When in doubt...
Sorry this post comes after a long hiatus. There should be more posts, more often, on this site in the future. (bli neder ☺)
The Rambam holds (perek 9, halachah 12 (ט: יב) in Hilchot Tuma’at Mait) that the halachic principle of ‘safek d’oraitah l’chumrah’ is, itself, d’rabanan. To break that down for the non yeshivish-speaking audience. “Safek d’oraitah l’chumrah” means, if the halachic reality in a case is doubtful, and the law concerned is from the Torah (as opposed to created by the Rabbis, which would be a lower level of authority), the court must rule to the strict side, erring on the side of caution. For instance, if I don’t know if a piece of meat is kosher or not, and it has exactly a 50/50 chance of going either way, then I rule it NOT-kosher, and it is %100 forbidden to eat it. However, the Rambam holds that this principle itself (a given in halachic discourse) is not itself from the Torah. That according to the Torah itself, in a case of doubt, one should rule leniently, but that the Rabbis made a ‘fence around the law’ that we must rule strictly in these cases.
This has an important implications for one’s theological world-view. If the Torah says to be lenient in these cases, as Rambam believes, then the essential attitude of the Torah is that ‘everything is permitted unless you are SURE it’s not.’ If, as according to every other Rishon (halachic writer at the same level of authority as the Rambam) the Torah says to be strict in these cases of doubt, then the essential attitude of the Torah is that everything is suspect unless we can prove it’s OK.
To be sure, there is little practical difference for us. Religious Jews are bound to follow the rulings of the Rabbis whether they are directly from the Torah, or on their own authority. However, when one looks out at the world, what does G!d, ideally, want us to see? A wonderland where everything is permitted unless proven otherwise, or a world full of possible pitfalls that we must be extremely careful not to fall prey to?
---------
WARNING: The following is less ‘Torah related’ and more personal rant.
On another note, I have been thinking lately about something a teacher of mine at Aish Ha-Torah once said, that there are essentially two types of people (according to this particular division), those to try to match the information presented to them, and those who try to challenge or contradict that information. For instance, if someone states an opinion in a conversation, is your first instinct to understand why they are right, and to continue the conversation in a pleasant, non-confrontational manner, or do you search for the cracks in their arguments and either argue with them or demand they fill in the blanks?
My instinct tends to be to challenge what people around me say, and it is only with effort that I hold my tongue much of the time, when confrontation is just not worth the energy (which is often, as arguing with someone about their personal opinions is almost always completely pointless; arguing over facts only slightly less so…) and I let it go. But when I’m tired, or in a foul mood, I tend to pick people apart. I don’t let anyone get away with the little slips, and stupid things that we all—including myself—say all the time. I know how annoying this is, and that’s why I try not to do it most of the time. On the other hand, it does equip me to catch some of the more egregiously stupid sayings which get tossed out without a second thought, when everyone else in the room lets it slide…
I’ve been wondering if this is a good middah (character trait) or a bad middah. In the end, I suppose it’s like anything else, too much or too little is destructive, and the reasonable middle can be quite positive. Does anybody else out there struggle with this particular issue?
The Rambam holds (perek 9, halachah 12 (ט: יב) in Hilchot Tuma’at Mait) that the halachic principle of ‘safek d’oraitah l’chumrah’ is, itself, d’rabanan. To break that down for the non yeshivish-speaking audience. “Safek d’oraitah l’chumrah” means, if the halachic reality in a case is doubtful, and the law concerned is from the Torah (as opposed to created by the Rabbis, which would be a lower level of authority), the court must rule to the strict side, erring on the side of caution. For instance, if I don’t know if a piece of meat is kosher or not, and it has exactly a 50/50 chance of going either way, then I rule it NOT-kosher, and it is %100 forbidden to eat it. However, the Rambam holds that this principle itself (a given in halachic discourse) is not itself from the Torah. That according to the Torah itself, in a case of doubt, one should rule leniently, but that the Rabbis made a ‘fence around the law’ that we must rule strictly in these cases.
This has an important implications for one’s theological world-view. If the Torah says to be lenient in these cases, as Rambam believes, then the essential attitude of the Torah is that ‘everything is permitted unless you are SURE it’s not.’ If, as according to every other Rishon (halachic writer at the same level of authority as the Rambam) the Torah says to be strict in these cases of doubt, then the essential attitude of the Torah is that everything is suspect unless we can prove it’s OK.
To be sure, there is little practical difference for us. Religious Jews are bound to follow the rulings of the Rabbis whether they are directly from the Torah, or on their own authority. However, when one looks out at the world, what does G!d, ideally, want us to see? A wonderland where everything is permitted unless proven otherwise, or a world full of possible pitfalls that we must be extremely careful not to fall prey to?
---------
WARNING: The following is less ‘Torah related’ and more personal rant.
On another note, I have been thinking lately about something a teacher of mine at Aish Ha-Torah once said, that there are essentially two types of people (according to this particular division), those to try to match the information presented to them, and those who try to challenge or contradict that information. For instance, if someone states an opinion in a conversation, is your first instinct to understand why they are right, and to continue the conversation in a pleasant, non-confrontational manner, or do you search for the cracks in their arguments and either argue with them or demand they fill in the blanks?
My instinct tends to be to challenge what people around me say, and it is only with effort that I hold my tongue much of the time, when confrontation is just not worth the energy (which is often, as arguing with someone about their personal opinions is almost always completely pointless; arguing over facts only slightly less so…) and I let it go. But when I’m tired, or in a foul mood, I tend to pick people apart. I don’t let anyone get away with the little slips, and stupid things that we all—including myself—say all the time. I know how annoying this is, and that’s why I try not to do it most of the time. On the other hand, it does equip me to catch some of the more egregiously stupid sayings which get tossed out without a second thought, when everyone else in the room lets it slide…
I’ve been wondering if this is a good middah (character trait) or a bad middah. In the end, I suppose it’s like anything else, too much or too little is destructive, and the reasonable middle can be quite positive. Does anybody else out there struggle with this particular issue?
posted by Eitan at 21:05
1 Comments:
there's a third kind of person in your breakdown.
there's people like me, who want to see if you are right within your own framework.
if your framework is continuous/consistent, then we are happy to think along the lines you've suggested, if your framework is inconsistent, then we question your errors to try and get you to fine-tune your own framework, only when you really believe what you are saying, then we try also to believe what you are saying and integrate that with everything WE know.
you might try and squeeze me into one of the above two categories, but it doesn't actually fit.
Post a Comment
<< Home