Sunday, 27 December 2009

Disclaimer re: My Posts

I don't see myself as a poseiq, just a m'lameid. I rarely state a poseiq is wrong unless there is very strong evidence
[See example Below re: the Taz]

Rema Choshen Mishpat 25:1

Y"O if it appears to a dayyan and to the members of his generation - due to the strength of "rayot muchrachot" .... Yachol l'haleiq alav.

However, to raise a lamdusher question, to quote an internal or external steerah, to demand or request a s'vara does not require such a high threshold of proof - Mainly because I am not out to overturn Halachah p'suqah anyway.

As Wolpoe's First Law of TSBP states, we often know the WHAT w/o knowing the WHY

Illustration 1
In a recent Avodah thread, this was apparent in the Rema Orach Hayyim 253 & 315 where he is meiqil if the food has not cooled, and a minimum of 2 contradictory schools of thought were brought to explain the WHY.

Ein Bishul Achar Bishulby Rabbi Howard Jachter

Illustration 2
In YD 69, the Shach and the Taz debate the status of measuring the "issur" quotient embedded in used salt.

Shach: we don't know the volume of issur absorbed

Taz: Haticha naaseeit n'veilah. [HNN]

The Taz is shver beause HNN is NOT applied by the M'chabeir legabei sh'ar issurim. Aiui it's a tiyuvta on the Taz
But there is no nafqa minah AFAIK on how to treat the salt in question - only the s'vara is debated.


I don't need to bring rayos to prove a s'vara WRONG! Rather I only raise difficulties. The threshold is much lower here.

There are many difficult pisqei halachah that I respect l'maaseh - because I have no convincing p'saq to overturn it. But Afaik I don't need to check my brain at the door and not raise questions. That is not Talmudic-Rabbinic Judaism as I was taught.


No comments: