July 19, 2013 at 9:41 pm #610123
According to the esteemed talmidei chachamim of the CR, what is the halachic status of the Aruch Hashulchan? Why was the Mishnah Berurah picked to be the sefer followed l’halacha? Is it still okay for one to follow what the Aruch says?
Also, usually the MB is pretty machmir and does not like to pick sides in machlokos rishonim. I’m learning Aruch Hashulchan in orach chaim and I see that he does this ALL THE TIME!
Just recently, I learned an aruch (in O.C. 176:1 for those interested) where he claims that the Rema is wrong, and that because there is a safek in the Bavli, we follow the Yerushalmi (he loves the yerushalmi for some reason)!!!!!!!!!! Voz iz dos?
July 19, 2013 at 10:03 pm #1061504
Until very recently, the AH was the ultimate.
One of the reasons why the MB took over was due to the ease of reading the MB over the AH.
In Europe, the AH was used as the guide and indeed R’ Moshe says to use the AH.
One of the reasons is that the AH was written later and includes some MB comments, also the AH was a posek while the MB is at times more theoretical.
July 19, 2013 at 10:41 pm #1061505
THE MB HAS GENERALLY BEEN USED AS THE DEFAULT “GO TO” AS FINAL PSAK ALMOST SINCE IT WAS PUBLISHED.
July 19, 2013 at 10:56 pm #1061506
The Chafetz Chaim didn’t always personally follow his own ruling, since he had a Messora. Don’t just pick a Shita. Discuss these issues with your Rov.
July 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm #1061507
“the AH was a posek while the MB is at times more theoretical.”
The difference is like the difference between Rav Moshe and Rav Soloveitchik. R’Epstein and R’Moshe were poseks; The Chafetz Chaim and The Rav were rosh yeshivas. Rav Henkin z’tz’l also held that we should prefer the Aruch HaShulchan.
“he claims that the Rema is wrong”
The Aruch HaShulchan is far from unique in saying that the Rema should not be followed; for example the Vilna Gaon rules contrary to the Rema on a regular basis.
“he loves the yerushalmi for some reason”
Not clear what the problem with the Yerushalmi is, or why we would not follow it, especially when the psak of the Bavli is unclear. But we clearly do not do regularly follow the Yerushalmi.
July 20, 2013 at 6:58 pm #1061508
CM- thats yeshivishly inaccurate. if you ask any RY over 50, they will tell you that the AH or the chayei adam can be relied on to use as a final psak. it isnt even kluhr the MB meant to decide every case he brings down. youre simply wrong.
July 21, 2013 at 2:38 am #1061509
The MB’s approach is more textually-grounded; the AhS is more inclined to allow leniency on the basis of human need or what is observed socially (ie. he offers more limudei zechut, typically). AhS allowing people to feed birds on Shabbat Beshalach, or allowing hashma’at kol on shabbat, etc. are examples of this.
July 21, 2013 at 3:42 am #1061510
The Aruch HaShulchan was generally followed in the Frum world until World War II. For some reason, the post-Holocaust age turned towards the Mishnah B’rurah. I have heard several theories as to how that came to be, but it is pretty clear that the war was the start of the turning point. Find a Rav. But if you can’t have a Rav (or you don’t have a Rav accessible for every Shailah), then there should be nothing wrong with following the Aruch Hashulchan, so long as you always follow him no matter what the case.
July 21, 2013 at 4:44 am #1061511
I’d say that the acceptance of the MB over AhS is one example proving Prof. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s “Rupture and Reconstruction” theory correct.
July 21, 2013 at 4:52 am #1061512
I’ve never heard the Aruch Hashulchan referred to as the Aruch.
Disagreeing with a Rema is not the Aruch Hashulchan’s chiddush.
July 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm #1061513
The Aruch Hashulchan paskens that you can turn on a light on Yom Tov. Nobody agrees to that.
July 21, 2013 at 12:49 pm #1061514
pixelate: I’ll take your word that he says that (I’m not aware of it offhand), but things like that should be obvious that you can’t hold by nowadays. Many of his contemporaries said the same. They just didn’t know how electricity worked. He also says that it’s healthy to smoke and recommends doing it. Once again, many of his contemporaries agreed because they didn’t know it was bad for you.
July 21, 2013 at 1:47 pm #1061515
Pixelate, that is an exaggrration. While that is not the normative haalcha there are a few (mainly Sephardic) poskim who agree. Rav Ovadia says not to make an issue of it if one sees a community where it is done. In any case, when I asked a rav the question on the virtual floor he told me “min haShamayim”. However, there are poskim who rely on the AS. It’s a matter of mesoret.
July 21, 2013 at 4:31 pm #1061516
I think Sam2 has the right idea. Based on the AH’s understanding of electricity, it is nothing more than extending Aish; the electrical current. The Chazon Ish,(a great and hidden scientist in his own right) vehemently disagreed, and rightly forbade flipping a light switch because of the Issur of Boneh, since you are creating a new circuit.
I have never heard that Rav Ovadia said Ein Limchos with regard to this. If the AH would have fully understood electricity, there is no question he would have agreed.
July 21, 2013 at 5:53 pm #1061517
reb doniel, thank you for directly answering the question and I like your theory that it’s an example of the surge in didactic learning in the frum velt, especially after the war.
Sam2: What are some of those theories? Would you agree with RD?
Some questions remain. Why does the Aruch Hashulchan rely on the Yerushalmi when for centuries the Bavli has been the classic primary halachic text?
Also, many a time the Mishnah Berurah will refrain from issuing a psak on a shailah and instead just say it’s good to be machmir. He is very uncomfortable with picking shitahs among the rishonim. On the other hand, the Aruch Hashulchan does that regularly.
To sum up, which sefer should be followed, and why?
July 21, 2013 at 6:19 pm #1061518
pixelate and others: in the early days of electricity, there were a number of very big Poskim who allowed it to be used on Yom tov. The “Maharsham’ (the gaon of Brezhan,Rav Schwadron) held that way. I am of the impression thatR’Chaim Ozer grodzinsky was of the same view, although i am not sure about him.In any case, even if you accept some of the reasons for electricity (mav-ir, boneh, mevashel), it is only on shabbos that it is ossur- there may be many hetterim for yom tov, because of “ho’il”.
BTW- In Poland, galicia, Hungary and the like, the “Mogen Avrohom” was (still is) the psssok upon one relies. In Russia, it was the shulchan aruch Horav. The mishneh berurah-and the aruch hashulchan-were of lithuanian origin and were not well know elsewhere.
July 21, 2013 at 6:26 pm #1061519
pixelate: No. That is not true at all. There are many Poskim nowadays who strongly disagree with the Chazon Ish (many hold that R’ Shlomo Zalman properly refuted him) and they would not hold of this. Because there is some problem with turning on electricity based on what we know nowadays. It’s a big Machlokes exactly what, but even if you don’t hold of Boneh then it’s still Assur to turn a light on on Yom Tov. R’ Shlomo Zalman and his Talmidim don’t hold that it’s Muttar. By your logic they should.
Also, the Chazon Ish did not hold that the Boneh was because you created a new circuit. That is a massively widespread misunderstanding of the Chazon Ish. See the Tzitz Eliezer who goes out of his way to point this out numerous times, basically in any T’shuvah discussing electricity on Shabbos.
July 21, 2013 at 7:48 pm #1061520
rf: You’re asking us to put our heads between these mountains? The Aruch Hashulchan’s style speaks to some people more. The M”B’s to others. Neither is inherently better or worse.
July 21, 2013 at 8:05 pm #1061521
It is interesting to me that thematically, the Yerushalmi is far less textual or objective than the Bavli, for starters. Yerushalmi many times is concerned with observing people’s conduct and codifies observations of what people are noheg to do. Tosafot very often reads Ashkenazic minhagim and more Yerushalmi-based practices into the canon, and AhS, like Tosafot (and even the Ra’avad), is often concerned with paskening in a less textual manner. AhS is concerned with what people are noheg to do (see his limmudei zechut on women’s hair covering, hashma’at kol on shabbat, bedikat tolaim, cantors using tuning forks on Shabbat- which the MB was against, eruvin, etc.) MB seems to be closer to the principles inherent in the Rambam’s approach, IMHO.
AhS is very much lekula in his psakim, and the very fact that he was a communal rav and not a rosh yeshiva is probably a testament to this fact; AhS is more concerned with popular practice than a more academic style, and he has fealty to established custom, even when it is in conflict with theoretical halakha. The Gra was very opposed to this type of approach, hence the fact that the MB is very much reliant on the more Talmudically-based Gra in many areas. If my theory or observation is faulty, I’d accept other views.
July 21, 2013 at 8:18 pm #1061522
Sam2 See the Tzitz Eliezer who goes out of his way…
OK, will see.
July 21, 2013 at 9:44 pm #1061523
If you do not have the requisite knowledge to answer a question for yourself then follow whoever you are more comfortable with, but be consistent.
July 21, 2013 at 10:51 pm #1061524
Rebdoniel, the A.H. never offered a limud zechus on women not covering their hair. Seconly, it is wrong to say about a Gemorah that it’s “less objective”. I can explain your statement in an non-offensive way, but still you have to be careful about what you say.
ROB, a historical-geographical correction. When we speak about (the Jewish) Russia, Lita is the northern half of it with the Ukraine(minus eastern Galicia) being the second.
July 22, 2013 at 3:05 am #1061525
Yitay: That reminds me of something that I once said. You can pick one Posek out of the 3 major ones from the previous era (M”B, AH”SH, and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch) as long as you’re consistent. And if you learn the entirety of all 3 of them to search for who’s the most Meikel, that’s fine. Because by the time you’re done you probably know enough to Pasken for yourself anyway.
July 22, 2013 at 3:21 am #1061526
Sam2, it is wrong to search for the most meikal shittah unless it’s shas ha’dchak.
July 22, 2013 at 4:16 am #1061527
If you re-read my comments, than you’d see that I said that DEVIATING from a Talmudic standard results in a less textually-grounded approach and one more rooted in social need.
If you say that the keriat shema can be said around a married woman with uncovered hair, than that sounds a lot like saying that in this day and age, based on social reality, a married woman’s hair is not considered ervah. If that’s not a limmud zechut, what is?
July 22, 2013 at 6:17 pm #1061528
Rebdoniel, he clearly writes that women must cover their hair. It’s de’Oraisa. As far as the issue of men’s hirhurim when saying Shma he is lenient about the hair of a married woman in his time and place. And it would not apply to other body parts btw.
July 22, 2013 at 7:25 pm #1061529
Just follow your Rav. I think both the Aruch Hashulchan and Mishna Berura would agree on that.
July 23, 2013 at 3:40 am #1061530
Why was the Mishnah Berurah picked to be the sefer followed l’halacha?
I think it is because our generation perceives Roshei Yeshivah as being greater than Poskim.
July 23, 2013 at 4:41 am #1061531
mdd: You missed my point. If “searching for Kulos” means learning the entirety of these 3 Seforim, then by the time you’re done searching you’ll know enough when to be Meikel and when to be Machmir.
July 23, 2013 at 4:53 am #1061532
Dash@- Actually, Roshei yshiva are not Poskim at all. The vast majority of shaalos and treshvos are answred by rabbonim, not Roshei Yeshiva. They are too sheltered from reality.
July 23, 2013 at 5:48 pm #1061533
Mishna berurah is easier to learn and it is accompanied by the SA.
July 23, 2013 at 7:54 pm #1061534
I think a major reason is because one need not “learn” the mishna berura, just read it and see the psak. The arush hashulchan on the other hand is really a summary of the sugya.
July 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm #1061535
My father asked Rav Shlomo Zalman why the oilam uses Mishna berura over aruch hashulchan and he answered because the chafetz chaim put more ameilus into making the mishna berura (like chazering everything 35 times) But my father is unclear if he meant therefore the psak of the MB is more authoritative or min hashamayim it was more niskabel by the velt because of the yegiah.
July 23, 2013 at 10:11 pm #1061536
Sam2, I think learning only those 3 is not enough to know how to pasken.
July 23, 2013 at 11:03 pm #1061537
“he clearly writes that women must cover their hair. It’s de’Oraisa.”
Machloket poskim whether it is d’oraita or d’rabbanan, and there are a few opinions out there among acharonim that say that it is minhag. (Not the MB or A”H.)
July 24, 2013 at 12:33 am #1061538
-“Actually, Roshei yshiva are not Poskim at all. The vast majority of shaalos and treshvos are answred by rabbonim, not Roshei Yeshiva. They are too sheltered”
Of course R M Feinstein, R Yaakov Kamenetzky, R Shloima Zalman Auerbach were all Roshei Yeshiva, I am glad you think they were not poskim.
Perhaps you are speaking about your circles, so your point of reference would be R J B Soloveitchik or MD Tendler.
July 24, 2013 at 12:51 am #1061539
Charliehall,Gemora in Kesuvos 72A says it is. Who holds it’s de’rabbonon or a minhag? One always can find a shitta which holds of some far–off kula or chumra that we don’t psken like.
July 24, 2013 at 3:58 am #1061540
‘I’d say that the acceptance of the MB over AhS is one example proving Prof. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s “Rupture and Reconstruction” theory correct.’
“Rupture and Reconstruction” which may have had just a bit of use when published in ’94,is very dated and a laugher that still it is quoted by modox.
Besides, his contradictory statements and his conclusions based on ignorance…but go ahead
July 24, 2013 at 4:04 am #1061541
“R’Chaim Ozer grodzinsky was of the same view,”
hmm…R’Chaim Ozer Grodezensky specifically made havdalah on an incandescent bulb ,lest anyone come and say he allowed it’s use..
‘I think a major reason is because one need not “learn” the mishna berura, just read it and see the psak. The arush hashulchan on the other hand is really a summary of the sugya.’
plus one could rather easily misunderstand unless contemplated
July 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm #1061542
About Time : You are drinking too much. I have no clue where you find the things you write about me (on this and other threads) and clearly you never learned the “chofezt chaim” . Check it out,it is a good sefer!
And- btw- I clearly said that “I think” that it was R”Chaim Ozer who also held that electricity is muttor on yomtov,so you are barking up the wrong tree.It is also not a contradiction to use it for havdalah (I will have to trust you on that-unfortunately)
I also suggest you read the posts carefully- I mentioned “YOM TOV”, not shabbos, and I clearly gave the reason why. So, before you accuse me of being an “am hooretz”, learn the sugyas. Remember, “Kol hapossel, bemumo possel”
July 24, 2013 at 1:31 pm #1061543
nishtdayngesheft, it’s funny how you try to insult the MO but you end up insulting yourself. One of the reasons given for using the AH over the MB is indeed because the AH was on the ground paskening.
It has been said that one of the reasons why there is a slide to the right is because we are now using Roshey Yeshiva and not Rabbonim to pasken shailos. It’s not very good to pasken based on theoretics.
July 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm #1061544
nishddayngesheft: You fall prey to the same illusion that so many of your generation fall to. Life and Shaalos and teshuvos did NOT start with the last twenty years. For your information,it has a long history , going back almost two thousand years.I wrote “the vast majority of Poskim”- I did not say all. If you take a look at the Poskim of previous generations, you will see that the vast majority (maybe all), were Rabbonim of towns, not Poskim.
Even the Poskim that you mention (R”Moshe, R’Yaakov) were Rabbonim of towns way before they became Roshei yeshiva. Even “leshitoshcho”, I can quote a long list of present day Poskim and they were all Rabbonim of towns, not Roshei Yeshiva (Rav Ovadia Yossef shelita, the “minchas Yitzchok”, Rav Wosner shelita, Rab Zvi pessach frank and many ,many others)
July 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm #1061545
rob- reb chaim ozer writes bfeirush it is assur on tom tov- see http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8861&st=&pgnum=6
July 24, 2013 at 6:12 pm #1061546
About Time: R’ Chaim Ozer made Havdalah on the bulb to show that he held that a burning filament was a real fire, not just to show that you couldn’t use it on Shabbos.
July 24, 2013 at 6:16 pm #1061547
I am quite aware that they were Rabbonim also. However they defined themselves primarily as RY. And your comment, which I quoted earlier, effectively said the two are mutually exclusive.
And please do not make any suppositions about me, because apparently you live in a fantasy world of your own.
July 24, 2013 at 6:37 pm #1061548
ROB and Truthsharer, it is a false and dangerous precept that there could be a legitimate difference between theory and life in Halochah. What you probably heard about is that some Poskim would try more to justify questionable practices than some other Poskim. But it is not so good as you imply as sometimes the justifications could be good ones while at other times — not so. So one can end up with a questionable practice with not-really-valid post factum justifications.
July 24, 2013 at 6:38 pm #1061549
nishtdayngeshfet: You quote the two geonim (R”Moshe and R’Yaakov) who may have considered themselves Roshei Yeshiva -and I am not even sure if they did. (I am not even sure if you can consider R”yyakov zz’l a Possek). You are right that I wrote a definite statement,that “Roshei yeshiva are not Poskim”. Allow me to amend that to- the vast majority of actual shaalos uteshuvos are from Rabbonim of kehillos. I mentioned some of them, I can mention many more, while you will have difficulty finding many illustrious Roshei Yeshiva that were Poskim.
I am not sure what fantasy world I live in. I back up what I say.
July 24, 2013 at 6:47 pm #1061550
What I was told is that in pre-war Europe and the US, the AH was considered to be the authoritative Posek. Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L, though, favored the MB – which is why it gained a following in the “Yeshiva Velt” after the war. As a result, the MB has now come to be viewed in the US as more authoritative than the AH.
I heard this from an old Talmid of R’ Dovid Leibowitz, who grew up in the US and saw this change happen.
an Israeli Yid
July 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm #1061551
nisht- im not arguing on your position, but how Edited do you know how they primarily defined themselves? ver hut eich gizugt?
July 24, 2013 at 7:54 pm #1061552
chacham: I thank you for finding this letter. I did no say categorically that R”Chaim Ozer was one of the makilim. I only had a thought about it. I do know that the Maharsham (the gaon of Brezahn, Rav Shwadron) who was considered THE Possek in Galicia, POland and Rumania allowed it on yomtov.
My question on R’Chaim Ozer zz’l ,if it is “mavir” why is it ossur on yomtov? You are allowed to make a fire on yomtov, and ,at the minimum, you can use “ho’il”.
You should also know that R”Shlomo Zalman (to whom this letter is addressed) thought thst using a microphone (on shabbos mind you!)is only miderabbbonon (check Rav Ovadia Yossef’s shelita, teshuvos)
Thank you for providing the letter (an assist to hebrew books!)
July 24, 2013 at 7:59 pm #1061553
mdd- thank for being courteous in your reply! However, I do not understand your response. The thousands of Poskim who had the responsibility of paskening throughout history had to deal with real life and real problems. Often, they adjusted their teshuvos to the circumstances (shaas hadchak, hefsed merubah,etc)Check any teshuvos and you will find a keen acceptance of circumstances.
In yeshiva (a very modern phenomenon, btw) one cound pasken in theory and disregard the consequences. You could not do this in real life.
July 24, 2013 at 11:21 pm #1061555
ROB, life does not override Halochah, chas ve’sholom. There are leniencies within Halochah for difficult situations. If we allow something be’shas hadchak etc. it is because there is enough “theoretical” basis (shittos/shittah) to allow it. If there is not, it is ossur.
Secondly, it is ossur de’rabbonon to make a new fire on Yom Tov.
July 25, 2013 at 2:04 am #1061556
mdd: Thank you for your reply. I think that you have a skewed impression of halcoho.No one is saying that you should be mattir something that is obviously ossur, that is ridiculous. But you find in teshuvos that the Possek finds kulos to answer certain questions and uses a variety of life situations- from hefsed merubbah to shaas hadechak, to agunos, etc…to pasken in a certain way, evenb if theoretically one could pasken otherwise.
As far as electricity on yom tov- you are saying that the lighting of a bulb (for example) is “nolad’ which, as you indicate, would be ossur. But the current is already stored and it is not nolad. OR- how about dimming a light on yom tov? the light is there, you only change its intensity and, if you want to say that it is mechabeh shelo lezorach, how about raising the strength of a light? That, surely should be muttar!
July 25, 2013 at 3:32 am #1061557
mdd: While you are completely correct in theory, history bears witness to what rob is saying. If you look at the T’shuvos throughout history, you see a different type of N’tiah in those who were actually involved in the community than those who just learned. It’s not looking for Kulas or finding extra Sha’as Hadchaks or anything like that. It’s that those who lived in the Tirchos of the Tzibbur had a different outlook on life, just like’s everyone’s experiences in life affect the way that they learn every Sugya. That’s why HKBH gives us lives and Nisyonos and situations instead of just putting us in rooms to learn 24/7.
