Midrash Yotzer
When a sermon creates a new halacha from a certain verse, according to the method that it creates a halacha from the Torah (the Harman), what did the Israelites do before a midrash issued this halacha? Did they simply transgress the Torah (without realizing it)? For example, before they demanded that scholars of Torah be respected (a halacha that stems from the midrash of “Et”), what would they do? They would simply not respect them and would transgress the Torah?
Absolutely. What’s the problem? As long as this law was not demanded, it was unknown, and therefore anyone who violated it was also a slave.
But even this is not necessarily the case for all previous generations. Sometimes the law was preached even before that, and only the sermon we have is from a particular sage.
The problem is that it is really unlikely. Halacha from the Torah is a direct expectation of God, blessed be He, from us. So if He expects something from me, it is very likely that He will tell me, and not wait several generations until a wise man comes and renews for us what God, blessed be He, expects from Him.
Expects from us*
Perhaps an example of the latter possibility is in the link below. It is implied that Rabbi Akiva was making a demand and not citing a tradition, so what is the place for Rabbi Tarfon's criticism, and it turns out that Rabbi Akiva probably hit upon a forgotten halakha.
https://he.m.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8_%D7%99_%D7%97
(I don't remember where or in what context I saw this source cited. It is not clear that Rabbi Akiva was referring to tradition, only that the tradition does not contradict it. However, it is likely that if Rabbi Tarfon remembers what he saw and the tradition was different from Rabbi Akiva's, then Rabbi Tarfon would have had occasion to see a contradiction to Rabbi Akiva.)
It is impossible to write everything (see Eruvin 21:11, why the laws of the rabbis were not written down). Beyond that, your question is about the sermon in general. Why did God choose to give Torah with a sermon? I don't know His considerations.
On second thought, from the source in the aforementioned books, it seems that they actually assumed that even a creator's sermon could not contradict a tradition, that is, they assumed that in the past they also knew the creator's sermons or at least remembered their conclusions (at least for the most part). And so the Tannaim did not hold the claim "absolutely. As long as they did not preach, etc., anyone who transgressed was anos" or at least they saw it as a significant constraint.
Trumpets are blown from Torah (throughout generations) in the presence of the congregation and in the war of the mitzvah and in certain public sacrifices (Numbers 10:7-10). From the Torah, on Rosh Hashanah (every year) and on Yom Kippur in the Jubilee, the shofar is blown, and in the Temple, trumpets were added to the shofar according to the verse in Psalms: "With trumpets and the sound of the shofar, let them shout joyfully before the King, the Lord."
In the book of Numbers (Numbers 10:8), the issue is whether priests with defects that make them unsuitable for Temple work are eligible to blow trumpets. Rabbi Akiva preached a sermon on the verses in Numbers above that trumpets are like other works and priests with defects are unsuitable. Rabbi Tarfon brings eyewitness testimony to this, that he saw his uncle David standing and blowing trumpets. Rabbi Akiva replies that perhaps his uncle David blew trumpets that are not from the Torah (or at least not from the above-mentioned parsiya in which the sermon is based) but rather on Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur of the year of Jubilee. And Rabbi Tarfon remembers that he did indeed see it that way, and declares: “The work that is not invented. Blessed are you, our father Abraham, that Akiva came out from among your deliverers.” Tarfon saw and forgot, Akiva demanded of himself and agreed to the law. Is it true that anyone who withdraws from you is as if he withdrew from his life?”
Rabbi Tarfon is amazed that Rabbi Akiva “sought out a sermon of his own accord and agreed to the law,” meaning that Rabbi Akiva did not bring a sermon that was authoritative but a sermon that was creative. And so we see that Rabbi Tarfon also comes to a sermon that was creative and claims that it is not correct because in the past they did not act like it.
This means that Rabbi Tarfon assumes, and in this Rabbi Akiva apparently agrees with him, that it is not possible (or unreasonable) to assume that a previous generation did not know the correct laws in practice. In other words, the assumption implied here is that all the conclusions of the sermons that are creative (i.e. the sermons that are creative themselves) were known in the past, but were forgotten, and today, whoever demands a sermon that is creative must assume that he is only reproducing a sermon that was known in the past and acted upon.
It is true that the tradition may not be absolute evidence, and Rabbi Akiva could indeed (barely) make the excuse that in the past they did not think of this correct sermon until Rabbi Akiva stood up and preached.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
