Q&A: Casuistic Formulation
Casuistic Formulation
Question
In one of your articles you showed convincingly that the Sages used casuistic formulation.
And you noted:
“Why indeed did the Sages prefer casuistic formulation, and not use theoretical formulations of laws (like the positivist method)? I cannot address this important question here, and for my purposes here it is enough to establish the fact that this is indeed the way of the Sages.”
Have you gone back and written anywhere about the reason for casuistic formulation? Could you please write the gist of it here?
Thank you very much, and happy holiday!
P.S.
For my own part, I am inclined to say that this approach is preferable because it is more precise. Sometimes it is not possible to formulate the general rule without sacrificing precision. But I am not sure about that.
Answer
I no longer remember whether I wrote about it. In principle, the Sages do not have much trust in rules. Even when there is a rule, they are not deterred by exceptions to it (see Kiddushin: “One does not derive from general rules, even in a case where it says ‘except,’” and many more). In their eyes, it is more reliable to show a case in which the rule is expressed and leave it to us to understand the application. The rule is too rigid and does not allow for the flexibility that reality requires.
By the way, it seems to me that this is also the point of departure of common law.
Discussion on Answer
It has now come up. See here: https://mikyab.net/posts/76538
Thanks! Indeed, along the lines of what I had thought. If you happen to find a place where you wrote about the subject at length, I would appreciate a reference.