[Avodah] kosher switch

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:14:15PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: But with regards to hairs, this is in space, while in the case of the kosher
: switch, the odds you are adding up are in time.

This is a brilliant chiluq. I would like to tweak it a bit, since gilding
the lily is a habit of mine...

: Interestingly, in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n136.shtml#14 I
: asked why was it that in the case of using breira to all for terumah, Rabbi
: Meir was not choshesh for the wine cask breaking on shabbas, given that his
: is the shita of bein chayish l'miuta.  And an answer that was sent to me
: privately was that in each case where Rabbi Meir was chayish l'miuta the
: question is whether the person or the object currently belongs to the
: majority class or the minority class, Nowhere, though, do we find R. Meir
: saying that we must be concerned lest something which is a minority
: likelihood may occur to the person or object under consideration.

Rather than writing about space vs time, we already have the concepts of
ika rei'usa and a ruba de'ika laqaman (although here it's the mi'ut). The
hair that would be pulled out is present at the time the decision is
made. Ika rei'usa. You could use the chiluq between a case where the
mi'ut we're trying to ignore is ika leqaman or not. This would explain
both the hair and R' Meir in general.

However, there is another chiluq between the cases.

Despite my earlier thought of linking the two cases -- kosher switch
and hair brushing -- kosher switch is actually far more problematic.
Shutting off the light using the kosher switch isn't a side-effect. It's
not a question of whether this is pesiq reishei or gerama or even less
because the action under discussion is the desired consequence.

May you do a melakhah for the sake of having a < 50% chance of getting
the melakhah itself done? And if you may, do the future opportunities of
possible success add up? For gerama doesn't (at least if leisa leqaman /
distributed over time), but if your primary intent is to set up a chain


About heter isqa... Recall that using credit swaps or other such products,

Also, the thing falling under statistics is different than either of
the other two cases. While
    - the kosher switch involves the probability of your goal outcome, 
    - brushing hair involves the probability of an unwanted outcome but
      lower probability is better,
    - heter isqa is also about an unwanted outcome on a pragmatic level.
      The bank doesn't want to lose money. But it is a desired probability
      on a halachic level -- the risk needs to be measurable in order to
      permit the deal as a heter isqa.
banks productize the risk in their various investments and share it
among separate banks. It's unlike hair or the kosher switch.

Also, recall that using credit swaps or other such products, Heter isqa
doesn't directly depend on the proability of loss, but on the bank taking
on that risk. The risk is what makes it an isqa. But the bank could sell
off the risk, at a profit, and have no probability of loss remaining, and
the heter isqa didn't lose validity. Heter isqa relies on probability,
not outcome. Unlike brushing hair, which bedi'eved, if you brushed your
hair with a brush that was likely to pull hairs and none actually were,
there is no issur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha at aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter