Ruling not ruling
You said that the role of a judge is to lay out all possible options before me but not to actually “rule.”
1) So why are they called “Posek” and not, as you may prefer, “Poresh” perhaps?
2) In all the books of the Shafi’im, we see that the author summarizes his ruling at the end of the answer and says, “For all that has been said, it is permissible to rule thus and thus, and therefore it is forbidden/permitted.” For example, in Yahveh Da’at, there is a summary at the end of each answer with a specific ruling, and so do other Shafi’im. We see that the posk does not only elaborate on this, but also rules between the options. Are they wrong in your opinion?
3) If he lays out the map for me, what did I gain from it? Even before I asked him, I already knew that some say it is forbidden, some say it is permitted, some say it is a custom, some say it is obligatory, etc. (as always in Judaism). But what? I came to ask what should be done! Not what this person says and that person says.
1. I did not say that all the poskim agree with what I said. In my opinion, a poskim should not do this, certainly not nowadays. It is convenient for people, of course.
2. The arbiter can say at the end what his opinion is if there is one clear conclusion, and even if there is not and it is only his opinion. But the questioner is not obliged to adopt it.
3. If you know, don’t come to ask. People come to ask when they don’t know.
1. I didn't understand the connection between the answer and my question, maybe you meant to make an excuse for 2?
2. 3. On what basis does a person who comes to ask a rabbi decide between the options that the rabbi has explained to him? Only on an emotional inclination? For example, I like the Rambam more than the head, so my decision will be the Rambam.
4. I ask the rabbi question A and he answers that Rabbi X says it is forbidden and Rabbi Y says it is permissible, and I also ask him question B and he answers that Rabbi X here believes it is permissible and Rabbi Y here believes it is forbidden. If I decide between these two options in these two questions, I follow the one who allows. Is there no problem with a rabbi being like a rabbi? Why?
5. You said in the class that the Shulchan Aruch's role is to rule on laws because it is a book of normative calculation and it should tell us what in his opinion the law is, but the books of the drinkers should lay out a map of the methods and options. What will happen in the responsa of the author of the Shulchan (as is known, there is a peddler's powder, the Beit Yosef, etc.), should the author also have laid out a map of the various methods in the matter, or should he have told us the final halakhic ruling that was ruled in his work (the Shulchan)?
Sorry for the length, I hope I am clear, thank you Rabbi
1. I answered completely. I wrote that indeed some people add to the ruling in this way, but I disagree with them. There are situations where the posak himself decides, but not between permissible options, but between forbidden and permissible.
2. Each according to his own way. It is certainly not advisable to do as this or that voice. What do I think the posak himself should decide between the opinions?
4. You mean the problem of this or that voice. Indeed, there is such a problem here. Who said that it is not?
5. It is not about a person, but about a composition. A posak can write a book of recitations and a book of halakha, and each of them will be written according to the rules of its genre.
There are rulings that the public has accepted.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
