[Avodah] Brisker Theory of Everything

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:15:59PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: 1. The gemara (Ketuvot 5b) discusses whether causing a certain type
: of blood flowing is considered a Sabbath violation. The first attempt
: to resolve the question turns on whether "mifkad pakid or chaburei
: mechbar" (is the blood in the womb stored up or is it the result of a
: wound?). Rashi there (please look) seems to define this as a physical
: question. Is this acceptable or must we say Rashi was leaving out the
: "obvious" philosophical/halachic question (i.e. the physical was known,
: it's a question of how to categorize it halachically)?

It is very hard to identify a real machloqes in metzi'us.

There is a machloqes in the Y-mi about whether rice flower and water
makes chameitz. Pesachim 2:4, vilna 17a):

    Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri said: Qarmis (millet or something similar)
    requires [giving] challah [from the dough to a kohein] because it
    can become chameitz or matzah.

    And the Rabbis say it doesn't because it can not become chameitz
    or matzah.

    So check it!

    They disagree about the essence of the check (iqar bediqasahh): RYBN
    said they checked it and found it can become chameitz or matzah. The
    Rabbanan said they checked it and they didn't find it can become
    chameitz or matzah.

What looked like a machloqes about facts, that could just be checked
experimentally, was a machloqes about how to categorize the physical
reality. Is that dough a chimutz or a sirchon?

I am sure that can be generalized. We could be arguing about metzi'us,
but as the gemera asks, why not just check it? More likely, when the
metzi'us is in the gray area, the machloqes is about: Where is the line
between the categories?

: 2. That gemara continues to try to resolve the question and is willing
: to entertain the possibility that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda
: (vs. Rabbi Shimon) in mekalkeil (destroying) and like Rabbi Shimon
: (vs. Rabbi Yehuda) in davar sheino mitkavein (the result was not the
: major one intended). If these two issues were interconnected, could the
: gemara entertain this possibility?

I think the gemara is consistent with two posibilities:

1- The two machloqesin are not interconnected.

2- The hava amina as that they were not connected, but the masqanah is
that indeed they are.

: 3. If the answer to 2 is no, must we assume that when the Shulchan
: Aruch said he would decide the psak based on majority 2 of big 3, did
: he really mean this as a primary tie breaker, or only when he did not
: have a clear understanding of the underlying philosophy that resulted
: in their final opinions.

As I wrote in the past, I think it's easier to excuse the SA's exceptions
to his rule by saying he was talking about the majority when counting
consistent positions. Which means the rule is subject to which machloqesin
the SA held were interconnected, and therefore which statements on other
topics need to also be counted toward he majority.

: 4.Is it possible that R'YBS limited his "canon" to only a few major
: rishonim (in contradistinction to R" A Lichtenstein) because the more
: data points included in trying to determine the underlying theoretical
: construct, the more likely a single errant point would skew the results?

I would think the reverse: How do you identify an outlier point without
getting more full statistics on the data?

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
micha at aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507