Resolving Uncertainty: A Unified Overview of Rabbinic Methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Given this, we are ready to answer the central question: When do we apply RDIK and when do we apply kavua? Roughly speaking, the idea is that when an object is being judged in isolation, it must be assigned a status appropriate to an individual object; when it is judged only as part of a set, it can be assigned some new status appropriate for a set. Kavua can only be invoked in the latter case. To see this distinction very starkly, consider two scenarios in each of which we have before us a box containing nine white balls and one black ball. Scenario 1: I reach into the box, pull out one ball without showing it to you and ask: What is the color of this ball? Scenario 2: I don't reach into the box, but instead ask: What is the color of a random ball in this box? In the first case, if you were to answer, say, "black", your answer would be either true or false, but either way would be an appropriate response to the question that was asked. There is a determinate answer to the question, although this answer is unknown to you. In the second case, the answer "black" (or "white") is neither true nor false, since there is no determinate answer to the question. You could say nothing more specific than that the box contains both white and black balls. Obviously, the case of the stone-thrower considered above is analogous to scenario 2 – asking about the status of an unspecified member of the group is like asking about the color of an unspecified ball. The appropriate level at which to assign status in this case is the level of the set, not the level of the individual, and the set is indeed mixed. This is the sort of case in which kavua can be invoked. By contrast, a piece of meat that is found in the street is clearly analogous to scenario 1 – the status of a particular item is in question. This is the kind of case in which RDIK is invoked. Now, admittedly, the case of a piece of meat bought in one of the stores might plausibly be regarded as analogous to scenario 1 since the act of buying could be considered analogous to pulling out a specific ball. However, the Rabbinic principle is, somewhat counter-intuitively, otherwise: apparently, the critical moment is the one prior to actually encountering the piece in question. When the piece is found on the street, it is judged as an individual because prior to the moment
that it is found, it is already no longer "in the set". When the piece of meat in question is bought in the store, prior to its being bought it is indeed "in the set". The distinction between kavua and RDIK might be restated in terms of the issue of sample space selection considered above. RDIK assumes the "standard" sample space. In the case of the meat found in the street, that sample space is the set of stores. But kavua entails the selection of a non-standard, but entirely sensible, sample space: the single element consisting of the entire set of stores. This single item is mixed. Let us now spell out in detail the precise method for determining when to apply RDIK and when to apply kavua. 1. First, there are a number of cases in which kavua cannot be invoked because a hybrid status is inappropriate. • In the case of a vote in Sanhedrin which is, by definition, a mechanism for rendering a decision. • If uncertainty regarding the status of an individual object which belonged to the set arose only after the object had been isolated from the set (parish), then it is this object alone which must be assigned some status. While a member of a set consisting of objects some of which are P and some of which are not-P can be assigned a hybrid status as part of the set, an individual object being assigned a status on its own cannot. Thus, we need to choose either P or not-P for this object and we choose the majority of the set from which it comes. For example, in the case of "nine stores" in which the meat is found on the street, the isolated piece of meat is assigned either the status 'kosher' or the status 'non-kosher'. • Similarly, if the set is somehow "incohesive", so that each object in it is regarded as having left the set, we apply RDIK and not kavua. Thus, for example, a set of travelers passing through a town do not constitute a set for purposes of kavua, while the residents of the town do (Ketubot 15b and compare Yoma 84b) 11 . 11 It is often erroneously thought that mobility (naidi) is the converse of kavua (in the sense of "stationary"). In fact, mobility is simply one possible symptom of the items in question failing to constitute a cohesive set. See M. Koppel, "Inclusion and Exclusion" (in Hebrew), Higayon 1 , pp. 9-11; M. Koppel, "Further comments on rov and kavua" (in Hebrew), Higayon 4, pp. 49-52; L. Moscovitz, "On the principles of majority (rov) and itchazeq issura" (in Hebrew), Higayon 4, pp. 18-48.
Page 1 and 2: Resolving Uncertainty: A Unified Ov
Page 3 and 4: In such cases we apply the principl
Page 5 and 6: children who share this child's med
Page 7 and 8: with the question of which is stron
Page 9 and 10: • The middle type is the one we h
Page 11: case there is no doubt that the act
Page 15 and 16: (non-distinguishable) non-kosher pi
Page 17 and 18: takes a piece from a mixed pile of
Page 19 and 20: Sfek Sfeka Not every case in which
Page 21 and 22: The most intriguing aspect of the i
Page 23 and 24: In short, attempts to explicate sfe

Resolving Uncertainty: A Unified Overview of Rabbinic Methods

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?