[Avodah] who determines norms?

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 06:45:25AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Joel Rich asked:
>> I once posted: I've never really resolved myself how I feel
>> about the concept that the first people who do something are
>> sinners but if enough of them do it becomes the norm and
>> acceptable. Thoughts?

...
> You are asking about the transition from assur to muttar.
> Please consider the transition from optional to required.
> 
> In other words, the first people who choose to do a certain act, or to do
> something a certain way, are mere individuals who have no effect on the
> public. But if this thing catches on, and enough people do it, it may
> become an official minhag which others are then required to follow. At
> exactly what point in time does this change occur?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

    Sorites paradox

    The sorites paradox ... (sometimes known as the paradox of the
    heap) is a paradox that results from vague predicates. A typical
    formulation involves a heap of sand, from which grains are removed
    individually. With the assumption that removing a single grain does
    not cause a heap to become a non-heap, the paradox is to consider
    what happens when the process is repeated enough times that only one
    grain remains: is it still a heap? If not, when did it change from
    a heap to a non-heap?
    ...

In the real world, most sets are fuzzy, and so they are subject to the
Sorites paradox. Which is I think what RJR's and RAM's cases have in
common.

In terms of resolution, I am inclined to agree with Rt CL -- motive.

The problem with crossdressing is gender roles. Which is why plucking
gray hairs or wearing a man's sword can be examples.

The problem with minhag is perishah min hatzibbur, or when two tzibburim
are involved, forming agudos agudos, and in the classical case of minhag
avos -- al titosh toras imekha. (Yes, I realize the irony of the fact
that minhag *avos* is pinned on darshening *imekha* as umaskha.)

When is one taking a grain of sand away from these piles of sand? When
was is doing so in order to specifically reduce a pile.

Kayadua, I think that in general halakhah deals with things as percieved
in contrast to things as they empirically are. One of my examples is
the power of shinui sheim to define what is nolad on shabbos or in the
CM case of acquiring something through shinui.

And so, I would *guess* that in general, even when the motive isn't the
defining feature, halachic sets would go by normal speech. Of course, this
is an infinite regress, as one can ask how many people have to consider
something a pile in order for it to still be considered a pile. Some
unascertainable rov? But I think in practice, this rule would reduce
the number of safeiq cases.

The sorites paradox is often a source of safeiq. Like in the Yerushalmi's
version of the debate as to whether the leavening of rice and water
qualifies as chameitz. Either they are arguing about something easily
testible by experiment, or they did the experient and the result was in
the fuzzy edges of the set "chimutz".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The goal isn't to live forever,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   the goal is to create so mething that will.
Author: Widen Your Tent
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF