The Origin of the Gemara’s Unique Way of Thinking
Hello,
I have a question that is bothering me (and I believe you have a solid understanding of it).
I understood from your words in various places that there is something unique in the Gemara and scholarship (for the purpose of this matter, I refer to the Gemara as representing the sages in general and to Yeshivite scholarship as representing the Gemara, and discuss the relationship between these two together and the Torah). I do not know how to define this unique something, but one can get the impression that it concerns philosophical, moral, and logical foundations. And I even definitely feel that there is something unique [I remember when I first read concrete discussions in the philosophy of morality, I said, “What is this not serious? Where is there a subject in the Gemara about it? Then with the commentators of their generations there will be a comprehensive and in-depth discussion worthy of the name. Today, this is no longer the case.]
And here the son asks. Where did this unique content come from? What part of the scholarship is in any way related to the unique content that God gave (in the sense of exposing the principles of thought that God embedded in the Torah, not technical details)? The distance between the tree (the large corpus we have) and the kernel given at Sinai is so great that it seems there is no problem imagining a completely different development of Judaism, even given the Torah from Sinai (and perhaps also some uses of the Midot Harash and perhaps some laws of Moses from Sinai). In other words, I assume that the Gemara and the lamdan are an incident in the Torah/Judaism and not essential to it. If that is indeed the case, then all this unique wisdom was developed cumulatively by the sages of Judaism, and God has nothing left to say except that my sons have won. So what exactly do you learn when you invest so much in understanding the Torah? Nothing intellectual that God has given, but only the opinions and understandings of wise Jews throughout history who received a seal of command from God to engage in the Torah as it is in that generation?
Three sections to the question:
A. Are the stages of development of the Torah as we see it (Torah, Mishnah, Gemara, learning) coincidental or do you think it is a reasonable and predictable process (i.e., if such an experiment is repeated in several more replicated worlds, in some of them will learning appear as a method (not talking about small details that will certainly differ) and in some, for example, will a simplistic, historically-based understanding of the Torah appear in the style of Maimonides’ reasons for commandments (with conclusions drawn from reading) and nothing more, or completely different understandings that I cannot imagine (just as I would not imagine learning if there were no Mishnah and Gemara, etc.), and so on).
on. If scholarship is incidental to Judaism, then where did all the insights in the Gemara and beyond (which I understand, in your opinion, intrinsically contains the deep intuitions in various fields, and I answer yes) emerge from, in isolation from the other peoples of that period?
third. If scholarship is incidental to Judaism, then what are we actually so much about? There is no concrete scholarly content given by God or derived from the five books He gave, and we are dealing with the wisdom of people who are “in the know” and “in control.” Of course, if we “export” (as you put it) ideas flowing from the Gemara outward, then that is very nice, but that is not why we study (but mainly to understand the Torah). And of course there is a mitzvah like bringing firstfruits. But it becomes a real game in a sandbox. I personally love the new Yeshivah scholarship and despite my lack of values and status, etc., I feel emotionally connected to it (and I also struggle internally with it and its concepts. For example, with the deontology that fills all of Halacha, and more). But what does this have to do with studying “the Torah of Hashem”?
(I was unable to present the question in a sharp and concise enough manner. Unfortunately, this is a reflection of the confusion I have about the subject.)
Great and very insightful questions, and formulated in a very clear and lucid manner. I too have pondered and am pondering them quite a bit, and as you will see, I don’t have any really good answers except for trying to conceptualize feelings.
- I don’t think it’s a deterministic process that will appear in the same way everywhere. But it may appear in other places. On the other hand, this methodology has to do with the content. It’s right to study these contents in this way. In this sense, there’s something kind of deterministic here.
- I also don’t think it’s a coincidence. There’s something Jewish about it, not just in the sense that it was created by Jews, but in the sense that it has a connection to Judaism. The Torah that was given to us, together with our biography and character, probably created a unique system. In my opinion, at least in that sense, there’s something from above. I also think you’re right that in the environment of the halmud sages, things like this didn’t come into being, or even anything similar. Not in other environments either (perhaps in modern philosophy, if we sort the wheat from the chaff, there’s something similar).
- The Torah in this is not the methodology but the use of the methodology to understand the contents. In fact, the contents are the Torah, and the methodology can even be universal. But it seems to me that this is the right methodology to reveal what is in the Torah. The implication of my words is that this methodology is not Torah but simply the right thing. The right way to study such texts and issues. Its importance is not that it is Jewish or unique, but that it is correct (and again, I am speaking generally. Here too there is a grain of wheat and an imperfect methodology that we must continue to develop further).
The bottom line is that I don’t have a complete answer to your questions. But the strong feeling is that there is something very deep and important here that touches on the truth of the Torah.
Thank you very much. May the course develop a “further look at Talmudic scholarship” (the existence and description of which have re-introduced the matter to me), and after that I will understand and accept more. Although I tried to describe generalizations, it is difficult to speak without a package of examples (or even one solid one that is “in-depth” and examined downwards), and since the matter concerns every issue, then in particular, it is reasonable to assume that if the course deals with “several issues”, then the platform for discussion will be ready and ready (whether the discussion itself is implicit or explicit in the course).
Perhaps there is another possibility, that as in the story of the Zen sage who teaches Zen through various arts such as origami or archery or flower weaving, so God teaches us the methodology and way of thinking of Yeshiva through a random range of Torah and commandments. The range is the one that could have been completely different (for example, a prohibition on cows instead of a prohibition on pigs), but the way of thinking that He would have fostered would have been the same way of thinking of Yeshiva that we have today, when this is the purpose of the Torah. What do you think?
Ben Nun, that's probably what will open first.
Oren, that's of course possible. I have no way of saying anything about that.
The question is what is the indication that this is *the* right way, and not just another right way. After all, you can't simply place what comes out as if in an equation. Maybe the conclusions reached in a Sephardic study, for example, are closer to the poet's intention?
Maybe it's possible to show that there are more mistakes among those who learned differently, do you think that's the case? I'm talking about real mistakes, the Halugta faction will reluctantly admit to them.
Who said this is the right way? If you think it is right, then from your point of view it is the best approximation. If someone else comes along and suggests another way, we will examine it thoroughly. Errors that the Baal admits reluctantly almost never happen in any method (see Ramban in the Introduction to the Wars).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
