I did not reach the end of the Rabbi’s mind.
The Rabbi often cites the verse in Eruvin, page 13: as evidence that there is no absolute truth in halacha, and that the determination of halacha must come from the understanding of the learner (provided that he is a bar, of course) even if he knows that it is clear from God that he is not right. And especially when many sages disagree on this point.
However, today in Daf Yomi I came to the aforementioned Gemara and was astonished to see that the plain meaning of the Gemara is as far from the explanation that the Rabbi attached to it as the East is from the West, and the exact opposite is what is learned from this Gemara. I will present the language of the Gemara as plain.
Rabbi Acha bar Hanina is known and known to those who said and it was the world that there was no one like him in Rabbi Meir’s generation, and why did they not establish a halakhic law like him, that his companions could not stand by his final opinion that he said about an impure person, a pure person, and shows him a face, about a pure person, an impure person, and shows him a face.
Rashi writes: They could not understand which of his words were correct and which were incorrect, for he was a settled and decent giver of opinion on whether or not the law was correct.
That is, the explanation of the words of the rabbi is that Rabbi Meir would give decent and acceptable reasons for his words, whether when he said about something impure being impure or when he said about something pure being pure, or when he said the opposite about something impure being pure and something pure being impure (Ben Yehoyada explains that he wanted to clarify the students). Therefore, his friends could not stand by his final opinion, meaning when his words were correct according to the law and when they were not, and this is the reason why they do not rule like him, meaning if we did know when he meant the law, the law would indeed be ruled like him because of his greatness.
By the way, in the G.M. here on page 13, it is explained that this was also the case with Rabbi Meir himself when he came to study with Rabbi Akiva, who initially did not fully understand when he meant Halacha and when he did not.
You wrote that it is the simplified version of the Gemara and you cite Rashi’s commentary. But I proposed a different interpretation of the Gemara. According to Rashi, it is not clear why he was not asked what the halakha was and that is it.
As he did not ask Rabbi Akiva at first when he studied with him, he was not a fool. He would give lessons carefully with arguments that each one was convincing enough. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with Rashi. It is precisely this that explains the Gemara in the clearest way, black on yellow, which explains that "it says about a pure unclean thing and shows it to him, about a pure unclean thing and shows it to him." Incidentally, the rest of the words of the Gemara are there, according to this course, that they would bring reasons to purify the worm.
Even if the Rabbi's explanation, as he entered with difficulty, was appropriate to note that this is not implied by the Gemara's simplicity, and the Rabbi saw fit to interpret it this way because this is his perception and approach to the halakha.
Simply, when the opinion of Rabbi Meir is presented in a mishna, is that not the end of his opinion? Don't you find a contradiction in R”Meir from Didyah Addyah because perhaps he only said to sharpen the students? Why is there not always a halakhah like this in these cases?
Even Rashi's commentary does not imply the same as yours (Illuli ben Yehoyada, whose words are puzzling). How did the sages know that his words were incorrect if he gave a settled and decent reason? After all, if there is an explicit halakhah, then there can be no decent reason (meaning that any decent reason must first of all be in harmony with all the agreed-upon halakhic data). But his conclusion did not seem correct to them even though he gave seemingly convincing reasons. It resembles a paradox. From this it is indeed proven that there is autonomy for the sage, and even more so, that if the sage seems to have a certain conclusion, then even if he cannot put his finger on the error in the gaon's reasoning, he is entitled to rely on his halakhic imprint as a kind of fraudulent law.
I recommend that you go through the entire page, this is the topic there, they also gave the example of the K”N reasons to purify the worm, would you say that this would also rule that the worm is pure? From the simplicity of the Gemara, even without Rashi's words, as I have already mentioned, even Rabbi Meir himself, when he studied with Rabbi Akiva, he, who was the greatest of his generation, was unable to descend and understand the end of his thought, and so he went to study with Rabbi Yishmael for a period. This has nothing to do with the addition of Ben Yehoyada's explanation of the reason why Rabbi Meir used to do this.
The worm precisely demonstrates this. We are talking about someone who gives a decent reason for purging the worm in some way that I don't know what it is, but a decent reason that settles down and not idle talk and what do we have to do with the nonsense. In other words, in a magical way, he has an excuse for the enormous difficulty, since it is written in the Torah that the worm is impure. Maybe he is making an okima (which settles down!) in the verse, maybe he is talking about a certain type of impurity, or whatever (thank God he knows), but he manages to get out of the narrowness of the difficulties and come to terms with all the hard data. So what is left against that genius? Only a strong counter-feeling from the wise. Otherwise, it is clear that his words are not worth a penny.
Again, Rabbi Meir himself thought that the halakha was as he said and as it is presented in the mishna and I didn't understand what you were saying. Rabbi Meir thought that his rambling was correct and true, and there is no one like him in his generation, and anyway there is no halakha as he said. How do you explain that – I didn't understand. I would be happy if you could address this point again and directly.
By the way, I personally studied (maybe even hostilely at present, one has to think) the exaltation of the value of autonomy. I was in my childhood in an old thread where my name is Shua [Twi and Noz] and deals with the slander of different voices without opposing each other and maybe you might be interested in reading there too.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94
He doesn't have to be a rabbi. You can ask him at the end of the lesson what the halacha is. That's all.
Why didn't he simply ask Rabbi Akiva at the end of the lesson what the halakha was? He simply left him for a while and went to study with Rabbi Yishmael, apparently they had an interest in not saying the halakha, as Ben Yehoyada claims
9, regarding R’ Meir himself, he does not know if he knew that he was indeed the Great One, by the way, the language of the Gm’ is that it is obvious and known before the One who said and was the world, so it is not at all certain that the other sages knew that he was indeed the wisest, so that the Rabbi's thesis again needs to be examined.
And it is explained in the Gm’ Lahiya that he says about the impure one who is pure and shows him his face, about the pure one who is impure and shows him his face,” meaning that he himself intentionally brought contradictory laws that both of them agree with the heart in the sense of these and those
It is not written in the Gemara that he said of the same thing that it is both impure and pure. Rather, he said of something that *seemed impure to the sages*, and they could not put their finger on the error in the argument, and of something else that *seemed pure to the sages*, he said impure, and they could not, etc. You did not address the fact that Rabbi Meir's final opinion is known, and we today know that there was no one like him in his generation, and yet we do not rule on halakhic law like him.
I did not argue with the very form of the halakhic ruling, for that already has the continuation of the halakhic verse, these and those, and the halakhic verse of Beit Hillel.
I only argued that from the specific story of R. Meir it does indeed mean that it is a halakhic verse, as the rabbi insisted. So what is known to us today as the opinion of R. Meir is irrelevant, just as Achanai's opinion is irrelevant.
If you were going to answer me, then I didn't understand. If the sages knew the truth that there is no one like him in R’ Meir's generation, would they, in your opinion, repeat them and rule on halakha like him, and yet today we don't rule like him because the majority at the time decided differently because they didn't know there is no one like him in their generation? [I think, as I wrote above, that even according to Rashi's interpretation, it follows that the autonomy of a sage outweighs the assumption that the divine truth is probably with the confused gaon].
They would rule like him because they would see him as a judge, just as a junior would ask Rabbi Elyashiv or Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul and Co. Even if he turned out differently in the actual issue, he would rely on their decision.
Regarding the ruling of halakhic law, what is ruled is what was determined and not what was decided against Shmaya Galia, as proven by Akhnai's oven.
Therefore, today, after what was ruled is irrelevant, what Rabbi Meir's opinion was regarding how to act in practice.
What does it have to do with Akhnai's oven? We are not talking about knowledge from heaven, but about human knowledge that, according to the current interpretation, the sages simply failed to fully understand the words of Rabbi Meir, that is, they were not convinced by his words even though he established a definitive halakha (the mishna before us, as mentioned. There are the words of Rabbi Meir that he said in his generation. His opinion is completely clear and he himself stands behind it).
So let me understand what you are claiming: If there is a value of autonomy, then even though Rabbi Meir has no equal in his generation, the sages are still allowed to rule (and decide) according to what they themselves see as right. But in your opinion, there is no value of autonomy, and if the sages only knew the true extent of Rabbi Meir's wisdom, they would indeed all repeat them and rule on halakha like him and the entire mishna would be according to his words, and today we continue with the rulings of the sages only because they did not know what Rabbi Acha bar Hanina knew. Did I summarize your words correctly?
9, So, Akhnai's oven expresses the absolute truth of the law, the Bat Kol did not come to work on us, and yet a road of disagreement between equal members of the Plutarchy is not obligated to the conclusion of another, even if it is supported by a Bat Kol, and the reason for this is that the Torah was given to humans and they need to reach halakhic conclusions from it, subject to the toolbox at their disposal, such as the Ha-G Midot, etc.
Bat Kol is not part of the toolbox available to the learner, however, when there was doubt about how to decide, for example, in the disputes of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, both of which are correct because they both reached conclusions after using the toolbox, Bat Kol should have come out and decided for us who sit in Zion how to act in practice, whether to add and go or vice versa, but Bat Kol is not relevant to Beit Shammai, who continued to act according to what they came up with after studying the issue, because the rule of not using perfume is relevant to the fact that, from their perspective, what they came up with is what binds them.
Back to R’ Meir, to say that the Gemara's interpretation of the Talmud that they did not accept the Halacha like him because of his greatness is a terrible distortion, it is like a night that does not know how to calculate any mathematical calculation and will disagree with his teacher, if you are aware of your limitation you definitely need to seek help from your wiser ones, if the Halacha has already been established, even if you prove today that it originates from some kind of obstacle of the achiever, it is irrelevant because what binds us is what was accepted and not what the true truth is towards Heaven.
Conclusion, that you are as bar as without any lesser limitation as those who were in the time of R’ Meir you are obligated to your conclusion, if you are aware of your limitation you are obligated to those greater than you, and that it was said that the Shua and the Mishnah were written only for the peoples of the lands?!
After all, there is indeed a certain autonomy in Halacha but R’ Meir cannot prove this, rather the opposite is true.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
