Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 103

Tuesday, June 29 1999

• Chareidi Schools, etc.
• Re: Chareidi Schools, etc.
• Re: Chareidi Schools, etc.
• Rama's attitude towards secular studies
• Re: "The Sheep Mentality"
• Asking she'elot in cases of pikuach nefesh
• Re: Asking she'elot in cases of pikuach nefesh
• Re: Asking she'elot in cases of pikuach nefesh
• burned temples
• Mamzer
• What is a "Rabbi"?
• Re: What is a "Rabbi"?

>>
Anyone with an objective view will agree that there is no comparison between 
commitment to Torah among graduates of e.g. a Ner Israel Baltimore versus, 
say, a Torah Academy of Bergen County. Is one who opts for the former a 
hypocrite if his hashkafa is closer to the latter? 

Arnie Lustiger<<

As a graudate of Ner Yisroel and a resident of Teaneck (whose brother-in-law is 
an instructor at TABC)...

I don't think Arnie Lustiger was slighting the quality of TABC.  Rather, he was 
pointing out to the difference in terms "torah commitment" In that sense, an 
intense 24-hour a day commitment in a  dormitory school would lich'ora be far 
more intense than that of a school in which the studens go home every evening to
spend with their respective families.

The Gemoro refers to a pot which is allowed to boil continuosly and to one 
which after boiling is allowed to cool off and must later be re-heated.  
Obviously, the conintuity of boilng generates more intensity. 

In discussing school choices amongst my Teaneck Neighbors, I asked why not Ner 
Yisroel, Scranton? etc. Thee usual response is that they do not wish to send 
their son away at such a tender age etc.

And here Arnie's point is well-made. IF your commitment is Rabbi Akiva-like in 
that you stay away from home for long periods precisely due to your Torah 
commitment, you will undoubtedly foster a greater intensity, etc.

It's not a knock on TABC to note that it is not a 24-hour-a-day institution the 
way Ner Yisorel is, and that parents who sent their children to sleep-away 
schools are IMHO clearly making a bigger sacrifice for Torah, than those who 
send their sons to a "commuter" school.  OTOH, some young men clearly might 
flounder away from home, so it's not for everyone, either.

Rich Wolpoe

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
>
> As a graudate of Ner Yisroel and a resident of Teaneck (whose brother-in-law is
> an instructor at TABC)...
> 
> I don't think Arnie Lustiger was slighting the quality of TABC.  Rather, he was
> pointing out to the difference in terms "torah commitment" In that sense, an
> intense 24-hour a day commitment in a  dormitory school would lich'ora be far
> more intense than that of a school in which the studens go home every evening to
> spend with their respective families.
> 
> The Gemoro refers to a pot which is allowed to boil continuosly and to one
> which after boiling is allowed to cool off and must later be re-heated.
> Obviously, the conintuity of boilng generates more intensity.


Sometimes one can boil too intensly and the food can get over cooked and 
ruined!  In an ideal situation parents must know their children and send 
them to the institution where they will most flourish.  Some flourish in 
the pressure cooker environment of an intense, away from home school 
like Philly or Telshe.  Others will only do well in an moderately paced 
school (TABC? or Ida Crown Jewish Academy in Chicago) where they can go 
home, relax and rehabiltate after an intense day. As you say: 

> OTOH, some young men clearly might
> flounder away from home, so it's not for everyone, either.

It isn't always the answer for every student to be put in the boiling 
pot in order to provide the most intensive Torah environment.  This can 
and does lead some students astray.  One of the hottest topics of 
discussion in Torah U'Mesorah is the surprisingly high number of yeshiva 
students in right wing high schools who are going off the track, to the 
tune of using drugs, and commiting various other and sundry misdeeds of 
society at large including violating major halacha indiscriminately. 
It's true that much of the problem often lies in dysfunctional home 
environments, but very often the problem is simply that a student just 
can't hack the pressure and intensity of a 24 hour, seven day a week 
program. The problem is so great that Torah U'Mesorah has finally opened 
a school directed at this problem, trying to nip it in the bud. I saw an 
ad for it in the Jewish Press or Yated Ne-eman.

In short,  know your children. A committed parent should have no qualms 
about sending one child to Ner Israel and another to TABC. I know 
parents who force all of their kids to go to a Right wing school, only 
to suffer great pain when one of their children falls through the 
cracks.  On the other hand, I know parents who accomodate differences in 
their chidren and send them to schools with widely differing programs 
and are seeing Nachas from all of their children.

HM

In a message dated 6/28/99 8:55:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< >>
 Anyone with an objective view will agree that there is no comparison between 
 commitment to Torah among graduates of e.g. a Ner Israel Baltimore versus, 
 say, a Torah Academy of Bergen County. Is one who opts for the former a 
 hypocrite if his hashkafa is closer to the latter? 
 
 Arnie Lustiger<<
 
 As a graudate of Ner Yisroel and a resident of Teaneck (whose brother-in-law 
is 
 an instructor at TABC)...
 
 I don't think Arnie Lustiger was slighting the quality of TABC.  Rather, he 
was 
 pointing out to the difference in terms "torah commitment" In that sense, an 
 intense 24-hour a day commitment in a  dormitory school would lich'ora be 
far 
 more intense than that of a school in which the studens go home every 
evening to
 spend with their respective families.
 
 The Gemoro refers to a pot which is allowed to boil continuosly and to one 
 which after boiling is allowed to cool off and must later be re-heated.  
 Obviously, the conintuity of boilng generates more intensity. 
 
 In discussing school choices amongst my Teaneck Neighbors, I asked why not 
Ner 
 Yisroel, Scranton? etc. Thee usual response is that they do not wish to send 
 their son away at such a tender age etc.
 
 And here Arnie's point is well-made. IF your commitment is Rabbi Akiva-like 
in 
 that you stay away from home for long periods precisely due to your Torah 
 commitment, you will undoubtedly foster a greater intensity, etc.
 
 It's not a knock on TABC to note that it is not a 24-hour-a-day institution 
the 
 way Ner Yisorel is, and that parents who sent their children to sleep-away 
 schools are IMHO clearly making a bigger sacrifice for Torah, than those who 
 send their sons to a "commuter" school.  OTOH, some young men clearly might 
 flounder away from home, so it's not for everyone, either.
 
 Rich Wolpoe
 
  >>
Dear Rich,
Is it your contention that the parents' primary role in transmitting torah is 
to find someone else to take that responsibility from them on a 24 hour a day 
basis(unless they would flounder) at the age when the child is just beginning 
to reach intellectual maturity? Why not start earlier with boarding school 
for tots - wouldn't this show even a greater dedication and mesirut nefesh by 
the parents?(apologies for my sarcasm - I just wonder whether the parents 
role in all this today is consistent with what it is supposed to be)  Might 
it be that parents who send their children to commuter schools and tutor them 
at home in both lmudei kodesh and lmudei chol as well as acting as mentors 
concerning all the myriad facets of living a torah lifestyle on a daily basis 
might be making a bigger sacrifice for torah than those who send their 
children to a 24 hour institution?

But of course at the end of the day each of us has to make what we perceive 
as the best decision for our children (hopefully with their input) and as 
long as we do it lshma I'm sure that they will all be successful, or as we 
used to say - different strokes for different folks.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

	Apropos the recent discussion concerning R. Moshe Isserles' attitude
towards secular learning, and especially in light of Rabbi Shalom Berger's
mention (V3 #98) of Rama's responsa on this subject, I'd like to offer the
audience a selection from the book "Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery
in Early Modern Europe" by David B. Ruderman, Yale University Press, New
Haven, 1995. (The text below, all from the above book, is on pages 69-74. I
haven't bothered to quote the numreous footnotes):

