Introduction:
Many disputes on details can usually be traced back to differing schools of P'saq.
My agenda here is primarily to present an observation, to share an insight. Beyond that one may be able to see a deeper layer behind a decision by bringing these concepts to mind.
EG why does one Poseiq feel free to prohibit Bicycle riding on Shabbat as "obvious" while another poseiq says we should never embellish what Hazal have already defined, ergo bike riding is OK on Shabbat under certain conditions.
What triggered this post -
Rabbi Ben Hecht and I were discussing "Da'at Torah" vs. Other schools of Rabbinical Authority.
This divides into two broad domains:
1. P'saq Halachah
2. Policy or Meta-Halachah
I'm going to tackle Halachah for now.
Once, when I was debating a colleague about several specific issues, I just asked him "Just tell me your premise - your 'ani maamins' - and I can figure out the rest"
Some of conflicts associated with Modern or Central Orthodoxy face can often be reduced to
"Which school one follows."
I've been able to detect or identify 10 different schools of how to pasken. Remember - in practice many poskim combine more than 1 school, sometimes eclectically, sometimes consistently.
And several of the schools do overlap and may be reduced to sub-schools within a broader school.
Here are my top ten [so far].. This is still a work in progress. .
1. Da'at Torah(1) - Mystical. "Bashamayim hee." Ruach Haqodesh
EG Arizal learns from Eliyahu Hannavi, the M'chabeir learns from his "Maggid"
[This has major implications for Policy]
This Da'at Torah is about spirituality. Proof texts are not needed, it's more like an oracle.
2. Da'at Torah(2) - Gestalt. Mastery and internalization of authoritative Halachic texts produces a living p'sak "machine". Expertise - not spritiuality - creates a Champion Poseq. A Hacham is one who can answer a question on any issue w/o needing research. In our days, I term this a "Ga'on" one who has Torah Kullah at "his fingertips".
There is no single proof text supplied because it's a gestalt method that synthesizes many sources. So a given p'sak cannot be easily dissected. It is indeed built on valid sources, albeit on the "subconscious" level.
3. Best S'vara wins. Whatever is most mistavra Seems reasonable - yet this might also create an eclectic hodgepodge, Rema here, Rambam there, GRA over there, etc.
4. Tradition Trumps. Yekkes Follow Maharil, Chabad follows the Alter Rebbe , Chofetz Chaim Yeshivah follows Mishnah Brurah etc. Stick to your community's accepted school.
5. Most Sources win. Whoever can muster the largest number of sources [having the most clout] - wins the P'sak contest.
6. Consensus wins. We take poskim and perform a virtual "nimnu v'gamru" similar to previous but based upon not just a preponderance but more like a "super-majority" EG See Beth Yoseph and Kaf HaChaim on the issue of 2 vs. 3 matzot at the Seder.
7. Fundamentalism wins. Opposite of hilchetta k'batrai - find the original intent as far back as you can and one Divines the Original Divine Will. Start with Tanach and Shas; - posqim? Fugedabbout it! This l'havdil is the Anton Scalia method.
8. Consensus of the people - aka Catholic Israel - not quite consensus of poskim but easily confused with it. Minhag Yisroel Torah, combined with Minhag Okeir Din verified by Pok Hazei mai ama davar.
9. Eclectic Qula - find the most lenient view on any issue. [Left Wing Libertarian]. Agenda driven.
10 Ecletcic Humra - Right Wing reactionary that takes/makes a Humra whenever possible. [Right Wing authoritarian] also Agenda driven
Note the Qula Agenda and the Humra Agendists are locked in a mutual yin-yang relationship. Hyper-qula triggers Hyper-humra and vice versa.
Think of 19th century Reform and the reactionary opposition about preaching in the vernacular or other such disputes where extremism overwhelmed reason.
Shalom
RRW
3 comments:
What approach or combination do you personally like best in a Posek you would go to, and why?
where would the 'yotze l'chol ha'deot' approach fit here? Eclectic Humra?
A question one may wish to ask is whether this list is de jure or de facto, namely are they l'chatchila methodologies of psak or are they descriptions of what effectively happens.
This question would have an effect in how we view items 9 and 10. As can be deduced from the gemara in Eruvin, choosing based on chumra and qula are not acceptable methodologies in psak, thus not de jure alternatives. It could still be contended, though, that they de facto exist.
It perhaps could still be contended that these two methodologies are really potential sub-categories of what may be a de jure methodology, i.e. the general consideration of agenda. No doubt, it is clear that there are some poskim who once they have determined what are potentially acceptable positions, a final determination will be based upon agenda.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment