Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 202

Sunday, September 5 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 23:04:58 EDT
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Toward a Definition of Psak


A few days ago (in Avodah 3:197), R. Carl Sherer quoted R. Kaplan's
_Handbook_, <<< 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). >>>

My response (in 3:199) was <<< 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. ...
--- Please give me until after Shabbos before jumping on this paragraph,
so that I can look up R. Kaplan's sources better. >>>

It's now Motzaei Shabbos, and I stand by what I have written.

Most of R. Kaplan's notes are beyond me, but Choshen Mishpat 25:2 refers
very specifically to a case where the rabbi made a mistake, and the asker
incurred a financial loss as a result; the question is whether the rabbi
must compensate the asker for that loss and the Rama rules that the rabbi
is patur. This has nothing to do with the points which I am trying to
make. (Besides which, even R. Kaplan admits (12:45) that the community
rabbi's leniencies are NOT binding on the community's other scholars.)

Please read the Rama, YD 242:31 --

"... If Chacham A forbade something, Chacham B cannot allow it based on
his opinion (shikul hadaas). But if Chacham B has a tradition that
Chacham A erred, or that Chacham A erred in an obvious matter (davar
mishneh), Chacham B can allow it. Even if it was a matter of opinion,
they can discuss it with each other until Chacham A retracts his
decision. Therefore, there is no issur against the Asker going to ask
Chacham B, provided that he inform Chacham B that Chacham A already
forbade it. Even if Chacham A paskened that it was allowed, and that
decision was followed, Chacham B cannot forbit it based on his opinion.
All this applies to that paskening itself, but in another case it is
pashut that Chacham B can pasken however he sees fit."

I am led to the following conclusions:

Despite what some think, the Rama explicitly says that the Asker can go
to Chacham B without prior permission from Chacham A. He only needs to
tell Chacham B that Chacham A already paskened. It is up to Chacham B to
determine how the situation fits into the rules set out by the Rama here,
which will determine whether or not he can issue a new p'sak.

Since the Asker can go to Chacham B without first asking Chacham A to
retract his p'sak, we need to review the concept of being "stuck" with
Chacham A's p'sak.

I fully admit to my lack of familiarity and expertise in these areas, and
that is why I have written to my friends and teachers here in Avodah,
asking for sources and help in understanding them. For example, the Be'er
Hetev 242:37 refers to the principle of "shavya chaticha d'isura", but
seems to think that the Shach and Taz disagree over whether or not that
is the operative principle in this whole business.

Nevertheless, I still maintain that everything I have read inside makes a
great deal of sense (to me) if the question concerns whether a certain
*object* is issur or heter, but is very difficult to follow if the
question concerns whether a certain *action* is assur or mutar. For
example, if my rav paskened about the bracha on potato chips, or using a
timer on Shabbos, do I ask for each bag of chips, or each different
timer?

The context of the whole siman of YD 242 (entitled "Not to pasken in
front of the rav, and the din of a rav who is mochel on his kavod") deals
mainly with how the rabbis should relate to each other, and only very
incidentally with how the layman should act. 

When we take all the above, and add in the fact that "real" semicha does
not exist nowadays, I am still led to *suspect* that if a person asks
"What is the halacha is such-and-such a case?", he is free to consider
that "p'sak" as mere advice. He is well advised to consider that advice
very seriously, but if he is convinced that the rav was in error, or if
in the course of time he learns other Torah sources which are relevant to
the question, it is his responsibility to do that which is right in
HaShem's eyes, and not necessarily that which was "paskened" to him.

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.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:28:46 +0300
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #200: Lubavitch does it again


>Date: Fri,  3 Sep 1999 10:56 +0200
>From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>Subject: Lubavitch does it again
>
>I'm looking at the local Jerusalem newspaper, dumbfounded. The Meshichist
>faction of Chabad just crossed the red line of mutar and assur. Here's my
>literal transliteration of their advert:
>
>(Giant letters) RIBONO SHEL OLAM
>(Large letters) Anu lo rotzim et gan ha'eden shelcha
>                velo et ha'olam ha'ba shelcha
>                anu rotzim otcha ha'rabi milubavitch
>                MELECH MALCHEI HAMLACHIM, HAKDOSH BARUCH HU
>
>(then there's the usual yechi adoneinu ..)
>
>How are we supposed to react to this ?
>
>Josh
>

a)  I am surprised you are surprised... it was inevitable and in fact Rabbi
Keller's (in)famous article in the Jewish Observer several years ago warned
of just this.

b)  This is very very reminiscent of how Christianity got started.

c)  This strengthens my belief that Israeli society is going through a
period similar to that of the end of Bayit Sheini.

.... and on that happy note,
K'tivah Va'chatimah Tovah and Shavuah Tov.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Hershel & Susan Ginsburg               Internet: ginzy@netvision.net.il
  P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27           Phone: 972-2-993-8134
  Efrat,  90435                          FAX:  972-2-993-8122
  Israel

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 09:26:01 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Gadol vs gedulah


Micha Berger wrote:

> In v3n99 he writes:
> : 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....
> ... Someone who is greater than me is more likely to be correct for two
> reasons: he has more data to work with; his conjectures and extrapolations are
> more shaped by Torah than mine. The second factor is IMHO a major part of the
> definition of "Da'as Torah", and gives anyone who is beyond me in learning
> more authority than his footnotes. Therefore any person who is greater than me
> by any amount carries corresponding weight -- and it isn't just linearly. He
> needn't be "a gadol" to have relative gedulah.
>
> Therefore, if I find an idea in R' Frand's Parashah Sheet it makes sense for
> me to work with the assumption that both factors went into play, and therefore
> it's likely to be correct (to get technical: "to be *a* correct position").
> Problems I find with the idea really need to be explored before considering
> any of them to be an upshlug.
>
> -

I think the above attitude is an important consideration for each individual - but it is
clearly not the standard approach in the world or at least not the world of the
yeshivos. It has the danger of allowing incorrect statements and pronouncements becoming
standard. I think the problem I stated regarding the issue of emes vs shalom is in the
same category. [See also Rabbi Broyde's excellent discussion of kiddushei ta'us
regarding the statement of Rav Soleveitchik that the preference of women to be married
rather than single is an absolute pronouncement
http://jlaw.com/Articles/KidusheiTaut.html ]

As the Lubavitsher Rebbe stated in his criticism of a book of biographies  - putting
them all together in a single undifferentiated volume creates the impression that all of
them were on the same level - and they weren't. The statements of Rabbi Kaplan should
not be treated the same as statement of Rav Hutner or Rav Moshe.

There is a story of the Ragatshover riding on train at the same time as a well known
rebbe. [The Ragatshover was known as having no patience for less than perfection He once
said regarding a dvar Torah that Rav Aaron Kotler told him "You learn well for bala
bayis". On his co - rabbi the Meshech Chachmo - he eulogized him by saying "it was
chaval that just when he was figuring out how to learn he died." [This rebbe was known
as a tzadik but also as a siddur yid i.e., not a talmid chacham.] A bunch of bochurim
were making fun of the rebbe by asking question and then breaking into laughter. The
Ragatshover called them over and said "If *I* can treat the rebbe with respect so can
you."

Respect is not the same thing as acceptance.

                                     Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:34:01 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <csherer@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Toward a Definition of Psak


R. Akiva Miller writes:

> 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 understand it, what he is alluding to is that the cheftza with 
respect to which the psak was rendered becomes assur unless the 
psak is reversed in one of the ways I discussed in my earlier post 
(i.e. unless the posek who rendered the psak was toeh bidvar 
mishna or unless, according to the view that that does NOT hold 
intrinsically forbidden - which he brings in the footnotes - the psak 
is reversed by someone who is a bigger gadol or by a majority 
rule). In other words, what he is saying is that if it is a "close call," 
or even not so close a call but not an obviously mistaken psak, 
then the fact that you have gotten a psak that a thing is assur 
means that even if you get another psak that the thing is mutar, for 
you at least, the thing remains assur. This is what I meant also 
when I talked about being stuck with a psak.

> 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. 

Actually, no. Kaplan says that if you want to be machmir on 
yourself anyway, you can. (I don't have the book here, so I cannot 
go through and list the sources, but in light of RDE's criticism of 
me for relying on Kaplan I have decided that I will try to go through 
as many of the sources as I can - probably not until Chol HaMoed 
Succos - and report back if I find any apparent contradictions).

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?

I think that if you know that the situation is identical, and you know 
the basis for the original psak, and you were the one who asked 
the question the first time (so that you're not relying on someone 
else who may have reported the question and/or the answer 
incorrectly) then you don't necessarily have to ask the question 
again. What sources do you have for saying otherwise?

> 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.

Alright, let me give you an example. We had the same posek for 
many years in the States. Over the course of the first ten years of 
our marriage (he was our posek from shortly after we got married 
until we went on aliya), we asked many, many shailas. One of the 
questions we asked was the question of using a baby swing on 
Shabbos. We were told that so long as the swing would move on 
its own even when its winding up was totally exhausted (i.e. that 
we could pick up the chair and it would move back and forth a few 
times even without being wound up at all), we could rewind the 
swing on Shabbos. 

Adina and I had a baby five weeks ago, and on Friday we bought a 
new swing. This swing, like our previous swings, can be swung 
back and forth even after it has totally exhausted its previous 
winding. If you pick up the chair and release it, the chair will go 
back and forth several times even though the swing has not been 
wound up at all. Therefore, according to the psak that we got 
previously, we can wind this swing on Shabbos. Correct?

Well, there are a lot of poskim in Israel who hold otherwise. In fact, 
there are some people whom I know will tell me that I am not 
allowed to use the swing on Shabbos if I ask them. Does that 
mean I have to ask? Or can I rely on the psak I got in the States 
almost sixteen years ago?

BTW - when you come on aliya you will find that there are MANY 
issues like this in Hilchos Shabbos....

> 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.)

This makes sense to me. But let's go back to my swing question. 
if I go back and re-ask the shaila again, and get told that I cannot 
use the swing, does the cheftza of the swing become assur? Well, 
clearly not, except maybe on Shabbos depending on the answer I 
get. So is that within your definition of chaticha d'issura? (For the 
record, I think it is, but you may think otherwise). 

Suppose I have $100 in tzedaka to give, and I ask a Rav how to 
prioritize giving it. He tells me that it should go to the talmid 
chacham down the street who has to marry off his daughter, rather 
than to the organization that distributes food to the needy 
throughout the city. Can I disregard that "advice" and give the 
money to the organization anyway? Or is that money chaticha 
d'isura for that organization? (I would argue that you are bound by 
the psak, but you may think otherwise). 

IOW, I like your distinction, but I think we need to refine it a bit!

> 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.

Fair enough, I'd like to look it up as well. But I think when you 
make these kinds of judgments, if you are assuming a small 
community with one Rabbi (rather than a large community where 
everyone has their own posek), you have to consider the issue of lo 
tisgodidu if you are going to allow everyone to follow their own 
psak. OTOH in a large community where each person may have 
his own posek, the answer may be different. Most of the US and 
Israel today (outside of Washington Heights :-) would probably 
qualify as a large community where each person has his own 
posek, and therefore, unless one accepts the shul Rav as his 
posek, IMVHO one is free to follow his own posek outside of shul. 
BTW - there is a tshuva of R. Moshe's where I believe he actually 
says this, but I don't recall where it is.

> 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.

See the Rashi in Dvarim that someone (RYGB?) brought about how 
if you ask a psak and the psak is wrong, the punishment gets 
shifted from you to the Rav who gave you the psak. To me that's 
the best argument for asking a shaila :-) 

-- 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.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 08:22:50 EDT
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Toward a Definition of P'sak


I regret that I omitted the last line from my long posting of last night
concerning the nature of P'sak. Namely:

I did not intend to preach to anyone, but to submit my ideas for general
review. If anyone can confirm what I've written, or point out any errors
I've made, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

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.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 08:44:31 EDT
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Israeli Gov't activities on Shabbos


Today's news reports says that there was an agreement-signing ceremony
yesterday at Sharm El-Sheikh, signed by Barak and (l'havdil) Arafat, and
witnessed by Albright (among others).

Closed-door negotiations are one thing, but wouldn't a public
agreement-signing ceremony on Shabbos break past Israeli policies? Maybe
this has been going on for a while and I just never noticed. Or maybe it
was actually after Shabbos ended?

Just wondering. Thanks.

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.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:41:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Toward a Definition of Psak


RCS wrote about issure cheftza that may apply after a psak is given. FWIW,
on a tangent, R' Yosef Engel (Asvan D'Orysa) says Issurei Shabbos cannot
be issurei cheftza, as issurim that are tallui b'zman cannot be issurei
cheftza.

