tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post3765032773492886900..comments2024-03-13T00:57:15.699-04:00Comments on YGB - יג"ב: Kavu'a AgainYosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-63267266032496362632016-12-15T10:55:10.570-05:002016-12-15T10:55:10.570-05:00I have not yet looked at the chibbur but have uplo...I have not yet looked at the chibbur but have uploaded it to https://www.dropbox.com/s/le604t6r8cvruuv/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%93%D7%90%20%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%96.pdf?dl=0Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-70609869398699476482016-12-15T10:53:09.095-05:002016-12-15T10:53:09.095-05:00... and everything in the above is how I would app...... and everything in the above is how I would apply what R' Aqiva Eiger wrote, and did not require applying my own extrapolations beyond it.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-25758917682372743922016-12-15T10:51:51.858-05:002016-12-15T10:51:51.858-05:00"Attached"? Tease!"Attached"? Tease!micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-63874215783583000722016-12-15T10:49:49.194-05:002016-12-15T10:49:49.194-05:00The response from Prof. Aumann:
Certainly, I reme...The response from Prof. Aumann:<br /><br /><b>Certainly, I remember our meeting in New Rochelle very well, including the wonderful Shabbat meal at your house. By an amazing coincidence, I have just completed a chibbur on the subject of Kavu'a and Parish, together with my grandson, Shoham Baris, a talmid at the Har Etzion Yeshiva. You will see that we have somewhat widened the moral hazard explanation; it is now simply a matter of choosing versus finding. In particular, the mouse story in Pesachim fits the new paradigm very well, as do all other occurrences of Kavua and Parish in the Shass.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Attached is a copy of our chibbur. I would be delighted to get comments from you, and in the meantime look forward to reading your blog post.<br /><br /> <br /><br />With many thanks and best regards, also to your wife,<br /><br /> <br /><br />Yisrael Aumann</b>Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-49407861147234610112016-12-14T15:29:17.889-05:002016-12-14T15:29:17.889-05:00Qavua means that there is an established halakhah,...Qavua means that there is an established halakhah, the safeiq is in what that state is. We do not play the odds, because rov is pnly a rule about establishing halakhah.<br /><br />The two piles have established pesaqim -- one pile is known chameitz, 9 piles are known matza. If the mouse takes from one of the piles, we saw the crumb starting out in known halachic state, and now we're in a doubt about which state it's in.<br /><br />The crumb found on the floor ... We don't know which pile it came from, when we first observe it. The mouse didn't muddy up an existing pesaq / chalos.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-66026787527261583602016-12-14T10:57:49.058-05:002016-12-14T10:57:49.058-05:00PS I have written Prof. Aumann.PS I have written Prof. Aumann.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-30774937825856428292016-12-14T10:49:44.432-05:002016-12-14T10:49:44.432-05:00The passage you cite seems to be a recasting of Re...The passage you cite seems to be a recasting of Reb Shimon's dichotomy between the question of "What" vs. the question of "Why".<br /><br />As to the Brisk/Telshe dichotomy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Goes_Ever_On_(song)Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-31367812630262149042016-12-14T10:44:33.273-05:002016-12-14T10:44:33.273-05:00Can you apply this directly to the case of the mou...Can you apply this directly to the case of the mouse?Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-88748148966667860962016-12-14T10:43:16.327-05:002016-12-14T10:43:16.327-05:00I agree that this is the difference between Telshe...I agree that this is the difference between Telshe and Brisk. And that seeking the "philosophical" understanding of kavu'a is a majestic quest. And that the Brisker approach of accepting the tzimtzum is beyond my comprehension. If the case of the mouse is a pircha to Prof. Aumann, then the quest continues. Yishmach lev MEVAKSHEI Hashem!Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-65051697008142815192016-11-21T10:16:17.297-05:002016-11-21T10:16:17.297-05:00I read Dr. Koppel's article, and while he says...I read Dr. Koppel's article, and while he says his goal is to define kavua in a way that doesn't seem arbitrary, I don't believe he has succeeded.<br /><br />The ikar line, in my view is "The critical moment for our purposes is the moment immediately preceding the initial encounter with the piece of meat in question. If this initial encounter occurs while the meat is in the store, the meat is regarded simply as an undistinguished member of a mixed set and its status is thus indeterminate (mechtza al mechtza)."<br /><br />This kvius itself seems entirely arbitrary. (Why look at the moment before the initial encounter and not the initial encounter itself?)<br /><br />This entire discussion validates what I said last week - that to a Brisker, the Telzer approach of asking "why" leads to a lowering of standards and rigor, wherein svaros such as these are suggested which don't meet the acceptable level of rigor. (see again my comment above on how moral hazard does not explain the case of the mouse.) <br /><br />RYGB, any comments?Anonymous Brisk Admirernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-67799722981148679692016-11-17T18:30:24.860-05:002016-11-17T18:30:24.860-05:00And so, I would not look at "moral hazard&quo...And so, I would not look at "moral hazard" or at statistics, or (R/Dr Leon Ehrenpreis's chiluq) sets vs classes. Instead, I would look to see whether someone knew the metzi'us, and therefore there was a halachic chalos, or not. If there was, then this is a safeiq in the halakhah. And then we cannot ignore rov -- there is a risk of encountering real danger. Whether that's the owner placing the item, or eidus. Which is why there is no chazaqah bemaqom terei uterei -- at least according to R Aqiva Eiger, the Sheiv Shemaatesa and Rav Shimon, and why terei kemei'ah.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-63273854437113597702016-11-17T14:29:38.763-05:002016-11-17T14:29:38.763-05:00My own theory, which I've discussed at length ...My own theory, which I've discussed at length (over decades) with R/Dr Koppel, is a R Shimondik treatment of R' Aqiva Eiger's shitah (shu"t 1:136, 141) on the difference between a birur hametzi'us (resolving the doubt) and a rule of hanhagah / birur hadin (behavior when the doubt cannot be resolved). I am repeating mostly because my prior mar'eh maqom was incomplete. (And partly because I think that a shirah of an acharon deserves more attention than it was given, especially when it's among my own pet theories. <grin>)micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-79179256106690993832016-11-17T13:43:03.147-05:002016-11-17T13:43:03.147-05:00If your explanation is correct, and there is moral...If your explanation is correct, and there is moral hazard in this case, then there is also moral hazard in the case in which the mouse took the piece that was parish too. <br />And if you tayna, well you can't call it kavua now bc it was already parish and considered mutar, then go back to the original prisha and say that then it was also considered kavua and was never mutar in the first place, because of moral hazard.<br /><br />I also find it hard to believe that the case of a mouse taking chametz into your house is considered moral hazard. The possibility is so remote that I wouldn't call that moral hazard.<br /><br />I think this discussion is a perfect example of the difference between Telz and Brisk. Brisk would say that such philosophical discussions on kavua is an exercise in futility. Azay is the din. <br /><br />Would you please bring this discussion to the attention of Professor Aumann. I would be very curious what he has to say.Anonymous Brisk Admirernoreply@blogger.com