- This topic has 364 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY: Ah, but what happens when someone with that Mesorah claims that it is integral to Yiddishkeit and that you are missing something important without it?
So if someone claims something as a mesorah is there any way to disqualify him/it?
Sam, DY: Ah, but what happens when someone with that Mesorah claims that it is integral to Yiddishkeit and that you are missing something important without it?
and PAA, So if someone claims something as a mesorah is there any way to disqualify him/it?
For some reason, you both are not getting past framing this discussion in terms of and in the context of debating an issue and trying to prove someone wrong.
Whether your kashyas convince him or not depends on the strength of the kashyas and the strength of his convictions.
I’m making one point: a mesorah is not automatically wrong just because it’s not written. Obviously, though, it’s not automatically right either.
So how do you know when it’s right and when it’s wrong?
When you use Mesora in an argument it is either as a defense or in reference to an undisputed Mesora. Nobody can demand that you agree to him because of something you don’t agree to or know about. But, he might be pointing out to pay attention to how things were always done, hence Mesora.
This is an argument used often in Gemara. When proposing a Shita we would ask how it can be if we all never heard of it, or Hanach Lahem Liyisroel, or Sha’al Avicha Veyagedcha.
PAA, when Poskim realize that there is absolutely no justification for it and they dub it a Minhag Shtus. This is not done lightly.
I agree with HaLeiVi. I think PAA is looking for a more absolute answer, though, and I don’t think there is one. It kind of reminds me of the famous question in shidduchim, “How do I know when I’ve found the right one?”.
“I don’t know of any case where we go against an unopposed Bavli “
Women reading Megillat Esther for a man.
“PAA, when Poskim realize that there is absolutely no justification for it and they dub it a Minhag Shtus”
Which presumably they do based on sources. Which was basically my original contention – that sources can be used to evaluate a mesorah.
More on Daas Torah – R’ Mordechai Gifter:
“This is what we call daas Torah, meaning that the judgement of the person who studies is united with the mystery of Torah. It is this daas Torah that the great figures of all generations are privileged to have. By means of this daas Torah, the great men of Torah actually see what others, at best know but do not see. The great Torah leaders are granted a ‘visual sense’ from the world of the Torah’s mystery, the world of eternity,at a time when smaller people understand and feel everything only according to our small world, the revealed world.
Woe to those who pose questions in the name of Torah – sincerely or insincerely – to the Torah greats, to the point where they ask, ‘Who appointed them gedolim that we must obey them?’ Such people would reduce Torah authority to the miniscule dimension of an appointment or position. Not only do the Torah giants understand wisdom, they see deeply in wisdom, as Shlomo HaMelech said, ‘Velibi ra’ah harbeh chochmah – My heart saw much wisdom'”
Which presumably they do based on sources.
Of course. Nobody said that a written source has no validity, we’re just arguing that an unwritten one can, too. What do we do when there’s a conflict between written sources?
charlie: We do that out of respect for the Shittah of the Bahag. For some reason, we respect his opinion even K’negged the Gemara. All of the explanations as to why have something to do with the fact that he had a direct traceable chain from the Amoraim so even if he had Shittos outside Shas, they were still from Chazal. If any other Rishon said such a thing against the Gemara, we would reject them or at least only treat it as a weak Chumra, not Halachah. (And even Ashkenazim hold that a woman can Mei’Ikar HaDin.)
“Nobody said that a written source has no validity, we’re just arguing that an unwritten one can, too. What do we do when there’s a conflict between written sources?”
The difference between a conflict amongst written sources and a conflict between written sources and oral sources is that (generally speaking) if you see a written source from rishonim for example, you can be confident that you have in front of you the opinion of the rishonim. But when your source is oral, there is a very good chance that over the hundreds of years, something was lost/added/mixed up as indeed has happened to many things.
PAA: As you surely know, written sources have been mistranscribed from one handwritten (or even printed) copy to another. Hence different girsas and other such issues.
splenda:
That is precisely why I inserted the words “generally speaking” in parentheses. A stam girsa is not suspected of being wrong. Whereas the number of integral aspects of Judaism that were lost over the course of the oral transmission is too numerous to enumerate.
“We do that out of respect for the Shittah of the Bahag. For some reason, we respect his opinion even K’negged the Gemara. “
Most rishonim did NOT follow the BeHaG. But indeed most Ashkenazic Acharonim do, and there are other examples where we pasken according to sources later than the gemara.
Most what has recently been called “mesorah” in recent controversies isn’t mesorah, it is minhag. Minhag is important but it does change from time to time and from place to place.
Minhag is when it is a completely new idea. Mesora is the Psak on an issue, the waay it is done. Minhag is not to be taken lightly, either. When there are multiple Minhagim things are easier but when you change from a Minhag of the whole Klal you are being Poresh Min Hatzibur, which Chazal did not have nice things to say about, and is the beginning of a steep downward journey.
R’ Hershel Schachter (Beis Yitzchok vol. 38):
?????? ???”? ???? ??? ????’ ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?”??? ????” ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? “??? ????” ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? “??? ????” ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??’ ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???
(????? = R’ Soloveitchik)
Charliehall,
I was under the impression, having once asked this as a practical shailia, that the accepted psak is that a woman can lain megillah for a man. That it is normally avoided is a chumrah which is choshesh that a woman only has a chiyuv shmia and not kriah and therefore can only be yotzie a man’s chiyuv shmia and not his chiyuv kriah.
In other words everyone holds that woman can be motzie a man in megillah, the issue is only whether or not it is ideal.
ben: R’ Schachter holds it should only be done in an absolutely B’dieved situation.
Sam2,
Interesting. When I asked a shaila about this it was a (potentially) very b’dieved situation. I still got the impression, however, that m’ikar hadin it was fine. But that could just be an impression.
My main point however, is that even those that don’t allow it, i.e. the Behag, aren’t arguing on the Gemara. Rather they are understanding the Gemara differently than Rashi (and other Rishonim). The Gemara doesn’t say explicitly that women can be motzie men, it only says that women are obligated in megillah.
The Gemara in Berachos 4a says that Dovid consulted with his Rebbe Mepiboshes on everything he did and then specifies what he asked: ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? which are all purely technical halachic shailos. It doesn’t say that he asked him any political/economic/sociocultural/medical/military questions. We do know from the previous amud that Achitofel was the advisor at least for military decisions.
This has nothing to do with Daas Torah. Earlier in this thread HaLeiVi mentioned living in Mitzrayim even though it’s “neged hatalmud”. So I saw an interesting pshat from the Ben Ish Chai. There is a machlokes Amoraim as to what Mitzrayim was like after the Jews ransacked it. R’ Ami says that they made it like a trap with no grain in it and Reish Lakish says that they made it like the depths of the sea with no fish in it. The Ben Ish Chai expains that they are actually arguing about whether the prohibition to live in Mitzrayim applies nowadays. He explains that the reason for the prohibition is that when the Jews left, they rescued all the ?????? ????? so now that there is no more tikun to be done there, it’s assur to live there. But once people went back and did aveiros, there is now more ?????? ????? to be rescued and therefore there the issur should no longer apply. Now R’ Ami spoke about a trap without grain, which is temporary – in the future there might be grain in the trap. So too, in the future when there will be ?????? ????? it will be mutar to live in Mitzrayim. Reidh Lakish spoke about the depths of the sea which don’t have fish and never will. Therefore it is always assur to live in Mitzrayim. (I hope I got the kabbalistic parts right.)
Interesting. Looking back on this, I see that neither DY nor HaLeiVi had a response to my point that it should be impossible for someone to claim that a Mesorah is integral to Yiddishkeit when that Mesorah can’t be found anywhere in Chazal Um’farsheihem.
1) Your not agreeing to the responses doesn’t mean there weren’t. I can’t shove it down your throat, but at least don’t deny that we responded.
2) IIRC, I actually quoted Chazal.
3) Do you have a source in Chazal that something not appearing in Chazal can’t be true?
DY: I didn’t see a response to that point. I saw where you quoted it, but you didn’t actually respond to it. And you won’t agree to it, but my source is “Ravina V’rav Ashi Sof Hora’ah”. If you have a Hora’ah not included in their works, you are claiming they missed something.
“Ravina V’rav Ashi Sof Hora’ah” means later generations can’t argue. That their words are inclusive of all of Torah shebaal peh is your own unsourced and incorrect addition, which is obvious by the very existence of other, and later, forms of Torah shebaal peh. True, most are interpretations of the Gemara, but so is the concept of Daas Torah found in Chazal, subject to interpretation.
I think Sam’s point is somewhat similar to the Riaz that I quoted in the Shmuly Yanklowitz thread:
??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????
He is essentially saying that the Rambam can’t make up things that aren’t in the Gemara. Now the Riaz is specifically talking about fundamentals of the religion, so he might not extend it as far as Sam does.
DY: Good. If it’s subject to interpretation, then how can someone tell me I’m lacking something integral to my Judaism by not seeing that interpretation?
