[Avodah] unsolicited testimonial [was: Forms of Bittul]

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

<<So how about the really classic safek - the timtum, or the koi? As I
understand the debate, some hold that the tumtum is a beriah in and of
itself, and some hold it is a safek, but those who hold such a person is a
safek hold that "really" such a person is a man or a woman, we just don't
know which, it is not as though essentially and to the Torah such a half man
half woman exists. Ditto a koi - we practice the halacha giving it the
chumras of behama and chaya, but the options appear to be that it is an
independent creation of its own, or it is *really* in the eyes of the Torah
one or the other, but we don't know which.>>

And RDR replied:

>See Rabbi Bensimon's commentary on Rabbi Rosen's commentary on the Rambam's
H. Shabbos (details below) pp. 23-29, where he argues that there are two
>distinct types of sfeikos, with different rules.  One type is a "safek
b'etzem", which includes both of these examples.  A safek b'etzem is
something >about which we know all of the relevant facts but still can't
decide how to categorize it halachically.  The other type is a "safek
b'geder siba", for >which if we knew all of the relevant facts (what is the
source of each piece of meat?) we would be able to categorize it
halachically.  So while I agree >with your basic point that RMB is confusing
two distinct categories, I think these examples are red herrings.

How would you characterise bein hashmashos using Rabbi Bensimon's typology?
I would have thought it would have be considered a safek b'etzem.  But bein
hashmashos is the fundamental safek from which RMB derives his philosophy,
and yet it was he who brought in the piece of found piece of meat where
there are nine shops, eight of them kosher, which is, using this typology, a
safek b'geder siba (and then he went from there to bitul in relation to
taste, which I was felt was confusing two distinct categories of bitul).

So I don't think my examples of a timtum or a koi are red herrings.  These
examples, ie of safek b'etzem are at the heart of the form of safek that RMB
wants to utilise to derive his quasi quantum mechanical theology.  What you
might want to say is that not only are two distinct categories of bitul
being assumed to be the same, but two distinct categories of safek, and that
RMB should not be making a leap from bein hashmashos forms of safek, to a
safek b'geder siba.


>David Riceman

Regards

Chana