[Avodah] Chezkas Kehunah

[Samuel Svarc]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> The fact that a safeiq is treated as a state in itself, and thus can
> be treated as part of one side for one question and though it's part of
> the other side for another is admittedly weird. We're used to thinking
> in two valued logic, and therefore that doubt means the "real value"
> of true of false hasn't yet been fully determined. In the kind of logic
> we're used to, that would be a paradox. In a multivalent logic (one that
> allows values between true and false), the rules are different. The
> weirdness is in the gap between the kind of logic Artistotle et al
> developed and made part of western culture, and the kind of logic Chazal
> used.
>
> (This is *not* in argument with that RETurkel is saying on the "logic"
> thread. He includes multivalent logics as part of math.)

Come now. You are certainly disagreeing in part. When "... he first
started law school he was thrown out of class for using gemara logic which
did not amuse the professor", you mean to say that had he used multivalent
logic the professor would have been OK with it? Who are we kidding?

I'm adding the next step, EvE and concepts like that, where it is up
to 'shikel hadaas', where different poskim will come out differently,
this is not what math will teach you. There are formal rules that
cannot be broken. In yahadus one needs a Rebbe to know what is a rule,
how absolute is it, when are absolute rules broken, what one does when
it is broken, etc. (E.g. Goyim surround a city and threaten the Jews
with death unless they do X. Is that AZ? Is that something that is
YVY? What if someone didn't give up his life?) Can all those "formulas"
that you make for a specific scenario and their underlying assumptions
(Safeik .... l'chumro u'lkuloh, the 'sniffim' used, etc.) be drooped
into any other scenario? I think the fundemental difference is clear.

KT,
MSS