https://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=266
In the course of presenting the opinions for and against a lenient ruling, Shapiro informs us that Weinberg’s opponents were, in large part, motivated by what he calls “meta-halachic” considerations. His use of the term, however, is so unclear as to be misleading.
Initially he characterizes “meta-halacha” as representing wider, subjective considerations, which are normally brought to bear in halachic decisionmaking: “Because such non-formal considerations are not grounded in explicit texts and cannot be refuted in the fashion of traditional halachic arguments, they may be referred to as ‘meta-halachic’ considerations.” Yet it is not long before Shapiro begins charging the term with a negative connotation: He distinguishes “meta-halachic” considerations, which are essentially “emotional and political,” from “pure halachic analysis.” The reader is left with the impression that Weinberg’s critics manipulated the halacha according to their own agendas, in disregard of the straightforward meaning of the textual sources.
Some people see the bigger picture, Torah Judaism as an organic, living entity with all the complexity that involves. They know a chumrah here leads to a kullah there and there has to be a proper balance. That was the Sridei Eish.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there are those who only see rules. Cold, dry rules to be applied as strictly as possible. No matter what the cost. And they're the dominant faction. Maybe that's why he was so isolated.