- This topic has 56 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“because I think we’ve heard each other’s opinions enough times already”
Yekke – I don’t understand why you are ignoring the point. You stated that he is not obligated to save his life; he is only permitted to. I brought you a proof from the Chafetz Chaim that he is obligated. If you for some reason disagree with my proof, then I would be more than happy to hear the basis of your disagreement. But don’t just ignore it.
Regarding your question about safek Sakana vs. vadai sakana, I know nothing about the halachic definitions of these terms or the halachic ramifications. But how is this relevant to the discussion?
In any case, he is obligated to protect himself in such a case even if he does not believe the l”h.
Are you saying that someone is only obligated to protect himself in a case of vadai sakana? That doesn’t sound right to me, but like I said, I don’t know anything about these halachos. If that is what you are saying, do you have a source?
I believe you, but I don’t have a position. I can’t possibly “have a position” on a halachic matter that I know nothing about.
I had thought that you had said that you are not obligated to protect yourself from a safeik sakana. I apologize if I misunderstood.
While I don’t know anything about the topic, I am wondering if a loshon hora situation could be different from regular situations since it entails this idea of being choshesh without being mekabel which probably wouldn’t occur in any other sakana situation?
“I can’t answer your point until I know your position in my question. The case we are discussing is the one with the askan. I brought in the Sakanah case as a “boundary case” to clarify the questions. Getting stuck in the technicalities of the example is not the point, which is why I asked my final question.”
Thank you very much for explaining. The reason I got frustrated is that I have found at times in the CR that when I am engaged in a discussion with someone, they will just keep insisting they are right and I am wrong without even being מתיחס to my arguments at all. And I find that really annoying.
Yekke, I’m not 100% of your point. Did you think there was a stalemate here? I do not see it that way. I think that I made some points that you did not refute.
“Sometimes the aim isn’t ביקוש האמת, and therefore there is no point trying to explain my point more than I already did.”
Are you talking about this case or making a general statement? If you are referring to this case, my aim is definitely ביקוש האמת
“But when I think someone is trying to understand my point rather than trying to refute it, I try explain it clearer.”
I would like to understand what your point is, particularly with regards to safeik sakana and vadai sakana.
“I can’t answer your point until I know your position in my question”
Since I answered as best as I could, would you now be able to answer the question?
Thank you.
btw, I responded to you a few days ago on the “obscure Frum music” thread. I would appreciate it if you could read it when you have a chance.
Thank you.
“To me, considering it safek sakanah when he believes it wholeheartedly doesn’t sit right. Although I am unsure, like I explained in the opening post to this thread.”
It seems obvious to me that if you are not allowed to mekabel something, then you can’t act on that “kabala”. And I have been trying to figure out why you are having a hard time accepting that. It occurred to me that the issue might be as follows:
Perhaps you are looking at it as though he was already mekabel it. But it occurred to me that that is not really the case. The fact is that he is constantly being remekabel it every moment. He was remekabel it immediately after he viewed the event and interpreted it based on his “kabala”.
After it occurred to me to look at it this way, I saw in the Chofetz Chaim that he writes that as part of the teshuva one must do for being mekabel l”h is to stop believing it (klal 6), which is similar to what I wrote. Even if it’s slightly different, the ramifications are the same.
The point is that you could have and should have stopped believing it at the moment you saw what you saw, and then what you had seen would have been different.
“I don’t think extrapolating from there to my ‘Kovod haTorah’ scenario is that difficult.”
Is Kavod HaTorah in the same category as saving someone’s life and would the same rules apply? You are making assumptions about what is allowed in the case of saving someone’s life and then assuming the same thing applies to “kavod HaTorah”. I’m not saying you are wrong; I just don’t see a proof.
There is another point here, and this may perhaps be the real reason why you are unsure about this whole thing. It was something that I have been thinking about from the beginning but deliberately didn’t want to mention right away. You actually kind of alluded to it yourself in one of your later posts.
You started off with the assumption that you were not allowed to be “mekabel” the loshon hora, so I was basing everything I wrote on that assumption. But perhaps based on the way you heard the l”h and who you heard it from and the type of information it was, you were actually allowed to be “mekabel” it. Granted, we already established the fact that it’s always assur to be “mekabel” l”h, so you were not allowed to be “mekabel” it before the event.
However, it is possible that you were allowed to have such a strong “chashad” that combined with what you yourself saw at the event, you were then allowed to be mekabel. This would also be taking into account the reaction that you saw from all of the others present.
