Prof. Shanan’s words about the sages
Peace to the rabbi.
There is a video used by Christian missionaries, in which Prof. Shanan, who is religious, “admits” that today’s Judaism is not the Judaism of the Bible.
Among other things, he says that in the Bible we see that there was no problem in tolerating foreignness because Judaism follows the father and not the mother, but according to the Sages it is exactly the opposite.
He also said that if Moses were to come today, he would not know what tefillin was.
What does the rabbi say about that?
It’s good that Shanan was able to correct what I wrote in several places. Indeed, today’s halacha is completely different from what was once accepted. And why? I have already written more than once that the obligation does not depend on authenticity (i.e., on the fact that the matter came down from Sinai). Even if the later halacha developed from what we received there, it is binding. Maimonides himself writes (in the well-known reply to Rabbi Pinchas of Alexandria on the beginning of the laws of marriage) that the vast majority of the sermons we have are laws that were created throughout history, and only about three or four were given at Sinai.
I don't understand.
Rabbi Shanan's words are seemingly light years away from yours.
He claims that Moses our Lord did not put on tefillin.
He claims that the halakha regarding genealogy is completely *opposite* of what God said and not that it evolved from it.
Regarding the halakha that evolved from a certain nucleus given at Sinai, that's fine, but did the Torah turn 180 degrees? Are tefillin a later invention? Do you have a greater “do not add and do not subtract” than that?
I have no problem in principle with the claim that Moses did not put on tefillin (either he did or he did not, but it is really not problematic in my opinion). The same goes for genealogy. What determines is what has been accepted throughout the generations.
If it were accepted not to observe Shabbat, would that be okay?
Regarding tefillin, why don't they go over the "do not add" rule? Apparently, this meets all the halachic limits of the prohibition.
What interpretation is accepted? If this was the interpretation that was given to the Torah, then this is certainly what was binding. See Rambam, Rabba, in his commentary on the Torah, who writes this in the commentary. Thus, Ein was accepted under Ein Mamon, even though it is written that it is a literal Ein.
Addition is the addition of a commandment beyond what is written, and not a different interpretation of what is written.
1) Let's assume for the sake of discussion that Moses did not put on tefillin.
Now I will ask three questions:
a) How can such a thing obligate me, after all, that is certainly not what God intended, and what if it can somehow be inserted into the verses?
b) How did the sages of the generation in which tefillin were invented allow themselves to do this? After all, they saw that previous generations never put on tefillin, supposedly they literally violated Bel Tasif.
c) Is it not a huge issue to abolish them today that we know that Moses did not put on tefillin (supposedly)? In order to get closer to the true Torah of Moses.
2) How is the lineage of a descendant subject to interpretation within the verses. Throughout the Bible we see that it is after the father, so at least here it is certainly Bel Tasif.
I referred you to the Maimonides of the Rambam. Did you look there? I don't think so. First read and then ask what is not clear.
Indeed, forgiveness.
Now I looked and I didn't understand how this answers the question.
After all, the Rambam says that if they expand the prohibition of meat with milk (which is against the rumor), then it is not permissible to add.
Apparently, this is exactly the case with tefillin, how a court of law stood one day and decided that tefillin must be worn when there had never been a Jew who had worn tefillin before, and they still make it obligatory and claim that the laws of black paint, etc. are Hillel.
Perhaps the relevant sections in the Rambam could be more focused because the majority there deals with regulations.
The first Rambam writes there that every rabbinic scholar in every generation can interpret the Torah differently from his predecessors. Although in rabbinic halacha there is a requirement that one must be great in wisdom and minyan, a later rabbinic scholar can still change. This means that the Torah we have is not supposed to be the Torah that Moses received at Sinai, since it contains many later additions and changes in tradition. As I think I cited R. G.'s sermon on Shabbat 6 regarding "haddah bendah" as an example of this.
Such a change or different interpretation is not considered bel tushif. The later rabbinic scholar believes that his predecessors made a mistake in interpreting the Torah and therefore interprets it differently. An addition is the addition of a mitzvah beyond what the rabbinic scholar believes the Torah includes. And this is only according to the Rambam's view that mitzvahs added by sages are generally bel tushif. The Rishonim disagree on this (see Rashba and Toss 16:2).
Now, in any change compared to previous generations, in order to determine that there is a prohibition against adding or subtracting, one must examine what the Rabbis did according to their opinion, and it is not enough that they are a change compared to previous generations. If the Rabbis come to the conclusion that there are only 10 Avot Melachah, then it is their right and duty to determine all the laws of Shabbat differently. But they do this because in their opinion this is what the Holy One, the Almighty, intended at Sinai, and not to add or subtract. There is no prohibition against adding or subtracting in this.
Rashi's grandson changed the structure of the tefillin and the times of day (sunset), and no one claimed that there is a hint of a prohibition against adding or subtracting in this.
Now, each of your questions must be discussed on its merits, but the principle is clear. And even if Maimonides writes that some principle came down from Sinai, I don't have to agree. The sermon on meat in milk comes from a multiplication of three times in the Bible, "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk," and it is possible to demand this differently than was once thought. There is no need to add anything to this unless you decide that there is a scripture that this is how it should be demanded. By the way, I think I mentioned this too, Maimonides himself writes that almost all the sermons we have were renewed throughout the generations and were not received from Sinai (except for about three or four). The same goes for "And they were to be sprinkled between your eyes," which every scholar can interpret and demand according to his understanding and disagree with everything his predecessors thought. Of course, if the B&D thinks that this is the LBM, he will not do so, but he has the right to decide that it is not the LBM and to interpret it as he understands.
In the margins of my remarks, I will note that I do not know if this (i.e. what you brought at the beginning of your remarks with the use of the words of Shanan) was meant here by those who mentioned the “deepening” Christian films, but if so, then as I really suspected, it is a lack of understanding.
It is true that unfortunately many Jews (including the T&C) also share this mistake, those who hold to the childish notions that when they say that the Toshabeh came down from Sinai, they mean all the details of the halakha that we have that Moses received from Sinai. This is of course complete and baseless nonsense. Ostensibly, it is useful in dealing with criticism of the tradition, but here you can see why its harm outweighs its benefit. This is of course beyond the fact that it is not true (see my column 21 here on Saqq).
Hello, Honorable Rabbi, and a huge thank you for your response here and in the parallel threads.
I will try to be more relevant here.
Regarding the lineage in the Bible that follows the father and according to Chazal, follows the mother.
Prof. Shanan claimed that this was a change that Chazal introduced against the Torah.
What is the justification for such a change? Apparently, when they changed, they knew that this was not the direction of the Lord and that they had never done so.
I need to see the arguments and the sources and then I can comment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D5N4pB2KI0c
Rabbi?
“Those who hold to the childish notions that when they say that the Toshbe”P came down from Sinai, they mean all the details of the halakhah that we have that Moses received from Sinai. This is, of course, complete and unfounded nonsense.” *Reply*: What can we do if they are lazy and say that the Gemara and the Mishnah were given at Sinai?! Blessings 5:1: “And Rabbi Levi bar Hama said, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Why should I write and give you the tablets of stone and the Torah and the commandment that I wrote for their instruction? The tablets – these are the Ten Commandments, the Torah – this is the reading, and the commandment – this is the Mishnah, which I wrote – these are the prophets and writings, for their instruction – this is the Talmud. It teaches that they were all given to Moses from Sinai”. And it is not possible that the Gemara is also full of scientific errors or distortions of verses from the Torah that have no chance of coming from the mouth of God, such as: And the man said this This time she shall be called woman, because a man took her.
This time – teaches that Adam came over every beast and animal, and his mind did not cool down in them until he came over Eve, Yevamot 3:1. Is it possible that such nonsense was said by the mouth of the goddess? Is it possible that the first Adam had zebras or panda bears? After all, they do not say that this is accepted from Moses at Sinai, but rather they learned it from the verse… and if this is their teaching from the verses, then what is theirs?
I did not understand this strange comment. I said that those who understand Chazal literally think childishly. What they mean is that the products of our interpretation should be treated as if they were all given from Sinai. This is a normative, not historical, claim. This is in contrast to the Amartz children who think that everything was really given from Sinai, which there is no need to explain is nonsense. The Gemara itself documents how and when all kinds of sermons and laws from the Torah were created (a prominent example is Rebbe on the “Hadvah Nidita” on Shabbat 6, etc.). The Ramban says that most of the sermons we have are created and not relied upon. The Ramban and his students claim that even a gazash that a person does not demand from himself unless he has received it from his rabbi is not handed down to us from Sinai. And so on and so forth. In short, the claim that everything came down from Sinai is both childish and Amartz.
2nd of Sivan 2nd
See that we have ignored the prophet who gave the detailed readings. The commandment of tefillin is mentioned in four Torah passages: in which it is said: “And they shall be for a sign upon your hand, and for a memorial / and for frontlets between your eyes” (Exodus 13), “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6), and in chapter 11: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.”
The son of an Egyptian man and an Israelite woman came out of Egypt “among the children of Israel,” and against him, together with the foreign women, “ In the days of Ezra, even the “born of them” are removed from the people of Israel (Ezra 10:3). In contrast, the patriarch Ruth is accepted, who declared: “Your people are my people, and your God is my God.”
With greetings, Edmon Akaviah Liatman-Lederer of the Meiri
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