And I think the Rambam disagrees with your interpretation of that phrase.
Sam, he is saying that there is a Mesora on something that is up to interpretation, not that the Mesora is up to interpretation. He, and I, made this point many times.
Yes, HaLeiVi, thank you.
Sam, “subject to interpretation” doesn’t mean you’re entitled to interpret it whichever way makes you most comfortable. As I’ve said before (and PAA flattered me by putting it into the “Good CR Quotes” thread), the truth is the truth whether or not it’s sufficiently proven to you. The fact that something which you don’t believe in , if true, is integral to Yiddishkeit, doesn’t disprove it.
In the yibum thread, you mentioned that the kasha has been in your mind for two days (you also had a very clever jab at PAA 🙂 ).
Why? Why not just say that the Ri (ch’v) made a mistake? Of course, it’s because we have a very clear mesorah that Rishonim don’t make such mistakes. That mesorah is true whether or not we can find a source in Chazal. You’ll agree, I assume, that someone who thinks the words of a Rishon can be easily dismissed if he “disagrees”, is indeed missing something integral to Yiddishkeit. Even if it disturbs and offends him.
The same can be said about a similar concept (albeit weaker) applying to more contemporary gedolim; if someone underestimates their greatness, or to what it extends, they are certainly missing something (albeit less) integral to Yiddishkeit.
Can you please source that Rambam? (L’shitoscha, if you can’t provide a source, your wrong by default 🙂 .)
“As I’ve said before (and PAA flattered me by putting it into the “Good CR Quotes” thread), the truth is the truth whether or not it’s sufficiently proven to you.”
I never said that I agreed with the good quote. (I would put a smiley face here but I am b’shita against them.) Now it happens to be that I agree in principle that the truth is the truth whether or not it is/can be proven. But what are the practical ramifications of that? I think we are coming from two different perspectives here. L’mashal: Let’s say you KNOW that Judaism is true but l’maaseh there is no way to empirically prove it. You might be satisfied with that because you are experiencing it so it doesn’t make a difference to you if you can prove it. But someone else who is not Jewish (or not frum) will not just accept that Judaism is true if you can’t prove it. (Ain Hachi nami it is possible to convince him by showing him the beauty of Judaism, but that won’t necessarily work in every context.) Similarly, on any issue being debated, one side can just claim that they are saying the truth (which works for them) but it doesn’t advance the debate at all (unless the other side has sufficient trust in you that they will accept what you say without it being proven). Which is why when someone nowadays makes a claim which they can’t back up with any source in our 2,000 year history of written literature, I will take it with a grain of salt. I’m not sure if this is what Sam is saying.
Which is also why on something like respecting Rishonim, I (and I’m sure Sam too) will agree that there is something to it because throughout the literature we find that the great scholars respected (generally) held highly of those who preceeded them, including the Acharonim in regards to the Rishonim. And also not being able to source something wouldn’t necessarily make you wrong; it would just mean that you can’t prove that you are right. It might be somewhat of a siman that you are wrong.
DY: I don’t think I agree that we believe Rishonim can’t make mistakes. We believe that it’s dumb to think we can catch them because they knew a ton more than us and that if/when they did make mistakes, people in the centuries between them and now would have and did catch them. Those that made it into our corpus of Rishonim are those that knew so much that they (almost) never made mistakes. That’s why they are Rishonim.
(As an aside, I knew a massive Talmid Chacham who was once approached with a manuscript from a Talmid of a Rishon-I think it was the Rashba-and asked to help edit it for publication. He looked through it and said that there was a reason it had only been a manuscript until then; the whole thing was Naarishkeit. This Talmid wasn’t one of the Rishonim because his writings weren’t good enough to be one of the Rishonim. The person with the manuscript called this Talmid Chacham an Apikores for arguing with a Rishon and went on to find other Talmidei Chachamim who would help with his project. After 4 or 5 similar answers, he finally got the point.)
I won’t say the Ri made a mistake because I am far from knowledgeable to ever say such a thing, and 2 days is far too short to ever say such a thing. If I knew Kol HaTorah Kullah and couldn’t answer this Kashya for 60 years, then maybe I’d begin to entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.
Oh, and I think it’s in the Shmoneh P’rakim.
“I won’t say the Ri made a mistake because I am far from knowledgeable to ever say such a thing, and 2 days is far too short to ever say such a thing. If I knew Kol HaTorah Kullah and couldn’t answer this Kashya for 60 years, then maybe I’d begin to entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.”
