Great new shiur from Rav Bar Hayim

[judeanoncapta]

Get ready for your mind to be blown.

Here are the links

Part 1

http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,81/Itemid,64/lang,english/

Part 2

http://machonshilo.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,83/Itemid,64/lang,english/

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Yea very good, But I think that the order is the other way around. I think the first one is a continuation of the second.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Judea,

Is this the same shiur as the one on the machonshilo.org site under "Asking for Rain - Intellectual honesty"  ?   Or is this a different shiur or has more information?

[judeanoncapta]

Judea,

Is this the same shiur as the one on the machonshilo.org site under "Asking for Rain - Intellectual honesty"  ?   Or is this a different shiur or has more information?

A different shiur with more information.

[judeanoncapta]

Yea very good, But I think that the order is the other way around. I think the first one is a continuation of the second.

Sorry.

I modified my post.

It is now in the correct order.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This lecture was great!   Pure brilliance. 

[q_q_]

This lecture was great!   Pure brilliance. 

are you able to write a brief summary? it's always useful.

the long bit is listening to it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This lecture was great!   Pure brilliance. 

are you able to write a brief summary? it's always useful.

the long bit is listening to it.

I'm going to listen to it again and type up a little summary, bli neder.

[q_q_]

This lecture was great!   Pure brilliance. 

are you able to write a brief summary? it's always useful.

the long bit is listening to it.

I'm going to listen to it again and type up a little summary, bli neder.

That would be good. You are logical and honest.. so of anybody listening to it, you are ideally suited to writing a summary. You may make a mistake, but given the talents you have that I just mentioned, you would be able to see it and correct it.. so you really are a good person for that.. (even if others too have listened).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Ok, I wrote up a little summary for part 1 of the shiur.  It is hard to capture the dynamics of the dialogue which is better listened to in person or in the audio, but I tried to recreate it.   This took longer than I thought it would to put this together, but if someone finds this helpful or gets something out of it, I could write up for part 2 as well.   At least in this shiur there are some anecdotes and more banter with the crowd, so it isn't as academic or text based.   In other shiurim that are focused on more sources and more in depth in those sources, I don't know how helpful a summary like this would be as opposed to just listening to it.   But here is part 1.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kezaith shiur summary    -  All of this is in the name of Rav David Bar Hayim, from his audio shiur, and if I have conveyed anything incorrectly it is due to my own mistake or my own misunderstanding.   Anyone who understands any aspects of the shiur differently are welcome to correct me or offer their own opinion.  Hopefully I am conveying the message Rav Bar Hayim sought to present.

Part 1
Rav Bar Hayim begins with two stories of events that happened to him recently.

1.  Sukkoth at a Teymani shul the Rav was davening at, a local area rabbi/dayan who frequents this shul, taps on the shtender (stand) and says “There is a well known misswa on first night of Passover seder to have a keziath of bread (in that case, matzah), and there is also to do so on first night Sukkoth, a mitzvah deraisa min ha Torah, so we have to be machmir (strict) about the size of keziath and must eat 60 g of bread in the sukkah tonight.”   Rav Bar Hayim says his blood pressure went through the roof but refrained from publicly arguing.  Only afterwards, Rav Bar Hayim spoke with him personally and informed calmly, there has never been an olive in history of the world 60g weight.   This unnamed rabbi/dayan responded:  “I don’t want to hear what you have to say – you are wrong.  It’s forbidden to argue with the poskim.”      Conversation over. 

2.  Second anecdote:  This shul davens 7am Shabbat morning in winter, 7:30am in summer.  People wanted to keep it 7:30 for winter.   One guy says, this could cause problem with krait shema in winter.  Privately again, Rav Bar Hayim says, if you say so, you must hold by Magen Avraham. This gentleman says yes.  Rav Bar Hayim asks, ‘If so, why?’   The guy responds:   “That’s the minhag from my grandfather, and minhag of shul… mishna brura, good to be machmir like Magen Avraham.”  Rav Bar Hayim responds, “Are you aware that the shita (perspective ruling on the issue) of Magen Avraham on dividing up day into halachic hours is based on Rabenu Tam, and you can’t have one without the other.  (ie, you have to also hold like Rabenu Tam to hold like Magen Avraham about when day ends and night begins – this area is the subject of a machloketh in the Talmud.  But Magen Avraham bases his ruling on the understanding of Rabenu Tam).    Most don’t realize this.   The man had no clear answer but cited/hid behind Mishna Brurah and as a way to challenge Rav Bar Hayim and back him into a corner, asking  “Ayn hamishna brerura mekubal al halacha?”  Which I think translates to “Isn’t the Mishna Brurah accepted on the matters of halacha?”  Implying that it is binding.   Rav Bar Hayim said “NO.”   The other fellow was very surprised.   This will be explained later in this shiur.

Now onto some content.  When does one begin to say prayer for rain in shemoneh esray in davening?- Everyone knows this would be day zion of the month, mar cheshvon.  Rav comments, it’s been raining already for a while now in Israel, hasn’t it?  Reason to wonder about this.   There are two places in the shemoneh esray dealing with rain.  One is the appreciation for rain, G-d’s ability to give rain, where we add in to the second bracha - mashiv haruach oomorid hagesham – “He makes the wind blow and He makes the rain descend.”  Everyone agrees that this begins to be said in the Shemoneh Esray on motzei Shemini Atzereth (the night after the festival that follows Sukkoth). She’eylath geshamim is the addition to a later blessing, namely #9, blessing for a year of prosperity.  The addition is “give dew and rain for a blessing” as opposed to just “give a blessing” which is what we say the rest of the year.  There is discussion over when (what date) this should be added to the daily davening.   Rabbi Meir in mishna says delay until 3rd of mar cheshvon.   Rabban gamliel in mishna says 7th of mar cheshvon, 15 days after Sukkoth, so that the last of the oleh haregalim (those on pilgrimage to Israel for the festival – coming from Bavel) have a chance to get back to homes in Bavel.  Normally we would ask for it before, but we wish for brethren not to be bogged down in rain traveling back – was very dangerous back then, difficult, could get stuck in mud, starve or could catch pneumonia etc, difficulty could also discourage coming back to the next festival.  So R. Gamliel says Wait 15 days…  So which opinion do we paskin by?  (ie Which opinion do we base our ruling on?)   Yerushalmi holds by stam (simple, plain) position from the mishnah, 3rd day.  Bavli holds by 7th day.    Rabbi Yochanan, quoted in both: (Bavli: daf daled amud beth in taanioth)  - “as soon as you begin to say mashiv etc you say the dew and rain for blessing.”  No one in either Talmud disagrees with him.   Yerushalmi also holds by him.  It includes also that 3 other chachamim poskened halacha (ruled on this issue) like Rabbi Yochanan.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So now we have a question:   Both Talmudim have the mishna saying one thing (namely, start this additional prayer on 3rd or zion (7th) mar cheshvon, respectively) while also quoting Rabbi Yochanan who paskened to begin earlier, at motzei Shemini Atzereth.  Talmud Bavli answers, when there is a Beit haMikdash (Temple), wait for Bavli brethren to return home, we take them into account.  When there is no Beit HaMikdash, there are not oleh regalim traveling from Bavel and other places, so there is nothing to take into account.  In that case begin asking for rain immediately after Shemini Atzereth.   This answer is also given by the Yerushalmi in more terse fashion.   In other words, the mishna is speaking about when there is a beit hamikdash.   Some rishonim, the Ran, Riaz, Meiri, Ritva rule according to this interpretation– when no Beth HaMikdash and no festival pilgrims, begin addition to the prayer right after Shemini Atzereth.   Yerushalmi says similarly in more terse terms than the Bavli.  Other rishonim (early halachic arbiters circa 1000-1400) do not acknowledge this distinction, including the Rif, Rambam, Rosh – mikdash or not, they rule according to Talmud Bavli opinion on this issue, the last opinion of the mishna – to start on zion mar cheshvon.  Surprising – that they ignore the greatest amora, Rabbi Yochanan in a case when both Talmuds bring his opinion and no one argues against him.  The reason why they rule this way is not clear.   (Note from KWRBT:  And certainly today there are no festival pilgrims to take into account and if they did come, the serious danger to life and limb that rain poses to traveling certainly does not exist anymore).   

Comment from the crowd, and Rav Bar Hayim acknowledges his point that in some sugiyot (discussions), the Rambam sticks to the mishna more closely than opinions of the Amoraim, but nonetheless.   Strange for Rambam to do so here.   No explanation for why they (he along with the Rosh and Rif) hold this way by disregarding the issue of Rabbi Yochanan’s input.  Both Talmudim agree and say the same thing, no other rabbis disagree or offer contrary opinions of any kind, yet they (these 3 rishonim) pasken otherwise.   Very little pilpul in Jerusalem Talmud discussion.   Tells halacha clearly.   Bavli characteristically takes a convoluted path but gets to the same end.   Nevertheless, several rishonim DO hold according to Rabbi Yochanan.  The implication here is that there is great reason to acknowledge their opinion, and little reason or justification to choose that of the Rambam/Rif/Rosh over the Ran, Riaz, Meiri, Ritva, etc who rule according to Rabbi Yochanan to begin this prayer addition immediately after Shemini Atzereth since there is no Beth Hamikdash today.   

So, back to the anecdote #2 with the guy who asked about mishna brurah, he could also have said Shulchan Aruch?   Aren’t these universally binding in the halacha?   Rav Bar Hayim answers “No” there too.   A Jew who is trying to live a life according to Torah, his allegiance is not to any specific person or any specific work, or any specific posek.    As if this guy at shul was asking do I (Rav Bar Hayim) think Chofetz Chaim (author of mishna brurah) is competent?   His question carried this undertone.    Are you suggesting you somehow differ with Chofetz Chaim?    Comment from the crowd:  “It’s the system with which you disagree!”  “Precisely, it’s the system which I am discussing.  That’s the point.”   “You disagree with the system!”   “Yes, I agree, I do disagree with the system.   Because precisely, [halacha] is not a popularity contest.  Studying Torah or living Torah is not a popularity contest, or whether so-and-so was a Tzaddik or a gaon, which of course the Chofetz Chaim was, and he needs no approbation from me.”   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

If it’s clear to a person who knows how to learn, knows the sugya and what is going on, and knows what is the clear correct halachic approach, but “accepted” halacha or standard opinion differs, then there is a “conflict of interest”  depending on whether someone is just interested in doing what everyone else does, which is often the case.    Rather, let’s focus on truth.  Emeth.    Torah is not about following the crowd, or picking a football or soccer team you “root for,” it’s a quest for the truth.    “The seal of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is the truth.”    If a person knows something is true, but yet he is forced to do what he knows is not, it has pernicious implications.

It is not a great tragedy to say this addition to the blessing a few days later as the “accepted standard halacha” tells people to do.  (note by KWRBT – although we do have a water shortage in Israel!!)….   It’s not such a tragedy, also to have 60 grams of bread, 2 and a half slices of bread, where only about 6 grams are required.  (Due to this whole argument, Rav Bar Hayim did some research and weighing with scales, and the largest olive in the world is a rare jumbo species, is 6 grams.   Average olive about 3.5 grams.   When’s the last time an olive looked like the size of an egg or half an egg?   Our eggs today do happen to be bigger than eggs in Talmudic times.  Measure is in volume, not weight, but here we are conveying it in weight (grams) for practicality’s sake.   More on the keziath later).    Not a tragedy to make this mistake, but the real tragedy is the cognitive dissonance utilized in this approach to Torah.    Everyone knows an olive does not weight 60 grams.   It is the weight of a #2 egg in Israel today.   There never has been an olive the size of an egg (an egg of today).    Chazon Ish wrote that a keziath should be 45-50 cc (about 45-50 grams).      But it is clear that chazal meant keziath the size of a regular olive, 3.5 grams.    Mishna in Kaylim  Perek Yud Zion contains mishnayot about the size of egg and a few mishanyot later, the size of the olive.    kebaytza:  Average medium sized chicken egg.   Next mishna talks about a real regular size olive.    A Dati (religious) professor in Bar Ilan is world renowned expert in botany and archaeology.   He published that there are several trees in Israel today between 1500-2000 years old.   Still alive!    7 in the Galil, over 3000 years old.  Still alive and still producing olives.    Same size as olives today.     Yield (quantity) isn’t as high as younger trees, but the olives they do produce is the same size as regular olive trees today, same taste, color etc.   More than enough evidence including living proof that olives were never gigantic and were always the same general size.     However, egg size depends on size of chicken.   Large white chickens brought from Europe a few hundred years ago produce large eggs.   Middle Eastern black scrawny chickens produce much smaller eggs.    (Smaller than #4 egg of Israel).   

Not here to talk about olives and eggs.   But this is a discussion about truth.  Is the Torah lived and understood according to logic, reasoning, reality, or is it lived and learned completely separated from reality?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Challenge from the crowd:   There is a gemara that says fleas can be produced through “spontaneous generation.”  (gemara asks can you kill fleas on Shabbat)    Also brought down as halacha by Shulchan Aruch (that you can kill the fleas on Shabbat, I believe).   Should I throw out my gemara?

Rav Bar Hayim:   No, you shouldn’t throw it out.  That is one opinion in the Gemara.   You should also know that there is an opinion in name of rebbi Eliezer hagadol (I think?  Difficult to hear the name he said here), who says that he who kills a flea on Shabbat is like one who killed a camel.   So clearly a contrary opinion exists.   Abbaye had the other opinion which was accepted opinion throughout the world in his time.   Only about 200 years or 300 yrs ago this view was rejected by science. 

Crowd challenger again:   Ok, what about the earth being the center of the universe?  Based on scientific knowledge it was… overturned.

Rav Bar Hayim:  Ok.   Correct.   If we know something to be true, it is an affront to Torah to pretend we don’t know what we know, or deny reality as we know it.  Speaking of fact, not theory.  There is a different between scientific facts and scientific theories.   For example, we know the earth is not flat, easy to prove, photographs etc.   A person not required by Torah to deny his tzelem Elokim.   One major factor of this is daath.   A nefesh chayah (living soul).   Onkelos says a being that has speech.   Speech is thought in the form of sounds to convey to others.   A “speaking being” is a rational thinking being.   Has ability to reason, think, and understand.   Unlike the animals who don’t.   That sets us apart as unique from all creations.   Humans given da’ath.  Intellect to discover the truth.    It is an affront to the Torah and to any person’s intelligence, to believe that the Torath emeth (Torah of truth), demands us to believe things we know aren’t true, pretend false things are true and act on them as if true…. If that is how it is understood, as some understand the halachic system, this is a big problem.   If a Jew is learned and well-read and he finds out in some case that a certain thing isn’t true.   For example, why zion of mar cheshvon?   Because there are oleh regalim (visitors from Bavel on the festival pilgrimage) and then the person says wait, but there aren’t any oleh regalim so why do we wait until zion of mar cheshvon today?

Interrupted with question:   Minhag beth din that established it!?   
Rav Bar Hayim:  Where are you getting this from?  There was no such thing.
Challenger dodges this and throws something new, ‘you can disregard Rabbi Yochanan… like Rambam does…. Etc…..’ Tape gets edited, presumably he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he is reaching for every possible refutation.   
Rav Bar Hayim says:   Why would you disregard Rabbi Yochanan, there is no reason to logically.       Furthermore, the ruling that we wait because of those on the festival pilgrimage simply does not make sense since there are none on the pilgrimage anymore.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Challenger again:   “What’s the concept of the halachic process, at what point can we discard Gemaras? Can I disagree with Rishonim?
Rav Bar Hayim:  I’m not talking about discarding gemaroth – I’m talking about looking at the sources.   This appears in all the primary sources, some rishonim hold this way – that when there is no Beth Hamikdash we don’t wait to start the addition to the prayer – do you think it is more reasonable and a more viable system intellectually and emotionally to do something you know makes sense as opposed to something that does not make sense?

Challenger:  Well I would say, it makes sense that we should ask for rain all year long based on older mesorah, and there are some points to bring to support me in that, but that’s not what’s done, and the question is why?   Because of the mesorah and the sources that go against my intuition.

Rav Bar Hayim:   (He said “perhaps” in response to ‘maybe we should pray for rain all year based on older mesorah.’)   Now says, although I would rule according to Rambam probably about 85% of the time, a tremendous chacham and posek, on this issue he writes something that doesn’t square with the Talmudic reality not just according to us but to the Meiri, the Ran, the Ritva, etc as they all knew the facts.   So you say how can I disregard Rambam?  I’m not.  I‘m choosing to hold by the Riaz, the Ran, the Ritva, Meiri, and Rabbi Yochanan who says very clearly and straightforward what to do, and not act according to view of Rambam, simply because of powerful arguments that the other approach is more fitting, appealing to a rational and logical halachic system.   Eg:  Rabbi Y. said so, both Talmuds said so, many Rishonim said so.   Is this not enough to make a halachic decision?

Challenger:   You have to explain why you have a right to… etc

Rav Bar Hayim:   I disagree entirely.   I’m not required to explain anything. Neither are you or anyone else.   When Ran disagrees with Rambam, he tries to explain him if he can, or he will say “Rambam wrote such-and-such and I don’t think it’s correct because ______.   And I think the halacha is such and such.”   He doesn’t say, well I think the Rambam is incorrect, but because I don’t know his reason for what he said, follow what I think is wrong anyway and I won’t tell you what I really think.   This doesn’t happen.  (The Ran tells it as he sees it.   And it was his requirement to do so, which he fulfilled, as Rav Bar Hayim is stressing in this shiur).

New questioner:   Halacha in Shulchan Aruch based on Rambam, Rif, and Rosh…

Rav Bar Hayim:   It’s not.  That’s a myth.   I can show 100 examples without exaggeration, where 2 of 3 said one thing, Shulchan Aruch said another.   

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Questioner:   Do you believe we should look at all the rishonim, etc etc has to repeat his question more clearly, then says, “Would you still reject the Rambam if there were no other rishonim against him (unlike in this case).”

Rav Bar Hayim:   That’s like asking, what would I do if the sun didn’t rise tomorrow.   When was there ever an issue where there is only one opinion and it’s by Rambam and no one else?

Questioner:   Well how far will you take this?
Rav Bar Hayim:   I can see from the responses that my approach here is very wonderful and new and strange.      ….. back and forth with crowd, someone mentions something from Maharal about when a person shouldn’t give his opinion…..

Rav Bar Hayim:  Maharal says it is better for someone not qualified to learn the sugiya and the rulings, etc he’s not qualified to give his opinion.   Like going to a plumber for a medical condition.   But a Talmud chacham, one is an expert in Torah.   And only those with a background and expertise in this area, they can do it, and they are required to decipher what is the best approach and give their opinion.

Quote from Mishneh Torah in Rambam’s hakdama:   When faced with machloketh between posekim, follow the opinion that reason and proofs show to be the best one.


End of part 1.


I have tried to paraphrase/quote Rav Bar Hayim's responses the best way possible.

[q_q_]

wow.. I know a word for word rendition is alot of work.

It is an ideal, which you have managed there.

If it is too much work to produce that, you may want to consider as an alternative, a summary (a summary isn't as ideal as what you produced there, but it is still good), it would reduce your burden.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Yeah it's just that the back and forth with the crowd would be impossible to capture well except to repeat it in depth.

[q_q_]

Yeah it's just that the back and forth with the crowd would be impossible to capture well except to repeat it in depth.

i'm having some network connection problems.. (ISP)


I must say.. looking at judea's links, I couldn't even see where it was on the site.

Having seen your summary.. I now know the contents.. But also, I see where it is on his site, and I see there is a brief description there..

These descriptions look quite accurate, given that I have now seen the contents.

It just looks like classic rabbi bar hayyim.. I, and you no doubt, are already familiar with these positions that he has.

Here is a description from the site.. more like an advert.. But it has its merits. Nowhere near as good as your transcription.. And a summary of your transcription would easily be superior to the description.advert on his site.

Halackic Reality Part 1
Written by Rav Bar-Hayim   
If you believe that a posek is wrong on a particular issue, should you abide by his ruling anyway or hew to the truth?  The Rambam's answer.  Discover why you should not always accept the Mishnah Brurah - and the true size of a k'zayit (olive).

Halackic Reality Part 2
Written by Rav Bar-Hayim   
When there is a disagreement about Jewish law, you follow the most logical approach.  So says the Rambam.  But are people today qualified to make such judgments?  Of course they are.


Now..
Your transcription is much better than that.. And the descriptions on the site are lacking..

I think some of the things you quoted Rabbi Bar Hayyim as saying, really summarised his whole thing..

square brackets added by me.

"Aren’t these [mishneh brurah, and shulchan aruch] universally binding in the halacha?   Rav Bar Hayim answers “No” there too.   A Jew who is trying to live a life according to Torah, his allegiance is not to any specific person or any specific work, or any specific posek. 
"

His general position of one being able to question poskim and make one's own decision , that is well known to us already..

the new thing here is that he has elaborated and said that living by the torah is not about having a complete allegiance to particular work e.g. shulchan aruch or mishneh brurah.

I guess he extends that to the Bavli too. Since he err follows the Yerushalmi?! ;-)

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Aren’t these [mishneh brurah, and shulchan aruch] universally binding in the halacha?   Rav Bar Hayim answers “No” there too.   A Jew who is trying to live a life according to Torah, his allegiance is not to any specific person or any specific work, or any specific posek. 
"

His general position of one being able to question poskim and make one's own decision , that is well known to us already..

We have to be careful to understand Rav Bar Hayim correctly.   He is not simply rejecting all rishonim on a halachic issue to prefer an opinion that fits with his own reasoning (ie, his "own" decision).   Rather he is surveying the body of work regarding this subject and ferreting out what makes sense vs. what doesn't, or what makes more sense, vs. what makes less sense using his own mind and sechel to fit into an overall picture.   Ie, for instance, on this issue, he chose to hold like the Riaz, Ritva, etc despite the fact that "the halacha" (and he would likely object to a categorization like that, but this term meaning what people consider codified, set in stone, and what people do today - binding)  holds by a contrary opinion by different rishonim.   If their opinion is less convincing than that of Ritva, etc, then no one is bound to accept what they find less consistent.   

He seems to suggest that "the halacha" was never set in stone, and it is each generation's job to survey the whole of the evidence and the whole body of work available to them (ie, chumash, mishna, both talmudim, gaonim, rishonim, perhaps acharonim, and then use one's own logic to fit together the puzzle according to his own logical rationality) -  This is the job of a posek or a Torah authority.   He elaborates more on this in the "Lomdus, Beth Yosef, Postmodernism" shiur.   He suggests that all the great Chachamim, including Rashi, Rambam, Tosfoth, etc etc all went through this process (and that's obviously how they disagreed with one another and often gave very different views - a very different pshat!).   But a radical change of the halachic system occurred a few hundred years ago with the Shulchan Aruch, in which we are basically told we (our generation of Torah leaders - from now to eternity ?) are no longer able to make their own decisions, do not have a duty to survey all of the sources or use their own intellect, and instead will use "codified" texts of halacha that completely separate the learning of gemara from making of halachic decisions.   They've already been made for the talmid chacham, and he must go by these certain landmark texts and not disagree.

[q_q_]

the other time I have heard it said that halacha is not set in stone, that a later generation can disagree with an earlier generation, that even a position in the shulchan aruch can be rejected.  This is a funny one, I heard it from the charedi rabbi, dovid gottlieb of ohr.. He said it's a misconception that the halacha is set in stone, that a late generation cannot question an earlier one. He gave as an example, the Vilna Gaon differing with the shulchan aruch, I think it was a soft example, like a law had a reason and the reason no longer applied, so some thought the law didn't apply today. The Vilna Gaon said it always applies, but for a kabbalistic reason.  Perhaps there was an implicit suggestion he was making there about having to be a Vilna Gaon type to do it!  I doubt that rabbi dovid gottlieb would go as far as to say that any rabbi today can do it, since Charedim hold strong to the gadol/gedolim idea(let's not go there about gedolim, we've been there).

More importantly. 
I have not listened to rabbi bar hayyim as much as you.. but I would be suprised if he held quite as you suggest.  I doubt that it's even a question of looking at what great rabbis, rishonim and acharonim, have said, and he says "ok, who do I follow.. which ones makes the mose sense for deciding this halacha"..     Suppose for example, that he sees that one is right on this point, and another is right on another point he has differences and agreements with various aspects of each of their points. And so he would be able to have his own position.

The cases he gives are safe cases that won't yield more wrath than necessary. He gives examples where he has a rishon that agrees with him.  It may be that it just so happens that that is always the case.  But I doubt that he would say  "sorry, you can't have this position, you need a gadol, a rishon or acharon, to hold the same position".  And if he says that to those that aren't tamidei chachamim, they won't go completely off the rails.

I really do think he is saying Look at the Gemara, and make your own decision.

Of course, to make your own decision you have to know your stuff.   He says, you have to be a talmud chacham (which suggests perhaps knowing the whole of shas very well)..