That is very different from saying that it is assur to be mekabel but once you are mekabel, you can use that information to embarrass someone publicly. I don’t see how that can possibly be correct.
However, I don’t know nearly enough about these halachos to be able to say whether or not this new possibility can have any halachic validity. It seems to me that this is a complex question and one that must be asked to a Poseik who is very well-versed in the halachos of Loshon Hora and knows far more than what is written in the Chofetz Chaim. And I am kind of wondering why you posed your question in the CR instead of bringing it to such a Poseik (as interesting as I find it).
“My most recent point wasn’t discussing this thread, it was a general response to your frustration about people repeating themselves. “We hit” wasn’t past tense, it was present participle (I think, but not clear on grammar rules).”
Thank you for clarifying. I’m not sure what a present participle is, but your post could have been read either way. I actually read it at first the way that you apparently meant it, but then I started wondering if you could have meant it the other way.
It was actually only your last line that made me wonder if you were referring to me.(“Sorry if I sound like a broken tape recorder”). If you meant your post in a general way, I’m not sure what place that sentence had there. Unless it was just meant to refer to the previous posts?
“Actually, the very night the incident took place, I discussed it with [one of] the most distinguished Posek in the UK. He told me unequivocally that if it were to happen again the next morning, I should be moicheh again. However, we were discussing this specific case, and he had been involved in the “backstory” that I shouldn’t have known, and knew firsthand the involvement of this ‘askan’. Therefore, his psak may have been specifically about this case where knew the truth.”
I’m glad to hear that. You had mentioned speaking to a Rav but since you still had ספקות, I thought that perhaps the “Rav” wasn’t necessarily amongst “the most distinguished Poskim in the UK” and therefore not someone whom you felt completely comfortable trusting with a sheilah of this nature.
However, I still have a few questions:
1. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why are you still unsure?
2. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why did your father still think you did the wrong thing?
3. Even if he was amongst the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, is it possible that he was נוגע בדבר (since you mentioned that he was involved in the “backstory”)? Would this affect his ability to rule objectively? Is he on such a level that it would be מבזה תלמידי חכמיס for me to suggest that? Is it kidai to ask someone else who was not involved just in case?
4. In any case, since you still have ספקות, is it kidai to ask someone else in any case?
5. “I fully understand your argument, and I don’t disagree with you. I just see another tzad as well.”
What is your tzad then? Are you saying that you think that just like in a case of pikuach nefesh, it is possible that one would be allowed to act on his being mekabel information that he wasn’t suppposed to have been mekabel, he would be allowed to for Kavod HaTorah?
6. If so, why don’t you find out if that is the halacha? Why don’t you ask that Poseik if that was the basis for his psak?
7. I still don’t think that it’s possible that according to halacha, you would be allowed to act on your being mekabel something that you were not allowed to be mekabel. However, something else occurred to me. In the case of Pikuach Nefesh, perhaps what you are doing is not acting on the fact that you were previously oiver on kabalas L”H. Perhaps, the point is as I already pointed out that being mekabel l”H is something you are continually choosing to do or not do. So even if you hadn’t been mekabel the l”h in the first place, you can still choose to now be mekabel it. Likewise in this case.
8. Why don’t you ask the Poseik what his psak was based on?
“I have been in the CR for far too long, and definitely for long enough to know not to use this forum in place of legitimate halachic inquiry”
I didn’t think you were the type to do so. That was why I asked.
“Bringing up the shailah to the posek again is something I do not want to do.”
I only wrote that because I thought that you sounded unsure. But you do sound like you are sure now.
“Since I saw what the Chazon Ish writes in Emunah uBitachon about calling a Rav נוגע בדבר, I have abstained from accusing any Moreh Hor’ah of such things, least of all a Rav of this caliber.”
In that case, I take back what I said and I apologize for any aspersions I may have inadvertantly case on him.
I haven’t seen the Chazon Ish, but I will take your word for it. I was concerned about writing that, which is why I phrased it the way I did.
Thank you, and thank you for reporting the answer you received to the toeles question.
“I didn’t write the question because I wanted a psak, I posted because I thought it was an interesting question, and was happy to discuss it.”
It is. Thank you.
It also got me to learn some of the halachos of Kabbalas l”h and to realize how serious it is and how careful one must be to try to avoid it.
Thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.