Garnel Ironheart said..
----------------------------
Perhaps we can simply agree that Rav Moshe was not perceived as imposing his will on people - while contemporary leaders are. This is possibly the result of the fact that the people don't accept the views of contemporary leaders as readily as they did Rav Moshe.
Rav Bulman once mentioned that in previous generations - post war America - the gap of knowledge between the rabbinic leaders and the average person was very great and was acknowledged as being very great. Now the average avreich is much closer in competence to the average rabbinic leader - and sometimes exceeds it - and he is fully aware of this. Hence the much greater resistance to accept something just because the leaders said it. The sheitel controversy is a clear example. The resistance to acceptance was primarily on halachic grounds.
Another way of putting it is that we don't have gedolim today - in the same way as 20 years ago. Rav Paperman once said that while Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation - woe is the person who knew Shmuel.
I will also agree with you in that gedolim in previous generations were more careful in chosing their battles. This was partially due to greater sensitivity - but also they had less power over the community. Because compliance was largely voluntary then - they could not demand more than the people wanted to accept. In contrast today's audience is much more of a captive audience and the authorities have stronger sanctions than in the past - therefore because they can be more demanding they are more demanding.
As for your second reply, I don't see what it has to do with my statement. I wasn't questioning Rav Moshe's various opinions and I am well aware of who he posuled. My point is that if Rav Moshe was asked a question, he answered it. Nowadays we get declarations on such things as: All "A" is forbidden. All "B" is not allowed. And there is no indication that the people making these announcements only intend it to be for their personal communities. There is a re-definition occuring that says that if you don't hold by the latest chumrah of the week, you are lacking in your Judaism
----------------------------
Perhaps we can simply agree that Rav Moshe was not perceived as imposing his will on people - while contemporary leaders are. This is possibly the result of the fact that the people don't accept the views of contemporary leaders as readily as they did Rav Moshe.
Rav Bulman once mentioned that in previous generations - post war America - the gap of knowledge between the rabbinic leaders and the average person was very great and was acknowledged as being very great. Now the average avreich is much closer in competence to the average rabbinic leader - and sometimes exceeds it - and he is fully aware of this. Hence the much greater resistance to accept something just because the leaders said it. The sheitel controversy is a clear example. The resistance to acceptance was primarily on halachic grounds.
Another way of putting it is that we don't have gedolim today - in the same way as 20 years ago. Rav Paperman once said that while Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation - woe is the person who knew Shmuel.
I will also agree with you in that gedolim in previous generations were more careful in chosing their battles. This was partially due to greater sensitivity - but also they had less power over the community. Because compliance was largely voluntary then - they could not demand more than the people wanted to accept. In contrast today's audience is much more of a captive audience and the authorities have stronger sanctions than in the past - therefore because they can be more demanding they are more demanding.
captive? stronger sanctions? What is this? George Orwell's 1984 realized in 5768?
ReplyDeleteMoshe Lerman wrote:
ReplyDeletecaptive? stronger sanctions? What is this? George Orwell's 1984 realized in 5768?
========================
It is difficult to have an adult discussion - when someone keeps spewing stereotypes and cliches. Why don't you try articulating your thoughts into sentence. There are plenty of blogs where you can find people who think exactly the way you do. This obviously is not one of them.
I am interested in solutions to problems - that requires hard work and willingness to understand life from a different persepctive. I encourage people to express their views - even if they strongly disagree with me. I have learned a lot from those who have made the effort to comment and criticize.
I wrote short but ocmplete sentences. My message to you is that the terminology that you used, and which I quoted, to describe today's situation in your eyes frightens me very much.
ReplyDeleteI am a Jew. I do not want to belong to any camp. I refuse to see Am Yisrael as divided into camps. Therefore, I do not divide blogs into blogs were I belong, and blogs were I do not belong. I am not writing to socialize. I am not looking for people who think the way I do. I wanted to let you know that what you wrote here is frightening to me. Honestly, very very, extremely, frightening.
R' Moshe Lerman wrote:
ReplyDeleteI wanted to let you know that what you wrote here is frightening to me. Honestly, very very, extremely, frightening.
-----------------------
Let me try again. In the world you live in - is the reality different than I described?
If so are you saying that a world where rabbis have real authority is frightening to you. Would prefer a world where everyone can do what they want and there is no community standard which is enforceable? Or are you saying that you want real rabbis who have real authority - but only if they think the same way you do?
Forcing others to play twenty questions is not the best way to have a discussion.
The Torah prescibes that binding decisions are those made by Rov in Sanhedrin. There are no other binding decisions. Individuals have no right to exercise sanctions to enforce their authority.
ReplyDeleteמשה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteThe Torah prescibes that binding decisions are those made by Rov in Sanhedrin. There are no other binding decisions. Individuals have no right to exercise sanctions to enforce their authority.
============================
Are you serious? The Sanhedrin ended according to the Ramban over 2000 years ago. The Mishna, Talmud, the rabbinic takanas, gezerus, community decrees, morah d'asra etc etc have no authority according to you?
Do you at least acknowledge that if you are part of the community - that the community has a right to establish standards? If the community has selcted a rav - do you have the right to ignore the rulings of the rav? If the country accepts someone as authoritative - can you say that you can not be forced to observe the ruling of that individual who has been accepted as authoritative?
If the morah d'asra demands that you comply with his rulings - are you saying that it is against the Torah for him to impose sanctions? Could you please give me a source for your assertion?
Or are you asserting that where there is more than one authoritive community or beis din or rav - they don't have to pay attention to each other?
Again you are not expressing yourself clearly.
You might want to look at Choshen Mishpat 2.
שולחן ערוך חושן משפט סימן ב
כל בית דין, אפילו אינם סמוכים בא"י, אם רואים שהעם פרוצים בעבירות (ושהוא צורך שעה) (טור), היו דנין בין מיתה בין ממון, בין כל דיני עונש, ואפילו אין בדבר עדות גמורה. ואם הוא אלם, חובטים אותו על ידי עובדי כוכבים. ( ויש להם כח להפקיר ממונו ולאבדו כפי מה שרואים לגדור פרצת הדור) (טור בשם הרמב"ם בפרק כ"ד מסנהדרין). וכל מעשיהם יהיו לשם שמים; ודוקא גדול הדור, או טובי העיר שהמחום ב"ד עליהם. הגה: וכן נוהגין בכל מקום שטובי העיר בעירן כב"ד הגדול, מכין ועונשין, והפקרן הפקר כפי המנהג; אעפ"י שיש חולקין וס"ל דאין כח ביד טובי העיר באלה, רק להכריח הצבור במה שהיה מנהג מקדם או שקבלו עליהם מדעת כולם, אבל אינן רשאים לשנות דבר במידי דאיכא רווחא להאי ופסידא להאי, או להפקיע ממון שלא מדעת כולם (מרדכי פ' הגוזל בתרא), מכל מקום הולכין אחר מנהג העיר; וכל שכן אם קבלום עליהם לכל דבר, כן נ"ל (ועיין בי"ד סימן רכ"ח דיני תקנות וחרמי צבור). כתבו האחרונים בתשובותיהם דמי שנתחייב מלקות, יתן ארבעים זהובים במקום מלקות (מהרי"ו סימן קמ"ז ומהר"ם מריזבורק); ולאו דינא קאמר, אלא שהם פסקו כך לפי שעה, אבל ביד הב"ד להלקותו או ליטול ממון כפי ראות עיניהם, לפי הענין, למגדר מלתא (וע"ל ריש סימן תכ"ה בהג"ה).
There is a Mitzva עשה לך רב. But this Mitzva is not unconditional. A Morah D'Asra can impose a psak on a community that accepts him, as long as the acceptance is there. There cannot be strong sanctions to repair problems with acceptance. Not without Sanhedrin.
ReplyDelete"The Mishna, Talmud, the rabbinic takanas, gezerus, community decrees, morah d'asra etc etc have no authority according to you?"
The generation of the Mishna was before Sanhedrin ended. After Sanhedrin ended, we did the best we could do in exile, and the reward for that is Siatta DiShamaya, and authority is a function of that. But we are no longer do the best we can do, and so the Siatta DiShamaya has gone.
