Avodah Mailing List

Volume 42: Number 53

Mon, 05 Aug 2024

• 1. Re: Appreciating Kedusha? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Chok (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Chok (Michael Poppers)
• 4. Re: Chok (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 08:44:03PM -0400, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> The halacha (see S"A O"C 143:8) for tashmishei kedusha (eg the aron kodesh)
> to be donated subject to a condition that they be able to be used for a
> "profane" use as well... and even if no such proactive condition is made, we
> will act as if one had been made (so as to cause a stumbling block for the
> unwary).

I Understood the AhS's presentation as saying that because it's a sociatal
norm, the condition is made implicitly. A person has to announce when
they are doing something different, and inaction implies doing the usual.

> Question: what does it say about halacha and human nature that we do this
> rather than educate people concerning the sanctity of tashmishei kedusha?
> Similar question concerning talking divrei chol in a bet knesset?

I could think of a different parallel, one we've seen on Areivim --
warnings to avoid imports from Israel because of the complexity of
removing terumah umaaseros.

So, avoid the BALM of terumah and maaser, eating biqdushah, and the BALC
of supporting other Jews, because.... you think learning the halakhah
is too hard?

Lemaaseh, there are numerous web pages which describe the whole process
in two pages of printed text! So part of the avoidance is not even doing
the research to find out if it even is hard.

But either way, the question is when do we allow fear of issur allow us
to settle for trying to get less qedushah?

A case too extreme for us: If every marriage were pilagshus rather
than qiddushin, there would be no new lines of mamzeirim. But something
THAT fundamental to Qedushas Yisrael isn't getting avoided, even though
mamzeirus is a problem ledoros.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 7:29pm EDT, R Michael Poppers replied to me:
>> 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.

And ribbis doesn't also have many fixed and unchanging aspects?

Is it "the procedure", thus a choq is only a (1) ritual mitzvah that has
(2) a lot of unchaing details?

Then how is shaatnez, a lav rather than a ritual, categorized as a choq?

> 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.

Yes... Choq is the beyond-reasonalness mitzvos, and the mishpatim
the reasonable ones. So don't we want an etymology that correlates
better to that distinction?

RLJSacks offers that. His idea is that "choq" refers to things that
engrave in the heart, below the reason levels of our mind. This is an
"engraving" that does correlate to the usual "humans need revelation to
know about this law because our reason isn't good enough to get there"
definition.

I heard RYBS discuss this point in Furst Hall (YU). He said that chuqim
and mishpatim are not clearly defined cateogries.

Lo sirtzach is a mishpat in general, and yet it has elements that we
cannot simply reason out without revelation -- like whether or not
abortion or euthenasia are retzichah.

He didn't say that elements are choq because of their rigid and unchanging
natures. And not killing a healthy person is also rigid and unchanging.

>> 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

Exactly where I was going. Fixedness is an entirely different topic than
the choq vs mishpat split.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
Author: Widen Your Tent      happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Dale Carnegie

R'Micha:
> how is shaatnez, a lav rather than a ritual, categorized as a choq? <
As I understand RMLeibtag, because the prohibition against a mixture of
species is an unchanging edict.
> ribbis doesn't also have many fixed and unchanging aspects? <
As I understand RMLeibtag, understanding whether some activity/agreement
constitutes *ribbis* involves human judgement, so it would not be
considered a *choq*.

Since quoting a salient paragraph from RMFirst's article apparently didn't
help explain RMLeibtag's approach to at least R'Micha, perhaps an article
RMLeibtag wrote might help -- please see URL https://outorah.org/p/37639/.
Thanks.

A gut'n Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom!
and 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/20240801/94ea07b1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:23:56PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
> R'Micha:
> > how is shaatnez, a lav rather than a ritual, categorized as a choq?

> As I understand RMLeibtag, because the prohibition against a mixture of
> species is an unchanging edict.

Again, every mitzvah has an unchanging core.

And similarly my point about ribbis. Aside from the mishpat aspect, whether
or not reciprocating the favor is allowed and when, when is buying futures
ribbis, etc... are lots of unchanging details.

> As I understand RMLeibtag, understanding whether some activity/agreement
> constitutes *ribbis* involves human judgement, so it would not be
> considered a *choq*.
> 
> Since quoting a salient paragraph from RMFirst's article apparently didn't
> help explain RMLeibtag's approach to at least R'Micha, perhaps an article
> RMLeibtag wrote might help -- please see URL https://outorah.org/p/37639/.

And RML's opening shows the core of my reluctance to accept his thesis.

> What does the phrase CHUKAT HA'TORAH (19:2) mean? Usually, the word TORAH
> is understood as 'the entire Chumash', while CHOK is understood as a
> 'law without reason'; and hence -- the laws of Parah Adumah become the
> example 'par excellance' of a CHOK that doesn't make any sense -- correct?

That's not just common understanding. Yuma defines the cateogy as
    things that the satan meishiv aleihen. And they are: ...
    VeShema tomar they are maasei sohu? Talmud lomar: "Ani Hashem"
    -- I, Hashem, chaqativ, and you have no reshus to be meharheir
    on them.

(I tried to avoid translating buzzwords.)

Rashi on Chuqas cites this gemara. And RML's article quotes Rambam
(Me'ilah 8:8) that (translation his):
    CHUKIM are laws whose reason is not evident ["taamam eino
    geluyah"]... and the laws of Korbanot fall under category of
    CHUKIM...

So the burden rests on explaining how his more literal translation
fits the usage found since Chazal's.

If the root really is "chaquq" / "engraved", I would be looking for a
connection explaining how dinim that are beyond human understanding are
more "engraving" than those we can figure out or at least understand
after the fact.

Or if we follow RSRH (Tehillim 119:5) that it is etymological from
"circle", then we can explain the resulting usage of "choq" as a
mitzah who we can only relate to by its effect of encircling us
with mitzvos.

I am objecting to RML's claim, bracketed in the following quote:
> Actually, let's first explain what a CHOK isn't! In contrast to popular
> opinion, a CHOK (by definition) is not a law that doesn't make sense. [As
> we will see, the fact that a CHOK doesn't always make sense may be a
> characteristic, but certainly not a definition.]

(1) It isn't only popular opinion, it's gemara, rishonim...
(2) He doesn't show that his definition actually does yeild a set of
mitzvos that don't "always make sense" to use more so than the mitzvos
excluded.

Which is why my objections weren't about my not understanding RML's
position, it's that he offers a more literal translation that then
fails to explain actual usage.

To quote:
    The word "chok" describes a fixed law or statute. In fact, Chumash
    even uses the word "chok" to describe statutes that are not mitzvot.

To which I noted that every mitzvah has fixed laws. And the most fixed
are called by a term we both agree is unrelated, "halakhah leMoshe miSinai".

He adds, although for me this is tangential:
    For this reason, the holidays in Parshat Emor are referred to as
    CHUKIM for they celebrated on a REGULAR basis, once a year based
    on the solar (agricultural) calendar. Once again, a "chok" implies
    something constant that doesn't change - a statute.

(RSRH would even say that "chag" is a related word, given the phonetic
closeness of quf and gimel.)

But he went from one kind of "doesn't change" to another, from the
immutability of the law to the regularity of the schedule. Most chuqim
aren't on a schedule. It's more like an unrelated usage of an etymology
about "fixedness".

And:
    Based on this definition, a CHOK can be logical, but it doesn't have
    to be! Certain CHUKIM may be beyond our comprehension, however many
    other CHUKIM can actually make a lot of sense. Therefore we find some
    "chukim" that are quite logical, while others are not - however, an
    'unlogical law' does not define a CHOK!

    In contrast, a MISHPAT, as its name implies, is a JUDGEMENT - based
    on reason. The very concept of a MISHPAT relates to a decision or
    judgement that must be made between two claims. Hence, the Torah
    refers to the entire set of civil laws relating to damages etc. in
    Shemot chapters 21->23 as MISHPATIM (see Shemot 21:1 & 24:3).

But this definition means that some chuqim are mishpatim -- unchanging
laws that can be understood "based on reason".

It doesn't fit the usage in primary sources. Unless all or nearly all
chuqim cannot be understood (or to make the Rambam happy, cannot be
understood by the uninitiated), his explanation doesn't work for me.
Choq and mishpat have to be basically non-overlapping sets, if choq is
going to correlate to the gemara's usage.

Or to put it another way, the gemara didn't say that every mitzvah we
cannot understand is a choq, but that "choq" is a mitzvah we cannot
understand.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 A person lives with himself for seventy years,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and after it is all over, he still does not
Author: Widen Your Tent      know himself.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                          - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



_______________________________________________
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.)