Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 416

Fri, 12 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Micha Berger)
• 2. R Heller's words on the Bombay kedoshim (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 5. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: FW: Worth thinking about - (Halacha is Not about Truth) (Harry Maryles)
• 7. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Ira Tick)
• 8. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: FW: Worth thinking about (Zev Sero)

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: From R' Broyde on R' Rackman
:> (1) Jewish law is a truth seeking venture which must live by the
:> currency of logic and analysis, always living in the present and being
:> driven by the data, both Talmudic and scientific.

Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought
into a human life, mapping divrei E-lokim Chaim to one of many possible
halakhah ke-... The problem isn't finding the truth; the truth can't be
grasped. It's finding how we can model a path to that truth based on who
and where we are as limited imperfect beings.

(At least, that's how I understand the Maharal's model of machloqes,
and I personally find it compelling.)

:>   Judaism's antinomies are important for an understanding not only
:> of its theology and ethics, but also its Halakhah...

It might help to have a little more context telling me what those
antinomies are.

To help those who don't know the term, here's an entry from the free
portion of the Encyc Britannica web site:
> antinomy
> philosophy

> in philosophy, contradiction, real or apparent, between two principles
> or conclusions, both of which seem equally justified; it is nearly
> synonymous with the term paradox. Immanuel Kant, the father of critical
> philosophy, in order to show the inadequacy of pure reason in the field
> of metaphysics, employed the word antinomies in elaborating his doctrine
> that pure reason generates contradictions in seeking to grasp the
> unconditioned. He offered alleged proofs of the two propositions that
> the universe had a beginning and is of finite extent (the thesis) and
> also of a contrary proposition (the antithesis). Similarly, he offered
> proofs both for and against the three propositions: (1) that every
> complex substance consists of simple parts; (2) that not every
> phenomenon has a sufficient "natural" cause (i.e., that there is
> freedom in the universe); and (3) that there exists a necessary being,
> either within or outside the universe. Kant used the first two
> antinomies to infer that space and time constitute a framework imposed,
> in a sense, by the mind. Kant's "Copernican Revolution" was that
> things revolve around the knower, rather than the knower around things.
> He resolved the four antinomies by drawing a distinction between
> phenomena (things as they are known or experienced by the senses) and
> noumena (things in themselves; see noumenon). Kant insisted that we can
> never know the noumena, for we can never get beyond phenomena.

:>                                                  Unfortunately,
:> however, many who are presently called upon to resolve questions of
:> Jewish law are often oblivious to the antinomies which are implicit in
:> their subject. Altogether too frequently they seize upon one or
:> another of two or more possible antithetical values or interests
:> between which the Halakhah veers, and they assume there must be an
:> exclusive commitment to that single norm. The dialectic of the Talmud,
:> however, reveals quite the contrary. Implicit in almost every
:> discussion is a balancing of the conflicting values and interests
:> which the Law seeks to advance. ...

This appears to be (guessing what the antinomies are by context) exactly
what I was talking about when I said that halakha must be a creative
process of weighing pros and cons, because objectivity has no tools for
dealing with antinomy. In an objective world, "antinomy" is called
"paradox".

Which is how Kant used his antinomies to show that many of the most
fundamental features of the universe are really subjective, imposed on
how we perceive the universe, not what objective thing out there.

Kant's antinomies may not be real (many more recent philosophers have
tried to resolve them), but that gives you a feel for what the term
means.

...
:>   (me-type 1 and type II errors)

I may have clipped too much, because I don't know where the error were
made.

Here's the terms as I understand them:
Type I error / false positive: We see a difference that isn't there.
Type II error / false negative: We fail to see an existing difference.
Type III error: We give the right answer to the wrong question.

I don't see the applicability of finding something (or not) that is real
(or not) to this discussion.

Please elaborate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

R Yosef Heller, the rosh of the Crown Heights kollel, on the events in
Bombay.

http://sero.name/heller1.png
http://sero.name/heller2.png

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
> : From R' Broyde on R' Rackman
> :> (1) Jewish law is a truth seeking venture which must live by the
> :> currency of logic and analysis, always living in the present and being
> :> driven by the data, both Talmudic and scientific.
> 
> Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
> listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought
> into a human life, mapping divrei E-lokim Chaim to one of many possible
> halakhah ke-... The problem isn't finding the truth; the truth can't be
> grasped. It's finding how we can model a path to that truth based on who
> and where we are as limited imperfect beings.
> 
> (At least, that's how I understand the Maharal's model of machloqes,
> and I personally find it compelling.)

But the Maharal's own take on that story (Be'er Hagulah #4 (4.4 in the
new 3-volume edition)) is that they ignored the bas qol because it did
*not* say what the truth was in this particular case.  All it said was
that R Eliezer is *always* right, and therefore the chachamim ought to
concede to him regardless of the details of the case.  At the level of
the bas qol, that's how you resolve arguments - look at who's involved,
assess who's the greater talmid chochom, and just go with whatever he
says.  No need for sevara, just apply the rule.  The chachamim's reply
was also to apply a rule rather than sevara, just a different rule.
Whereas the bas qol's rule was to go after the greatest chacham, the
rule as it is here in this world is to go after the majority. 

