[Avodah] Chok

[Michael Poppers]

R'Micha responded:

Except that it wouldn't explain the numer of non-chuqim. When most of
> the laws are equally fixed, why would some be named by their fixed nature?
> Lo sirtzah is more malleable than shaatnez?
>
> Permit me to quote one section of RMF's article in response (and HTH :)):
===

In the context of the “parah adumah,” there are many fixed and unchanging
aspects to the procedures. That is why the word “chok” is used.

===
BTW, "lo tirtzach" is a great example of *r'tzon haBorei* rather than of a
common-sense law -- as quoted *b'sheim* RYDS/the Rav *z'l'* (see
https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/chukim-mishpatim-no-difference/), so
many aspects of this *lav* are not
logical/understandable/obvious/rational.  As you note, R'Micha, it is
quintessentially _not_ a *choq*.



> For that matter, there is a different idiom for laws that are more fixed,
> "halakhah leMoshe miSinai". Because anything else could have elements
> open to rabbinic interpretation and pesaq.
>
I'm not so sure that HlMmS would be considered either a *choq* or a
*mishpat* -- it would seem, at least as per RaMBaM (see
https://outorah.org/p/6259/), to instead be "merely" an aspect/attribute of
a decree or command; and definitionally it has no Torah
sheBiksav reference, while we are discussing *mitzvos* that do have such a
reference -- but insofar as such aspects are unchanging, yes, they are
*choq*-like.

All the best from *Michael*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240723/5fa97aaa/attachment.htm>