- This topic has 65 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
FNY: Yes, Rashi. Rashbam doesn’t start until the third Perek.
I believe we agree on this point. The “internal procedures” depend on a subjective understanding of the issues. The “Din” of “Yashar V’Tov” (a general moral) is determined in its practical application by Rava based on his understanding of the facts. The moral “Do good” may be objective, but its application certainly is not. This moves on to other examples as well, such as the recent call by one of the Chassidishe Rebbes to wear fake straimels due to the cost and current external pressures on not wearing fur hats. That may be “Yashar V’Tov”, but it is based on a subjective understanding of the facts with which others might disagree.
Now to move to a more difficult case, let’s take Mechias Amalek. The “Moral” of “Yashar V’Tov” would (Pashtus) say not to do so. Either you believe that “Morality” is overridden by Halacha (and you are not a Kofer), or you believe that Hashem is saying that is included in “Yashar V’Tov” and is moral. See the post that I linked to earlier in the thread for more on that.
DY: See the Straimel example above.
What was the story with the streimlach?
Google “straimel Shlomo Pappenheim”. To quote the Jpress article:
It’s an example of a larger picture, how outside society influences what is “Yashar V’Tov” and what is “Moral”. An obvious example (top of my head) would be Keddushei Ketana, which no one would suggest is appropriate but Al Pi Halacha is 100% Muttar.
If it does involve tzaar baalei chaim, then he’s right. But tzaar baalei chaim is a Torah concept, so I still don’t get your point.
The Gemara actually says that kedushei ketana is not appropriate, IIRC.
To give a counter example, is bris mila immoral in a society which considers it barbaric ch”v?
frumnotyeshivish: The Gemara quotes a Machlokes and says which way HKBH Paskens. The Rambam follows his rules of P’sak in Machlokos Tannaim and Paskens against HKBH anyway.
Sam, are you talking about Safek Nega? The interesting thing is that the Gemara says that they went to Rabbah to be Machria, and he was Machria like Hakadosh Baruch hu. And still, the Rambam Paskens like the Mesivta D’rakia.
To give a counter example, is bris mila immoral in a society which considers it barbaric ch”v?
Very good. That is the point, that each idea has to be weighed based on the subjective weights placed on it by the viewer. Bris Milah in general would certainly get a higher weight than other “problematic” concerns, such as (for example) Mietiza B’Peh (which is certainly not Meakev) for the Pikuach Nefesh (or societal) problem.
Point being, it’s not black & white. That’s why you need a Rov.
A simple “no” is the correct answer. It is b&w. No Rov required for this one.
A simple “no” is the correct answer. It is b&w. No Rov required for this one.
Bris yes; Metizah not.
Ok, but if even metzitzah is a shailah, it’s ultimately a decision based on Torah values, not on what society considers moral.
Deciding whether or not to accept the “studies” as grounds to consider it a sakana, how much weight to give something which is al pi nistar, etc., are questions of halacha.
Ok, but if even metzitzah is a shailah, it’s ultimately a decision based on Torah values, not on what society considers moral.
I’m not sure of that. Part of the reasoning behind the Cherem of Rabbainu Gershom at that time (it is said, I don’t have the source off the top of my head) was because of of the Catholic Sacrement of Marriage, making Bigamy a sin in their eyes. So too here, if Metziza becomes an societal issue with the general public (which B”H it has not), that would be a consideration.
Even L’Shitascha, how much weight to give to “studies” and Nistar is subjective as well (similar to the case of Runia, which was all Halachic and nothing societal, but nonetheless was morally ambiguous).
If Rabeinu Gershon decided to ban polygamy because it became immoral, you’d be right, but that’s certainly not what happened. (Agav, I read that his charomim were a response to men who traveled on business and decided to abandon their wives.)
I understand the need, on occasion, to fit into secular society to some extent, but our inherent sense of morality should not change.
As to your final point, I agree that not everything halachic is devoid of subjectivity, but that doesn’t make it non-halachic, as long as it’s not subject to society’s ever-changing “morals”.
DY: I think I can agree with that to the most part.
Oh, well. 🙂
Have a good Shabbos.
DY: Likewise, have a good shabbos. It’s always fun.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.