But I who do know kol hatorah kulah and couldn’t answer this kashya for sixty years, can entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.
Where in Shemoneh Perakim?
(I have nothing to add to the rest of your post, which was very interesting but had nothing to do with what I wrote.)
I will add, though, that if you really think that you could say that the Ri made such (I emphasized the word such this time so that you don’t miss it) a mistake, even after 60 years, no matter how much you knew quantitatively, than I would say you are missing something MAJORLY integral to Yiddishkeit.
Have a great Shabbos, all. And keep davening for Hadar Ben Chedvah Leah.
By the way I was kidding when I said “But I who do know kol hatorah kulah and couldn’t answer this kashya for sixty years, can entertain the possibility that the Ri gave an impossible example.”
But I will say that there are different types of mistakes. The potential mistake in the yibum case would be a basic mistake in cheshbon. Which is a much bigger mistake then say, forgetting an obscure source. Maybe not Rishonim, but for sure by acharonim, whereas I would be very hesitant to say that they made such a basic cheshbon mistake, I don’t think it would be out of the realm of possibility to say that they missed a source. Now perhaps missing a source might not necessarily be called a mistake in the first place. Also, I wouldn’t say that we don’t assume that Rishonim made mistakes because we have such a mesorah. I would say that we assume that they didn’t make such misakes because it is clear to anyone who reads Rishonim that they were brilliant and knew probably every gemara and were experts in cheshbon. The amount of times that I’ve had questions on Rishonim in cheshbon and later realized I was wrong, is more than enough to tell me not to treat them lightly.
Tzlach Berachos 7b:
????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????”? ??’ ?????? ?? ?’ ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??’ ???? ??? ????? ????”? ??? ??? ??? ?’ ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???, ?? ????”? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???’ ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????
So it is clear that “halacha” and “hanhaga” are two different categories which have different rules governing the decision-making process.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read
And:Do not resubmit deleted posts.
You understood why your original comment was deleted.
Please do not keep on attempting to submit it in creative ways. It is still the same comment. Thank you.
?
Ok. I am not trying to be antgonistic. I respect the moderators’ right to not approve of certain comments. However, I assumed that there wouldn’t be anything wrong with simply quoting something the Netziv said. When I first attempted to post it about a week and a half ago, I put in my own points after the quote. When that was blocked, I tried again with just the quote, figuring that maybe my words had been problematic but it was blocked again. After a lull in time I tried again – perhaps the moderators would be in a different mood this week – but it was not to be. Then I figured that maybe the quote was problematic because by posting it in the Daas Torah thread, it is portrayed in a certain context. So I put in a new thread and it was allowed through. But then when I posted the link to that thread in this thread, that thread was taken down. My question then was mima nifshach – if my assumption about contexts was correct then why was the other thread taken down, and if my assumption was incorrect then why was the other thread allowed up in the first place? That is what I didn’t understand. (Granted I engaged in a bit of trickery by linking it here, but that could have been taken care of by simply blocking the link.)
So in summation, I respect the moderators’ decision but I am peacefully demonstrating my disagreement with it.
I almost deleted that thread to begin with because I knew which context you meant it in, but allowed it, because it was not directly put into that context. When you linked it in the other thread, I deleted both. Yes, it was trickery on your part, please do not engage in that any more. TIA.
Ha’amek Shealah 58:37:
???? ????? ????”? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???’ ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ??”? ?????
PAA: Was that the Netziv quote you’d been trying to post all along?
No. The one I wanted to quote was in Ha’amek Davar.
Can you post it, or will it not be approved even now? (Maybe in another thread, so it doesn’t have whatever context is an issue? I haven’t read this thread, I just followed one of your links here.)
I would like to but I don’t want to risk getting the Moderator upset, especially since I have demonstrated that we’re actually on good terms:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ever-seen-a-forest-animal-die-of-old-age#post-537116
Although my demonstration was based on a premise which might not be true, as you can see there.
Chida (Penei Dovid Parshat Shoftim):
????? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ????? ??? ????? ????”? ?”? ????? ??????
???? ??? ????? ???? ??”? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?”? ???? ???? ?’ ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?”? ???? ??”? ??”? ???? ??? ??”? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ????? ????
??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?’ ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?”? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??”? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???”? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??”? ?????? ?????
continued…
???? ????? ????? ????”? ???? ????? ???? ?’ ??? ???? ???? ?”? ????
??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?”? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?”? ???? ????? ???’ ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????
?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ????”? ???????
???? ???? ?”? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???’ ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????
????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???’ ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.