[Avodah] Safeik and Multivalent Logic

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

Back on Fri, 14 May 2004 10:45am EST (yes, 11 years ago) I wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n023.shtml#31> on the thread
"Valid halachic change" I wrote:
> I was at a yarchei (yarei'ach? shavu'ah -- since it was only a
> week?) kallah during Elul in Boston where RYBS explicitly said is wasn't.
> He also speaks about multivalent logic in halakhah in numorous places
> in Ish haHalakhah. From the [yarchei kallah]:

> An esrog that was used for the mitzvah is qadosh and assur behana'ah
> that entire day. And since it's qadosh bein hashemashos, it's gadosh
> part of the next day and therefore assur behan'ah the entire next day.

> RYBS asked (as do many) mimanafshach: Either BhS is part of the first
> day, and there's an isur hana'ah BhS. But in that case BhS isn't part
> of the next day, and on that day han'ah should be mutar. Or, BhS is part
> of the 2nd day, and the issur would end BhS!

> Rather, for certain sefeiqos both chalosim apply. It's only when the
> chalos turns into a pe'ulah that we are forced to choose.

> Therefore, one can daven either minchah or ma'ariv BhS. Even switch off
> between days. But not both in the same BhS.

> This is why a woman who is from safeiq chalal history (Rashi and Tosafos
> disagree on details of the case) is called an "almanas issah", the widow
> of a dough, a mixture.

> This shtims with the teshuvas RAEiger distinguishing kol deparish meiruba
> parish and kol kavu'ah kemechtzah al mechtzah. When the question is one
> of pasqening on an unknown situation, we follow rov. When one is trying
> to resolve a question that arose after the pesaq, rov doesn't apply.

> Rov is a non-boolean state, something between yes and no. Therefore,
> it does not apply after we've taken the question from the realm of
> machshavah to that of ma'aseh.

> Also, Rav Tzadoq (Resisei Laylah 17) distringuishes between the logic of
> machshavah and that of pe'ulah, saying that when it comes to machshavah,
> it's impossible to consider one thing without also considering its
> opposite. RThK then develops this idea to explain eilu va'eilu as being
> about real plurality. (More on this when I summarize the articles whose
> URLs have been posted to the list.)

I'm repeating all this because, once again, AhS Yomi showed me that
something I thought I understood was more complicated than I realized.

AhS OC 638:5 <http://j.mp/1dGKX9s> distinguishes between muqtza machmas
mitzvah and other forms of muqtza when it comes to migo de'isqatzei bein
hashemashos, isqatza'ei lekhulei yoma.

And so, sukkah and its decorations (the topic of OC 688) are muqtzah the
following day. But beitzah shenoledah beYT rishon is not muqtzah on the
next day.

So the example RYBS brings of esrog fits this pattern too -- muqtzah
machmas mitzvah is muqtzah the day after it's used for the mitzvah.

However, RYBS used it to make a general point about the nature of BhS,
and I surmized safeiq in general. I don't understand how we can, if
even withint the topic of mutqzah we find BhS acting both like a mixture
of states and being in one of the two states -- although we don't know
which -- depending on the kind of muqtzah we're talking about.

Thoughts, anyone?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha at aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter