[Avodah] trolley revisited

[Akiva Miller]

.
R' Joel Rich commented:

> One of the things I’ve thought a lot about is the character-
> ization of Chazal as being consequentialist or deontological,
> etc. I just wonder if we are trying to put their thoughts
> into our paradigms or whether they had their own different
> paradigm which was completely consistent with another theory.

When someone asks if a certain object is muktzeh, I immediately think of
the various categories of muktzeh, such as "machmas gufo" or "melachto
l'issur," and I consider whether this item fits any of those categories.
But when the Gemara asks if a certain object is muktzeh, those categories
don't enter into the discussion, because, historically, they had not yet
been devised.

Speaking only for myself, those categories are so basic to my understanding
of muktze that I just can't relate to the gemara's approach to the
question. Same thing for the categories of melacha on Chol Hamoed.

So, to the extent that your use of the word "paradigm" might be similar to
my use of the "category", I would suggest this: I easily understand your
desire to "characteriz[e] Chazal as being consequentialist or
deontological", but don't put that much effort into it. If it helps you
understand the sugya, great; but if it becomes a roadblock, then you have
to accept that you and they are speaking different languages, and just try
to meet them on their own terms.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250330/569f5f13/attachment.htm>