Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 199

Thursday, September 2 1999

• Who is a Gadol?
• Translation Technique
• Ba'al Teshuva
• Re: Rambam in Egypt
• Re: DM thread
• Inconsistent Symbology - Chalah
• Fwd: mishaneh (was midgets or et sheker sofrim?)
• Ish HaEmes
• Cheit as Ratzon Hashem
• Toward a Definition of Psak -- Off Topic
• Re: Toward a Definition of Psak

When I used R. Kaplan's handbook as a source yesterday for my 
post on defining psak, I did so without considering whether R. 
Kaplan zt"l was or was not a Gadol, but rather because I was 
familiar with the Chapter in question, and because it is the only 
place I know that addresses the questions raised in R. Akiva 
Miller's post in a clear and concise fashion. In fact, I originally 
purchased the book to explore questions that arose in my mind 
about when one is required to listen to psak from someone who is 
NOT one's own posek, but who is rendering psak for the tzibur 
generally. But since the question of R. Kaplan's status as a Gadol 
has come up, I would like to address the related question of how to 
define Gdolim.

R. Eidensohn wrote:

> Citing Rabbi Kaplan indicates one of three things. Either you hold 1) that
> he is Daas Torah - and therefore even if his sources don't say what he is
> saying he is still  authoritative or 2) That he is merely summarizing what
> his sources say or 3) these are all statements that exists on the subject -
> but the sources do not in fact  satisfactorily justify the assertions.
> 
> I think we would all disregard the first. While being a  very positive
> influence in the world Rabbi Kaplan  never achieved the status of gadol.

R. Micha Berger responded:

> What do you mean by "he is da'as Torah"? I had assumed, reading the first
> paragraph, that you meant the standard shorthand of "his opinions on this
> subject are those shaped by da'as Torah". In which case, he needn't be a
> gadol in p'sak halachah or in Torah in general, "just" an authority on the
> subject at hand and immersed in the Torah weltenschaung.
> 
> There's also a black-and-white-ness about your descriptions of gadlus and
> of da'as Torah that I don't think are "justifiable" (see below).
> 
> (And, speaking quite probably as the only person on Avodah who knew R'
> Aryeh Kaplan, I have no hesitation in saying that in inyanei machshavah he
> certainly is one of this century's greats. Although I don't expect many here
> to agree, I found his grasp of aggadic issues as personally impressive as R'
> Moshe's piskei halachah. So "we wouldn't *all* disregard" giving him the label
> "gadol".)

and R. Eidensohn responded:

> I'll modify my assertion: No one I know - until the previous 
posting and your above
> statement - has ever cited Rav Kaplan as an authority who 
transcends his footnotes.
> Even in my right wing circles - Rav Soleveitchiks opinion would 
be valued  - though
> not necessarily agreed with - merely because he said it. Rabbi 
Kaplan is nowhere in
> that league. The vast majority of bnei Torah would not associate 
the term gadol
> with Rabbi Kaplan. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to 
hear it.

I think that one of the requirements for being called a Gadol in 
one's lifetime is that one attain a certain age. Whether it is 
because we generally do not venerate a talmid in front of his 
Rebbe, or because we usually deem the Gdolim of previous 
generations to have been greater than the Gdolim of the 
contemporary generation (with rare exceptions such as the Chafetz 
Chaim and the Gra), or because part of becoming a Gadol is 
shimush by an older Gadol, most Rabbonim are not recognized as 
Gdolim until they are quite advanced in years. I can think of three 
Rabbonim in Yerushalayim - off the top of my head - who are in 
their thirties and forties, whom I would regard as at least having the 
potential to become Gdolim, and as being tremendous talmidei 
chachamim in their own right. But if I mentioned their names on 
this list, my guess is that most people would recognize one name 
at most. 

