[Avodah] psak and rationality

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 06:01:48PM +0000, rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com wrote:
: Micha and I have oft debated this... 

I think this is a different question.

: So w/out taking a partisan POV, I wonder if there is a way to quantify
: research into this. IOW can we say that out of 11,496 [illustration]
: pisqei dinim in SA, how many are based upon svara vs. Authority of the
: source...

I'm discussing whether the poseiq is out to find truth, or whether he
is authorized to define law. That question is whether the poseiq finds
truth or defines law given precedent or rationale.

One can use sevara to reason out what the truth is, or rely on meqoros to
tell you what the truth is. If we're trying to get some objective reality.

If, however, halakhah is a construct, that HQBH gave us a system by
which we create or define halakhah, then it's a matter of what authority
was granted the poseiq. That authority might be binding even if the
science was wrong. It does fit chazal's read of "afilu yomru lakh al
semol shehu yemin..."

The CI's model appear to say that's true for years 2000 to 4000 AM.
Which would mean that we may have to pretend that scientific claims made
by tannaim (e.g. the bit about the number of teeth differing between
Jews and nachriim) are true even if not -- because HQBH let the Torah be
defined by the knowledge or mis-knowledge He exposed them to during that
period.


On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:18:37AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Does anyone have the source where the CI states this?

It's an Avodah perrenial, first iteration I think back in vol 1.
I'm thinking of threads like "science and halachah" "Gemoro can err in
metzius", etc...

The CI is on AZ 9a, writing about tereifos. He says that nishtaneh
hateva since 4000 AM doesn't mean halakhah chaneges. Note that his
reasoning is NOT that Chazal erred; but still, the fact that the biology
or zoology is NOW incorrect does not impact halakhah.

The CI is used by RHSchachter to permit the use of toledos hachamah for
non-bishul <g> on Shabbos. It wasn't derekh bishul during the millennia
of Torah, so it's not derekh bishul even in the days where a dud shemesh
is common.

Another variant of this idea is in the Yad, Hil Shechitah 10:12-13,
which invokes "asher yorukha" to say that the list of tereifos is
binding regardless of science. That's more similar to my presentation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha at aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter