Daas Torah in gemora

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Daas Torah in gemora

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • Author
  • #2233937

    I stans corrected. I said here several times, uncritically taking the words of my Teacher at face value, that there is no Daas Torah in gemora. Not even half way through the shas, here it is in Kiddushin 71: r Zeiri goes to learn to EY from Bavel and r Yochanan not only teaches him Torah but also insists on a shidduch (to his own daughter). So, modestly following r Shimon Alsani on esim in Torah, I am admitting that daas Torah is mentioned in the gemora


    Welcome to the Torah world – we’ve been waiting for you

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, it’s interesting that you draw a parallel between yourself and Shimon Ho’amsuni. As you will know, he was able to expound every ‘es’ in the Torah, until he reached one he couldn’t explain; at which point he retracted all of his דרשות. The Gemoro (Kiddushin 57a et al.) ends the story by saying, “עד שבא ר’ עקיבא ולימד את ה’ אלוקיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים”. In other words, Shimon Ho’amsuni’s initial position – that every ‘es’ has a דרשה attached – was indeed correct! It’s just that he couldn’t think of a דרשה for one of them; so it was left to Rebbi Akiva to uphold and validate his initial view by finding a דרשה for that את.

    I think our case is indeed very similar. I agree with your initial position (based on the words of your teacher) that the concept of דעת תורה does not appear in Shas; and I fail to see how the Gemoro you quote contradicts this notion. The Gemoro simply says that Rebbi Yochanan wanted Ze’iri to marry his daughter, and tried to convince him to do so. How does this imply דעת תורה? I’m sure there are many baalebatim who would like to see their daughter marry a top בחור, and might try to persuade him if he was reluctant!

    Gedol Hador

    However, saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה in Shas is not the same as saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה. The מדרש תהלים (שוחר טוב) on והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים reads as follows:
    וכל אשר יעשה יצליח, שהכל צריכים לעצתו, כגון ר’ אלעזר בן ערך שהיה יועץ עצות ומתקיימות ומצליחות. אמרו לו, נביא אתה? אמר להן, לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא, אלא כך אני מקובל מרבותי, כל עצה שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים. אמר רבי מנשיא מקרא מלא הוא, שנאמר ועצת ה’ היא תקום, עצה שיש בה דבר ה’ היא תקום.


    I don’t understand.
    Maybe I’m not sure what daas Torah is, suggesting a shiduch is daas Torah?


    The phrase דעת תורה is not mentioned in Tanach, Mishnah, or Jerusalem Talmud.

    However, דעת תורה is mentioned one time in the Babylonian Talmud,
    and three times in Rashi’s commentary on the Babylonian Talmud.

    Gedol Hador


    Gedol Hador

    The Gemoro to which you refer is in Chullin 90b; it’s in a discussion about the Gid haNosheh and has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה as it exists today.


    i think different people have different ideas what daas torah is, but the fact is that torah tells us how to live our lives 100%, torah is the blueprint for the world so obviously torah has a teaching for everything. now one may wonder that seemingly learning the lomdishe sugyos of shas dont direct him in his marriage dor example, but learning agadah and medrash, kabalah and chassidus will give him a clear picture on every detail of his life. because not everyone can be baki in kol hatorah kulah, torah says make for yourself a rav.


    R Moshe Z”L has an explanation of what Daas Torah and why its even on things that seem unrelated to the Torah.


    In order for this discussion to make any sense there needs to be consensus on the definition of Daas Torah. Is everyone OK with this

    “Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa” An example would be asking a talmid chacham business advice.

    Does anyone like that?


    @AAQ does that mean you are ready to apologize for your belittling them for following their ravs direction especially during Covid?


    Rocky, i disagree.
    It’s mainly chasidim who approach tzadikim for advice in business, and the baal hatanya was against this, because money is totally bidei shomayim.

    Daas Torah is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions, including which community to live in, which job or business to get involved in(not what investment to make, see above… rather to understand one’s inclinations…a rebbe can tell you if you’re going yo be a good doctor, lawyer, etc..), shiduchim, how much gashmius is too much..how to relate to relatives and how to deal eith relationships, especially shalom bayis – do you know how many marriages have been saved because both husband and wife agreed to blindly follow the decision of their daas torah? It’s unbelievable.

    ותנח עליו רוח עיצ-, the Torah confers on its diligent students proper advice.

    And gadol hador, thanks for that medrash; i was not aware of it before.


    ubi > maybe I’m not sure what daas Torah is, suggesting a shiduch is daas Torah?

    I’ll leave a precise definition to the DT proponents, don’t want to mess that up.
    here r Yohanan is the godol hador and he tells you this is a good shidduch, would you not listen?! and to add to that – his own daughter …

    And – AAQ adds – R Yohanan modestly talks about his beauty and sits near mikva, and Resh Lakish agreed too re: R Yohana and his sister – so chances are that the daughter was also not ugly.

    but all that would be just a deduction, but listen to R Yohana himself: Zeiri carries him over a puddle, proving how much he respects RY as a teacher – and RY says: so my Torah is dear to you, but not my daughter? So, a direct appeal here that Zeiri’s learning should make him agree. Commentaries wax poetic about student as a son, spiritual v. physical yerusha, but I don’t see yet direct answer. I see that RY is not rav muvhak (Zeiri probably learned in Bavel before going to Mitzraim and then EY). Do you see anything relevant?

    Even more ironic is the apparent reason Zeiri refuses – yichus in EY is not good enough for this Bavlian. He does not say so, but RY and Gemora presume it. Is he hinting that gedol hador is sofek mamzer or eved or something like that?! hard to understand.


    we seem to agree on Shimon Amsuni, I view him as a paradigm of real learning despite his obscurity, even his name is in doubt, despite his thick thesis on esim. There are several great explanations about R Akiva’s addition on Talmidei Chachamim to “yeras Hashem”. The one I like the best is that obviously a baki like R Shimon saw this as a possible answer, but preferred to forfeit his life work rather than saying something that he did not feel 100% correct (or maybe self-serving). So, R Akiva’s answer is based on seeing R Shimon’s behavior – that such T’Ch can be included in “yeras Hashem”.

    This actually gets back to the DT topic – giving a pretty high standard for the DT, not just someone who leared a lot, but someone with impeccable middos, but it is probably assumed in the ideal notion of DT.


    > Welcome to the Torah world – we’ve been waiting for you

    > does that mean you are ready to apologize for your belittling them

    Gedol is ahead of you guys, as he shrewdly noticed, R Shimon Amsuni is at the end correct.

    Somehow, you got excited about DT mentioned in Gemora, while you failed to actually look up the sugya and think what does it say about DT .. I am not pushing my own opinion here, interested to hear yours.


    sqrt, Gedol, thanks for the reference to Chulin: it is even a double one – daas – daas Torah! It looks like it means here that R Yehuda uses logical explanation, that is DT is application of sevorah.

    Of course, my Teacher referred (tongue-in-cheek) to Encyclopedia Talmudit – this discussion was before Gemora was online, and he referred to earlier times when the Volume with Dalet just came out, 1980s? so, pre-Netscape and even pre-gopher times …

    So, if my source was not aware of this Chulin reference (that probably proves his point) is comparable to R Yohanan apparently forgetting a baraita from R Eliezer that Ezra cleaned up Bavli’s yichus (mods, gemora says that, not AAQ, please …) and, thus, presumably, R Zeiri is correct rejecting DT-based shidduch …


    Avira > It’s mainly chasidim who approach tzadikim for advice in business, and the baal hatanya was against this, because money is totally bidei shomayim.
    Daas Torah is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions …

    This may not be the only position, I think. I see 2 issues here
    (1) specificity – you somehow separate a decision on what job to take v. stock to pick
    (2) logic – are you asking for a binary output, outsourcing decision-making, or are you asking for information that you can process and use in your decision-making.

    Take, for example, IM CM 2:18, where R Moshe refers to his position to not let kollel members to smoke into faces of other members as “daas Torah” and “clear halakha”. First, it is a very specific issue, 2nd, he lists his arguments – geroma b’nezikin, even if the other is instanis, and even if one smoker is insignificant in the total.