	Two of Isserles' works are concerned with astronomical issues: Torat
ha-Olah (Prague,1570), the first eleven chapters of which correlate the
measurements of the Temple in Jerusalem and the meaning of the sacrifices
with astronomical and cosmological processes; and his unpublished commentary
on George Peurbach's Theoricae Novae Planetarum, based on the Hebrew
translation of Ephraim Mizrahi entitled Mahalakh ha-Kokhavim (The course of
the stars).
	Isserles' astronomical knowledge was based entirely on an indigenous
translation of Hebrew sources: he has access to Peurbach's standard textbook
only through a Hebrew translation and, in his famous reply to his
antagonistic colleague Solomon Luria, he sanctioned the study of sciences
amoung Jews only with respect to works written in Hebrew. Nevertheless, one
might ponder the origin of his fascination with astronomy. His knowledge of
the subject, and particularly of contemporary developments, is hardly
impressive. Herbert Davidson is unquestionably right in characterizing his
efforts, like those of the Maharal's, as harmonizing disparate texts rather
than addressing real problems. He displays little intellectual curiousity,
approaching astronomy like a Talmudist preoccupied with reconciling
conflicting interpretations.
	On the other hand, can Isserles' genuine interest in the heavenly
movements be reduced to rabbinic concerns alone? .... Is it sufficient to
say that Isserles was a faithful student of the Maimonidean tradition of
integrating astronomical and rabbinic learning, that he was merely following
the tradition of his Ashkenazic forebears, and that his ardent disciples
walked in his footsteps out of respect for their teacher? Does this explain
why a preoccupation with astronomy arose in Isserles' generation and not
before? Does it explain the anti-Maimonidean deemphasizing of medicine and
natural philosophy, the thunderous opposition of Solomon Luria and Joseph
Ashkenazi, and the precipitous decline and virtual disappearance of
astronomical study by the third decade of the seventeenth century? Can we
ignore the larger intellectual context of Cracow? Was it merely a
coincidence that Isserles lived in the same city where Copernicus had
written his revolutionary work? ..........At the very least, Isserles'
choice to comment on a standard astronomical textbook based on the
traditional but still current Aristotelian and Ptolemaic notions of the
universe is more than an act of rabbinic piety. Granted, examining the laws
of the sanctification of the new moon or reconciling rabbinc and Greek
notions of the universe constitute nothing more than extentions of Talmudic
scholarship. But by writing a commentary on a general astronomical work, has
Isserles not taken the rabbinic mandate a major step forward? Surely he had
in mind the introduction of a systematic curriculum of astronomical study,
far beyond any meaningful digressions on the subject that might have evolved
haphazardly from Talmudic studies. And could such a bold pedagogic move for
a scholar so preoccupied with halakhic issues be solely an echo of past
traditions rather than a tentative acknowledgment of the dramatically new
focus on astronomical study in his own immediate environment? Was it sheer
coincidence that in Isserles' day the Cracow school of astronomy has
underscored the importance of detaching observational and mathematical
astronomy from philosophical study, perceiving it as worthy of investigation
in its own right?
....... Despite the precedents Isserles vigorously invokes to obscure the
novelty, teaching Peurbach to a classrom of rabbinic students in Cracow is
undoubtedly a audacious act, which we might expect to be introduced with
caution and in the most conservative manner possible.
	Only if one views Isserles' commnetary as a bold pedagogic
innovation, albeit tentative and conservative in its own formulation - as an
accomodation to and recognition of the privileged place of astronomy within
the larger cultural world of Cracow, and not merely as a pious fidelity to
previous Jewiosh traditions - can the controversy between Isserles and Luria
be fully appreciated. Luria's charge that Isserles' students had composed a
prayer in honor of Aristotle is made within the context of his general
objection to mixing rabbinic studies and philosophy. Isserles opens his
response by deflating the seriousness of Luria's concern, indicating that
his opponent's worry is no more than "an old debate amoung the sages which
doesn't require an answer from me" since the Rashba [Solomon ibn Adret (ca.
1235-ca. 1310)] had fully addressed the issue of philosphy several hundred
years earlier. The Rashba has specifically prohibited young students alone
from the study of astronomy. Isserles also recalls the responsum of the
Ribash [Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408)], who limited the meaning of
the "Greek sciences" to riddles hidden from the masses. The Ribash
explicitly permitted "the famous books on nature" and only cautioned
restraint when reading works that might damage faith in divine providence
and creation.
	Having summarized the position of the earlier respondents, Isserles
proceeeds to respond directly to his critic. In the first place, he claims,
the rabbis "only feared the study of the cursed Greeks like the book of
physics together with the metaphysics as they are mentioned there in the
aforementioned responsum. And they are surely justified in this since they
feared lest someone be led to follow some false belief or be charmed by
their wine, which is the venom of the asps and false opinions. However, they
did not forbid the study of the words of the scholars and their
investigations on the essence of reality and its natures. On the contrary,
through this [study], the greatness of the Creator of the world, may He be
blessed, is made known, which is the true meaning of shi'ur komah [the
measurement of God's stature]. Our sages declared concerning this: "He who
knows [how to calculate the cycles and planetary courses] but does not do
so, of him Scripture states: "But they regard not the works of God, neither
have they considered the work of His hand" (Isiah 5:12)]."
	Isserles' third and finasl point  is to emphasize that even if all
non-Jewish books has been prohibited because of the pernicous ideas they
contained, the rabbis would never have forbidden works "of our own sages
from whose waters we drink, and especially the great rabbi Maimonides". He
concludes "Therefore I also state that I am innocent of this inquity, for
although I have quoted occasionally from Aristotle's words, I  swear by
heaven and earth that I have never consulted any of his works except what I
found in the Guide [of the Perplexed] in which I toiled and found praise of
God and in the other works on nature, such as The Gate of Heaven and the
like composed by the rabbis. From these alone I copied the words of
Aristotle". He cites Maimonides as saying that all that Aristotle understood
in the sublunary world, and even beyond, is considered true, with the
exception of some beliefs "dependent on God, his angles, and spheres", in
which he deviated from the truth. 

