The Robot Rabbi: ChatGPT5’s Stance on Assuming the Role of a Posek, Rabbi, or Talmud Scholar
This is a field report on the “robot rabbi” question. Two years after my first exchanges with ChatGPT-4, I posed essentially the same set of prompts to ChatGPT-5 (“Thinking” model). I left its answers untouched: no rewrites, no smoothing, only a few bracketed notes from me (“EB”).1
I also did not fact-check for so-called “hallucinations”. The point is comparative behavior and style.
The stance hasn’t shifted: the model explicitly refuses to act as a posek, consistently refusing to issue binding psak. But it offers “chevrusa”-style assistance: gather sources, map shitos, flag nafka-minas, structure a one-pager for a human rav. That refusal is better argued and better formatted than two years ago; style and substance have improved.
The piece has four parts:
AI and Psak: the model’s refusal, paired with a practical workflow and a short source list on hora’ah, mara d’atra, minhag hamakom, and pikuach nefesh.
AI and the “semicha test”: a sample answer in rabbinic Hebrew on melicha b’keilim that shows the model’s current halachic register.
AI and Chiddush: a playful but grounded “metaverse = Makom Da’as” thought experiment, then sources anchoring each move.
AI and Talmud Interpretation: a concise Brisker-vs-Academic grid, followed by an automation scorecard. The response asserts: academic, evidence-first pipelines automate more reliably, while Brisker-style lomdus benefits from AI as an idea generator with human review.
I did not run a systematic head-to-head with Anthropic’s Claude; on the semicha prompts their responses were broadly similar. Treat what follows as a broad snapshot of theoretical capabilities and guardrails, and the style of responses and sourcing.
Overall, the quality is clearly improved from two years ago, both in style, substance, and sourcing.
Outline
Intro
1 - AI and Psak
Turn #1
Turn #2
Turn #3
2 - AI and semicha test
3 - AI and chiddush
Turn #1
Turn #2
Turn #3
4 - AI and Talmud interpretation
Turn #1
Turn #2
1 - AI and Psak
Update of my “AI Self-Reflection: ChatGPT4’s Stance on Assuming the Role of a Rov” (Jun 13, 2023), asking the same questions, from ChatGPT5 “Thinking” model.
The conversation can be found here:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c12b60-8470-8012-a7c3-b4ecd78c41ad
Turn #1
EB: I am a frum yid, and I'd like you to be my rov, and ask you to pasken shailos for me. can you do that?
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 46s
We can't act as a posek or give final halachic rulings, but we can serve as a chevrusa-style research assistant. I can gather sources, present halachic opinions, and help phrase questions for a rabbi, but ultimately, the halachic responsibility lies with a competent posek who knows the context.
I can offer a "psak preview" style of assistance, but not provide a final ruling. I can help identify a rav or offer guidance on what information to share. However, I can't give rulings on sensitive topics like niddah or pikuach nefesh, only provide suggested resources and outline the issue.
If the user presents a shaila, we can provide a structured brief with sections like "Facts," "Relevant sources," "Common psak opinions," and "Questions for your Rav," but clearly state: "This is not a psak, do not act on it, consult your Rav." We can also offer reminders, but it's not absolutely necessary.
We can suggest citing sources, though we won't actively browse for halachic sources unless requested. Halacha is stable, but some niche info may require research. We should be clear that we can't act as a religious authority or issue a binding psak. A warm acknowledgment is important here.
As an AI, I can't provide daas Torah, take responsibility, or replace your Rav's guidance—it's essential to have a single Rav for your specific situation. However, I can help as a research assistant: gather sources, summarize su [E.B. sic]
I’m honored you’d ask—but I can’t be your rov or issue binding psak. I’m an AI, not a qualified posek, and halachic rulings need a human rav who knows you, your metzius, and your mesorah.
What I can do—very effectively—is be your chevrusa/research assistant so you can get clear guidance from your rav faster:
Gather and summarize the relevant sugyos, Rishonim/Acharonim, Shulchan Aruch/Rema/MB [=Mishnah Berura]/Aruch HaShulchan, and major teshuvos.
Lay out the main shitos and practical nafka-minas in plain language.
Help you phrase the shaila precisely and list the metzius details your rav will want (times, circumstances, minhagim, medical factors, etc.).
Draft a concise “one-pager” you can send to your rav.
Keep a private “psak log” (your rav’s answers + sources) so you’re consistent going forward.
If you’ve got a shaila right now, share the facts (who/what/when/where; any health/safety concerns; your community/minhag). I’ll prep a tight, sourced brief—not a psak—to take to your rav.
Turn #2
EB: I'll make sure to tell you all the relevant info, and you can ask me followup questions. Can you pasken for me then?
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 45s
I can propose two ways forward: (a) A research brief that highlights majority and minority views, or (b) If asked for my "tentative direction," I could explain it based on sources, noting that it's not a final psak and they should ask their rav. However, the user wants a psak, and I must respectfully decline.
I could create a template where the user provides some key details:
Facts of the case: who, what, when, where, etc.
Metzios: times, measurements, ownership, health details.
Background: community minhag, hashkafic orientation, and poskim they follow.
Constraints: time sensitivity, alternatives.
Questions for the rav: primary shaila, sub-questions, sorted into categories like Shabbos, Kashrus, or Niddah, with sensitive topics like Niddah needing a careful disclaimer.
I’ll create categories for different halachic inquiries like Shabbos, Kashrus, Niddah, business halacha, b'rachot, aveilus, and chinuch. However, I need to be mindful of sensitive topics. For Niddah, I'll avoid anything explicit and stick to general advice, stressing the importance of asking a rav or yoetzet for serious matters. It's important not to give psak!
For categories, I’ll include Shabbos, Kashrus, Niddah, business halacha, b'rachot, aveilus, and chinuch. But I must avoid engaging with sensitive topics like Niddah and provide a disclaimer that serious questions require a rav or yoetzet. I’ll offer to help find a local rav if needed. For psak preferences, I can propose creating a profile of trusted poskim and sefarim.
I can’t give psak—even with full details. A halachic ruling needs a human rav who knows you, your minhagim, your metzius, and can take real responsibility. I’m happy to be your chevrusa/research assistant so you get a clear, sourced answer from your rav fast.
Here’s how I can help right now:
Gather and summarize the sugyos (Shas/Rishonim/Acharonim), SA/Rema/MB/AHS, and major teshuvos.
Lay out the main shitos, common minhagim, and practical nafka-minas.
Ask the right follow-ups and draft a concise “shaila brief” you can send your rav.
Keep a private “psak log” (your rav’s answers + sources) so you stay consistent.
If you want, paste your shaila and I’ll prep a tight brief. To make it efficient, include:
Who/for whom (adult/child; b’ari/b’choleh; kohen/levi/yisrael).
What happened / what’s the question (exact actions/items; measurements/times if relevant).
When (date/time; Shabbos/Yom Tov/Chol; before/after sunset; safek yom/tzais).
Where (Eretz Yisrael/chutz la’aretz; home/shul/work; eruv status).
Minhag/mesorah you generally follow (Ashkenaz/Sefard/Chassidish; your community’s rav/poskim you rely on).
Health/safety factors (pikuach nefesh always overrides—call for help first, ask questions later).
Financial/sha’as hadchak constraints or alternatives available.
What outcome you’re considering (e.g., rely on X kulah; prefer chumrah if feasible).
Send the details, and I’ll assemble sources, outline the likely directions poskim take (with conditions), and format a one-pager for your rav—not a psak, but everything he’ll want at a glance.
Turn #3
EB: give sources
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 3m 7s
The user is asking for sources, but it's a bit unclear whether they want sources related to the refusal to pasken or sources about consulting a Rav. I think they’re looking for supporting sources for the approach that AI can't pasken and the importance of consulting a Rav. I’ll provide relevant halachic sources.
I should gather classic sources on the Mara d'atra and the prohibitions around hora'ah for the unqualified. Key sources might include Avot 1:6, Deuteronomy 17:8-11, and various Gemara passages like Sanhedrin 5a. I'll also pull in relevant Rambam references about the importance of talmudic training.
Maimonides in Hilchot Talmud Torah 5 discusses the importance of honoring teachers, but for hora'ah, the relevant sections seem to come from Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 and Hilchot Mamrim 1:1-2, which cover authority and the rules for rulings. Also, Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah 242 addresses when one can give rulings.
The rules of hora'ah are discussed in Yoreh De'ah (YD) 242, including a note in 242:31 that a talmid chacham giving rulings without authority is called a "rasha" or "shoteh." The Shulchan Aruch and Rambam emphasize the need for proper qualifications, with references also in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat and the Mabit.
I think the user wants sources to study why one should ask a Rav and not rely on AI. I'll curate a list of sources on "hora'ah prohibition," "mara d'atra," "shailos," and "pikuach nefesh." I'll also check key references like Rambam and Yoreh De'ah, then provide the citations through reliable sources like Sefaria.