R. Aryeh Kaplan zt"l was niftar at the age of 45. IMVHO it is for 
that reason, and for that reason only, that he was never recognized 
as a Gadol by most of the Yeshivishe velt. Had he lived to be 75 or 
80, I think he would have been recognized as one of the greats of 
our generation. But for whatever reason, HKB"H had other plans.

Two generations from now, R. Kaplan may be as well recognized a 
name as some of the Gdolim of this generation, at least in English 
speaking homes. I would dare to suggest that his sforim are more 
likely to be in the homes of our grandchildren than those of many 
other Rabbonim whom we would call Gdolim today. And through 
his writing, I think it is at least possible that he will be recognized 
as a Gadol. And it wouldn't be the first sometime that someone 
who was too young to be recognized as a Gadol in his lifetime, 
became recognized as one after his death.

So I think that R. Eidensohn and R. Berger are both correct. R. 
Kaplan was not recognized as a Gadol by most people during his 
lifetime. But I think that's because his lifetime was too short, and 
that two generations from now he may well be looked upon as one 
of the Gdolim of this generation.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

BTW, what Artscroll should probably have done, which I do, is use those
wonderful three dots...I will use them if I skip something in the middle
of a text that I am translating. 

YGB

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

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999 david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:

> Regarding the last point, what troubles me most about the position you
> took in The Jewish Observer isn't what I believe to be the factual
> inaccuracy as to whether Dr. Birnbaum was a ba'al teshuva, but the
> distortion of the very concept of teshuva inherent in the redefinition
> of "ba'al teshuva" that you adopted to justify the factual claim, based
> on extreme cases like that of Rabbi Elazar ben Durdaya. Apart from my
> conviction that such a definition is incorrect, I believe it is contrary
> to the central thrust of Dr. Birnbaum's project insofar as it implies
> (though I'm sure you didn't intent it) that teshuva is something for
> big-time r'sho'im, not sheine yiddin like "us". 
> 

Alright, so let us discuss this point (appropriate for the season!) 
separate from the DNB issue. Is the term "Ba'al Teshuva" as applied today
appropriate or not? Perhaps some of the individuals known collectively as
"Ba'alei Teshuva" should really be called "Mevakshei Emes" (or, "members
of the Aishdas Society" :-) ), which would then be a category to which all
Ovdei Hashem should seek affiliation?

YGB

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

I am far too lazy too actually go over to my shelf and look it up, but I
believe the thing on the signature is from the Kaftor va'Perach. In any
event, R' Ovadia Yosef discusses the matter in a teshuva in the Yechave
Da'at on whether one may return to Egypt, composed around the time of the
Begin-Sadat peace process.

On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:

> Over the years I have often heard that the Rambam while living in
> Egypt would sign his correspondences with "ani Moshe ben Maimon ha'over
> al
> gimmel lavim bechol yom", in reference to his living in Egypt against a
> biblical commandment. I also recall once reading something to the effect
> 
> that this was merely rumor and had no basis in fact and that none of his
> 
> letters found in the geniza had such a statement. Can anyone shed light
> on
> this or direct me to references?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ari Zivotofsky
> 
> 
> 

YGB

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

>> (What *can* be questioned, but is irrelevant
to the question of difference in meaning, is the apparent lack of a
Mesorah notation of those with kamatz and those with patach.) <<
> 2) Rabbi Teitz is partially incorrect that 'The Mesorah will not
comment on differences in accent/spelling that change a
words meaning.'(He gave the example of AYN AyiN)

> In fact part of the function of the Mefarshim... <
Just wanted to point out that "Mesorah" (the proper noun for which the
adjective is "masoretic") != commentaries.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Sept. 1, 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

>>What commonality exists between mun, lechem hapanim and korbanos that
>> we're trying to embody in the way we eat challah each week?

Mun (lechem min hashamayim) symbolizes the bounty of shulchan gavoha shel ma'alah. Lechem hapanim and the shulchan symbolize the bounty of shulchan gavoha
shel mata, as do korbanos and the mizbeach. On Shabbos, these coalesce and we are zocheh lishtay shulchanos symbolized by our challah and related table rituals.

