[Savannah]

It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum play this game, especially when it comes to Rav Moshe Feinstein. On the left, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have mattired Y," while the right, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have assured Y."

I find this kind of thinking problematic and it seems to me that unless a more recent posek has issued a new psak, we have to stick with what he said even if we don't agree with it.

Discuss™

[velvym]

Savannah, on Nov 20 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum play this game, especially when it comes to Rav Moshe Feinstein. On the left, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have mattired Y," while the right, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have assured Y."

I find this kind of thinking problematic and it seems to me that unless a more recent posek has issued a new psak, we have to stick with what he said even if we don't agree with it.

Discuss™

I have to agree. This is why we have living poskim and manhigim.

[Melech]

Savannah, on Nov 20 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

is
It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum play this game, especially when it comes to Rav Moshe Feinstein. On the left, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have mattired Y," while the right, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have assured Y."

I find this kind of thinking problematic and it seems to me that unless a more recent posek has issued a new psak, we have to stick with what he said even if we don't agree with it.

Discuss™

(Good thread topic, Savannah.)

I think when Leftists do it, it's so they don't appear innovative, and when Rightists do it, it's so they can pay lip service to denial of being innovators.

But you're right, people won't just say, "I disagree with RMF". There's a need to demonstrate that he would have sided with me had he had the knowledge I have. I think an example of this is using one dishwasher for meat and milk. b'n I'll try to remember to post the actual teshuvot next week, but there are 5 or 6 teshuvot on the topic and you can almost hear the progression in the tone: It goes from 'it's fine' to 'I told you already it's fine now stop hacking me a chynik" to "fine, if you want to be machmir, be machmir", and today the assertion is that the problem is with the filters, and surely RMF would have assured our dishwashers from use for both milk and meat.

velvym, on Nov 20 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

I have to agree. This is why we have living poskim and manhigim.

Then who cares what a dead posek says? That's Savannah's question: Why the need to assert Dead Posek X would have assured/mattired Y?

[Rentsy]

It's a useful tool if you actually mean it and you have a good case.

Like, let's say you are going to rely on a certain Rishon for something. This Rishon, Rishon Y, is contradicted by Rishon X, who takes a strict view of the matter.

If you can use pilpul to prove that in THIS SITUATION, even Rishon X would be matir, that is a halachic grand slam. Give yourself a pat on the back.

The problem with modern stuff is that it often isn't a matter of what the halachic concepts are, the question is much more often "How do we apply them?" And that's a very subjective thing, to the point where it is difficult to say "If they had known..."

After all, Rav Moshe Feinstein knew that doctors knew that smoking causes disease. And yet he did not assur smoking.

We can DISAGREE with him, by saying "No, harming yourself is wrong" or we can claim "Well, if Rav Moshe has seen THIS study, surely he would have agreed... "

I find the first approach much more honest than the second.

[velvym]

Melech, on Nov 20 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

Then who cares what a dead posek says? That's Savannah's question: Why the need to assert Dead Posek X would have assured/mattired Y?

I agreed with this:

Quote

I find this kind of thinking problematic and it seems to me that unless a more recent posek has issued a new psak, we have to stick with what he said even if we don't agree with it.

And in so doing, admitted that I clearly care about what past poskim have said, as I think it should be held by, not "Oh, if they had known this and that, it would have been different, so we can do differently"...So that is why we have living poskim, to look at the new information and new situations and give a psak with that, so it isn't left up to us to guess and conclude based on our own criteria.

Other than that, I don't know who cares what a dead posek says....The recent declaration that was claimed to have come from Rav Wosner, Rav Eliyashiv, Rav Karelitz, and Rav Kanievsky that says all Shabbos elevators are assur goes against Rav Auerbach zt"l who allowed certain ones, namely the one in the Yerushalayim Sheraton and in Shaarei Tzedek.

[qgh]

velvym, on Nov 22 2009, 01:49 AM, said:

Other than that, I don't know who cares what a dead posek says....The recent declaration that was claimed to have come from Rav Wosner, Rav Eliyashiv, Rav Karelitz, and Rav Kanievsky that says all Shabbos elevators are assur goes against Rav Auerbach zt"l who allowed certain ones, namely the one in the Yerushalayim Sheraton and in Shaarei Tzedek.

i don't think this is necessarily a good example. There isn't really anyy new info that Rav Auerbach zt'l did not know.
The Charedi newspapers claim that the new elevators are different although they were very vague on this. Machon Tzomet and the other insitutute giving Hechsherim to elevator claim there is nothing new that would change Rav Auerbach's psak and that they still use the same criteria.
Some Rabanim may decide to disagree with Rav Auerbach's psak and that is fine.

[velvym]

qgh, on Nov 21 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

i don't think this is necessarily a good example. There isn't really anyy new info that Rav Auerbach zt'l did not know.
The Charedi newspapers claim that the new elevators are different although they were very vague on this. Machon Tzomet and the other insitutute giving Hechsherim to elevator claim there is nothing new that would change Rav Auerbach's psak and that they still use the same criteria.
Some Rabanim may decide to disagree with Rav Auerbach's psak and that is fine.

I wasn't trying to use it as an example of new information leading to a new psak. Quite the opposite. I was responding to the query of "Who cares about dead poskim?" I understand that poskim can disagree.

[Rentsy]

Funny, I thought the deader a posek was, the more authority they had.

[motcha]

When it came to the Boro Park eruv ten years ago some argued that walls had been constructed after Reb Moshe passed away. I guess thats a similar case.

[Snag]

Savannah, on Nov 20 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

It seems to me that both sides of the spectrum play this game, especially when it comes to Rav Moshe Feinstein. On the left, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have mattired Y," while the right, it's, "If only he knew about X, he would have assured Y."

I find this kind of thinking problematic and it seems to me that unless a more recent posek has issued a new psak, we have to stick with what he said even if we don't agree with it.

Discuss™

excellent post!

i agree with your opinion, with one caveat: a common thread running through rav moshe's teshuvos, is that he necer (ime) simply renders a psak; he always presents the full halachic reasoning leading to it. therefore, if a person has carefully studied the reasoning, and has information which was definitely not available to rav moshe and is clearly relevant to the reasoning, he may tentatively suggest that rav moshe would have changed his position.

however, some people claim that rav moshe issued his psokim without full knowledge of the issues, even as they were understood in his time. this is ridiculous, as it is well-known that rav moshe would consult with experts in their respective fields when approaching technical sh'eilos. he once sat behind a refrigerator for a number of hours with a repairman explaining all the parts and proccesses to him in order to be able to rule on whether a fridge may be opened on shabbos. unless rav moshe actually wrote something which is technically incorrect, i think it is foolish to assume that he was underinformed.

then there are the people who wish to claim that things have changed. a perfect example of this is rav vaya, who says that although rav moshe paskened that pasteurizaton=bishul, that was only because the pasteurization of his time caused a greater prcentage of evaporation (or something to that effect), but that now that different methods are used, he would reverse himself. this opinion is opposed by numerous poskim for the simple fact that according to rav moshe's reasoning, it is not readily apparent that percentage of evaporation has any relevance. therefore it seems that rav vaya is simply looking for an excuse to bring rav moshe into alignment with his own views on the matter.

[qgh]

Snag, on Nov 22 2009, 01:40 PM, said:

excellent post!

i agree with your opinion, with one caveat: a common thread running through rav moshe's teshuvos, is that he necer (ime) simply renders a psak; he always presents the full halachic reasoning leading to it. therefore, if a person has carefully studied the reasoning, and has information which was definitely not available to rav moshe and is clearly relevant to the reasoning, he may tentatively suggest that rav moshe would have changed his position.

however, some people claim that rav moshe issued his psokim without full knowledge of the issues, even as they were understood in his time. this is ridiculous, as it is well-known that rav moshe would consult with experts in their respective fields when approaching technical sh'eilos. he once sat behind a refrigerator for a number of hours with a repairman explaining all the parts and proccesses to him in order to be able to rule on whether a fridge may be opened on shabbos. unless rav moshe actually wrote something which is technically incorrect, i think it is foolish to assume that he was underinformed.

then there are the people who wish to claim that things have changed. a perfect example of this is rav vaya, who says that although rav moshe paskened that pasteurizaton=bishul, that was only because the pasteurization of his time caused a greater prcentage of evaporation (or something to that effect), but that now that different methods are used, he would reverse himself. this opinion is opposed by numerous poskim for the simple fact that according to rav moshe's reasoning, it is not readily apparent that percentage of evaporation has any relevance. therefore it seems that rav vaya is simply looking for an excuse to bring rav moshe into alignment with his own views on the matter.

the pro eruv guys do this all the time.
pages were written on this forrum explaining how Rav Moshe was "mislead" and "unaware" .....
The Chafetz Chaim also was apparntly "mislead" as he did not have all the sources and even though he makes several arguments regarding his position since his main argument is based on limited sources everything falls apart .... ..... ...... .......

[Snag]

[starting the stopwatch until tikkun shows up]....

[moe says]

BTA
I think we know how deios are solicited from R' Elyashiv without any attention to full comprehension. If, that is they actually ask him before signing his name.

[Shemmy]

Rentsy, on Nov 20 2009, 06:46 PM, said:

Like, let's say you are going to rely on a certain Rishon for something. This Rishon, Rishon Y, is contradicted by Rishon X, who takes a strict view of the matter.

If you can use pilpul to prove that in THIS SITUATION, even Rishon X would be matir, that is a halachic grand slam. Give yourself a pat on the back.

It's not a halachic grand slam, it's butchering halacha and the halachic process.

[moe says]

Shemmy, on Nov 22 2009, 10:15 AM, said:

It's not a halachic grand slam, it's butchering halacha and the halachic process.

???

[David F]

How much is this different from saying: "If only Chazal knew (xyz), than surely..."?

[tikkun]

motcha, on Nov 22 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

When it came to the Boro Park eruv ten years ago some argued that walls had been constructed after Reb Moshe passed away. I guess thats a similar case.

Actually these mechitzos were around when Rav Moshe zt”l was alive. However, he did not know that they existed. This issue is not a matter of debate. It’s a fact, Brooklyn is encompassed by mechitzos, but Rav Moshe claimed that the mechitzos did not exist. How can anyone explain this phenomenon any other way? Rav Moshe either was not apprised of the facts or was told a lie. Moreover, we know who told Rav Moshe that they don’t exist. Rav Moshe Bick zt”l wrote a teshuvah stating for a fact that these mechitzos contain hundreds of pirtzos, and that whole neighborhoods are not included in them. This is simply incorrect today and even at the time of the writing of that teshuvah.

The Mishnah Berurah followed the Mishkenos Yaakov whose main argument was regarding the tally of Rishonim. This was confirmed by four poskim who maintained that if the Mishnah Berurah would have seen the correct tally he would not have followed the Mishkenos Yaakov. Consequentially, it is not I who is making this argument only the Toldos Shmuel, Bais Av, Divrei Yatziv and Even Yisrael. I believe that I am in good company.

Snag, on Nov 22 2009, 06:53 AM, said:

[starting the stopwatch until tikkun shows up]....

I guess that if you had an answer you would have something more intelligent to say.

[Shemmy]

moe says, on Nov 22 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

???

Neither halacha nor the halachic process are based on second-guessing Hazal.

[motcha]

My mom told me she arrived at her doctor (the guy who delivered me) once and he was talking on the phone in Yiddish. After he hung up the phone he turned to my mom and said to her "You know who that was? Rabbi Moshe Feinstein." Reb Moshe had called to clarify a medical question. This dr. wasn't frum but he was very proud.

[Rentsy]

Shemmy, on Nov 22 2009, 07:15 AM, said:

It's not a halachic grand slam, it's butchering halacha and the halachic process.

Shemmy!

In the Noda B'Yehuda Even-HaEzer I:29, Ezekial Landau discusses a case of a dead body tentatively identified as a certain dead man. Can his wife remarry? There is a concern that after three days of being dead, it is difficult to accurately identify a dead body. Rashba is inclined to strictness, while Rabbeinu Tam is inclined towards leniency. To allow the woman to remarry, Rabbi Landau does not merely side with Rabbeinu Tam, but argues that in this case, even Rashba would be inclined towards leniency.

THAT is a halachic grand slam. It takes intelligence and good character to do right, but when done right, it is geshmak. Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, of course, was a world-class posek, to use contemporary language, a gadol sh'b'gedolim.