[Avodah] Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!)

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:22:08PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: RJR:
:> Do you view Halacha as a system that seeks a single ultimate
:> original truth(or a truth determined prior to a particular point in
:> Jewish history)

-- shitas haRambam --

:>                 or one focused on a chronologically monotonic
:> historical process ...

-- Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon we've discussed in dozens
of prior iterations, except the Rambam.

:> If the latter, is this because this is what HKB"H commanded or
:> because the rabbis determined this to be how an effective legal
:> system must work?

Doesn't it have to be because HQBH gave us the system? Othewise,
why does the Tanur shel Akhnai story end with Him laughing "nitzchuni
banai"? And why would decisions about what would work override actual
miraculous evidence?

I am developing the theory that the reason for "lo bashamayim hi"
is because "befikha uvilvakha la'asoso". That just as all of Torah
is an elaboration of "mah desani lakh, lekhaverkha lo sa'avod" to
an extent beyond a human's ability to work out, the same is true
in the converse. Halakhah cannot be decided in shamayim, detached
from a heart that has a natural moral calling.

: RZL:
:> It's true that the amora (for example) did not necessarily have
:> the case in mind, especially if it involved a new invention he
:> probably did not anticipate. But nevertheless he did have in mind an
:> essential property (my Rebbi referred to this as the "gedder") that
:> determined his p'sak in the case he dealt with, which would also
:> determine the p'sak in the case he was not aware of.

RDR:
: I think both of these are too simplistic.  One of the complications
: of halacha is that one event in real life might be classified under
: many halachic rubrics...

Or gedarim.

However, we are asking about how to extapolate form a given statement
in the gemara, by a given amora (or unnamed voice).

I argued that it's possible the tanna never realized that two ideas
were separable, and now that we have come up with a way to make
something that has A without B, we have to decide which is primary.

RHS countered that one was, inherently.

I don't agree simply because I think that someone can conflate two
ideas and never notice -- even an amora. Particularly if there is no
nafqa mina for another 1500 years. But that was inherent in my
original statement.

IOW, the conversation was more about how do you bulid a ruberic / geder;
not how to decide given multiple geddarim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             How wonderful it is that
micha at aishdas.org        nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org   before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Anne Frank Hy"d