Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 071

Thursday, December 13 2001

• The Value of Money
• re:The Wealth of a Navi
• Re: The Wealth of a Navi
• Re: Nussach Sefard vs Ashkenaz
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• re: The Rav as Social Worker
• Re: The Rav as Social Worker
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: Pelishtim
• Pelishtim
• Re: OR SAMEACH RE: HADLAKAS NER CHANUKAH
• Re: r. Berkovitz on Agunoth
• Rambam
• Re: Bimheirah biyameinu
• Sarah With(out) Womb
• Re: Ur vs. Or
• Sukkos Revisited
• REED
• Re: REED
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: Comparative Liturgy
• Re: TIDE and TuM
• Re: Halacha Methodology

Sichot
Sicha of HaRav Yehuda Amital shlit"a
Summarized by Betzalel Posy
Yeshivat Har Etzion

	  "Pharaoh Dressed Him in Robes of Fine Linen
	    and Placed a Gold Chain about His Neck"

When Pharaoh promoted Yosef to be the prime minister of Egypt, the
Torah emphasizes that the first thing he did was dress him in clothes
reflecting the majesty of his office. The material element of Yosef's
promotion seems symbolic of his victory, with the help of the Kadosh
Barukh Hu, over all the obstacles that stood in his way. When Yosef put
on his new clothes and picked up his scepter, he was representing not
his own greatness, but that of his Creator.

Judaism recognizes the importance of physical and material trappings
and encourages us to acknowledge this significance as well. Not only
do they provide grandeur for G-d, but they remind a person that he is
created in G-d's image and must behave in an appropriate manner.

Materialism is one of the most easily misused benefits that we have in
this world. It disturbs me to enter the Beit Midrash, which stands as a
marker to the splendor of Hashem and His Torah, and to see coats lying
around on chairs and tables. Not only does this show disrespect for the
Beit Midrash, but also for the clothes themselves. Coats are also a way
to serve the Kadosh Barukh Hu, and neatness and presentability are an
essential part of the life of a Ben Torah.

Of course, contemporary Western culture tends to have too much respect
for materialism, and sees it as a value in its own right. Israel is no
less guilty of this than others. We have our malls, places of consumption
culture and "hanging out." Even the Charedim now have their own mall in
Jerusalem, where they can waste time and effort with the certification
of the BaDaTz. Is this what we have returned to our land for?

Materialism can be overused and misused. While assuring that we behave in
a respectful and dignified way, we must remember why we need to maintain
that dignity and majesty. This is the lesson that Yosef HaTzadik gives
us when he says to his brothers, from his seat of grandeur: "Et ha-Elokim
ani yareh" -- "I fear G-d."

(Originally delivered at Seuda Shelishit, Shabbat Parashat Miketz 5757.)

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> We discussed here in the past the prerequisite of wealth for nevu'ah. It
> was debated whether this is literal, or in an eizehu ashir sense.
> The avos were for most of their lives wealthy. One notable exception
> was Yaakov, from the time he gave Elifaz his money until he acquired
> sheep by working for Lavan.

I would assume that you are aware of the machloket between the Ramban
and ibn Ezra on this very issue, in Bereishis 25:34.

In a message dated 12/12/01 4:48:07pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> We discussed here in the past the prerequisite of wealth for nevu'ah. It
> was debated whether this is literal, or in an eizehu ashir sense.

See Rambam 7th Perek from his Shmonah Prokim, this is the source for the 
Kesef Mishna Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 7:1.

> The avos were for most of their lives wealthy. One notable exception
> was Yaakov, from the time he gave Elifaz his money until he acquired
> sheep by working for Lavan.

> During this time period is his famous chalom with the sulam. This was
> at a time not long after he was rendered ani chashuv kemeis!

There are many Dargos in Nvuah.

Yimei Chanukah M'irim.
Yitzchok Zirkind

<< Is it possible that this falls under the general tendency in nusach
S'fard to use more emphatic or descriptive language? >>

Sefard, as opposed to Ashkenaz, is far more descriptive. Fpr examples,
look at Shemoneh Esreh and Kedusha, especially Musaf on Shabbos. The
Sefer Bina BaSidur, by Rav Yaakovson , Ztl , is an excellent source for
data on nuschaos.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

At 02:05 AM 12/13/01 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>: I believe R' Chaim Brisker held that the ikkar tafkid of a rav *is*
>: to be a "social worker." ...

>I find that amazing. Now, had you said "mashgiach ruchani", I would not
>be as surprized. One needs both a poseik and a moreh derech.

I said "social worker" and I meant "social worker."

I am very happy to be able to provide you with a surprise.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:12:23AM -0500, RYGB Bechhofer wrote:
: I believe R' Chaim Brisker held that the ikkar tafkid of a rav *is*
: to be a "social worker." ...

and Micha wrote:
> I find that amazing. Now, had you said "mashgiach ruchani", I would not
> be as surprized. One needs both a poseik and a moreh derech.

Maybe back then when there were no professional social workers for a person
to turn to, for the Rav to fill that capacity was much more important than
it is seems today.

Avi Burstein

Daniel Schiffman wrote:
> There's a maamar on this topic in Seride Eish. I believe the SE argues
> that many rabbanim have neglected (and undervalued) the pastoral duties
> of rabbanus. I don't have the sefer here, so maybe someone who has
> could summarize the SE for the list.

In the book "Engaging Modernity" put out by The Orthodox Forum, there's
an essay about the SE entitled "Between East and West" by Judith Bleich
which mentions this topic and the essay referred to above. Here's a
little quote: In conformity with the historic parameters of rabbinic
office, R. Weinberg presents four broad areas of rabbinic activity:
(a) scholarly pursuits, (b) legal-judicial functions, (c) hortatory,
and (d) pastoral duties.

The footnote at the bottom refers to his essay entitled, "Ha-Rabbanut
be-Yisra'el, Tafkideha ve-Samkhuyoteha," S.E., vol. 4, pp. 341-344.

Avi BursteinI

In a message dated 12/12/01 3:40:35pm EST, schiffd@mail.biu.ac.il writes:
> There's a maamar on this topic in Seride Eish. I believe the SE argues
> that many rabbanim have neglected (and undervalued) the pastoral duties
> of rabbanus. I don't have the sefer here, so maybe someone who has
> could summarize the SE for the list.

This was more or less the Weestern Euorpean model
Each cong. had a "minister".  The poseik was a regoinal Av Beis Din
SE headed a Seminary NOT a Yeshiva.
Seminaries were designed for putting out spiritual leaders of Congregatoins 
and were not torah lishma striclyt seaking

How nice it would be if Yeshivos (RW) and Rabbincal Seminaries (Centrist)
were in a state of co-operation instead of in a state of competition. I
guess kin'as Sophrim marbe chachma but there is room for a 2-tier (or
even 3-tier) system of higher learning.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/12/01 11:27:07am EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> I believe R' Chaim Brisker held that the ikkar tafkid of a rav *is*
> to be a "social worker." He usually left the paskening for R' Simcha
> Zelig - the dayan. I believe that there are many examples of this (KAJ
> under comes to mind).

GG and as we know some Hassidic groups had a "rebbe" - a pure spiritual 
leader - and a Rav or Av Bes Din to pasken.

E.G. Rav Dworkin was the Rav of Lubavich and a world renowned poseik.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 09:42:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:>: I believe R' Chaim Brisker held that the ikkar tafkid of a rav *is*
:>: to be a "social worker." ...

:> I find that amazing. Now, had you said "mashgiach ruchani", I would not
:> be as surprized. One needs both a poseik and a moreh derech.

: I said "social worker" and I meant "social worker."
: I am very happy to be able to provide you with a surprise.

Despite the way I phrased it, my surprise was not with the idea, but
that it was promoited in 19th cent Litta, and moreso, that R Chaim
saw this as his primary role. My mental image of RCB is so cerebral.
This is the man who basically ended the study of machshavah in Litta...

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:13:53AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
: Maybe back then when there were no professional social workers for a person
: to turn to, for the Rav to fill that capacity was much more important than
: it is seems today.

RIETS requires coursework in Wurtzweiler (YU's Social Work school) as
part of their education in "practical rabbinics". I wonder how semichah
in Yoreh Dei'ah is expected to guarantee good social workers. (But
maybe that question is for Areivim.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> had written:
>>> If the Torah, in Bereshit, were anachronistically retrojecting the
>>> Pelishtim of later times into the period of the Avot, the two
>>> groups would occupy the same geography and be otherwise similar to
>>> each other.

I replied: 
>> The last paragraph is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not
>> necessarily follow from the premise.

SC: 
> If, as the Bible critics hold, the Torah is anachronistic, ...

They don't hold that, if you mean the entire Torah. In any case, it's
not my intention here to defend modern Biblical criticism. My prior
response was simply to note the non sequitur, using the JUDAISM article
as an example.

> ...then why
> indeed would the Torah place the fictional Pelishtim of Breshit in a
> different locale than the real Pelishtim of the later books.
[snip]

This too is a non sequitur. Assuming, arguendo, that the Torah is a
purely human product, then there are a number of plausible explanations,
including the author's or the redactor's being mistaken on events that
occured centuries before, or his simply not being concerned for literary
reasons with connecting Avimelech with the Philistines.

The anachronistic use of "Pelishtim" is not necessarily inconsistent with
Torah miSinai. God might have had His reasons for calling Avimelech
"king of the Philistines, just as God had His reasons for including
other apparent difficulties in the Torah as "hooks" for Midrashim.

Hag Urim Sameach.

Jay S. Lapidus     http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to, 
       as long as you're ashamed of it." 
            - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg

Another interesting point is:
David HaMelech ran away to Achish melech Gat, and was then expelled from
his house.
There is a Mizmor in Tehillim, which starts "Ledavid B'shanoto et taamo
lifnei <<Avimelech>> ...".
Avimelech is the name of the king/s of the Pelishtim in the time of
Avraham and Yitzhaq, which might be the official name for the king
(just like Par'o).
This shows a connection between those two groups of Pelishtim.

Kol tuv,
Amihai Bannett

From: "WARREN CINAMON" <w.cinamon@worldnet.att.net>
> The Rambam, as is well known, in hilchos chanukah, writes that even an
> Ani who is supported by Tzedakah - must sell his clothes etc., in order
> to purchase ner chanukah. In a number of late/current achronim - I have
> seen the Or Someach quoted as having understood that according to the
> Rambam this applied to the additional candles as well...

See OS Hil Chanuka 4:12 (It's 7 words so it's easy to miss).

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

On Thursday 06 December 2001 17:16, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> If you get a BD that is a da's yachid in liberating agunos, you are
> inviting a split over mamzeirus....
> OTOH, I do not exepct R. Berkowiz to change his opinoin....

Would those in the know - for the sake of those who never heard about
r.Berkovitz until this thread started, spell out what he advocated with
regard to agunot?

Arie Folger

> I see him as saying the world exists for those who are zocheh, ie those
>who are tzaddikim badin. Which is far more than yechidim, and not a
>subject of segulah but of bechirah. As the Rambam says, everyone has the
>kisharon to be a Mosheh (albeit not on his madreigah of nev'uh).

I do not believe that the Rambam in Zerai'm can be construed in any way to 
connote that we are discussing mere tzaddikim b'dinam - or even a tzaddik 
"like Moshe Rabbeinu" - it was not for them that the Rambam holds the world 
was created - but rather for those YS who are, it would seem, akin to 
nevi'im or actual nevi'im.

>Yes, but the Rambam defines sechar as the effect of yedi'ah. The whole
>tachlis of life is to gain that yedi'ah. yedi'ah and chochmah are
>related. In particular yedi'ah of HQBH must include reishis chochmah
>yir'as Hashem.

>So, if anyone can have the zechuyos of Mosheh, then his level of
>yedi'ah is also within our reach (!), why not his chochmah?

I do not follow - how is sachar an effect of yedi'ah? And who says sachar 
is a reflection of the ultimate purpose of the Beri'ah (according to the 
Rambam)?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Chana Luntz has brought many practical examples of some of the halachic
problems which we'll have to deal with in Bayis Shlishi. But they're
only the tip of the iceberg.

