[Aspaqlaria] Comments for Aspaqlaria

Wed Nov 1 05:41:27 PST 2006

Comments for Aspaqlaria

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Unobservable, the Unobserved, and the Observed by Jacob Farkas

Posted: 31 Oct 2006 04:06 PM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-unobservable-the-unobserved-and-the-observed.shtml#comment-91

Had Hazal known that abiogenesis would be disproven and nevertheless issued the ruling vis-a-vis maggots as if abiogenesis were a reality, it would prove the point that Halakhah is limited to the experienceable. 

The fact that Hazal used abiogenesis in their reasoning indicates that it is only because they believed it to be so. Had they known otherwise, they may have a) issued a different ruling. b) found another reason for their ruling, including the one Rav Dovid ZTL used in his explanation.

The point is merely academic though, being that in practice we have no example of Halakhah considering that which isnt observeable. 

However, moving forward, why shouldnt Halakhah consider [humanly] unobserveable but verifable methods of evidence. Would DNA or reliable forensic testimony be used in the future in any extent, e.g. to help Agunos, would GPS-derived records be used to refute the classic case of Imanu Hayeesem with Eidim Zommamim?

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by Aspaqlaria  Blog Archive  The Unobservable, the Unobserved, and the Observed

Posted: 31 Oct 2006 10:51 AM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-90

[] Given the thought of my previous post we need to subdivide reality into three categories: that which no person could have observed, that which someone could have observed, but didnt, and that which someone did actually observe. []

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by Jacob Farkas

Posted: 31 Oct 2006 06:29 AM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-89

I agree that when you define the realm of Halakhah to be experienceable rather than observation via experience, that the issue with Computer verification of Sefrei Torah is resolved. Establishing a Hazaqah with an unwitnessed reality is a difficult concept for me to accept, but I will await your future post.

The theory [that Halakhah is limited to experienceable observations, and when challenged with objective existence, Halakhah need not be modified, as its reality lies in human experience] could only be realized in an era when objective existence could be determined with tools that go beyond human experience. In an earlier era this distinction was impossible, as there was no concept of objective existance that defied the experienceable.

One discussion that comes to mind that deals with the intangible in Halakhah, is the concept of דבר שלא בא לעולם and how it relates to Qinyan. It is a Mahloqes between Tannaim, some were of the opinion that one could sell a דבר שלא בא לעולם . While there are some Aharonim who debate whether this Mahloqes is about the mechanics of Qinyan, that it may/or may not require tangible objects, others say it has to do with the concept of גמירת דעת . For the latter, Halakhah is comfortable with intangibles, the question is are people comfortable with it to the point that Qinyan of such a nature will be in an indicator that the person did indeed resolved to give up ownership.

I am not aware of other scenraios where Hazal was explicit in stating that they limited their legislation to the experienceable.

As to why God would allow for Halakhah to be decided in an era when science was less advanced. The short answer was that he didnt limit Halakhah to any particular era, per se. The Torah gave specific authority for the sages of every generation to decide how best to apply living the way of Torah to the reality of their generation. The rules of precedent are not absolute, later generations have the power and authority to override previously established principles. Hazal used their best judgement when they used observational methods and knowledge of their time, they did not err on purpose. Should the facts point out the obvious, as we now know it, current Rabbinic authority has a choice whether they feel it serves the best interests of the public at large to continue with the precedent in light of its error, or to change the precedent. 

In summary, I dont doubt that Hazal dealt exclusively with the experienceable, but that is not the realm of Halakhah, it may appear so, because it has gone unchallenged because of the respect to precedence.

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by micha

Posted: 30 Oct 2006 04:54 PM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-88

I am NOT saying halakhah has its own reality. Rather, that halakhah applied to experience and reaction, rather than the need to ascertain whats really out there, the thing in itself.

(In Kantian terms, Im saying halakhah requires the phenomenological universe only.)

This frees me from the problem of asking why halakhah wouldnt change when their theories are shown to be objectively false  as long as the theory explains human experience, its right.

I also find that your position would leave me wondering why G-d would have set things up so that the era most critical for setting halachic precedent lacked the tools we have now for determining the science about which it applies. From where I stand, the advance of science is irrelevent.

Neither your A nor B really shows the distinction between our positions. The seifer Torah checked by computer is still determining what a human being could see, if people had invested the longer time it would take to look. A camera that picked up cracks too small for the eye to make out wouldnt pasel any additional sifrei Torah.

In other words, Im talking about the experiencable, not the experienced. That which could be experienced but wasnt is still called efshar levareir ([the doubt] could in principle be resolved). If someone was neglectful in birur (doubt resolution), that neglect also factors in.

You have motivated me to put up something on the laws of birur and how they apply to witnessed realities, unwitnessed but experiencable realities, and my claim things no person could ever experience first-hand simply dont exist as far as halakhah is concerned.

-mi

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by Jacob Farkas

Posted: 30 Oct 2006 04:34 PM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-87

Given that Hazal lacked the tools available to us today, experience and its subsequent observation was the scientific method of years past. Rather than redefine the parameters of reality, or Metzius, consider that there was no method of describing, let alone legislating anything that wasnt tangible to the immediate 5 senses without yet-undiscovered equipment.

Why the same Halakhah applies nowadays when there is the ability to verify differently from what was previously established is a question of Rabbinic Authority and will (or public need.) Stating that Halakhah has its own reality is thus the practical equivalent of stating that although the Halakhah was based on observations made prior to current scientific discovery, we respect the continuing authority of previous generations to the point that we wont allow current observations to be used in an effort to reverse the precedent set forth by their legislation.

The Nafqa Minah between reality of observation vs. strength of precedence would be in the creation of new Takanos and Gezeiros where observation or reality of experience alone may not relay anything of value. Two examples, a)Checking a Sefer Torah via computer b)Would not a future Beis Din rely on photographic or video evidence? Even though in both cases reality of experience is not present, the lack of Halakhic precedent in either scenario allows a current decisor to use all methods available.

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by micha

Posted: 30 Oct 2006 01:40 PM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-86

It has explanatory power. If halakhah applies to reality-as-experienced, then it explains such diverse things as why microscopic bugs are ignorable, or why chazaqah demeiiqara (assuming the situation hasnt changed since the previous observation) is valid.

Even some of the more obscure issues of the mechanics of rov (majority). If rov is about objective reality, then its a rule about how one assesses probability. If its about experience, then it is to be treated less mathemetically, and more in terms of how people react to playing the odds. I would argue, perhaps in a future blog entry, that halakhah conforms to the latter.

-mi

///////////////////////////////////////////
Comment on The Nature of Reality by Jacob Farkas

Posted: 30 Oct 2006 12:22 PM CST
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/10/the-nature-of-reality.shtml#comment-85

Halakha is a directive for human experience when faced with objective existence. The parameters are textual, albeit legal, the experience is physical.

Perhaps I am overlooking the obvious. But, what is gained by assigning a new realm of reality in which Halakha is to exist?

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Comments for Aspaqlaria."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=318101&key=EzG3DKBtrJPhNcqOnDKo6A%3D%3D 

If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Comments for Aspaqlaria, c/o FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661

This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/aspaqlaria-aishdas.org/attachments/20061101/5e0ed2f8/attachment-0001.htm>