It sounds at first glance like this is some kind of mystical
segulah, that if you have good midos the schar is that you will hit the mark in
psak halacha. I saw R’ Zalman Nechemya
Goldberg explains it differently. We know the general rule of thumb in psak is “hilchisa
k’basra’ah,” the halacha usually follows a later authority over an earlier
one. This is because if you approach an
issue after the fact, you have the advantage of hindsight and can better weigh
the different options. The halacha
follows Beis Hillel because they reviewed Beis Shamai’s opinion first; they
first considered the counter-argument carefully before arriving at their own
view. Therefore, their opinion was always
the “basra’ah.”
Monday, May 06, 2013
why halacha is like Beis Hillel
The gemara (Eiruvin 13) writes that the halacha follows Beis
Hillel over Beis Shamai because Beis Hillel were “nochin v’aluvin,” they were humble
and modest and therefore would first discuss Beis Shamai’s view and only then
present their own opinion.
Labels:
lomdus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked this post but I think you have elaborated (pontificated :) more on the implications of this topic...
ReplyDeleteIs this to say that BS did not consider the opinion of BH first? Did BH and BS not live (meaning the Talmidim or whatever "Beis" means here)at the same time? If they did, couldn't they have had an ongoing dialogue about an issue?
It's interesting because when we quote BH and BS having a one line dispute - presumably the people behind these statements were doing much more analysis (that goes unrecorded-?)
I guess I have to do some more BS/BH research...
ReplyDeleteI liked this post but I think you have elaborated (pontificated :) more on the implications of this topic...
Is this to say that BS did not as well consider the opinion of BH first? Why wouldn’t they have? Did BH and BS not live (meaning the Talmidim or whatever "Beis" means here)at the same time? If they did, couldn't they have had an ongoing dialogue about an issue? Is there a chronological issue at play here? I’m a bit confused.
It's interesting because when we quote BH and BS having a one line dispute - presumably the people behind these statements were doing much more analysis (that goes unrecorded-?)
I guess I have to do some more BS/BH research...
[ I made some additional remaarks - can't figure out how to edit...]
The gemora, Eruvin 13b, records a dispute/dialog between BH/BS
ReplyDeletethat extended over 2 1/2 years, but which they eventually
resolved.
It would appear that the "one-liners" are the distilled conflicting
opinions after they had reached an impasse.
This issue, incidentally, speaks to an essential point of what psak
halacha is. While in general, Bais Hillel should have been controlling
because of Acharei Rabbim, and they were the numerical majority, Bais
Shammai felt that their superior lomdus trumped that. A typical quality
vs. quantity issue.
In fact, the yud ches devarim the beginning of Shabbos was an example of
Bais Shammai using a [temporary, 'chance', enforced by violence] numerical
superiority to establish certain halachot according to their psak. I would
love to know why they picked those apparently arcane halachot to pasken on
definitively [why they granted cert] as opposed to much more central ones like
tzoras ervah, shulchano b'toch habayis, etc.
However, if I die with that the only unresolved question in nigla I have, I will be
reasonably happy.
On this topic, I tend to reference the [beautiful/magnificent/awesome] drush of
the Malbim on chumash, at the beginning of chukas. It's not apparent at the beginning
[and it's a long ramified drush] but it eventually gives an overarching philosophical
underpinning for most of if not all machloksim between Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai.
There is a similar common-thread analysis in Rav Zevin's Ishim v'Shitot.
Thanks for your comments and Mekoros. IYH I will take a look.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I think I stumbled over a Tosfos today by the Tanor shel Achnai sugya which says that a Bas Kol paskened like BH (some place or maybe in all siuations) because BH was greater in number and Acharei Rabim L'Hatos...
>>>There is a similar common-thread analysis in Rav Zevin's Ishim v'Shitot.
ReplyDeleteThe L. Rebbe has an approach I think based on a distinction between b'koach vs. b'poel. (Does R' Zevin say the same? I don't have the sefer at home to check.)
R' Yosef Engel also shows the kamus/eichus issue working l'shitaso in the tanur shel Achna'i sugya (R' Eliezer = Shamuti).
That is, I25WOL, R' Zevin's approach. R' Yosef Engel applies the same to the machlokes of B'Nissan nivra ha'olam or b'Tishrei. As in, originally, b'koach, the bri'ah was supposed to be b'din...
ReplyDelete