that Kabbalat ha-Ari was not
known to him, the Ari living too close in time and too far away to have
been possible [Dr. Elliot Wolfson, in personal communication, agreed.]
Which might mean that the minhag came to Prague either late in the life
of Maharal (d. 1609) or sometime thereafter.

Just as a bibliographical nitpick: *Niflaos Maharal* was published first
in 1909, not 1903.

Yisrael Dubitsky

In a message dated 12/19/01 12:02:29pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> However, the "offending comments" are along the
> lines that Chazal made up derashos because they found certain mitzvos
> offensive. For example, ben sorer umoreh. He does not say that there
> was any tradition regarding the application of this mitzvah. Rather,
> he very openly says that Chazal found this mitzvah offensive in their
> historical context so they darshened it out of existence. Similarly,
> they did not like the death penalty so they created many conditions
> necessary to be executed so that it was essentially nullified. 

The apikorsus "MIGHT" be that Chazal invented this trend of nullifying
mitzvos in order to be politcally correct etc.

What might be said, is that Masorah/Traditoin taught us via TSBP that the
harsh literal version of the Torah was meant on an ideal theoritical Bes
din Shel Sahmayim level but not in practical Bes Din Shel mata constructs

So Ayin Tachas Ayin is nearly impossible to implement justly and
equitably in the real and pyshcial sense so ONLY the monetary aspects
are implemented.

I am writing some quick essays on the duality of Torah. R. Berkowit might
have bee correct to say:
1) Chazal softened the Torah Shebksav imperatives
but
he might have overstepeed his boudns to say:
2) Chazal arbitrarily decide the Torah was over-stepping its bounds so
we better nulllify its original intententions

A more Traditionl - though not literally misiani approach is:

The TSBP mandated that the hard-line of idealistic Torah be mitigated
by communal Rachmanus. Chazal were then fulfiling their traditoinal
roles of DEFINING parameters for Torah imperatives and not nullifying
things will-nilly.

The distinctoins is subtle yet significant.
Ben sorer umroh is a case.  Drosh v'kabel schar.
Chazal were asked to read between the lines. They did not necesarily
arrogate this for themselves.

As far as Z. Frankel goes, I'm not sure where {or whether} he stepped
over the proverbial line.

If ZF asserted that Halachah was subject to the whims of the times,
then he might have over-stepped himself.

However, if he said, Chazal had a Sinaitic mission to implement certain
mitigating principles of Drisha vachakira in a realistic fashion then
it makes sense to me.

[A 2nd email. -mi]

In a message dated 11/26/01 7:52:56am EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> R. Twerski proceeded to state the main elements of Dr. Berkowitz's
> thesis and I was amazed at the extent of the departure from mainstream
> Orthodoxy his views really were. In essence he adopted the view of the
> Conservative movement that Halacha could easily change. 

To rehash this...

Let's take some examples of Chazal limitting Halachah.
1) treating a suicide like everyone else and not buring them michutz
lamachaneh.

This can be shown to be a trend in Chazal to be meikel in these cases
- partciuarly after misah. IOW the defacto nullifcation is rooted in
Tradition.

2) Liberalizing the use of medications on Shabbas
Since the original Takkanah of Mechikas Sammanim is not pracitcally
applicable any more, the svara of batel ta'am bateil gzeira applies. But
instead of ignoring the din, Chachamim have - over time - construed it
more narrowly.

3) sukkah on shmini Ateres in Galus
The Gmara is straightforward The Aruch haShulchan' has found a rationale,
that is a cahnge of climate adds a dimenions of mitzta'er. So to sit
in the Sukka on Sh. Atzeres in a cold climate is NOT like the case of
the Gmara where people MIGHT sit in the suklka as a reshus. Rather, the
ONLY reasons to sit in a sukkah ona very cold day would be for the sake
of sfeika dymom - implying that ther CAN be an issue of Ba'al Tosif. This
factor was no applicable in the Gmara's climate.

Here we have the case of Minhag - backed by a limud zchus - modifying the SA. 
   I would say that those whose minhag not to sit on Sh. A. SHOULD sit in
warmer climates (e.g. Florida or California)


IOW, no one is Aborgating the SA willy nilly or based upon simple
political correctness. Rather - within the paramters of the SA - some
imperative is used to modify the original Din via qualifying it.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

In a message dated 12/12/01 3:39:42pm EST, goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> RRW> Please Clarify:
>> 1) May I return to Shas and disregard all subsequent Torah and
>>    reformulate psak?

> YES

>> 2) Does Subsequent consensus count?

> NOT MUCH 

Any sources to this shita?

[A 2nd email. -mi]

In a message dated 12/13/01 8:42:58pm EST, acgerstl@hotmail.com writes:
>: These two are a post-Shas development of minhag. Minhag is not midina
>: d'gmara. If anyone claimed mdina dgmara that kitnius is assur or maariv
>: is hovah; yes it could be revisited.

...
> As suggested by me previously, I again suggest that the best starting
> point for this subject is SA:CM 25: 1,2, Hilchot Dayan She-Taah....

Q1: What does the Rema mean when he says: 
Vchain nohagin vien leshanos? Why not be meshaneh?

Q2: The Aruch haShulchan in Orach Chaim 4:19 says The Rosh and Tur
paskened explicitly - how can we override them? Why not?

Q3: The SA set up a Hypothetical Beis Din of 3 poskim - Rif, Rambam,
and Rosh. Why didn't he just go back to the Gmara hismelf and deicde on
THAT basis?

Q4: in Arvei Pesachim RSBG is kovai'a Halachah keRabbi Yosi against R.
Yehudah. In the next line, R. Yehudah (amora) amar Shmuel says the Halacha
is niehter like R. Yosi nor like R. Yehudah (tanna). How can that amora
be okeir a din that was kavua by Tannaim.

Comment: I'm not 100% convinced that this SA/Rema is applicable outside
of Choshen Mishpat in the areas of issur veheter.

[A 3rd email. -mi]

In a message dated 12/16/01 9:12:15pm EST, acgerstl@hotmail.com writes:
> As an aside, the talmid chacham with whom I have had the zechut to learn
> corrects me when I use the term "Gadol" as he regards its current use as
> a neolgism with political connotations. I think that he prefers referring
> to a "Talmid Chacham Gadol" or a "Chacham Gadol".

I make a distinction between GADOL and GDOLIM

IMHO any single Gadol is fallible and even entitled to make errors now and
again
However
A consensus of Torah Gdolim is qualitatively (as well of course
quantitavely! <smile>) different.

E.G.
Many poskim quibble about he details re: electricity on Shabbas.
Neverthless there is an overwheming consensus that it is assur.

Simlarly, we had quibbles on the ikkarim, but there is a consensus on
the broad categories.

I would guess that a talmid muvhak of a Poseik would have no problem
follwing his rebbe no matter how idesyncratic his rebbe was. But otherwise
I would question following a Poseik based upon the criteria that he is
a Gadol.

E.G.:
I think we all agree that RMF was a gadol but I believe his chumra of
using timers ONLY on lights on Shabbas was not accepted by a consensus
of Gdolim insofar as I know.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF=3D"RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 
> Any sources to this shita?

Rema in Choshen Mishpat which is a quote of the Rosh. Gra everywhere
does this. This is the meaning of "Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horaah"

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 12/20/01 2:07:03am EST, goldstin@netvision.net.il Shlomo
Goldstein writes:
> Rema in Choshen Mishpat which is a quote of the Rosh.  Gra everywhere does 
> this.  This is the meaning of "Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horaah"

Could be I am loking into this
Ch M 25 does deal wit hissur v'heter, and I withdraw my question on
that point
However Ch M 5 also deals with a bedieved - Dayan sheta'ah. it is by no
means clear that lechatchila we can ignroe precdent. Only we accept it
once done.

I have not doubt the Gra felt like you. I also know MANY Conservative
rabbis who feel the SA is not binding and that ONLY the Gmara is binding.
ON R. Eliezer Berkowitz I am NOT clear.

FWIW, the Aruch Hashulchan CH M 25 claims that bthe Ba'alei SA are
binding; I'm no sure he means more than SA/Rema or not IOW is Shach
included etc.

And of course we have the old circular reasoning argument:
If Rosh and Rema say nothing after Ravina and Rav Ashi are binding then
of course THEIR statments gufa are not binding - nor is the Gra for
that matter

Q: if Ravina and Rav Ashi are indeed sof hor'a'h how come Tosafos
endeavors to rationalize Minhaggim that counter the simple meaning of
the text?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]