Incidentally, the minhag to use 12 challos on Shabbos isn't uniquely chassidic. It was the
minhag of the Ari, discussed at length in Sha'ar Hakavonos (Inyanay Shulchan) and the
Ben Ish Chai (Halachos Shana Sh'niya, Vayera). According to Shaar Hakavanos, the Ari made Hamotzee on only 2 of the 12, but joined them back-to-back so that their two faces
would show, similar to the lechem hapanim. Today, this minhag HaAri is practiced not only among chasidim, but by many Jews of the Aydot Hamizrach and, of course, by mekubalim.

Ksiva vchasima tova David

--part1_f4f58bf3.24ffed38_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Not to reopen the "you know who" left out "you know what" (or put it in:-) 
controversy, but I find one of the best things about this list is that it 
forces me to rethink and research. 

It seemed to me that the main argument for leaving out "uncomfortable" facts 
or positions from a work (or biography)  was that this kind of omission is 
"mpnai hashalom" (to be defined?-some people may not accept the individual's 
other good points/positions? His reputation might suffer in some circles?). 
While I would agree that personal facts don't necessarily need to be recorded 
if they have no bearing on the tora legacy (The Rav(JB Soloveitchik) pointed 
out that we know little personally about his father or grandfather since 
humility means not making our personal lives public), I would differentiate 
the case where information pertinent to a position which has current impact 
(E.g., Israel, Secular Studies,kabbalism...) is withheld. Using the avot as a 
guide, YGB is correct that not everything they did was reported but I would 
submit that supports  my point since what was recorded were items that effect 
future dorot (e.g. zrizin makdimim)
  
  I think I've at least temporarily concluded that as usual this goes to an 
inyan of judgment. The gemora in Yevamot(65.) brings down opinions of mutar 
and mitzvah lshanot, the sources are achei Yosef(Jacob's nonexistent command 
to not take revenge on the brothers) for mutar and shmuel telling shaul he 
was going to bring karban(due to his fear of shaul) rather than he was 
anointing David(mitzvah source). Interesting to note that both these cases 
seem to have been fear of death but later will be expanded.

 On the shmuel case the maharsha comments that if one had 2 motivations and 
only stated the secondary one (since he really was also bringing a karban) 
it's still considered mshaneh. The classic case of Sarah's laughing is then 
brought by dbei R'Yishmael as support of Gadol Hashalom - but not as support 
for the 2 prior halakhic opinions (at least that's the way it seems to 
me).{at another time we can discuss pre and post sinaitic sources if horaah 
was all at Sinai}
 
 As a side note this issue of mutar versus mitzvah has always fascinated me. 
We see it also by the non yehareg val yaavor cases - can one give up ones 
life anyway? If it's mutar but not mitzvah, what are the parameters for an 
individual's decision making? Comments invited!
 
 Another interesting point is that the Ramban (Bereshit 37:42) comments that 
Yosef was mishaneh by the brothers - when he promised them "veet haaretz 
tischaru" to get them to bring Binyamin to Egypt. (me-mida kneged mida?)
 
 The Rash and the Rif in Yevamot bring down both mutar and mitzvah.
 
 The gemora in Bava Mitziah allows a talmid chacham who only is mishaneh in 3 
cases (mesechta, purayah and ushpiza) to collect a lost object with tviat 
ayin alone. Tosfot is perplexed since the gemora doesn't mention shalom and 
assumes that it meant that it's just that these are the 3 most usual cases. 
(NB - did Tosfot have this as a mesora or is he logically reconciling?) In 
any event this is how everyone seems to bring this halacha down. Even Rambam 
who in deot (2:6) doesn't list an exception to tocho cboro etc.

 Also note the gemora in sota re: Aggrippas where the Jews said achinu atah 
and the gemora says they were wrong to do so even though they couldn't have 
changed anything by being quiet!
 
 One other related gemora (at least to some) is the Roman emissaries who came 
to study tora to determine if it was anti non Jews. They were taught it 3 
times (or 3 different levels according to some) and found at least one proof 
but thought the tora so beautiful that they didn't report it.  The obvious 
question is why did the Rabbis teach them anything like this, why not just 
leave it out? It seems to some (my old shiur notes) that this means ziyuf 
hatora overrides even sacana. Could this or some subcategory apply to 
changing someone else's tora inheritance intellectually?  Tosfot there asks 
how could they even teach a non-Jew tora and says either they had no choice 
or the emissaries were mitgayer)
 
 The mishna brura mentions mutar lshanot in 156:4 (BTW an interesting section 
with omnibus prescriptions for overall approaches to conducting ones life)
 
  
  The smag and the smak bring Mdvar sheker tirchak as a mitzvat aseh whereas 
Rambam and chinuch don't.(shiur notes)
  
  2 reasons I've heard posited for mishaneh:
  1. rama in tshuvot says its aseh(bringing shalom-vahavta lreacha) being 
dochek a lo taaseh(mdvar sheker)
  2. If it"s for a positive reason (shalom) then its not considered 
sheker(shiur notes)
  
  Of course all sides seek to explain the Bet shamai vs hillel on calah naeh 
as consistent with their approach
  
  Interestingly the aruch Laner follows YGB :-) and says in Yevamot that you 
can't tell sheker gamur but can say something which could be interpreted in a 
number of ways.(shiur notes)
  
  Of course there are quite a number of sources emphasizing the value of 
emet(chotamo shel HKBH) etc.
  
  Bottom line for me -  the definition of the cases you can (must??) do this 
in(ie what is shalom) is grey(depends on how you interpret these sources) and 
seems much like I was taught avera Lshma -  you need to be almost absolutely 
sure it will work, the benefit must be worth the risk and  you're completely 
doing it for the right reasons (no negiut).

Thus (from my general worldview  only) the cases we've discussed don't 
satisfy these conditions.

Comments and criticisms cheerfully invited.


KVCT,
Joel Rich
  


--part1_f4f58bf3.24ffed38_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: Joelirich@aol.com
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Full-name: Joelirich
Message-ID: <c03f3c6c.24ffe821@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 10:48:01 EDT
Subject: Fwd: mishaneh mipnai hashalom
To: Joelirich@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part2_f4f58bf3.24ffe821_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14


--part2_f4f58bf3.24ffe821_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Not to reopen the "you know who" left out "you know what" controversy, but I 
find one of the best things about this list is that it forces me to rethink 
and research. It seemed to me that the main argument for leaving out 
"uncomfortable" facts or positions from a work was this kind of omission is 
"mpnai hashalom" (to be defined). While I would agree that personal facts 
don't necessarily need to be recorded if they have no bearing on the tora 
legacy (The Rav(JB Soloveitchik) pointed out that we know little personally 
about his father or grandfather since humility means not making our personal 
lives public), I would differentiate the case where information pertinent to 
a position which has current impact (E.g., Israel, Secular Studies) is 
withheld. Using the avot as a guide, YGB is correct that not everything they 
did was reported but I would submit that proves my point since what was 
recorded were items that effect future dorot (e.g. zrizin makdimim)
 
 I think I've at least temporarily concluded that as usual this goes to an 
inyan of judgment. The gemora in Yevamot(65.) brings down opinions of mutar 
and mitzvah lshanot, the sources are achei Yosef(Jacob's nonexistent command 
to not take retribution on the brothers) for mutar and shmuel telling shaul 
he was going to bring karban(due to his fear of shaul) rather than he was 
anointing david(mitzvah). Interesting to note that both these cases seem to 
have been fear of death. On the shmuel case the maharsha comments that if had 
2 motivations and only stated the secondary one(since he really was also 
bringing a karban) it's still considered mshaneh. The classic case of Sarah's 
laughing is then brought by dbei R'Yishmael as support of Gadol Hashalom - 
but not as support for the 2 prior halakhic opinions (at least that's the way 
it seems to me).{at another time we can discuss pre and post sinaitic sources 
if horaah was all at Sinai}

As a side note this issue of mutar versus mitzvah has always fascinatred me. 
We see it also by the non yehareg val yaavor - can one give up ones life? If 
it's mutar but not mitzvah, what are the parameters for an individual's 
decision making? Comments invited!

Another interesting point is that the Ramban (Bereshit 37:42) comments that 
Yosef was mishaneh by the brothers - when he promised them "veet haaretz 
tisachru" to get them to bring Binyamin to Egypt. (mida kneged mida)

The Rash and the Rif in Yevamot bring down both mutar and mitzvah.

The gemora in Bava Mitziah allows a talmid chacham who only is mishaneh in 3 
cases (mesechta, purayah and ushpipiza) to collect a lost object with tviat 
ayin alone. Tosfot is perplexed since it doesn't mention shalom and assumes 
that it meant that and it's just that these are the 3 most usual cases. (NB - 
did Tosfot have this as a mesora or is he logically reconciling?) In any 
event this is how everyone brings the halacha down. Even Rambam who in deot 
(2:6) doesn't list an exception to tocho cboro etc.
Also note the gemora in sota re: Aggrippas where the Jews said achinu atah 
and the gemora says they were wrong to do so even though they couldn't have 
changed anything by being quiet!

One other related gemora (at least to some) is the Roman emmissaries who came 
to study tora to determine if it was anti non Jews. They were taught it 3 
times (or 3 different levels according to some) and found at least one proof 
but thought the tora so beautiful that they didn't report it.  The obvious 
question is why did the Rabbis teach them anything like this, why not just 
leave it out? It seems to some (my old shiur notes) that this means ziyuf 
hatora overrides even sacana. Could this or some subcategory apply to 
changing someone's tora?  Tosfot there asks how could they even teach a 
non-Jew tora and says either they had no choice or the emissaries were 
mitgayer)

The mishna brura mentions mutar lshanot in 156:4 (BTW an interesting section 
with omnibus prescriptions for overall approaches to conducting ones life)

 
 The smag and the smak bring Mdvar sheker tirchak as a mitzvat aseh whereas 
Rambam and chinuch don't.(shiur notes)
 
 2 reasons I've heard posited for mishaneh:
 1. rama in tshuvot says its aseh(bringing shalom-vahavta lreacha) being 
dochek a lo taaseh(mdvar sheker)
 2. If it"s for a positive reason (shalom) then its not considered 
sheker(shiur notes)
 
 Of course all sides seek to explain the Bet shamai vs hillel on calah naeh 
as consistent with their approach
 
 Interestingly the aruch Laner follows YGB :-) and says in Yevamot that you 
can't tell sheker gamur but can say something which could be interpreted in a 
number of ways.
 
 Of course there are quite a number of sources emphasizing the value of 
emet(chotamo shel HKBH) etc.
 
 Bottom line for me - it's like avera Lshma - which I was always taught you 
need to be almost absolutely sure it will work and that you're completely 
doing it for the right reasons 

--part2_f4f58bf3.24ffe821_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: Joelirich@aol.com
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Full-name: Joelirich
Message-ID: <1f2001e9.24fed814@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:27:16 EDT
Subject: re:mishaneh mipnai hashalom
To: Joelirich@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 14

Not to reopen the "you know who" controversy, but I find one of the best 
things about this list is that it forces me to rethink and research.