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 09:45:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Another Eureka Moment re RSG/RABM Controversy!


While most of you are probably bored to tears with the controversy,
neverthelesss, for the diehards among us, it struck me all of a sudden
yesterday that the reason we are not mevarech Chodesh Tishrei is probably
because of the controversy! I.e., since the Mevorchim Chodesh is linked to
the pronouncement of the molad, since the molad of Tishrei was prone to
generate controversy - they dispensed, l'ma'an ha'shalom, with announcing
it, and forwent Birchas Ha'Chodesh! 

YGB

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


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 11:41:38 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Israeli Gov't activities on Shabbos


In a message dated 9/5/99 8:45:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:

<< 
 Today's news reports says that there was an agreement-signing ceremony
 yesterday at Sharm El-Sheikh, signed by Barak and (l'havdil) Arafat, and
 witnessed by Albright (among others).
 
 Closed-door negotiations are one thing, but wouldn't a public
 agreement-signing ceremony on Shabbos break past Israeli policies? Maybe
 this has been going on for a while and I just never noticed. Or maybe it
 was actually after Shabbos ended?
 
 Just wondering. Thanks.
 
 Akiva Miller >>
The press reports I saw said that the signing was "delayed" until after 
shabbat.

KVCT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 12:07:59 -0500
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Subject:
The Talmud


"Rabbi," he said, "please explain the talmud to me."

 "Very well," he said. "First, I will ask you a question. If two men
 climb up a chimney and one comes out dirty and one comes out clean,
 which one washes himself?"

 "The dirty one," answered the man.

 "No. They look at each other and the dirty man thinks he is clean and
 the clean man thinks he is dirty, therefore, the clean man washes
 himself."

 'Now another question. If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out
 dirty and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?"

 The man smiled and said, "you just told me, Rabbi. The man who is clean

 washes himself because he thinks he is dirty."

 "No," says the Rabbi. "If they each look at themselves, the clean man
 knows he doesn't have to wash himself, so the dirty man washes
himself."

 "Now, one more question. If two men climb up a chimney and one comes
out
 dirty and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?"

 "I don't know, Rabbi. Depending on your point of view, it could be
 either one."

 Again the Rabbi says, "no. If two men climb up a chimney, how could one

 man remain clean? They both are dirty and they both wash themselves."

 The confused man said, "Rabbi, you asked me the same question three
 times and you gave me three different answers. Is this some kind of a
 joke."

 "This is not a joke, my son. This is Talmud."

kvct


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:22:20 -0500
From: david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
Subject:
Shmiros - Rebbe Nachman on Sefer Raziel


I said in a prior posting that I recalled reading that Rebbe Nachman questioned or denied
the efficacy of Sefer Raziel as a shmira. Last night I was reading Chayay Muharan and came accross the passage in question (#478). What Rebbe Nachman actually says
is that Sefer Raziel does date from the time of Adom Harishon, is not the book that
the malachim gave to Adom, has no power to protect against fires and has itself been
consumed in fires on occasion. There is also an interesting passage in Chayay Muharan
(#463) about the inconclusiveness of the evidence as to the alleged Sabbatean content of the amulets of R. Yonason Eybschutz.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:54:05 -0500
From: david.nadoff@bfkpn.com
Subject:
Definition of Ba'al Teshuva (was Eit Sheker Sofrim)


On 9/3/99 Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:
>Furthermore, just as the Eskimos (case in point, who prefer to be called,
>I believe, Inuit) have many words for different types of snow, perhaps
>there should be - and I believe RAEK in his remarks was refelcting this
>idea - different terms to describe people who differ in where they hav
>come from and where they are going.

I don't think R. Avraham Elya Kaplan denied that Dr. Birnbaum was a ba'al teshuva
for socio-analytic precision in distinguishing him from other varieties of (or the garden
variety) ba'al teshuva. If that were the case, he would have said something more like
that "Dr. Birnbaum is a unique or sui generis type of ba'al teshuva because . . .," not
"Dr. Birnbaum is not a ba'al teshuva . . .." I think my interpretation of RAEK's remark (that
he was m'shaneh because of then prevalent discomfort with a ba'al
teshuva purporting to
correct Orthodox Jews) is far more compelling, and supported by the account in R, Nusbaum's book, The Essence ofTeshuva. Anyway, I thought R. Bechhofer wanted to leave his article and Dr. Birnbaum out of this discussion.

Ksivsa vchasima Tova
David


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:55:20 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Subject:
Re: Toward a Definition of Psak


In message , Ken G. Miller <kgmiller@datacorinc.com> writes
>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.
>

There is another possibility, namely that both function the same way,
whether we are asking about an object or an action, but just as one
chicken is not like another chicken, so one person is not necessarily
like that same person some time later, ie the metzius with respect to
even a given person changes, and hence the answer may change.  In
particular, one does, I hope, grow in Torah.  Now I suspect that
everybody on this list has been through the experience that I have
several times of "outgrowing" my rebbaim.  That is, except for those
unusual people who had real access to bone fide gadolim since they were
small (and by real access I mean the ability to ask ones day to day
shialas), most people have had the experience of asking a Rav, be they
one of their high school rebbaim or one's local shul rabbi, and after a
period one reaches the point where they can't answer at the level of
complexity at which one is asking.  What nearly everybody I know does is
move on to some other Rabbi (be it their rosh yeshiva or whoever).  But
what happens if the new Rav subsequently poskens differently from the
old Rav? What becomes of the principle that you are stuck with a given
psak?  Perhaps the answer I have always assumed is that you, the person,
has changed.  So while it was right for you to follow the psak of the
orginial Rav at the time, for the "new you" it is right to follow the
new Rav. This avoids the question of discretion in following a
particular psak.  You are bound by the psak at the time, and cannot,
next minute (or even a day or two later) run around to another Rav for a
different action psak.  But at the point at which you can genuinely look
back and say, I am not the same person I was then, I have moved on (or
possibly even, slid back, or just that there are very different
circumstances - perhaps the most striking being the change from being a
bochur/sem girl in yeshiva to being married with children and trying to
earn a parnassa). Sometimes it is just a matter of being able easily to
explain the issues. One of the nice things about my husband's posek,
something i have never encountered before, is that he holds down a full
time job, as a doctor, as well as having a level of learning that makes
me feel dwarfed (in my experience, the usual reason for moving on is
that at some point you stop feeling that way, and that makes the level
of trust needed to rely on the answer very hard).  And something  that
struck me, was how hard it always was to explain business related
shialas to somebody who has had absolutely no practical business
experience, no matter how well versed they were in choshen mishpat (in
the same way as i imagine it would be very difficult to ask taharas
mishpacha shialas to somebody who had never been married), and how much
of a relief it can be when somebody suddenly knows the environment
without that gap that you somehow have to find a way to bridge.


>
>Akiva Miller
>

Ksiva v'chasima tova

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:02:24 +0300
From: Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Avodah V3 #200-Lubavitch does it again, II


>Date: Fri,  3 Sep 1999 10:56 +0200
>From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
>Subject: Lubavitch does it again
>
>I'm looking at the local Jerusalem newspaper, dumbfounded. The Meshichist
>faction of Chabad just crossed the red line of mutar and assur. Here's my
>literal transliteration of their advert:
>
>(Giant letters) RIBONO SHEL OLAM
>(Large letters) Anu lo rotzim et gan ha'eden shelcha
>                velo et ha'olam ha'ba shelcha
>                anu rotzim otcha ha'rabi milubavitch
>                MELECH MALCHEI HAMLACHIM, HAKDOSH BARUCH HU
>
>(then there's the usual yechi adoneinu ..)
>
>How are we supposed to react to this ?
>
>Josh
>

On further reflection (and I am definitely **NOT** one to defend ChaBaD as
an organization), a few points...

a)  Could you please give the name and edition of the publication in which
this ad appeared?  I'd like to examine it directly. Alternatively, could
you scan it and make it available to list members, much as I did with Rav
Zevin's article on drafting yeshiva bochurim?

b)  When you say "meshichist faction", was there an organizational name in
the the ad?  Was it one of the "mainstream" (such as it is) Loobby
organizations, or one of the tiny offshoots?  Were there any names attached?

c)  I apologize for being so pedantic, but anyone can pay for an ad and
claim that they are any organization and say what they want in the name of
the Torah etc.etc.  The poster wars of Me'ah She'arim often represent just
that... a few hotheads pay a printer to print posters to make all kinds of
declarations in the name of "prominent rabbis".

As I said in my previous answer to this post, it doesn't surprise me if
this ad is genuine, but then again, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't.

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >