[qgh]

qgh, on Nov 23 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

I don't think The Chafetz Hasim was a robot and I don't think he based his opinion just on a tally.

Rentsy, on Nov 24 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

Counting Rishonim is also a poor way of doing psak, because how much from that era has not reached us? How much the of Geonic responsa has not reached us?

Guess what the Chazon Ish thought about kitvei yad from the era of the Rishonim?

He thought you shouldn't overturn any existing halachic decision because of the number. Poskim chose a way that seemed logical. Building logical paths is how to do psak.

tikkun, on Nov 24 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

If you are referring to my comment you miss the point. It is not I who is tallying the newly found Rishonim only the Mishkenos Yaakov and the Mishnah Berurah who followed him.

The Mishna Brura is widely available. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in this topic and the Chafetz Haim's opinion, take a look at what he wrote. Judge for yourself if his opinion is only based on counting Rishonim.

הלכות שבת סימן שמה כג באור הלכה

[tikkun]

Rentsy, on Nov 24 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

Hey, just bringing in what I know about the Chazon Ish.

I just want to point out that besides for the Biur Halachah in 345:7 I would recommend the Biur Halachah in 364:7. There is no doubt that the main reason for the Mishnah Berurah’s objection to the criterion of shishim ribo is the tally of Rishonim. This was the main objection of the Mishkenos Yaakov who the Mishnah Berurah was following, as well. Yes it’s a bitter pill for some to come to terms with the fact that shishim ribo was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Rishonim contrary to the opinion of the Rambam (however, see this note http://eruvonline.bl...hag.html#_ftn8). In any case all cities had to rely on this criterion to establish an eruv. Therefore, there is no doubt that the minhag was to accept shishim ribo as a fundament of a reshus harabbim.

[qgh]

qgh, on Nov 24 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The Mishna Brura is widely available. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in this topic and the Chafetz Haim's opinion, take a look at what he wrote. Judge for yourself if his opinion is only based on counting Rishonim.

הלכות שבת סימן שמה כג באור הלכה

tikkun, on Nov 24 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

I just want to point out that besides for the Biur Halachah in 345:7 I would recommend the Biur Halachah in 364:7.

I agree. - For those interested read ALL of the above references from the Mishna Brurah.
JUDGE for yourself what the Mishna Brura was saying and arguing and if all he was diong was acting as a Robot counting Rishonim.

[Snag]

moe says, on Nov 23 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

I would add that I think there is a difference between being koveia halacha as a mechaber sfarim, like the chofetz chaim, the mechaber, the aruch hashulchan the chayei adam (all of whom based decisions on consensus- and were most definitely great chachamim) and paskening a shailah which is brought before you (very much impacted by other factors).

I thought that is what shemmy was referring to when he spoke about a haham going with one shita over another. In the realm of theory, certainly I am of the opinion that any halachically significant deiah has to be understood. and to define the parameters of the psak of a revered deiah (ie bameh dvarim amurim) is part of the very life blood of the continued multi-generational halachic dialogue.

i think this is an excellent point, and may allow us to jive shemmy's observation with the practice of numerous baalei teshuvos ():

it is likely that the noda biyehudo's psak was indeed predicated on his opinion that rabbeinu tam's position, in this instance, merits relying on, even though the rashbo may hold differently. however, in his written t'shuvos, which are primarily for the learning of halacha, ather than the practical psak of 'what to do', he pointed out that perhaps the rashbo would also agree in this case - not neccessarily to affect the psak, merely for the sake of pure talmud, which may also have applicatio in other instances.

(i wrote this very poorly, but i hope my point gets across. )

[tikkun]

tikkun, on Nov 24 2009, 02:43 AM, said:

I just want to point out that besides for the Biur Halachah in 345:7 I would recommend the Biur Halachah in 364:7. There is no doubt that the main reason for the Mishnah Berurah’s objection to the criterion of shishim ribo is the tally of Rishonim. This was the main objection of the Mishkenos Yaakov who the Mishnah Berurah was following, as well. Yes it’s a bitter pill for some to come to terms with the fact that shishim ribo was accepted by the overwhelming majority of Rishonim contrary to the opinion of the Rambam (however, see this note http://eruvonline.bl...hag.html#_ftn8). In any case all cities had to rely on this criterion to establish an eruv. Therefore, there is no doubt that the minhag was to accept shishim ribo as a fundament of a reshus harabbim.

I would add that the Mishnah Berurah in his Biur Halachah in 364:7 makes use of two tallies: 1) the majority of Rishoniom maintain asu rabbim 2) the majority of Rishonim maintain that shishim ribbo is not a criterion. So I guess the Mishnah Berurah did not consider this derech in p’sak robotics. Moreover, the fact that the Biur Halachah mentions in 345:7 additional reasons for not accepting the criterion of shishim ribo proves nothing (besides for the fact that he is just following the Mishkenos Yaakov). Those who are familiar with the way a posek arrives at a conclusion would realize that what the Mishnah Berurah is doing is just buttressing his conclusion by piling on additional reasons that we don’t accept shishim ribo as a fundament of a reshus harabbim. However, there is no doubt that his main reason is the tally of Rishonim. Unlike some here, the Mishnah Berurah would not arrive at a conclusion based solely on these additional arguments which are simply sevaros. The Mishnah Berurah made use of the argument of what he believed was the opinion of the majority of Rishonim. In any case, we see clearly from the Biur Halachah in 364:7 that the tally was his main argument.

