tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post3083619488277806259..comments2024-03-29T01:21:09.549-04:00Comments on YGB - יג"ב: R' Gedalia Nadel's Explanation of Kavua, Similar to Prof. Aumann's "Moral Hazard" Theory of Kavua, And A Note from MyselfYosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-17998378784009329462017-03-21T13:26:40.594-04:002017-03-21T13:26:40.594-04:00I also wanted to elaborate a bit on my connection ...I also wanted to elaborate a bit on my connection to סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה:<br /><br />In Taharos 5:7, the Tiferes Yisroel in the Boaz #13 gives a comprehensive overview of סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה ואיתרע ליה רובא, based on the Tosafos Yom Tov and the Tosafos R' Akiva Eiger ad loc.<br /><br />Now, סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה ואיתרע ליה רובא is only according to R' Meir. Of particular interest in this regard is the passage in the cited Tiferes Yisroel, p. 370 in the Mishnayos' pagination, that R' Meir considers a typical case of רוב and מיעוט to be a ספק השקול. Rabbanan obviously disagree. But it could be theorized that קבוע is a manner in which even according to Rabbanan a case of רוב and מיעוט can become a ספק השקול - i.e., סמוך קבוע לחזקה ואיתרע ליה רובא When I broached the idea to my chevrusa, he dismissed it, and he may be right, but I only thought of it two days ago. Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-73300528652381987422017-03-21T13:24:51.668-04:002017-03-21T13:24:51.668-04:00Part 4:
Wearer argument, but I am throwing it in ...Part 4:<br /><br />Wearer argument, but I am throwing it in anyway: I also find it<br />unrealistic for this kind of cheshash-based pesaq to be behind a din<br />deOraisa, like qavua, rather than deRabbanan. Not a strong argument,<br />just part of why I don't feel at home with RAU's shitah.<br /><br />(Okay, to be honest, we know the real reason why: I already had a pet<br />theory before I learned his well enough to realize it differed. But the<br />notion of saying a deOraisa exists because of a cheshash fits my bias.)<br /><br />Last, what about qol qavua where the issur is derabbanan, and kemechtza<br />al mechtza is more meiqil than rov?<br /><br /><br />Last, there is R/Prof Moshe Koppel's theory. in which the distinction<br />See , or better -- his article<br />in the first edition of Higayon (put out by Bar Ilan, edited by RMK):<br /><br /> When do we assign a status to an item as an individual and when do we<br /> assign a status to an item as part of a set? If prior to the raising<br /> of the issue of status, the item in question is an undistinguished<br /> element of some set (kavu'a), then the item is assigned the status of<br /> the set. If, however, the item is in some way distinct from the set<br /> (parish), it is assigned its own status.<br /><br /> Consider the case of the stores mentioned above, of which nine out<br /> of ten sell kosher meat (Ketubot 15a). The critical moment for our<br /> purposes is the moment immediately preceding the initial encounter<br /> with the piece of meat in question. If this initial encounter occurs<br /> while the meat is in the store, the meat is regarded simply as<br /> an undistinguished member of a mixed set and its status is thus<br /> indeterminate (mechtza al mechtza). If the initial encounter<br /> occurs while the meat is on the street and is thus not associated<br /> with one of the elements of the set of stores, it must be assigned<br /> its own status. Unlike a mixed set of pieces of meat, an individual<br /> piece of meat is either kosher or non-kosher; its status is not<br /> indeterminate, but rather unknown. In such a case, we must choose<br /> between the two possibilities -- kosher or non-kosher -- and we use<br /> the majority principle in order to do so.<br /><br />But he doesn't give the taam hamitzvah for it that RGN does. Instead he<br />explains it in terms of sample spaces -- when do we count the stores to<br />determine rov stores, and when do we count the meat to determine rov<br />meat?<br /><br /> ... In fact, the difference between the way a kavu'a case is handled<br /> and the way a parish case is handled can be neatly expressed in<br /> terms of sample spaces. In the case of parish, some natural sample<br /> space is chosen, e.g., the set of stores. (What makes a particular<br /> sample space "natural" is an interesting question which I won't<br /> attempt to answer here.) In the case of kavu'a, the chosen sample<br /> space consists of the SINGLE element consisting of the entire set,<br /> which is neither kosher nor non-kosher.<br /><br />But aside from sactificing RGN's tie to the big picture, I find<br />it difficult to wrap my head around the idea that the parish, the<br />differentiated member of the sample space, is the one that uses the<br />natural sample space, and the one that is qavua within that space is not.<br /><br />(And again, my natural bias for my pet theory probably has my mind pretty<br />closed regardless of attempts to be fair.)<br /><br />-MichaYosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-59481983178547784632017-03-21T13:24:30.170-04:002017-03-21T13:24:30.170-04:00Part 3:
RAU's explanation works well for the ...Part 3:<br /><br />RAU's explanation works well for the case I brought from the AhS,<br />the difference between whether a man goes to the woman, in which case<br />we assume the man is from rov of the city; or if she goes to him, in<br />which case qol deparish -- even a mi'ut of pesulim could pasl her to<br />marry a kohein.<br /><br />But I don't think it works in general. RYGB ad loc mentions Zevachim 73b,<br />top of the amud, where chasing animal away would qualify as kol deparish,<br />even though the person doing the chasing is an interested party.<br /><br />Someone in RYGB's comment chain asked a question, which he addresses in<br />a third post:<br /> The gemara (9b) discusses a scenario where nine piles of matza and<br /> one pile of chametz are lying around before Pesach. A mouse comes and<br /> takes a piece from one of the piles and enters a house. However, we do<br /> not know if it took chametz or matza and thus are in doubt whether the<br /> house must be checked once again for chametz. The gemara distinguishes<br /> between a case where the mouse is seen taking a piece directly from<br /> one of the piles ["kavu'a"] and an instance where the piece snatched<br /> by the mouse was first isolated from the piles ["parish"]. These two<br /> cases are said to be analogous, respectively, to two cases considered<br /> in Ketubot (15a): "If there are nine stores which sell kosher meat<br /> and one which sells non-kosher meat and someone took [meat] from<br /> one of them but he doesn't know from which one he took, the meat<br /> is forbidden. But if [a piece of meat] is found [not in a store],<br /> follow the majority." Thus if the majority of stores from which the<br /> meat might have originated are kosher, the meat is permitted.<br /><br />RYGB suggests answers. In Zevachim he says there may be one in Tosafos,<br />in antoher he points to "neini'ach" in the Rambam (Chameitz uMatza 2:10)<br />-- the acting interested party is the one who put the pile where mice<br />could get at it.<br /><br />But I find it really dachuq to say we're being machmir to avoid people from<br />leaving chameitz laying around in case a mouse takes it ONLY IF HE IS<br />SEEN, because then it's qavua.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-65966756595520483792017-03-21T13:23:44.649-04:002017-03-21T13:23:44.649-04:00Part 2:
However, once the din already exists and...Part 2:<br /><br /><br />However, once the din already exists and the safeiq is in what is was,<br />the case of 9 chaniyos, one has a different perception of the meat<br />because one knows there is a real issur hanging about.<br /><br />Until that footnote, RGN's talk about qavua revolves around the caution<br />one would have / should have around something that has a real issur. Which<br />sounds like R/Nobel Laureate/Prof Uri ("Robert") Aumann's (RAU) "Moral<br />Hazard Theory". But I see now he is really going in a different direction.<br /><br /><br />RRA defined the term Moral Hazard to RYGB<br /><br />as "We say that a situation with an uncertain outcome is fraught with<br />"moral hazard" if an *interested* party -- one that stands to gain<br />or lose from the outcome -- can influence it." more reason to play<br />it safe.<br /><br />And then, as RYGB summarized in an earlier post:<br /> even if you are perfectly willing to pay double the premiums,<br /> an insurer will not issue you a second identical policy on your<br /> car. This is because you now have an incentive to disregard your<br /> normal parameters of morality and arrange to have your car stolen --<br /> after all, you will make a tidy profit on the theft. You might not<br /> even make such arrangements -- you are, of course, a /very/ moral<br /> person -- but you may be more negligent about removing your keys<br /> from the ignition and locking the door. It might not even be a<br /> conscious reaction.<br /><br /> Kol d'parish eliminates any "moral hazard." I was not active in<br /> generating the safek, and neither my conscious nor subconscious issues<br /> bear on the scenario.<br /> <br /> In a case of kavua, however, I was active in creating the safek. I<br /> went into the store, I threw the rock, etc. Therefore, my issues bear<br /> on the scenario. For example, I might have a subconscious drive to<br /> eat treif which impels me to a non-kosher store - of which I myself<br /> am not conscious.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-13320380289961563752017-03-21T13:22:53.343-04:002017-03-21T13:22:53.343-04:00Reb Micha Berger posted the following on Avodah. W...Reb Micha Berger posted the following on Avodah. While I may not agree with everything here, I wanted to share it as it is a good synopsis of where we're holding:<br /><br />Part 1:<br /><br />R Shimon Shkop is quite apologetic at the opening of Shaarei Yosher,<br />because there is no way to make the kelalei birur simple. To quote<br />my translation (NOT from the hashkafic part of the haqdamah, found in<br />):<br /> I know that this book of mine will not be acceptable to all, because<br /> many who study aren't acclimated to contemplate in an in-depth manner,<br /> in the deep way that surrounds and goes through the many topics spoken<br /> of in this book of mine. For there are many approaches to the Torah<br /> and each person finds meaning according to what he is used to. ALSO,<br /> IN THAT MOST OF THE TOPICS EXPLAINED IN IT ARE TOPICS THAT DEMAND<br /> DEPTH AND CONTEMPLATION, AND THEY WILL NOT GRASP THE HEART THAT<br /> UNDERSTANDS ONLY IN A MERE GLIMPSE. Not all people want to face the<br /> deficiency in himself [he may find] due to the depth of the concept<br /> and the deficiency of the conceiver.<br /><br />I would therefore assert that any simple explanation can be ruled out as<br />oversimplified to the point of error.<br /><br /><br />But I think R' Aqiva Eiger's (shu"t #146) / R Gedalia Nadel's (Betoraso<br />shel R' Gedaliah pg 52<br />)<br />shitah is not as bad as all that:<br /><br />Qavua is where we had a known entity with a known din, and now we don't<br />know that din. Parish is where we encounter an unknown entity. Safeiq<br />in the din -- qavua; safeiq in the metzi'us -- parish.<br /><br />RGN (pg 53 fn 3) gave the same ta'am hamitzvah for this as I used to<br />explain RAE: The role of mitzvos is to refine demuso hamusaris. Therefore,<br />what is halaachically significant is human perception, and not the<br />thing-in-itself. This is why rov is a factor in resolving a question<br />of metzi'us.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-56519969338873957332017-03-20T11:15:51.218-04:002017-03-20T11:15:51.218-04:00Rabbi, would you agree the last line be used to ex...Rabbi, would you agree the last line be used to explain issues in Halacha where we tend to take a less scientific approach. For example we don't do a DNA test to check for Mamzeirus, we don't go over fruit with a magnifying glass, and we don't second guess a beis-din on Gerus ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com