Q&A: Extended Nominalism
Extended Nominalism
Question
Hello. Rabbi Shimon Shkop discusses the view of the Ritva that, fundamentally, all commandments apply to the person, and asks what the operative status is in the object itself.
It seems that, in Rabbi Shimon Shkop’s view, there is a realist aspect in the object itself.
I was led to ask this in light of Rabbi Yaakov Ariel’s view that the rules of mixtures and absorption (“as it absorbs, so it emits,” etc.) are formal rather than realist, and cannot be tested in a laboratory.
My question is: can the “object-based status” be understood as a nominalist halakhic fiction — that is, that a vow is a normative determination that imposes on the person an obligation “as if” there were a real prohibited status in the object itself, with the halakhic implications of object-based status, for example that a vow concerning an object used for a commandment (such as a sukkah) would prevent fulfillment of the commandment?
Thank you.
Answer
I don’t know which passage of Rabbi Shimon Shkop you mean. I also do not agree with Rabbi Ariel’s thesis.
Of course, any claim can be interpreted in an “as if” sense.
Discussion on Answer
I meant that I don’t know which source in Rabbi Shimon Shkop you were referring to.
Abstraction is something else entirely. Rabbi Ariel’s remarks are probably an excuse meant to immunize Jewish law against factual difficulties.
Rabbi Shimon Shkop = Rabbi Shimon Shkop, whom you wrote about at length.
Rabbi Lior is a realist. In his view, it is possible to test in a laboratory the quality of today’s metal.
I thought Rabbi Ariel fit with your view that there is a development toward greater abstraction of concepts.
And likewise a process of moving away from realism (regarding impurity, menstruation laws, forbidden foods, and more) toward nominalism.