tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6136020962340746232..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Interesting Posts and Articles #44joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-91947524469333243252009-02-09T15:34:00.000-05:002009-02-09T15:34:00.000-05:00I am willing to concede that my use of the word "e...I am willing to concede that my use of the word "erred" was unguarded. The main point is that there is a difference between academic analysis and pesak. The majority view and accepted practice may be questioned - even seriously - when it comes to analysis. Pesak, however, has it's own rules and there, majority, precedent, custom and usage, as well as the standing of the posek, carries much weight. Even if Giants of the caliber of the Gra, Sha'agas Aryeh and the P'nei Yehoshua argued in rare instances with Rishonim - IMHO, much lesser scholars certainly don't have that authority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-32481426206947827492009-02-05T16:15:00.000-05:002009-02-05T16:15:00.000-05:00there seem to be two questions here:(1) it such ar...there seem to be two questions here:<BR/><BR/>(1) it such arguing legitimate?<BR/>(2) do people do it?<BR/><BR/>That Vilna Gaon, Pnei Yehoshua, Shages Aryeh saw fit to do it shows that *their* answer to (1) and (2) was yes. And that people don't automatically discard their positions where they argue is *arguably* a partial yes on (1).<BR/><BR/>If any of the aforementioned rabbis (Rav Schachter, Rav Soleveitchik, etc.) indeed maintain that, at least from a theoretical perspective, the answer to (1) is yes, then whether or not they practically do (a "no" to question (2)) is immaterial. I *have* seen a lot of people assume that because the answer to (2) is no, the answer to (1) is no as well.<BR/><BR/>There are probably many factors which lead to the general "no" on (2). Foremost is that many people maintain the "no" on (1). They assume that just as the formal division of Tannaim to Amoraim was encoded in halachic discussions, and the formal division of Amoraim to Geonim was encoded (as Ravina and Rava Ashi are sof horaah), so too other generational divisions. I have explicitly heard a contrary theory from one of my rabbeim, that this distinction does not apply to Geonim, Rishonim, and early Acharonim. I would add Savoraim to this list.<BR/><BR/>Some factors also probably are how the existence of a Shulchan Aruch, with rishonim and acharonim in place on topics sort of frames the debate. And there are the methodologies of learning, and whether one *trains* oneself to think outside the box in analyzing gemaras, or whether one learns it beIyyun trying to understand how the various rishonim understood the gemara and one another. I know about myself that I had to break myself of the habit of learning gemaras and psukim through the eyes of the classic meforshim in order to develop skills of independent analysis of the gemaras. (In other words, rather than learning Rashi on a pasuk, learning how to learn like Rashi or another medieval pashtan.) If people don't learn like Rishonim, they cannot practically compete with Rishonim. It would similarly be a different skill set to develop to learn like an Amora or Tanna.<BR/><BR/>But if someone *does* do this, and arrives at "Truth", would we discard it on methodological grounds. As I understand Rav Schachter (but this is my understanding of his words), of course we would not. Torah is Emes. However, it would seem that he just does not think much of the academic Talmudic methodology in place, and so thinks that the Truth in almost all instances dwells with the Rishonim. But if Rabbi X did rule against Rishonim in interpreting the gemara, such would be legitimate. And the cases of Vilna Gaon and Shages Aryeh illustrate that such arguing is legitimate.<BR/><BR/>Unless you are arguing that popular trends determine what is legitimate and what not, such that back then it was OK for those acharonim to argue with rishonim, but not now. This would not seem to be the position advanced by (some of) the aforementioned.<BR/><BR/>KT,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69738568362970458992009-02-05T11:40:00.000-05:002009-02-05T11:40:00.000-05:00Yes, certainly the Shagas Aryeh and the Pnei Yehos...Yes, certainly the Shagas Aryeh and the Pnei Yehoshua argue with rishonim. But with the passage of time, this simply doesn't happen any more. Just as the Ibn Ezra's singular attitude toward Chazal cannot justify a similar approach on our part, the rare cases of achronim arguing with rishonim have no practical relevance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29166470825915275052009-02-05T07:21:00.000-05:002009-02-05T07:21:00.000-05:00ps: good concrete examples *might* be found from V...ps: good concrete examples *might* be found from Vilna Gaon and Shages Aryeh. but bli neder I will see if I can find one.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74693760872145138472009-02-05T07:13:00.000-05:002009-02-05T07:13:00.000-05:00ah, but is that as a matter of the bounds of psak ...ah, but is that as a matter of the bounds of psak on the one hand, or is it a matter of the self-assessment, confidence in the rishonim's position, personal practice of the posek, or a desire to reinterpret quasi-ambiguous rishonim to further buttress one's views and be accepted, on the other hand?<BR/><BR/>from the above, it would appear that at least on a theoretical level, it <B>is</B> within the bounds of psak. and if it is, then one is not <B>"erring"</B> just because all rishonim and acharonim argue. And from the above, it also appears that if Rav Shachter, or Rav Soleveitchik, *were* really convinced that a position was correct, they would maintain it even if it *were* against all the rishonim.<BR/><BR/>Bli neder, I will see if I can find any concrete example of an acharon arguing with all rishonim. E.g. if Vilna Gaon ever does this. <BR/><BR/>Off the cuff, the "best" example I can come up with is how Rav Schachter maintains that one should use Dr. Richard Steiner's nusach of the ketubah, using his corrected Aramaic. This, I think, differs from the nusach of the ketubah as it was thought to be by Acharonim and (I am pretty sure) Rishonim. Though this is admittedly somewhat different, as it is nusach rather than a halachic position.<BR/><BR/>KT,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-43320688195377994112009-02-05T06:29:00.000-05:002009-02-05T06:29:00.000-05:00I am unaware of any posek (Rav Soloveitchik, Rav M...I am unaware of any posek (Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Hazon Ish, Rav Shachter etc.)- indeed any Acharon - who would knowingly disagree with an explicit Rishon, if he doesn't have the support of another Rishon, explicit or through interpretation, to rely on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-37582185275211913332008-06-17T14:24:00.000-04:002008-06-17T14:24:00.000-04:00Perhaps I will have time to respond at length late...Perhaps I will have time to respond at length later, but I don't think you are necessarily correctly understanding Rav Schacter's statement. And Sperber is perhaps only saying one thing -- though I am reluctant to put words into his mouth -- that the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud. And for that, there is precedent on the basis of Ravina and Rav Ashi being sof horaah, for example.<BR/><BR/>Calling it the position of the meraglim comes close to ad hominem. The Torah is true and *therefore* (not *but*) where there is an error, we have an obligation to rule halacha in accordance with truth. Did the meraglim also come up with the idea of par heelem davar shel tzibbur?<BR/><BR/>*If* the Chazon Ish's approach and Rabbi Shachter's approach are mutually exclusive, then *both* might be consistent with classic Jewish thought. There is room for machlokes, after all, in attitudes. Or Rav Schacter's position (if that is his position) might be more consistent. *If* he holds this, I can assure you he has firm basis for holding this. This is not the place for frummie gadol-worship. The Chazon Ish's approach might equally well have been a reaction to the threat of overturning all of Shulchan Aruch from by academics.<BR/><BR/>E.g. I heard in the name of Rav Soleveitchik that the proper way a rav is to decide halacha is to read all gemaras, rishonim, acharonim, etc., and decide what you think is the correct meaning. If your understanding is at odds with the rishonim and acharonim, then you are obligated to read through all the sources again. If you are still convinced you are correct, you have an *obligation* to rule in accordance with what you think is the correct interpretation of the gemara. Of course, this is targeted towards someone who is of a caliber capable of making sure a determination, not your average guy who happened to get semicha, but your true posek.<BR/><BR/>As another example of precedent of such an approach, the Rambam overturned halacha as established by the geonim (in the laws of modeh bemiktzas, IIRC) on the basis of a 500 year old Talmudic manuscript he discovered.<BR/><BR/>To determine this, we need to go through thousands of sources, and see whether the methodology, or precedents to the methodology, are acceptable, or required.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, it is a big dispute, and will in no way be resolved in the comment section of this blog. It is an important dispute to resolve, though, as more and more academic readings come to the fore.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28153958188807849502008-06-17T13:40:00.000-04:002008-06-17T13:40:00.000-04:00"There are individuals who consider themselves Ort..."There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the amoraim misunderstood the tannaim, the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the achronim misunderstood the rishonim.“<BR/>That is a perfect description of Dr. Sperber's approach. It also describes the approach of the Meraglim; of course, the land is beautiful, BUT.... Of course, the Torah is true, BUT... the poskim and rishonim and achronim were off the tracks. This is another means of breaching the sense of tradition and consistency in halacha and mesorah.<BR/>If the Chazon Ish's approach and Rabbi Shachter's approach are mutually exclusive, then can we guess which one would be more consistent with classical Jewish thought?Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80759789222216114842008-06-16T22:45:00.000-04:002008-06-16T22:45:00.000-04:001. that is a possible teretz, both here and in man...1. that is a possible teretz, both here and in many other instances. yet it does not work out with some stories and sources, which may cause one to either reject this thesis or reevaluate those stories and sources.<BR/><BR/>5. I would agree with that characterization, which means that one is not really a critique on the other. Rather, they are using different methodologies, and Dr. Frimer should have been clearer at the outset. Also Chazon Ish's approach is not the only possible one in the halachic realm. I do not have to resort to this, but to quote Rav Schachter, though perhaps one could or could not argue with this application:<BR/><BR/>http://torahweb.org/torah/2006/moadim/rsch_shavuos.html<BR/>"There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the amoraim misunderstood the tannaim, the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the achronim misunderstood the rishonim. “But don’t get me wrong,” they would say “– I’m Orthodox! And therefore I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is not the Orthodox position. If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it."<BR/><BR/>It would seem that he is saying that there is truth to halacha, and we don't follow a Torah we believe to be untrue. Within this approach, following the Chazon Ish to the extent described above would not be the Orthodox position. What Ravina and Rav Ashi meant surely *is* relevant, because it is truth. Ignoring that in favor of some explanation of Rishonim or Acharonim that one believes is in error is not the Orthodox position, according to this.<BR/><BR/>Kol Tuv,<BR/>Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-49807423153687260972008-06-16T22:17:00.000-04:002008-06-16T22:17:00.000-04:001. Mezuzos: the shemira, such as it is, is from sp...1. Mezuzos: the shemira, such as it is, is from spiritual danger.<BR/><BR/>5. Dr. Sperber's methodology is a scholarly one, while Rabbi Frimer's is a halachic one. Halacha grows and develops organically, not from the roots, but rather from the branches. If the legal precedent through the generations is clear, then what Ravina and Rav Ashi meant is totally irelevant. The Chazon Ish famously said that the sifrei rishonim found in genizos and Church libraries cannot be cited as primary sources for the same reason: halacha must go through the crucible of time and application. Any other method is intentionally destructive of the stability of the halacha and minhagim.Eliezer Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.com