My favorite example is how to keep tahor food. Not just korban pesach, but
terumah, challah, and maaser sheni. We'd have to suffice with raw fruits
and veggies that have been kept totally dry (I guess the hashgachos can
draw on their experiences with matzah), and/or you'll need to have an
ID card certifying you as a Chaver just to get into the store (and of
course you'll need several of those id's depending on which hashgacha
the store has).

Personal cars will become more common. I remember many problems trying
to keep food from becoming tamay on a public bus, but I've forgotten what
the halachos are. (That was a plug for Ms. Luntz's re-education program.)

Akiva Miller

The Torah tells us about Sarah (Bereishis 11:30) "Vatehi Sarah akarah,
ein lah valad". The Gemara in Yevamos 64a-b learns from this passuk
that not only did Sarah not give birth, she did not have a "beis velad"
at all. I'm not sure what a "beis velad" is.

Bereishis Rabbah 53:5 and 63:5 says that Sarah did not have "ikar mitrin".

This all seems to imply that Sarah did not have a uterus. But if that is
the case, how could she have menstruated? Aside from the midrashim that
she menstruated (e.g. Bava Metzia 87a), the Torah tells us (Bereishis
18:11) that Sarah had STOPPED menstruating due to her advanced age,
clearly implying that when she was younger she had menstruated.

I did a search throughout the Talmudim and Midrashim and could not find
the phrase "beis velad" used in any other place. The only teshuvah from
rishonim I could find was from the Rashba 3:45, that is cited in Beis
Yosef, Even HaEzer 154:23. Rashba explained that a particular woman who
did not give birth was prevented because "niskalkel beis velad shelah"
due to illness but she could recuperate.  He continues,
"But if after she miscarried she did not become pregnant, we have to
suspect that her 'beis velad' is 'mekulkal' not to complete a viable
child and not to accept sperm."

Sounds like uterus, but I really don't know.

The only place that I could find the above question asked is in Minchas
Yitzchak 1:125:6-7. He first says that we cannot bring a proof lehalachah
from Sarah because this contradicts the metzius. He then suggests that
perhaps part but not all of Sarah's "em" was "ne'ekar". I don't know what
"em" is or how it can be ne'ekar.

R. Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer vol. 3, Even HaEzer 4:1 says about Sarah,
"Therefore the tezt had to tell us that she did not have a 'beis velad' -
she did not have a 'beis velad' at all." This is in implicit disagreement
with the Minchas Yitzchak.

The Toras Chesed (Lublin), Even HaEzer 44:34 (cited in Heichal Yitzchak
2:16:21 and Yabia Omer vol. 3, Even HaEzer 4:3) brought a proof to permit
certain forms of contraception because one is permitted to have relations
with an "ailonis" who does not have a "beis velad".

Here, "beis velad" seems to be anything whose damage prevents a woman
from getting pregnant.

I thought that perhaps "beis velad" means ovaries. Without ovaries, a
woman cannot become pregnant but can menstruate (I think). "Beis velad"
also seems like an appropriate term because the ovaries are the source
of the egg.

I asked Dr. Josh Backon and he had two suggestions. His first is that
Sarah had a non-functioning uterus and gave birth to Yitzchak through
an ectopic pregnancy. The second is that Sarah had retroversion where
the long axis of the uterus is directed forward instead of backwards.
This can cause infertility. Admittedly, though, this is all outside of
his expertise.

Are there any Ob/Gyn's out there (Saul Weinreb, maybe)?

Does anyone have any other suggestions? Can anyone evaluate the two
suggestions we have?

Thank you,
Gil Student

In a message dated 12/12/01 9:06:40pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Isn't "shraga" the Aramaic for fire? (Not to mentionthe times it
> borrows "eish".)

Shraga refers to a candle (even from oil) see P'sachim 7b, and Shabbos
32b.

> About "urim vetumim" -- both words are conjugated uniquely. "Oros
> uTemimim/-os" would be the more used constructions for each, no?

As they refer to revelation from HKB"H the mauscline form is used.

Yimei Chanukah M'irim.
Yitzchok Zirkind

The question was asked, why do some feel there is a ntilas lulav d'oraisa
by the kosel.

If we look carefully at the Rambam, he only says that Churban HaBayis
generates new dinei Drabbanan. The Rabbeinu Manoach (in the Frankel ed)
explains the Rambam that ntilah bmikdash d'oraissa is valid in all of
Yerushalayim. Coupled with the Rambam's shita that kdushas Yerushalayim
cannot be broken, we have ntillas lulav d'oraissa in the Old City,
e.g. Kosel Plaza.

Shlomo Goldstein

HM writes
> I hate to defend REED's position because I disagree with it so strongly
> but, let me be devil's advocate and say that REED might agree that Gedloim
> are not made by the Yeshiva system alone... But the only way to have a
> resource for that training is to have a "pool" of Talmidim...

Meir Shinnar writes
> I read the letter by R Dessler differently than perhaps others do....
> Rather, the community should not give options to people outside of
> torah study, except becoming a small tradesman or the like. Therefore,
> anyone with any potential will not be tempted to devote his energies ot
> anything else...

According to both these views REED makes sense for younger boys. I still
see nothing that justifies continual kollel studies for older bochrim
who obviously will not be gedolim. We are not in any way reducing the
pool or providing incentives for gedolim to learn something else. Even
according to this shitah it seems that the ideal system would be to
learn in kollel for a few years and then all without the potential to
become RY go out and earn a living.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/13/2001

In a message dated 12/12/01 3:40:23pm EST, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> . Rather, if those back benchers can instead have professions that are at 
> all intellectually or socially attractive, a potential gadol might choose 
> not to stay and learn. 

This seems to have been true of some potential "gdolim" a Ner Yisrael
who were discouraged from doing night college or computers lest they let
a potential Gadol slip through the cracks by letting them become being
attracted to non-Torah challenging professions.

Also, IIRC, R. Aharon Kotler was quoted as saying he was tempted to
become a Math Professor, etc.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/13/01 2:50:27pm EST, aviburstein@yahoo.com writes:
> Maybe back then when there were no professional social workers for a person
> to turn to, for the Rav to fill that capacity was much more important than
> it is seems today.

Maybe a Rav today should be well-rounded generalist who refers more
difficult matters to speicalists

For Psak, go to great Poskim
For Health go to pyshicians
For Emotional issues, Therapists
For Finanicial problems- employers and analysts, etc.
For Didkduk - Scholars on dikduk
etc.

And perhaps rabbis in pulpits can do enough shimush so as to become
epxert in one speicalty later on

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> Despite the way I phrased it, my surprise was not with the idea, but
> that it was promoited in 19th cent Litta, and moreso, that R Chaim
> saw this as his primary role. My mental image of RCB is so cerebral.
> This is the man who basically ended the study of machshavah in Litta...

R'YBS was fond of pointing out that the world saw R' Chaim as pure
intellect yet R' Chaim (as described by R' YBS) was the archtype of
chesed .

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 12/12/01 11:27:31am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I have been davening Nusach Sefarad for the amud; I am used to Nusach
> Ashkenaz and made the observation that NS seems to be in a big hurry ...

This is an educated guess.
NA got distanced itself more from Kabbalah, and g'e'ulah do to Shbatai Zvi
etc.
NS retained a rellatively Meshichistic orientation

Perhaps Asheknazim saw the impatience for the ge'ulah as precipitating
the SZ debacle and therefore favored nuscha'os that are more subdued.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/3/01 3:35:00pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Where RYBS's approach /seems/ bifurcated is that he allowed ideas to
> only flow in one direction. Torah influences mada -- not the reverse.
> Particularly -- in true Brisker style -- WRT halachah. Halachah comes
> only from halachah; not even aggadita can be considered, never mind mada.

Perhaps this was generally ture, but I also heard things in the name of
RYBS such as, if its not logical it is not Halachah. I sense that a lot
of what RBS considered logical and rational were in line with academic
paradigms and not necesarily Traditoinal Torah constructs as to how
logic works. While many predicates and postuatle were Torah instituted
(e.g .Chazakh and Rov) he extrapolate a LOT

Illustration: the way I heard RYBS's positoin re: Avilus on Sefira was
based upon a supposotoin that the Chazal instituted Aveilus as formulaic
instutoina that therefore must match existing structures. But if you
look in the Halachic history (IOW poskim since the Gaonim) you will
see terms like "nahgau bo miktzas aveilus" IOW Chazl did not make a
formal formulation of aveilus rather minhag evolved out of eclectically
pracitcing some forms of aveilus and not others. Therefore IOW, RYB"s
structure of AVeilus is not based upon the strucutre of Poskim over time
(something Beis Yoseph and Ruch Hashulchan use a lot). Rather it is
a super-imposigion based upon a need for RYBS to see things as having
been cosntructed loigcally instead of having evolved historically and
mimetically.

As to how these dinnim evolved, I have posted on this and BEH will
re-post.

Bottom line RYBS had aun underlying search for a unitary ratoinal reason,
instead of seeing things as flowing out of series of minute decisoins
nad parallels taken on by kehillos over time. This need for reason is
remiscent of Frankl's eaarch for meaning, IOW the presumptoin is there IS
an underlying meaning. This belief might be Torah based but I am clueless
as to how. It sounds like an academic's search for a unified theory.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:36:15pm ESTShlomo goldstin@netvision.net.il
writes:
>What I claim is that there is no such thing as a requirement to follow 
>Shut as opposed to independently (or only in agreement with some 
>Rishonim)returning to Shas.

On 12 Dec 2001 10:32:01 EST RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com Wrote:
>Please Clarify:
>1) May I return to Shas and disregard all subsequent Torah and >reformulate 
>psak?

and on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:31:31 +0200 S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
wrote:
: YES

>2) Does Subsequent consensus count?

: NOT MUCH

>Or may I:
>A) replea this issur of Kitniyyos
>B) restore Ma'ariv to reshus

: These two are a post-Shas development of minhag. Minhag is not midina
: d'gmara. If anyone claimed mdina dgmara that kitnius is assur or maariv
: is hovah; yes it could be revisited.

This subject has recurred several times on this List.

As suggested by me previously, I again suggest that the best starting
point for this subject is SA:CM 25: 1,2, Hilchot Dayan She-Taah.
This is my understanding of how Pesak works. I welcome correction if I
misunderstand the sources.

If you look at the SA and the RAMA you will see that a view of how
the Halachic system works is formulated here, based ofcourse upon the
Gemorahs that are cited there as sources:

A distinction is made between Devar Mishna(a decision found in the Gemarah
and Shikul Ha-Daat (where the matter has been left open in the Gemarah
and therefore subject to the discretion of the Dayan/Posek but which
discretion must be exercised to make a decision based upon a careful
consideration of the Halachic sources). In the case of the former there
is no discretion as the case has been decided in the Gemorah (it is a
"Devar Mishnah) while in the case of latter there is discretion allowed
(to the Dayan in cases of Dinei Mamanot and to the Posek in case of
Dineir Issur Ve'Heter) to decide such issues as that have been left
open by the Gemarah provided that the Dayan/Posek is a Chacham Gadol
Ha-Yodeh Le-Hachriah and also provided that this is not a case were
a Sugyah De-Almah (a universal manner of deciding the issue) has not
developed differently.

(The SA there, also sets out the criteria for a Dayan/Posek as
having the qualities of Yirat Shamayim and Gemirah (learning) Sevirah
(understanding) and official appointment or in the alternative to such
official appointment Kiblu Alayhu (that the litigants/questioners have
accepted that person as a Dayan/Posek for such purpose.)

So... May someone ignore all Shut and return to the Shas? Not if there
is a consensus that has already developed (Sugyah De'Almah). Otherwise,
yes, but only if the person who Paskens is a Chacham Gadol Ha-yodeah
lehachriah (and ofcourse a yerei shamayim). If the Posek is unable to
arrive at a definitive convincing solution, i.e. he cannot "be machriah",
or if such a Posek is not available, then Sefeka De'Oreita le-chumrah
and Sefeka De'Rabanam lekullah etc.

That is, my understanding of the above.

KT
Eliyahu

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]