I think I've at least temporarily concluded that as usual this goes to an 
inyan of shikul hadaat. The gemora in Yevamot(55.) brings down opinions of 
mutar and mitzvah lshanot, the sources are achei Yosef(Jacob's nonexistent 
command) for mutar and shmuel telling shaul he was going to bring karban(due 
to his fear of shaul) rather than he was annointing david(mitzvah). On the 
shmuel case the maharsha comments that if had 2 motivations and only stated 
one(since he really was also bringing a karban) it's still considered 
mshaneh. The classic case of sarah's laughing is brought by dbei R'Yishmael 
as proof of Gadol Hashalom.(at another time we can discuss pre and post 
sinaitic sources if horaah was all at sinai)

The smag and the smak bring Mdvar sheker tirchak as a mitzvat aseh wheras 
rambam and chinuch don't.

2 reasons I've heard posited for mishaneh:
1. rama in tshuvot says its aseh(bringing shalom-vahavta lreacha) being 
dochek a lo taaseh(mdvar sheker)
2. If it"s for a positive reason (shalom) then its not considered sheker

Of course all sides seek to explain the Bet shamai vs hillel on calah naeh as 
consistent with their approach

Interestingly the aruch Laner follows YGB :-) and says in Yevamot that you 
can't tell sheker gamur but can say something which could be interpreted in a 
number of ways.

Of course there are quite a number of sources emphasizing the value of 
emet(chotamo shel HKBH)

Bottom line for me - it's like avera Lshma - you need to be pretty sure it 
will work and that you're doing it for the righ reasons

--part2_f4f58bf3.24ffe821_boundary--

--part1_f4f58bf3.24ffed38_boundary--

Someone on the list recently raised a question about the relative priority
of emes and shalom in the thinking of Rav Aharon Soloveichik. In 1969
or 1970, I attended a public shiur in which Rav Aharon, in interpreting the verse "es haemes v'hashalom ehovu," stated without qualification that
emes must be given priority over shalom. I don't remember whether he offerred explainations of any of the statements of chazal that might be read to conflict with this. In facing various challenges that have confronted him over
the years, Rav Aharon seems always to have prioritized emes over shalom.

Ksiva vchasima tova David

In a recent posting on this subject, I said that R. Tzadok's teaching
on may be based in part on the doctrines of his rebbe, the Izbitzer, on b'chira and sin. I haven't gotten to locating the relevant
passages on this in May Hashiloach and I don't know when I will. I think, however, that most of those passages are cited and discussed
in chapters 3 and 4 of Morris Faierstein's All Is In The Hands Of Heaven
(volume II of the series Sources and Studies in Kabbalah, Hasidism and Jewish Thought, edited by Norman Lamm). 

Ksiva vchasima tova David

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>I'll modify my assertion: No one I know - until the previous posting and your
above
>statement - has ever cited Rav Kaplan as an authority who transcends his
footnotes.

As a non-participant in this discussion, I would like simply to
compliment RDE on the above formulation, which I found both pithy and
profound.  Many, many debates and discussions have focused on the
definition of a "gadol," yet somehow RDE's phrase, "an authority who
transcends his footnotes" struck me as singularly apt and to the point.
Yiyasher kohakha.

Eli Clark 

Yes indeed, I do have the z'chus of owning Rabbi Kaplan's "Handbook of
Jewish Thought". I consider it his crowning masterpiece, in which he teaches
things not easily found anywhere else, and this subject is one of them.
Among the seforim which I have access to, I have not found any other to
discuss the mechanics of how paskening works, (at least not as clearly, or
in such depth) and I have tried to use that chapter for several years as a
starting point for this research.

R' Carl Sherer rightly points to section 12:54, where Rav Kaplan z"l writes:
<<< When a rabbi renders a decision in a question of law, the Torah
recognizes it as binding. Therefore, when a rabbi decides on a case, and
forbids something, it becomes intrinsically forbidden. >>>

Gadol or not, Rabbi Kaplan was quite the wordsmith, and his choice of the
phrase "intrinsically forbidden" always struck me as odd. Why not just write
"forbidden"? Let me point out that in the sections from 12:54 to 12:62
inclusive, he used that phrase at least NINE times. (Eleven if you count
once in his notes, and one use of "intrinsically *permitted*".) It seems
clear to me that R. Kaplan feels that "intrinsically forbidden" is not the
same thing as stam "forbidden". What might the difference be? What is he
alluding to?

As I explained (in Avodah 3:191), the popular belief is that when a person
gets a p'sak from his posek, he is "stuck" with it, bein l'kula, bein
l'chumra. However, this seems to contradict another widely-held belief,
which says that if one asks a shaila about a situation, and gets an answer,
and then that same situation arises again, then he has to ask the shaila
again, even if the circumstances seem identical. How can we resolve this
contradiction? If he is stuck with the first p'sak, why bother asking again?

The conventional answer is that he has to ask again, because he asked about
a specific and real situation, and even if the circumstances seem identical
to the layman, the posek may notice differences which are subtle but
significant. Thus he is indeed still bound by the original p'sak, but it
might not apply in this new situation.

I'd like to propose a different resolution to this contradiction. In looking
at a few of R. Kaplan's sources in the original (i.e., those few which I am
able to read) I tried to discern what he might have meant by "intrinsically"
forbidden things. I think we are dealing with two different kinds of
questions. One kind of question asks about objects (Is this piece of meat
kosher?), and the other asks about actions (What is the bracha on this
food?).

I have gotten the impression somehow that nowadays, our questions are about
actions. "Can I do this? Must I do that?" But when we look at the sources
for this discussion -- such as Yoreh Deah 242 -- it seems that in previous
generations these questions tended to involve specific items which needed to
be judged. "Does this lung have a sircha? Is that bedika cloth tamay?" And
THAT is why he uses the term "intrinsically". I think R. Kaplan is trying to
point out that when a posek rules strictly on a piece of food, he is saying
that not only is the action of *eating* it forbidden, but the food *itself*
is forbidden.

These are two entirely different sorts of "p'sak". When asked about an
action, the posek is functioning as a teacher, expressing an opinion, and
telling us what Hashem expects. This is what I spoke of in Avodah 3:191,
when I wrote that only a Sanhedrin or similar (read: real semicha) authority
can invoke those p'sukim in Devarim which require my obedience, but not
today's rabbis. In contrast, when asked about an object, the posek is
diagnosing and determining the status of the object; if his opinion is the
strict one, it will render the object to be "intrinsically prohibited". I do
not understand the mechanics behind this, but I suspect that it might be
similar to the principle that "shavya anafshei chaticha d'isura", by which
an object becomes prohibited simply because the person believes it to be so,
and this process is independent of the Sanhedrin or semicha. (To be honest,
I don't really understand the mechanics of how or why "chaticha d'isura"
works, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would write something to
either support or contest this comparison.)

To sum up, I greatly appreciate the many comments CS shared with us, but my
theory is that all of R. Kaplans comments refer to the case where I asked a
shaila about an *object*, and that he wrote little or nothing about when the
shaila does not have an object upon which to be chal.


RCS quotes R. Kaplan, <<< 12:41 (Page 248), "When a community accepts a
rabbi as their religious leader, his decisions are binding in all cases."
(Citing, amongst others, Tshuvos HaRashba 253, Tshuvos HaRan 48, Shulchan
Aruch Choshen Mishpat 25:2 and the Gra there at S"K 22). >>>

I wonder if we can label this as a "political" situation. The community
needs a leader, and they select an individual to lead them. That rabbi will
make many decisions for the community which they must follow, because they -
even the minority who may have voted against him - collectively accepted him
in that role. But does that include private matters, or only community
matters? We have collectively given him the authority to rule on whether the
Sefer Torah is kosher, or to rule on disputes between individuals. But if he
announces that a certain activity may or may not be done on Shabbos at home,
I do not know where he gets the authority to make such rulings. --- Please
give me until after Shabbos before jumping on this paragraph, so that I can
look up R. Kaplan's sources better.


