He understands why I called him.
I am currently reading the third book in the trilogy. At the beginning of your writing, you wrote about the distinction between a verse that commands and a verse that indicates. Then you wrote that every offense has two aspects. The content and the command. The content can be learned from the explanation, but ultimately it lacks a command. For a command, you must command.
In light of this, I didn’t really understand the claim in the Talmud, “It is clear why I read.” What does it mean that the reading came to add a dimension of commandment!
I would be happy to clarify.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My intention is that the verse is meant to add the imperative dimension (and therefore is not redundant).
And so? I agree. This is really the answer to why a verse is written even when there is an explanation.
The question is why I called it an explanation. It only appears in contexts that are not commandments or prohibitions. For example, the mouth that forbade is the one who brings out the evidence from its author. There we are talking about a halakhic principle that is not a commandment or prohibition. In such a situation, if the matter is clear from the explanation, the verse is unnecessary. I expanded on this in my article on explanations.
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%A1%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99
Oh, great. I got it. Thanks.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
