Naturalistic view
Regarding the naturalistic and ontological view of the Garsashk, which sees in halakhic laws or prohibitions (about an object, for example) ontological statuses that exist in reality, and not just legal relations (to the object), it is ostensibly possible to bring direct evidence against it from the mishna in Babba Kama, chapter 9, mishna 2:
He who steals a beast and an old woman, a slave and an old man, shall pay according to the time of the theft. […] He who steals a coin and it cracks, fruits and they rot, wine and they sour, shall pay according to the time of the theft.
Coin and scrap, donation And it is defiled, leavened, and the Passover is passed over it, an animal and a slave. In it there was a transgression, or it was cast off from the altar, or it was cast out to be stoned. , I tell him, “Yours is before you.”
We see from this that a legal or halakhic change does not impair the identity of the object (therefore the thief says, “Here is yours,” while a physical change does impair the identity of the object.
This means that a law or halakhic/legal/juridical status is not a naturalistic and physical thing in an object, but rather our legal attitude towards it. What do you think?
There is no need for this. It is like the issue of damage that is not apparent (the examples of which are always the imposition of a prohibition on an object. I think that in Shai Wesner’s book there is an extensive discussion of this in the method of Rabbi Shkop). It damages the identity of the object, but in its spiritual and not physical dimensions, and for that there is no obligation to make restitution. For example, a donation that has become impure is edible just like a donation that has not become impure, it is just forbidden to eat it. So why would you pay for the damage if the object is used for eating in the same way and with the same quality? There is only a reason here that you cannot eat but no harm to the object itself. Suppose you were to apply transparent varnish to a chair, do you have to pay? It is certainly a change in the object itself, but a change that does not harm it.
Ah, so if I understood correctly, basically this means that ontological is not necessarily "physical" but at least "real," and halakhic law can be real but not physical but spiritual.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