RCS made several comments that a person who paskens for himself is nogea
badavar, and this will interfere with his ability to evaluate the question
properly. He is 100% correct, and that is why it is so important to consult
a posek when he has a problem. My main point is that even if the posek
renders a decision, the final decision is the asker's to make, and if he
sincerely believes that the posek misunderstood some detail, he *can* go
against the p'sak. But he had better be right.


RCS wrote: <<< but usually the person who is doing the type of what my Rebbe
would call "blufferay" that you describe above is not looking to rely on the
more machmir shita. >>>

*Usually*, yes. But there are exceptions. Occasionally, I have asked my rav
about something, and his answer was "Yes, you can do that. And in fact you
can even do this other thing as well." Prior to asking, I never would have
suspected that the other thing was mutar, but the rav said its okay, and I
even questioned him to make sure I was not misunderstanding him. Am I now
"stuck" with this leniency? It might be easy to simply ignore it, but if I
run into a "chumra hamayvee liday kula" situation I might be required to
follow his p'sak, rather than be machmir for my own reasons. So it is
important to determine who has the final word, the rav or me.


I wrote <<< It seems to me that without a Sanhedrin or other duly-authorized
Beis Din to resolve questions of halacha, the concept of psak halacha does
not exist. >>>  RCS responded, <<< Actually what you're saying is that
halacha does not exist. Kaplan would disagree. 12:1 (P. 231): It is G-d's
will that there exist a certain degree of uniformity in Jewish practices,...
>>> He continues on about the importance of having a legal system.

Your point seems to be that my theories would result in an anarchy, where no
rav or posek has any real authority. You're right. But I call 'em as I see
'em. I think that RCS's quotes from Rabbi Kaplan are relevant to days when
we have a Sanhedrin et al, and not to today, when, like it or not, anarchy
*does* rule.

We don't always follow the Mishnah Brurah. We don't always follow the
Shulchan Aruch. We don't always follow the Rambam. Rabbi Kaplan says that
there are certain cases where, on the basis of longstanding tradition, we
don't even follow Talmud Bavli. Previous discussions here on Avodah have
amply demonstrated that the Gaon / Rishon / Acharon / Posek divisions are
frequently violated by those who know enough Torah to feel justified in
doing so. I don't remember the examples, but it has been said that Rav Moshe
Feinstein would pasken against rishonim and occasionally even against the
gemara, when he felt sufficiently sure of himself.

I am not saying that "Halacha doesn't exist". For every situation a person
is in, Hashem has certain expectations. And that person has a responsibility
to find out what that expectation is, and to fulfill it. We DO have a system
of halacha, and it does have (as R. Kaplan wrote) a *certain* *degree* of
uniformity. But it's not black and white. There is no last word. The buck
stops not at your rabbi, but at each individual.


R. Daniel Eidensohn wrote: <<< Ultimately we are faced with two choices -
either contemporary authority can clearly be traced to sources - such as
existed for Sanhedrin and Nevi'im, or that authority exists because we
accept the authority of our mesora and the baalei mesora - even though we
can't absolutely identify the exact mechanism to justify that authority. If
it it is the latter position - then the nature of authority and psak is a
function of your mesora and thus will legitimately vary between chasid and
litvak - Ashkenazi and Sephardi. >>>

In other words, since contemporary authority canNOT be traced to sources, we
are unable to describe how the mechanism works, which makes it impossible to
identify violations against that authority. This leaves us with the
autonomous communities RDE listed, the semi-anarchy I've described, and the
"certain degree of uniformity" that R. Kaplan wrote of. Pretty much the same
mess no matter how you look at it.


Thank you all for participating in this discussion. I hope that with
continued learning we can make more progress on these ideas.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]