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

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 12:14:49AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: then you have to better define heurisitics.
: But even there ther ARE RULES, OBJECTIVE RULES that Posqkim must adhere to.
: E.G.  not ending a sentence with a perposition, or to aggegregiously without
: concern of consequences split an infinitve!

There are some hard rules. Such as rov within the context of counting
heads. Or arguing against a tanna without /someone/ else to claim as
support. Or a way to claim your case is distinct and therefore you
aren't arguing.

But much of pesaq, particularly the interesting cases, involves the
general tendencies.

...
: I don't call if a 'soft rule O r a heuristic. I cal lit a default a klal a
: gnerality. When the SA deviates we CAN call him on it and if there is an
: over-riding excpetoin Good and if not we can question his adherence to his
: own rules

I'm not sure we mean different things though.

A "soft rule" isn't a heuristic. A heuristic is a set of soft rules
including how to navigate those soft rules when they recommend conflicting
results for a given case.

But not every soft rule is what you're calling a kelal. Sometimes a kelal
is trumped by a value judgment. If the value emerges from the mesorah,
this is halachic. If the value is being imposed, it's not.

In general, this is going to be a source of machloqesin, as it's hard
to define.

: The point? The BY violated HIS OWN rule re: 3 matzos. Which says to me that
: the rule was not soft but a default In the face of a STRONGER over-riding
: rule he gave in. What WAS that over-riding rule? Well look at BY hismlef nd
: the kaf hachayyim...

And the heuristic is in deciding which rule should trump which.

I have no idea why you object to calling a kelal a soft rule, but that's
a silly topic to dwell on. I meant that the rule is soft in contrast to
hard-and-fast rules that if violated take you outside the realm of pesaq.

...
: So waht SHOULD the GRA have done?
: He should have said I honestly believe that all of the above are wrong and
: that the Gmara demans TWO not THREE, but I am going to defer to the SYSTEM
: at large, the peer reivew, etc. but he did not. This is not due to any
: hueuristics. It is due to the abilty of a Gaon to use oforce of personality
: to ignore consensus. It is imho no different than Tanur Achnai etc.

The case of tanur achnai, as is clear from the masqanah, was about process
vs further revelation. The Gra used a variant of the system of which
you disapprove, he did not claim he was leaving the system and getting
his answers by ruach haqodesh or bas qol. It's nothing at all alike.

The question is the limits of the system. You acknowledge a much smaller
subset of the system than would the majority of observant Jews. That only
one particular set of valuations for comparing various kelalei pesaq is
valid. You should "defer to the system at large and the peer review" and
broaden your definition of halachic process.

...
:> Unlike actual nimnu vegamru, a vote taken of a BD of people sitting in
:> the same room.

: Look the BY uses it often. Are you saying HE is wrong? He did it to overeule
: the Rif in YD 101 Ayein Sham

He uses it AS A KELAL. Within BD with an actual head count, it's a hard
and fast rule.

...
: Yep and I say taht any gadol who is "accepted" can be justified by your
: postings because since he is an acceptable Gadol ANYTHING he says msut be
: acceptable.

Didn't you say something about peer review?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha at aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507