Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 015

Monday, May 3 2004

• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Shutfus and Demus Haguf
• Re: Christianity
• Re: Shutfus and Shituf

>> In fact, wouldn't this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
>> contention that "we don't change halacha just because of what others
>> might think about us"?

> I don't think it's a question of changing halacha. I think it's a
> question of how you balance halachic considerations - which comes
> first. 

But isn't that essentially what one means when one refers to the idea
of a halacha being 'changed'? Whenever someone objects to halacha ever
being changed, they are protesting the notion that this halacha is no
longer the overriding priority; that there can ever be a consideration
that supersedes it. For instance, doesn't the Conservative psak about
driving to shul really just say that after balancing the halachic
considerations, driving would be allowed in some situations? Looking
at it as you describe it, nothing has 'changed', except that there are
new halachic considerations that have been taken into account and after
balancing the factors anew - that is the revised result.

I expect that such an analysis might be immediately rejected out of hand
because (in the proper halachic view) those factors which resulted in the
Conservative psak shouldn't be considered significant enough to override
the issur of chillul shabbos. But the truth is that I've been noticing
lately a lot of these halachic dilemmas that don't seem so dissimilar to
that sort of situation, in that there is a clearly defined 'traditional'
factor on the one hand, and then there is a less concrete, innovative
sort of factor on the other. Some examples:

* Davening on the planes: (http://tinyurl.com/22x2j ) To quote the
article: "R' Ovadia Yosef has noted it is preferable to pray in the
airport before a flight, even without a minyan, than with a minyan on
the plane, out of fear of violating the prohibition on gezel shena,
depriving someone of sleep." Mention is also made of the notion that the
safety hazard and the damage to one's concentration during davening are
factors to prohibit minyanim on the plane.

* I heard (I believe in the name of R' Henoch Leibowitz) that on shabbos,
Hatzalah members may drive the emergency vehicles back to the garage
(even when there are others available) because if they believe they'll
have to shlep back on foot, they initially may not be as responsive as
they should be.

* The above example where RSZA allows someone to ignore a SA because of
a chance that it will cause sinas chinam.

* I recall hearing similar arguments made using the opposite idea of
v'ahavta l'reacha kamocha (is there an acronym for that?) demanding one
to not do something that one is normally required to, such as eating by
someone who doesn't have the strictest kashrut standards because they
will be offended and/or embarrassed if one doesn't.

* See Areivim V12 #331, where R'ALS tells us about how his Rabbi (and
his Rabbi's RY) feel that in any situation where there is ANY doubt
that something MIGHT be PN, it must be attended to in whatever way
is necessary. Even in a situation where just OTC drugs were needed,
he outlined the steps involved in purchasing them on shabbos.

* The story of R' Chaim Soloveitchik (I think) where a woman came to
him with a shaila about a chicken and he declared it kosher. A talmid
questioned him, saying that it seemed he was very lax in his decision;
he responded that he wasn't being lax about kashrut, he was being strict
about being sensitive to the poor woman's needs.

 From my admittedly non-halachically-trained layman's POV, what seems
to me to be happening is that these new approaches are signifying a
sea-change in what rabbonim and poskim are regarding as a 'halachic
consideration'.

Admittedly, this isn't entirely new, as we see the gemara speaks about
such things, as in the instance of a person not having to take off passul
tzitzis in the street due to him being embarrassed, but I have rarely
heard such intangible factors seriously taken into consideration to
the point that they outweigh a clear issur or chiyuv. Except of course
these and other recent examples, which are what is prompting this line
of inquiry.

In fact, another ironic thing just occurred to me. People have been
bemoaning the fact that many rabbonim have been taking on more and more
of a jurisdictional control in all areas of their 'constituents' lives,
as they are deemed by these authorities as not just general life issues,
but also halachic issues. Maybe this is the flip side of that trend. If
these issues are meant to be decided as if they are halachic issues,
then they also need to be taken into account as factors that affect the
halachic decision making process!

Without getting into the specific above examples too much, as I think
that would just split this thread up into a bunch of unfocused and
unrelated discussions (unless obviously it's necessary to approach the
general issue), I am curious to hear how others feel about this general
issue. Are there any other examples that the list can contribute to show
how a less 'halachically traditional' factor has seemingly outweighed a
more concrete and well defined halachic issue? How do the above examples
reconcile with the oft-declared notion that "we don't change halacha
just because its inconvenient, or it annoys some people, or because we
care what people think, etc."?

Avi Burstein

On 30 Apr 2004 at 11:05, Avi Burstein wrote:
>>> In fact, wouldn't this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
>>> contention that "we don't change halacha just because of what
>>> others might think about us"?

>> I don't think it's a question of changing halacha. I think it's a
>> question of how you balance halachic considerations - which comes
>> first. 

> But isn't that essentially what one means when one refers to the idea
> of a halacha being 'changed'? Whenever someone objects to halacha ever
> being changed, they are protesting the notion that this halacha is no
> longer the overriding priority; that there can ever be a consideration
> that supersedes it. For instance, doesn't the Conservative psak about
> driving to shul really just say that after balancing the halachic
> considerations, driving would be allowed in some situations? 

No. They're trying to be docheh an issur d'oraysa to do an 
unconnected mitzva d'Rabbanan. Here we're talking about violating the 
same issur in one of two ways, except that in one case it might be 
d'oraysa (lifnei iver to sinas chinam), while in the other case it's 
almost definitely d'Rabbanan (lifnei iver to not making a bracha). In 
the C case, YOU'RE the one doing the issur. In this case, you MIGHT 
(and even then it's not 100% certain - what if you can get the guy to 
say a bracha?) be causing someone else to do the issur. 

Looking
> at it as you describe it, nothing has 'changed', except that there are
> new halachic considerations that have been taken into account and
> after balancing the factors anew - that is the revised result.

No. Those halachic considerations have always been there. So why is 
it in the SA that way? I guess for the case where you can get out of 
giving him some water without causing sinas chinam (in the case R. 
Asher posited, you were standing there drinking water yourself). 

> I expect that such an analysis might be immediately rejected out of
> hand because (in the proper halachic view) those factors which
> resulted in the Conservative psak shouldn't be considered significant
> enough to override the issur of chillul shabbos. 

Also true. 

But the truth is that
> I've been noticing lately a lot of these halachic dilemmas that don't
> seem so dissimilar to that sort of situation, in that there is a
> clearly defined 'traditional' factor on the one hand, and then there
> is a less concrete, innovative sort of factor on the other. Some
> examples:

> * Davening on the planes: (http://tinyurl.com/22x2j ) To quote the
> article: "R' Ovadia Yosef has noted it is preferable to pray in the
> airport before a flight, even without a minyan, than with a minyan on
> the plane, out of fear of violating the prohibition on gezel shena,
> depriving someone of sleep." Mention is also made of the notion that
> the safety hazard and the damage to one's concentration during
> davening are factors to prohibit minyanim on the plane.

Davening without a minyan is not an issur d'oraysa.... 

> * I heard (I believe in the name of R' Henoch Leibowitz) that on
> shabbos, Hatzalah members may drive the emergency vehicles back to the
> garage (even when there are others available) because if they believe
> they'll have to shlep back on foot, they initially may not be as
> responsive as they should be.

That's a straight halacha derived from the eidim of the molad who 
come on Shabbos in Mes. Rosh HaShanna.  

> * The above example where RSZA allows someone to ignore a SA because
> of a chance that it will cause sinas chinam.

Which would result in your being over the exact same aveira, except 
at a potentially d'oraysa rather than d'Rabbanan level!

> * I recall hearing similar arguments made using the opposite idea of
> v'ahavta l'reacha kamocha (is there an acronym for that?) demanding
> one to not do something that one is normally required to, such as
> eating by someone who doesn't have the strictest kashrut standards
> because they will be offended and/or embarrassed if one doesn't.

Perhaps you're referring to Minchas Shlomo allowing us to rely on the 
heter mechira to eat in people's houses during shmitta even though we 
would not normally rely on that heter. But that's the well-known rule 
of "k'dai hoo ploni lismoch alav b'shas ha'dchak" and does not permit 
eating by someone who is outright not Kosher....  

> * See Areivim V12 #331, where R'ALS tells us about how his Rabbi (and
> his Rabbi's RY) feel that in any situation where there is ANY doubt
> that something MIGHT be PN, it must be attended to in whatever way is
> necessary. Even in a situation where just OTC drugs were needed, he
> outlined the steps involved in purchasing them on shabbos.

Pikuach nefesh is docheh everything. Again, nothing new here. 

> From my admittedly non-halachically-trained layman's POV, what seems to
> me to be happening is that these new approaches are signifying a
> sea-change in what rabbonim and poskim are regarding as a 'halachic
> consideration'.

I don't see anything new here.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

> teiruz exists to the polytheism, even if they assert that the answer is
> beyond human ken.
< snip>
> An answer exists to their claim of monotheism as well.

one such answer could be like that to their.... err,,, mashuahh. let them
prove what they will from pesukim; the mashiahh we are waiting for is
one who needs no pilpulational proof.

like the childbearer's labor - as long as she sings tralala and does
not cry mame it isn't the true one.

in the same vein, a one-god that needs a teruts is not the true one.

/dw

"proptrek" <ruthwi@macam.ac.il> stated the following:
>>> See MN I:50.
>> Note: This can be found at
>> <http://chassidus.ru/rambam/index.php?seferid=4&level1=001&level2=50>

>and also in r. kapahh's hebrew and in english. can dig them up if asked 
>to.

With regard to translations of Moreh Nevukhim, it might be noted that
the Rambam himself examined Ibn Tibbon's translation and approved it.
I have no indication that he approved any other translation.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

> Subject: RE: Shutfus and Demus Haguf

> RZS proposes that it's not even shutefus, since that they believe a
> teiruz exists to the polytheism, even if they assert that the answer is
> beyond human ken.

It has already been pointed out by one of our learned chaverim that the
correct term for Xian theology is "shituf" so the title of this thread
needs to be changed. ("Shutfus" is a business partnership.)

  Omer Day 23
 -Toby Katz

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


[ 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         ]