15 Comments
User's avatar
Yehuda Clinton's avatar

What Poskim are not into modern Kabbala. I can only think of Rambam and Meiri. Perhaps you could go a rather outspoken route of Rabbi David Bar-Hayim.

Expand full comment
Boruch Clinton's avatar

The Chasam Sofer famously compared using kabbalistic sources in a halachic context to kilayim.

Expand full comment
Todd Shandelman's avatar

Thank you, as always, for that insightful and enlightening post, Rabbi Clinton.

Notwithstanding everything you wrote, I feel nonetheless inclined at least to consider Rabbi Kagan's חפץ חיים and שמירת הלשון the "last word" (whatever that might mean :-) on the laws of

לשון הרע,

מוציא שם רע,

etc.

Firstly because there aren't too many other options, and the laws they cover are so monumentally critical.

And secondly, may I assume that those works are not influenced by Kabbalistic conceptions to the same extent?

Have you done a similar analysis on them?

Thanks.

Expand full comment
Boruch Clinton's avatar

It's true that there isn't a lot of kabbala in חפץ חיים and שמירת הלשון, and they're magnificent contributions to our Torah libraries. But I'm not sure they're necessarily the final word on the topic. For one thing, I've heard that some criticized some of the conclusions because they were based on aggadita - which is hard to use in a halachic context.

But there's also my own formulation that, I believe, can replace 95% of the content of those two ספרים: "Never unnecessarily say anything that could cause anyone else harm"

Expand full comment
SirTophamHatt's avatar

More like “never say anything unnecessarily about someone else” period.

Difficult to see how you’re supposed to predict if seemingly innocuous information could cause harm to another, or how you would justify it as “necessary” if you knew it would.

Expand full comment
Boruch Clinton's avatar

I'd be reluctant to extend it that far: adding extra-halachic barriers risks incentivizing general non-compliance.

Expand full comment
SirTophamHatt's avatar

Are we talking about מעיקר הדין, or based on what those two ספרים say?

Expand full comment
Boruch Clinton's avatar

Good question. I don't think I ever thought it through that seriously.

Expand full comment
Yaakov Wolff's avatar

Very thought provoking.

Where is the maharal which you quoted?

Expand full comment
Boruch Clinton's avatar

One source is in נתיבות עולם - נתיב התורה סוף פרק טו

Expand full comment
test test's avatar

The reason is the MB is a big machmir and we know how Yeshivaland likes to go l'chumrah in everything (unless money is involved when they are as meikel as everyone else).

Expand full comment
Solomon J. Behala's avatar

It's not about being stringent per se, it's the need to account for every opinion (see Dr. Haym Soloveitchik's Rupture and Reconstruction https://traditiononline.org/download-the-entire-rupture-and-reconstruction-reconsidered-symposium-in-one-pdf-file/ ), and the Mishnah Berurah quotes various opinions equally, unlike, say, the Aruch Hashulchan who will 1. make more defenses for Judaism-as-practiced if it conflicts with Judaism-as-taught and 2. will pick a side in a machlokes.

Expand full comment
test test's avatar

The MB lists all the shittos he knows (no different from Artscroll really) and typically will just be

Expand full comment
Solomon J. Behala's avatar

Exactly. I'm just saying people's fondness for it and Artscroll isn't a need for stringency in specific things, it's just a fear of following the wrong opinion, since they don't understand the hierarchy of majority opinion>minority opinion>lone voice in the wilderness>far-out nut or the concept of אין לחכם אלא מה שבפניו. These are the sort of people who, when their Rav tells them what to do, will ask "but what about Z's shittah?"

Expand full comment
test test's avatar

Yes.

Expand full comment