July 25, 2013 at 3:59 am #1061558
ROB – no thanks to you for your reply. It is you who has a skewed MO am-haaretz view on Halochah.
Sam2, even if it’s true about certain Poskim, who said they were right?
July 25, 2013 at 4:06 am #1061559
ROB and Sam2, there is such a thing as straightness, namely — not twisting the Torah to satisfy demands of kalim.
July 25, 2013 at 4:12 am #1061560
Sam2, your reply is self-contradictory. That “different outlook” is exactly that which you mentioned “looking for kulos and finding extra shaas ha’dchaks”.
July 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm #1061561
mdd: Well, for the life of me, I wonder why you could not be more courteous and avoid insults. But leave that aside, all you have to do is look at the actual teshuvos. Not every time does a Possek ‘pasken lekuloh’ but you find an overwhelming amount of reliance on the many aspects of daily life that I mentioned (shaas hadechak, hefsed merubbah….etc) I am not sure why you are so vehement about this, as the evidence is overwhelming against you. It is not a question of “kalim”, it is a question how to pasken when faced with certain circumstances and Rabbonim were faced every day with difficult circumstances, in choshen mishpot, jore deah, even ho-ezer and orach chaim!
July 25, 2013 at 3:05 pm #1061562
ROB is correct in a sense. Halakha does contain meta-halakhic values, which poskim do operate within. Torah is perfect, but the human condition is not perfect. People are imperfect. We’re fragile, we’re weak, we succumb to temptation and changing tides of social mores. Our most courageous poskim found ways to enfranchise all and give all of klal yisrael a place at the table, so to speak. Some of these approaches go a little beyond what we may believe to be correct, but nonetheless, they reflect a degree of being attuned to needs and realities.
The Rema allowed Moravian Jews to consume gentile wine.
Rav Chaim Hirschensohn allowed Jewish men, otherwise observant, to shave with a T-Razor.
Rav Yosef Messas argued that a mechallel shabbat can still be trusted for his kashrut, among other psakim many of you would call him a Conservative Jew for.
The Rambam allowed a man to convert his gentile lady of the house to guard him from the sin of intermarriage, even though she wouldn’t be observant.
Perusing responsa demonstrates that poskim were often unafraid to test the limits of the halakha in such a way as to make it relevant and accommodating to the needs of the human condition.
July 25, 2013 at 5:36 pm #1061563
ROB, you attacked me first. If you don’t want to understand ( just re-read my posts and think about them), I can’t help you. There is no evidence against me.
Rebdoniel, A happy YU/JTC day!
July 25, 2013 at 6:16 pm #1061564
mdd: I will refrain from saying anything “ad hominem”, so thay your sensitivity does not get bruised. let’s get back to halochos and shaalos uteshuvos.
I do not have the erudition of rebdoniel and/or deep research, but you are wrong to assume that his sources are not valid. I’ll give you two examples for people that you surely must respect.
The Nodah Bejehudah ultimately gives a hetter to shave chol hamoed (well known kuloh) and R”moshe zz’l agrees. Don’t you think this is due to adapting to the circumstances?
R”Dovid Hoffman zz’l ,in his teshuvos “melamed leho’il” allows a gentile woman to convert,even though it is because she wants to marry a jew. (he does it a number of times). Isn’t that adapting to circumsatances? (R”dovid says as much).
There are numeous kulos that have been used for agunos, especially during the two world wars. Don’t you think this is adapting to circumstances?
I could do more research and show more sources but you get the idea. Poskim throughout history have used circumstances to pasken. In yeshivos, you can afford to remain aloof and untouched by life circumstances. Not so to Rabbonim and Poskim.
July 25, 2013 at 6:22 pm #1061565
thats pretty funny. i post the word heck on here at least once a week. this time i got edited. and the word in the butcher article wasnt edited. aha.
July 25, 2013 at 7:41 pm #1061566
Just to be clear, anyone who can actually read the T’shuvos sees that the Rema was never Mattir anyone to drink Stam Yeinam. He says so explicitly. Repeating that the Rama was Mattir Stam Yeinam for Moravian Jews is misrepresenting Halachah and being Motzi Shem Ra. Not only that, it is Megaleh Panim Shelo KaHalachah because it denies the important K’lal that the Rama is actually trying to present in that T’shuvah.
July 25, 2013 at 8:14 pm #1061567
Sam2- Instinctively, I side with you on the Rema. However, as ‘rebdoniel’ seems to have a source , can you enlighten us which teshuva that might be?
To rebdoniel- any source for your assumption?
July 25, 2013 at 8:58 pm #1061568
You can take a look at hebrewbooks.org and look for the Coco-Cola shailah. The rabbi said that “it’s not possible for Jews to drink treife, so I will see if I can find a way to make it kosher.”
Because this wasn’t academic but reality, he “found” a heter.
Had it been academic, a rosh yeshivah would have just said, “assur.”
This is another reason why the slide to the right is happening, since a majority of the gedolim are RY and not poskim/shul rabbis (which is another article, how people are not utilizing shul rabbanim anymore) the slide is inevitable.
July 25, 2013 at 9:17 pm #1061569
The Rema finds reasons to permit the drinking of wine made by Gentiles, but it is not because he thinks that the practice is indeed permitted. As he says there, he was faced with the fact that the Jews of Moravia drank wine produced by Gentiles and that their rabbis permitted it. He therefore wanted to show that there was a “slight” reason to permit the wine, “even though it is not according to custom and law,” so that other Jewish communities
would not classify the Moravian Jews as sinners and so that their rabbis would not be those who knowingly lead others astray but
rather those who stumble in understanding the words of the Torah.
Furthermore, even then the grounds for permitting wine made by
Gentiles were specifically in regard to a case when all other drinks were contaminated.
I should have been more precise in my wording above. The teshuva nonetheless does demonstrate a sense of dynamism and responsiveness to the needs of the Moravian Jews.
July 25, 2013 at 9:54 pm #1061570
truthsharer: you hit it on the head! Roshei Yshiva are wonderful people but are not involved in everyday life and this is lacking today in many of the gedolim!
July 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm #1061571
rob: It’s T’shuvas HaRama Siman 104 or 105, if I recall correctly.
And mdd, truthsharer gave a perfect example of what I was referring to. R’ Moshe’s Shittah on Chalav Yisrael is probably a similar example. (Though I would word it slightly differently. I would say that Poskim think, “It’s not possible that so many Jews are drinking Trief; therefore I will make sure to prove that it’s Muttar.”
July 25, 2013 at 10:53 pm #1061572
I’d also suggest reading what Jacob Katz has to say about this teshuva (#124, which was omitted from later versions of the Rema). The outcome was that drinking the stam yenam shouldn’t be seen as something that makes the Moravian Jews sinners. The Rema does, in fact, cite as a reason for writing the teshuva that evildoers are likely to point out that the Moravian Jews are not being punished by the Almighty for their deeds, and use this fact as “proof” that drinking stam yaynam is in fact permissible! It’s an interesting case study, but one which demonstrates a creative halakhic approach to save Jews from being cast as sinners.
Someone above accused the poskim I cited as being “YU/JCT.” I don’t make up these facts, but observing the motivations and outcomes of these decisions shows that great rabbis have exercised creativity and flexibility in addressing these concerns. I don’t always agree with the arguments or the psakim, but this is an undeniable fact about the history of halakha.
July 26, 2013 at 2:34 am #1061573
rebdoniel and Sam2- it is teshuvo 124 and you can find in hebrewbooks.org (after some search). The Remo does NOT say that ‘stam jeinom’ is ossur. He tries very hard not to accuse the Moravian jews of being “ovrei aveirah’ and therefore not to be believed. Hence, he finds a hetter for them (see teshuvo)to pasken like shmuel and rabbeinu TaM).Actually, it is an absolute proof to what has been said forever, that Poskim do find ways to use a hetter if circumstances need it. In moravia,circumstances needed it, but elsewhere not!
July 26, 2013 at 2:40 am #1061574
My husband says:
Charliehall: “Not clear what the problem with the Yerushalmi is, or why we would not follow it, especially when the psak of the Bavli is unclear. But we clearly do not do regularly follow the Yerushalmi.”
In the Megilas Ester (the perush on the Rambam, not the sefer in Tanakh) on the shorashim preceding the Sefer HaMitzvos (shoresh #6), he says that the Rambam will posken like the Yerushalmi or Midrashei Halacha (Sifra and Sifre) when the halacha is not clearly resolvable based on the Bavli.
Here’s an example of poskening like the Sifra. The Sifra interprets the pasuk from which we derive the halachos of ona’ah (“ki tikneh me’amisecha… -Vayikra 25:14) to also mean that we should prefer buying from Jews over goyim, even at a (slight?) financial loss. The Chofetz Chayim brings this down l’halacha with respect to etrog suppliers. Etrog suppliers are supposed to buy from Jewish wholesalers rather than goyishe wholesalers, and that is because of this Sifra. (Sha’arei Tziyun OC 648:76).
July 26, 2013 at 3:09 am #1061575
The Rambam outlines his methodology at the beginning of the MT. He clearly says that he will pasken based on midrashie halakha or even the occasional Yerushalmi.
His claim that women cannot serve in positions of serarah, for instance, is based on a Sifre (Devarim), albeit most likely a corrupt manuscript.
Likewise, the Rambam paskens that we lay tefillin on Hol haMoed, since the Yerushalmi says so explicitly, whereas the Bavli is ambivalent (the Kesef Mishne, IIRC, argues that because the Bavli says we don’t write safut on Hol haMoed, this should mean we also don’t lay tefillin then).
July 26, 2013 at 3:24 am #1061576
rob: No. Absolutely not. He does not in any way say it’s Muttar. He says that they have a S’vara and are Moreh Heter, which (even though they are wrong) makes them not Chashudim Al Hadavar and therefore don’t have a Din of Lo Dano V’lo M’ido.
July 26, 2013 at 3:42 am #1061577
There are many psakim I’ve read in the teshuvot which fall out of what we think of as “Orthodox,” because “Orthodoxy” is a novelty in the history of the Jewish people. Not allowing what is permitted al pi din for sectarian purposes defines much of the policy stances taken by today’s Orthodox rabbis.