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, thanks for the kind words about my posts!
    Now, about the Gemoro in Chullin:
    1) It isn’t a double reference, “da’as – da’as Torah.” The Gemoro is explaining a B’raisa which uses the word da’as, and the Gemoro is asking if da’as in the B’raisa means Da’as Torah. So the first דעת is part of the question, and not part of the phrase דעת תורה. (This is the same mistake that appears on every כתב סמיכה which uses the phrase יורה יורה. This phrase is a quotation from Sanhedrin 5a, but there too the first יורה is a question (can he pasken?) and the second is the answer. So a כתב סמיכה should really say יורה just once.)
    2) The phrase does not refer to סברא; rather, it refers to a דרשה: either the ה of הירך or the phrase בהאבקו עמו teaches us (according to Rebbi Yehuda) that the איסור גיד הנשה only applies to the right sciatic nerve. So what makes you think your teacher was unaware of this Gemoro, seeing as it has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing?

    Gedol Hador

    Rocky and Avira, I’m not sure you’re arguing. Rocky defined דעת תורה as, “Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa.” Asking a talmid chacham business advice was only an example. Many of the examples Avira gave fit into this definition.



    “here r Yohanan is the godol hador and he tells you this is a good shidduch, would you not listen?! and to add to that – his own daughter …”

    So all shadchanim who propose a shidduch have daas Torah? Is it only if they propose a shiduch to their daughter?
    I don’t get it

    He saw a talmid chacham, so he wanted him as a son in law. what does that have to do wit hdaas Torah?


    @AAQ, my bad I thought you had a genuine change of heart, did not realize you were “stam hocking a chinik” like they say in certain quarters. Do whatever floats your boat, like Amil Zola once said you do your I will do mine.

    Reb Eliezer

    Shimon Hamosini learned lashem shomaim as he gave up his whole life’s work when one place did not follow his darush. There are 2600 essen in the Torah and he almost covered all of them. Why did he not darshen like Rebbi Akiva, to fear a Talmid Chacham? Maybe the midrash says ויאמינו בה’ ובמשה עבדו – אם במשה האמינו בה’ לא כ’ש, אם כן למה נאמר במשה? They believed in Hashem and his servant Moishe. If they believed in Moishe then they certainly believed in Hashem, so why does it say Moishe? It says so to trust and believe the words of a talmid chacham. The question is that Hashem is the obvious, so why should Moishe not be stated? The Talmid Chacham get his belief from Hashem, so he is unnecessary to be stated. Similarly Shimon Hamosini saw the fear of a Talmid Chacham as obvious. However, for Rebbi Akiva who was originally an am haaretz was not so obvious.


    Look in Pesachim 42a: Rav Masnah taught that Rabbi Yehuda said, for matzos one should use Mayim Shelanu. The next day everyone came with their pails asking for his water. He explained it meant water that had sat overnight.
    What is the point of this Gemara? A joke? To make the people look ignorant?
    No, it’s to emphasize they had Emunas Chachomim, even if they didn’t understand the reason.


    Ubi, this is not just a Stam shadchan,
    r Zeiri is learning from r Yochanan in EY, presumably traveled is there to learn from him …and r Yochanan specifically claims daas torah rights after the student demonstrates his respect. So far, I don’t see gemora or commentaries condemning the student, only explaining that this is not rav muvhak situation…


    Common, I Stam found a reference that goes against my previous claim and now happy to discuss implications. Gemora is no chainik. You seem to be unable, or unwilling, to accept any torah statement unless it agrees with your preconceived ideas. You might hold at the lofty madregah that you can easily explain all esim in the whole tanach without any hesitation.


    RebE, I think you are saying that for a real talmid chacham, there is only Hashem’s agenda, not his own kavod, thus he is included into yiras Hashem, no es required. Nice.


    Gedol, I think gemora is relevant and it gives the definition of DT that worked for amoraim. It seems to mean here a certainty in a conclusion that is supported by explicit torah sources rather than an uncertain logical supposition about how Yaakov and the malach were embracing… the apparent fact that some modern people use the expression differently is their problem, not gemora’s
    Not insisting on my understanding here, there are more perishing on daf 91 including Chasam Sofer …


    Gedol, I don’t see how your midrash about etza is related here


    @AAQ, If one realizes that he may have been interpreting something wrong and rather than change being up the subject for purely a discussion basis that is called haking a chinik or stam gerit.
    FYI If someone ask his/her Daas torah and is told to do something and that person does so, they have my full admiration even if it conflicts with my hashkafa


    ““Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa” An example would be asking a talmid chacham business advice.

    Does anyone like that?”

