Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 50

Wed, 24 Jul 2024

• 1. Chok (Michael Poppers)
• 2. Re: Chok (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: psak rules (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Chok (Michael Poppers)
• 5. date of churban habayit (Eli Turkel)
• 6. forbidden acts? (Joel Rich)

In Avodah V42n49, R'Micha posts:
I was taken by R J Sacks zt"l's idea for what a choq is. See his essay
"Descartes' Error"
<https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/descartes-error>,

Much, and probably most, of the human decision-making process is not based
in the rational part of our brain. First, we get too many stimuli to be
fully aware of all the "inputs", never mind our thoughts about much of
it. And thus emotion is very involved. So RJS argues that this is why
some of halakhah is not aimed at rational comprehension.

    "There have been many interpretations of the chukim throughout the
    ages. But in the light of recent neuroscience, we can suggest that
    they are laws designed to bypass the prefrontal cortex, the rational
    brain, and create instinctive patterns of behaviour to counteract
    some of the darker emotional drives at work in the human mind."

And since their role is to ingrain habit and instinct, the word "choq"
fits the /ch-q-q/ etymology.
<snip>
---
However, as RMFirst (bcc:ed) notes (URL:
https://jewishlink.news/what-is-the-meaning-of-chok-2/) re other
interpretations, this "create instinctive patterns of behavior" suggestion
does not fit all the uses of "choq" in TaNaCH -- you can see all those
examples in his article after he quotes RML:
===
Fortunately, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag has discussed the meaning of ?? in an
article available online on the Orthodox Union website (?Chukat: Parah
Adumah: What?s a Chok??). He concludes that a ?? is a law that is fixed and
unchanging. (This would be a natural expansion from the original ?engraved?
meaning of the root.) He gives many arguments to support this understanding
and I agree with him.
===

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240721/c97dc3d7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 11:43:03AM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
> In Avodah V42n49, R'Micha posts:
> > I was taken by R J Sacks zt"l's idea for what a choq is...
>> And since their role is to ingrain habit and instinct, the word "choq"
>> fits the /ch-q-q/ etymology.
> 
> However, as RMFirst (bcc:ed) notes (URL:
> https://jewishlink.news/what-is-the-meaning-of-chok-2/) re other
> interpretations, this "create instinctive patterns of behavior" suggestion
> does not fit all the uses of "choq" in TaNaCH -- you can see all those
> examples in his article after he quotes RML:

My post was actually sparked by that article. RMF is a friend of our
former regular, RRW, and he had e-introduced us. So I was able to discuss
it with him by messenger. RMF hadn't seen RLJ Sacks' taken until then.

>> Fortunately, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag has discussed the meaning of ?? in an
>> article available online on the Orthodox Union website ("Chukat: Parah
>> Adumah: What's a Chok?"). He concludes that a [choq] is a law that is fixed and
>> unchanging...

Except that it wouldn't explain the numer of non-chuqim. When most of
the laws are equally fixed, why would some be named by their fixed nature?
Lo sirtzah is more malleable than shaatnez?

For that matter, there is a different idiom for laws that are more fixed,
"halakhah leMoshe miSinai". Because anything else could have elements
open to rabbinic interpretation and pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   exactly the right measure of himself,  and
Author: Widen Your Tent      holds a just balance between what he can
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 06:30:02AM +0300, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> I've asked before about general rules of psak. I just heard R H Schachter
> say that each of the machloketim of Abaye and Rava were paskined
> individually and that only in yal kgam did they individually hold like
> abaye (not that there was a general rule)

If you like "leshitasam" approaches to explaining why some baalei pelugta
disagree so often, then for many of their machloqesin there is a common
explanation for why Abayei and Rava disagreed.

And if we take sides on that common explanation, then there is a reason
for usually holding like Abayei! And it's not one-by-one with a near
total pattern just happening to emerge.

At least, for those that fit the "leshitasam". I wouldn't pursue that
approach to the point where you 2-dimentionalize members of Chazal and say
they only disagreed on the one or two points -- even if fundamental ones.

As I noted a couple of times in the past few months, RAYK (Ayin Aya"h
Berakhos 48) comments on the gemara about when Rabba asked asked the two
of them, when they were youths, where is the All-Merciful? Rava pointed
up, to the ceiling. RAYK says because he found Hashem in the structured
finding of Truth in the beis medrash. Abayei went outside and pointed
up to the heaven. Which is explained as his being more about emotion
and going beyond structure and limit.

And so when they grow up... Rava wants pesaq to capture Pure Truth.
Abayei looks for the pesaq that speaks to the person following it.

So what do the 6 cases in Yaal Kegam have in common that we hold like
Rava?

Maybe they are 6 of the cases where they disagreed about something
else. (Again, saying leshitasam in a non totalitarian way.) Or maybe
there is a reason why in these 6 cases we want to push people to reach
further toward a purer Emes.


Meanwhile, something I noticed from RHS's pesaq in how to tie tzitzis...
There is very little room for conceptual shitos in his pesaqim lemaaseh.
Like the case that got me started thinking about it. RHS ties his tzitzis
with tekheiles in a way no one before him did, taking an element from
this shitah and one from another to try to be yotzei as many shitos as
possible. Even though the shitos have conceptually different foundations,
and one could argue this hybrid includes more than one tarta desasrei
on a conceptual level.

Perhaps there is a leshitaso in this and his disbelief that baalei pelugta
in Chazal who disagreed often did so because they had perspectives that
differed in a fundamental way, and they were shitah driven on many of
those disputes by a single shitah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   And the Torah, its light.
Author: Widen Your Tent                      - based on Mishlei 6:2
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

R'Micha responded:

Except that it wouldn't explain the numer of non-chuqim. When most of
> the laws are equally fixed, why would some be named by their fixed nature?
> Lo sirtzah is more malleable than shaatnez?
>
> Permit me to quote one section of RMF's article in response (and HTH :)):
===

In the context of the ?parah adumah,? there are many fixed and unchanging
aspects to the procedures. That is why the word ?chok? is used.

===
BTW, "lo tirtzach" is a great example of *r'tzon haBorei* rather than of a
common-sense law -- as quoted *b'sheim* RYDS/the Rav *z'l'* (see
https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/02/chukim-mishpatim-no-difference/), so
many aspects of this *lav* are not
logical/understandable/obvious/rational.  As you note, R'Micha, it is
quintessentially _not_ a *choq*.



> For that matter, there is a different idiom for laws that are more fixed,
> "halakhah leMoshe miSinai". Because anything else could have elements
> open to rabbinic interpretation and pesaq.
>
I'm not so sure that HlMmS would be considered either a *choq* or a
*mishpat* -- it would seem, at least as per RaMBaM (see
https://outorah.org/p/6259/), to instead be "merely" an aspect/attribute of
a decree or command; and definitionally it has no Torah
sheBiksav reference, while we are discussing *mitzvos* that do have such a
reference -- but insofar as such aspects are unchanging, yes, they are
*choq*-like.

All the best from *Michael*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240723/5fa97aaa/attachment-0001.htm>

In the past, we have discussed the differences in dates between secular
scholars and the Talmud (seder olam) regarding the "missing" years of
Persian rule and, hence, the date of the destruction of the first Temple.
The Talmud considers only four Persian rulers until Alexander the Great.
Originally, the secular date (586 BCE) was based on Greek historians and
some Persian records of many more Kings.

There has been an intensive investigation of dates relying on Cabon14 and
many other recent devices, including magnetism.

Enclosed is the abstract of an article from PNAS from April this year that,
among other things, confirms the secular dates (

    Reconstructing the absolute chronology of Jerusalem during the time
    it served as the Judahite Kingdom's capital is challenging due to
    its dense, still inhabited urban nature and the plateau shape of the
    radiocarbon calibration curve during part of this period. We present
    103 radiocarbon dates from reliable archaeological contexts in five
    excavation areas of Iron Age Jerusalem, which tie between archaeology
    and biblical history. We exploit Jerusalem's rich past, including
    textual evidence and vast archaeological remains, to overcome
    difficult problems in radiocarbon dating, including establishing
    a detailed chronology within the long-calibrated ranges of the
    Hallstatt Plateau and recognizing short-lived regional offsets in
    atmospheric 14C concentrations. The key to resolving these problems
    is to apply stringent field methodologies using microarchaeological
    methods, leading to densely radiocarbon-dated stratigraphic sequences.
    Using these sequences, we identify regional offsets in atmospheric 14C
    concentrations c. 720 BC and in the historically secure stratigraphic
    horizon of the Babylonian destruction in 586 BC. The latter is
    verified by 100 single-ring measurements between 624 to 572 BC. This
    application of intense 14C dating sheds light on the reconstruction
    of Jerusalem in the Iron Age. It provides evidence for settlement in
    the 12th to 10th centuries BC and that westward expansion had already
    begun by the 9th century BC, with extensive architectural projects
    undertaken throughout the city in this period. This was followed by
    significant damage and rejuvenation of the city subsequent to the
    mid-eight century BC earthquake, after which the city was heavily
    fortified and continued to flourish until the Babylonian destruction.

-- 
Eli Turkel

I found the following in the chavruta on the Yalta story on Chullin 109b.
It made me sad because my perception is this may be a common problem today.
Your thoughts?

????? ?????? (??? ?? ???? 263) ????, ??????? ??? ???? ??????, ??? ????
????? ????? ?, ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????, ??????? ???
???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????
?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ????
????? ?? ????? ???, ????? ?????? ????? ??????. ??? ?? ???? ?????, ????,
????, ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???, ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????
?????? ??????, ??? ??????? ???? ???, ??? ?? ?????? ????, ????? ??? ????
?????, ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????, ???? ?????, ????,
????? ???? ????, ??? ??, ??? ???? ?????. ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??
???? ???? ????. ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?????. ???
?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????, ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????
??????. ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????, ??? ????? ????? ???? ???
?????

My translation
The Michtav Meliyahu (Vol. 1, page 263) explains that sometimes a person
comes to a challenge, and if he tries to fight HKBH?s war, sometimes it
causes a stronger desire to the forbidden act, and in these cases the best
form of war is to bypass the challenge or appease his desire regarding the
rest, and for example, when he desires in the middle of his learning to
speak of valueless things, if he tells himself that under no circumstances
will he agree to it, the battle may grow and intensify. But if he says to
himself, OK, I will babble, but not now but in half an hour, in this way he
will succeed many more times than in a frontal war, and this is what chazal
taught here, that everything that the Torah forbade, it allowed us
something like it, and if he feels that his desire overcomes him and he
must eat meat and milk, he will say to himself, OK, your desire for meat
and milk, I will give you, but in a permissible way. And in this he can win
the battle if he appeases his passion in the permitted manner.
However, this path is extremely dangerous and must be used with extreme
caution. That if his intention is to taste a taste of prohibition, there
will be no benefit from it, and in this too we will be a boor with Torah?s
permission.? Rather, his intention must be pure for heaven?s sake, in order
to be saved from the incitement of the inclination and then he will succeed


Bsorot tovot

She-nir?eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu (may we
see the consolation of Jerusalem and its rebuilding speedily in our days ),


Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20240724/74ab881a/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)