[Aspaqlaria] Aspaqlaria

Fri Nov 23 11:00:24 PST 2007

Aspaqlaria

///////////////////////////////////////////
Halachic Process, part I

Posted: 22 Nov 2007 07:57 PM CST
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Aspaqlaria/~3/189094938/halachic-process-part-i.shtml

Eilu vaeilu divrei E-lokim Chaim, vehalakhah keBeis Hillel  These and those are the words of the Living G-d, but the halakhah is like Beis Hillel. The voice rung out from heaven that even though the law is ruled according to Beis Hillel, Beis Shammais position is also the word of G-d. There is some variation in halakhah between people  and yet both are right. We cant expect every halachic decisor to take the same data and reach the same conclusion, even if no one errs. In the past, we compared different models for explaining  how multiple correct answers could coexist. Here that would keep the conversation too broad. I will instead just explore the problem from the Maharals perspective.

The Maharals position is that divrei E-lokim Chaim  the word of the Living G-d is simply too rich and too complex to exist in this world. Therefore they are mapped to oversimplified models, related to Hashems words the way a shadow is a flattened representation of the original. And thus, different people looking at the problem from different directions will get different shadows  even though they are all accurate representations of the same thing.

To finish out the metaphor: The angle at which we look at Devar Hashem is our derekh, our path in how we . This derekh, just like the lamp, is determined by two things: meiayin basa, ulean ata holeikh  from where do you come, and to where are you going? Where the lamp is, and the angle it points. Different people were put together differently, and can have different emphases in how they interpret the ultimate goal.

The complexity of Devar Hashem causes the illusion (to us) of paradox.  Its no more real of a paradox than the 5 blind men who argue about the nature of the elephant. The one who felt the elephants ear would argue an elephant is like a fan. The one who felt its leg would think it is like a tree. (Google will turn up the story, if you do not know the reference.) But its only because we cant capture the full picture.

We therefore see the Torah as demanding conflicting values and duties.  (Unresolvable dialectics, in R YB Soloveitchik-speak.) Depending upon which we choose to prioritize, followers of different derakhim will obtain different results. But you wont make it to the top of the mountain if you first try this route and that that. You need a consistent plan.

This notion, that halakhah is a model of something far richer, also dovetails well with another idea I fell in love with, something from Professor Moshe Koppels  book, Metahalakhah. There are two ways to learn a language: The native speaker doesnt learn rules of grammar before using them, he just knows what sounds right. In contrast, an immigrant builds his sentences by using formalized rules, learning such terms as past imperfect and memorizing the forms that fit each category. R Koppel notes that the rules can never perfectly capture the full right vs wrong. A poet has to know when one can take license.

He argues that halakhah is similarly best transmitted by creating native speakers. It is only due to loss of our progressive loss of the Sinai culture with each generation that we need to rely on transmitting codified rules. (RMK notes in a footnote the connection between this idea and some ideas in Rupture and Reconstruction.) Earlier cited cases are the loss of culture that occurred with Moshe Rabbeinus death, when 300 halakhos were forgotten, and Osniel ben Kenaz reestablished them  chazar veyasdum. Similarly the reestablishment of numerous dinim by Anshei Keneses haGedolah after the return from the Babylonian exile  shakhechum vechazar veyasdum. Leyaseid, he suggests, is this codification.

The informal knowledge of a native speaker is limited by the capacity of the human mind. But still, it captures more of the ineffable whole, the true divrei E-lokim Chaim than can be set down as formal rules.

Even the codified rules, therefore, are not all-or-nothing absolutes. Rather, they give clarity to the issues that a poseiq must weight, highlighting the relevent aspects to different elements of the fuller picture. For example, acharei rabim lehatos means that rulings follow the majority. But this doesnt mean the minority is entirely ignorable; and in fact one may need to rely on that minority opinion if other factors come into play. The poseqi can then weigh pro vs. con.

Were dealing with a fuzzy system, which acknowledges a realm where answers may be more or less halachic, rather than entirely within or outside the fold. Of course in many situations, the answer is clear and the difference between this kind of system and a straight rule-based algorithm is moot. But those are not the scenarios that require complex pesaqim and become the interesting cases in our responsa.

This weight-based methodology doesnt make for looser requirements. In fact, often quite the opposite. If all rules were absolute, always of the form that factor X always trumps factor Y, then our language for dealing with conflicts in priorities would be quite limited. In cases where conflicts come into play, where the Maharals notion of simplification of the Infinite is manifest, one is given no guidelines  and thus full autonomy would have been granted. Rather than an algorithmic interpretation of halakhah being more defining, its less.

To explain further by metaphor:

If you have a digital thermostat, it probably is based on Fuzzy Logic. Im not sure Zadehs

Fuzzy Logic is the best way to represent more or less vs all or nothing, but it was that meaning that I was suggesting. There are other multi-valued logics. Statistics could even be adapted as one. Quantum Mechanics suggests a third, etc

Fuzzy Logic is one in which AND means take the minimum, and OR means take the maximum. Say two balls are different shades of red, one a real primary red  well say its .9 red, and another somewhat muddier  just a .2 red. In FL, we would say that the statement both balls are red is also a .2, while the statement at least one of these balls is red is a .9.

Fuzzy Logic is used in thermostats because the question is it hot? really needs to be able to represent no, a little, very, etc Without such gradations, digital thermostats tend to turn the heat on and off too often (or need some even more complicated solution). Now, one thermostat manufacturer may weigh the heat based on degrees above comfort zone. Another might acknowledge that these things are non-linear, that Im not nearly half as uncomfortable when the temp is 5 deg off than when its 10, and may have some fancier weighting system.

Notice that there are basic rules that any thermostat must comply to. For example, the temperature should be within the desired range at all times. All thermostats will end up sharing certain properties of the rules and the weightings used.

In Artificial Intelligence software, the word heuristic is used to describe a system for finding a solution that is less formal than an algorithm, might not always get the optimal solution, but is used because the perfect algorithm either doesnt exist or would be too slow or complicated to ever get used. In truth, computers are algorithm machines, and thus the heuristic is really a just a much faster or simpler algorithm than one aimed directly at solving the problem perfectly.

Heuristics better represent human thought, as people arent algorithm machines. Heuristics better capture that looseness. Like in this case, we weigh pros and cons, not follow strict IF  THEN  rules on true vs false prepositions.

And so we find a range of dependence on formal rules in teshuvos. There are those I would call daas Torah teshuvos, where its clear the poseiq was enough of a native speaker to realize the issues and weigh them before he was even conscious of needing to. The teshuvah then becomes an excercise in explaining the ruling post facto, perhaps to confirm than the instinctive answer was sound.

My favorite example of the daas Torah pesaq is the prohibition of electricity on Shabbos. There is far more universal agreement that electricity just doesnt fit the feel of Shabbos, as shaped by hours of talmud Torah, than on the reason why its assur. And in fact, some of the reasons found are self-evidently stretches to explain after the fact what seemed obvious. Boneh (building) a circuit? Where else do we see something called boneh on Shabbos where there is no actual roof involved?

Then there are the teshuvos where the poseiq relies very heavily on rules and precedent.

In between are the typical teshuvos, ones where the heuristic nature stands out quite clearly. A common form of teshuvah in Even haEzer and Yoreh Deiah (as well as some parts of Orakh Chaim, e.g. eiruvin) is where the author starts out by proving the law in question is rabbinic, or that some major issue doesnt apply, and then  provide snifim lehaqeil, motivations for leniency, where no one is sufficient but the poseiq combines them as justification.
In a future entry, I will explore how this notion is applied differently by various poseqim, and what it means to understanding machloqes and the limits of pesaq. Defining a limit is more difficult when one cant rely on checking compliance to specific rules. How does one differentiate between differences in prioritization of issues and outright violation of the system?

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Aspaqlaria."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=4187981&key=cQD876uioH 

If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: 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/20071123/40c629dd/attachment-0002.htm>