    Not really because it is lacking some critical elements:

    1) Is this a form of Ruach Hakodesh? or Is it that learnign torah sharpens your mind so you can grasp things quickly and covers many facets of life so have a grasp of Human relationships, business etc? Or something in between?
    Meaning the idea that if you explain say the pros and cons of different shiduchim to a Rebbe who knows you well, it is very logical that he can help guide you. I don’t think this is particularly controversial and wouldnt really promt arguemtns over whther here is such a thing. Just like your accountant can help guide you which medical treatment makes more financial sense for you.
    That was my trouble with the OP’s example. R’ Yochanan met R’ Zeira he met his own daughter. I dont understand why his suggesting a shidduch shows somesort of special power gained through Torah?

    2)assuming there is such a thing as Daas torah is is there some sort of imperative to listen.

    These points have been debated ad nasueum, and dont really interest me (any more).
    Im caught up on the specific example provided


    common, I was not interpreting something wrong, I just foun a gemora relevant to the subject and offered you for your thoughtful analysis.

    to your point, this is admirable, although you still have some criteria who is recognized as DT, right? both in hashkofa and level of knowledge.

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, I see that you are struggling to understand what I wrote, so I’ll explain it again. The concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions (Avira) by conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa (Rocky). Thus the Medrash that I brought is extremely relevant, as it tells us that people used to ask Rebbi Elazar ben Arach for advice on matters that do not relate to halacha – דעת תורה in action.

    However, both the Gemoro in Kiddushin which you brought and the Gemoro in Chullin are totally irrelevant here. Nowhere in that Gemoro in Kiddushin does Rebbi Yochanan claim דעת תורה rights, as you put it. He simply said to Zeiri, “My Torah is good enough for you, but my daughters are not good enough for you?” As for the Gemoro in Chullin, if you really think your teacher meant to say that nowhere in Shas do we find דרשות that teach us halacha, I am stunned that it took you until the end of Kiddushin to realise that Shas is full of halachic דרשות. And I have no idea why you bring the Chasam Sofer.

    You then say that “the apparent fact that some modern people use the expression differently is their problem, not [the] Gemora’s.” No, it’s YOUR problem if you’re conflating the two and trying to bring proof from a Gemoro that is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    Gedol Hador

    And for the same reason the Gemoro brought by provaxx is also irrelevant. There the people thought there was a halachic reason behind Rav Masnah requiring everyone to use his water. Yes, they showed great אמונת חכמים in accepting a דין that would not have made sense to them, but that has nothing to do with דעת תורה.


    provaxx, thanks for bringing up this story. Seems to be R Salanter’s explanation. It is, of course, to assign benefit to such sincere people, as common also says, not proposing an educational system where information gets corrupted.

    Papuniya seems to be a somewhat shady place – if you teach there about benefits of having Satan in the world, he comes and kisses your feet; mikva is allowed during the day because of bandits at night; Great R Aha b’ Yaakov who taught there would shecht a mazik in the abandoned yeshiva building ….

    What else can we learn from this R Masna’s lecture? Maybe “know your audience”? If Papunians are not versatile in Hebrew, teach them in Aramaic? Note that it was not one naive student, but all of them.


    Gedol, I understand what you are saying. I was going in the opposite direction: starting with gemora references and trying to understand what gemora means by dt, rather than trying to backfill our modern notion into the gemora. That’s for Chulin

    For Kiddushin, r Y appears to appeal to dt. Note that both of them are respectful and polite, not using cr language. R Z is expressing his devotion to the teacher by carrying him, and his disagreement to the shidduch by silence and avoidance. R Y explicitly put Torah and daughter in the same sentence, that means he leans on his Torah authority. He also reconstructs R Z halachik thinking about yichus and explains why it is wrong. As gemora mentions the teacher is having a memory lapse here.
    Maybe, my guess, because it is personal to him or because he holds strong opinion about EY, not fully letting another student to go meet the crazy mother arriving to Bavel… I am surprised I didn’t see more meforshim on this …


    So we need to narrow down the definition of dt.. asking for an advice is not controversial, and my DT, who is antidt, gave me advice multiple times on social and business matters without reluctance, sometimes saying: a very interesting case or, this is my advice/opinion not psak. The other rav who is proDT usually answers in a similar language. I am thinking that dt notion is about ravs opinion overrides yours and maybe even known facts, but I’ll leave it to others to define it


    I’m really lost here.

    I think the debate is around if the Gedolim can advance an idea that has broad implications for the community without having to ‘sell’ the idea. And is one allowed to be critical of the idea if it seems to be insufficiently thought out.

    But everything here is about an individual seeking or receiving personal advice. What could be debated about that? Why can’t you have a full discussion with somebody on whatever the issue is? Why would the Rav or Mentor just dictate and not advise? And why would anyone think that a Torah Personality is less able to give advice then some other human?

    I’m more interested in hearing about why we need a source for personal advice, than bringing up public leadership questions. The position that the OP seems to be abandoning, is that an individual has no right to personal advice from ?????. I never realized that that was even under consideration.


    @AAQ, When someone starts a thread by writing “I stand corrected” it generally means that that person had a change of heart, if he write “I offered you for your thoughtful analysis” it is called hocking ah chinik or ah be geret”.
    to quote Ubiquitin this topic had been discussed ad nauseum, so who cares.

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, I restate my case: what the Gemoro means when it employs the phrase דעת תורה is irrelevant here. The דעת תורה in the גמרא is not an alternative definition of our דעת תורה; it means something else entirely. Words and phrases can have multiple, unrelated meanings. As for Kiddushin, the fact R’ Yochanan puts his Torah and his daughter(s) in the same sentence does not mean he’s leaning on his Torah authority. He’s not saying, “Since I am your Torah teacher, I have דעת תורה, and I recommend you marry my daughter – you should listen to me.” He’s just saying, “You value and respect my Torah to the extent that you come and learn from me, yet you regard my daughter(s) as inferior?”


    N0, so the first issue this discussion seems to reveal that we do not have same, or clear, definitions here. This is strange. People who keep kosher are able to define what it means. Same with shabbos, each opinion is defined to a minute. So, people who follow DT (and it seems to be the majority here) are not united in what it means. That is, they might be repeating the party line “DT is good, 2 legs are bad” without actually practicing it.

    One article that shocked, shocked, me was a simple YWN news story about R Edelstein emerging from a year of covid isolation and giving a shiur separated by a plastic mehitza from the listeners. Somehow, thru the year of controversy nobody mentioned, or learnt from, the gadol. And no articles about his way of learning during that year (by himself? self-isolating hevrusa? zoom? did not see anything about it). So much for DT.

    PS Rav Yehuda in Chullin had his definition of DT, but nobody seems to care about it. Rav Yehuda founded yeshiva in Pumbedita, taking over from Nehardeya, and most successful and long-serving yeshiva in history – so probably Rav Yehuda knew something about DT …


    common > When someone starts a thread by writing “I stand corrected”

    I stand corrected that I thought gemora does not discuss DT, turns out it does (as it seems to me at this point). Now, what gemora says does not seem to contradict my views, as I see so far- r Zeiri politely refusing the shidduch, even after Rosh Yeshiva demolishes student’s unspoken position. And meforshim have simple explanation for this insubordination – not a rav muvhak. I hope I can find more on this.


    on chulin – hope you realize how modernishe your argument is. So, R Yehuda’s DT is not same as ours. How about chesed? shabbos? At minimum, we would need a good source to claim that we can easily reject R Yehuda and inject new meaning into it. Any glosses from the Gaon saying “my DT is different”?
    But I agree that this is a secondary argument just showing shifting positions.

    As to R’ Yohanan, again, they are way more polite than we are and not saying offensive thing to each other’s face (clearly, from silence of RZ). The way I see it – under some of modern views of DT , R’Y’s suggestion should be binding. So, ideally, RZ should come on his own to RY and say, I am looking for shidduch, I don’t trust yichus of Israelis, should I marry a daughter of another student from Bavel or should I go back home? RY would tell him that his concerns about yichus are misplaced and I have perfect shidduch for you, I checked the yichus myself when I was getting married.. Under more extreme versions of DT, RY would not even explain the halocha but say – don’t worry, my daughter is the best for you. Trust me, this is min hashamayim, and you can also inherit the yeshiva.

    This is clearly not happening.

    According to your reading of RY words, he is not even raising his DT rights. According to my reading, he is raising it in a polite indirect way, and supports it by (invalid) halachik argument, and RZ reject it out of hand. In both cases, (lack of) outrage from meforshim is the issue. But maybe I am just not looking at the right places.


    Dear Always,

    You claim that ‘lack of terms’ seems strange to you. Well, check out this site that I occasionally post on: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/

    You should notice that most of the major issues suffer from a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms. Such as, Zionism, MO, Yeshivish, Democrats, Communism, Morals, Belief, Orthodox, and Trolls.

    I would like to repeat the point of my post as a question. Do you doubt that people are allowed to turn to others for personal advice? And do you have any logic why a Torah Leader’s advice would be less significant than mine?

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, why is my argument modernishe? You will know that in current parlance the word אירוסין means ‘engagement,’ but in Gemoro terms (and indeed in the Torah) it is a synonym for קידושין. Do we need here as well ‘a good source to claim that we can easily reject [the Gemoro’s definition of אירוסין] and inject new meaning into it?’

    And if someone was to say that nowhere in Shas do we find any mention of getting engaged or of an engaged girl, would you refute him from the many times the term ארוסה appears there?

    As for the Gemoro in קידושין, I don’t see anything for מפרשים to get excited about.


    you are comparing DT with philosophical categories. I thought DT is a halachik imperative, thus it needs to have halachik parameters.

    As to your questions – of course, people can and should ask for advice. And Torah scholars should be first on the list.


    Gedol, I needled you for a reason (: I do not consider modernishe such a bad word, I just want to make sure that people who think they are not be more realistic. Avraham was modernishe as he (literally) fought wars of his time, not of Noach’s times, and everyone else was similarly modernishe addressing issues of their time, as the Torah says -go to the judge in your gates …

    With erusin, you, similarly to n0, take an example of a social practice with a halachik basis. Same with, kesuba or schools – they changed over time, gemora itself is telling us the history of those changes and social reasons: Rabbis experimented until they found a solution. DT is a fundamental principle of relating to life. If you want to say that this is a new practice that did not exist during gemora because we now need it, ok, I’ll listen to the argument why. But, instead, it is usually presented that “Yaakov was wearing the hat” mebeersheva. Not accusing you personally.

    > I don’t see anything for מפרשים to get excited about.

    So, the student rejects Rav’s advice and halachik argument out of hand without even uttering a word and this is OK? if you come to your ruv and ask his advice for a shidduch, is it OK to reject his advice, especially if it questions Ruv’s yichus? Or is it OK to not even ask? I am trying to put myself in DT shoes, but maybe I am missing the boat (while mixing metaphors)

    Gedol Hador

    AAQ, don’t worry, I’m not offended at all. Not sure what you mean by ארוסין being a social practice with a halachic basis – I mean, I suppose קידושין is a social practice with a halachic basis, but then so is חסד and שבת, which were your examples.

    You say that you believe דעת תורה is a halachic imperative, so it needs to have halachic parameters. I have never heard of דעת תורה as a halachic imperative. I just think the concept means that it is sensible to follow advice from a גדול, because he knows better than you do, and can see things you cannot. The concept of taking advice from Gedolim about matters unrelated to halacha already existed in the time of Chazal (as can be seen from the Medrash I brought); it just wasn’t called דעת תורה back then.

    In the Gemoro in Kiddushin, Ze’iri did not approach R’ Yochanan for advice. R’ Yochanan started a conversation trying to persuade him to marry his daughter. Obviously Ze’iri rejected R’ Yochanan’s advice, because he remembered the statement of R’ Elozor that R’ Yochanan had forgotten, so he knew his teacher was making a (halachic) mistake. And to answer your questions, if you come to your Rov and ask advice for a shidduch, I believe it’s perfectly ok halachically to reject it; however, it might not be a smart thing to do. And it certainly is ok not to ask if you know the answer yourself, or to reject a Rov’s advice if you know for sure he is wrong.


    “As to your questions – of course, people can and should ask for advice. And Torah scholars should be first on the list.”
    Good so the discussion is over and we can close this thread or do keep on beating a dead horse


    Dear Always,

    Daas isn’t halachic. You have to actually know what is going on. The predicate is contained in the subject. It means ‘daas’ and not ‘halacha’. If you would follow through on it, you would follow the intent and not the literal meaning of his words.

    We do not have papal decrees. I don’t understand your possible positions.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 50 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.