[Avodah] psak and rationality

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 7:50pm EDT, Cantor Wolberg wrote on a different
thread ("R Elyashiv and crocs on YK"):
: Y"K is not a day of mourning. I would like to understand where this  
: idea of suffering comes from. There is sufficient suffering from  
: fasting and from confessing our aveiros.

"Ve'inisem es nafshoseikhem", which is defined by 5 inuyim, one of which
is the one in question.

As I said, it depends on whether you define inui as suffering, or define
"inui" as a chalos sheim and then define the ta'am hamitzvah from the
5 things prohibited.

The parallel question: Why do we raise the question of the purpose of
the mechitzah not being served by a 10 tefach partition, rather than
defining the purpose of the mechitzah *given* that a 10 tefach soreg was
enough to define the furthest limit of approach for nachriim in the BHMQ,
and thus it would seem here too?

This is akin to the question RAM asked about the number of teeth. On
Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:16pm GMT, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: For example, my understanding is that the word "giluach" has different
: meanings for men and for women. The act of scraping away facial hair
: with a blade is called "giluach" for a man, and therefore it is assur
: because the Torah prohibited "giluach". But that same act is not called
: "giluach" on a woman, and since "giluach" is what the Torah forbade,
: a woman is allowed. Similarly, it is possible that some of those white
: things in a Jewish mouth are called "teeth" while the same things in
: a non-Jewish mouth are not called "teeth". Or maybe vice versa -- did
: that gadol say what the different numbers are?

Do we know the halakhah is based on a false difference in the number of
teeth, or are we defining "teeth" in two different ways, based on what
the halakhah implies?

WRT the alleged pesaaq by two rabbanim about Shabbos elevators, I don't
have that question. We are told that the engineering came first.

I wouldn't so much say that the pesaq is "wrong" (although I believe I
did yesterday) as much as it would apply to a different device than the
Shabbos elevators actually in use.

I say this in parallel to Chazal's dirt-mice. It's not that they pasqened
incorrectly, they pasqened the status of a creature their contemporary
natural philosophers thought existed, and if you ever find a mouse
that arises aboigenically from dirt, it really would be kosher -- they
were correct.

I must confess I really do not have much emunas chakhamim when it comes
to things found on pashkevilin. They too rarely actually reflect the
words of the chakhamim named, and when they do, it's inaccurate. To
the point that even after the statement was independently confirmed,
I still harbor suspicion.

Bringing the matter back to the question of trusting a poseiq who says
such things about the number of teeth in a Yehudi vs a nakhri... He
may be using mamarei chazal to justify his daas Torah, and thus it's
post-facto reasoning.

Pesaq more often comes down to the rules of authority rather than the
determination of truth.

And the CI held that the Torah was determined during the middle 2
millenia, and any errors in science were siyata diShmaya in producing
the Torah we have. In which case, the poseiq would be correct in working
as if the statement is true even if he knows it isn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha at aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln