[Avodah] Chok

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:29pm EDT, R Michael Poppers replied to me:
>> 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.

And ribbis doesn't also have many fixed and unchanging aspects?

Is it "the procedure", thus a choq is only a (1) ritual mitzvah that has
(2) a lot of unchaing details?

Then how is shaatnez, a lav rather than a ritual, categorized as a choq?

> 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.

Yes... Choq is the beyond-reasonalness mitzvos, and the mishpatim
the reasonable ones. So don't we want an etymology that correlates
better to that distinction?

RLJSacks offers that. His idea is that "choq" refers to things that
engrave in the heart, below the reason levels of our mind. This is an
"engraving" that does correlate to the usual "humans need revelation to
know about this law because our reason isn't good enough to get there"
definition.

I heard RYBS discuss this point in Furst Hall (YU). He said that chuqim
and mishpatim are not clearly defined cateogries.

Lo sirtzach is a mishpat in general, and yet it has elements that we
cannot simply reason out without revelation -- like whether or not
abortion or euthenasia are retzichah.

He didn't say that elements are choq because of their rigid and unchanging
natures. And not killing a healthy person is also rigid and unchanging.

>> 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

Exactly where I was going. Fixedness is an entirely different topic than
the choq vs mishpat split.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
Author: Widen Your Tent      happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Dale Carnegie