In practice he is saying that one who is not a talmud chacham,, can't make his own decision..  Funnily enough, The charedim are not that far off from saying that, they just take it to the nth degree and say you have to be a "Gadol"! The essence of charedim is that they just go more strict.   Where the big difference is, is for a talmid chacham living in charedi society vs a talmid chacham living in a rabbi bar hayyim / non-charedi society.   Finally he can make his own decisions!

[judeanoncapta]

Kahane was Right BT, you did a great job.

Very impressive.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

  But I doubt that he would say  "sorry, you can't have this position, you need a gadol, a rishon or acharon, to hold the same position".  And if he says that to those that aren't tamidei chachamim, they won't go completely off the rails.

Well I never said that either.  But I would urge not looking at this too simplistically.   No posek or authority would have the right to "discard" earlier sources.   Rav Bar Hayim specifically says he has the duty to survey all of this material in coming up with his own stance.   Nonetheless, he is committed to upholding the truth as well.   Just like Rashi, Ramban, Ritva and all the others were.

I really do think he is saying Look at the Gemara, and make your own decision.

But "Look at the Gemara" does include looking at the mishna, the gemara, all the rishonim and poskim, and also of course knowing the rest of the Torah and every other prerequisite.   But it does involve examining those other commentaries and rulings.   Not just grabbing a masechta and saying hmm I see it like this, here's my own commentary and how it is, here's my halacha- while ignoring all those other sources and facts available to us.

Of course, to make your own decision you have to know your stuff.   He says, you have to be a talmud chacham (which suggests perhaps knowing the whole of shas very well)..

Yes I would agree.  That is definitely necessary.   He's not speaking about the average 'baal habayit' but about the halachic system which is propagated by the talmidei chachamim.   The 'Lomdus Beth Yoseph postmodernism' shiur is very informative in this regard.   I highly recommend it.  He suggests that there is prevalent today a pernicious influence upon those who are responsible for the halachic system.

In practice he is saying that one who is not a talmud chacham,, can't make his own decision..  Funnily enough, The charedim are not that far off from saying that, they just take it to the nth degree and say you have to be a "Gadol"! The essence of charedim is that they just go more strict.   Where the big difference is, is for a talmid chacham living in charedi society vs a talmid chacham living in a rabbi bar hayyim / non-charedi society.   Finally he can make his own decisions!

As far as 'making the decisions' in terms of halacha, when has it ever been that there was no general authoritative heirarchy?   There always was.   The ignorant doesn't make up his own halacha.   But, if I'm understanding correctly, it's the ahistorical limitations the charedim are placing on today's talmidei chachamim that Rav Bar Hayim takes issue with.
Rav Bar Hayim seems to suggest that the charedi restraints are contrary to the majority of Jewish history in terms of what duties and responsibilities/freedoms were upon the chachamim of the generation.  They are bound to make their own decisions or else not fulfilling their role.   Whereas haredim seem to be telling us basically that NO ONE, not even the biggest authorities really have the ability or right to make any decisions or disagree with earlier sources.  This seems to me personally to be a prime cause of "machmir-ism," which I think is definitely a developing problem within haredi Judaism. Furthermore, I think it's fair to assume that the average plain Jew has the right to go with whatever opinion makes the most sense to him as well - out of the opinions coming from the major authorities.  This is my own understanding, but if there was a diverse field of chachamim with different views he could choose the Torah that speaks to him the most.  Even if he doesn't know all that much himself.   He's not going to "roast and toast" for disobeying 'the gedolim' (ie, my gedolim) like many haredim would have a person believe.

The interesting thing about Rabbi Gottlieb that you mentioned is that I also (as you do) wonder if he would consider anyone today on the level of a Vilna gaon that could have such a liberty to 'disagree' on anything that is 'la maaseh' halacha.    I know a little bit about Rabbi Gottlieb and from what I know of his views about 'gedolim' it seems unlikely.  I will have to ask my friend what he heard firsthand from Rabbi Gottlieb, a comment regarding 'the gedolim,' which informed my presumption here, because I don't remember it exactly but the general impression that I got - that I do remember.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane was Right BT, you did a great job.

Very impressive.

Thanks.  It was a labor of love for everyone here.   Hopefully it will be informative and/or interesting for people.

[q_q_]

<snip>
As far as 'making the decisions' in terms of halacha, when has it ever been that there was no general authoritative heirarchy?   There always was.   The ignorant doesn't make up his own halacha.   But, if I'm understanding correctly, it's the ahistorical limitations the charedim are placing on today's talmidei chachamim that Rav Bar Hayim takes issue with.

not just ahistorical.

unhalachic.. 