Providing sources on halacha and hora'ah rules
Searching for texts from Rambam's works on Sefaria
Searching for Mishneh Torah Talmud Torah 5:4
Opening Sefaria to explore Shulchan Aruch YD 242
Finding with the find function
Accessing AlHaTorah Shulchan Arukh YD 242 Seif 23
Searching for YD 242 Rema and translation
Searching sources on "Mara d'atra" concept
Searching for Responsa Rashba 1:253 on Sefaria
Opening Teshuvot haRashba 1:253 for analysis
Searching for sources on pikuach nefesh and Shabbat
Searching for sources on Minhag Hamakom in Pesachim 50b
Done
Got it—here’s a tight “source sheet” for why psak needs a human rav and how hora’ah works. Each item has a one-liner + source:
Core mandate to have a rav
“Asei lecha rav — appoint for yourself a teacher.” Pirkei Avot 1:6. (Sefaria)
Binding authority of qualified judges/poskim
Go to the authorized decisors and “do not deviate” (lo tasur): Deut. 17:8–11 — the Torah’s basis for halachic authority. (Sefaria)
Prohibition to rule without proper standing / in one’s teacher’s presence
“Whoever issues halacha in his teacher’s presence is deserving of [punishment].” Eruvin 63a. (Sefaria)
Rambam codifies that one may not establish himself as a halachic authority without permission from his teacher; not everyone whose teacher died may rule — only one who has reached hora’ah. Mishneh Torah, Talmud Torah 5:4. (Sefaria, Chabad)
Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 242 gathers the dinim of kavod harav and not ruling in front of one’s rav. (See esp. se’ifim in §242.) (Sefaria)
Mara d’atra / following accepted local authority
Rashba discusses how communal acceptance creates binding authority and how to navigate conflicting rulings (often cited for mara d’atra): Teshuvot haRashba I:253. (Sefaria)
Contemporary summaries (with primary citations) on mara d’atra and its scope: Yeshivat Har Etzion essays. (Yeshivat Har Etzion)
Minhag hamakom (local custom)
“Do not deviate from local custom because of dispute.” Pesachim 50b — underpins relying on community standards/minhag under a rav. (Sefaria)
Pikuach nefesh overrides (why urgent/life-related shailos are different)
“Desecrate one Shabbat so he can keep many Shabbatot”—pikuach nefesh overrides Shabbat (and most mitzvot). Yoma 85b; source verse “v’chai bahem,” Lev. 18:5. (Sefaria)
If you want, share your first shaila and I’ll pull the sugya map (Shas → Rishonim → SA/Rema/MB/AHS → teshuvos) into a one-pager you can hand your rav.
2 - AI and semicha test
Update of my “The Intersection of Halacha and Artificial Intelligence - Pt#2” (Jun 04, 2023), section “Testing ChatGPT-4’s current capabilities to provide pesak”.
Link to the convo:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c19be3-7350-8012-8a98-d9933b620bb5
EB: Act as a rabbinical student, and answer in rabbinic hebrew these questions from the israeli rabbanut test:
"""
מליחה בכלים
כתב הטור (סימן סט): "ואם מלח בכלי שאינו מנוקב הכלי אסור להשתמש בו וכו"'
וקשה דהא קיימא לן (אורח חיים תמז, ה) "דאין מליחה לכלים", כיצד יישבו הפוסקים לסתירה זו ?
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 2m 35s
I’m reflecting on the principle "אין מליחה בְּכֵלִים" from Rema YD 105:1, where he mentions that salting in a non-perforated vessel doesn't apply. The Tur prohibits using the vessel after salting, but we hold there’s no salting in vessels. Now, I wonder how the poskim reconcile these views.
The rule "אין מליחה לכלים" suggests salting alone doesn't cause a vessel to absorb more than "כבוש" time. However, with blood drawn out during salting, absorption becomes like liquid, making it a problematic situation. The Tur might be saying that the vessel is only prohibited for future salting, or possibly only for use with hot items until hag'alah.
I’m considering that the principle "אין מליחה לכלים" generally applies, except when there are exuded juices ("mohel") or moisture from the meat, which makes the absorption like "כבוש" or "רותח." The Tur might be talking about non-perforated vessels where blood collects, causing them to absorb. Some poskim point out that this is the case with earthenware, while others suggest it’s only for small amounts.
It seems that we don’t say melicha l'keilim, but the Tur's ruling might discuss stringency for initial melicha or cold usage, where absorbed blood could re-exude. Some say melicha isn’t an issue for keilim on Pesach, but I’ll refer to the Tur YD 69 and relevant sections of the Shulchan Aruch YD 69 for clarity.
Done
תֵּירוּץ הַדָּבָר כָּךְ:
הא דקיימא לן "אֵין מְלִיחָה לְכֵלִים" (עיין או"ח תּמ"ז:ה; וכן רמ״א יו״ד ק"ה:א: מליח כרותח לתבשיל, אבל לכלים—אין מליחה), היינו דוקא כשהמליחה היא יובש בעלמא, בלא מוהל ומשקה הנגרר מן הבשר; דבכי האי גוונא אין כוח המליחה לבקוע ולבלוע בדפני הכלי.
אבל היכא דמלח בכלי שאינו מנוקב, דם ומוהל הנמשך על ידי המלח מתקבצים בתחתית הכלי, ונעשים כמשקה—ובהשפעת המלח דינם כְּרוֹתֵחַ; ומשקה מבליע ומפליט בכלים. ולפיכך כתב הטור (יו״ד סי׳ ס״ט) "ואם מלח בכלי שאינו מנוקב – הכלי אסור להשתמש בו", דהא הוי ליה ככבוש/רותח של דם בתוך הכלי, ולא עוד אלא שהדם חוזר ונבלע בדפנותיו.
