<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Micha Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:26AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:10PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>
: Ask yourself the following questions and contemplate their implications:<br>
<br>
I find there is no one issue in your list we didn't discuss already more<br>
than once.<br>
<br>
Your basic fallacy is in your first question:<br>
: 1. Based upon Torah Principles:<br>
: 1. Do we want a subjetvie or objective ps'aq?<br>
<br>
Something in between. A heuristic drives you to a particular subset of<br>
the possibilities without requiring you reach any particular one. There<br>
are constraints on possible conclusions without forcing any particular<br>
one from that set.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>then you have to better define heurisitics.<br>But even there ther ARE RULES, OBJECTIVE RULES that Posqkim must adhere to. E.G. not ending a sentence with a perposition, or to aggegregiously without concern of consequences split an infinitve!<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Similarly, that is why there can be a to'eh bidvar mishnah or a mesechtes<br>
Horios.<br>
<br>
: 4. Re: Algorithimics<br>
: 1. In which post did I ever propose an algorithmic solution to p'sak/<br>
...<br>
<br>
Numerous times, including two lines later in this same post. To wit:<br>
: 3. If Algorithmics is off-limits please describe the techniques<br>
: ascribed to:<br>
...</blockquote><div><br>The are lies<br>D...'ed Lies<br>Statistics<br>And quoting out of context.<br>I was NOT advocting algorithimics. I was rejecting your rejection of algorithmics using a hypothetical case. I actualyl have not exactly defined my system. But I do ask that posqim<br>
<ol><li>submit themselves to Halachah</li><li>be consistent</li><li>But in DIRE circumsances allow for exmptions.<br> </li></ol><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
In all these cases there are exceptions to the rules. That this is true<br>
for the SA's "beis din" is well known and discussed on Avodah often.<br>
<br>
This indicates that the SA meant it as a "soft rule", a heuristic<br>
"something to be weighed very very heavily", but still, can be violated<br>
when sufficient other reason exists.</blockquote><div><br>I don't call if a 'soft rule O r a heuristic. I cal lit a default a klal a gnerality. When the SA deviates we CAN call him on it and if there is an over-riding excpetoin Good and if not we can question his adherence to his own rules<br>
<br>The point? The BY violated HIS OWN rule re: 3 matzos. Which says to me that the rule was not soft but a default In the face of a STRONGER over-riding rule he gave in. What WAS that over-riding rule? Well look at BY hismlef nd the kaf hachayyim. BOTH subscribe to the same rule even though ti overturns the Rif/rambam for the By and the GRA for the Kaf hachayyim.<br>
<br>I really do nto care so much about whenter you use 2 or 3 matzos. the point is that BY made an excpeoin to his default because of OVEWHLEMING need to over-ride. And pretty muc hall the peer review agreed. {see e.g. Shelah quoted by Kaf hachayyim] But GRA resisted it anyway. That resistance to even strong META rules to me is a dangerous slippery sliope tha has NOTHING to do with heuristics.<br>
<br>So waht SHOULD the GRA have done?<br>He should have said I honestly believe that all of the above are wrong and that the Gmara demans TWO not THREE, but I am going to defer to the SYSTEM at large, the peer reivew, etc. but he did not. This is not due to any hueuristics. It is due to the abilty of a Gaon to use oforce of personality to ignore consensus. It is imho no different than Tanur Achnai etc. <br>
<br>And if the GRA did not himself abuse, he opened the door for others to do so. Shades of slipepry Sloep and Antignos ish Socho.<br><br>BTW the BIGGEr the genius the more likely he is to come up with something out of the mainstream. In fact, halacha has not usually faovred Genius over Cosnensus. See BH vs. BS, R. Meir and hsi chaverim . Halacha kerav Akiva meichaveiro nbut NOT meichveirav are all examples of what I mean. <br>
<br> <br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Unlike actual nimnu vegamru, a vote taken of a BD of people sitting in<br>
the same room.</blockquote><div><br>Look the BY uses it often. Are you saying HE is wrong? He did it to overeule the Rif in YD 101 Ayein Sham <br><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
...<br>
: 1. Search or scan the Major Posqim ? Tur, BY, SA, Rema, MB Ahs Etc,.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">: i. Do<br>
: they frequently use terms as sniffim to build a case?<br>
: OR<br>
: ii. Do they<br>
: use terms like Rov Posqim, Rov Acahronim , Maskanas Haposqim etc.[e.g. see<br>
: Maggid Mishneh Rambam Hilchos Shabbas 5:1]<br>
<br>
</div>In establishing a theoretical halakhah, or in applying it to metzi'us?<br>
The former is the establishment of factors to be weighed far more than<br>
actually having a case in which to weigh them. Codes discuss senifim far<br>
more than discuss how they interact. That's why I pointed you to shu"t<br>
(in particular, RIM's survey), not codes.<br>
<br>
As RnCL wrote back on Nov 9 2007<br>
<<a href="http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n049.shtml#01" target="_blank">http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n049.shtml#01</a>>:<br>
> I don't think I disagree with your analysis that part of psak is<br>
> heuristic with factors having to be weighed. The point is that you cannot<br>
> weigh factors if you don't start with the case and then look at what<br>
> applies (ie factors). If you start where RAF seemed to want to start -<br>
> with philosophical principles that you formulate in the abstract as a<br>
> consistent guide to life and upon which you believe you now need to act,<br>
> you are almost certainly going to miss many factors, (and often and most<br>
> likely the human cost factor as the human cost is borne by the shoel or<br>
> by society, not so much by the posek) in your analysis.<br>
<br>
Returning to RRW's latest post on the topic:<br>
: 2. Re: Acceptablity<br>
: 1. IF posqim are right simply because they are popular than how is<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">: that ANY different than schectherian Cahtolic Israel?<br>
<br>
</div>Because Schechter had no constitutional law. Therefore, his definition of<br>
Catholic Israel became circular. The law is decided by the norms of the<br>
observant community and he defined the observant community based on who<br>
followed the law. By those criteria, assume R is within the observant<br>
community and you can prove they are because by that definition they<br>
follow the practices of much of the so-called-observant community. (The<br>
"much" who are themselves, the former R.)</blockquote><div><br>Yep and I say taht any gadol who is "accepted" can be justified by your postings because since he is an acceptable Gadol ANYTHING he says msut be acceptable.<br>
<br>A Radical Talmudist I know persoanlyl has been quoted as saying that you can halachically follow ANY Tanan or Amora because th Talmud would not hae included an opino fro ma heretic so it MUST be a kosher opinion.<br><br>
But that is denying psaq and Tanur Achani etc.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
Again, after 11 months it seems clear to me that you're confusing<br>
heuristic with anarchy.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>You have defened waht I consider indefensible psaqim with heuristics. IT is your own use of the word that leads ME to believe that is HOW you mean it. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Tir'u baTov!<br>
-Micha</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>