It is comical that some here would make use of Rav Ovadia Yoseph shlita’s p’sak when it agrees with their opinion, but nevertheless maintain that tallies are not the way to reach a conclusion. What do they do with the fact that he is the biggest champion of tallies?

[Snag]

jewess, on Jan 12 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

it seems like you are very biased on this subject. As if your parnassah is somehow connected to people carrying on shabbos. It feels like the salesman who has an answer to every question because they desperately need the sale. am i wrong?

[Shemmy]

tikkun, on Nov 24 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

It is comical that some here would make use of Rav Ovadia Yoseph shlita's p'sak when it agrees with their opinion, but nevertheless maintain that tallies are not the way to reach a conclusion. What do they do with the fact that he is the biggest champion of tallies?

We look at the actual teshouba and make a decision whether or not it's properly constructed according to our mesora*. If Haham Obadia were to say, "based on the reasoning of teshouba X, my opinion is to rule Y on matter Z," it is one thing. If he were to say "this number of people say A, so I will rule A," it's another. And while majority opinion does have a place in the codification of halacha, it does not have a place in individual teshouboth, since you cannot uniformly apply halacha to every situation for every person.

*One prime example I came across on another discussion forum deals with the end of Shabbath. Haham Obadia clearly states that the opinion of Maran and the Geonim is that Shabbath ends 13.5 minutes after sundown, but that we should follow the opinion of Rabbenu Tam. Not only does this conflict with his general view of the Shoulhan Aruch as the sole deciser of halacha for Sephardim and Erets Israel, but for those of us who follow the traditions of the Geonim as they wound their way out of Babel into Spain and then the Ottoman Empire, it's completely nonsensical.

[tikkun]

Snag:
QUOTE (jewess @ Jan 12 2009, 02:33 PM)
it seems like you are very biased on this subject. As if your parnassah is somehow connected to people carrying on shabbos. It feels like the salesman who has an answer to every question because they desperately need the sale. am i wrong?


And my answer then was, “What an inane comment. Do you or don’t you have what to answer?” Grow up.

Shemmy, on Nov 24 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

We look at the actual teshouba and make a decision whether or not it's properly constructed according to our mesora*. If Haham Obadia were to say, "based on the reasoning of teshouba X, my opinion is to rule Y on matter Z," it is one thing. If he were to say "this number of people say A, so I will rule A," it's another. And while majority opinion does have a place in the codification of halacha, it does not have a place in individual teshouboth, since you cannot uniformly apply halacha to every situation for every person.

I won’t get into this debate, but I will say that your comment has almost no bearing on this argument. The fact is when a posek makes a tally he obviously believes that the p’sak of these Rishonim or Achronim applies to the situation at hand.

[Shemmy]

tikkun, on Nov 24 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

I won't get into this debate, but I will say that your comment has almost no bearing on this argument.

My comment was a direct response to the post you made about people following the piske halacha of Haham Obadia. So while it may have no bearing on the argument of "if X knew then what we know now," it has full bearing on the comment I quoted.

Quote

The fact is when a posek makes a tally he obviously believes that the p'sak of these Rishonim or Achronim applies to the situation at hand.

I believe we have already established in this thread that there is a difference between providing a codification of halacha and providing an individual teshouba. Furthermore, it is approptiate to question whether it's a simply tally (i.e. seven hahamim said X, so I will rule X) vs an actual collection of teshouboth with their halchic reasoning (which, incidentally, is how Haham Obadia's teshouboth are structured).

[Rentsy]

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone does psak based on tallies.

[tikkun]

Shemmy, on Nov 25 2009, 12:35 AM, said:

My comment was a direct response to the post you made about people following the piske halacha of Haham Obadia. So while it may have no bearing on the argument of "if X knew then what we know now," it has full bearing on the comment I quoted.



I believe we have already established in this thread that there is a difference between providing a codification of halacha and providing an individual teshouba. Furthermore, it is approptiate to question whether it's a simply tally (i.e. seven hahamim said X, so I will rule X) vs an actual collection of teshouboth with their halchic reasoning (which, incidentally, is how Haham Obadia's teshouboth are structured).

I don’t agree with you regarding Rav Ovadia shlita at all. If he is not the ultimate collector of poskim then I don’t know who is. However, I am not going to argue about this inyan anymore.

Rentsy, on Nov 25 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone does psak based on tallies.

Right, if Rav Ovaida shlita doesn’t no one does.

[Savannah]

Rentsy, on Nov 25 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone does psak based on tallies.

It's one of the considerations when deciding a psak.