There is nothing more peaceful than being childless.
Hello Rabbi,
Bava Kama, page 11, page 1:
And Ola, Rabbi Elazar, said that if she had part of her ablution on Sunday and part of her ablution on Monday, she would be given a portion from the first day, A. Rava. What do you think about the severity? I have heard it said that she is purified from the first day, but Rava said that she is afraid of the right day, not from the first day, but from the second day, May the Lord grant her that she is not ablution without a child.
The Gemara concludes that Ulla’s Mimra teaches that “there is no part of the placenta without a child,” and in fact, by way of an Orcha, gives us a halacha (regarding the counting of days for the case of the placenta coming out).
- Where does the assumption come from that there is indeed no peace without a child? Was it passed down in tradition from Rabbi Eliezer (and if so, where did he deduce/learn this from)?
- Is this an a priori assumption (revealed by the course of events between Ulla and Rava), or is what we are actually given is the halakha (“feeling is afraid of the right, not of the wrong, but of the other”) and through it is proven “retroactively” that this assumption must exist (otherwise there would be a tari spiqa and they would not be strict that the woman giving birth is impure from the first day according to Rashi)?
- Is there a case of epistemic doubt or ontic doubt here? I will explain:
- Is there a definition of what a majority and a child (or alternatively a minority and a child) are in the case that it is implied (according to Rashi, the Lord’s Sage, etc.) and they are simply not known to be determined in reality – then it is a type of epistemic doubt.
- It is possible that today, using medical tools, it might be possible.
- Or there isn’t even a definition for it and then there’s no way to determine whether Rob Hold came out on the first or second day – and then it’s a kind of ontic doubt.
- Is there a definition of what a majority and a child (or alternatively a minority and a child) are in the case that it is implied (according to Rashi, the Lord’s Sage, etc.) and they are simply not known to be determined in reality – then it is a type of epistemic doubt.
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- He may have understood this from observation of the world or from explanation. Like many other facts (which does not mean that he was necessarily right). The Rabbis probably learned this way and therefore treated it as one doubt and not as a SS. The Gemara accepted the halakha he established, and wondered what he thought about the child. From his halakhic ruling, it understood that in his opinion there is no such thing as a non-child (because otherwise there would be a SS here).
- I don’t think there is a clear definition, but you can get an impression. Like many halachic questions that depend on assessment (when does a fetus have a human right? How significant is eating – like an olive, what is a significant garment – like a 3 on 3, etc.). Therefore, if there is medical data, it certainly has significance and the question can be decided according to them. I don’t think it has to do with the question of whether it is an epistemic or ontic doubt. The question is whether the doubt is what a majority is, or whether a majority is defined, and the doubt is whether there is a majority in every she-child and when. Doubt in the definition of a concept or doubt in reality. Not related to ontic and epistemic.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
