[Avodah] KSA, MB, AhS, Chayei Adam and other codes

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:26AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > My question is the opposite. If one does read from a klaf why does
: > the Gra say one should say a beracha.

: The answe is AIUI is that the GRA does NOT base himslef on MINHAG but on the
: authority of Maseches Soferim to which the GRA subscribes as obligatory -
: just like Bavli

Yes, according to the Gra, violating Mes' Soferim is like violating any
other conclusion of Chazal, which he considers a show-stopping
consideration.

Just keep that in mind when we get to a point below. I'm laying
groundwork...

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:10PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Ask yourself the following questions and contemplate their implications:

I find there is no one issue in your list we didn't discuss already more
than once.

Your basic fallacy is in your first question:
:    1. Based upon Torah Principles:
:       1. Do we want a subjetvie or objective ps'aq?

Something in between. A heuristic drives you to a particular subset of
the possibilities without requiring you reach any particular one. There
are constraints on possible conclusions without forcing any particular
one from that set.

The fact that you can say "where he feels his predetermined heuristics
bring him" means that you aren't using the word "heuristic" the same way
I am. A heuristic is less deterministic than an algorithm. A typical
"min-max" chess playing heuristic won't always produce the same move
in response to the same position. However, if the computer sacrifices a
queen without getting ahead in the game, you know it isn't "minimizing
the maximum loss" which defines that type of heuristic.

In pesaq, being heuristic means weighing pros and cons. But the pros
must be pros as defined by the Torah, the cons must similarly get their
significance from the Torah and precedent, the options one chooses from
can't violate the basic rules, and one must be self-consistent. And thus
a machloqes over which factors are weightier can give poseqim a range of
values to assume for how important each factor is, but a range isn't
anarchic license.

It is that which distinguishes O from C. (That, and a number of C
responsa abuse sources to prove the opposite of their actual thesis. Eg
the abuse of "koach deheteira adif", or more specific examples like
Silverman's use of the Rama's teshuvah about Moravian stam yeinam.) C
is not weighing pros and cons based on halachic precedent and Torah
values, but based on creating a synthesis, a "Halakhah which responds
to changing times *and changing needs*." (from Abelson's intro to Emet
V'Emunah, a/the C position paper, available at the USCJ web site at
<http://tinyurl.com/5ou56o>, emphasis mine). They use the process to
reach the goal (cf pg 21). And the decisor is immersed in an academic /
objective / abstract understanding of Torah, lacking the skills an O
rabbi should gain through shimush. The system includes both hard and
soft rules; knowing how to apply those soft rules is an art that requires
a feel, and can't be taught academically.

That said, there are bad O rulings, mistakes that need correction (in
the Gra's opinion, there were many). However, we have a process of peer
review, and eventually over time we get these things right.

Similarly, that is why there can be a to'eh bidvar mishnah or a mesechtes
Horios.

:    4. Re: Algorithimics
:       1. In which post did  I ever propose an algorithmic solution to p'sak/
...

Numerous times, including two lines later in this same post. To wit:
:       3. If Algorithmics is off-limits please describe the techniques
:       ascribed to:
...

In all these cases there are exceptions to the rules. That this is true
for the SA's "beis din" is well known and discussed on Avodah often.

This indicates that the SA meant it as a "soft rule", a heuristic
"something to be weighed very very heavily", but still, can be violated
when sufficient other reason exists.

Unlike actual nimnu vegamru, a vote taken of a BD of people sitting in
the same room. In which case, there is a hard rule about gadol mimenu
bechokhmah uveminyan; although even there, measuring chokhmah and counting
talmidim will lead to differences of opinion and gray area.

...
:    1. Search or scan the Major Posqim ? Tur, BY, SA, Rema, MB Ahs Etc,.
:                                                               i.      Do
: they frequently  use terms as sniffim to build a case?
: OR
:                                                             ii.      Do they
: use terms like Rov Posqim, Rov Acahronim , Maskanas Haposqim etc.[e.g. see
: Maggid Mishneh Rambam Hilchos Shabbas 5:1]

In establishing a theoretical halakhah, or in applying it to metzi'us?
The former is the establishment of factors to be weighed far more than
actually having a case in which to weigh them. Codes discuss senifim far
more than discuss how they interact. That's why I pointed you to shu"t
(in particular, RIM's survey), not codes.

As RnCL wrote back on Nov 9 2007
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n049.shtml#01>:
> I don't think I disagree with your analysis that part of psak is
> heuristic with factors having to be weighed. The point is that you cannot
> weigh factors if you don't start with the case and then look at what
> applies (ie factors). If you start where RAF seemed to want to start -
> with philosophical principles that you formulate in the abstract as a
> consistent guide to life and upon which you believe you now need to act,
> you are almost certainly going to miss many factors, (and often and most
> likely the human cost factor as the human cost is borne by the shoel or
> by society, not so much by the posek) in your analysis.

Returning to RRW's latest post on the topic:
:    2. Re: Acceptablity
:       1. IF posqim are right simply because they are popular than how is
:       that ANY different than schectherian Cahtolic Israel?

Because Schechter had no constitutional law. Therefore, his definition of
Catholic Israel became circular. The law is decided by the norms of the
observant community and he defined the observant community based on who
followed the law. By those criteria, assume R is within the observant
community and you can prove they are because by that definition they
follow the practices of much of the so-called-observant community. (The
"much" who are themselves, the former R.)

Again, after 11 months it seems clear to me that you're confusing
heuristic with anarchy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha at aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507