RMGB wrote:
<< R Elozor was angry with RLakish for voicing a challenging opinion [which
he dismissed] without disclosing that it was in fact the objection of
RYochanan.>>
Sorry, have I missed something here? I thought it was Reish Lakish (the
talmid chaver of Rabbi Yochanan) that was angry with R' Elozor (a junior
talmid), not the other way around?
<<I suggested that in matters that are Shikul HaDaAs it is correct to bow to
one?s superior but not in other matters.
Reb Micha queries - When isn't it shiqul hadaas? - The answer to that Q is -
when one feels that there is only a slight preference for one
ruling/interpretation over the other. How large is ?slight?? I have no idea
but people generally know it in their gut.
In other words, what may be clear to the mind of one may not be to the mind
of another.>>
But does not the term Shikul Hadaas have a specific meaning? And is it not
defined in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat siman 25 si'if 2 as "like a matter
in which there is a machloket tanaim or amoraim that they did not rule the
halacha like one of them explicitly, and he does like one of them and he
doesn't know that already the matters has spread in all the world like the
words of the one".
In our case we are dealing with two Amoraim. And the halacha as now
poskened is that in a dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, the
halacha is like Rabbi Yochanan except in three circumstances (Yevamot 36a-b
in the name of Rava), and the disagreement here is not one of those. So we
know from later decisions (ie Yevamot) that this dispute between Reish
Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan is a machlokus amoraim where they did in fact rule
the halacha like one of them, so this halacha is today not defined as shikul
hada'as. But without that ruling in Yevamot (which was clearly later than
R' Yochanan and Reish Lakishes disputations), why is it not shikul hada'as -
ie a disagreement of two amoraim where it hadn't yet been decided that we
follow Rabbi Yochanan over Reish Lakish?
Slightly earlier
<<If he would pay heed to RYochanan?s opinion in violation of his own
understanding, would that not be contrary to the Halacha?>>
It seems to me though that the same query could be asked about the scenario
set out in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 242 si'if 31in the Rema - which
is where, instead of it being a different case (albeit the exact same
scenario) - here the person who asked the halacha then goes and asks for a
second opinion. And the Rema rules:
"A chacham that forbids, his colleague is not permitted to permit from
shikul hada'as, but if there is to him a kabala that he is mistaken... or
that he is mistaken in a matter of Mishna, he is able to permit... , And
even if he makes a mistake in shikul hada'as, he is able to debate with one
who ruled [first] until he retracts .... And therefore there is no
prohibition for the asker to ask ...and so long as he knows that the first
has already ruled to prohibit."
That is, when there has already been a ruling on this case, what is required
of the asker is that he must tell the chacham that he is being asked as a
second opinion. Ie it is regarded as essential that the second posek has
the knowledge that the question has been previously asked and what the
result was. And, if that is done properly, then it is fine to ask for a
second opinion, and for the second chacham to disagree, and state he
disagrees with the first. BUT it is then his job to contact the first and
have a debate about it. And the Shach there (si'if katan 58) says that if
he is able to convince the first, well and good, and the ruling can be
retracted, but if not, then he needs to say to the questioner - this is what
I hold, but what can I do, it is not in my hands to cause a retraction of
the original ruling.
In our case, while it was not the same kohen, it was exactly the same
scenario, and we are dealing with a ruling of the Rav Muvhak of Reish Lakish
(albeit his Rav Chaver). Given what we know about not ruling in the area of
one's Rav Muvhak except with permission etc, it seems totally right to me
that even though Reish Lakish had been given permission, he should have been
told by Rabbi Elozor that in the particular scenario that had come before
him, his Rav Muvhak had ruled in a certain way, so that at the very least he
could enter into debate with his Rav Chaver in a similar manner to where it
was exactly the same kohen (where the asker would have been required to tell
him that Rabbi Yochanan had already ruled). And that it is not that Reish
Lakish should have hidden his opinion - but that the right course of action
in this case (ie different kohen, same scenario), as with the case of the
same kohen, was to debate with his Rav Muvhak until either R' Yochanan
conceded or it was clear that he would not. And if he didn't then it might
even be appropriate for Reish Lakish to say - "I have ruled this way, but
what can I do, R' Yochanan is the leading talmud chacham in this area, I
only rule due to his permission, and therefore his ruling is the one that
prevails in this area, despite my disagreement". That does not seem
contrary to the halacha or improper at all, it just requires the appropriate
humility of a talmid, albeit a talmid chaver, towards his Rav and an
acceptance that maybe he doesn't always get things right, no matter how
strongly held, and that when push comes to shove, his Rav's ruling prevails.
Meir G. Rabi
Regards
Chana