Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 045

Sunday, November 3 2002

• shaking hands with a woman
• shaking hands, gezeiras, halachic process, questions
• Ben Niddah Mekoros
• hat falls etc
• Veal
• Re: the son of the Shunamis (was: Fw: A question from my father r.e. this week's Haftarah)
• Subject: the son of the Shunamis
• Re: Takannat Hakahal - RG
• Re: CI - was Violating the will of the majority
• Re: RMF on microphones and modern gezeirot
• Re: CI - was Violating the will of the majority
• Re: shaking hands, gezeiras, halachic process, questions
• Re: shaking hands with a woman
• Fwd: The Ethicist (Not what you think!)
• astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: VEAL
• Re: Nefilas Apayim - practice of the Rav ztl
• Yarmulkes and IM
• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• Re: atzas gdolim
• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• Re: re daas torah

Regarding the issue of shaking hands with a woman.

There are three sources in the Igros Moshe

1) EH I #56 page 144

"Concerning that which you saw people being lenient even those who are
yirei shamayim - to offer their hand to a woman when she stuck her hand
out. Perhaps they reasoned that this is not derech chibah and taavah -
but l'maaseh this is difficult to rely on."

2) OH I 113 page 177

"To offer one's hand to a woman in the manner of those greeting others
upon meeting. It is pashut that it is prohibited even for an unmarried
woman since they are niddah and surely it is prohibited for a married
woman".

3) EH IV 32.9 page 76

"To offer one's hand to a woman in the manner of those greeting others
upon meeting. It is definitely pashut that it is prohibited as I have
written OH I 113. That is because one needs to be concerned for the issue
of derech chibah and taavah. But I wrote in EH I #56...that one is to
dan l'kaf zechus those who are relying that it is not derech chibah and
taavah to shake hands. But there I wrote that l'maashe it is difficult
to rely on this. Furthermore I don't see any inconsistency at all with
that which I permitted a person to travel on a bus because there -
there is basically no issue of chibah."

I think it is quite obvious what he is saying.

I once saw an adam gadol shake hands with a woman. When I later asked
him about this he replied. "When I was young an adam gadol told me that
one should not offer one's hand to a woman but that if she offered
her hand then it was permitted to shake it so as not to cause her
embarrassment. However after that I heard that the Chazon Ish held that
one should die rather than shake hands so I am not sure if the hetair
I received is still appropriate."

                         Daniel Eidensohn

I keep seeing comments [on Areivim -mi] like the following:
> In the American business context, do *you* believe that shaking hands is
> derech chibbah?

Just a neophyte thinking out loud here: what if it _used_ to be derech
chibbah. Now that the underlying premises has changed, what does that
do to the gezeirah?

Is there an analogy to taking medicine on shabbos? I.e., what if almost
*no one* grinds up their medicine anymore? Is there a real fear I
will be over a melacha d'oraissa when I take a tylenol for a headache?
(or, as you phrased it: "do *you* believe I will grind medicine when I
want to take headache medicine")

If shaking hands was ever derech chibbah, then perhaps it is a _bad_ thing
that hand-shaking has now reached the level where it is not anymore.
If that's the case, is it relevant? What if "social kissing on the
cheek" is not considered derech chibbah anymore by 99% of Americans.
Should halacha then move because of it?

No statements, just questions.

-- Sholom (who does shake hands but thinks a view of not shaking hands
is also quite reasonable)

Dear All

I am preparing a Shiur on Bnei Niddah/Pegam. Is anyone familiar with
sources (Acharonim) beyond standard mekoros on the subject in Igros
Moshe and the Steipler?

Faithfully yours,
Yonatan

I recently heard a young woman telling a friend that her posek told her
that the use of a "hat fall" was dependent on the community in which
she lived (ie if everyone does it and knows it, it's ok).
 what defines one's community and what is the concern? 
Is the concern that someone(frum, jewish, nonjewish?) will see her
fall/sheitel and think it real and thus be attracted? will think it
real and think less of her? will think it real and assume that it's ok?
Is community defined by affiliation,residence,% time spent? What %
is nonmaterial?

KT
Joel Rich

As far as the *kashrut* of veal is concerned, there is a problem as
anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of all calves brought to shechita are rejected
as treif (*sircha* [adhesions] in the lungs or a puncture wound in the
intestines]. That's why all slaughtered calves must have their lungs
thoroughly inspected. It just so happens that milk-fed calves are quite
weak and there is also fear that they can't stand up by themselves (see:
YD Hilchot Treifot 58:5-6) and thus fall into the category of *mesukenet*
(their falling down may crush an internal organ and become the prohibited
category of *nefulah*).

But ipso facto their being raised in a cruel manner doesn't by itself
make the animal nonkosher. There's NO connection between *tzaar baalei
chaim* and the kashrut of the animal. It may be forbidden for the one
who raises the calves to treat them cruelly but if the animal has been
inspected after shechita (lung, intestines, no crush injuries) then the
animal is permitted as kosher EVEN THOUGH it may have been raised in a
cruel manner (which itself may be forbidden.

The halacha of *tzaar ba'alei chaim* isn't applicable to any *tzorech
adam* (human need) [see: Even Ha'Ezer 5:14 in the Rema and the Aruch
Hashulchan EH 5 # 29. (See Choshen Mishpat 272:9; the Biur Ha'GRA EH
5:14 s"k 10, and the Noda BeYehuda Mahadura Tinyana Yoreh Deah 10;
Pitchei Tshuva YD 28 s"k 10).

VEAL: see the gemara in Chullin 55b, its commentaries on *tzemaka* and
the SHACH (following the MEHARSHAL) in Hilchot Treifot YOREH DEAH 36:14
permitting tzemaka by testing the lung (shrunken by fear)

See also the CHELKAT YAAKOV Chelek Aleph 30
and the SHVUT YAAKOV Chelek Gimmel 71.

Josh
backon@vms.huji.ac.il

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:42:22PM -0500, Chaim G Steinmetz wrote:
: I believe it is clear in Chazal that he was acyually dead - See Sifrei
: Zuta Chkas piska 11 (brought in Yalkut #761), that those that touched him
: while he was dead would remain tomai mes even after he came back to life,
: see also Nidah 70b.

Not to mention the gemara I already cited, Taanis 2a. Techiyas hameisim
is in birchas gevurah because it's a maftei'ach that HQBH never gives
away. But, the gemara asks, what about nidon didan?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

RCS:
> I believe it is clear in Chazal that he was actually dead see also Nidah
> 70b.

And See Rashash there

Shlomo Goldstein

On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:26:01PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: > Making a takanah boils down to advising the tzibbur to accept a new
: > practice. After all, the tzibbur have veto power over takanos made
: > by Sanhedrin too.

: > Why wouldn't RMF's words be taken to mean just that?

: Because the takanah shouldn't go into effect at the point that the advice is
: given, but at the time the tzibbur accepts the takanah upon itself.  The
: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah is not the tzibbur but the group advising the
: tzibbur.  Frankly, in the context of the disunity that characterizes American
: Orthodoxy...

Not Mo'etzes! Iggud haRabanim!

You seem to have forgotten REMT's decription of American yahadus of the
period and the IhR's role. It /does/ sound much like the Va'ad Arba
Aratzos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

In a message dated 10/9/2002 11:49:31 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> How could we ever know our ta'am hamitzvah captures the
> gemara's and that the gemara's ta'am is the only one?

ein hachi nami - So how can RMF forbid kvura on Yom Tov?

At best he cannot UNLESS he invokes hora'as sho'ah
or
Halachah DOES evolve

BTW, a lot of so-called horo-as Shaos HAVE themselves eventually set 
precedents as normative

[Email #2 -mi]

In a message dated 10/9/2002 11:49:31 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Ah, but those could have been formally derived and have formal
> definitions, even if they didn't get written down. You were asserting
> the defense of common practice because it's common practice, that CI
> thereby keeps the formal process in check.

no I was asserting that CI is a raya that the decision is reliable.
Correct is subjective. Reliable is Objective

When the Supreme Court decided Bush won the election that is Objectively
the law Whether the Supreme Court was Correct is subjective to which
politcal party to whom you owe alleigance. There is no "correct" except
in HHKBH's perspective and Toarh is lo BAshamayyim hi,. Any Torah that
owes itself to a perfect process is artguing what the Mal'achim argued
to Moshe Rabbeinu. The mal'achim lost. Once Torah descdendd from Sinai
is s not only futle to re-construct the pristine Torah it is incorrect
by the Torah's OWN standards to do so. R. Eliezer had the correct psak
midinei Shamayyim but Halacha flowed out from his chaveirov. Correctness
is incorrect. What is correct is the process. Results are not infallible

What is correct to say is that CI teaches us that the Klal will not
wander too far off. If Correctness were the criterai than any vikuach
by A christian against A Jew could correct our flawed assumptopins and
we would be forced to admit that our Masorah was indeed wrong and that
we simply need corection. Halachic continuity cannot be subject to such
"corrections". If so EVERY Halacha and every Masorah would be subject
to immediate chakira to determine if it were correct. If Tosafos can be
incorrect insofar as Mayyim Acharonim then how can we ever rely upon him?

In Micha's system Tosafos is flawed.

In my system we rely on Taosfos when the klal or a given khillah has a
Masorah to rely upon THIS Tosafos and NOT upon THAT Tosafo. The nature
of ecltcillay following SA, Rema and sometimes MB but not others is ALL
about CI. If you know when to ignore a MB, then you are employing CI. If
you folow MB 100% you will be a da'as yachid because no one does. and
No one follows SA 100%. Nor Rambam. Nor Bavli, and certainly Not Tanach.
There is no ONE source for uthe univers of Halachah of Halachic norms. If
we allow oursel;ves to tie ties on Shabbos its typically NOT because
we each ask our RAV a sh'eilah or learn it from Shas and Poskim.
We know because it is a community norm in some communiteis and NOT a
norm in others

If ties were mamash assur, then our Rabbanim would be by and large
protesting. Their silence may be consstrued as ratification over the
long run, but not anecdotally.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/16/2002 11:23:18 AM EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> In fact, none less than RMF's grandson, RMT junior, has an elaborate
> theory why RMF could make binding gezeirot, while nobody else
> can. Essentially, it is based on a notion that there is a particular
> legislative power granted to ubergedolim, and RMF was so much such a
> gadol, that nobody of his contemporaries where his peers. In fact, says
> RMT junior, RMF was so great, that the only people in his league died
> 20,30 or 40 years before him. A little short of claiming he was a rishon.

> Now most of us may disagree with RMT about the justification for RMF
> making gezeirot, but he does agree with the observation that RMF was
> making gezeirot bizman hazeh.

I have a less elaborate theory as to how RMF is an "ubergaddol." Like The
GRA {and others}, his command of all of Shas allowed him to see things w/o
overlooking sugyos, while MOST poskim do not have that global "bird's eye"
view and therefore are more subject to the error of ommision

Neverhteless I still do not feel comfortable with this methodolgy because
it is so easy to abuse and IMHO undermines reliance upon our Massorah
in favor of relying upon "illuyishkeit". That is the slippery slope
I would prefer to avoid. IMHO it is prefereable to use a continuous
thread of poskim as flowing through time - as did the Beis Yoseph.

The Ri MIgash - accordgin to R. Dr. E. Kanarfgoel makes a simlar
case. Poskim ought to follow GAonic Precdent INSTEAD of creatively
re-interpreting Shas. OTOH, he himself violated this rule. Conclusion,
only a "gadol" or "uber-gadol" who knows Shas inside out can Creatively
pasken from Shas, otherwise rely upon earlier Gaonim - in his case,
or for us Rishonim and Acaharonim.

As for the case of hora'as Sha'ah., RMF IMHO did not need elaborate
pilpul at all. I would have preferred that he stated the issur as a
horo'as sha'ah that could be more readily rolled back in the case of a
shift in the frumkeit sensibilities of the klal.

It is perfectly OK with me for RMF to say:
Microphones on public display in Shabbos is a blatant imitation of
non-Observant congregations and should be avoided at all cosst in
order to maintain a strciter distinction between oObservatn shuls
and non-Observant ones. So even if tehcnically permissible in theory,
lema'aseh they should be avoided while there is the danger of assimlating
non-Observant {IOW R & C} kulos

Simlarly, RYBS could have said the same re: mixed seating. IOW mixing
genders leads to a mishmash with C congregations.

It's a lot like our reasoning TODAY for wearing Yarmulkas. EVen though
the origins were more a function of Yir'as shamayim than of strict
Halachah, nevertheless, they serve a vital purpose in our situation.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:46:13AM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:                If so EVERY Halacha and every Masorah would be subject
: to immediate chakira to determine if it were correct. If Tosafos can be
: incorrect insofar as Mayyim Acharonim then how can we ever rely upon him?

: In Micha's system Tosafos is flawed.

1- IF Agus is right that Tosafos were out to justify minhag Ashkenaz
even if we can only find a handful of Tosafos-notes that actually set
out to do so (our lack of chulios in tzitzis, mayim achronim, anyone
know of others?) -- out of how many thousands? Not enough to claim that
it's their standard methodology.

Taking Tosafos at face value, they were out to make Shas consistant,
not justify some external datum.

2- Even in those cases, as you write "EVERY Halacha and every Masorah
would be subject to immediate chakira". And, sure enough, they do measure
up those cases against the gemara at hand. It's not like they were
keeping the universe of practice and of learning totally separate. Isn't
a separateness of halachah-as-lamdus and halachah-as-practiced a key-pin
of you worldview?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:09:09AM -0600, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
: Just a neophyte thinking out loud here: what if it _used_ to be derech
: chibbah. Now that the underlying premises has changed, what does that
: do to the gezeirah?

The questions would be whether this is a gezeirah or a pesaq, and whether
the "because it's derekh chibah" was part of the original statement
(and therefore an implicit conditional).

: Is there an analogy to taking medicine on shabbos? ...

A gezeirah.

Chalav aqum is another of these cases: gezeirah or pesaq? RMF was matir
ChC on the grounds that it's a pesaq, and therefore if the metzi'us isn't
the same, the old pesaq wouldn't apply. Gezeiros would require the reason
to be codified within the original gezeirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

In a message dated 10/31/2002 4:32:39 PM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> I once saw an adam gadol shake hands with a woman. When I later asked
> him about this he replied. "When I was young an adam gadol told me that
> one should not offer one's hand to a woman but that if she offered
> her hand then it was permitted to shake it so as not to cause her
> embarrassment. However after that I heard that the Chazon Ish held that
> one should die rather than shake hands so I am not sure if the hetair
> I received is still appropriate."

In the Breuer Kehillah, and amongst Yekkes in general, it is considered
OK to shake hands in a "businesslike fasihon".

I'm not sure if this matters in trmas of Halachic constructs, but perhaps
its because Yekkes are famous for their self-control! <smile>

Now were I to suggest that the difference in psak re: how an Eastern
European Rav views handshaking vs. a how a Westernized Rav views
handshaking would I be spouting:

1) Seichel
2) Nonsense
3) Apikorsus
4) a bit of all of the above!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to my soapbox

My attraction to Hirsch, TIDE, Sridei Eish, R. David Zvi Hoffman,
Hildesheimer, etc. is because we are after all living in a Western
Culture. It's not so unlike the Ba'aliei Tosafos were in their Dor.
IMHO the Esatern European constructs work OK in the Daled Amos of the
Besi Midrash but are really "out-of-touch" --pun intended-- in many ways.

And that is HOW so many Jews "lost it" in America. The Models of
pragmatic frumnkeit were too big a reach for many. That is why TIDE
may be more important here and now then say in other societies...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On the topic, something I need to research more over Shabbos, I saw an
amazing thing in former member Eli Clark's father's RSRH dictionary -
"Negiah" is a negative (hey! NEGiah - NEGative!) verb. That means anytime
it says "nagah" in anyway in Tanach it should have a negative connotation.
With this we should be able to explain why Negah is tzora'as and why,
in the well known Arizal, Oneg is the antithesis of Negah. In brief, for
now - touching is a negative activity - too superficial, v'yesh l'hosif.

Kol Tuv,
YGB

RYGB:(in an exchange with someone else) <<..So irrelevant the mind
begins to boggle. Chazal often dismiss astrology themselves. The leap
from there to rejecting a Beraisa in..>>

This unfootnoted assertion is interesting, since I know of no chazal's
which "dismiss astrology" but am eager to learn of such. Of course there
are a number of chazal who dismiss the notion that astrology controls the
destiny of Israel (ein mazal l'yisroel) but not even they dispute the
"normal" efficaciousness of astrological enterprise -- say as applied
to goyim. But, perhaps RYGB could cite one and demonstrate that I'm wrong?

