Several questions
1. What is the difference between conceptual analysis, to which you attach great importance, and just semantics, to which you often say something like “It’s just a semantic matter, it’s not interesting, call it whatever you want, etc., etc.”?
2. I didn’t understand why we need the verse of La Tesur to teach us that the Great Court has formal authority? It supposedly has such authority by the very fact that it is a court. We call it a court only if we give it the authority to decide everything, so why do we need a special verse? Don’t answer me “because that way they will have authority from above” because that may be efficiency but not justification.
3. Ostensibly, the following argument deduces a norm from facts and does not involve the naturalistic fallacy:
a. God exists.
b. God knows what is good and what is bad.
c. God commanded in the Torah to be moral.
Therefore, one must be moral and it is forbidden to murder, lie, etc., etc.
Without arguing whether the assumptions are correct, if we accept the assumptions we will necessarily get the result even though we are deducing a norm from a collection of facts.
4. Rabbi Brandes wrote “The frame Practical The binding of Halacha she The tool into which Given pour you The lights of The mind In thought, i.e Halacha “She will find something to think about . ” Is this true ? That is, a. Do you agree that the law is only a means to an end (whatever that may be)? b. If you agree, what do you think the end is?
5. Rabbi Sharki writes that philosophy is essentially questions about man, the world, and the Kabbalah. So then, he continues, why not ask the Creator of the world directly? Because he doesn’t answer, answer me. So then, he continues, if he had answered, then there would be no need for philosophy, and this is truly seen, since philosophy was born with Thales, in the year 587, exactly when prophecy ceased at the time of the destruction of the First Temple.
It really seems wonderful, although I’m a bit dubious because it’s clear that Thales was indeed the first philosopher to create a systematic and coherent philosophical method, but it’s clear that before him people would also ask themselves questions and try to arrive at answers, etc. Similar to what you say about Aristotle, that he created logic, that is, its formal form, but it’s clear that before him people would draw conclusions from a collection of assumptions… In short, what are you saying?
- Conceptual analysis is the clarification and purification of the concepts we use for the purpose of clarity of discussion and understanding the conclusions that arise from it (is there even an argument, etc.). If someone draws binding conclusions only from the definition, it is really a semantic matter (ontological evidence).
- This verse defines the authority of the Great Court.
- Not true. The conclusion is not derived from the facts. You need to add a normative assumption that one must obey morality, or the Torah, or God. Without that, at most you can conclude from your assumptions what morality says, but not that something should be done. But if what morality says is a fact (God knows what is good and what is bad) then there is no wonder. And if it is not a fact, then the assumption that God knows is not a factual assumption either.
- I suppose that halakha has goals, but I don’t agree that what is called “thought” can achieve them. At least I don’t know of any convincing explanations. So if you mean a statement in principle, I’m willing to agree (that there are principles of thought that halakha came to implement). But if you’re talking about studying thought that is done in practice, I’m far from agreeing. I’ve already written here more than once what they told me in the yeshiva I went to the university to study physics in the afternoons. The guys told me that everything is in the Torah, so why go? I told them that if that’s the case, I’d be happy if they found me the solution to the Schrödinger equation for a rotating potential well, they’d save me a lot of time and I could stay in the yeshiva to study. So far, I haven’t heard that they found one (I do 🙂 ).
- The claim that philosophy was created with the ruling of prophecy is an ancient claim, and I have written about it several times (I illustrated it through the story of Simon the Just and Alexander the Great), and this claim is not mine either. But there is certainly no evidence from this, since putting a line on the creation of philosophy is an artificial matter done ad hoc.
1. I didn't really understand?
4. Are you yes within the framework, through the study of Torah or physics? ?
6. Is it true that every court, both today's and Gentiles', has formal authority? In other words, the definition of a court is itself one that has formal authority to judge between people.
7. How do you explain the fact that Rabbi Chaim would not have ruled in his city? You have already said that one must learn with scholarship and in depth and that one must draw halachic conclusions from my scholarly study and not just rely on precedents, so how can it be that the father of scholarship could not rule on practical laws?
1. Conceptual analysis is intended to clarify the terms I use. It does not make claims but defines concepts. This allows for a clearer discussion. Anyone who makes claims from a definition is dealing with semantics. For example, it is important to define democracy before using this term. But anyone who claims that religion should be separated from state because democracy means separating religion from state is dealing with semantics.
4. I did not understand the comment/question.
6. But not tessur is not only the authority to judge but also to interpret the Torah and amend regulations. Beyond that, it is true that when there is a bi”d, he has the authority to judge. But the concept of bi”d needs to be renewed.
7. Because he thought he was only describing and not making claims. He was wrong, of course. People with developed analytical ability have difficulty deciding. It is still the case today.
1. I understand, thank you
4. You just wrote that you found the solution to the Schrödinger equation for a rotating potential well, and I just said did you find it while studying Torah or studying physics..
7. So in your opinion, the highest level of study is to reach a developed analytical ability that leads to the determination of laws?
4. It's the same thing in their opinion.
7. Analytical ability clarifies the parties, and this allows a decision to be made about what is right. Analytical ability itself does not make the decision.
4. Yes, yes, I meant your opinion. In short
7. Shlomo Tikoczinsky wrote, "Following the preoccupation with the abstract roots of each position, the analysis in most cases becomes irrelevant to the final halakhic conclusion. Each of the positions on the issue is perceived as reflecting a different internal logic, and the logic of each of them is examined in depth. After examining the positions at their high level, the student feels difficulty in descending to the 'low level' of a practical decision as one of them." How do you think one can escape this difficulty? How do you do it, for example?
He continues to write, "It is precisely the increase in analytical ability and the refinement of definitions of the divided opinions on the issue that has led to an inability to decide between the different positions, and from this has also emerged the trend of worsening case law in practice, which aims to eliminate all opinions."
Do you think he is wrong?
This is not a question of high and low level. When you put the two alternatives against each other, and establish each of them in a way that is coherent and appropriate to all sources, it seems at first glance that it is impossible to decide. But intuition can decide. The inability to decide stems from the assumption that the decision is in an absolutely logical manner, which it is not. On the contrary, the function of logical analysis is to place each position on the best basis, and now intuition can decide what is more reasonable.
I was a teenager and an old man, and when I was a teenager I really thought it was a difference in level. As I grew older I realized that ruling on halakhic law is a more complex and higher-level occupation than just scholarly analysis. Understanding reality, projecting scholarly principles onto it, and finally making a decision, is a fascinating and incredibly complex matter. Scholarly is only part of it.
I understand. Thank you very much.
You wrote in the last thread, "Understanding reality, projecting scholarly principles upon it, and finally deciding [...] Learning is only part of it."
Learning (in the given situation of the question that the questioner comes to ask the Posk) is the first stage, and understanding reality, projecting scholarly principles upon it, and finally deciding is the second stage, which you talked about in the next post, right?
https://mikyab.net/posts/9074
Scholarly knowledge takes part both in analyzing reality (because the analysis is done through scholarly categories) and in projecting principles onto it. Of course, in analyzing reality, one must also understand reality and not just be a scholar. One is impossible without the other. A scholar who does not understand reality or someone who understands reality and is not a scholar will miss the correct result.
In the post you linked to, I talk about understanding the reality within which the arbiter (the context) operates. That's something a little different.
I think the analysis I made of the work of a builder on Shabbat is a good example of analyzing reality in terms of scholarly principles. So was my comment about joining a minyan on Zoom.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