I’ve been looking into the organ issue recently, for instance. While Ashkenazic rabbis opposed its use on the grounds of chukat hagoy (if having instruments during tefillah is chukat hagoy, then I guess all of the Carlebach minyanim are sinful) and shevut.
I discovered that R’ Hayyim Ayyush, grandson of Rav Yehuda Ayyush, and son of the Rishon LeTzion in the late 1700s, approved of a decision by R’ Ya’akov Recanati of Verona which allowed the organ.
Also, the Egyptian posek R’ Rafael Aharon ben Shimon paskened that a gentile organist could be used on Shabbat because music connected with a religious occasion is mutar on the basis of ahevut de shevut le shem mitzvah mutar. The Nehar Mitzrayim, R’ Ben Shimon, (15-19) says also that it was a widespread practice to do so among the Sephardim, and the Chida himself even notes (without objection) this practice.
Nowadays, such a posek would be laughed out of Orthodox Judaism (so too would Rav Uziel, the Vilna Gaon, the Noda be Yehuda, and all other poskim throughout the ages who paskened in ways that don’t perfectly satisfy the Orthodox status quo of the past few decades).
July 26, 2013 at 4:35 am #1061578
Sam2: I reviewed my post and you are absolutely right!!! I wanted to write that the Remo does NOT say it is MUTTAR. (as per most rishonim who pasken like Rav, as far as ben jomo goes, see teshuvo).My apologies for a mistype. I seem to make many of them!
He says exactly as you write, that they have a shittah to follow (like the rishonim who pasken like shmuel and Rabbeinu TaM) and therefore, should not be considered sinners. Thank you for correcting me.
July 26, 2013 at 5:13 am #1061579
Rebdoniel, you are so off that it is useless to talk to you. Are you having a party at the Jewish(Conservative) Theological Seminary?
ROB and Truthsharer, as a last attempt to enlighten you. There is such a thing as looking for a heter or trying to find a justification for a certain practice, but you have to understand that often the justification is shaky or plain invalid or not-a-lechatchilah. It is important to bear this in mind unless(I hope not) you are just looking for an execuse to do something.
July 26, 2013 at 5:21 am #1061580
And btw, ROB and Truthsharer, the Israeli Chareidim also “were looking for and found a heter for the Chillul Ha’Shem shaila” vis-a-vis the share-the-burden issue. I bet this “heter” you don’t like.
July 26, 2013 at 11:24 am #1061581
One tactic that has been observed by many of us is that when well-documented arguments involving traditional sources are presented, and if the results/outcomes aren’t the way people on the right would like them to be, instead of actually offering a rational answer or explanation, the response is ad hominem attacks. You can call someone an apikores, or accuse them of being “Conservative,” (anyone who understands my approach to halakha understands that it is quite the opposite of what the CJLS supports!), or whatever the insult may be, but that doesn’t change reality.
July 26, 2013 at 1:57 pm #1061582
mdd: Thank you for trying to put your best foot forwards. However,’bemechilas kevod toroscho”, a few of the posts before you refer to a teshuvas Horemo (124) and I made the effort of reading through it all. The Remo-the Remo!- goes out of his way to find a reason why in Moravia, jews drank ‘stam jenom”.He takes the side of the makilim on this- in direct contradiction to what you said! True, he himself dos not accept the hetter but- to protect Jews in Moravia- he accepts a big “kuloh”.Other examples abound and I can quote you other Teshuvos HoRemo on this!
I have no idea to what you are referring in your quote of “the chillul hashem shailah”.
July 26, 2013 at 2:29 pm #1061583
I don’t see how ROB’s reading of the teshuva (or mine) is erroneous, Sam2.
Take the question of weddings on the Shabbat. To avoid loss, and to promote human dignity, the Rema was matir it. Poskim being responsive to human need is not inherently a bad thing. (I don’t see how making a kinyan, in any event, violates shabbat. BM 9 says that while making a kinyan on shabbat isn’t desirable, a kinyan made on shabbat still takes effect).
July 26, 2013 at 2:36 pm #1061584
It makes perfect sense that having an organ in Shul in Sephardic lands wasn’t considered Chukas Akkum. They weren’t relating to Christian service at all and therefore did not have the same concept of an organ that Ashkenazim did. And that’s okay. That doesn’t make those Poskim not-mainstream. They Paskened correctly according to the situation as they saw it. If they had been familiar with contemporary Church practices maybe they would have Paskened differently. Ashkenazim were and did. Also, Sephardic lands did not have to go to the lengths that Ashkenazim did to avoid association with Reform. And, as R’ Schachter says, if an Apikorsus movement decides to make an issue something they define themselves by (even if technically there are Tzdadim to legitimately Pasken that way in certain cases under Ikkar Hadin), then following them is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.
July 26, 2013 at 4:05 pm #1061585
rebdoniel and Sam2: I doubt that the playing of music in shuls was ever disallowed. Playing it on Shabbos has always been the question in shuls- because playing music is a “shvus” and could be allowed by a non-jew . It was vehemently opposed for the reason that Sam2 is giving: the identity of X-ian music and its adoption by Reform. Hence, Carlebach minyonimm are OK! (I attend many of them).
Sam2- I feel uncomfortable how you are making fairly minor transgressions “Yeihareg V’al Yaavor’ (your spelling). I know some of these are considered “avizrayo” but I kind of feel that the ultimate sacrifice should be for ultimate transgressions- hired murder, incest and idolatry.
rebdoniel: I do marvel at your erudition but it would be useful if you bring us sources for your many claims-such as that the Remo allowed marriage to occur on Shabbat.
July 26, 2013 at 4:07 pm #1061586
R’ Yisrael Moshe Hazzan, though, explains in his Kerakh Shel Romi that the very function having an organ filled was to emulate the dignified mores observed among the general society; he writes that halakhically, Jews must take cognizance of the standards of the society in which they live. Allowing the organ, for these Sephardic poskim, was an exercise in the more worldly and humanistic attitude inherent in the Sephardic approach.
And, I highly doubt people at JTS care what you think, MDD. While I never attended JTS, there are quite a few frum people who study there, as there is no better institution in the US for the critical, academic study of texts than JTS.
July 26, 2013 at 4:23 pm #1061587
rebdoniel: I went back to teshuvos Horemo and indeed, in teshuvo 125, the Remo justifies one situation where he was ‘mesader kiddushim” on friday evening after the z’man. It is a complicated teshuvo and one should read it thoroughly. However, it is, of course, a “shaas hadechak” in extremis and I think it is a little bit irresponsible to claim (as you did)that te Remo allowed for a marriage on shabbos. yes, you qualified it but one truly has to look at the source and see the severity of “shaas hadechak”.
July 26, 2013 at 4:27 pm #1061588
ROB, just do me a favor try to pay attention to what I wrote, especially, in my last post. And, exactly, Ramo himself did not like the heter/limud zechus of his own– that’s exactly what I meant. It all depends on what you are out to do (hey, Rebdoniel, I am talking to you too now). If you want to do the ratzon Ha’Shem you need to pasken based on “theoretics”. If you just want to have your kulos no matter what (or stam do whatever you want) and then expect some Rabbi to come along and create a post factum heter, that’s a different story. But then you are not an yirey Shamaim or even not an erlache Yid (depending on the circumstances).
July 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm #1061589
ROB, about the Chillul Ha’Shem, I meant what the Isr. Chareidim do by refusing to serve and how they do it.
July 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm #1061590
And, Rebdoniel, I deny no documents. I just say that it is often far from lechatchila or even wrong (at times) to follow that derech. OK?
July 26, 2013 at 5:17 pm #1061591
The Rema was an example of a posek who ruled in accordance with the perceived needs of the Jewish communities he dealt with.
The responsa give us a vivid picture of what Jewish life was like and offer a lens into the needs of the human condition in different times and places. While one, as a matter of policy, shouldn’t drink gentile wine or get married on the Sabbath, it’s interesting to see how these poskim dealt with such scenarios.
Halakha can be flexible within the parameters of what has been codified and received from the Talmud.
July 26, 2013 at 5:26 pm #1061592
mdd: Perhaps you would say it like this: There is a difference between finding a situational Heter in an extreme case and attempting to make said Heter the status quo?
July 26, 2013 at 6:11 pm #1061593
I think people are confusing “kula” and a psak that is meikel.
July 26, 2013 at 7:32 pm #1061594
mdd: Not much time before shabbos but I think that our halachic thinking may be closer thsn you think. I am not sure what your theoretical aspect means but I know that ,as shown by the Remo and others,circumstances sometimes compel a psak that, otherwise, might be different. Sam2 ‘s definition may be closest. On the other hand, it is clear to me that, from the gemoro onwards, psak preferred a “meiel’ approach. well, have a great sahbbos!
July 26, 2013 at 7:43 pm #1061595
Sam2, I am not sure if what you said expresses it all but a part of it, for sure. Yasher koach.
July 25, 2014 at 8:24 pm #1061596
Regarding poskim looking for heterim:
?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???????”? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?’ ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? “?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????” ?????? ??”? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ????
(Tiferes Dovid Perek 2)
July 27, 2014 at 4:43 am #1061597
You can’t compare cases of agunos, real agunos, with other instances of Halacha. By agunos the Halacha is to specifically look for a heter.
July 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm #1061598
“Gemora in Kesuvos 72A says it is. Who holds it’s de’rabbonon or a minhag?”
See Rabbi Broyde’s long essay for a list. There are many other examples where the actual halachah is not like the Bavli.
July 27, 2014 at 2:59 pm #1061599
“By agunos the Halacha is to specifically look for a heter.”
And even more so by mamzerim.
July 27, 2014 at 4:00 pm #1061600
Wow! A ressusicated thread!
Charliehall is absolutely right: so much so that the gemoro itself paskens ‘mamzer vadai omanr rachmono velo mamzer sofek” In other words, the essence of a psak on “mamzeirus’ needs absolute certainty. Otherwise, ipso facto, he/she is not a mamzer.
And yet, nisht,there is n osuch psak on agunos but Poskim have always looked for any kuloh.
May I also add that, in similar circumstances, there should be kulos with geirus too- in line with the Rambam and many Poskim-and in contrast to the ridiculous Piskei halocho on geirus by recent Israeli rabbonim that made no sense. (psul lemafrea?)
July 27, 2014 at 5:04 pm #1061601
The point of the story (which has no relevance to whether specific areas of halacha are more heter-worthy than others) is that R’ Yitzchak Elchanan came up with heterim in situations where others didn’t, BECAUSE he had more motivation since he was directly confronted with the tzaar of the agunos and he felt it strongly. This is a support to those earlier in this thread who were asserting that (in general) Roshei Yeshiva deal more in theoretics as opposed to the real world which would provide the motivation to find a heter. (Obviously it is problematic if the motivation leads you to come up with an illegitimate heter.) So for instance, someone writing a sefer on hilchos agunos might just say xyz is assur, whereas R’ Yitzchak Elchanan, dealing with the actual aguna, will find her a heter. The same structural idea can be applied to other areas of halacha as well. And this is one of the reasons why some poskim prefer the Aruch Hashulchan to the Mishnah Berurah.
July 27, 2014 at 5:19 pm #1061602
Michael Broyde has passiked himself from any nemanus. There is a reason he was tossed off the BDA. Part of it has to do with trying to create a false precedent by alleging a statement by R Moshe.
July 27, 2014 at 5:35 pm #1061603
The best way to help ?????? is to establish ????? that will
Obviate the issue. Avi Weiss and his ilk’s attempts to reduce or eliminate the system of ?????? in Israel is doing just the opposite.
The damage he is trying to do is almost as bad as Hamas. His actions are destroying future generations.
Is it a wonder why ???? ???? are horrified by him, his actions and his hangers on.
July 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm #1061604
“Michael Broyde has passiked himself from any nemanus. “
I was not defending Rabbi Broyde, I was responding to a question regarding headcovering for women. The sources Rabbi Broyde lists do exist and a lot of them don’t hold like the Bavli.
You insist that we pasken like the Bavli? Fine, i’ll get a woman to read the Megillat Esther at your Ashkenazic shul next Purim.
July 27, 2014 at 7:37 pm #1061605
“Avi Weiss and his ilk’s attempts “
Had the official rabbinate followed halachah, there would have been no problems. It is amazing to me that so many here defend its many abuses.
July 27, 2014 at 8:34 pm #1061606
So Charlie defends Avi Weiss’ making ?????? because anti halachic individuals and institutions do not like everything the rabbinate does.
And of course the appropriate way to go about this is to use their bastion of truth, the NY Slimes.
Charlie, I have no interest in even looking at anything associated with Broyde.
You silly little comments not withstanding.
July 27, 2014 at 8:47 pm #1061607
Whether or not you approve of R’ Broyde should not be relevant to the issue of women covering hair. If you think there is no source then it shouldn’t be too hard to read his sources and disprove them. If he has valid sources then nothing that he has done will change the truth. So debating about R’ Broyde is a straw man if there ever was one. (I personally have not [yet] read R’ Broyde’s treatment of the subject [nor the various rebuttals] so I do not [yet] have any opinion on the matter.)
July 28, 2014 at 3:58 pm #1061608
nisht: Can you get off your high chair and explain how Rabbi Avi Weiss is making mamzerim? In my mind, it applies more to the Dayanim in Israel that invalidated the geirus – retrospectively!!- of a MARRIED WOMAN -without asking for a get-making her future children mamzerim! NOW- that is making mamzerim!
July 28, 2014 at 4:05 pm #1061609
It needs no explanation. Stop with your silliness.
As far as your story, everyone knows that there was no kabbolas mitzvos, so how can there have been a geirus.
The fact that she has no interest in a get alone is proof that there was no kabbolas mitzvos.
July 28, 2014 at 6:05 pm #1061610
back to the original discussion.its a known fact that in Lithuania all rabonim took the path of the OH more so his sefer was on the table of his contemporaries such as the rabbi of pinsk(bais ahron)the reason being that he (OH)was a rabbi/posek)and a posek/rabbi has special siyatta dishmaya this concept is brought from the noda biyehuda. when the tchebiner rov came to israel he stopped paskening because he was no longer a practicing rabbi &therefore lost that siyatta dishmayathe mishna berura was neither a practicing rabbi or rosh hayeshivaps theoh did fall out of favor in certain chassidic circles for his kulos(as did the mahrsham)
July 28, 2014 at 7:05 pm #1061611
nisht: If there is any silliness , it was on the part of these Dayanim in Israel. It is actually not true that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos- a convenient lie. The fact that she was not following all mitzvos many years later has no connection to the original geirus. Please learn your halochos!
But to the main point: by freeing her without any get, they were making sure that any subsequent child was a mamzer. Better to accept the geirus-even if questionable because the results can be corrected than making more mamzerim, which cannot be corrected.
July 28, 2014 at 8:05 pm #1061612
?’ ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????
July 28, 2014 at 10:01 pm #1061613
PAA: Meh. Bizman HaZeh there is no such Eitzah to be “Metaher” Mamzerim.
July 28, 2014 at 10:33 pm #1061614
Having been on a leave of absence of several months,but discern that but little has changed
First things first
There are a few reasons how come the OH might have been relegated
A.It’s style was written for a rabbi administering a milieu
The MB,by constrast,was intended to be a “transportable homeland”
B.The Codex form, in general,was always frowned upon by the Ashkenaz leadrship
July 28, 2014 at 10:37 pm #1061615
R o B,
Many of geirus Druckman supposedly administered,happened while he was abroad!
There is an interview on record,on which a a brand new “convert”
said right after the ceremony she had zero intent of observing judaism
July 28, 2014 at 10:51 pm #1061616
Anyone can pull an abberant psak out of a hat to prove alomost whatever they so desire.
Ironically it’s the same “crowd” which claims from the other side of their mouths, that halachah doesn’t take place in vacuum.
What were the circumstances?
This world does have a goal!
Will it bring it closer?
Every factor must be weighed
Or do you(plural) pay fealty to a modified version of ‘when there is a halachic will there is a halachic way’ ?!
p.s.Therefore it is utterly ridiculous,and rather revealing, to claim or feign that any earlier great posek would be out of the present mainstream
July 28, 2014 at 11:38 pm #1061617
Not quite. I remember a case (some friends of mine went to the wedding) where Chacham Ovadia allowed it. The boy, a mamzer, married a previously non-Jewish girl who had been looking to convert. She agreed to become a shifcha to marry him with Chacham Ovadiah’s permission. With the obvious plan of freeing the children when they grew up.
July 28, 2014 at 11:39 pm #1061618
July 28, 2014 at 11:41 pm #1061619
Charliehall and PAA,
Rabbi Broyde does not dispute that his sources are not the dominant thread in the halacha. His article was a limud z’chus but there is no debate that most major Rishonim and Acharonim hold that there is an unchanging requirement for a married woman to cover, at least, some of her hair and according to many it is d’oraisa.
July 28, 2014 at 11:53 pm #1061620
Neither Charlie nor myself disagreed with what you said. Charlie mentioned that there are some opinions and these opinions are quoted by R’ Broyde. Nishtdayngesheft promptly started ranting about R’ Broyde. I then pointed out that anything about R’ Broyde is irrelevant to the discussion – look up his sources and see whether the sources exist. The fact that they exist doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be relied upon, but that was not I was discussing. I can’t really speak for Charlie though – it could be that he was trying to legitimize not covering hair. Only he will be able to clarify what his intent was. And even if Charlie was trying to justify not covering hair, my objection to nishtdayngesheft still stands – if you want to dispute the position of not requiring hair covering then the way to do it is to either say that there is no source or that those sources cannot be relied upon for halacha l’maaseh. Attacking R’ Broyde (or Charlie for that matter) is not the way to do it and only distracts from the actual conversation.
July 28, 2014 at 11:53 pm #1061621
I went through the teshuvah of the Bais Din that was “mevatel” Rabbi Druckman’s conversions (I think it was posted in another thread, DY?) and they didn’t say that it was because there was no kabolas mitzvos, or because they knew that the individuals weren’t sincere (that would be devarim sh’b’lev). Their reasoning was that there was no kosher Bais Din at the geirus.
July 29, 2014 at 2:59 am #1061622
benignuman: thanks for the source. I did not read the teshuvah. Whatever was reported was that the Dayan (there was a Dayan in Ashdod, I think, who staretd it all) dismissed the geirus becasue there was no “kabolas ol mitzvos”. Nowhere did i hear it was because there no “kosher’ Bais Din. What makes a bais Din kosher? Three people are sufficient to make a bais din, so i have no idea what that Dayan intended.
In response to “About Time”: You are spewing accusatrions that you cannot document, let alone prove.
July 29, 2014 at 3:22 am #1061623
This phenomenal myth that the OH was more accepted in Europe is just a myth. Allow me to prove it that this is just not true.
A. The Chofetz Chaim was the recognized Gadol (see many stories that only when he was there it was decided). Also all of his letters in the KOl Kitvey always have him first the Rav Chaim Ozer then either the Lubavitcher Rebbe of the Gerrer Rebbe. Also see that Rav meir Shapiro and Rav Chaim Soliveitchik were machnia to him.
2. The OH quotes the MB 25 times, clearly you see that the MB was so popular that he made it to him. 3. If you look at the KOl Kisvey of the Chofetz Chaim you will find that almost every letter is asking for a set of his sefarim (which is quoted by many Rabonim of his time Achiezer and Shoel Mashiv and more) while if you look at the OH Kol Kisvey you will find a total of 2 maybe 3 letters asking for his sefarim (besides the fact that Orach Chaim was not printed until much later 1910).
If you compare the letters of the Chofetz Chaim to the OH you will see that the CC has correspondence with Rabonim all over the world while every letter of the OH are all addressed to Russia (besides one or two).
To conclude it is all a myth, the CC was the accepted leader of klal Yisrael and his Sefarim were also accepted as such (i’m not saying the OH were not u understand my point). Also Rav Henkin was a Talmid of the OH and Rav Moshe lived in russia so it is no surprise that they held this way while the rest of the world did not.
July 29, 2014 at 12:32 pm #1061624
The dayan was Rav A Sherman, who ironically was hitherto considered charda’l (and had previously spent a sabbatical at YU) but the moment he showed his sincerity and straight shooting ehrlichkeit his past was erased and he was ostracized as chareidi!
July 29, 2014 at 12:45 pm #1061626
Replying to Shulchanhashalem, I think that proof that the OH was the mainstream posek is that many of his pesokim is what was done by mainstream yidden in Europe, as opposed to things in MB which are being taken on in the last few decades.
For example – I know from a resident of Krakow that they would use a “hackmesser” on Shabbos, something the OH allows and the MB forbids. I believe that there are many examples of this.
Whilst the CC may have been considered the godol hador (and definitely in his latter years when he was the last of his generation of gedolim due to his advanced age), the OH was among the poskei hador (including the Maharsham and Ben Ish Chai for sefardim).
The Chazon Ish was very much for the Mishna Berura, writing that it is like Sanhedrin Milishkas Hagoziz, and his influence on the increasingly influential Yeshiva community has influenced the increased usage of the MB.
Does anyone know why there is no published OH on some parts of Shulchan Oruch? In his introduction he writes that he is publishing on all 4 chalokim, yet some parts (eg Yayin Nesech and Hilchos Avodo Zoro) are unfortunately not available. Did he never write them or are they lost?
July 29, 2014 at 1:19 pm #1061627
“Does anyone know why there is no published OH on some parts of Shulchan Oruch? In his introduction he writes that he is publishing on all 4 chalokim, yet some parts (eg Yayin Nesech and Hilchos Avodo Zoro) are unfortunately not available. Did he never write them or are they lost?”
They recently printed Hilchos Nedarim from manuscripts. So it’s possible that there are more manuscripts that may yet see the light of day.
July 29, 2014 at 1:24 pm #1061628
ramat: I can’t verify it, but I was told he skipped Hilchos A”Z due to pressure/censorship from the Russian government.
July 29, 2014 at 1:33 pm #1061629
From the introduction to “Minhagei Lita”:
“During the fifty years after publication of the Mishnah Berurah until the destruction of Lithuanian Jewery, communities did not adopt those decisions and reccomendations of the Mishnah Berurah that ran counter to the traditionally accepted minhagim. Not even in Radin, where the Chafetz Chaim had his Yeshivah, did the community change the traditional customs in favor of those urged by the Chafetz Chaim. Hence, many people today mistakenly assume that whatever the Mishnah Berurah recommended must have been the accepted custom in Lithuania.”
July 29, 2014 at 1:36 pm #1061630
Similarly, R’ Herschel Schachter has said several times that on every page of the Mishnah Berurah there is an example of where the psak of the Mishnah Berura based on his methodology, was a change from the previous psak hamekubal.
July 29, 2014 at 1:58 pm #1061631
To “about Time”: To put the record straight, it was Dayan Atyas of Ashdod that invalidated the conversion. Dayan Sherman and the Rabbinical Supreme Court subseqently upheld that psak and added that he disqualified ALL of Rav Druckman’s Bais Din’s conversions.
Both of these decisions went against all that we know of geirus in the past centuries.
Details are numerous but just to point out a few: Why would Dayan Atyas think that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos? Very specifically, the Rambam does NOT require keeping all the mitzvos,only to accept the CONCEPT of mitzvos. (That is what ol mitzvos mean)
Secondly, how can Rav Sherman invalidate ALL conversions of another qualified Bais Din? That has never been the case in our history and is totally against all norms.
Lastly, just on the merits of the case, as I said earlier, better to err on the side of geirus whose consequences can be rectified than allowing a woman without a get, whose consequeneces cannot be corrected.
July 29, 2014 at 2:35 pm #1061632
ROB, did you read the article which I refer to above? If you accept that set of facts, none of your arguments hold up.
I’m also surprised that you don’t appreciate what damage having hundreds (or more) false geirim around can do to klal Yisroel.
July 29, 2014 at 8:02 pm #1061633
B.The Codex form, in general,was always frowned upon by the Ashkenaz leadrship
To expound (although possibly too much has already been said:
Who wrote all the Codes (such as the Rambam and Shulchan Oruch)? They were accepted, adopted and constitutionalized by poskei Ashkenaz but with some condensention
The Vilna Gaon was beseeched upon to write a new Code,gave it some thought but then declined.
July 29, 2014 at 8:03 pm #1061634
July 29, 2014 at 9:48 pm #1061635
T? Ramatshkolnik. T’m not sure how you responded to what I said. 2nd hand information and someone that you spoke to is more or less all hear say (im not saying that they are not saying the truth). But I brought you clear proofs about who was accepted and how popular each sefer was. Just thinking an intristing pointer is that if you look in the whole sefer of mekor boruch (very boring and not authentic) he writes many times that he is going to talk about his father and he barely does.
July 30, 2014 at 1:20 am #1061636
Daas Yochid:I have reviewed that whole thread and I am not sure why I should change my mind.If you mean Rosenblum’s article, it does not make any case for mass invalidation of Rav Druckman’s geirim.
July 30, 2014 at 3:16 am #1061637
Of course conversions done en masse to fill political quotas are invalid, as is the “bais din” which would perform them.
July 30, 2014 at 3:59 am #1061638
Daas Yochid:why? Why would it invalidate the Bais Din? And nowhere does it say that,in virtually all cases,there was no proper procedure?? Indeed there were no “mass conversions”
July 30, 2014 at 4:25 am #1061639
DY: Why? Let’s say (and there are many who claim that those allegations are not true in the slightest) that a Beis Din is under political pressure to have a certain number of Geirim. As long as all of the Geirim they find are sincere and are Mekabel Ol Mitzvos, who cares?
July 30, 2014 at 12:20 pm #1061640
I generally dislike these tit for tat conversations – but lets go.
1. Could you clarify which of my sources are second hand?
2. I don’t think that any of your proofs stand up to scrutiny.
a. The CC was the recognised Godol – The recognised godol is not necessary the recognised posek, there are different roles in Klal Yisroel, eg the Ari is not recognised as a Posek. I am not going to risk mentioning names of current Gedolim and I suggest that you don’t either.
b. The OH quotes the MB – I am sure that the OH recognised the MB as a tremendous sefer, and he therefore quotes it. He is happy to disagree on hundreds of instances, and don’t see that your proof has any bearing on the argument.
c. Many people ask the MB for his seforim – maybe because he sold them personally and not published in shops? I have no idea of the accepted publishing norms of the time. Maybe they were only referring to his Sefer Chofetz Chaim? I really don’t think this is at all persuasive.
d. The CC corresponded world wide – again, as he lived far longer than his contemporaries, he became the Godol Hador. But are these piskei Halocho? I understood that R CO Grodzinsky became the defacto posek in 20s/30s.
3. Contemporary practise is clear that many minhogim were like the OH, as pointed out in the quote from R Schachter. Another example would be when people daven Maariv, it being clear that the current trend to daven Maariv Bizmano comes from people converging towards the MB as opposed to the OH.
I would point you to this interesting biography which clearly shows that the CC felt himself secondary to RCO Grodzinsky, and which does not mention his alleged posek hador status.
sorry, no links
July 30, 2014 at 1:48 pm #1061641
About Time: I’m just curious, what do you mean when you say “codex”? Because you are not using that word properly.
July 30, 2014 at 4:42 pm #1061642
Sam2: I think About Time means Restatement.
July 30, 2014 at 6:02 pm #1061643
July 30, 2014 at 10:42 pm #1061644
Lchvod Ramatshkolnik: I’m not here to say what the Minhag is or what people like to follow (in my opinion there is almost no such thing to day anyways and is probably impossible to find out see Sdey Chemed vol 4 #37, its also interisting that the OH writes a letter defending the Sdey Chemed). What I’m trying to point out is that the MB was alot more popular in Europe and I think the fact of how many he sold (which he has receipt’s in the KOl kisvey CC and its in the thousands and remember that Sefarim cost alot more then), combined with all of the Gedolim whom he correspondence with and how they honored him (see also he opened the Kneses Hagdelah and he was also the Machria in the case of Velozion’s closing where the OH happened to also live) it would seem logical that people used his sefarim more. The most compelling in my opinion is the fact that the OH was not printed until much later around 1910 while the MB was already out for almost 20 years, also the fact that I cant find any Gedolim of those times quoting an OH while the MB is commonly quoted (i.e Achiezer, Shol Meshiv…).
I appologize about the 2nd hand comment I just meant that I find that when one person says that this is how it was or this person told me this it holds less ground as opposed to finding documented evidence (its interesting to note how the students of the RamaBach and many other great Rabonim almost never (acctualy never) say that they heard Beshem their Rebbe, they always quote the Ksav, also the MB and OH say the words Beshem I think a total of 6 times feel free to Bar Ilan it). Either way this whole conversation is all theoretical and we all recognize that the CC or the MB has taken the main place in the world (over all). It would be an intiristing conversation of why (I think for example he had many more sefarim, Rishonim and Achronim and he was more mesudar and would not Pasken against the majority also it is interesting how he never quotes the KItzur (I think he quotes him a total of 4 or 5 times even though he argues on him many times) but mostly u will see that in Simin 36 he never quotes and that sound’s like he does not hold of him (p.s neither does the OH ever bring him, even though he was very popular and available as you can know from the Hakdama to the Kitzur).
July 30, 2014 at 11:14 pm #1061645
Also as per ur comment that the CC felt himself secondary to Rav Chaim Ozer that is not really a shocker. I think he felt himself secondary to everyone as he writes himself in Shmiras Halashon and many other places (meaning that if u learned alot now you are alot more responsible) and the CC main Mida as said over by his Talmidim (see Meir Einey Yisrael vol 1) was Anavah. The best way to find out who was greater would b to see how Rav Chaim ozer viewed him and when they were together who was the Machriafirst… But I think if you asked them both they would say the other is (as you see in the story about the theater which is quoted both in Meir Einey Yisrael with two versions and also in the Artscroll bio).
PS There is a famous zug that’s said over from Rav Shach that the CC quotes Rav Meir Simcha once because of the Masseh in Velozin. See the Meir Einey Yisrael why that Maseh is immposible to b true (one reason is that in the volume where he quotes Rav meir Simcha it was printed before the maseh happened). Im just writing this to show that just because someone said something without documented sources its validity is…
December 11, 2014 at 12:31 am #1061646
December 18, 2014 at 4:06 am #1061647
Thank you for that Mara Makom.
It is fascinating that all the times that the OH quotes the MB is only in the first and third volume. And according to the sefer you quote (the grandson of Rav Henkin) it should follow that the Halacha only follows the OH in those volumes. What is also strange is that the places that he quotes the CC are random even though he argues on many more places and in about half of the places he acctuly compliments the MB. Also a mute point is that Rav Henkin and Rav Moshe both come from Russia and knew the OH and had no dealing with the CC. On the other hand the Ponavizer Rav who knew both of them held the CC in much higher esteem (see the Bio on the Ponvizer Rav 3 vol). I think the emes is that they are both great sefaim and you cant go wrong going with either one. The CC is a lot more thorough and harder to read (al be he did this on purpose, for a different time).
Also when this grandson of Rav Henkin (in your Mare Makom of Bney Banim writes that the OH is more deep, I have no idea how he knows that or gets that. Some of the Beir Halachas are profound (see in 316 and 261 and others). When he also says we go like the later who had the previous one, see the sefer Machlokes Behalacha that we don’t always say this especially within the same generation (ShachTaz KetzosNesivos GRaGraz….). It also seems that the main Halachic authorities do not agree with his Grandfahter ZT”L (CHazon Ish, Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Moshe held whatever he wanted as you see and as Reb Dovid told me).
December 18, 2014 at 6:29 am #1061648
The way I see it, there are several reasons to prefer the Aruch Hashulchan:
1) He was a practicing Rabbi, unlike the Chofetz Chaim.
2) He had access to the Mishnah Berurah (I don’t think it’s relevant how often he actually quotes him.)
3) His work covers all of halacha (except for a few bits which are missing) whereas the Mishnah Berurah is only on Orach Chaim.
4) The Mishnah Berurah often just quotes opposing views of the acharonim without deciding between them.
5) The Mishnah Berurah generally just explains the Shulchan Aruch/Rema (and quotes the opinions of later acharonim). Whereas the Aruch Hashulchan to a certain extent takes you through the sugya and explains his reasoning and brings rayas to his positions. This point kind of relates to: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/paskening-from-the-shulchan-aruch-without-knowing-the-gemara-and-rishonim
(One of these days I’ll get around to updating my list of sources there.)
6) As I quoted earlier in this thread, the Mishnah Berura’s methodology was generally to count up the acharonim (perhaps granting extra weight to certain of them) which often resulted in conclusions that were against the prevailing practice of the times.
December 18, 2014 at 10:27 am #1061649
R’ Schachter is not a real fan of either. His main critique of the MB is #6 that PAA just said. And his main critique of the AH is that his Mehalach through the Sugyos is very often Mechudash and against Rishonim.
R’ Schachter is also famous for saying that when there is a Machlokes between the MB and the AH, you should Pasken by whoever is right. And if you’re not yet Higia L’hora’ah (which according to R’ Schachter means you know all of Shas and are holding in the Rishonim and Achronim in this particular Sugya) then who gave you the right to choose between the two anyway.
December 18, 2014 at 3:40 pm #1061650
R’ Schachter was actually who I quoted about it above. His actual lashon, which I have heard him say several times, was “the Mishnah Berurah changed the halacha on every page”.
And his main critique of the AH is that his Mehalach through the Sugyos is very often Mechudash and against Rishonim.
Well the Aruch Hashulchan was probably following R’ Shachter’s position of “[p]asken[ing] by whoever is right”. And presumably he was Higia L’hora’ah.
R’ Schachter actually tells a good story which illustrates the need to know all of Shas when paskening any issue: Back in his youth, he was learning a sugya with his chavrusa (I think it was something in Yevamos) and they decided that after they learn the sugya really well they would take out an Igros Moshe and read a ???? relating to their sugya, and without reading R’ Moshe’s answer, they would “pasken” the ????. So they did it, and they came out with a different psak than R’ Moshe. Why? Because R’ Moshe brought in a Gemara (I think in Bechoros) which they had never heard of. That’s the basic gist of the story – I might have gotten some details off since it’s been a while since I heard it.
December 18, 2014 at 6:29 pm #1061651
PAA: That’s his favorite story. And yes, the Gemara is in Bechoros. And his Chavrusa for that story was R’ Mordechai Willig. So these were two budding Geonei Olam and the point is that unless you know Shas, there might always be another Gemara that would totally change the answer.
December 18, 2014 at 7:50 pm #1061652
Dr. Marc Shapiro has written:
I spent a great deal of time learning with and talking to Reb Moshe, both on the East Side and in the mountains. He unambiguously told me exactly what you quote from Rav Henkin. He explained that the Aruch Hashulchan was a Rav, while the Mishna Berura was a Rosh Yeshiva, and the psak of a Rav is better authority. Therefore, when he was unwilling to make his own determination, he would follow the AH over the MB. I mentioned this story to Rabbi Dovid Zucker, Rosh Kollel of Kollel Zichron Shneur in Chicago, and he told me that he heard precisely the same thing from his Rebbi, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzki.
December 19, 2014 at 1:29 am #1061653
I asked Reb Dovid as I said before and he told me his father did as he pleased and anyone that goes through Igros Moshe well, will see that he will sometimes quote the OH or the MB not one over the other (if you want to Bar Ilan it make sure its only in orach chaim). As to what you mentioned that the CC has a “new” way of counting up Achronim. Might you forget that the Gra”z (or the ALter Rebbe) does this all the time in the Kuntres Acharon, the PRi Megadim is notorious for it as to the Magen Giborim… The reason the CC brings so much is because he had access to them unlike the OH and this was his point as he writes in his Hakdama that you should not have to do all of the research and he is taking the burden off of you.
When you say it is irrelevant when he quotes him #2 I don’t understand. If the OH only had 2 volumes it should make a big difference, the MB took 28 years to publish and the OH finished during the time, (this by the way is disregarding the fact that we don’t go like ????? in the same ???). As for a practicing Rabbi, the Gra did not practice and neither did the Shach when he published, Benn azzay, the Ramban when he wrote the Milchamos, the Tur did not practice, Reb Akiva Eger? as to many other great Mechabrim.
December 21, 2014 at 3:33 am #1061654
The main issue with “counting” acharonim is as R’ Schachter says, that there was a “psak hamekubal” and the Mishnah Berurah changed it. Let’s say for example that the Chayei Adam had access to twenty acharonim and the Mishnah Berura had access to 40 acharonim and therefore overturned many of the Chayei Adam’s conclusions. Well let’s say that I have access to 60 acharonim, so now I overturn the Mishnah Berurah’s conclusions. And soon someone will have access to 80 acharonim and he’ll overturn my conclusions.
People who lived in Europe at the turn of the century, have testified that the Mishnah Berurah was not followed – even in Radin. Similarly, the Gra was generally not followed, even in Vilna, except by his talmidim. In fact it’s very likely that the Mishnah Berurah contributed to the Gra’s popularity.
I didn’t say that no great mechabrim were not practicing Rabbis. It’s just that one of the reasons why many poskim favored the Aruch Hashulchan is that in a choice between two works which serve the same purpose, it’s better to use the one which was written by an actual practicing Rabbi.
December 21, 2014 at 1:55 pm #1061655
Daniel Q BlogMember
A few thoughts on this very geshmak thread!
May I say that a thread like this that “hondles” an issue that is relatively recent, and one that people can bring direct sources is the ideal thread – as opposed to other topics.
1- Anyone who has learned both knows that both are amazing. The Mishnah Berurah is far easier to read, especially if you are learning Tur/Beis Yosef, then the Shulchan Aruch as the MB is right off the Shulchan Aruch. The Aruch Hashulchan is nice because of its background to the sugya, for example it often gives not just explanations of halacha but of the pshat in the Tur, Bais Yosef, Rambam etc. And it quotes common practice, which is l’halacha significant and interesting. Assuming you want to learn the basic of halacha, the M’B is for sure the first stop. Again, one cannot posken everything from any sefer, but to get a background and the different opinions in a brief way than the M’B is more well suited (for example for bar mitzvah age children).
2- I am not disagreeing with importance of minhagim. A chassidish Rav I know (and love) often would lament that the Yeshivish world stopped certain minhagim (or at least does not allow for different minhagim) within its current system [and at time makes those minhagim to be shvach or bdeived]. Similarly, I think this what Rav Schacter is in a way saying that M’B ignores comon practice when formulating his p’sak; rather basing it on a halachic analysis solely (or mostly.
However let me say (I am not disagreeing, just pointing out something) that if one studies halacha like Tur/Bais Yosef, we see countless and countless times that there are opinions (often the accepted practiced of that Rishon/Achron and his community) that are not followed and highly questioned by practically “everyone on the page” and “all the poskim” (of course this phrase is rarely used literally). This is often with an opinion based on a unique/self-created idea or to back a practice by backing into a sevara (ie now that I know what the practice is, let me relearn the gemara). This happens for example with the Rema multiples times. NOW there are always those that find backing to the Rema for example, and I am not of course disagreeing (CHAS V’SHALOM)- but it’s just a fact that we see classical commentaries more than not disagree with unique p’sak that at least outwardly go against the gemara and its accepted interpretations. For example, the Taz says something based on his own intuition everyone jumps it. There is a sefer from the classical Minhagei Ashkenaz, and countless rishonim line up to bring proof that it is wrong (there are of course those like the Bach or Taz who will often counter). The main point of this paragraph is as follows: In hundred years, Mashgiach should be here, but assuming Eliyahu Hanavi is not paskening yet (G-d forbid) – the sefer that is more “halachic based” with fewer chiddushim will be the more accepted sefer in general. The Shach is a great example vs the Taz. The Mechaber vs. Rema (again not always or even most for Ashenazim but the amount of times most Ashkenazim do not follow the Rema I believe (please note this is not scientific) is much more than Sefardim not following the mechaber).
3- Finally, the Posek I am close to had a yesodisdik line when he gave a kitzur shulchan aruch shiur. He said over a kitzur, noted that mishnah berurah disagreed. And commented that l’masseh (not to say he was going like one opinion or the other) when you get to shmayim and you say you did so and so because the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch said so – you don’t have to worry. That is if one is basing themselves on an accepted sefer (MB ArHs Kitzur etc – it takes a long time to learn all the seferim cover to cover) that is not what we need to be worrying about in our din v’cheshbon. There are many more significant things that (at least myself) regarding middos etc. that we do not have what to be somech.
December 22, 2014 at 12:22 am #1061656
To PAA: I’m not sure how many more achronimrishonim the MB ‘invented’ to count much more than the Shach or Pri Megadim or the Graz in the Kuntres Acharon. Also being that they were not Rabonim (the PRi Megadim and Shach) I’m sure we should not follow them for their Hachra (I don’t think I have ever seen ???? on them). As per the MB not being popular in Europe if you go through the Kol Kisvey of the CC you will see that he was asked for thousands of copies for in Europe America and England (they printed the receipts and if you look in the Meir Einey Yisrael 6th vol they have other unprinted letters to the same extent). While in the Kol Kisvey of the OH there are two letters asking for his sefarim both from Russia.
As for the GR”As popularity it probably was his own, but if you look at the Hakdama to the Chayay Adom you will see it was him or previously. I think most of this is a review from before.
To Daniel: Its all very nice what you wrote except that for a Bar Mitzva Bochur I think the MB is the worst sefer to learn better go with a Kitzur or Chayey Adom. Maybe this can be a new thread on how to learn the MB; difference between the MB BH and the SHar Hatzhion and which Simanim did he not write.
December 22, 2014 at 3:15 am #1061657
I’m not claiming that the Mishnah Berurah is the only sefer ever to use such a methodology. My point is that some poskim didn’t like that methodology, especially because it often changed the established halacha.
The fact that people wanted copies of the Mishnah Berurah does not indicate that it was accepted l’halacha. I own a lot of seforim which I don’t pasken in accordance with.
I quoted the sefer Minhagei Lita back on page 3, about how the Mishnah Berurah was not accepted. So I’ll quote two specific examples that he gives:
1) “The Magen Avraham takes issue with the Ari’s decision and concludes that even the Ari agrees to expose the actual fringes. Although the Mishnah Berurah with the Magen Avraham, he does not mention the prevailing custom does not follow the Magen Avraham. No one in Lithuania wore his tzitzis hanging out as people do today, not even the Rabbonim, not even in Radin” [emphasis added]
2) “Despite the suggestion of the Mishnah Berurah to repeat the word zeicher to acomodate the opinion that the reading is zecher, in the Telshe Yeshiva and most other places in Lithuania they did not repeat it. In fact, according to former talmidim, they did not observe this custom even in Radin, where the Chafetz Chaim had his Yeshivah.” [emphasis added]
If you have any counter-evidence regarding these two examples or about other cases, I would be interested in hearing it.
Also, I’m not claiming that the Gra’s popularity is entirely due to the Mishnah Berurah. All I’m saying is that it definitely contributed. My point was that like the Mishnah Berurah, in his time the Gra was not generally followed.
December 22, 2014 at 8:36 pm #1061658
“The Aruch Hashulchan paskens that you can turn on a light on Yom Tov. Nobody agrees to that”
Where is this Aruch Hashulchan?
December 23, 2014 at 12:31 am #1061659
Ilovvetohock: That AH can be found in the KOl Kisvey AH Simin 7, he also has a Kula regarding what is Reshus Harabim that no one goes like, also by deserts when making a Bracha the Minhag in most places was not like him.
December 23, 2014 at 12:36 am #1061660
PAA: You misunderstood me I was just trying to answer who was more popular in Europe. It would be impossible for the AH to be because it wasn’t printed, besides the fact that the MB was popular all over as I previously wrote (see also in Meir Eyney Yisrael vol 6 page #87 and 112 how they were begging for more copies in America which is also in the Kol Kisvey). Also if you could please tell me which poskim you are referring to when you talk about this new methodology and I would prefer if you know of anyone ????. Thank you
December 23, 2014 at 3:21 am #1061661
shulchanhashalem: Actually, many held like that by lights on Yom Tov before they were completely Mevarer the Metzius. And what is your point? I could find you 100 places where no one holds like the Mechaber or the Rama or the Mishnah Berurah. What does that prove?
December 23, 2014 at 4:15 am #1061662
I pointed out that popularity of a sefer is not indicative of what the accepted psak was.
Regarding the methodology, I have heard R’ Herschel Schachter say it multiple times.
December 23, 2014 at 4:21 am #1061663
I was just responding to Ilovetohack I was not making a point about that. But I was saying that just like Minhag Lita was not like the MB in many things so to it was not like the AH in many things and that is because each place had there old minhagem. What is relevant is when you did not have a Minhag or a Minhag did not apply who did you look at; and it is crystal clear that it was the MB for the reasons stated above.
December 26, 2014 at 12:24 am #1061664
See the past Yeshurun that just came out (elul ????) a 100 page article on this topic. He concludes that the MB was the go to sefer in Europe when there was no Minhag. He theorizes that this is true because he did a much more thorough job. See there for many many sources.
To PAA again if you know of any sources about this methodology please write them (you realize that with such a claim you are taking on many accepted ??????? as stated previously, therefore it would be helpful to have a source) . In the article he also discuss Rav Henkin and the Teshuva you quoted previously Beny Bonim without quoting it by name just the author.
December 26, 2014 at 1:32 am #1061666
I understand why you would not accept my anonymous report about R’ Herschel Schachter. Though he has said it in shiurim which are available on yutorah. I will try to locate one of them.
It happens to be that I just remembered that I have a copy of an interview of R’ Schachter which was printed in Kol Hamevaser in 2010, in which he says this idea. Here are two quotes from it, about the Mishnah Berurah:
The Mishnah Berurah then picked up on that idea and took it further. The truth is that the Mishnah Berurah is really more appropriate for benei ha-yeshivah and not for balabatim, since yeshivah bachurim usually have the luxury of being machamir, whereas balabatim generally do not. They used to quote in the name of Rav Henkin that the Mishnah Berurah is meant for yeshivah bachurim while the Aruch ha-Shulchan is more for balabatim, because the Aruch ha-Shulchan is often noteh le-hakel (tends more to be lenient).
December 26, 2014 at 3:25 am #1061667
Ok, I went through my files and I found a shiur in which R’ Schacter said it. It’s entitled “Q and A – Tanach, Textual Differences in the Torah, Deciding Halacha, Choosing a Profession” and is available on yutorah.
If the moderators want to allow the link, it’s:
He discusses it at approximately 58:18.
Coincidentally, in the same shiur, at approximately 49:49, he says the story I quoted earlier demonstrating why you have to know all of Shas. It’s actually two separate stories which he says one after the other.
December 26, 2014 at 4:12 am #1061668
Thank you so much for that, I am really impressed with your quickness.
If you look in the Yeshurun that I quoted you will see he dedicated about 20 pages analyzing the difference between the Chazon Ish and the MB (citing many contradictions and explanations).
Do you understand what it means when he writes ‘Pesak Hamekubal’? The MB is about 95 percent direct quotes from the nosey Kelim and the two he quotes the most is the Chayay Adom and the Pri Megadim (Artzos Hachaim in vol 1 or Tosfos Shabbos in 3). It also was their derech to do this also as was the Shach and many others.
You agree though that in Europe he was the de facto, go to sefer.
December 26, 2014 at 5:24 am #1061669
Sorry, I don’t have Yeshurun.
When he says “pesak hamekubal” I assume he means the accepted halachic practice, and that the Mishnah Berurah didn’t care as much about it.
In a somewhat similar vein, R’ Michael Broyde wrote:
As to whether the Mishnah Berurah was the de facto, go to sefer in Europe, having not lived then, I don’t know. All I can say is that I have never heard anyone who had lived then, say that the Mishnah Berurah was accepted, while I have heard people who had lived then, say that it was not accepted. Additionally, I pointed out earlier that the popularity of a sefer does not necessarily reflect on its halachic acceptance.
December 26, 2014 at 5:27 am #1061670
By the way, I think that part of R’ Schachter’s point in that shiur was that the Mishnah Berurah didn’t have a mesorah for how to pasken. Which might be related to the other point about him not being a practicing Rabbi.
December 26, 2014 at 5:28 am #1061671
The Chazon Ish wrote that the rulings of the Mishnah Berurah are like rulings by the Sanhedrin in the Lishkas Hagazis (Igros Chazon Ish 41). I don’t see how Rav Schachter can make his claim.
Also, the M”B has been accepted, in fact, as, in most cases, halachah l’maaseh, whatever the reason, so trying to change that by arguing that he changed the halachah doesn’t seem to make sense.
December 26, 2014 at 6:03 am #1061672
That’s not what the Chazon Ish wrote. What he wrote was:
??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??”? ??”? ???”? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???
??????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???
To quote R’ Y. H. Henkin again:
“The CI says only that a ruling of the Bet Yosef and MA and MB all together– and that no one disagrees with– is like a ruling of the Sanhedrin, ayen sham.”
And he further points out that “The CI could hardly have thought that MB alone is like the Sanhedrin, as he disagrees with him in practice dozens of times.”
December 26, 2014 at 6:20 am #1061673
I disagree with your reading, although it’s obviously not 100% literal.
Either way, he would not have put the M”B in that category, even in conjunction, had he held his entire methodology wrong.
December 26, 2014 at 6:33 am #1061674
Again, not indicative of an incorrect methodology.
In fact, the Chazon Ish’s nephew writes:
???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????
???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????
December 26, 2014 at 3:53 pm #1061675
Pashut pshat is definitely how R’ Henkin explained it, and in fact that’s how R’ Chaim Kanievski explains it in the Shoneh Halachos which you linked. But even if you somehow say that the Chazon Ish was referring to the Mishnah Berurah even individually, then nolens volens he is also referring to the Beit Yosef and the Magen Avraham individually. Aside from the impossibility of this (since the Magen Avraham often disagrees with the Beit Yosef, and the Mishnah Berurah often disagrees with the Magen Avraham and often disagrees with the Beit Yosef), it would come out then that every ruling of the Beit Yosef is like a Sanhedrin, yet Ashkenazim rarely follow him when he is opposed by the Rema and/or the great Ashkenazi Acharonim.
February 26, 2015 at 10:32 pm #1061676
Excerpt from a tribute written about R’ Yosef Eliyahu Henkin by a talmid, printed by R’ Henkin’s grandson in B’nei Banim:
????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????
???? ????? ?? ????”? ???? ??????? ????”? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ????????
February 27, 2015 at 6:41 am #1061677
I was taught that the Chazon Ish was citing the B
Y MA and M`B to the effect that we must recognize a Rabeinu Tam as being as chashuv as the words of sanhedrin. He was never saying that those three are like the Sanhedrin.While this may be news to you, please read the full words of the Chazon Ish! In fact, in that Yeshurin- on a note on the bottom-they point out the mistake that people make thinking that the Chazon Ish was saying……. the M.B. is like sanhedrin. that was really referring to the psakim of rabeinu tam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.