- This topic has 364 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sam, haven’t I seen you quoting later seforim, such as Shulchan Aruch? 🙂
C’mon Sam, you know that’s not what it means, and you’re untenable argument is basically that we have an oral tradition that we don’t have an oral tradition.
Ben, (nice to talk to you again)
I don’t think that’s what Sam means, even though you quoted the same Gemara, although he should speak for himself.
As I responded to him, I don’t think that is what it means either. I always understood it to mean that we don’t argue on a Gemara’s maskana, but obviously, new cases and applications, and debate about p’shat in the Gemara continue through the generations.
Our bookcases are filled with seforim which contain all sorts of things which were yet unwritten at Chasimas Hashas.
Without discussing LF’s specific point, there’s no reason to assume that the issue of how to treat words of gedolei hador in all inyonim isn’t part of our mesorah.
DY: Go back to my first post on this topic. I said that any Chiddush in the realms of Halachah (and yes, the way the world works counts as Halachah) has to have a Makor in Shas. You have to be able to prove it from a source in Chazal. Everything in the Rishonim and Achronim (including the Shulchan Aruch 🙂 ) is based in Chazal. A “Mesorah” that’s not in any Sefarim, by definition, isn’t.
How to interpret Shas is very much subject to mesorah; we know that Rishonim usually (not always) learn a sugya the same way their rebbeim did. There is very much an oral tradition, after Ravina/Rav Ashi, and it continues to this day, and I can guarantee you that R’ Avigdor Miller could back up his approach with a mehalach in the relevant sugyos on Shas, as could those who disagree with him. But to dismiss it because there’s no explicit mekor in Shas would be ridiculous.
See also Minchas Chinuch (495-496:3):
???? ????? ????”? ?????? ??”? ?”? ????? ????????? ???’ ?? ????? ???? ???’ ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???’ ??’ ??? ??’ ???? ???? ??”? ????? ????????? ?????? ???? ???”? ??? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????? ????? ??”? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?”? ????? ????? ????? ??”? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??”? ??”? ?’ ????? ???? ????? ???’ ????? ??”? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ???’ ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???’ ?????? ??? ??”? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????”? ?’ ??? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ?????? ??”? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???’ ????? ?”? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ???’ ????? ?? ?? ????? ?”? ????? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???’ ?? ????? ?? ?”? ????? ????”? ???”? ??????’ ??’ ?? ????? ?????”? ?????? ???? ????? ????
And R’ Yerucham Fishel Perlow’s comments there:
????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??”? ?”? ?”? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???’ ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?”? ??”? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??”? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???”? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????”? ?? ???? ???
“I can guarantee you that R’ Avigdor Miller could back up his approach with a mehalach in the relevant sugyos on Shas, as could those who disagree with him. But to dismiss it because there’s no explicit mekor in Shas would be ridiculous.”
Let’s not forget that the impetus for this thread was a comment which utterly dismissed the position of “those who disagree with him”. And I quote from the thread entitled For Pulsing Flower to Vicariously Rant about Iyun Through PAA:
Patur Aval Assur said “If you want to talk about Daas Torah, we should probably start a new thread.”
the plumber responded “There is no possible discussion for daas torah, it is right, if you don’t believe that, I don’t know what to tell you.”
DY: I wasn’t talking about whether “Daas Torah” has a Makor in Shas or not. I was attacking LF’s assertion that there can be an unwritten Mesorah. Don’t lose sight of that. I’m sure Daas Torah has Mekoros in Shas (I could name them for you). As does the opposition of Daas Torah. That wasn’t my point in this thread.
“Rishonim usually (not always) learn a sugya the same way their rebbeim did. “
I am not even sure I would say “usually”. Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam often differ with their grandfather Rashi. And Rambam was in a direct line of talmidim from the Rif, yet often disagreed.
“There is very much an oral tradition, after Ravina/Rav Ashi, and it continues to this day”
But is an interesting question as to how the Gaonim came up with chidushim that had no basis in Shas.
I am not even sure I would say “usually”. Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam often differ with their grandfather Rashi. And Rambam was in a direct line of talmidim from the Rif, yet often disagreed.
Compare how similar the baalei tosafos are with each other, as opposed to with the Chachmei Sefared, for instance, and vice versa. Also, you’ll never find a talmid always agreeing with his rebbe, and those differences will be magnified in each subsequent generation, especially when there were multiple rebbeim. Still, the relative similarity still speaks of an oral tradition.and
And Sam, I am vigorously contending that there remains an unwritten mesorah.
Regarding Sam’s claim that “any Chiddush in the realms of Halachah… has to have a Makor in Shas” and the subsequent dissenters, see the Benayahu (Berachos 8a):
??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????
(granted the context there is Talmudic sages)
The Ba’al Hamaor writes (Hamaor Hagadol Sanhedrin 12a Dafei Harif):
??? ???? ?? ???? ???”? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????’ ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???’ ???”? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?”? ?????? ??????’ ??? ???’ ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?”? ????’ ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????’ ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??”? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????’ ??? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?”? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ??????
DY (nice to talk to you too),
I didn’t mean to say that after Ravina and Rav Ashi there could be no more new ideas and applications of halacha. I meant that nothing post Ravina and Rav Ashi can be a horaah that binds Klal Yisroel. If Rabbeinu Gershom makes a takanah it will only bind the population of the geographic area where Rabbeinu Gershom is the accepted authority. If the Rambam paskens one way in an ambiguous Gemara his psak was not binding outside of Egypt (or wherever he was the accepted authority).
Similarly we cannot make new Gezeiros in the post-Talmudic period.
Ben, right. I don’t think that’s what we were debating, though. I don’t think LF was claiming that there was a gezeirah to accept “Daas Torah”.
DY: Really? If someone came out and started saying that he has a Mesorah from his Rebbe to do X and that that Mesorah goes back to Sinai, would you believe him? He admits he can give no Remez to it in Shas, Rishonim, or Achronim, but says that what he has is really Emes and there is no room to argue on it because it goes back to Sinai. Would you believe him or would you say he’s a nut and trying to change Yiddishkeit?
(Once again, I am not commenting on this specific case. I am attacking LF’s attempted line of argument.)
If it was someone I trusted, specifically someone I felt can be considered a link in the chain of the mesorah, yes.
Most of the time, no.
DY:I might not disagree with you there, though someone in the link in the chain of the Mesorah generally has proofs from Shas UPoskim for what they say. That’s part of what makes them a link in the chain.
With all due respect to LF, I think we can agree that (s)he is not (yet) a link in the transmission of the Mesorah.
Sam, I think you are reacting to something else. LF is expressing what you express at other times, that there is an approach that Klal Yisroel has had for many years and we can’t come now and redefine our approach.
Both sides of an argument can back themselves up with their selective texts (while ignoring the other sources or putting them into a new context). What carries the day is the Mesora. Those who broke from accepted Yiddishkeit (the Mesora) know that they did so. It is not about popping up with a claim of, I was Mekabel this from my Rebbe all the way from Moshe Rabbeinu. It is about announcing and pointing out what we all know as being how Klal Yisroel accepted things.
This is what Halacha is based on. It is the reason we Pasken like the Shulchan Aruch and even like Bavli.
Pesachim 112a:
??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???…??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????
“Compare how similar the baalei tosafos are with each other, as opposed to with the Chachmei Sefared, for instance, and vice versa. Also, you’ll never find a talmid always agreeing with his rebbe, and those differences will be magnified in each subsequent generation, especially when there were multiple rebbeim. Still, the relative similarity still speaks of an oral tradition.”
I think the similarities are not so much in their pshat in a given instance (where there is often disagreement with Rebbeim) inasmuch as a similar methodology (where they are similar to their Rebbeim as contrasted with the Chachmei Sefard).
“What carries the day is the Mesora.”
That isn’t really accurate.
“how Klal Yisroel accepted things”
There are many examples of things that were never accepted in the past that are accepted today, such as universal kollel learning. And things that were fully accepted such as the lack of a need to worry about chodesh flour (at least for Ashkenazim) are being challenged based on texts, not mesorah.
Rav Soloveitchik’s son, Prof. Haym Soloveitchik, elaborated on this in his brilliant essay, “Rupture and Reconstruction”. The Shoah broke the mesorah and we are now have a text based tradition. That generates both leniencies and stringencies, and leads to innovations that our grandparents would never have imagined.
With all due respect to LF, I think we can agree that (s)he is not (yet) a link in the transmission of the Mesorah.
That’s not the point. You rejected the whole idea of an unwritten mesorah, and you can’t do that. He happened to claim that he has a mesorah, and while you may or may not have a different one (and of course there can be machlokes between mesoros), you can’t dismiss it by virtue of its being oral, you can only say that it’s not your mesorah.
No one of forcing you to accept his mesorah, but you’re not merely saying that you don’t accept it, you are outright rejecting it, and that’s vastly different.
I think the similarities are not so much in their pshat in a given instance (where there is often disagreement with Rebbeim) inasmuch as a similar methodology (where they are similar to their Rebbeim as contrasted with the Chachmei Sefard).
Either way, it’s an oral tradition, as are the various darchei halimud in different yeshivos today.
DY: The Darchei HaLimud are based on Mesorahs that have a Makor in Shas and Rishonim. Whether it’s Pilpul, Brisker, or anything in between, the way it is done is based on a Mehalech the early Rishonim had in Shas, which they themselves received from the Geonim who had a tradition straight from the Amoraim. The early Rishonim and Geonim had direct Mesorahs to Chazal (meaning they could quote, Ish Achar Ish, who they were saying their statements in the name of). No one today can do any such thing. If someone had an unwritten Mesorah that they could quote who it came from and how that Mesorah was transmitted Midor L’dor then it would be different. A random person claiming an “unwritten Mesorah” that has no basis in Seforim but is a core belief in Judaism is an attempt to uproot Judaism, plain and simple.
To be honest, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me here. You agree with this point. You just won’t concede because LF happens to be either right or not-so-wrong in this case. But if anyone else made any claim and had to back it up by saying it’s central in Yiddishkeit but have no Makor for it, you would tell them to join Shmuely Yanklowitz and Zev Farber and leave you alone.
DY: The Darchei HaLimud are based on Mesorahs that have a Makor in Shas and Rishonim.(‘???)
Precisely true, but you don’t have a Gemara which explicitly says it; you only know that a particular mehalech is valid because you’ve been mekabel from your rebbeim! Shmuly Yanklowitz can also claim a derech halimud which goes back through the Rishonim to the Amoraim; he wouldn’t be wrong because mesorah doesn’t work that way, he’d be wrong because he made it up. Can we really trace the Brisker mehalech to earlier than R’ Chayim? No, but we trust R’ Chayim (why, is a shmooze for itself) that despite it’s seeming chiddush, it’s solidly based on mesorah (ang then maybe we can even go back and find remazim).
You want to know why I disagree with you so stubbornly? Because I think the approach which ignores the unwritten mesorah, especially about “intangibles”, is precicely what created the YCT monster. A lot of their credibility (to some of the hamon am) comes from the fact that they studiously avoided (until recent developments) saying anything directly contradicted by the sources. Those with a strong, unwritten, mesorah, discredited them immediately, but some of their poison has seeped in due to the fact it’s taken too long for some, who don’t have or appreciate a strong, unwritten mesorah, to reject them.
DY: Ah, interesting. My point is that you need sources to dispute their source-less change to Judaism. Otherwise, what makes you more right than them? It’s just he-said-she-said. You might be right because you happen to be right, but that’s really not how Yiddishkeit works.
R’ Chaim was a Chiddush in how to learn the Rishonim, which is fine because, by definition, there can’t really be a Mesorah from Chazal on how to learn the Rishonim. He didn’t change how to learnt he Tannaim and Amoraim.
I have been reading this thread quietly and with interest, but now I must intercede.
Dear Sam2,
Your vast halachic knowledge and derech ha’psak has caused you to steer yourself into a corner.Your insistence on written sources will lead you to a black hole once you investigate the issue.
Charlie Hall mentioned Haym Soloveitchik’s essay Rupture and Reconstruction. That was a short piece. If you take the time to read his new book Collected Essays I, and in addition, Jacob Katz’s Hahalachah B’meitzar, Yisrael Ta Shma’s books on medieval halachic literature, Auerbach’s Ba’alei Hatosafot, and Grossman’s Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim and Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim,(this is a short list) you will see two phenomena:
1. Mesorah trumps the written word
2. Halachic innovation and Derech Halimud innovation trumps Mesorah
But Rupture and Reconstruction will be a good start.
old man: Good to hear from you. I would like to slightly amend your first statement, though. Mesorah trumps the written word when that Mesorah has some slight backing in the written word. There are T’shuvos HaRishonim that mention that a Minhag is allowed to be K’negged HaDin, but the Achronim (it’s a Mahari Weil that others quote, if I recall correctly) say that that’s only if the Minhag goes back to the time of Chazal, because presumably then it was done Al Pi the Chachamim. You find it throughout the words of the Rishonim and Achronim when there is a Minhag that is clearly against the Din and they can’t find a Shemetz of support for it, they (attempt to) remove that Minhag.
Sam2:
Maseches Soferim 14:18:
??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????
See also Teshuvas HaRosh 55:10 who says:
??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?”? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? [?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?????] ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??’ ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??”? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??’ ?????? ?????? [????] ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?’ ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? [?? ???] ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???’ ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?”? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???’ ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?”? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ???”? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??”?
And the Rashba Bava Basra 144b:
??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????
Sam, you are quoting the exception as the rule. Surely, we weed out Minhagei Shtus, but we are very reluctant to label one as such. And ultimately, it is this checking process that givess Minhag its power.
An organism is kept alive on its own. Once in a while outside intervention is necesssary, but that is the exception, not the rule. Usually Minhagei Shtus don’t kick off in the first place. In the event that it did, and it contradicts the Halacha, we check it with what is written and weed out those few.
I heard in a Shiur, never saw inside, that Reb Ashtori Haparchi says that there are things which we do that are Neged Hatlmud. Living in Mitzraim is one of them. Maybe PAA will get us the pertinent quote.
Also, Tosafos famously writes that there are things that ‘we’ do that are from Sfarim Chitzonim (i.e. Meseches Sofrim). In these cases it is the Mesora that ruled.
The Mesora is more of a decider than a Mechadesh. I think this is where Sam is taking things the other way. Mesora is when Klal Yisroel Paskened a certain way. By definition, you can’t find the later Hachra’a in the earlier words.
You are referencing those who changed and were Mechadesh as a symptom of not changing and following the accepted view and Psak.
My point is that you need sources to dispute their source-less change to Judaism.
It’s not all about proving or disproving them wrong or right.
Yiddishkeit isn’t only about debate, it’s about the truth, whether or not I can link to it on Hebrewbooks.org.
(Squeak had a great post to that effect once, but I don’t have time to look for it now.)
DY: Of course it is. That’s what makes us right. If the actual Mekoros and proper application thereof supported what they were doing then they wouldn’t be in the wrong. That’s how Halachah works. (Okay, so if the sources backed them up what they are doing would have probably been done long ago, which is precisely the point.)
Ah, but it’s not so b’feirush in the sources, or they twist the sources. Were we (frum Jews as a whole) to have more confidence in the way our rebbeim approached things, such a movement could never get off the ground and still be called orthodox with a straight face.
“It is the reason we Pasken like the Shulchan Aruch and even like Bavli.”
Any yeshiva bochur can give you lots of examples where we DON’T pasken like the Shulchan Aruch and where we go against even unopposed Bavlis.
“Those with a strong, unwritten, mesorah, discredited them immediately”
Those who had no sources had to revert to screaming “mesorah” even when there isn’t one.
DY: I disagree. Informed Orthodoxy, for the most part, has rejected them, mainly because of people like R’ Schachter, R’ Twersky, and Rabbi Wieder attacking them from Mekoros (the Yeshivish community might have rejected them outright but they never really had any association with them). The only people who accept them are those who already agreed with them or those who don’t know any better.
charliehall,
I don’t know of any case where we go against an unopposed Bavli other than situations where we say “circumstances have changed” or “horaas sha.”
“I heard in a Shiur, never saw inside, that Reb Ashtori Haparchi says that there are things which we do that are Neged Hatlmud. Living in Mitzraim is one of them. Maybe PAA will get us the pertinent quote.”
Thanks for the vote of confidence. However, the only statement of his about living in Mitzraim that I know of is in Kaftor Vaferach Perek 5:
[?????? ????? ???? ??? ??]
????? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? (??????? ??, ?) ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? (????? ??, ?) ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???’ ???? ??????? ??? ?????
???? ?”? (?, ?) ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???’ ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? (?”? ?, ?) ?????? ???
??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?”? ????? ?”? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??”? ???”? ?????”? ?”? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?”? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? (?”? ??, ?) ??????? ?”? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? (????? ??, ??) ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? (???? ??, ?) ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?”? (??, ?) ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???
“Yiddishkeit isn’t only about debate, it’s about the truth, whether or not I can link to it on Hebrewbooks.org.”
That might work for someone who is already convinced that his position is correct. But if you are trying to demonstrate the wrongness of someone’s position, simply saying that he is wrong/against the mesorah is not going to get you too far (especially if the opposition is quoting sources).
Thanks. That looks like it. But it doesn’t quite look like a Hetter.
But if you are trying to demonstrate the wrongness of someone’s position, simply saying that he is wrong/against the mesorah is not going to get you too far
Yiddishkeit isn’t only about debate, it’s about the truth.
Someone on this site once claimed that R’ Moshe was not really mattir shaving, v’ho raya, it’s not writen in a teshuvah. I might never be able to convince him, but he’s still wrong.
“Yiddishkeit isn’t only about debate, it’s about the truth.
Someone on this site once claimed that R’ Moshe was not really mattir shaving, v’ho raya, it’s not writen in a teshuvah. I might never be able to convince him, but he’s still wrong.”
I completely agree. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t help anyone besides yourself.
I completely agree. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t help anyone besides yourself.
1) It helps anyone who trusts me to relay the mesorah I have received.
2) It means that it’s worth considering any widely held mesorah, even if it doesn’t have a firm source. I brought the shaving example to illustrate this.
DY: I could find you a T’shuva where R’ Moshe was Mattir shaving. But that’s a separate issue anyway. We can know truths like that because we can ask his Talmidim. Unfortunately, since the time of Chazal we have lost the unbroken chain to Sinai. (In the sense that every word was passed on orally; obviously we can trace from Rebbe to Talmid all the way back to MRA”H, but what a Rebbe taught a Talmid drastically changed after Chasimas HaGemara, which is my point.) Our chain goes from Chazal straight to us, with the Rishonim and Achronim being our ability to understand the words of Chazal. That is my point. So if someone claims a “Mesorah” with no Shemetz of a hint in Chazal or in those explaining Chazal, then how can they claim that “Mesorah” goes back to Sinai?
If someone claims a Mesora then it is not a Mesora of Klal Yisroel. This is what Rav Akavya Ben Mahalalel told his son. You keep on mentioning this problem of someone ‘claiming’ a Mesora and the discussion goes on about a Mesora of Klal Yisroel. This is not a conversation.
Nobody can force anyone unaware of a Mesora to become aware of it. But when there is a known, universally accepted Mesora, then we argue that it is binding.
You also talk about how a Mesora can’t be something unfounded. Yet you agree that a Mesora can be the Psak. You said that the original topic here, Daas Torah (whatever that means at this point), has sources both ways. So what is so different about quoting the way our Mesora is on this topic from the Mesora on any other Mesora-defined Halacha?
It’s one thing to agree to disagree, but first you have to agree on what you’re disagreeing.
What would you say if there is a matter where the debate is whether or not there is such a mesorah? If the side arguing that there is no mesorah brings sources that are against the position being argued by the side that is claiming mesorah, can that be mevarer whether there actually was such a mesorah?
Mevarer to whom? Those who have a mesorah will stick to it, and either be meyashev the sources, or have it shver, but fun a kashya shtarbt nisht.
Those who don’t have that mesorah don’t need it disproved, although this might convince them not to tap into someone else’s mesorah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.