Confluence is both a cool word and and interesting concept. I particularly like it when HaShem arranges a practicum for me to get a better understanding of what I am learning.
I have been listening to shiurim on Sanhedrin from the Business Halacha Institute during my commute. These shiurim cover interesting halacha that comes out of the daf; the format is either a story or simple halacha that relates to the daf. I like them because I find I can't pay attention to the road and listen to a complex shiur at the same time. Last night I heard an interesting halacha about how a beis din operates.
Of course, a beis din needs to have an odd number of members in order to arrive at a decision by majority vote. The minimum for that is three, and that is the general procedure nowadays. Suppose one dayan can't come to a conclusion... he is left saying, "I just don't know." In that case, a new dayan is chosen to join. The expression used by the gemara is that a dayan who can't make up his mind is essentially not even there. Simple enough.
Suppose, though, that two dayanim reach the same conclusion. In that, you might think that we just go with it. After all, no matter what the new dayan says, we will still have (at least) two to one. Nonetheless, the halacha still dictates that a new dayan be chosen to join the beis din before a decision can be rendered. Why? R' Chaim Kanievsky has an explanation based on a deeper understanding of what it means that to say that the indecisive dayan is as if he is not present at all.
Here comes the confluence. I have been have a discussion with a friend about wearing a blue thread among one's ציצית. Much of the discussion has revolved around the Rema (9:5) who says our custom is wear only white ציצית. The Rema -- as my friend uncovered and shared with me -- is based on a T'rumas haDeshen who finishes with a slight twist: The custom of Ashkanazim it to wear white ציצית... even though there is no objection to colored at all. Had I been learning that myself, I would have blown through it as just an alternate wording. In our discussion, though, I realized that this T'rumas haDeshen could be understood in two ways.
I have been listening to shiurim on Sanhedrin from the Business Halacha Institute during my commute. These shiurim cover interesting halacha that comes out of the daf; the format is either a story or simple halacha that relates to the daf. I like them because I find I can't pay attention to the road and listen to a complex shiur at the same time. Last night I heard an interesting halacha about how a beis din operates.
Of course, a beis din needs to have an odd number of members in order to arrive at a decision by majority vote. The minimum for that is three, and that is the general procedure nowadays. Suppose one dayan can't come to a conclusion... he is left saying, "I just don't know." In that case, a new dayan is chosen to join. The expression used by the gemara is that a dayan who can't make up his mind is essentially not even there. Simple enough.
Suppose, though, that two dayanim reach the same conclusion. In that, you might think that we just go with it. After all, no matter what the new dayan says, we will still have (at least) two to one. Nonetheless, the halacha still dictates that a new dayan be chosen to join the beis din before a decision can be rendered. Why? R' Chaim Kanievsky has an explanation based on a deeper understanding of what it means that to say that the indecisive dayan is as if he is not present at all.
Here comes the confluence. I have been have a discussion with a friend about wearing a blue thread among one's ציצית. Much of the discussion has revolved around the Rema (9:5) who says our custom is wear only white ציצית. The Rema -- as my friend uncovered and shared with me -- is based on a T'rumas haDeshen who finishes with a slight twist: The custom of Ashkanazim it to wear white ציצית... even though there is no objection to colored at all. Had I been learning that myself, I would have blown through it as just an alternate wording. In our discussion, though, I realized that this T'rumas haDeshen could be understood in two ways.
- Ashkanazim have accepted this stringency, even though there is no objection to colored at all.
- Even though Ashkanazim have accepted this stringency, there is no objection to colored at all.
Both of us were delighted to see there were two quite different ways to read this that were equally valid. I say "delighted" because before our discussion, I only read it according to (1) and he only read it according to (2).
That, explains R' Chaim Kanievsky is why two yes and one no is a no, while two yes and one "I don't know" is a hung court. The yes's and no's will force each side to understand the arguments on both sides with more clarity. An "I don't know" doesn't have that effect; it's as if he isn't even involved.
One more confluence in this practicum: It comes on the heels of my TftD about hidden subjectivity. Both my friend and I were trying our best to be completely objective and come to a conclusion by a dry analysis of the bare facts. The truth is, though, that I am predisposed to thinking we should only wear white ציצית and he is predisposed to thinking that adding blue would be nice. Learning and discussing with a respected colleague brings only greater clarity and understanding.
Comments