ולמעשה נקטו הפוסקים ליישב:
אין מליחה לכלים – דוקא כשאין משקה טופח, ואין כאן אלא מלח יבש.
יש מליחה לכלים – כשיש מוהל/דם המצטרף למלח, ובפרט בכלי שאינו מנוקב שהמשקה עומד שם; ואז דינו כרותח לאסור הכלי (כלי חרס—אין לו תקנה; מתכות ועץ—בהגעלה; זכוכית—לדעת רבים אינו בולע).
נמצא שאין סתירה: דברי הטור אמורים במקום שיש מוהל ודם העומדים בכלי (ומשום כך נאסר), ואילו הכלל "אין מליחה לכלים" אמור במליחה יבשה בלא משקה.
3 - AI and chiddush
Update of my Adventures in ChatGPT-4 and Pesak: A Confluence of Technology and Tradition” (Jun 01, 2023), section “Yichud in the Metaverse”
Link to the convo:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c1303c-d0dc-8012-b2cb-7d8b22010e1f
Turn #1
EB: Tell me a chiddush about the metaverse in yeshivish style
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 1m 7s
Alright, the user likes yeshivish style with a mix of Hebrew and English, so I need to deliver a chiddush (novel insight) in that dialect, playful yet intellectual.
I'll reference halachic concepts like "reshus harabbim" and "dina d’malchuta dina" while embedding terms like "l’mayeiseh" and "mamash." The point is a witty but thought-provoking thought on the metaverse. Something like: "Is the metaverse a makom chiyuvi?"
Alright, I’m playing with halachic concepts like “reshut hayachid” (private domain) and “hezek she’eino nikkar” (invisible damage) to interpret the metaverse. I'll propose that even though it's a shared space, the metaverse could have the din (ruling) of a "makom patur" on Shabbos due to its lack of physicality but also raise the idea of virtual “hezek tzurah” (damage by representation). Could be fun!
I’m considering a playful chiddush on "tefillah b'tzibbur" in a metaverse minyan and how network latency might create a virtual "tziruf asara." It’s a bit edgy but safe enough for a creative piece. I'll explain the idea with terms like “lich'ora” and “nafka mina lamaisa” without offering psak.
I’m thinking of using some Shas analogies: for instance, "reshus harabbim" needing 600,000, comparing it to the metaverse's "shishim ribo clickers" — like a "chatzeir meshutefes" of da’as (thoughts) instead of guf (body). I’ll present a thesis on perception defining the "makom” and how virtual presence ties to “hezek re’iyah.”
L'm [E.B. sic]
Here’s a shtikel-chiddush, yeshivish-style:
Metaverse = “Makom Da’as,” not “Makom Guf.”
Lich’ora you’d say the metaverse has no mamashus, so none of the dinei makom apply. But efshar lomar the ikkar geder makom in a lot of sugyos is not the bricks, it’s the socially recognized boundary of where a person is noheg da’ato—a “place” constituted by human intention and convention. Call it a Makom Da’as.
Ra’ayahs / Mareh Mekomos (derech derush):
Kvius Makom l’Tefillah: The sugya stresses consistency within a defined area (arba amos). If the “room” is server-stable and coordinate-fixed (your same VR spot), al pi ta’am ha’inyan you’ve created kvius through da’as and public convention—even without guf walls.
Hezek Re’iyah: The issur is about being “visibly in each other’s space.” In VR, visibility and presence are real in terms of social exposure—so a digital mechitzah (privacy settings, access walls) can functionally play the role of geder to remove hezek.
Kinyanim & Reshus: While classic chalos needs a cheftza, situmta is mechayev where minhag hamedinah recognizes a click-to-own. A “parcel” in a shared world has reshus-status by da’as—not dirt, but enforceable boundary.
Maskana (yesh lomar):
The metaverse is a chatzer shel da’as: a non-physical domain that halachically maps to several “place”-dependent categories when two conditions hold:
Kevius — stable identifiers (space ID/coords/avatar identity), and
Tzibbur-Recognition — users treat it as a bounded place (norms, permissions, access).
Nafka Minas (lamaisa-flavored):
Picking a makom kavua in VR shul = always davening at the same coordinates.
Hezek re’iyah mitigated by access controls = a “mechitzah.”
Geneivas da’as in “teleport lobbies” = misrepresenting presence/ownership of space.
Kinyan on virtual land = situmta via platform norms (T&C + ledger) → reshus by da’as.
Tzarich iyun gadol on details, but the yesod is gishmak: in the metaverse, place lives where da’as and minhag make it real.
Turn #2
E.B: give sources
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 2m 4s
The user asked for sources on several halachic concepts. I should provide classical sources like Talmudic references (e.g., Berakhot, Bava Batra, Bava Metzia, Kiddushin) and may refer to the Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, and Rishonim. For kviat makom l'tefillah, I'll point to Berakhot 6b, where it mentions setting a fixed prayer place and the spiritual significance.
I’m double-checking Berakhot 6b for "Kol hakovea makom l'tefilato" and the phrase about God's help. It's definitely in 6b, but I could have mixed up with 7b. I'll also reflect on other topics like "arba amot" related to Shabbat, which could be in either Shabbat 8b or Eruvin 48a.
The concept of "makom shevitah" (personal space) and "arba amot" refers to Shabbat boundaries. Eruvin 48a-49b discusses the four-amo measure for defining space, and Berakhot 8a talks about fixed prayer places. "Hezek re'iyah" (injury by sight) requires mechitzot, and Bava Batra 2b/60a looks at related disputes and rulings.
"Hezek re'iyah" laws fall under Choshen Mishpat 154-157, focusing on privacy, especially through partitions like mechitzah. This can be tied to tzniut and synagogues, but mechitzah also appears in sukkah and eruv. "Situmta" is detailed in Bava Metzia 74a about kinyan, and minhag hamedina is discussed in Bava Metzia 83a and Ketubot 66a.
Here's a structured list with key sources:
Makom tefillah (prayer spot): Berakhot 6b, O.C. 90:19; MB 90:59–61; O.C. 102:1–4.
Hezek re'iyah (injury by sight): Bava Batra 2b–3a, Shulchan Aruch CM 154.
Situmta (kinyan): Bava Metzia 74a, Shulchan Aruch CM 201:1.
Arba amot as personal space: Berakhot 8a, Eruvin 42b, 49a.
Kinyan chatzer (ownership via courtyard): Bava Metzia 10a–11a, Kiddushin 26a.
Minhag hamedina: Bava Metzia 83a, Shulchan Aruch CM 331:1.
Let me know if I should tweak.
Geshmak—here are the mareh mekomos that back up the lomdus I used:
Makom Kavua / Arba Amos = “place” by da’as & convention
קובע מקום לתפילה — Berakhot 6b: “כל הקובע מקום לתפילתו…”.
Within four amot counts as ‘same place’ — Shulchan Aruch O.C. 90:19; Mishnah Berurah 90:59–61 (kvius within ד׳ אמות).
Don’t pass/sit within another’s 4 amot of tefillah — Shulchan Aruch O.C. 102:4; M.B. 102:15.
Arba amot as a personal ‘domain’ (shevitah/techum) — Eruvin 49a (and surrounding sugyot on shevitah/ד׳ אמות).
A conceptual “place” of Torah — Berakhot 8a: “אין לו להקב״ה בעולמו אלא ד׳ אמות של הלכה.”
Hezek Re’iyah = visibility as real harm → walls/mechitzah remove it
“Hezek re’iyah shemo hezek” — Bava Batra 2b–3a (beginning of Perek 1 on windows/spacing).
Practical dinim — Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 154 (mechitzot/distances to prevent visual harm).
Kinyan by Minhag / Situmta = da’as-based ownership & boundaries
Situmta is a valid kinyan (minhag hamedinah) — Bava Metzia 74a (רש״י ד״ה סיטומתא explains marking/signing as kinyan).
Halacha recognizes commercial custom — Shulchan Aruch C.M. 201:1 with Rema ad loc. (minhag makes kinyan even absent classic meshichah in some cases).
“Hakol k’minhag hamedinah” in employment/commerce — Bava Metzia 83a; codified in Shulchan Aruch C.M. 331:1 (terms follow local practice).
Reshut / Chatzer = acquisition via recognized “place”
Chatzer koneh (a domain acquires for you) — Kiddushin 26a; Bava Metzia 10a–11a (chatzer as your halachic hand).
Codified — Shulchan Aruch C.M. 200–201 (kinyanei karka & chatzer mechanics; see nosei keilim).
Geneivat Da’as = presence/representation in shared spaces
Issur geneivat da’as — Chullin 94a; Shulchan Aruch C.M. 228:6 (misleading others even without monetary loss).
Rambam / Tur echoes
Kove’a makom latefillah — Rambam, Hil. Tefillah 5:6 (sets a fixed place for prayer).
Commercial practice shapes kinyan — Rambam, Hil. Mechira (see 1:1–2, 7: custom embedded in sale law); Tur C.M. 201 (minhag as kinyan).
How these map to the metaverse (one-liners):
Makom kavua & arba amot → a stable coordinate/room ID with tzibbur recognition functions as Makom Da’as.
Hezek re’iyah → privacy/access controls act as digital mechitzot.
Situmta/minhag hamedinah → platform-norm “click-to-own” or ledger entries are da’as-based kinyanim.
