Chezkas Kashrus of Sifrei Torah

mberger · January 3, 2017, 8:27pm

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:39pm -0800, R Saul Newman wrote to Areivim:
: http://www.timesofisrael.com/female-sofrot-inscribe-themselves-in-history-books

: the commenter predicts OU certified STAM within 5 yr to prove it's not
: female written. but there are so many old sifrei tora and other tashmishei
: kdusha which you can't prove the religious [ie frum vs not] of the sofer.
: no one though has suggested that a tora in non-O hands has defective
: provenance...

To which Zev replied on Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 8:06am EST

There was never any need to doubt the kashrus of any old sefer
torah. There's a chazakah that anyone who writes stam is competent and
does his work properly. There are many psulim that can't be detected
with human eyes, so wehave to depend on the sofer's yir'as shomayim.
If that chazakah ever becomes invalid we'll have to treat with suspicion
anything written after a certain date.

The SA YD 281:1 says that a seifer Torah fund in the hands of an apiqureis
that you do not know who wrote it should be hidden.

The AhS (se'if 7) quotes the Rambam that if fround by a min, yignaz, but
an oveid AZ -- kesheirah, because they don't write sifrei Torah so you
have to assume it was written by a Jew. Whereas the Tur takes the other
side of the machloqes, and assumes it's pasul. (He rules like the Rambam.)

He also says (se'if 9) that in our dor parutz, where "hasoferim rabu
k'arbeh and in one city we know -- to our heartache -- of hundreds of
soferim and mors are no yir'ei Shamayim at all. Ve'ein beydeinu bemah
leposlam because it is a matter of the heard. But someone whose heart
is touched by yir'as H' should not by tefilling or mezuzos except from
a sofer who is known to be a yarei Shamayim. Similarly with the writing
of a ST."

So, it would see that even in situations when most soferim do not deserve
a chezkas kashrus, we still consider a random ST kosher me'iqar hadin,
and only avoid it as an act of yir'as Hashem.

Students of RYBS have to deal with the question of whether a chazaqah
disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv cannot:

    Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos
    but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are
    indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos,
    but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke
    rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon
    permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the
    human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which
    is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example
    the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan
    du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social
    and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based
    not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis --
    harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi vanim v'el
    isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will greatly multiply
    thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children,
    and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
    It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality...

Notice RYBS opens with a kelal, "the chazakos which chachmei chazal have
introduced are indestructible." And yet he continues by talking about
the perat, "[t]his chazaka is based not upon sociological factors,
but upon a verse in breishis..."

So, what about the ב

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

sholom · January 5, 2017, 6:06pm

--=====================_1482686651==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Students of RYBS have to deal with the question of whether a chazaqah
disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv cannot:

    Let me add something that is very important: not only the halachos
    but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have introduced are
    indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachos,
    but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which chazal spoke
    rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon
    permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the
    human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which
    is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example
    the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav l'meisiv tan
    du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with the social
    and political status of women in antiquity. This chazaka is based
    not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in breishis --
    harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi vanim v'el
    isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will greatly multiply
    thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children,
    and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
    It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality...

Notice RYBS opens with a kelal, "the chazakos which chachmei chazal have
introduced are indestructible." And yet he continues by talking about
the perat, "[t]his chazaka is based not upon sociological factors,
but upon a verse in breishis..."

(Apologies if this is a tangent that warrants a different subject heading.)

Apparently some of the students disagree?

Tradition =96 Winter 2014 (Rabbi N. Helfgot)

In a famous episode in 1975, the Rav strongly=20
denounced a proposal raised by R. Emanuel=20
Rackman, z=94l to reevaluating the validity of the=20
Talmudic dictum =93a woman would always be rather=20
married to anyone (even a scoundrel) than be=20
alone=94 in the modern context. R. Rackman called=20
on religious authorities to reevaluate the reach=20
of this dictum as a way of addressing the scourge=20
of modern day recalcitrant husbands who did not=20
give their estranged spouses a get. The=20
reevaluation of this principle might be an=20
opening to examine the use of halakhic annulment=20
of marriages. The Rav vigorously maintained that=20
this principle, like all hazakot of Hazal, was=20
=93an ontological statement=94 about the nature of=20
women, not subject to changing historical factors or changing social mores.

