- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sometimes, it is acceptable for people to act in a way that would otherwise be wrong, because of a role that these people have. An extreme illustration of this is parents, who don’t treat society equally but favor their own children over everyone else. Another common example is lawyers, whom society understands represent people’s innocence even when they are likely to be guilty.
It seems that this can be a defense as well to the way some people act and react in the frum community. It’s not that side A is right and side B is wrong, and if you disagree you are a kofer, because if that were true everyone would be a kofer except possibly for Popa bar Abba. Rather, in representing itself, side A must believe and assert that side B are kofrim, and vice versa.
Do you agree, disagree, or have no opinion on this?
Don’t expect a slew of posters to express that they have no opinion on this.
I happen to think that I disagree, but perhaps if you gave some concrete examples, I might realize that I actually I agree.
DY: I don’t read him often, but Slifkin’s recent blog posts actually represent this perfectly.
Oh, no, are you gonna make me read that trash so that I can respond?
DY: I guess not. He basically said (among other examples) that he doesn’t wear Tcheiles because he (since he views himself as a leader of the super-rationalist Frum world) can’t make such a world-changing statement on his own without absolute, complete proof. It’s something that feels very out of character for him but came across very honestly. If you want to read it yourself, know that it is currently the top post and there’s nothing so objectionable in there.
I was looking for examples of mutual k’firah accusations.
The whole notion of violating an issue d’oraisa to maintain rabbinical authority is so krum to me, that I will take R’ Bleich’s word for it that R’ Herzog never said such a thing.
That is so, I would not be a kofer even in that world.
DY: I hear that. I didn’t think he was going that far. He was just saying that changes from tradition need super-strong proofs and serious Rabbinic backing, otherwise you risk losing everything. It’s, in essence, the Chassam Sofer’s “Chadash Assur Min HaTorah” Shittah.
This is a tangent, but he not only does it by lice, he does it by anisakis. He thinks Chaza”l were wrong, but the Halacha remains. It’s ridiculous to think that Chaza”l would want us to eat sherotzim or do melachah on Shabbos based on their scientific error.
The only classic source (AFAIK) for the possible chashash that Chaza”l were merely basing their observations on contempirary scientists was the Pachad Yitzchak, and he was therefore choshesh for issue.
BTW, the Orchos Shabbos quotes R’ Shlomo Zalman as being mattir killing kinim, which is why I am highly skeptical of the claim that he held like the PY.
DY: R’ Shlomo Zalman said (I think R’ Shachter said he heard this straight from him, I think) very much like R’ Dessler. Basically, Chazal knew they were Muttar. They thought the reason was that they’re not Pare V’rave. They got that wrong. The real reason is… eggs are too small? Slifkin basically follows this line. He says that Chazal’s Mesorah on the Halachah is indisputable (he admits the Pachad Yitzchak is a minority). They definitely got the Halachah right. He just holds that they can get the scientific reason wrong.
(Now, this leads to a Chiluk that if Chazal say a scientific fact and extrapolate a Halachah from that, maybe we have to worry about the Halachah being incorrect. But as long as they are only using science to explain what they know the Halachah to be, then he can say that the science is wrong but the Halachah doesn’t change.)
By the way, the T’shuvos Nezer Kohen (very new) says Chazal were actually right. He says they mean that it’s Muttar to kill any insect that reproduces via parthenogenesis.
That’s not what Slifkin says. I’ll let you find it on anisakis, but on the post you referred to, he does not say as R’ Aryeh Carmel quotes R’ Dessler about lice).
When the anisakis issue came up a few years ago, R’ Shmuel Aurbach was quoted as saying his father’s psak l’hatir is not relevant to the metzius as we now know it. If he held like R’ Aryeh Carmel quotes R’ Dessler, the psak could never change.
Shabbos at all.
DY: Sure it could. It would just have to be that <em)these anisakis could be proven to grow outside the fish. The Psak is still valid; we’re just talking about a different Metzius. That happens all the time.
Today the scientists believe that they all originate from outside the fish.
Would you justify breaking and entering based on the fact that you own the building and live in it?
It’s not a justification if it was okay in the first place. E. g., justifying eating chicken because its role is chicken and not pork.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.