[Avodah] Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone

[kennethgmiller at juno.com]

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> The umpires have the authority to call it and thier p'sak
> STANDS. it does NOT mean they are infallible...
> ... if there was invented a type of machine that could
> infallibly call a ball or a strike and obviate the need
> for an umpire, would anyone be against that?
> I anticipate the argument against doing away with human
> intervention, but isn't the ultimate goal for "truth."
> This machine would not be like a baas kol;  it would be
> to baseball what forensic science has been to uncovering
> crimes that could never be solved prior to modern
> miraculous technology.

I suspect that the answer will vary depending on the specific situation. We are not necessarily opposed to "doing away with human intervention", but rather that some situations have rules which must be followed. And in some situaitons, those rules are more flexible than in other situations.

To put it another way: No, our ultimate goal is emphatically NOT to uncover the "truth". Rather our goal is to follow the rules, wherever they may take us.

My evidence of this is that there are many situations where the Beis Din is obligated to ignore certain testimony, even though that testimony could be critical in determining the truth. There are many people, for example, who are disqualified from being witnesses, even though their words might contain the information needed to rescue the falsley accused, or to punish the not-yet-caught. Some might say that the Beis Din does have the authority to listen to such testimony for the purpose of exonarating an innocent person (or maybe they do not have such authority, I really don't know) -- but I doubt very much that under normal circumstances Beis Din would be allowed to punish someone based on the testimony of someone whose edus is passul.

On the other hand, we do find that in many cases, DNA testing is being used today, precisely in the sort of way which R' Wolberg described. That's why I wrote that it depends on the situation. In some cases it would be acceptable, but not in others.

Imagine, for example, a sort of combination time machine and television set, which would not allow us to actually visit the past, but which would allow us to see it first-hand. Would such visions be considered valid witnessing? Or would it be a mere artificial hearsay? (Actually, I think there's an article in the RJJ Journal about gittin and video teleconferencing which might be very relevant to this.)

Anyway, my conclusion is that while R' Wolberg's question is quite interesting, it is too vague to get much of an answer at this point. A lot would depend on the specific technology used, and the specific situations it is called upon to judge.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Hotel pics, info and virtual tours.  Click here to book a hotel online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nLmLfoVgcBQUAu8anxLAqwpnwVdyfkqo5TF5xOITndAm166/?count=1234567890