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
Michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

Josh Backon wrote: <As far as the *kashrut* of veal is concerned, there is
a problem as anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of all calves brought to shechita
are rejected as treif.... (*sircha* [adhesions] There's NO connection
between *tzaar baalei chaim* and the kashrut of the animal.>

Josh is entirely correct. I just wanted to add that this was a well-known
dividing line between chasidim and misnagdim in Europe in regard to
"geshtoffene ganz" (force-fed geese). Although in Lita and Poylin most
Jews (and Gentiles) were too poor to eat geese (as the song goes, Montig
bulbes, Dinstig bulbes, etc.), in Hungary geese were fairly common, and
the Hungarians force-fed them. As anyone who has seen force-feeding,
it is rather uncomfortable for the goose. Chasidim avoided eating them,
because even though the halokho allows it, they were machmir on tzaar
baalei chayim (just as they were machmir not to wear any woolen clothes).
Most Oberlander Jews ate them, however, since the halokho allows,
and one goose would provide the household with food for the whole week
(one day the liver as foie gras, one day the white meat, etc.), besides
being an excellent source of shmaltz which was spread on bread.

Seth

Did the Rav zt'l hold that one should do nefilas apayim (i.e., kisui
panim with arm on forehead) when reciting tachanun even where there
are no s'forim present? [See SA, Orach Chayim siman 131:2 and the MB
there.] Regardless, are there sources for such practice?

A socio-historical note. The non-wearing of yarmulkes in the workplace by
all Ashkenazi shom'rei mitzvos can by no means be ascribed to a purported
reliance on a hetter from the IM. Though ethnically distinct from the
prevailing majority, I grew up in washington heights in the midst of the
refugee german community -- RSHR's transplanted q'hilloh -- and can assure
you that these yekkish chareidim (they were also solid aguda supporters)
generally did not wear any head covering in the workplace. I can also
assure you that r moshe had nothing to do with it. And this was not a
just a matter of a few unrepresentative y'chidim, or those not living up
to some ideal which they nevertheless espoused. It was a shitoh. Thus,
e.g., the venerable president of the breuer's q'hilloh, a doctor my
family would frequent, did not wear a yarmulke in his office -- though
his practice was to a large extent frum jews from his own q'hilloh and I
recall he would immediately engage youngsters such as myself who visited
his office for treatment in a discussion of whatever sugyoh they were
currently learning in yeshiva.

Mechy Frankel H: (301) 593-3949 michael.frankel@osd.mil W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> At 05:31 PM 10/29/02 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> I've been musing for a while about the Ramban Rabbi B cited, and I've
> come to the conclusion I don't understand it

> ME:
> I did not enter into that discussion, did not take position #2 and do
> not believe advice is "augmented" by RHK, nor that the Ramban is saying
> that either.

So what is the Ramban saying?

David Riceman

In a message dated 10/25/2002 12:44:10 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>> Fine. I am not sidestepping the 13 ikkarim -  I actually believe in 14
>> ikkarim - the 13, and another one (which is explicit in the rambam brought
>> below) - that ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem means that there is no halachic
>> requirement to be a shoteh, and the other 13 ikkarim should be understood,
>> as much as possible, so as not to contradict the 14th.

> A fine example of Bal Tosif!

im kein is there really  no 5th cheilek of Shulchan Aruch called "seichel?!" 
--Big grin --

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

At 09:17 AM 11/1/02 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:

>> At 05:31 PM 10/29/02 -0500, David Riceman wrote:
>> I've been musing for a while about the Ramban Rabbi B cited, and I've
>> come to the conclusion I don't understand it

>> ME:
>> I did not enter into that discussion, did not take position #2 and do
>> not believe advice is "augmented" by RHK, nor that the Ramban is saying
>> that either.

>So what is the Ramban saying?

That the ruach ha'kodesh that is inherent in yedi'as ha'Torah enhances 
their intellectual processes so they are more likely to be mechaven el 
ho'emes (and, I think, although this is not b'feirush in the Ramban, that 
in certain instances their rulings/advice determine emes).

