July 4, 2013 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #964201
rob: It is not us twisting the Gemara. You just said the Gemara says exactly what we said. When all else is equal and you have equal major Poskim with one being Meikel and one being Machmir (and the Machmir one doesn’t deny the lenient sources, he just thinks they’re not enough to rely upon) then we can rely on the lenient opinion because all else is equal. That does not mean there is an extralegal permission to distort sources or to be Meikil Shelo K’din. I’m not even sure what you’re arguing. If you say you can be Meikil Shelo K’din, then why isn’t everything Muttar? Just say it is.July 4, 2013 4:57 pm at 4:57 pm #964202
Sam2: Either we speak a different language or we have different ideas about Psak. OBVIOUSLY- if there is no “tsad lehetter” ,one cannot be meikel. You cannot be “mattir bossor vecholov”, for example. HOWEVER, it is clear from the gemoro-in many places!- that relying upon the “meikel” side is better (odif) because its sources and reasoning are more solid. How else do you explain the gemoro in “baitzah 2B”? The gemoro clearly opines that it is better to discuss the issue according to the makillim, because to be meikel is more authoritative than being “machmir”. In other words, the gemoro PREFERS an opinion that is “meikel”. True, not always do we “pasken” like the “meikel”- but it is absolutely clear from the gemoro in many places, that, in halacha, you take the route of the “meikel’-if possible. See Pesochim 74B. See aveilus, see “sefeika d’oraisa’, which is only ossur miderabbonon, etc.July 4, 2013 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #964203
And please, check Pesochim 74B (that neither of you mentions)
I did, and I addressed your erroneous point.
We argues aveilus already. The fact that there needs to be a rule specifically about aveilus is proof that we don’t have such a rule in general.
It doesn’t say “kula odif”. It says “koach d’heteira odif”. As Sam points out (it’s really Rash”i), it means you need to be more certain to be meikil, so the meikil perforce is confident in his psak.July 4, 2013 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #964204
DaasYochid: Actually, from aveilus you can bring the “rayah” at just the opposite: That , in aveilus, the gemoro says that always we go after the “meikel”. WHY? because it is better (odif) to be meikel. Same reasoning as “koach deheteira odif”. ,except by aveilus, we ALWAYS pasken like the meikel, not ncesseraly the case in other parts of halocho.
You are twisting words when you say that “koach deheteirah odif” deso not mean “kulo odif”. As a matter of fact, it is an even stronger statement- preferring the one who is “meikel”. And Pesochim 74B clearly shows the preference of the gemoro to be “meikel”.
You are welocme to continue in your illusion that halocho requires chumros. It does not and this can be proven from a multitude of piskei halocho.July 4, 2013 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #964205writersoulParticipant
“And the US has the same rules. A frum person got in trouble for not taking off his yarmulka and SCOTUS ruled against him.”
It’s funny, they have his yarmulke on display in the First Amendment exhibit at the Newseum in Washington DC (I just saw it). Ironic, because while they made a law permitting it afterward, he did, as you mentioned, lose the case.July 4, 2013 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #964206ToiParticipant
ROB- not paskening likulah and a chumrah are two diferent things.July 4, 2013 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #964207
You are welocme to continue in your illusion that halocho requires chumros.
You’re changing topic now? We weren’t talking about chumros.July 4, 2013 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #964209
DaasYochid: You are confusing me. I checked back and our conversation started when I responded to GrowupAlready who wrote that halacha is ‘uncompromising” (hence the hardline positions of the chareidim)and I sadi that there plenty of sources that show that halocho is NOT “uncompromising”- and looking to find the “easier’ way out.
You chimed in and said that ‘when you have no “rayah’ you should be machmir. ON THAT_I answered that you are incorrect and that we find plenty of sources who find that “paskening lekuloh’ is the way to og.
How am I now changing the subject?July 4, 2013 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #964210
ROB, we’ve been through this before.July 4, 2013 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #964211
rob: The She’arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah has an excellent Kuntres on K’lalei Hap’sak. It’s in the beginning of Chelek Aleph of the new editions. Look at it. It might clear some of these things up for you.July 4, 2013 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm #964212
How am I now changing the subject?
We were discussing paskening l’kula or l’chumra and you brought in keeping a chumra. As Toi pointed out, they’re not the same.July 4, 2013 9:52 pm at 9:52 pm #964213
DaasYochid: Well, you have a better memeory that I. I do not even remember that discussion. However, our positions remain the same. I maintain that the gemoro has a preference for “koach deheteirah”- obviously when there are decent sources. You maintain differently. My souruces are simple and plentiful, whether Baitza 2B (and many other places),Pesochim 74B, the klal that in sefeikos we go lekuloh (certainly in a miderabbonon) and other places. For whatever reason, you and others ignore these sources. That’s ok with me. But don’t expect me to espouse chumors when it clearly is not the ikkar lehalocho.July 5, 2013 12:28 am at 12:28 am #964214
whether Baitza 2B (and many other places),Pesochim 74B,
Those are not rayos, as discussed (in fact Beitzo 2b indicates the opposite).
the klal that in sefeikos we go lekuloh (certainly in a miderabbonon)
Now, we’re getting somewhere. That’s a legit rule, but we must be cautious not to apply it where the poskim don’t. Your implication that it might apply to a d’Oraiso as well is ridiculous, though. You must know the rule that “safek d’Oraisa l’chumra”, but you seem to ignore that one. (That one has its exceptions as well.)July 5, 2013 11:05 am at 11:05 am #964215ToiParticipant
ROB- please dont “espouse chumors”, it sounds painful.July 5, 2013 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #964216
DaasYochid: “sofek d’oraisa lechumro” is miderabbonon. Midoraisa, it is lekuloh. And, this has nothing to do with Psak -it has to do with “metzius’- reality. When we have a doubt as to what something is (for example, what is this piece of meat?) then the rabbonon said that ‘sofek d’oraisa lechumro.” We have been discussin how to pasken on certain matters, not what reality it is.July 5, 2013 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #964217
rob: You are wrong on two counts. First of all, it’s a Machlokes Rishonim whether Safek D’oraisa is L’chumra Min HaTorah or Mid’rabannan. Second of all, the rules apply in both P’sak and M’tziyus.July 5, 2013 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #964218
Sam2- you are correct in saying that it is a machlokes horishonim, although I think that most rishonim hold it is miderabbonon. I don’t agree ith you on your second point.There are too many variables in Psak to assert what you are saying.July 5, 2013 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #964219
rob: Look throughout the Gemaras. There are clear cases where we split a P’sak for identical cases based on whether the issue is D’oraisa or D’rabannan.July 5, 2013 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #964220
The term when used in psak is, “b’shel Torah haloch achar hamachmir”. Gemora A”Z 7b, Ramba”m Mamrim 1:5.July 5, 2013 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm #964221
Sam2- My very erudite son informed me that the Shach- in his major work on Sefeikos,end of joreh deah- paskens like the Rashbo that “sefeika d’oraisa” is lechumroh- and does not pasken like the Rambam who, holds it is only lechumro miderabbonon.
However, as far as a psak when the doubt is on matters of which halacha to follow- there are multiple variables and “klollim” and it is impossbile to say whether we pasken “lechumoroh” or ‘lekuloh” -regardless whether it is midoirasa or miderbbonon. I doubt there is one size fits all.July 5, 2013 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #964222
There are variables, but the baseline is to be meikil for a d’rabbonon and machmir for a d’Oraisa.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.