Q&A: A Circular Priority in the Laws of Blessings
A Circular Priority in the Laws of Blessings
Question
Hello and blessings,
I wanted your help understanding a ruling involving a "circular wheel" (in rabbinic terminology. Is there a special name for this in logic?). Suppose I have before me a banana, a date, and an olive, and they are preferred by me in that order. According to Jewish law, when their blessings are the same we follow whichever comes earlier in the verse of the Seven Species, and when their blessings are not the same we follow personal preference.
So the olive comes before the date because it appears earlier in the verse. And the banana comes before the olive because it is more preferred than it. And the date comes before the banana because it is more preferred than it. We are stuck.
In Hokhmat Shlomo and in the book Shalmei Todah they point to the Talmud (Zevachim 90b), which creates such a "circular wheel" in the laws of sacrifices, and from the Talmudic conclusion there Shalmei Todah learns that in our case too: "The banana's advantage is only because of preference, and that exists in the date to an even greater degree; therefore the banana is nullified, and what remains is the olive and the date." What does this mean?
And while we're at it, I'll raise an interesting question I heard this week, one that one of the famous Haredi women rabbis was uncertain about. According to Jewish law, in certain cases there is a problem for a man to be secluded with two women, unless they are among the five women who hate one another, in which case there is no concern that they will sin and cover it up.
That rabbi took her granddaughter as a wife for her son. And she asked whether it is permitted to travel with her late at night in a taxi, since she "hates" her as a mother-in-law, or whether, since the bride is her granddaughter, she does not hate her.
(Can this be made dependent on the reason for the hatred discussed in Yevamot 117? Meaning, the mother-in-law's hatred for the daughter-in-law because she is destined to inherit her labor does not apply to her granddaughter. And if so, the reason of "as in water, face answers to face" also does not apply. But Rabbi Isaac's reason, that the mother-in-law reveals secrets to the son—perhaps that would apply?).
I would be very glad if you could enlighten me, especially on the first question. Please explain to me what Shalmei Todah means, or alternatively give me another way to resolve the conflict.
Answer
If I understand correctly, his intention is to say that preference is transitive (if A is preferred to B, and B is preferred to C, then A is preferred to C), and therefore with respect to that factor one can make the following consideration: the only reason the banana comes before the olive is that it is preferred to it. But in that very respect, the date is better than the banana, and therefore on grounds of preference the banana drops out of the game. On that axis it certainly will not win. But regarding precedence in the verse, such a consideration is irrelevant, since the banana is not in the verse at all.
By the way, I seem to recall that the Hatam Sofer already brings such a case in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh and notes the similarity to the Talmud in Zevachim. In the Talmudic Logic series we wrote an entire book (the fifth volume) on various kinds of loops in the Talmud and Jewish law, and this case is discussed there as well.
Discussion on Answer
It doesn't matter that the date won't be eaten. It only proves that the banana cannot win on the preference axis, which is its strongest axis, and so it drops out of the calculation.
As for seclusion, in my opinion that's not a logical question but a psychological one. It's not a circle but a question of one of two opposite tendencies overcoming the other. My intuition is that if she is her granddaughter, the love prevails.
Is the fifth book mentioned here available to read online?
No
Thanks, but I still haven't managed to understand.
What do you mean by your words: "The only reason the banana comes before the olive is that it is preferred to it. But in that very respect, the date is better than the banana, and therefore on grounds of preference the banana drops out of the game. On that axis it certainly will not win."
Practically speaking, after all, we are not eating the date. So why does the date's preference help the olive? Why is this different from a case where only an olive and a banana are before us?
(And could you say a few words about the second question?).