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

In a message dated 10/21/2002 6:48:22 PM EST, brofsky@netvision.net.il writes:
 <snip>
> this implies that r chaim's own psak would not manifest the ratzon
> Hashem! the point of this often told story, as i understood it,
> is that r chaiim, like all good briskers, preferred not to paskin,
> (ie whether because of his gift of seeing the depth of all sides of a
> mackhloes, or his inability to prefer a "correct" opinion [or both!],
> and therefore left he paskening to others (i don;t beleive it was RYE who
> handled the daily Brisk questions, rather r simcha zelig (?)). i am sure
> he did have faith in the siyyata dishmaya that every good posek enjoys,
> but i never understood that to be the point of the story.
> <snip>

My Rebbe was Yerucham Gorelick whose Rebbe was the Brisker Rav {R Velvel}
whose father was R. Chaim Brisker....

It is clear to me that Briskers did not like to pasken. All of the
reasons above apply, but perhaps the single best reason is the realtive
Traditional idea of not radicalizing the Halachic ssystem with Chidushim
based upon new Lamdud.

Often Halachah does not follow the "illuy" but rather the mainstream.
For example it is of the the case that Creative Okei Harim - while
gdolim in lamdus - nevertheless come up with too many new constructs
that threaten simple Halachah.

The Satmar Rav is noted for conceding the earlier "nacht" re: Friday
evenign once Satmars came to America. Note, it is probably the exceptoin
that Satmar was in defernce to the mainstream hnahaggah on this matter. I
don't believ that Satmar surrendered their shita, they just used restarint
in order not to FORCE the appearance of their version of "nacht" in the
face of the overwhelming tide {TIDE?} of seeing Shabbos beging earlier.

Similarly, many Briskers were reluctant to push he envelpoe in Halachah
lema'aseh - at least for others. The facts are that Briskers for
themselves DID pursue certain ideosyncratic hanhaggos based upon their
shittos, but generally were reluctant to impose them on the mainstream.

Ask yourself., how often di the Chaye Adam / Chochmas Adam follow the
Gra as opposed to more "mainsteram" poskim? It is likely that today the
Gra's opinion holds greater sway over people then it did over the very
poskim who literally stood in awe of him! {My how things change!} AISI,
the Gra meant his Hanhaggos for his private chevra, much in the same way
as Brisk did. For the majority a more Tradtional methodology was favored.

BTW, an example of such tolerance exists in Washington Heights. The WH
Agudah is specifically geared to afford non-Yekkes the luxury of a Minyan
that does NOT follow Minhag Frankfurt. This accomodation is based upon
the practical consideration that not EVERYONE is comfortable with a
non-Mainstream Minhag

It sems pashut to me that R. Chaim Brisker wanted people to have a psak
generated by a more conventional and Traditionally accepted system as
opposed to a Psak that germinated in a Brisker womb.

in 1974, some of us BEGGED, Rav Gorelick to teach us Chullin. At first
he said yes on the strict condition that he NOT teach us on a Halachah
lema'aseh basis. Then he recanted and taught Bav Kamma instead. {FWIW
this kind of forced me into RYBS"s shiur because he was covering the
same Perek I had already learned with him before.}

Rav Gorelick did not grow up Brisk. He fully realize that Brisker
conclusions were a bit of a "guzma" at times when it came to Halachah
lema'aseh. That does NOT mean to imply that he did not think it was THE
Best technique for learning Shas and Rambam. He just felt uncomfortable
with forcing the issue to its logical conclusions in the area of practice.

FWIW, R. Dr. MS FEldblum explcitly told us the same thing re: his Critcal
School Methodology that it ideally should not repeal Practical Halachah
which evolved upon earlier pricinples and paradigms

Bottom Line: a Yrei Shamayyim is often aware of the possiblity of
taking radical thoughts too far into practice. This never stopped them
from teaching their ideas but it sure made them hesitate to implement
them in practice or at least to force them upon the masses.

R' Chaim might have also felt that a Psak from a well-renowned mainstream
Poseik would get more conensus than by a known "m'chadeish". That did
not stop him from being m'chadish, but it made him pasue to reflect upon
the impact. Eizehu Chacham -haro'eh es hanolad...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]