(Most of the quotes from Isserles are from responsa 6-7, as already
mentioned by R. Shalom Berger. For more references, check out the numerous
footnotes in the above book, and also
A. Neher, "Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution in the Sixteenth
Century: David Gans (11541-1613) and His Times", translated from the French
by D. Maisel (Oxford 1986). The latter has also been published in Hebrew by
Rubin Mass.)

Saul Stokar

--- Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman wrote:
> > The issue you raise is one reason to make Aliyah.  I get the
> > impression that in Israel, the serious Dati-Leumi (hesder
> derivative)
> > community does not act this way.
> 
> One of my favorite people in the world, my nephew-in-law, made
> Aliya 
> several years ago for totally ideological reasons.   He was weaned
> on 
> Bnei Akiva and his dream was finally fulfilled.  He is definately a
> 
> thinker.  He settled in Ramat Modi'in and sent his kids to a
> Dati-Leumi 
> school. He was totally disappointed in the low level Torah Hashkafa
> that 
> was extant there and finally switched him to a left-wing Chinuch
> Atzmai 
> school, the only one that had any kind of secular studies program.
> 
> So, I'm not sure that your solution is the answer.
> 

I have a cousin in Mevo Choron who sends his children to the same
school.  But if anything, Ramat Modi'in is the exception that proves
the rule.  As you yourself noted, the your cousin sent to the "
left-wing Chinuch Atzmai school, the only one that had any kind of
secular studies program."  Similarly, while the Dati-Leumi school you
mentioned may have a low-level Torah Hashkafa, many others (e.g. the
school in Efrat which follows Ben Chamesh L'Mikra, Ben Eser l'Mishna)
are excellent.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In the Avodah digest v3n100, Moshe Feldman asked for comments about
"Asking she'elot in cases of pikuach nefesh", got one or two very
interesting replies, and then the discussion completely veered off into
the (also very interesting) tangent about deciding which schools to send
your children to.

I'm rather surprised that so far, there has been no further response to
the chilling questions the article raised:

[Heavy-duty life-threatening situation described, followed by:]

"The medical team attending the woman asked her to sign a consent form to
allow them to put her under a general anesthetic so that they could remove
the placenta, but the woman demurred - and asked her husband, who was in
the room, to call a rabbi in Jerusalem and ask his permission.

The medical team insisted that the situation was an emergency, as the
woman was losing a good deal of blood.

A source at the hospital said that it is sometimes possible to wait for
the placenta to come out on its own, but when a woman is bleeding as much
as the patient in question, "her life was truly in danger."

"Had five more minutes passed [before the husband got permission], the
damage would have been irreversible," the source added. "There are quite a
few cases of this kind, when the woman giving birth is ultra-Orthodox." "


Moshe replied to the question:

"Exactly what was the Halachik issue involved?"

> I have no idea.  What's amazing to me is the dependence some people 
> have on asking she'elot to Rabbanim, especially in the face of 
> pikuach nefesh.  Somehow, I get the impression that the people here 
> are not the type that think independently.

Harry Maryles also commented eloquently on the "Sheep" mentality. 

Doesn't the frum world, and even this esteemed list at times, encourage a
lot of this dependence on asking shailas?  And when the askers are women,
who so far (although it is changing just a bit) are not in a position to
have enough learning to have enough CONFIDENCE to think for themselves,
it's even more so.  What an appalling story.  To be in a position to be
assuming that you can never think for yourself, that you're always asking
someone else's permission, to not have enough basic knowledge to
understand a basic issue like pikuach nefesh....

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"
(alt.sig = "Modern Orthodox and proud of it!")

--- Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@columbia.edu> wrote:
> "The medical team attending the woman asked her to sign a consent
> form to
> allow them to put her under a general anesthetic so that they could
> remove
> the placenta, but the woman demurred - and asked her husband, who
> was in
> the room, to call a rabbi in Jerusalem and ask his permission."
<snip>

> Doesn't the frum world, and even this esteemed list at times,
> encourage a
> lot of this dependence on asking shailas?  And when the askers are
> women,
> who so far (although it is changing just a bit) are not in a
> position to
> have enough learning to have enough CONFIDENCE to think for
> themselves,
> it's even more so.  

Factual correction: The woman's husband was in the room and would not
make a decision in the absence of a psak from a rabbi in Jerusalem.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Factual correction: The woman's husband was in the room and would not
> make a decision in the absence of a psak from a rabbi in Jerusalem.

Thanks for the cc:, I get the list in digest mode so haven't seen list
responses yet.  My impression from reading the article had been that the
woman had insisted on her husband calling the rabbi.  Thanks for clearing
that up.

That raises even MORE interesting questions, I think....

(And hadn't the original request from the hospital staff been focused on
the consent for the general anesthesia, probably to their minds a rather
routine request?)

Freda Birnbaum,
fbb6@columbia.edu

An OU shul and two reform temples were torched in sacramento.
There are separate appeals for funds to support these institutions.
Is it assur to pay to rebuild a non-Halachic institution; or to build
lechatchila?      Does chillul hashem figure in the question ? ['they don't
consider us Jews']

The following comes from the ISRAWORLD list.  Anybody have a
suggestion how to make the concept of mamzer palatable?

<<When you point out that "mamzer is a condition, like, for example
thalidomide children.  It doesn't go away." I think that this
statement
cannot be accepted easily by anybody (apart from the strictest
Haredim).
I have always thought that one of the most wonderful concepts
developed
by Judaism is that the man is free to choose good and evil, and is
personally  responsible to HaShem for his choices and acts. This
made-in-Israel idea, that is now so familiar even in Gentile
cultures,
was a revolution for mankind. The ancient Greeks, for instance,
followed
a different path: according to them, nobody -even if righteous- could
escape his destiny, unless the Gods decided to change it. Greek
tragedies are plenty of examples of decent people (Antigone, Edipus)
led
to destruction by the Gods because of the sins of their ancestors. I
think that many Oriental civilizations shared the same philosophy,
although in other forms.

The condition of "mamzer" you describe reminds to me the organization
of
the Hindu society, where the  "untouchable" has no hope to progress.
He
cannot marry women belonging to "higher" social classes, cannot enjoy
the same civil rights et.c. It is remarkable that modern India, after
its independence, decided immediately to wipe out these religious
constraints in spite of a widespread concern for the defense of
national
traditions.>>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I recently posted a question here on Avodah, asking about the meaning and
usage of the word "Rabbi", which I understand to be <<< used for a person
who has what is colloquially called "semichah", or properly called "heter
horaah", meaning that he has permission from his teacher(s) to answer
halachic questions, i..e., pasken shailos. >>>

This is a followup to that question. I have divided this post into three
chapters: (i) a discussion of the results of the survey; (ii) my
understanding of what happens when a person "asks a shaila"; (iii)
further questions which result from all this.

I) SURVEY RESULTS

The answers I got were very interesting, but not in the way I had hoped.
I hoped that people would simply say "Yes, that's what it means", or "No,
it means xxxx." Instead, ALL seven people who responded said "Yes, that
is what it *ought* to mean, but that title is also used by xxxx."

Two people pointed out that the title "Rabbi" is often used by people who
have no semicha of any sort, and happen to teach in a yeshiva or shul.
Two more bemoaned a new, inferior, kind of semichah called "Moreh
U'Manhig". A fifth pointed out that non-Orthodox clergy also use the
title "Rabbi", and this unfortunately makes them all appear equal to the
general public. Two more listmembers who approached me in shul over
Shabbos had similar "Yes but" responses.

Why did I ask these questions? Because it is actually a preface to *this*
question: If someone refers to a person as "Rabbi Ploni", but Ploni is
actually *not* a rabbi, does this constitute a violation of Lifnei Iver?
If most people presume the title "Rabbi" to have a very specific meaning,
then I suspect that Lifnei Iver would be a real problem. But if most
people realize that the title is widely abused, then perhaps it is not a
problem. My survey attempted to determine the "stam daas" of the
responding listmembers, but the unanimous "Yes but" response was not
conclusive.

II) ASKING A RABBI vs. ASKING A LAYMAN

Please note that I have not included any sources for any of the below.
For many years I have tried to learn these subjects, but with very little
success. This post is a blatant attempt to elicit help from the Avodah
listmembers, that I might achieve at least some minimal level of
understanding of these subjects. What I write below is based on what I
have picked up from various people over the years, but I have seen
absolutely none of it in writing, although Yoreh Deah 242 may be the
original source of much of it.

I understand that if a person asks a halachic question to a proper
authority, and gets an answer, then he may not "shop around" and ask that
question to other authorities. To me, this demonstrates that the person
has a certain relationship with this halacha that did not exist prior to
his asking the question. Namely, that he has an absolute obligation to
follow the halacha as laid out in the answer which he received.

In fact, if I remember correctly, this was one of the very first topics
of discussion when the Avodah mailing list was started, and the consensus
of listmembers was that even if the p'sak is in error, the asker must
nevertheless follow it, until and unless the posek retracts it. The fact
that the p'sak was in error is a problem which the posek must address,
but the asker's only problem is following the halacha as it was paskened
to him.

In contrast, what happens if someone asks a halachic question to a
layman? For example, if an unlearned person asks me if a Jew is allowed
to eat pork, I can answer that it is forbidden; I do *not* have to refer
him to the local authorities. But there is a limit. I can only answer
questions which are "open and shut", which are so clear-cut that no
rabbinic decision really needs to be made. In short, I would not be
paskening; I would simply inform the questioner of what I have been
taught. And because I am not *paskening*, the asker has no obligation to
follow what I tell him, and is able to ask someone else later on, despite
having already asked me. On the other hand, since I am not paskening, but
merely giving advice, if I err in what I tell him, he will still be
responsible to do the right thing, and cannot simply rely on what I said.

If my paragraphs above are even *close* to being correct, then I am led
to the following conclusion: Since a real change occurs when a person
gets an answer from a posek (namely that a previously indeterminate
halacha becomes very ironclad *for him*), and this change does *not*
occur when getting an answer from a layman, then there MUST be some real
difference in halacha between a posek and a layman.

And what can "heter horaah" mean, if not "certified fit to pasken"? It
seems clear to me that until a person gets this "heter horaah" (or
"semicha", as it is popularly called) then he is considered by the
halacha to be not-yet-qualified to pasken.

I have asked questions similar to these at various times over the years,
and at some point I always ask: What then is the status of the Mishna
Brurah? On the one hand, it seems to be a sefer of p'sak halacha. But I
have heard from many sources that the Chofetz Chaim himself did not get
this all-important semicha until late in life, *after* writing the Mishna
Brurah and many (most?) of his other works. Can we rely on them? Did he
pasken in them?

Recent discussions here on Avodah pointed out that the Chofetz Chaim's
strength was in mussar and ethics, rather than p'sak and halacha, and
that this may explain why so often the Mishna Brurah attempts to cover a
wide range of opinons, rather than decisively choosing from among them. I
would like to suggest the following novel thought: Perhaps his lack of
semicha was an additional reason for this style. He was an extremely
well-educated layman -- a rosh yeshiva in his own right! -- but without
semicha, he remains a layman. Thus, the Mishna Brurah does often decide
one view from among the many acharonim, but only when the issue was very
clear-cut in his eyes. Where any significant doubt arose, he was unable
to pasken, and instead laid out some practical ways of dealing with the
machlokes.

III) PRACTICAL QUESTIONS

a) Up to now, I have had only two categories: people with semicha (i.e.
"heter horaah"; it is understood that we are not discussing the "real
semicha" which no longer exists), and people without semicha. But the
fact is that there are several kinds of semicha nowadays. Can someone
please explain the differences between "Yoreh Yoreh" and "Yadin Yadin"?
Is the line between them defined so that "Yadin Yadin" covers Choshen
Mishpat and "Yoreh Yoreh" covers everything else? Or is the line drawn
somewhere else? Does anyone explicitly limit "Yoreh Yoreh" to be Yoreh
Deah only, without Orach Chayim or Even Haezer?

b) Similarly, can anyone *clearly* explain the intention behind "Moreh
Umanhig"? If it includes permission for the rabbi to pasken, then in what
way is it worse than Yoreh Yoreh? One could easily argue that nowadays, a
working knowledge of Hilchos Shabbos and Yom Tov is much more important
than Hilchos Shechita and Melicha. And if it does *not* include a heter
horaah, then is its purpose merely to entitle the "rabbi" to a Clergy
license plate for his car? (I can't imagine that its purpose might be to
fool yeshiva administrators into believing that he is a qualified
teacher; is it required to take a teacher's training course in order to
get a "Moreh Umanhig"?)

c) When I was in yeshiva in the 70's, I asked my Gemara teacher -- who
everyone in the yeshiva referred to as Rabbi Ploni -- a serious personal
shaila. He gave me the answer which I did not expect, did not want, and
was unable to follow. I treated his response as The Word Of G-d, and
suffered severe guilt feelings for long afterward, and even today I feel
bad about the incident. It turns out that this teacher did not have
semicha of any kind. The question: Was he wrong for pretending to be a
rabbi, or was I wrong for not double-checking his credentials?

d) When my children have halachic questions, instead of me asking the rav
for them, I encourage them to ask the shaila themselves, and I go with
them (if they want me to), and I offer them their choice of asking the
rav of the community, or the rosh yeshiva, or whichever of their
rabbi-teachers they feel most comfortable with. The question: Before they
ask the question, should I make sure that the person in question has
semicha?

Thank you all very much for your interest and help.

Akiva Miller



___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In a message dated 6/29/99 8:09:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< 
 d) When my children have halachic questions, instead of me asking the rav
 for them, I encourage them to ask the shaila themselves, and I go with
 them (if they want me to), and I offer them their choice of asking the
 rav of the community, or the rosh yeshiva, or whichever of their
 rabbi-teachers they feel most comfortable with. The question: Before they
 ask the question, should I make sure that the person in question has
 semicha?
 
 Thank you all very much for your interest and help.
 
 Akiva Miller
  >>

Bkitzur ,I think the most important thing is to find a "posek" who you 
respect on an ethical/moral basis and is willing to take the time to gather 
whatever individual detail  he needs and is willing to explain his psak.  
You'll then get a sense which (L"ad) is much more important then where and 
what smicha (although this can be helpful information)he has.( ala R' Moshe's 
comment on how he became the posek hador - people asked him questions and 
liked his answers)  My experience is that such an individual is not afraid to 
steer you to someone else when your shaila is outside their expertise.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]