Torah logic is just that – logic according to torah klalim.
1] In order to understand the correct definition of the mitsvot , svarot etc one has to employ logic.
the Q of bracha levatala is a fool proof indicator to the essence and definition of a takana.
Was there a change in the bracha levatala status of indoor lighting yes or no?
Which translates into – was there a change in the baseline definition of the takana , yes or no ?
Hazal write – originally takana is only outdoors
Then they write – sakana indoors too .
If – at the original stage , outdoors is a bracha levatala even bemakom sakana , and subsequently not anymore, that signifies a change in the takana ,i.e. modification.
I am talking ONLY regarding the base line takana . Not what is better or praiseworthy or mitsva min hamuvchar.
What I wrote is simple torah logic. Nothing more.
Any young yeshiva bachur is expected to come up with such logic on his own.
This is basic reasoning for any iyun limud.
2] We are going back to a previous conversation of ours which you [conveniently] ignored.
Probably you weren’t in the mood. I must have insulted you then.
Or you were plain busy.
For sure it wasn’t because of any lack of a ready answer , has veshalom.
Shas Rishonim Acharonim and Poskim are full of disciples who do [respectfully] argue with their rebbeim. AND THEREFORE ARE SAYING THAT THEIR OWN REBBI MADE A MISTAKE !!! Wow. There , I said it …..
Only when they are higi’a le’hora’a. Only after they considered it from angles, in a serious manner.
Again – this is bread and butter stuff . Even Rav Aronson agrees to that . Any Rav or Rosh yesiva does.
Someone lo higi’a lehora’a should follow his rebbi. We [or better said I] are not talking about that.
I am addressing the hahmei habad shehigi’u lehora’a . Not those closed minds who can mindlessly rattle of pirkei tanya and do the same with the ikarei dinim of YD and then emerge as ‘musmachim’.
I am talking about those ‘mochim p’tuchim’ who can see the difference between a real svara and and a plastic svara. And who can come up with well reasoned hidushim of their own.
They can, and al pi torah should , [respectfully of course] state their own view. Like it was done in all locales of torah since time immemorial.
—-
3] Fear of thieves and all those other reasons ranging from the practical to the esoteric, are talking about the best course of action. Not about the baseline halacha.
This is simple to any aspiring [but solid] beginner .
Pre any modification in the mitsva, one could not light indoors EVEN WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ALL THOSE REASONS PILED UP ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. For the simple reason that the base line essence of the mitsva was only outdoors . Which invalidates indoors lighting even bemkom pikuach nefesh.
Only after modification , when the baseline mitsva definition allows for and validates indoor lighting, only then can there be a discussion of the best course of action. Including thieves kedusha etc.
I wrote this very clearly in the beginning but it seems you were ‘too busy’ to give my words your proper attention.
——–
4] “Casual wants us to believe that none of the svarot from rama trumat hadeshen taz levush etc make any sense ……..”
Casual was referring to suka , not to hanuka. My reaction was also.
Read it again.
.
.
.