Alot of their hashkafa comes from their interpretation of aggada.

And also, the Non and Anti-Maimonidean side of the Maimonidean conflict. 

This is an article by a Maimonidean scholar..  He is VERY bias, and anti Nachmonides and others. But he has some interesting points.
www.chayas.com/AntiRAMBAM.pdf

^^^^ I strongly suggest you look at that article, you will find it fascinating.

He actually blames the RAMBAN(with a nun) for much of the situation..
saying that he misinterpreted that pasuk about "following the judges in your times", he says the RAMBAN says it refers to Sages. And that these sages had ruach hakodesh.   (the talmud interprets it as refering to the sanhedrin, and maybe the pshat does too. The idea of it referring to sages was apparently an innovation)

Interestingly, if you look at the story of the Yemenite jews, they were at a down point jewishly, and the RAMBAM provided them with the Mishneh Torah.

I doubt that yemenites, had much access or knowledge of Aggada. (they know halacha well thanks to the RAMBAM, who only really wrote on halacha, not aggada)

There is an article on this rambamist/maimonidean website
http://www.torathmoshe.com/
where the author of one article actually says he differs from other maimonideans, in that he , I can't remember his words, but he takes aggadic teachings more seriously.

There are many influences that have made charedim the way they are.. Aggada, and Haskalah(enlightenment). And science!

Rav Bar Hayim seems to suggest that the charedi restraints are contrary to the majority of Jewish history in terms of what duties and responsibilities/freedoms were upon the chachamim of the generation.  They are bound to make their own decisions or else not fulfilling their role.   Whereas haredim seem to be telling us basically that NO ONE, not even the biggest authorities really have the ability or right to make any decisions or disagree with earlier sources.  This seems to me personally to be a prime cause of "machmir-ism," which I think is definitely a developing problem within haredi Judaism.

Furthermore, I think it's fair to assume that the average plain Jew has the right to go with whatever opinion makes the most sense to him as well - out of the opinions coming from the major authorities.  This is my own understanding, but if there was a diverse field of chachamim with different views he could choose the Torah that speaks to him the most.  Even if he doesn't know all that much himself.   He's not going to "roast and toast" for disobeying 'the gedolim' (ie, my gedolim) like many haredim would have a person believe.

The interesting thing about Rabbi Gottlieb that you mentioned is that I also (as you do) wonder if he would consider anyone today on the level of a Vilna gaon that could have such a liberty to 'disagree' on anything that is 'la maaseh' halacha.    I know a little bit about Rabbi Gottlieb and from what I know of his views about 'gedolim' it seems unlikely.  I will have to ask my friend what he heard firsthand from Rabbi Gottlieb, a comment regarding 'the gedolim,' which informed my presumption here, because I don't remember it exactly but the general impression that I got - that I do remember.

I think rabbi gottlieb of ohr would say that Gedolim of our times -can- disagree with the shulchan aruch. for sure. Not just in theory, but in practice too.   They don't have to be on the Vilna Gaon's level. Being a Gadol is enough.

According to most rabbis these days, we are supposed to follow the Gedolim in our times. (that verse in deut - where I gave a link that they are misinterpreting it)

So yes, Reb Moshe Feinstein could have. 
Rav Elyashiv could.

I'm sure rabbi dovid gottlieb wouldn't say they couldn't.
And wouldn't object if they did.

But

In reality, I doubt that they themselves would do it, they would see themselves as too humble. And they would see it as arrogant to do so.

It's not so much a problem of "can they", since even though they can  , being gedolim, they get over that hurdle. They still wouldn't.


And Rabbi Gottlieb, is no slouch, he has been through Shas 6+ times (and you can imagine how he goes through it!!!!!!!!!!!). He wouldn't consider himself a Gadol.   He learns with one of his rebbes, Rabbi Meiselman , who he obvioúsly respects enormously http://dovidgottlieb.blogspot.com/
but I doubt Rav Meiselman is considered a Gadol.
BUT, for one reason or another, there are -always- gedolim!!  The charedim will look for them.

The big issue in charedi society, is that even the gedolim themselves, would be too humble to go against a decision in the shulchan aruch..

Even though nobody "below" them would ever say they couldn't go against an earlier opinion.