Whether Halacha deals with reality or cognition

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Whether Halacha deals with reality or cognition

asked 8 years ago

The rabbi concluded his last article with a paragraph – “This raises an interesting question about halacha in general. Does it deal with reality as it is or as it is perceived by us (in our consciousness). But this is not the place to go into that.”
This discussion has been very interesting to me recently [I am studying the laws of prohibition and permission and I believe that if the halacha deals with reality then a. The above laws are not at all relevant in our time since the determinations of the Sages were applied because they believed that this was the way things were in reality, but apparently this is not the way things were [for example, issue 1: a second vessel does not cook, 2: the discussion of the treason or treason of a man, 2: swallowing in vessels, and other issues, etc.]
B. Many discussions among the Sages are perceived as not serious and devoid of content, and it is not clear what the debate is if it revolves around clarifying reality [For example, the discussion of whether a man is a man or a woman is an apparent increase is not a serious discussion if it revolves around clarifying reality, both because this discussion depends on many variables, and because it is subject to clarification. Another example is that the Gemara and the Rishonim spent a long time discussing what the limit is for the spread of matter in matter [such as 2 pieces that were used or salted together, one is permitted and the other is prohibited, beyond the limit that the permitted piece is prohibited, and again if the discussion revolves around reality, the plurality of methods in this [see section 105] is a content-barren discussion]
I would be very happy to hear your opinion on the subject and for introductions.
Thank you for the in-depth discussions you have and for answering every question.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago

For some reason I think I answered this question. I’ll answer again briefly. In most cases, it seems that the halachic authorities intended to make claims about reality itself. But as usual, they do so from their own understanding, and not on the basis of scientific knowledge that they did not possess. Indeed, according to the knowledge we have today, it seems that quite a few of their statements are wrong. Therefore, it is easiest to say that they did not intend to make claims about reality, but rather to build a model. This may be true in the case I have dealt with here, but in general, my impression is that it is not true. First, we need to distinguish between a situation in which the words of the posak himself indicate that he does not intend to evaluate reality. If this is so, then the inconsistency with reality should not be a problem. Beyond that, not everything that this or that posak writes is binding. If you come to the conclusion that reality is different, you can act differently. The last thing that is binding is the Talmud (see Rosh Sanhedrin Pd. 36 and Ss. R. F. B. Memmarim). Recently, experiments have been conducted on swallowing in utensils (search Google under Dror Pixler and Yair Frank, and see the sources they cite), and it turned out that at least in today’s utensils, swallowing is minimal. It makes a difference how much of the laws of mixtures, meat in milk, and the like. Indeed, Rabbi Lior wrote that there is room for leniency if more poskim join him (I don’t know if this happened). As a rule, what is permitted is permitted even if there are no poskim who say it is permitted. Their boldness or lack of it is irrelevant. They are not the masters of the halacha, and if there is something forbidden, it is forbidden even if they permit it and vice versa. The question is when do I come to the conclusion that a change is indeed needed and should be changed. When I come to it – there is no reason to change and no one needs to be asked. And clearly, my intention is that there is no obligation to ask and the answer does not depend on the words of this or that poskim. He has no substantial authority. It is very worthwhile to ask so that he can help me see and make sure that I am not mistaken.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

נתן replied 8 years ago

Did the rabbi actually change his practices regarding meat and dairy laws after reading Pixler and Frank's study? Ostensibly, according to the rabbi's position that what is permitted is permitted even without the consent of the poskim, if there is no reason to assume that they were wrong in their research, why is there a need for separate utensils for meat and dairy?

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

First, it depends on the types of materials.
Secondly, the separation of utensils is also based on custom. After all, utensils that are used for cattle, even according to accepted halachah, are not subject to ingestion and there is no problem using them for dairy and meat. The important question is when a utensil is prohibited in accepted terms, can it be permitted subject to research data. In my opinion, yes.