But the Maharal seems to say that had the bas qol told them that the
truth was actually R Eliezer's way they would have to agree with him,
because the truth is the truth.  "Im haya omer shehadin shelo emes,
yihyeh ha'omer mi shehu, harei hadin emes."


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:20:02 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:42:00PM EST, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:56:55 -0500 Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> :> ...
> :>> RRW seems to be descriing a world in which someday a good peice of
> :>> software running atop the Bar Ilan CD might be a better poseiq than
> :>> any human.
> 
> :> This could be true independent of any model of Halachah and Pesak, if
> :> one assumes the possibility of the development of serious AI.

...

> Then I wrote the line RYG commented upon. (IIUC, he was confused by my use
> of the general term "AI", saying good AI would be subjective anyway.)

*Now* I'm confused, by your reference to "my use of the general term
AI".  Your original message didn't contain any such term.

> I wasn't commenting on your criticism, but your desire for objectivity
> "regardless of what system" which I thought meant you assumed agreement.
> 
> To repeat what I was trying to say in a manner that avoids what I believe
> was RYG's confusion:
> 
> Is the ideal poseiq a database plus some natural language software (to
> convert the sefarim into some data structure) and an algorithm? That would
> be the ultimate in objectivity -- but it would minimize the humanity of
> our contribution to the halachic process.

I don't think this would be "the ultimate in objectivity"; without real
AI, the software couldn't possibly generate any real Pesak, since Pesak
involves human level reasoning, unless you're referring to the narrow
case of simply resolving conflicting opinions, without any creativity
in the sense of extending existing law to novel cases, or the arguing
for or against given positions based on other sources within the
Halachah.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:30:14 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
> listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought

There are, of course, other interpretations of why the Hachamim didn't
follow the Bas Kol in the case of Tanur Shel Achnai.  Tosfos (Yevamos
14a s.v. Rabbi Yehoshua), for example, suggest (in their first
approach) that the veracity of that Bas Kol was dubious, since it only
occurred in defense of the honor of Rabbi Eliezer.

> Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

--- On Thu, 12/11/08, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:22:58AM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: From R' Broyde on R' Rackman
:> (1) Jewish law is a truth seeking venture which must live by the
:> currency of logic and analysis, always living in the present and being
:> driven by the data, both Talmudic and scientific.

Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought
into a human life, mapping divrei E-lokim Chaim to one of many possible
halakhah ke-... The problem isn't finding the truth; the truth can't be
grasped. It's finding how we can model a path to that truth based on who
and where we are as limited imperfect beings.

?
?
===========================================
?
Toattly agree.
?
Jewish law is a function of how man understands Divine law. As such man was
given the means to interpret it. This is why we do not listen to a Bas Kol-
which in fact is truth - as you point out.
?
Halacha is not about truth. It is about human interpretations of truth.
That means that even if we get it wrong we must abide by the rules of
interpretation given to us by the Divine which becomes Halacha in spite of
the truth. This is the message?in the Sugya in Bava Metzia (59) of the
Tanur Achnoi. The importance of this difference should not be glossed over.
The attempt to find truth as opposed to Halacha is why R? Eliezer was put
into Cherem.
?
HM?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/


?


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081212/b6204cdd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There are, of course, other interpretations of why the Hachamim didn't
> follow the Bas Kol in the case of Tanur Shel Achnai.  Tosfos (Yevamos
> 14a s.v. Rabbi Yehoshua), for example, suggest (in their first
> approach) that the veracity of that Bas Kol was dubious, since it only
> occurred in defense of the honor of Rabbi Eliezer.


I like this approach.  Zev Sero mentioned that the bas kol only speaks on
behalf of the greatest scholar, as if the bas kol only "knows" that much and
has only that fact to submit to the court.  This is problematic, because who
says a bas kol is to be thought of as an entity or as a realm of knowledge
or autonomous providence.  I think that its a mistake to truly believe that
angels or heavenly visions or anything else are autonomous (even if the
gemara describes angels as being punished, i think this is easily understood
as a metaphor that people as agents of causation can relate to).  In my
opinion, it makes sense to view the bas kol as a "defense of the honor" of
R. Eliezer and primarily as a test to the rest of the court, if they will
uphold the norm of 'lo bashamayim hi' and defend the halachic process in
spite of the honor of any one of their members.  If the chachamim saw this
as a test, then there is no need to resolve the philosophical problem of
whether or not the bas kol was accurate and therefore provided a dilemma.
If the bas kol was merely a test, then there is no way to know whether or
not the halacha in shamayim really is like R. Eliezer, but that doesn't
matter, the evidence is not admissible in court.  Do chachamim worry about
whether one pair of witnesses is correct in a case of 'trei u'trei'?  No, of
course not.  They surely wish they could resolve the case, but since they
cannot under the rules of court procedure, which are established wisely for
the sake of the halachic (or in this case judicial) process, and must be
upheld.


-- 
Ira Tick
6519 N Whipple
Chicago, IL 60645
(414) 699-8285

itick1...@gmail.com
it...@iit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081212/67377887/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:35:18PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:> Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
:> listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought

: There are, of course, other interpretations of why the Hachamim didn't
: follow the Bas Kol in the case of Tanur Shel Achnai.  Tosfos (Yevamos
: 14a s.v. Rabbi Yehoshua), for example, suggest (in their first
: approach) that the veracity of that Bas Kol was dubious, since it only
: occurred in defense of the honor of Rabbi Eliezer.

I refer the chevrah back to my summary of the Encyc
Talmudit on this point, listing 5 different shitos.
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n087.shtml#02> The basic issue
is that "eilu va'eilu divrei E-lokim chaim, vehalakhah keBH" is also a
bas qol, and there it seems that we followed the bas qol.

However, as I said when I ran with the Maharal's shitah (AIUI) about
the nature of machloqes, I wasn't describing all possible position,
but the approach that appeals to me.

One can study gemara, rishonim and acharonim, and learn all the various
shitos. Or one can study a guide, and learn what to do lemaaseh. If one
is not a poseiq, the former will rarely overlap with the latter. But
there is a chiyuv to do both.

Similarly in aggadita, one can engage in talmud Torah and learn all
the shitos. Or one can study to build their own worlview. Here, though,
everyone plays personal "poseiq" -- and in fact it much of the process
is preconscious, what strikes me as making sense. So the overlap is
large. Still, when engaging in a "what I believe" discussion, I'm not
likely to raise the other interpretations.

Here I tried to be clear that was what I was doing. The question is,
whether the worldview I constructed is consistent, which brings us to
RZS's post.

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:10:02PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >Jewish law is not a "truth seeking venture". If it were, we would be
: >listening to the bas qol. It's a process for mapping Divine Thought
: >into a human life, mapping divrei E-lokim Chaim to one of many possible
: >halakhah ke-... The problem isn't finding the truth; the truth can't be
: >grasped. It's finding how we can model a path to that truth based on who
: >and where we are as limited imperfect beings.

: >(At least, that's how I understand the Maharal's model of machloqes,
: >and I personally find it compelling.)

: But the Maharal's own take on that story (Be'er Hagulah #4 (4.4 in the
: new 3-volume edition)) is that they ignored the bas qol because it did
: *not* say what the truth was in this particular case...

This is the yeish omerim #1 of R' Nissim Gaon.
...
: But the Maharal seems to say that had the bas qol told them that the
: truth was actually R Eliezer's way they would have to agree with him,
: because the truth is the truth.  "Im haya omer shehadin shelo emes,
: yihyeh ha'omer mi shehu, harei hadin emes."

Alternatively one can say that the Maharal would hold the bas qol
wouldn't speak up to provide a ruling unless it were to say that the
mapping process entirely failed. IOW, in the kind of cases discussed in
Horios.

The general impression from the Maharal is that the Father bows to the
will of the child, which is expressed by acharei rabim. And like many
flesh-and-blood fathers do when giving in to a child, Hashem sinmply said
"You win!" in almost exactly those words.

This makes more sense with my take on his introduction, than insisting
pesaq is a matter of finding truth would.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:28:23PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
:> Is the ideal poseiq a database plus some natural language software (to
:> convert the sefarim into some data structure) and an algorithm? That would
:> be the ultimate in objectivity -- but it would minimize the humanity of
:> our contribution to the halachic process.

: I don't think this would be "the ultimate in objectivity"; without real
: AI, the software couldn't possibly generate any real Pesak, since Pesak
: involves human level reasoning...

And if the process needs real AI, doesn't that mean it requires
subjectivity? Isn't the difference between real software and any
hypothetical "real AI" is that intelligence has an "I", a first person
viewpoint, a possibility of subjectivity? If you /need/ real intelligence,
doesn't that mean there is a subjective component?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Ira Tick wrote:

> I like this approach.  Zev Sero mentioned that the bas kol only speaks 
> on behalf of the greatest scholar, as if the bas kol only "knows" that 
> much and has only that fact to submit to the court.  This is 
> problematic, because who says a bas kol is to be thought of as an entity 
> or as a realm of knowledge or autonomous providence.  I think that its a 
> mistake to truly believe that angels or heavenly visions or anything 
> else are autonomous (even if the gemara describes angels as being 
> punished, i think this is easily understood as a metaphor that people as 
> agents of causation can relate to).

It's not my opinion, it's the Maharal.  I only posted it because RMB
gave an opinion which he said he had based on the Maharal, so I quoted
the Maharal himself saying the opposite.  As for "who says a bas kol"
is something different, with its own level of knowledge, I guess the
Maharal says. Who told him?  I don't know. 

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 416
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."