Q&A: Letter from Y.
Letter from Y.
Question
Hello Rabbi,
How are you?
I have a few questions, please.
1. Someone asked me what the significance of tractate Eduyot is, so I told him that all the tannaitic statements were examined to determine how well-established they were and what their exact source was, and that a Mishnah is more established than a baraita, and even among the baraitot there is a ranking. I said that tractate Eduyot is the most well-established of all, and the practical implication is that if there is a regular Mishnah versus a Mishnah in Eduyot, and Jewish law needs to be decided based on them, the Mishnah in Eduyot would decide it. Is my answer correct?
2. I have a question, and my friend answered it, and I wanted to know what you think. The question is about tractate Oholot, chapter 3 mishnah 1, a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas about whether half-olive-bulk pieces combine, and according to his view two halves do not combine for drawn-through tent impurity. In chapter 8 mishnah 6 there is a law that if there are two earthenware barrels sealed tightly, and in each one there is an olive-bulk from a corpse, the house is impure but they themselves are pure, because a tight seal prevents impurity from entering but does not prevent it from leaving. It sounds like this is a Torah-level law. I worked out that according to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, he would not have this law, because you need a whole olive-bulk for drawn-through tent impurity, and automatically an olive-bulk would render the earthenware vessel impure from the inside, and the vessel would no longer be an interposition, and the house would be impure, so he would not have that law at all (because the case simply does not exist and therefore cannot be expressed). My friend answered that a pit and a cistern are considered attached to the ground, and for them a cover is enough and you do not need a tight seal, and if there is an olive-bulk from a corpse there, then the law that a cover/tight seal prevents impurity from entering but not from leaving would come into play there. What do you think of the question and of the answer?
3. There is a law (I can’t find it right now) that in monetary law, something that is standing to be harvested is considered as harvested—and I just wanted to make sure that in the laws of ritual impurity and purity this rule does not apply, and there only fully detached produce can become impure.
4. My friend claimed that he feels about himself, and he thinks it is true for everyone, that someone who learns a lot of Talmud becomes a “legalistic person” and more strict and exacting, etc., and because of that he learns less Talmud and more Hasidut to balance himself—and I didn’t accept what he said, but do you think there is anything to it?
5. Is it true that there cannot be a contradiction between anonymous Talmudic discussion in two places, and only if in one place a certain amora is mentioned and in another place someone else, but Ravina and Rav Ashi would not have left anonymous Talmudic passages in two places that contradict one another, and they must have meant exactly the same thing?
I couldn’t understand (even after studying various books) why a halal who had relations with an unmarried woman is considered a promiscuous act and disqualifies her from marrying into the priesthood. After all, she was not forbidden to him.
6. What exactly in Ibn Ezra’s philosophical outlook was not accepted by quite a few of the later authorities, who wrote that one should not study it, or that we do not hold like him and do not follow him?
Thank you very much
Answer
Hello Y.,
1. Tractate Eduyot was taught on the day they removed Rabban Gamliel and put Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah in his place. Until that day there were reports/traditions that had not been successfully clarified, because there had not been proper clarification in the study hall. See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9B%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%90-%D7%93%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%95-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%95%D7%90-%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%94-%D7%99/
In Maimonides’ introduction to the Mishnah, when he explains the order of the tractates in Nezikin, he says that trustworthy witnesses testified there. One can understand from his words that it indeed has an advantage. The source from the Sages is apparently the title “the select tractate.” And indeed, in Berakhot 27a and parallel sources, we find that what appears there is the accepted Jewish law.
2. I don’t think there is any connection between the mishnayot, and there is no need to come to such answers. In the mishnah in chapter 3, the case is where the two halves function in different ways (though under the same category), for example, one is under a tent over half, and half is tenting over it. But in chapter 8 it is about combining two halves in exactly the same way (both are inside a tent), and that combines according to everyone.
3. That law is in the Mishnah in Shevuot 42b (brought in several places), and in practice we rule like the Sages that it is considered attached. However, the medieval authorities wrote several ways to reconcile this with parallel sources (like Sanhedrin 15 and others). For example, Rabbi Yosef Migash and Maimonides wrote that this is only with regard to the oath of bailees. That is of course only when the grapes no longer need the ground for their growth (and some of the medieval authorities wrote that if continued attachment is already damaging them, then according to everyone they are considered detached). Regarding impurity I haven’t found it at the moment, and seemingly it is the same law. However, there one also needs it to be rendered susceptible to impurity, and so perhaps there is room for the reasoning that there it must actually be detached. Something like this is also true regarding liability for tithes and terumah, where a threshing floor stage is required.
4. Reasonable. But of course that can vary, and it also depends how and why one studies. It is certainly not a reason to reduce Talmud study, and certainly not to neglect Torah study in favor of studying Hasidut.
5. No. It definitely can happen. The editing of the Talmud took place over generations, and there was not one single editor. Not all the passages are coherent, and there are not infrequently disputes between passages in the Talmud. What is the difference between one place bringing a certain amora and another not, and one anonymous passage going in the opposite direction? If there were one editor, then even the first case should not have happened. By the way, some connected this to the dispute between the Rif and Tosafot: that Tosafot “turned the Talmud into a wheel,” meaning they understood it as a fully coherent and completely edited text, whereas the Rif understood it locally. So wrote Maharshal and others.
The halal who had relations with an unmarried woman forbids her to the priesthood not because the act of relations was forbidden. Even a divorcée did not have forbidden relations, and nevertheless she is forbidden to a priest. The status of halalic disqualification is a kind of status that is transferred through relations from the man to the woman. See Raavad, Forbidden Relations 18:1.
6. I don’t know, but I don’t think the problem was דווקא his philosophical outlook. Maybe they thought he was not a Torah scholar in Jewish law. In any case, I do not accept all kinds of prohibitions against studying a given person. In his commentary there are unusual statements that some Jews did not like. And so too in his philosophical works and his poetry (including love poems).