R. Lichtenstein in both private conversation with=20
a number of talmidim over the decades, including=20
this author and in remarks in public shiurim,=20
noted his disagreement with the Rav=92s assessment=20
of this hazaka (and expressed astonishment at the=20
vehemence of the Rav=92s opposition at the time)=20
given the clear cut evidence in the Rishonim in=20
Yevamot and other places in Shas which clearly=20
indicated that this hazaka was not one that=20
applied in all contexts and at all times and in all situations.

-- Sholom

--=====================_1482686651==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<body>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite=3D"">Students of RYBS have to deal
with the question of whether a chazaqah 
disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv
cannot: 
    Let me add something that is very important: not only
the halachos 
    but also the chazakos which chachmei chazal have
introduced are 
    indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the
halachos, 
    but even with the chazakos, for the chazakos of which
chazal spoke 
    rest not upon transient psychological behavioral
patterns, but upon 
    permanent ontological principles rooted in the very
depth of the 
    human personality, in the metaphysical human
personality, which 
    is as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for
example 
    the chazaka that I was told about: the chazaka tav
l'meisiv tan 
    du mil'meisiv armalo has absolutely nothing to do with
the social 
    and political status of women in antiquity. This
chazaka is based 
    not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in
breishis -- 
    harba arbeh itz'voneich v'heironeich b'etzev teildi
vanim v'el 
    isheich t'shukaseich v'hu yimshal bach -- "I will
greatly multiply 
    thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring
forth children, 
    and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall
rule over thee". 
    It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine
personality... 
Notice RYBS opens with a kelal, "the chazakos which chachmei chazal
have 
introduced are indestructible." And yet he continues by talking
about 
the perat, "[t]his chazaka is based not upon sociological
factors, 
but upon a verse in breishis..."</blockquote> 
(Apologies if this is a tangent that warrants a different subject
heading.) 
Apparently some of the students disagree?

<dl>
<dd>Tradition =96 Winter 2014 (Rabbi N. Helfgot)

<dd>In a famous episode in 1975, the Rav strongly denounced a proposal
raised by R. Emanuel Rackman, z=94l to reevaluating the validity of the
Talmudic dictum =93a woman would always be rather married to anyone (even a
scoundrel) than be alone=94 in the modern context. R. Rackman called on
religious authorities to reevaluate the reach of this dictum as a way of
addressing the scourge of modern day recalcitrant husbands who did not
give their estranged spouses a get. The reevaluation of this principle
might be an opening to examine the use of halakhic annulment of
marriages. The Rav vigorously maintained that this principle, like all
hazakot of Hazal, was =93an ontological statement=94 about the nature of
women, not subject to changing historical factors or changing social
mores.

<dd>R. Lichtenstein in both private conversation with a number of
talmidim over the decades, including this author and in remarks in public
shiurim, noted his disagreement with the Rav=92s assessment of this hazaka
(and expressed astonishment at the vehemence of the Rav=92s opposition at
the time) given the clear cut evidence in the Rishonim in Yevamot and
other places in Shas which clearly indicated that this hazaka was not one
that applied in all contexts and at all times and in all
situations.

</dl>-- Sholom 
</body>
</html>

--=====================_1482686651==.ALT--

mberger · January 5, 2017, 11:23pm

: >Students of RYBS have to deal with the question of whether a chazaqah
: >disvara /can/ change. RYBS famously said that tan lemeisiv cannot:
:
: Apparently some of the students disagree?
:
: Tradition Winter 2014 (Rabbi N. Helfgot)
:
: In a famous episode in 1975, the Rav strongly denounced a proposal
: raised by R. Emanuel Rackman, z"l to reevaluating the validity of the
: Talmudic dictum a woman would always be rather married to anyone (even
: a scoundrel) than be alone in the modern context....
: The Rav vigorously maintained that this
: principle, like all hazakot of Hazal, was an ontological statement
: about the nature of women, not subject to changing historical factors
: or changing social mores.
:
: R. Lichtenstein... noted his disagreement with the Rav's assessment of
: this hazaka (and expressed astonishment at the vehemence of the Rav's
...

