Rav Herzog:
«I too, as a talmid of Rav Ahron Soloveichik in Yeshivas Brisk, was impressed when he would often put halachos in perspective. That is, as rigid as he often was, the fifth cheilek meant as much to him as the other four, which, by the way, he could recite in his sleep.»
RRW:
A M'lamed and a Rav often approach Halachah with differing "perspectives"
L'mashal: physicists/mathematicians vs. engineers
The theorists are often rigorous as to how things work. Period.
Those who apply this in real life do so with some "flexibility" -sometimes even l'humra. EG the Brooklyn Bridge has 3 "redundant" systems while 2 would have sufficed. There is a roadway, a suspension mechanism, and "guide wires" addressing twisting in the wind.
When one TEACHES the 4 chalakim of SA, ideally one should be rigorous with:
• The precise SOURCE or Precedent in Talmud or Poskim
• The accepted bei'urim in nos'ei Keilim [EG Shach, Taz, etc.]
Ad kan theory
When APPLYING this to real live situations, THAT'S when flexibility and common sense need to weigh in
------------------
I find two common "errors" in real life P'sak
1. The poseik who is too "slavish" to the 4 chalakim of SA. He applies black-letter law too rigidly to life's complexities.
2. The Poseik who tries to read his flexible chiddush back into the original sources - which were never intended to be understood that way academically. This tends to dilute, alter, or C"V corrupt the Traditional meaning of the Classic texts.
A great illustration of the "5th Cheilek" imho is when the Rambam in his Shu"t dispensed with Chazorat HaShatz. Reading the Yad, one might detect a black-and-white rigidity. But l'maaseh, when the Rambam saw the need to "suspend" a practice as counter-productive, he did so. Yet, he Rambam did not emend his Yad to make way for his chiddush. He left the principles intact. Rather he override them in practice.
I'm guessing Rav Ahron Soloveichik Z"L was similar, viz.
Rigorous in teaching,
Flexible in application.
--------------------
RAH responds:
I can attest this assertion of R' Wolpoe as accurate. Rav Ahron was known to be quite rigid for the hamon, but on an individual basis was quite flexible.
Case in point: Rav Ahron genuinely felt that one *could not* be more meikil than shitat Rabeinu Tam vis a vis the end of Shabbat. He did accept 72 clock minutes for hamon am. [In Yeshivas Brisk we davened at 72 and ended Shabbat at 90. And he himself waited 90 z'maniyot or an "achdel" (1/8 of the daylight hours), whichever was longer]. But anything less, despite the fact that the Gr"a felt quite differently, was simply not acceptable to him.
I once had a private meeting with him in which I asked him: What do I do when I go home to Mpls., where my father is the rav of the community? How can I wait longer than my father, the rav? Wouldn't that be chutzpah? Rav Ahron explained that this did not apply to me in Mpls. for this reason. I then asked him about Camp Moshava (Wisconsin). How can I wait longer there if I'm to be a madrich and when Shabbat ends we have responsibilities such as a night activity? He again said: "O.K., so not at Camp Moshava". (He had long given up on trying to persuade me and others not to go to Moshava in the first place, but that's for a different discussion).
This was a trait of Rav Ahron which I will always esteem.
--------------------
RRW comments -
*Could not* here seems to be the rigorous p'sak because Safeik D'oraito l'humra
The practical reality seems more like:
*Ideally should not*
Shalom and Regards, RRW
No comments:
Post a Comment