![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A bit over a month ago, I asked one of my teachers for source materials on a particular halakhic issue because it is something popularly observed in certain significant parts of the Orthodox world, and by almost no one in the Conservative world, and I realized that I have no particular reasons for not observing it, although I also don't have any particular reasons for observing it. I just don't know so much about it in general, besides how it applies once one assumes that it is obligatory.
The teacher said the sources were primarily late enough that he didn't see reason to follow it, and promised to bring me sources the next week, and maybe to go over them in class (this class doesn't have such a set syllabus).
THe next week, no mention is made of the source materials. The week after that, we find out said teacher's grandfather had passed away recently. Clearly, I'm not going to bother him about some source materials.
But it's been a while, and he's made no mention of anything. So after class, I inquire about the source materials, and he a. didn't remember that he'd said he'd bring me sources, b. said he didn't really know about the topic, and c. said he was too busy to look into it and then referred me to a couple of books that would tell me why it Was required, when part of what I'd been asking him was why he thought that it wasn't. I'm a little miffed.
The teacher said the sources were primarily late enough that he didn't see reason to follow it, and promised to bring me sources the next week, and maybe to go over them in class (this class doesn't have such a set syllabus).
THe next week, no mention is made of the source materials. The week after that, we find out said teacher's grandfather had passed away recently. Clearly, I'm not going to bother him about some source materials.
But it's been a while, and he's made no mention of anything. So after class, I inquire about the source materials, and he a. didn't remember that he'd said he'd bring me sources, b. said he didn't really know about the topic, and c. said he was too busy to look into it and then referred me to a couple of books that would tell me why it Was required, when part of what I'd been asking him was why he thought that it wasn't. I'm a little miffed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I'm not sure I'm quite looking for psak yet, just because I don't know enough about the issue to know whom to ask. I know that sounds like a manipulative way to use the system, but...
Well, this teacher seems to have an idea that since earlier ideas are more authoritative, later strictures can be considered less binding than earlier positions, and he tends to take advantage of this particularly if the earlier positions are more lenient. But then he's also willing to take later (i.e. usually CJLS related) leniencies. It isn't totally consistent, but he does have a point- anything that someone in the last 50 years especially says is halakha that was not considered a big deal prior that seems to be davka focused against "liberal" leniencies- well, I'm suspicious of the halakhic status of those as well... But he takes it much farther than I would.
From:
no subject
I wasn't referring to finding a posek, but a "halakhic advisor."
I'd love to see his definitions of "authoritative" and "binding". I don't find either term very useful, nor do I think either concept has played a big role, even less a determinative one, in good pesak, to this very day. With regards to understanding at least in part the force behind increased stringency in the last 50 years, I recommend reading Haym Soloveitchik's classic 1994 essay "Rupture and Reconstruction." His thesis is that stringency is a result of a loss of mimetic traditions and an attendent transfer of perceived authority to texts.
My point is that I don't see why a stringency of the last 50 years should be treated any differently than a stringency in the gemara or rishonim -- presumably the stringency is the result of some changed circumstance that led to a reconsideration of the practice, usually justified by some formalist/technical halakhic language. Why such a stringency should be evaluated on the grounds of its temporal provenance is mystifying to me. Moreover, it's not clear that the value of checking liberal leniencies is necessarily a priori a bad one, at least not any worse than the value of finding leniencies for the sake of leniency, or that are davka focused against "conservative" stringencies.
From:
no subject
Meaning what? I think I know what you mean, and that would be exactly what I need, but really am not quite sure to whom to turn around here yet.
I haven't yet read the essay, but the thesis thereof has certainly been conveyed in other reading I've done and to some extent in some of my coursework as well.
I think the background of this is the general concept that the older something is, the more force it has and the less one is allowed to contradict it- provided that it isn't some opinion that hasn't been followed since. I think people tend to focus on one side of that equation or the other and not on the balance or something- by which I mean that I know that there are other factors besides when a ruling first happened, but I'm not entirely sure what they Actually are. The whole idea of being strict or lenient for the sake of being strict or being lenient is an interesting one that I don't quite understand even when I fall into taking it (which is plenty often).
From:
no subject
I'm aware of the concept you're espousing, although it is contradicted (or modified) by halakha ke-vatraei. In practice, however, this "force" is a psychological/sociological one; the legal language of halakha is flexible enough to articulate whatever conclusion is necessary for the circumstances, it's just that in practice the aforementioned force attained by certain older rulings may make it impractical to abandon it, and occasionally even to modify it significantly. The question of "rediscovery" of abandoned practices is the flip side of that; it has lots of potential force but little practical force, and probably would not be invoked unless doing so filled some communal need (e.g., a need for consistency with a shitah that posited pure textual authority, or a need for the particular practice to be revived/enacted).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Yeah, isn't that how virtually everybody views the way the Halakhic Process as working? Everyone, that is, except the so-called "Talmudic Karaites", who believe that after חתימת הגמרא (a term much vaguer than it sounds), everything has merely been interpretation of the Bavli, and the playing field is level between the Rashbo and Rabbi Shmiggeggie from Queens, such that the Talmudic Karaites feel free to ignore anything that either of these people (lehavdil) ever said.
Ahem...
(I'm not denying that the doctrine of "Talmudic Karaism" is attractive, or even comforting. It's just that it's only accepted by a miniscule amount of people-- I estimate about 20 alive today-- and, in my opinion, is wrong, because the halokhic system never worked that way.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject