You seem to be making a distinction between issurei hanoah min hatorah and issurei hanoah d'rabonan. The rambam holds that stam yaynom is ossur b'hanoah b'z'man hazeh. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between issurei achila d'oreisa and d'rabanon for nisarech etzlo, because the rambam brings gvina for that as well bosor. Can you give a basis for this distinction b'noygea issurei hanoah?

No, they are nothing but plain Hindus.

dasi,

Your quesiton is a good one, but it is not directed at me but rather that the Radvaz and the other meforshim, all who say that lifnei iver is different than all other prohibitions. Your question is, if sellign wine invovles not only lifnei iver but a violation of isurei hanoah, why can you not rely on the chazkas kashrus of the vendor?

Teh most likely reason is because we are worreid not only about yayin nesech but stam yaynam also, which only invovles lifnei iver. And as far as the isur hanoah drabonon, the mishne l'melech says elsewhere that according to the Rambam because people are lax in issurei drabonon as well, which means we would not be able to trust the vendor.

As far as a case where the vendor holds that Indian wigs are for sure permitted, and that any shailos are just based on nonsense, you are right, such a vendor you would not be able to rely on, since they could in good conscious sell you a wig without violating lifnei iver.

Absolutelty not. There is no guarantee that a Godol, no matter how great he is, will not be tricked or misinformed, and there is and never was any level of Ruach HaKodesh in existence that could always determine fact from fiction.

There is a Teshuva in the Rav P'Alim of the Ben Ish Chai where someone asked the Ben Ish Chai about some statements of the Arizal that are discussed in the Teshuvos Avkas Rochjel of the Bais Yosef. The problem was, those statements of the Arizal are shot through with glaring and fundamental errors. How could the Arizal author such ignorance, was the quesiton.

The Ben Ish Chai answered that obvisouly the Arizal never wrote such things. And what probably occured was that some student of the Arizal wanted to discuss his own Torah with the Bais Yosef, but he knoew that the Bais Yosef would have no interrest. So he gave his own Torah to the Bais Yosef and tricked him by saying they were written by the Arizal. And the Bais Yosef was fooled.

In a subsequent Teshuva, the Ben Ish Chai addresses objections that someone posed to this scenario. Among other objections, the questioner demanded, how can we say that the Bais Yosef was fooled like that? The Bais Yosef was an awesome Torah giant, and a Baal Ruach HaKodesh of the highest caliber! It is surely a pegiah in the Kobod of theBais Yosef to say that he was fooled in such a base manner!

The Ben Ish Chai reposponded that such an objection is "lo nitan lahaomer" - cannot be said. He writes that much greater poeple than the Bais Yosef were fooled - Bab ben Zuta in the Gemora has Hurdus disguise himslef and talk to him, and the great sage had no idea who he was talking to; and even Elisha the prohet - the prophet! - did not know the facts about the son of the Shunamis. "Hashem hid this from me," he said. It is certinaly NOT an imperfection in anybody to say that they were fooled or misinformed. Hashem does NOT give anybody the ability to be some kind of all-knowing Sherlock Holmes and be invulnerable to trickery.

And so, he insists, the Bais Yosef was tricked. He was given information in th name of the Arizal, he took it as coming fomr the Arizal, and discussed it as if it came form the Arizal.

And the entire discussion is printed in the Teshuvos of the Bais Yosef. Even though ti was a forgery.

And if anybody knew abotu Ruach HaKodesh and Siyata D'Shmaya, it was the Ben Ish Chai.

Here's more. This one is from another Godol who knew well what Ruach HaKodesh and siyata dishmaya are.

The Satmar Rebbe ZTL explains that, although Yisro advised Moshe to appoint qualified judges by means of Ruach HaKodesh (see Rashi), still, we find that Moshe did not accept that, and did not rely on his Ruach HaKodesh to determine people's qualificaitons. "Appoint people who are reputable in your tribes" Moshe said in Devarim. Rashi explains: "I do not know the applicants. But you do, since he grew up among you."

The reason is, because Ruach HaKodesh cannot be relied upon always. Even Elisha the prophet did not know the facts abotu the child of the Shunamis, as he siad, "And Hashem hid this from me." - The exact same source as quted by the Ben Ish Chai - and so Moshe, when he needed facts on the ground, did nto rely on his own Ruach HaKodesh but insisted that the facts be determined by social means.

He continues: This is why Moshe needed yisro to be "our eyes [of klall yisroel]", which is what Moshe told him when he tried to convince him not to go away to Midian. Why would we need Yisro? He asks. If Moshe himself is around, and even after Moshe, Osniel ben Kenaz, shevet levi, and all the Shoftim were around - what could Yisro possibly contribute in Torah knowledge that they cant?

His answer is that Klall Yisroel suffered much form the Erev Rav, and needed to know how to handle them - what they are thinking, how they act, etc. And you can be the greatest sage in the world, but if you want to know facts on the ground, you should be ifnormed by someone intimately familiar with those facts - by someone who himslef was once "one of them." And so, Moshe and Yehoshua and the SHoftim, with all their Daas Torah, and all their Ruach HaKodesh would not be able to preceive the facts as good as someone who went through them himself.

He continues: This is why, he syas, that we occasionaly see that even Goyim knew things that Torah sages did not, for example, Antoninus "taught" Rebbi - and Rebbi agreed with him - that the Yetzer Horah only enters a person after he is born, but not while still in the womb.

How come Rebbi didnt know this? He asks.

He answers that Rebbi had a pasuk that said differntly: v'yisrotztu habanim bekirbah - Esav clearly had a Yetzer Horah even while in his mother's womb (see Maharsha ad loc). What Rebbi didnt realize, was that Esav is an exception, since he is Edom itself - the personification of the Satan. And so Esav surely had a Yezter Horah while in his mother's womb, but that does not apply to anyone else.

And Antoninus knew this, because Antoninus was an Edomite and only an Edomite would know that they are the personification of Evil itself. So only someone who is "one of them" was able to inform Rebbi of "their" true nature.

There's more: This is why, he says, Raish Lakish was known to be able to determine whether any given person was a thief or an honest person, even though sages even greater than him could not know. This is because, Ruach HaKodesh of the CHazal notwithstanding, Raish Lakish himslef was a thief once upon a time, and therefore, he was intimiately familiar with the thoughts and the ways of thieves. And all the sages, with their Daas Torah and Ruach HaKodesh, were not equally able to do so.

Because if you want "facts on the ground", the source to go to is not Ruach Hakodesh, or Siyata Dishmaya - which may or may not work in any given case - but rather to someone who simply has experience, information, and intimate knowledge.

In our case, the best sources of information regarding the "facts on the ground" are not a rabbi who "visited" Tirupati, but rather those who themsleves were Hindus - the Baalei Teshuva, the Geirim, the hindus themselves - and thats even without the fact that Rabbi Dunner's story (stories!) have been thoroughly disproven.

Rav ELyashev never claimed that his source of information is Torah Misinai. His psak may be, but he never claimed that regarding the facts.

And so, if you want to have Emunas Chachamim, have it with regard to what Rav Elyashev himslef said: If you know that the facts he used are untrue, then you are fully entitled to pasken differntly, and not follow his psak.

I will not post something from someone who claims to represent "Rav Elyashev's chotzer", and even talks in the plural "we believe", "we feel", without even giving his name. If you would like to post somethign, that is fine, but to make the claim that you are making without some kind of verification does not work.

And for someone who claims to represent such an illustrious group, you are neither informed about nor respectful of Rav Elyashev's positions.

Your statement that the reason Rav ELyashev's psak is differnt now than it was 15 years ago - "This time he was asked as posek hador rather than as a private teshuva and therefore did a complete investigation – this is what has changed between pesokim" - shows that you have no idea what is going on in "Rav Elyashev's chotzer".

If you are really in touch with Rav Elyashev, ask him to show you the letter that was sent to him 15 years ago. You will find that he was approached not by an individual but by "Gedolei Harabonim B'Amerika Uberosham Harav Hagaon Rav Shimon Schwab Shlita". Several major Rabbonim in America already wanted to asser the shaitlach - some already did. Meetings took place, and Rav Moshe Sterenbuch, the one who brought up the question, was contacted, and spoken to, then. The American Rabbonim decided that they wanted to give this shailah to the Gedolei Hador - and they sent it to Rav Elyashev, in writing. Then, the shailah was presented to him not by an individual, but by many of the greatest Rabbonim in America, as a shailah that was relevent to all their congregations.

The letter ends:

"We need to tell the public how they should act here, as the matter pertains to the serious issue of Takrovos Avodah Zorah, rachmana latzlan. Therefore we are approaching his honor to hear his Daas Torah.

"I sign here in the name of our entire public, with great respect and appreciation..."

Rabbi Stefansky, the one whose name is on Rav LEyashev's Teshuva, was merely the shliach to bring in the material sent by the collective group of Gedolei Rabbonim. Thats why his name got on the Teshuva. But the shailah was not presented by him.

I assume that someone who is really "Rav Eyashev's chatzer" would know that. I am not zocheh to be in his chatzer, and even I know that.

And here, once again, the "story:" changes. According to Rabbis Dunner and Efrati, the reason why Rav Elyashev "sided" with the new information over the old is that the old came form "experts" and "professors" - and not "worshippers." But now it got out that Dr. Mohan is himself indeed a worshipper. And so the story changes once again.

None of this has anything to do with the concept of "Daas torah." Daas torah does not mean that a Godol cannot be gven false information. As we have seen, this has happened in the past, to greater peopel than Rav ELyashev, and it is not a Bizayon.

Your comparison to "meishiv chachamim achor" is not valid, for in that case, RYB"Z indeed HAD all the correct information, he just made the wrong decision. A Godol's judgement is the realm of Daas Torah, but not a Godol's information.

(And for the record, meishiv chachamim achor has indeed been used often, even after the Gemora. And the Maharsha says there, that a Godol's vision is dependent on the merits of the generation, such that as a punishment for the generation, the godol is blinded. This concept has been taught by Gedolim throughout the generations).

Thus, if you know that a Godol is misinfomred regarding the facts of a certain issue then certainly there is no "Daas Torah" in the world that guarantees that he will figure out those facts. That is the difference between the examples of being misinformed that I quoted versus the examples of making bad judgements that you quoted.

There is no one on this site, never, who ever said that a Godol's information has to be correct.

You are right that there is a "pop version" of Daas Torah out there that attributes powers to any Godol which were not even present in Moshe Rabbeinu. To these people, no Godol can be misinformed. This is unfortunately, a wide-spread misunderstanding of the concept, and yes, it is due to Baalei Batim and low-level pseudo-scholars who spread such ideas. And this is why certian Rabbanim will not openly say Rav Elyashev was misinformed (though they will say they say the shaitlach are muttar) - not because they hold its not so, and not because they have any doubts - I have spoken to several of them - but rather because the Hamon Am will nto accept that idea. It makes them feel uncomfortable that a Godol can be misinfomed and it contradicts their own ideas of Daas Torah.

The person who complained against the Ben Ish Chai also felt that way - those were his exact objections to the Ben Ish Chai's statement that the Bais Yosef was fooled.

Even though the Bais Yosef decided to believe the questioner.

Being given fake information is not a Daas Torah issue. Daas Torah deals with the judgement of the Godol - not his information.

And Rav ELyashev himslef said this. Remember: He said that if someone knows that the facts are diuffernt than he is using, he is surely entitled to pasken differently.

dave17 Posted - 17 April 2002 16:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is daas torah? it seems to be a term that people throw around whenever they hear something that a rav says. are u not allowed to q daas torah? is it a relatively new term that people use? is it diff than emunas chachamim? i had a conversation with about 10 people about it and everyone seemed to have a diff opinion on what it means. it would be appreciated if u could clarify it for me.
MODERATOR Posted - 17 April 2002 21:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It means that the Torah trains a person to think a certain way - with logic, with accuracy, with wisdom. And - and this is the main point hre - it is not possible to attain this type of thinking unless you are a Torah scholar. This is because Torah is the way Hashem thinks. Hashem's thoughts are not only wise, they are "perfection." You can only train your mind to approach G-d's way of thinking by studying it. It is not duplicated anywhere.

The Halachic source for Daas Torah is a SMA is Choshen Mishpat #3, where he writes that the Halachic rulings of the layman tend to be the opposite of those of the Torah.

Rav Chaim Brisker gave numerous examples. Here's one:

He asked educated, clever laymen what they think the Halachah ought to be in in a case where your cat drinks up your neighbor's milk (do you have to pay for the milk)? And, what is the Halachah where your son accidently throws his baseball through your neighbors window (do you have to pay for the window)?

He gave a hint: In one case you have to pay, in the other, you dont.

The laymen said that of course if oyur son breaks the window you have to pay - you can control your son, but not your cat! Parents have an obligation to make sure their children do not break windows, but there is no obligation to train cats.

The Halachah is exactly the opposite. Your cat is considered your possession, your property, and therefore an extension of yourself. You property damages somethign, its as if you damaged it.

But your son, although there is a moral obligation to teach him right from wrong, legally, he is still not your possession. Therefore, you cannot bring the father to court for the deed of the child. They are two totally different entities.

There are more like this, but the point was, the Torah teaches people to think clearly, properly, and wisely. It also teaches values that are integral in making decisions.

Therefore, the greater a Talmid Chacham you are, the more you understand Torah, that is, the way G-d thinks, the more you are trained in that way of thinking.

Of course, this is all relative. Who has reached that level where his thinking mimics that of the Torah? Obviously, no human being can reach that level completely, since nobody can be perfect like G-d. The gague to measure how much "Daas Torah" an individual has does not exist. Today, we have no Neviim, no Chazal, no Rishonim, and no Talmidei Chachamim on the levels that existed not long ago. The quesiton, What level of Daas Torah exists today? is not one that can be objectively answered, since there is no units of measurement for Daas Torah. What we do understand is, that the Torah thinks differently than we do, and that those who are more connected to the Torah think closer to the Torah's way than those who are less.

And it takes more than just knowing Torah. Outside influences also effect a person's Daas. If his mind is influenced by secular thinking, that effects his Daas. If his righteousness is not proportionate ot his Torah knowledge, that also effects his Daas. A person's Midos effect his Daas - if someone is not fearless and independent, then he will be influenced by the masses, the way Shaul HaMelech did nto kill Agag because he was afraid of what people would say.

If a person has a vested interest in something (a Negiyus), that also effects his thinking. Nobody is immune to Negiyus. The Sanhedrin Hagadol was vulnerable to Negiyus. The leaders of the Sanhedrin, even in the days of Korach, rebelled against Moshe Rabbeinu, because they benefitted from financial favors of Korach.

Even the greatest Tzadik can be misinformed. With lack of information, or false information, even the greatest Daas Torah can be terribly mistaken.

And even after all that, nobody is infallible. One of the reasons for the Halachah of "ain onshin min hadin" - that we do nto punish people based on a Kal Vachomer - is because a Kal Vachomer is not a tradition but rather logic. And you never know for sure that your logic is not mistaken. You have no right to punish someone else because your logic says he is "chayav." That applies to the Daas Torah even of Chazal.

In addition, there are other factors that can cause great Tzadikim and Talmidei Chachamim to make mistakes. Sometimes, as a punihsment for the generation, Hashem will blind the eyes of its leaders, and make the greatest Talmidei Chachamim say the wrong things. This, according to the Maharsha, is why Rav Yochanan ben Zakai "forgot" to ask Aspasyonus to spare Jerusalem. Becaues the generation was not worthy, Hashem hid the obvious and logical from their leader.

The Torah leaders are spiritually connected to their flock. If the flock is not worthy, the leader is blinded. Even the prohecy of Moshe Rabbeinu, Chazal say, was only for the sake of the people, and when the people were not worthy, Moshe lost his Nevuah.

The Ohr HaCHaim says that the reason the Meraglim got so messed up is because even though their (the Meraglim) intentions were pure, but - listen to this! - because those who elected them to the job had the wrong intentions, the character and the imperfections of the people infected their appointed representatives - the Meraglim.

In other words, if you are a Tzadik but elected to your position by non-Tzadikim, then you are in trouble of getting messed up yourself.

This is midi d'avidei l'igluyei, the pictures are on the internet from 2003, before all of this came up, and what he said is clearly sheker.

So my question is, how can someone who is accepted as a dayan, and i think is also mesader gittin, etc, lie publicly about this?

Once we know that he will lie about one aspect of this case, presumably everything that he said about this whole matter is suspect.

And what if I receive a shtar p'turin from him, do I accept the get?
What is the motivation? Is Kedassia going to make money from the new shaitel hechsher business?

You are right, of course, but as I mentioned before, I dont want to make it seem that thei ssue over here is a halachic dispute with Rav Elyashev - it is not. Some Rabbonim may disagree with his psak, and that's fine. But the issue here is not the the validity of the psak - it's the validity of the shailah that led to the psak. I want to keep the focus: The issue is that the spoon was really fleishig. Somebody went to Rav Elyashev and presented to him a shailah that does not have anythgin to do with the true reality. Rav Elyashev paskened that shailah. A rav came to him and told him that the reality is different than he was told, and Rav Elyashev said, fine, if you know that the shailah was asked wrong, then by all means, you are fully entitled to pasken differently.