Daniel, you say you are interested in solutions. To find the solutions, you have to understand the problems. See, the authorities you say are being less accepted, failed to submit to the body of authority that the Torah commands us to establish. I realize the conflict with the title of your blog, but the heavenly decree is one of Midah K'Neged Midah. The authorities you describe are destined to make erroneous decisions that will erode their authority. Sanctions will be of no avail. Their authority must implode. It is happening before our eyes.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteThere is a Mitzva עשה לך רב. But this Mitzva is not unconditional.
Where does it say that this is a mitzva? Pirke Avos is not generally viewed as a halacha sefer. It is advice not a mitzva.
===========================
ML wrote:
Morah D'Asra can impose a psak on a community that accepts him, as long as the acceptance is there. There cannot be strong sanctions to repair problems with acceptance. Not without Sanhedrin.
--------------------------------
If the community accepts a rav - then there does not need to be acceptance by everyone. Thus if you are part of that community - he can impose sanctions on you. It is also clear from the Shulchan Aruch I cited that someone recognized as a gadol can also impose sanctions.The Rema here also says that the leaders of the community are comparable to Sanhedrin and can impose sanctions on the community.
How do you understand the Shulchan Aruch?
In addition the Rashba (#280)says that every community functions like the Sanhedrin and can make decrees that are binding on on its members.
==========================
ML wrote:
The generation of the Mishna was before Sanhedrin ended.
-------------------------
This is not so. The Mishna was completed in the year 210 CE by R' Yehuda HaNasa. According to the Ramban the Sanhedrin was over 40 years before the Churban.
--------------------
ML
After Sanhedrin ended, we did the best we could do in exile, and the reward for that is Siatta DiShamaya, and authority is a function of that. But we are no longer do the best we can do, and so the Siatta DiShamaya has gone.
-----------------------
You are pulling things out of the air and making up your own halacha and hashkofa. Could you cite some sources for the above?
Bottom line - you seem totally oblivious to any scholarship in this area and are making pronouncements against the Shulchan Aruch.
Judaism is not a touchy-feely religion that everyone make ups according to what they like.
Oblivious to sholarship? Why don't you explain me this scholarship? I suggest you research when Sanhedrin was over.
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me that in your statement regarding the end of Sanhedrin you were probably referring to following statement of the Ramban (Gittin 36a):
ReplyDeleteועוד שמימי ר' הלל הנשיא שתקן לנו סדר מועדות וקדשן לדורות על פי מנין שאנו מונין בו שוב לא היה בארץ ישראל ב"ד ראוי לקדש
The rabbi Hillel Hanasi mentioned here is Hillel HaKatan, a descendant of Yehuda HaNasi. Hope it helps.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteOblivious to sholarship? Why don't you explain me this scholarship? I suggest you research when Sanhedrin was over.
=============================
It would be nice if you took the time to study the matter before making uninformed pronouncements. See the citation of the Ramban below.
Ramban(Comments to Sefer HaMitzvos Positive Mitzva #153): It is clearly known that the Sanhedrin ceased to function in Israel even prior to the Churban. In other words they no longer had the din of Sanhedrin. It states in Avoda Zara (8b) that forty years prior to the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was exiled from its place in the Temple and it no longer could judge capital cases. … From that time all the laws connected to Sanhedrin were nullified....
רבמ"ן (השגות לספר המצוות עשה קנ"ג): ...והנה דבר ברור ידוע הוא שב"ד הגדול בטל מא"י ואפילו קודם החרבן, ר"ל שלא היה בהם דין ב"ד הגדול, כמו שאמרו [ע"ז ח:] "ארבעים שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה סנהדרין ושבה לה בחנות, למאי חלכתא? לומר שלא דנו דיני נפשות, כיון דחזו דנפישי להו רוצחים אומר מוטב נגלה ממקום למקום דכתיב 'ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה'. ' (דברים יז ט) מלמד שהמקום גורם". כלומר שכל זמן שהסנהדרי גדולה במקומם בלשכת הגזית סנהדרי קטנה נוהגת בכל מקום אפילו בחוצה לארץ, ודנין דיני נפשות בכל מקום, אבל משכלתה סנהדרי גדולה מן המקום ההוא בטלו דיני נפשות מכל ישראל, ואפילו ביציאתם משם לטייל מעט ולחזור בטל כחן ורשותן מהם עד שיהיו במקומן כמו שאמרו [סנהדרין יד:] "מצאן אבית פאגי והמרה עליהם יכול תהא המראתו המראה, ת"ל 'וקמת ועלית אל המקום, מלמד שהמקום גורם". וכל שכן לאחר חורבן...ומאותה שעה בטלו כל הדינין התלוי בב"ד הגדול. ואם כן הדבר לא היו יכולין לקדש ע"פ הראיה מזמן הארבעים שנה קודם החרבן, וידוע הוא בכמה מקומות בגמרא שהיו עושין כך עד זמן קרוב לסתימת התלמוד, ובין בראיה בין בחשבון בזמן הרע הזה שאין בישראל סנהדרין ולא בית דין סמוכין כלל. ואין בחו"ל ב"ד שנסמך בארץ. לא יועיל חשבוננו שום תועלת בשום פנים כפי דברי הרב, שכבר נעדר מא"י בית דין שנסמך בארץ.
The Encyclopedia Talmudis brings the view of the rishonim who hold that the leading rabbis, courts and community leaders today - are to be viewed as Sanhedrin. Consequently they have to right to make and impose rules on the community.
ReplyDeleteאנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך ג, [בית דין הגדול] עמוד קפ טור 2
במקום בי"ד הגדול. בזמן הזה שאין לנו בי"ד הגדול, כתבו ראשונים שכל בי"ד חשוב שבדור נקרא בי"ד הגדול, ותמיד היו ממנים הגדול שבדור לנשיא, כמו שבני בתירא ירדו מנשיאותם ומינו את הלל נשיא לפי שהיה גדול מהם211, ולכך נקרא בי"ד הגדול, ואמרו: צדק צדק תרדוף, הלך אחד ר' אליעזר ללוד ואחר ר' מתיא בן חרש לרומי212, הרע שאפילו רומי נקרא בי"ד יפה כשאין למעלה הימנו213, וכשאמרו שבעל דין יכול לומר לחברו לבי"ד הגדול אלך להתדיין עמך ולא כאן214 נתכוונו לבי"ד הגדול בחכמה שבאותו הדור215, או בי"ד החשוב שכאותה עיר216, כמו שאמרו'217: שני אנשים שהיה להם דין בטבריה זה אומר בבי"ד הגדול שבעיר נתדיין וזה אומר בבי"ד הקטן שומעים לזה שאומר בבי"ד הגדול218. ויש סוברים שבי"ד הגדול שאמרו בבעלי דינים בי"ד הגדול שבירושלים הוא219, ואף בי"ד הגדול שבטבריה הוא בי"ד הגדול ממש מאותן עשר גלויות שגלתה סנהדרין220, אלא שאף לדעה זו בזמן הזה שאין בי"ד הגדול אבל יש מקומות שיש בהם חכמים גדולים מומחים לרבים ומקומות שיש בהם תלמידים שאינם כמותם יש להחכמים הגדולים דין בי"ד הגדול בנוגע לטענת בעל הדין שרוצה להתדיין דוקא בפניהם221.
כתבו ראשונים שכל צבור בעירם הם כבי"ד הגדול על כל ישראל, ורשאים לגדור ולתקן תקנות בעירם222.
Sanhedrin still existed for a few hundred years after the Churban, and still functioned in many ways. See e.g. Rambam Hilchot Kidush HaChodesh. Therefore, you cannot say there was no Sanhedrin in the time of Yehuda HaNasi. He was the Nasi of Sanhedrin!
ReplyDeleteThis is very relevant to our discussion. The authority of the Mishna derives from the authority of Sanhedrin. The Chatimah of the Talmud occurred after Sanhedrin stopped, which was in the time of Rav Ashi. There is a causal relationship between the two events. We accept the authority of the Talmud because it derives from the authority of Sanhedrin.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin still existed for a few hundred years after the Churban, and still functioned in many ways. See e.g. Rambam Hilchot Kidush HaChodesh. Therefore, you cannot say there was no Sanhedrin in the time of Yehuda HaNasi. He was the Nasi of Sanhedrin!
This is very relevant to our discussion. The authority of the Mishna derives from the authority of Sanhedrin. The Chatimah of the Talmud occurred after Sanhedrin stopped, which was in the time of Rav Ashi. There is a causal relationship between the two events. We accept the authority of the Talmud because it derives from the authority of Sanhedrin.
=======================
This is more like it. Testible assertions.
What do you do with the Ramban I cited - he clearly disagrees with you. Where are your sources for your assertions?
"The Encyclopedia Talmudis brings the view of the rishonim who hold that the leading rabbis, courts and community leaders today - are to be viewed as Sanhedrin. Consequently they have to right to make and impose rules on the community."
ReplyDeleteOnly Chazal can honestly be viewed as Sanhedrin (previous post). After the closing of the Talmud, becasue we could not establish Sanhedrin anymore, the view you cite became tenable, but obviously only in times we cannot do better. This condition is currently not satisfied, as I explained before. We can do a lot better. We can unite.
"What do you do with the Ramban I cited - he clearly disagrees with you. Where are your sources for your assertions?"
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam refers to the full authority of the Sanhedrin, which MiDoraita is coupled to Makom HaMikdash. He does not mean to say that all authority disappeared when Sanhedrin moved to Yavneh. This is obvious from the Ramban in Gittin 36a which I cited a segment of.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDelete"The Encyclopedia Talmudis brings the view of the rishonim who hold that the leading rabbis, courts and community leaders today - are to be viewed as Sanhedrin. Consequently they have to right to make and impose rules on the community."
Only Chazal can honestly be viewed as Sanhedrin (previous post). After the closing of the Talmud, becasue we could not establish Sanhedrin anymore, the view you cite became tenable, but obviously only in times we cannot do better. This condition is currently not satisfied, as I explained before. We can do a lot better. We can unite.
====================
Can you now state exactly what your point is? Do you agree that contemporary authorities have the halachic right to impose their will on the community members - as is clearly stated in Shulchan Aruch. Are you simply saying that the present situation isn't nice and gee I wish people would get along better?
Can I get a word in edgewise? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe point I have tried to make, and I had a whole series on this on my blog, is that traditionally most people asked shailohs of their personal Rav who knew them and their hashkafos. Halachah is not monolithic, there is no one-answer-fits-all-situations in many, many cases. Doesn't the Mishnah in Eduyos point that one somwhere? That sometimes the minority opinion just might be handy to have around?
And yes, Gedolim handled teshuvos but generally from communities and on major issues affecting most Jewish people.
I have no problem with Gedolim paskening for their communities, for their followers. But my problem is when they pasken for me because I didn't ask them to, nor did the community I belong to. To bring stupid examples: denim skirts, socks vs sandals for girls, metzitzah b'peh. All three, off the top of my head, have been subject to Daas Torah with the proclamation that henceforth the halachah is fixed for all Jews (forbidden, socks, no pipes) and anyone who goes against it is sinning against God Himself.
This kind of paskening is unprecedented and naturally those who recognize that halachah is not so shallow as to allow simple "yes" and "no" answers to complex questions are resistant to it.
My point is that there is no Heter for doing the wrong thing when there is no excuse for not doing the right thing.
ReplyDeleteAuthority is a function of acceptance, not the other way around. If you and I and your best friend make a Beit Din, does what you cited about the Shulchan Aruch apply to us? Obviously not in a simple way. Why not? Because we would not enjoy acceptance. Batei Din and other authorities act within their acceptance. By logic. Authorites cannot impose their authority on the public. That is a wrong thing. By logic. It need not be said explicitly.
The Torah's exception to this is Sanhedrin. Once accepted by Klal Yisrael, Sanhedrin has the right to impose authority. In the anbsence of Sanhedrin, in exceptional cases the need for authority can be so vital that the view that you cited from the Encyclopedia may be tenable. If we cannot do the right thing, there may be a Heter for doing the wrong thing. But it is still the wrong thing, nothing to be proud of. In our time, we have no excuse for not doing the right thing: unite. It is not a matter of a "gee" from my side. This is an obligation from the Torah.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteMy point is that there is no Heter for doing the wrong thing when there is no excuse for not doing the right thing.
Authority is a function of acceptance, not the other way around. If you and I and your best friend make a Beit Din, does what you cited about the Shulchan Aruch apply to us? Obviously not in a simple way. Why not? Because we would not enjoy acceptance. Batei Din and other authorities act within their acceptance. By logic. Authorites cannot impose their authority on the public. That is a wrong thing. By logic. It need not be said explicitly.
The Torah's exception to this is Sanhedrin. Once accepted by Klal Yisrael, Sanhedrin has the right to impose authority.
=======================
You keep ignoring the Shulchan Aruch C.M. 2 which I posted. It clearly states that the community authorities and rabbonim have the halachic authority as Sanhedrin- and can impose their will on others.
Once a rav, a gadol, a beis din has been accepted by a community - it has now acquired authority. It does not have to keep asking - "will you please accept my psak."
Now it is possible that if they upset those who have accepted them - there can be unacceptance. But if they have the acceptance of the powers of the community - they can impose their will on the minority.
BTW this was a major discussion between Rav Elchonon Wasserman and the Chazon Ish. There is also a major article by Rav Shlomo Fisher on the authority of acceptance. - which I hope to post in the near future.
In sum. Your assertion that only Sanhedrin has authority independent of acceptance is simply not true.
Click on the name of the poster, Moshe Lerman and you will link to his blog. Then you will get his point.
ReplyDeleteSee also:
The Talmud on Trial
Medieval Jewish-Christian Disputations
By Norman Roth
"The history of Jewish‑Christian contacts included confrontations and disputations almost from the very beginning of Christianity. This was inevitable for a religion, Christianity, that considered itself not only a "continuation" of Jewish tradition but indeed a replacement of it. Christianity thus is not so much a "branch” grafted onto the root as a new growth that entirely takes over the "rotten” branches of the original tree. Disputations took place already between Paul and Jews to whom he preached in his travels, and for that matter between Paul and the still Jewish disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem, before they acquiesced in his new religion."
"Conversions
In fact, the responses of the rabbis at the disputation were far from effective, with one or two exceptions. This, and the protracted duration of the debates, which exhausted the delegates and threatened to impoverish them, motivated many of them to convert in March of 1413, a month after the disputation had begun."
"The lack of leadership by the rabbis, and in fact the conversion of most of them, further demoralized the Jewish communities and contributed to the massive conversions that followed."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_community/Medieval/IntergroupTO/PopesandCouncils/Diputations.htm
The Oral Law and the authority of the Rabbis is clearly being put on trial via this blog.
> Once a rav, a gadol, a beis din has been accepted by a community - it has now acquired authority.
ReplyDeleteIn other words you're both saying the same thing. Reb Lerman is talking about acceptance of authority and you've talking about the right to use that authority. No community has to hire a Rav it doesn't want but once he's hired they have an obligation to follow his psak. I think this resolves most of the disagreement between you two. See,the problem arises when the Rav isn't hired but just shows up and starts giving orders because, well, he's the Rav!
The existential question that I have is in regards to cities like Jerusalem, Bnei Brak and even New York where you have more than one beit din. Each one busy with its own takanot and hashkafot. To whom is one actually bound? I am speaking in a case where one's rav is not from the area.
ReplyDelete"You keep ignoring the Shulchan Aruch C.M. 2 which I posted."
ReplyDeleteIt is a Heter for a wrong thing.
Bartley Kulp said...
ReplyDeleteThe existential question that I have is in regards to cities like Jerusalem, Bnei Brak and even New York where you have more than one beit din. Each one busy with its own takanot and hashkafot. To whom is one actually bound? I am speaking in a case where one's rav is not from the area.
==========================
This gets back to the original issue. Authority is dependent upon acceptance and acceptance is often predicated on convincing people that they need to accept. Most people who are part of a community or group - pick up the metarules for the system. You might want to read the introduction to Prof. Mitch Berger's book "Rabbinic Authority" on this topic.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDelete"You keep ignoring the Shulchan Aruch C.M. 2 which I posted."
It is a Heter for a wrong thing.
================================
If you really mean that the system post Sanhedrin is tellling us to do the wrong thing - i.e., only Sanhedrin has authority - then you are wasting my time. Rejecting the Shulchan Aruch has no place on this blog. Any future comments which assert that Judaism for the last 2000 years is inauthentic/invalid will be rejected. If I am misunderstanding you than please clarify.
You did not read what I wrote. The Heter is obviously valid under the proper circumstances.
ReplyDeleteמשה לרמן said...
ReplyDelete"You keep ignoring the Shulchan Aruch C.M. 2 which I posted."
It is a Heter for a wrong thing.
================================
DT If you really mean that the system post Sanhedrin is tellling us to do the wrong thing - i.e., only Sanhedrin has authority - then you are wasting my time. Rejecting the Shulchan Aruch has no place on this blog. Any future comments which assert that Judaism for the last 2000 years is inauthentic/invalid will be rejected. If I am misunderstanding you than please clarify.
----------------------
July 8, 2008 10:33 AM
Delete
Blogger משה לרמן said...
You did not read what I wrote. The Heter is obviously valid under the proper circumstances.
===============================
DT You are being cryptic. Are you saying the Shulchan Aruch doesn't mean what it says?
I am saying that the Shulchan Aruch describes a Heter. For something problematic. That is what a Heter is for, but this particular thing is very problematic. The Shulchan Aruch means what it says:
ReplyDeleteאם רואים שהעם פרוצים בעבירות (ושהוא צורך שעה)
With "wrong thing" I refered to previous posts. I have been arguing that the conditions for the Heter are not currently satisfied.
משה לרמן said...
ReplyDeleteI am saying that the Shulchan Aruch describes a Heter. For something problematic. That is what a Heter is for, but this particular thing is very problematic. The Shulchan Aruch means what it says:
אם רואים שהעם פרוצים בעבירות (ושהוא צורך שעה)
With "wrong thing" I refered to previous posts. I have been arguing that the conditions for the Heter are not currently satisfied.
===================
Why aren't they satisfied and who says they are not satisfied? Shulchan Aruch leaves it up to the judgement of the rabbis and community leaders. Are you disagreeing?
"This gets back to the original issue. Authority is dependent upon acceptance and acceptance is often predicated on convincing people that they need to accept. Most people who are part of a community or group - pick up the metarules for the system. You might want to read the introduction to Prof. Mitch Berger's book "Rabbinic Authority" on this topic."
ReplyDeleteLet me rephrase my question. When a person moves to a new city such as Toronto or Baltimore (I am using examples of communities where there is already an established beit din and only one beit din.)by default he must accept upon himself the authority of the leadership that was already established there. What ever takana the beit din makes is binding on that individual. This is not conditional of his acceptance. The community already accepted the authority of that beit din. However if one moves to a place like Jerusalem, because there are so many authorities on the ground there is no default acceptance on the individual as there would be in a town with one authority. Jerusalem is a very transitory place with people coming to learn there for years and then moving. People move there from all over the world.
In many cases an individual might have a local rav with whom he asks shailas to which in turn will organically connect him to all that this rav puts himself under including the beit din that he goes by. However in many cases one might not have any specific rav for shailos or his rav might live in chut'laretz. In my experience this is very common with Americans. There is no excisting single default authority in Jerusalem as there is in a place like Toronto. Different groups of people have accepted differant authorities in the same city. I spent years in Jerusalem davening at the kotel or Shteibalach without any particular loyalty to a shul or community even after I was married. The two main Rabbanim that I looked to for psak and advice were both apolitical and non affiliated as far as I knew. Neither of them would tell anybody who to vote for even when asked. Both would keep quite when there was a question of banning this or that set of shas. Nor would they comment on the heretic of the week. The only time they would have given instruction to listen to authorities was regarding kashrut issues. I know a lot of people like this.
When I moved to Toronto there was know question about who the authority was there. There is only one beit din there, hence one sheriff. Some chassidim actually set up there own beit din there with permission from the main one but they have in no way any default authority there.