# Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic

Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: O T A Talmudic obligation F T A Talmudic prohibition F D A Standard deontic prohibition O D A Standard deontic obligation. In classical logic one would have expected that deontic obligation O D is definable by $$O_DA \equiv F_D\neg A$$ and that O T and F T are connected by $$O_TA \equiv F_T\neg A$$ This is not the case in the Talmud for the T (Talmudic) operators, though it does hold for the D operators. We must change our underlying logic. We have to regard {O T , F T } and {O D , F D } as two sets of operators, where O T and F T are independent of one another and where we have some connections between the two sets. We shall list the types of obligation patterns appearing in the Talmud and develop an intuitionistic deontic logic to accommodate them. We shall compare Talmudic deontic logic with modern deontic logic. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

# Obligations and prohibitions in Talmudic deontic logic

, Volume 19 (3) – Jul 15, 2011
32 pages

/lp/springer-journals/obligations-and-prohibitions-in-talmudic-deontic-logic-GOjw097tdS
Publisher
Springer Journals
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); Philosophy of Law; Law of the Sea, Air and Outer Space; Legal Aspects of Computing; Computational Linguistics
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1007/s10506-011-9109-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

### Abstract

This paper examines the deontic logic of the Talmud. We shall find, by looking at examples, that at first approximation we need deontic logic with several connectives: O T A Talmudic obligation F T A Talmudic prohibition F D A Standard deontic prohibition O D A Standard deontic obligation. In classical logic one would have expected that deontic obligation O D is definable by $$O_DA \equiv F_D\neg A$$ and that O T and F T are connected by $$O_TA \equiv F_T\neg A$$ This is not the case in the Talmud for the T (Talmudic) operators, though it does hold for the D operators. We must change our underlying logic. We have to regard {O T , F T } and {O D , F D } as two sets of operators, where O T and F T are independent of one another and where we have some connections between the two sets. We shall list the types of obligation patterns appearing in the Talmud and develop an intuitionistic deontic logic to accommodate them. We shall compare Talmudic deontic logic with modern deontic logic.

### Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Jul 15, 2011

### References

Access the full text.