What are the things being said – Do Chazal knowingly distort the teachings of those that came before them?
Rabbi:
Hi, my name is C’. I have a very fundamental question in understanding Gemara (which also carries over to Poskim and day to learning with chevrusa – which all are probably influenced by what seems to be the way of the Talmud)
on a personal level, I get frustrated when learning a new sefer, and stating what the words of the sefer seem to indicate, and if it’s (what is perceived to be) a novel thought often my chevrusa (at whichever time) will try desperately to ignore what the author is saying and “shoe-horn” / force it into some pre-existing approach that they’re aware of. Intuitively that seems dishonest (or worse).
However, it would appear that the Gemara does the same thing.
See link below, where I posted the question more clearly and with an example from the Gemara. Still haven’t received an answer that I’m satisfied with and was wondering what you knew/thought?
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/114106/why-do-we-try-to-reconcile-machlokes
If this is in fact allowed – where does it end? If you force new statements to conform to old ones, how can there ever be something new – even when clearly stated, it’ll be reinterpreted to conform?
Or is my understanding incorrect, and they aren’t twisting the others words.
My modern Hebrew is not very good (I’m fine reading from classical seforim, but modern Hebrew I have difficulty with, especially when desperate to fully understand, and not myself superimpose my thoughts on your words). However, if it’s better for you to answer in Hebrew, I can have it translated for me.
Thank you very much!
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
- First, you might want to read my article on sustainability (in Hebrew). It deals with a certain aspect of this point, and I think it offers a pretty good explanation.
- You assume that the reader always adapts the text to his a priori insights. But in my opinion, it is usually the other way around: he tries to adapt it to his insights about what is supposed to be found in the text itself. That is, from our familiarity with the Talmudic complex, we understand the way of thinking, and therefore when we encounter a text we decipher it both in light of what is written in it and according to the context (the meaning of the entire Talmudic complex). This sometimes requires an interpretation that seems a bit inappropriate for the text. But anyone who thinks that the correct interpretation of the text is the simple meaning of the words is mistaken. Explanation and context always play a part in interpretation, even in interpretation through the path of simplicity. For example, when it is written in the Torah that God raised his hand, it is clear to us from various sources that he does not have a hand, and therefore we interpret it through metaphor. If we find a halachic teaching in the text that contradicts some Talmudic rule, we will interpret it in a way that is appropriate for the Talmudic rule.
- The Mishnah of the Fathers instructs us to judge our neighbor fairly. The commentators of the Mishnah (Rambam, Rabbeinu Yonah) explain that the intention is not something crooked, but something that is required by the context. For example, you see a righteous, adult man chasing a beautiful young girl on the street with a knife in his hand. If he were a young man, you would say that he wants to rape her. But you know him to be a righteous man of the highest order, and therefore you interpret the situation differently: she is his housekeeper who forgot the knife with him and he is chasing her to return it to her. This is a narrow interpretation, but the context dictates that this is the correct interpretation.
- Sometimes the narrow and far-from-simple interpretation of the text is a sermon, and it stands parallel to the simple interpretation, and is merely added to it (and does not replace it). This is relevant mainly in relation to the interpretation of the written Torah, and less so in relation to a Talmudic text.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rabbi:
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. My apologies for taking so long to respond – I wanted to first read through your piece on okimat and also to have a specific case to address. Although I didn’t get to the specific examples, here’s some Q’s/comments on your explanation of okimatot that you linked to.
re: your piece on okimat:
The underlying difficulty with accepting intellectual dishonesty (for other goals) is exactly what was bothering me re: forcing a pshat in order to avoid machlokes, and I couldn’t have worded it better. Your explanations about okimat specifically gave me something to think about, and I look forward to “testing” it as I learn as it has great intuitive appeal. I don’t have anything worthwhile to ask on Okimatot, but did find that
(a) incorrect footnote reference? – in one of your footnotes (#3) you reference Rav Hutner’s Fahad Yitzchak on Chanukah so I learned through it a couple of times, and you summarized (ibid.) his approach as “ To prevent the lay people from interfering and trying to understand things” however it seemed that although his approach was that it was intentionally made unclear it was not to keep it from the layman but rather to keep it exclusive to Clal Israel and a private alliance – Torah (that even after written still requires an orally transmitted explanation) between us and Hashem (one that deserves sacrificing one's life to keep it private).
(b) What do you mean by esoteric? – regardless of whether he explains the goal as to exclude layman or non-Jews, it is meant to exclude – why then do you describe it as “esoteric” – i.e. can you explain what you mean by esoteric?
(c) What are your issues with Rav Hutner’s approach – i.e. you dismissed the existing approaches for the reason that it’s illogical that the important purpose of Mishnah as Halachah would be sacrificed (as it requires clarity). This would address the reasons given of additional intentions re: “demand” and ”secret” or for mnemonic reasons. However, how does it address the explanation of keeping it oral (i.e. the okimath are passed down orally and serve as a key to understanding to Mishnah) thus keeping the teaching private. If the intention is to keep it hidden, isn't the lack of clarification (without the oral key to unlock the meaning) understood/explained? (Note – I did not learn at Yeshivas Chaim Berlin, or know Rav Hutner zt”l, just appreciate his approach here, and how it also explains Hasori Mahsra and inconsistencies in the Mishnayos as well answering the question of “Comparing the Gemara to the Mishnah – you can see so much that is not clearly stated in the Mishnah and if they sought to prevent the Torah from being forgotten and thus allowed it ’ you would think that as much as possible, being as verbose as possible “ objective of losing the accurate transmission but May it seems that they held that even after it was permitted, there was still a MAJOR need to leave things out – all addressed with a single approach (thus appealing via Occam's razor))
Speaking of Occam’s Razor: you used it to answer my question on controversy (or why there is a strong presumption that it doesn’t exist) – namely that assuming less opinions would fall under that idea. However (a) I think that Occam’s razor is based on a single (monotheistic) source (William of Ockham was a friar) such that (a) to explain the results of this single Source (if you assume that said Source values elegance or perhaps efficiency) then the approach which explains the observation with less assumptions (separate rules/powers/forces) is preferred, this (from what I understand) is also (b) when the various approaches make the same prediction – When explaining how a single power/creator got from point A to Point B – it was probably done in the simplest/most elegant way (why would He do otherwise if not needed). However it wouldn’t apply to explaining statements “created” by separate sources (thus failing the monotheistic – single creator/power assumption) which state opposite things (thus akin to explaining different observations)
Context is a corpse the basis of the Q re: dispute – Regarding, your main point/answer that written/spoken words must be taken in context and not only in their literal sense. I definitely agree with that, Adra, that’s the basis of my question – namely that if the context of post-Tannaic statements is a world of “multiplicity of controversy” (started with the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel) and that our eyes see books stores filled with tons of different methods – thus the context should then change to a presumption of controversy or at the very least, any presumption of uniformity should hold very little weight, and certainly not enough (on it’s own) to force a pshat against what the actual statement was. Hence my example in Bava Metzia 10b – where it was discussing something said by Amoraim (though your explanation of Okimatot can perhaps explain that Gemara where it says a little one has no yard and has no d’ Amot and it says a little one has a yard and has a d’ Amot – by learning that they even though each gave an abstract rule (intentionally leaving out the real world details/side issues) they were said in totally opposite language (she has vs. she does NOT have) implying that even though the okimata can reconcile both to effectively saying the same thing – one had something more abstract that required the opposite language (though I don’t know what that is)
Anyway, thanks again as not only appreciate you taking out the time for me, but I also gained greatly from your help
Good week.
It is difficult for me to comment in detail, especially after so long. I will comment briefly.
When I wrote that this was an esoteric case, I meant rare.
Rabbi Hutner's explanations seem unconvincing to me, because the Gemara's attitude to the Mishnah is not like that. It does not seem that they deliberately distorted the text of the Mishnah, and it is also not likely in my opinion that they did so.
Occam's razor is a logical principle, and therefore it does not matter what its origin is and why it was used there. By the way, there is a relatively new column on my website (308, https://mikyab.net/posts/67138) that contains a good example of such a discussion. If you want, you should read it.
I do not think that the multitude of methods and disputes changes the logic of "dispute-busters". Dispute is made as much as necessary. Not where it is not necessary. Again, I am talking about a situation in which there is a reasonable alternative explanation. Obviously, if the more logical explanation is that there are two points of disagreement, then it can be adopted.
In this context, you might be interested in reading another article of mine on the dichotomy of the yeshiva “investigations”: 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%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%9E %D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A7-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95 %D7%AA%D7%9F-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA
good week
thanks for clearing up those Q’s on esoteric and Rav Hutner’s approach.
I started reading the article about investigations, seems interesting – looking forward
re: Occam’s Razor- why is a solution that makes one assumption more “logical” than one that makes 2 assumptions? What is not “logical” about something that is inefficient, lacking elegance or the result of many (or an infinite) number of fundamental forces that cannot be “cut with a razor” into more primary/fundamental reason(s)? Isn’t that a “problem” of being not “scientific”, not monotheistic – both of which make assumptions that there is an ultimately single (or very very limited number of) cause of the natural world. Thus given that assumption, it's logical to favor the solution with less assumptions. However, I feel that “single source” assumption is violated when discussing different people's opinions (not the truth of their opinions, but rather the content of opinions itself). Since their opinions were formed out of different experiences, education, mental abilities, desire/perseverance to drill deeper – what’s illogical to assume that to the degree that these factors differ, their resulting opinions will differ (and should not be forced together). Likewise, the RambaM in the Introduction to the Mishnah
“For two people who are equal in understanding and study and knowledge of the rules they learn from them will not have a disagreement between them in what they learn in one of the meds in any way, and if there is, it will be minimal
Just as we did not find a disagreement between Shammai and Hillel except in the laws of unity, since their ways of teaching them in everything they learned in one of the meds were close to each other, and the correct rules that were with one were with the other. And when their students' teaching became less, etc.
”
Doesn’t this RambaM imply that to the degree that people differ a disagreement is a logical outcome (and perhaps even to be expected), thus after the students of B”S and B”H and all the more so afterwards – it’s expected and logical that 2 Jews 3 opinions?
(by the way – I value your time, if at any point you don’t feel the desire to continue this conversation, just say so (or perhaps a key phrase “right your way” 🙂 and I’ll understand and no insult taken, I’ve pursued this point (“logic” /Occam’s razor) as it’s the only point that you’ve made that I feel may be incorrect. but, I don’t want to take up your time, and would rather save it for more important questions that I may have in the future.)
thank you
In my opinion, Occam's razor is indeed a logical principle and not just a useful rule. I wrote about it here:
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%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D
Moreover, even where there is a lot of disagreement (two Jews, three opinions) there is still a preference for an interpretation that minimizes it. For example, even where there are two very complex scientific theories, the simpler one is preferable.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
