Rav Chaim Brisker - . Amora has the power to argue with a Tanna

 Contrary to the view of the Kesef Mishna and clearly at variance with Rav Elchonon Wasserman that the authority of a Tanna is that of Sanhedrin which an Amora can not reject. And also in disagreement with the Chazon Ish that the Tanna had greater knowledge of the truth than an Amora -  is Rav Chaim Brisker's view that theoretically an Amora can disagree with a Tanna but in general don't.

Rav Elchonon Wasserman[i](Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 170a #633): Rav said that the halacha is neither that of R’ Yehuda nor of R’ Yochanon. The Rashbam said that Rav was considered a Tanna and thus could disagree with other Tanaim. However Tosfos (Kesubos) says that R’ Yochanon disagreed with this halacha and since we have a rule that in a dispute between Rav and R’ Yochacon that we rule in accord with R’ Yochanon that means that Rav is not viewed as a Tanna and thus cannot argue with Tannaim. But this presents a question. How can it be that Rav is disagreeing with the Mishna here? This question I asked my teacher R’ Chaim Brisker and he answered, “That in truth an Amora has the power to disagree with a Tanna. This that we regularly find the Talmud rejecting the views of an Amora by simply showing that a Tanna rejects it – that is because as a general rule an Amora did not disagree with a Tanna. So if the Amora only knew the view of the Tanna we assume he would not disagree with it. However where we see that an Amora explicitly disagrees with a Tanna it is possible that the final halacha is in agreement with the Amora.”

Itamar massacre solved; 2 arrested

.

Itamar massacre solved; 2 arrested

via ynet - News on 4/17/11

Joint investigation of Fogel family murder by Shin Bet, IDF and police culminates in the arrest of two Palestinians. Both suspects admit involvement in terror attack; say they wanted to 'die martyrs' death'

.

Reb Elchonon answers Chazon Ish: Bottom up authority

Is It Murder If a Mom Withholds Cancer Treatment From Her Child?

Time

Imagine you are a single mother suffering from depression, overwhelmed with caring for an autistic, nonverbal and developmentally disabled son. If he were diagnosed with cancer, what would you do?

Kristen LaBrie, a Massachusetts mother, chose to disregard a prescribed chemotherapy regimen. On Tuesday, two years after her son, Jeremy, died  at age 9, a Superior Court jury declared her guilty of attempted murder.[...]

Rav Shlomo Fisher - authority is bottom up from acceptance of people

This is the first of 8 pages.

Everything given on Sinai - but not everything was given on Sinai?!

From Daas Torah (2nd  edition) - translations copyrighted - there are obviously many more sources concerning this matter.

Berachos (5a): Rav Levi bar Chama said  in the name of Reish Lakish: What is the meaning of the Shemos (24:12), “ And I gave you the stone Tablets, and the Torah and the Mitzvos which I wrote to teach them.” “The Tablets” is referring to the Ten Commandments. “Torah” is referring to the Five Books of Moshe, “Mitzvos” is referring to the Mishna, “Which I wrote” is referring to Prophets and Writings, “To teach them” is referring to the Talmud. Thus this verse teaches that all of these were given to Moshe at Sinai.

Torah Temima (Shemos 24:12.28): Look at Megila (19b) that learns that G d showed Moshe dikdukei Torah and dikdukei Sofrim and what the Sofrim would generate in the future…. The intent of these statements is that the halachos which would be generated in the future by means of hermeneutic principles and intellectual analysis were in fact inherently contained within the Torah that was given to Moshe. They do not literally mean that also the analyses that were used to generate these halachos were actually said to Moshe as some fundamentalist try to insert this meaning into the drashos I cited. They use these drashos as a banner and insist that the Talmud is saying that all the intellectual analysis as well as the discussion and evaluation that a student would say in the future - were literally already given to Moshe at Sinai. Even though it is self-evident that the intent of these statements is that only the basic laws that were used to generate the details in the future were given to Moshe and not the analysis itself and there is no need to prove this – nevertheless a reliable source that this is true is expressed by our Sages in Menachos (29b). There the greatness of Rabbi Akiva is described in the following manner. “When Moshe went up to Heaven to get the Torah he was shown the sages of every generation. He saw Rabbi Akiva interpreting every detail by means of intellectual analysis and Moshe did not understand what was going on and he got upset. However at some point Rabbi Akiva’s students ask him how he had derived a particular point, he answered that it was the halacha given to Moshe at Sinai. When Moshe heard this he felt better.” Thus we see an explicit proof that our Sages understood that only the fundamental halachos were said to Moshe… and that is why Moshe felt better when Rabbi Akiva said it was halacha given to Moshe at Sinai because that is superior to that which is generated by analysis… A clearer proof that Moshe was not literally given the intellectual analysis that would be used to generate the new halachos is found in Bamidbar Rabba (41), “Did Moshe in fact learn the entire Torah in 40 days. That is not possible since the Torah is described as being greater in size than the earth. Therefore what is meant is that Moshe learned the general principles at Sinai.” This doesn’t need further explanation. There is more to discuss about this general topic but what I have written is sufficient here.

Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 2): We have already explained in the Introduction to our Commentary to the Mishna that the majority of Torah laws were generated by the use of the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. Furthermore that such laws are sometimes the source of dispute amongst our Sages. However those laws and explanations of the laws which were transmitted by Moshe were never disputed. … The proof to this is Temura (16a) which states that,” 1700 laws derived from kal v’chomer and gezera sheva and dikdukay sofrim were forgotten in the days of mourning for Moshe. Neverthless Osniel ben Knaz rediscovered them through his analysis …” If this large amount is what was forgotten, than obviously the number of unforgotten laws that had been derived by analysis must have been considerably more. This large number of derived laws existed already in the time of Moshe since the forgetting of the 1700 derived laws occurred during the period of mourning for Moshe. Thus we have shown that even in the time of Moshe there were derived laws called dikdukei sofrim (the exactitudes of the Scribes). That is because all that was not heard explicitly at Sinai has been produced by the rabbis….

Rashi (Sukkos 28a): Kalim v’Chomrim – Torah laws deducible by use of kal v’chomer - since they that don’t require a tradition - were not explained at Sinai.

Shaloh (Toldos Adom Beis Chochma): All that which the sages of all generation have discovered was in fact received at Sinai from the Kol (sound) and it is not the result of human intellect and analysis. Thus in truth it was commanded in the Torah by means of Moshe (Devarim 17:11), “According to the Torah which you were taught and the laws which you were commanded to do, do not deviate from that which you were told right or left.” A person who doesn’t obey is deserving of death (Devarim 17:12).  This Kol was the great sound with did not end (yasaf)…In the Yerushalmi Peah (2:6) the Sages said that even what an experienced student would decide before his teacher was said on Sinai. Thus it is clear that all the words of the sages in every generation and all that they innovated and all their analysis is from Sinai. It is not from human intellect but from the divine intellect. They served merely to actualize the potential Torah which had been given at Sinai.

In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures

NYTimes

It is a question asked repeatedly across America: why, in the aftermath of a financial mess that generated hundreds of billions in losses, have no high-profile participants in the disaster been prosecuted?

Answering such a question — the equivalent of determining why a dog did not bark — is anything but simple. But a private meeting in mid-October 2008 between Timothy F. Geithner, then-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Andrew M. Cuomo, New York’s attorney general at the time, illustrates the complexities of pursuing legal cases in a time of panic.

At the Fed, which oversees the nation’s largest banks, Mr. Geithner worked with the Treasury Department on a large bailout fund for the banks and led efforts to shore up the American International Group, the giant insurer. His focus: stabilizing world financial markets. [...]