HOWEVER, on this particular issue RAL also said that he does not believe
this was the central aregument being employed against RAR's BD. So, while
this testimony touches on our question about whether chazaqos can change,
it does not mean RAL would have approved RER's BD even had RYBS remained
silent.

This was just one ilne in a longer speech. Because the idea is intriguing,
is gets discussed and argued. But as RAL noted (according to RARaffetR),
the primary argument RYBS gave against was that it shows a disconnect
from mesorah and baalei mesorah. To think you can solve a problem that
bothered everyone before you in a manner that would have been available
to them had they just thought of it, and thereby changing so many
fundamental halakhos.

   What does kabalas ol malchus shamayim require of the lomeid hatorah,
   person who studies Torah? First, we must pursue the truth,
   nothing else but the truth; however, the truth in talmud torah
   can only be achieved through singular halachic Torah thinking, and
   Torah understanding. The truth is attained from within, in accord
   with the methodology given to Moses and passed on from generation to
   generation. The truth can be discovered only by joining the ranks of
   the chachmei hamesorah. It is ridiculous to say "I have discovered
   something of which the Rashba didn't know, the Ktzos didn't know,
   the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge, I have discovered an approach to the
   interpretation of Torah which is completely new." One must join the
   ranks of the chachmei hamesorah -- chazal, rishonim, gedolei achronim
   -- and must not try to rationalize from without the chukei hatorah and
   must not judge the chukei mishpatim in terms of the secular system of
   things. Such an attempt, be it historicism, be it psychologism, be it
   utilitarianism, undermines the very foundations of torah umesorah, and
   it leads eventually to the most tragic consequences of assimilationism
   and nihilism, no matter how good the original intentions. Second,
   we must not yield -- I mean emotionally, it is very important -- we
   must not feel inferior, experience or develop an inferiority complex,
   and because of that complex yield to the charm -- usually it is a
   transient and passing charm -- of modern political and ideological
   sevoros (logic). I say not only not to compromise -- certainly not to
   compromise -- but even not to yield emotionally, not to feel inferior,
   not to experience an inferiority complex. The thought should never
   occur that it is important to cooperate just a little bit with the
   modern trend or with the secular, modern philosophy. In my opinion,
   yehadus (Judaism) does not have to apologize either to the modern
   woman or to the modern representatives of religious subjectivism.
   There is no need for apology -- we should have pride in our mesorah,
   in our heritage. And of course, certainly it goes without saying
   one must not try to compromise with these cultural trends, and one
   must not try to gear the halachic norm to the transient ways of a
   neurotic society, which is what our society is.
   ...

   I also was told that it was recommended that the method afkinu rabanan
   l'kidushin minei be reintroduced. If this recommendation is accepted,
   and I hope it will not be accepted, but if it is accepted, then
   there will be no need for a get. Ha-isha niknes b'shalosh d'rachim:
   b'kesef b'shtar ub'bia, the get of a gerushah (divorced woman) -
   we will be able to cross out this mishna, this halachah; every rabbi
   will suspend the kidushin. Why should there be this halachah if such a
   privilege exists? Why should this privilege be monopolized by rabanus
   haroshis in eretz yisrael? Why couldn't the Rabbinic Council do just
   as well as the rabanus haroshis, if the problem is afkinu rabbanan
   l'kidushin minei? [ribono shel olam], what are you, out to destroy
   all of it? I will be relieved of two masechtos; I will not have to
   say shiurim on Gitin and Kidushin, and then Yevamos as well.

   I want to be frank and open. Do you expect to survive as
   Orthodox rabbis? Do you expect to carry on the mesorah under such
   circumstances? I hope that those who are present will join me in
   simply objecting to such symposia and to such discussion and debate at
   the Rabbinical Convention. When I was told about it, I thought, "would
   it be possible?" I can not imagine at the Republican or Democratic
   National Convention that they would introduce a symposium on communism
   and democracy, that perhaps communism should replace democracy in the
   United States. Could you imagine such a possibility? I could not.
   There is a certain system of postulates to which people are committed,
   and such a discussion...

More of the same elided. See
http://arikahn.blogspot.com/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html
for a transcript of that portion of the shiur, and for an audio of the whole
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/767722
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/767723

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha