Attitude to Halacha
Hello, I understand the principle of Torah from heaven (the situation at Mount Sinai where we received the commandments and their basic interpretations) and its development by humans in the land (the ramifications of the basic interpretations of the commandments according to time, place, the various sages, etc.).
I want to understand the principles by which I can distinguish which types of laws cannot be changed? (Because they are not the result of the decisions of the sages in the various generations, but were given by God to Moses our Rabbi at Mount Sinai) and which types of laws can be changed by the various sages?
This distinction is critical in my opinion, because if one perceives all types of laws that appear in the literature of the Sages as heavenly laws that God directly commanded, then there will be resistance to changes anyway and the mechanism of the law will freeze and remain stuck according to the reality of the past and parts of the laws will clash with the developing reality (scientific, technological and cultural). And when people come to the Torah scholars and ask them to provide a response to those parts of the law that are no longer ostensibly relevant to the reality of their time, the sages, instead of finding solutions from the halachic sources (the literature of the Sages and especially the Gemara) to change the laws so that they are synchronized with reality, will prefer to find mystical excuses for why the old laws are still relevant and that it is forbidden in any way to change the laws as they all appear in the literature of the Sages.
In my opinion, the root of the disputes between the various groups in Judaism regarding the manner of enforcing the laws and the authority to change them, etc., lies in the above distinction. Therefore, if we want the mechanism of the law to continue to be shaped in accordance with reality and not frozen in time, we need to release the public’s mystical perceptions of the law and show them from the sources themselves (the literature of the Sages) the humanity of the mechanism of the law, “and it is not in the heavens.” On the contrary, there is no permission to rule on laws based on prophecy (especially by less high levels of the Holy Spirit), but only on a fresh and rational basis that is based on beliefs and reasons, etc., and the sages have permission to change the laws as they see fit (according to the limitations of the Torah) in accordance with changing reality, etc.
Apart from the question about the distinction between the types of halacha (paragraph 2), I would like to receive sources, in order to use them to show that in practice the Sages and the Rishonim did not perceive themselves as perfect people incapable of error, but rather that this perception is an invention of later generations, and also to show how the Sages and the Rishonim changed the halacha that had been practiced until their time (even from the Torah) in order to adapt the halacha to reality.
1) Sources for the reforms of the Sages who changed the commandments of the Torah
(2) Sources for the reforms of the Rishonim who changed the principles of the Gemara
3) Sources in the literature of the Sages that show that the sages themselves admitted their mistakes or that the sources indicate that various sages made mistakes (mistakes between them and other sages and between them and the sages of the Gentiles)
4) Sources in which it appears that the Sages decide laws only according to reason and not according to the Holy Spirit
Besides, I have other questions:
1) Why are the laws of the Gemara binding on all later sages if it is not the result of the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin?
2) Why doesn’t the Shulchan Aruch truly bind all the sages who came after it?
3) Why do many Sages still attribute to the Shulchan Aruch a law that is binding on all of Israel?
4) What was the source of the Sages’ authority to uproot the commandments of the Torah?
5) What was the source of the authority of the Rishonim to extract laws from the Gemara?
6) If there is a prohibition against relying on the Holy Spirit in ruling on laws, why are there laws that we actually observe that originate from Kabbalah literature and not according to Talmudic Shakla and Tariah?
7) How do you refute the arguments of Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef Shlita (Ein Yitzhak Collection) regarding the obligation to accept the instructions of the Shulchan Aruch?
It is important for me to note that the purpose of my investigations is not to taunt, God forbid, against our tradition, but to try to pursue the truth and remove the scum that may have adhered to it over time.
Is that all? I suggest you open a thread for each question separately. It’s difficult for me to address the entire Torah in one go (i.e. I don’t have time to write a comprehensive book as an answer to a question on the site).
Forget the sources and the ability to distinguish between the types of laws and please answer the questions for me (at least 1-5)
1) The public's consent gives it a status like that of the Sanhedrin. See the example at the beginning of the second chapter of the book of Exodus.
2) Why is that? Its bearers already disagree with it.
3) They believe that the entire public has also accepted it. But as stated, in my opinion this is not true.
4) Keep my watch and do not deviate.
5) They have no authority.
6) Kabbalah is not the Holy Spirit. The system of concepts and principles has been passed down through tradition (I think most of the sages believe that it is from Sinai, I doubt it). From there on, it is a matter of interpretive considerations. But there is no obstacle to using the Holy Spirit except where it contradicts the law or resolves disputes (it is not in the heavens). Usually the laws of Kabbalah do not contradict each other, and when they do contradict, some rabbis wrote that they follow the revelation (in the case of the law of tefillin and more).
7) I don't know them. But it is assumed that he is talking nonsense there as usual.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
I would like some clarification on some of the answers:
1) Who decides what the public's consent is and according to what criteria? After all, at the time of the Gemara and after it, there were groups in the Jewish public that did not accept it (and in general, a rabbinical interpretation of the Torah) or that followed a different rabbinical source (the Jerusalem Talmud and perhaps other halachic sources).
2) In my opinion, it is unrealistic to expect that the entire public should agree in complete unanimity regarding the acceptance of a certain thing, and only then will it be considered as having the same status as the Sanhedrin's decision. Rather, a critical mass is needed for it to be considered the public's consent (see question 1 regarding who decides and according to what criteria). If so, what do you think is the difference between the Shulchan Aruch and the Gemara? In both cases, there was no complete unanimity, but acceptance of these sources was very widespread in the public (at least the rabbinical).
4) The interpretation of “the Mishmaret Lemishmareti” This is to “build” fences so that the public does not fail in the prohibitions of the Torah “and not deviate” This is the obligation to obey the Sanhedrin's decision, but on the condition that they do not contradict the Torah, but rather interpret it and judge according to it, and in the cases I was referring to, they completely uprooted the commandments of the Torah (at least practically), such as “whoever deviates” and ”a decapitated calf” in the days of the Second Temple. And the question of what was the source of their authority to change?, still stands.
5) So why, instead of correcting and restoring the glory of the past, do the sages continue to perpetuate the loopholes?
6) Regardless of the question, in my opinion, the entire doctrine of Kabbalah is based on the Holy Spirit (Kabbalah deals with metaphysical issues that the human mind has no business investigating (philosophically and scientifically). Such as: the purpose of creation, the roles of angels, the structure of the spiritual worlds, the ways of the Creator, the meaning of the Creator's names, the places of reward and punishment, etc.), but the attainment of these matters depends on a mystical connection with the spiritual world (prophecy, the revelation of Elijah, the revelation of various angels, the revelation of the souls of the righteous, etc.) and the true Kabbalists are those who have experienced this mystical connection in its various forms. And as far as I am concerned, it is very foolish to base a metaphysical worldview on theoretical investigations, but either you trust the metaphysical tradition of Chazal and the Kabbalists or you don't. (I trust them, and the priority of accepting their tradition over rejecting it can actually be based on reason with the help of logical arguments).
1-2. The Talmud had sufficient agreement in my opinion (I am not aware of any disagreement about it, except perhaps among the Karaites). What the Shul doesn't have. Today it certainly encompasses all the observant of Halacha.
4. That's your opinion. The Sages thought differently. As we remember, the Talmud has authority.
5. Where do they do this? They have no authority and they didn't do it.
6. So we have a disagreement.
I will spare you questions 1-2.
4) My interpretations of the concepts (“Mishmaret Lemishmareti” and”La Tisur” are not my own, but rather the traditional interpretations according to the halakhic sources.
What is the connection to the authority of the Talmud? I asked: What was the source of the authority of the sages during the Second Temple period to stop the commandments of the Torah that were practiced at their time?
5) I meant the annulment of the decrees and regulations of the sages that were not according to the required rule (a large court with wisdom and a quorum) as presented in the book “The Changes of Nature in Halakhah” (Rabbi Neriah Moshe Gotal).
6) I appreciate that you disagree with me on the priority of accepting the tradition of the sages and the Kabbalists as opposed to rejecting it, and not on my arguments regarding the ability of the human mind to obtain the answers to specific metaphysical questions (i.e.: not only: Is it likely that there is a Creator of the world? etc., but assuming that there is a Creator of the world, then: What does He want from us? etc.).
This is the condition for the transition from deism to theism, i.e.: relying on God's revelation to creatures is the argument that gives validity to faith in the various religions.
4. No, they are not. The interpretations of the Sages are expressed in what they actually did. If they abrogated laws, they probably understood that this too was conveyed to them in “La Tesur” (at least according to the Rambam, whose entire authority is learned from there, and so on). The authority of the Sages is to determine that this is the interpretation of the verses of “La Tesur”.
As I wrote, I am not aware of any abrogation of a Torah commandment by the Sages.
5. There are all kinds of explanations given there, but it seems to me that the foundation of everything is the explanation. If the time requires, the Sages have the authority to act in this way. See section 4. I expand on all of this in the trilogy I am writing.
6. Indeed, I just don’t really believe in his revelations to various Kabbalists. Therefore, I am suspicious of the details of the Kabbalah. The language and the basic intuitions are certainly valuable.
I think that if you want to continue the discussion, it is better to talk about one question and be concrete (give an example and we can discuss it). The general discussion is somewhat slogan-like.
4) The commandment “not to deviate” is a commandment that the public is required to follow the instructions of the Sanhedrin.
The halakha (Tractate Horiyot in the Sage literature) limits the obligation of obedience, meaning: the sages in the court of law are prohibited from doing whatever they want (to remove the body of a mitzvah from the Torah) and if they remove the body of a mitzvah, then they are not obeying them. In addition, even if they did not remove the body of a mitzvah from the Torah, but rather ruled on the halakha in such a way that the sage who arrived at the instruction clearly knows (according to the criteria established by the Sanhedrin) that they are wrong, then he is prohibited from obeying them.
After studying the sources, I obtained an answer to my question.
6) What I mean by “all the teachings of Kabbalah are based on the Holy Spirit” It is: the metaphysical positions of the sages and the true Kabbalists (in my opinion), and not every book of Kabbalah ever written.
In my opinion, there is certainly room for theoretical investigation in the writings of Kabbalah (as people who have not experienced the mystical connection with the spiritual world, we have nothing but our intellect in understanding the texts) and various sages have interpreted Kabbalistic texts according to their beliefs. My argument is: The main metaphysical positions that were transmitted in the tradition (from the prophets to the sages, at least some of whom, themselves had a mystical connection with the spiritual world and were not just a conduit for transmitting the tradition of the prophets, as documented in the literature of the sages) and the innovations that expanded and clarified them (the acceptance of the Zohar and the acceptance of the Ari) are those that are based on the Holy Spirit (in my opinion, there were other true Kabbalists throughout the generations and also those who did not belong to the school of Kabbalah of the Zohar or the Ari, but this school {the acceptance of the Zohar and the Ari}, is the main, most comprehensive and systematic in my opinion that we have today, which provides logical answers {if you rely on the basic premises of this tradition} to metaphysical questions).
4. You are introducing us to the issue of violating the commandment to listen to the words of the sages, and this is not the place. It is complicated and full of disputes and contradictions already in the Talmud itself.
6. You have consulted the sources and received answers about Kabbalah and what is it? Congratulations. I assume that it is impossible to enter here into the question of the confidentiality of the sources (which sources did you consult to know the reliability of the sources you consulted?). What remains for us is only to find out what the metaphysics of Chazal is and who the true Kabbalists are and what their metaphysics is. After you consult the unknown sources and find the answers to this, you are all set.
I also enjoyed the claims that X is Kabbalah in the tradition “in your opinion”. It seems to me that tradition is supposed to pass on and not depend on our opinion, but again, who am I to argue with the unknown sources.
Happy Holidays
And it must be remembered that the sentence “after consulting the sources” etc.’ is repeated above and is not related to the discussion of Kabbalah (the questioner asked how the sages have the authority to erase commandments, and from consulting the sources he understood that they cannot)
And yes, it is definitely possible.
Shalom A.H., you did indeed address my words.
After studying the sources, I understood that the abrogation of the Torah commandments of Chazal, which I was exposed to, was about a specific part of the commandment and not the entire commandment, and for this they have the authority as stated: “They ordered a court to remove the entire body, these are exempt. They ordered to abrogate some and maintain some, these are obligated.” (Mishnah, Horiyot, 1:1, Mishnah 3:17).
6) To the Rabbi: I assume that you meant that the use of the phrase “in my opinion” is not precise, but rather my assumption. If so, I accept the correction.
So-and-so, your words are a secret.
If you rely on Chazal, then how is the source you cited better than the fact that they do indeed change the halakha? (Assuming that they do. And they don't) Doesn't that teach you that this is what they believe?
I am trying to understand the actions of the sages through the rules of the sages.
If I saw that the sages in source x said that it is forbidden to uproot a mitzvah, and in source y I saw (allegedly, and as mentioned, they did not do so) that they uprooted a mitzvah, then I have a question about them (not out of spite, but in order to search for the systematicity and logic in the sources of the sages).
Example: The Mishnah in Tractate Sota (Chapter 9) indicates that the mitzvahs: “A decapitated cart” and ”The bitter water” They were abolished during the Second Temple period (“When the murderers multiplied, the slain calf was abolished…When the adulterers multiplied, the bitter waters ceased…”), so I asked: How was it permitted to abolish a Torah commandment (ostensibly, the whole body without distinction or distinction)?
However, in the Tosefta (Tractate Sota, P”1d’) there is a continuation: “When the murderers multiplied, the slain calf was abolished, since there is no slain calf except upon doubt, now the murderers have multiplied openly. When the adulterers multiplied, the bitter waters ceased, since there is no one who makes bitter except upon doubt, now the murderers have already multiplied openly”.
Then I understood that the tradition of the sages was that the above commandments must be observed as long as there is doubt, but if there is no doubt then there is no obligation in the commandment, and therefore it was within their authority to abolish Her.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