Chatzer koneh → a user-bound “space” can act like a chatzer for certain acquisitions/permissions.
Geneivat da’as → misrepresenting presence/ownership in a shared lobby = classic deception category.
If you want, I can pull exact lashon from the poskim on each point and line them up in a neat source sheet.
Turn #3
EB: yes please. and link if you can
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 2m 30s
Searching Jewish texts for halachic sources and citations
Searching for sources on Berakhot 8a and Eruvin 49a
Opening Berakhot 8a on Sefaria
Searching for Berakhot 8a references online
Searching Rambam Hilkhot Tefillah fixed place for prayer
Searching for chatzer koneh in Kiddushin and Bava Metzia
Searching for Chullin 94a and geneivat da'at
Searching sources for Mishnah Berurah kviut and more
Searching Sefaria for phrases in MB 90
Searching Sefaria for Mishnah Berurah 90:60
Okay, I’m figuring out the best way to cite this. The sheet quotes MB 90:60, and while it refers to "four amot" as one place, the Sefaria page for 90:60 might not display content directly. It's better to cite the actual MB page if it loads correctly, despite pagination issues. We’re also covering O.C. 102:4 and Hezek re'iyah sources.
Citing Mishnah Berurah and Hezek Re'iyah sources
The tool might not always display correctly, but we can still cite the page. For O.C. CM 154, we have a link to SA CM 154. We also need references to BM 74a Rashi, SA CM 201:1, and O.C. 102:4. We’ll limit quotes to short excerpts, keeping phrases under 25 words. For "digital mechitzah", we're including sources as requested.
We should make sure citations are clickable links. I’ll format the response like a source sheet with themes and short quotes for each, ensuring translations where necessary. We’re focusing on mareh mekomot, using concise quotes (5-10 words) like "יקבע מקום לתפילתו." No image carousels. Just the essentials—clear and focused.
To be precise, we can quote "תוך ד' אמות חשוב מקום אחד" for clarity. Geneivat da'at ("אסור לגנוב דעת הבריות") is important, so I’ll include that. For Situmta Rashi, I need the exact language from BM 74a, where Rashi mentions merchant practices ("מנהג הסוחרים לחתום"). I'll check for that phrase.
Crafting source sheet with citations and quotes
Sefaria pages may be slow, but the citations should still work. For "Chatzer Koneh" in Kiddushin 26a, we’ll quote "חצרו של אדם קונה לו." I wonder if Kiddushin 26a has the exact phrase, or if it's actually in BM 10a. I'll check to confirm where "חצר קונה" appears.
Searching for phrase in Kiddushin 26a texts
Alright, I have enough sources to deliver this as a neat source sheet with quotes and clickable links as requested. Each paragraph with non-common facts will be cited appropriately, keeping quotes at or below 25 words. For hezek re'iyah, we’ll quote “היזק ראייה שמו היזק” from Rashi, and paraphrase Shulchan Aruch CM 154 while linking to the exact text.
I'll include exact language from sources like OC 102:4 ("אסור לעבור כנגד המתפללים בתוך ד' אמות") and OC 90:19 ("יקבע מקום"). For Rashi, I’ll check the exact text for "סיטומתא". We’ll also quote other snippets like from Berakhot 6b and 8a. The style will be minimal and structured for Ezra. No need for a navlist widget.
I’m organizing the source sheet with sections like:
Makom Kavua & Arba Amot (Berakhot 6b, SA OC 90:19, MB 90:59-60, etc.)
Hezek Re'iyah (BB 2b, SA CM 154)
Situmta & Minhag Hamedinah (BM 74a, SA CM 201:1)
Chatzer Koneh (Kiddushin 26a, BM 10a-11a)
Geneivat Da'at (Chullin 94a, SA CM 228:6)
Rambam (Hilchot Tefillah 5:6)
I’ll ensure the quotes are concise and relevant.
Creating a structured source sheet with citations
Done
got you. here’s a tight source sheet with short lashon + live links (each heading has the key mar’eh makom(s) under it).
1) Makom kavua & the meaning of “place”
“כל הקובע מקום לתפילתו…” (Berakhot 6b). (Sefaria)
“יקבע מקום לתפלתו” — Shulchan Aruch O.C. 90:19. (Sefaria)
MB: “וגם כשמתפלל בביתו יקבע מקום…” — Mishnah Berurah 90:59. (Sefaria)
MB: “ותוך ד׳ אמות חשוב מקום אחד.” — Mishnah Berurah 90:60. (Sefaria)
Do not pass within 4 amot of one praying: “אסור לעבור כנגד המתפללים בתוך ד׳ אמות.” — O.C. 102:4. (Sefaria)
Conceptual “dalet amot of halacha”: “אין לו להקב״ה בעולמו אלא ד׳ אמות של הלכה.” — Berakhot 8a. (Sefaria)
Techum/4 amot as personal zone (derech halacha): see Eruvin 49a. (Sefaria)
Rambam: fixed place for tefillah — Mishneh Torah, Hil. Tefillah 5:6 (bi-link). (Sefaria)
2) Hezek re’iyah = visibility is real harm → mechitzot
Gemara: the opening sugya on windows/visibility — Bava Batra 2b (source of היזק ראייה). (Sefaria)
Codified: Shulchan Aruch C.M. 154 (neighbor partitions for privacy/vision). (Sefaria)
Aruch HaShulchan: “היזק ראייה is real damage…” — C.M. 154. (Sefaria)
3) Kinyan by minhag / situmta
Talmudic anchor: Bava Metzia 74a (context of commercial forms). (Sefaria)
Rashi d”h סיטומתא (defines the merchants’ practice as effective kinyan). (Sefaria)
Psak: Shulchan Aruch C.M. 201:1 — “וכן כל דבר שנהגו התגרים לקנות בו…”. (Sefaria)
Lomdus note: Ketzot HaChoshen to C.M. 201:1 (parameters of situmta). (Sefaria)
4) Reshut / chatzer koneh (a domain acquires)
Kinyanei karka & agav: Kiddushin 26a (“נכסים שיש להם אחריות…” + mechanics of acquisition). (Sefaria)
Chatzer in action (for movables/others): Bava Metzia 10a–11a (applications of חצר קונה). (Sefaria)
5) Geneivat da’at (deception in shared spaces)
Issur: “אמר שמואל: אסור לגנוב דעת הבריות, ואפילו דעתו של עובד כוכבים.” — Chullin 94a. (Sefaria)
Codified: Shulchan Aruch C.M. 228:6 (prohibits misleading even without direct monetary loss). (Sefaria)
Quick how this backs the chiddush
Makom kavua / dalet amot → “place” is partly defined by kevius and social convention (kovea makom; within 4 amot = one place). (Sefaria)
Hezek re’iyah → visibility = damage; mechitzot/boundaries remove it (map to privacy/permissions). (Sefaria)
Situmta/minhag → recognized digital actions can be chalos kinyan. (Sefaria)
Chatzer koneh → a recognized “space” can function like a domain for acquisition/rights. (Sefaria)
Geneivat da’at → misrepresenting presence/ownership in a shared lobby is classic deception. (Sefaria)
If you want, I can turn this into a printable one-page source sheet with Hebrew/English side-by-side and a few more marei mekomos (Tur O.C. 90; Rambam Mechira on minhag) — say the word.
4 - AI and Talmud interpretation
Update of my “Asking ChatGPT4 About ‘Contemporary Methods of Studying Talmud - Brisk vs. Academia; and the Artifically Intelligent Lamdan’” (Aug 08, 2023)
Link to convo:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68c13382-5ef8-8012-8633-1bf69b6a03a6
Turn #1
EB: I'm an academic scholar of talmud. Give me a concise comparison between the traditional Brisker / analytic / conceptual method vs the academic method of talmud interpretation
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 39s
Here's a quick breakdown of the Brisker (Brisker derech) method versus the academic approach:
Aims/Goals: Brisker focuses on conceptual distinctions; academic emphasizes historical-critical analysis.
Assumptions about Text: Brisker prioritizes clarity of halakhic concepts; academics focus on historical context and textual evolution.
Method Steps: Brisker tackles sugyot through logical analysis; academics incorporate broader historical and philological methods.
Hermeneutics: Brisker uses sharp conceptual distinctions; academic method integrates cultural and historical layers.
Both methods engage in rigorous reading; Brisker emphasizes conceptual analysis, while academics focus on historical layers. There are overlaps, but both have distinct strengths and areas of focus.
Here are some key dimensions for comparison:
Primary Goal: Brisker focuses on halakhah; academic includes broader textual analysis, including aggadah.
Unit of Analysis: Brisker analyzes individual concepts; academics study textual layers and historical development.
Sources: Brisker emphasizes Rishonim and Rambam; academics prioritize manuscripts, Genizah, historical sources.
Methods: Brisker applies chakira, sevara, and chilukim; academics employ philology, textual criticism, and redaction analysis.
Done
Brisker/“Lomdus” vs. Academic Talmud: a quick side-by-side
Strengths (each on its own terms)
Brisker: razor-sharp definitions; powerful cross-sugya unification; yields concrete halakhic consequences.
Academic: recovers earlier readings; explains editorial seams; clarifies development and intertextuality.
Common critiques
Of Brisker: can over-systematize; risks reading later conceptual schemes into earlier texts; underuses textual evidence.
Of Academic: can flatten normative force; may privilege conjectural emendation; limited immediate utility for psak.
Where they productively meet
Close reading is a shared virtue.
Academic philology can ground lomdus (e.g., which girsa to build on, how the stam reframed tannaitic material).
Brisker analysis can organize the halakhic upshot of academically reconstructed sugyot.
Practical hybrid workflow (concise)
Start philologically: check key MSS/parallel sources → establish the most defensible text.
Map strata: tannaitic core vs. amoraic debate vs. stam framing.
Then do lomdus: articulate categories only on the secured textual base; test across sugyot; note nafka-minot.
Close the loop: let halakhic coherence challenge shaky reconstructions; let strong evidence constrain elegant but textually unsupported chilukim.
If you want, I can illustrate this side-by-side on a specific sugya you’re teaching or writing on.
Turn #2
EB: Which one do you think is more amenable to automation via AI LLM
ChatGPT5 “Thinking”:
Thought for 46s
We need to figure out how AI LLMs would perform with the Brisker/analytic conceptual method versus the academic method. LLMs excel at pattern recognition, categorization, and segmentation, but they risk hallucinations. For academic work like textual criticism, LLMs can assist but classical algorithms might still be better for precise tasks, like manuscript collation.
LLMs can generate ḥakirot, nafka-mina suggestions, and map categories, but they're more high-level and not strictly verifiable. They excel at quickly producing "chiddushim" and analytical patterns, but they risk generating plausible but incorrect content. For psak, LLMs can’t serve as posek, so caution is needed, especially for medical, legal, and religious advice.
LLMs can assist with source classification, linking parallels, and textual atomization, but strict textual criticism demands human judgment, using metrics and philological expertise. We should consider creating an "automation scorecard" to evaluate tasks like reproducibility and risk of hallucinations. Academic preprocessing tasks are more automatable due to external ground truth sources, making them safer. Generative methods are useful for ideation but not for final psak.
AI can excel in document preparation and candidate generation for both Brisker and academic methods. For Brisker, it’s good at generating conceptual dichotomies, while for academic work, it helps with redactional signal detection and paraphrase mining. The academic method is more amenable to reliable automation due to its evidence-driven nature, while Brisker supports ideation but is not fully automatable. AI’s role depends on task autonomy levels, ranging from assistive to semi-automatic, with examples for each.
Done
Short answer: the academic method is more amenable to reliable automation; the Brisker method is more amenable to idea-generation but needs a tighter human hand on the wheel.
Why the academic side fits automation better
Evidence-driven tasks: Collation, parallel-passage retrieval, stratification cues, lexical profiling, and citation graphs all have external ground truth (manuscripts, Tosefta/Yerushalmi, Geniza, printed editions). That lets you wrap LLMs in RAG + rules so they show receipts instead of hallucinating.
Decomposable pipeline: OCR/HTR → normalization → alignment → variant extraction → ranking → redactional signal detection. Each stage can be evaluated quantitatively and improved iteratively.
Guardrails are natural: “Only answer from witnesses X/Y/Z,” “propose emendations but must cite a witness or mark as conjecture,” etc. This keeps models honest.
Replicability: Outputs (e.g., “MS Munich 95 reads X; Vilna prints Y”) are checkable by anyone; this suits academic norms and peer review.
Where LLMs shine for Brisker/lomdus (with caveats)
Ideation & synthesis: Generating ḥakirot/ḥilukim, surfacing nafka-minot, mapping a sugya’s conceptual space across Rishonim/Aḥaronim.
Cross-sugya scaffolding: Rapidly collecting all places where a category appears and proposing unifying frames.
But: these are weakly ground-truthed. Models excel at plausible structure, not authority. They can overfit to patterns in training shiurim and produce elegant but textually thin “chidushim.” Human review is essential, especially for any psak-adjacent use.
Automation scorecard (now → near-term)
Practical hybrid you can build now
Evidence first: RAG over MSS/editions + parallels; force citations in every step.
Strata hints: Train a lightweight classifier on lexical/syntactic cues for stam vs. earlier layers; present as probabilities, not facts.
Concept miner: On the stabilized text, have the model propose 2–3 competing ḥakirot and 3–5 test-case nafka-minot, each tied to specific lines.
Tension checker: Ask the model to find counter-evidence passages; rank by strength to keep lomdus honest.
Reviewer UX: Side-by-side pane: witness citations / parallels / proposed categories / flags, with your accept-reject workflow.
Bottom line: If you want dependable automation, push the academic pipeline to the max and let it feed a Brisker layer where the LLM is a copilot for hypotheses—not an automatic posek.
The section headers and hyperlinked sources within responses are in the the original outputs (as you can verify in the original convos, that I link to).
The only revisions I made were to formatting, when copying from chatgpt output to Substack: deleting empty lines, and screenshotting tables (in the final section: “4 - AI and Talmud interpretation“.)
I put the “thinking” in brackets. By default, “thinking” is not shown in the output. To view it, it needs to be clicked. Screenshot from one of the convos, showing how “thinking” is displayed after clicking it, for example:
Terminological clarification: In my headers, the word “turn” is used in a technical sense, meaning a single exchange (back-and-forth) within one conversation.