Formal Authority – Talmud
Hello ,
In many ways Your lessons And your books you circular And says marble To the Gemara authority formally. And I reliant on The money sub In the mountains on:A who says“They held and received Generations The latest not Will share on “The first ones”. And we will see. me that is some thorough In your way.
I have a few questions about this :
1) Do I see this as a halachic fiction ?
2) If not , why would I trust the KMM , then :
2.1) is only Says “visible me”. Mother quite rely on “visible me” To prove thing so basic?
2.2) More From this, visible From the readings my (And in particular Books ‘history The judges maximum young and ‘How do we know this?‘ from Jay M. Harris) that was struggle During the period The geniuses between The Karaites And the geniuses. And the geniuses Endure, so The Talmud Spread out per with Israel (At the price ofMinimization of importance The legends also of Sermons). then how victory political
/
Governmental Can give Legitimacy tell Somehow?
Perhaps you will tell me that the geniuses prevailed because the people of Israel accepted the Talmud . But :
– No visible me read To this “get on himself”. The people only Preferred The geniuses (not capacitor On him The Talmud).
– and also if I will come. Want read To this reception nothing us garlic Indication marble reception not share on The first. per The most Allow saycustom Israel he be Committed To the Talmud.
So why do I think the Talmud has substantial authority ?
- Absolutely not fiction. The people of Israel really took upon themselves the Talmud.
- 2. I don’t trust him. His words are an illustration. I trust reality. One could ask why obey even if the people of Israel took it upon themselves, but that’s a different discussion. In practice, those who are faithful to the Torah took it upon themselves to teach. Every public process is political, and therefore “political” here is not a derogatory term. The situation at Mount Sinai was also political. A public made a decision to obey and to obligate all their descendants to it. It is clear that you know my Mishnah, and therefore you certainly know that I do not accept that there is a prohibition against disagreeing with the first.
Just a thought experiment to see if I understood you correctly.
What if the Karaites were the victors and the Rabbi of Israel rejected the Talmud and accepted the Karaite Talmud (there is no such thing, but let's assume there is). Would you accept the Karaite Talmud?
I suppose so, unless something in their framework seemed problematic and clearly wrong to me.
I hear you. But it's a bit strange to me. Why does the framework have to seem reasonable to you? If you think formal authority can stem from the consent of the people, why bring the content of the consent into the picture?
Suppose there is a great Sanhedrin (from the mouth of the prophets to Moses) and you think all the judges are stupid. Would you obey their instruction that doesn't seem reasonable?
I wrote that agreement is useful in determining what the interpretation is, but one needs fidelity to the original word. This trumps agreement.
Thanks. But I have two questions about this.
1) According to you, the Talmudic interpretation (of the Torah) is the binding interpretation. And as a halakhic monist, I assume you would agree that the binding interpretation can be wrong. So do you think that specific interpretations from the Talmud are wrong?
2) It seems to me that the Mishnah is not a good illustration of your teaching. I will try to explain it well.
– Assumption a) According to you, there is formal authority for the Mishnah's interpretation of the Torah.
– Assumption b) According to you (and according to Maimonides) any interpretation from the Sanhedrin (which has formal authority) can be rejected by a Sanhedrin from a later period.
– Conclusion: The Amoraim could have contradicted the words of the Mishnah. Contrary to what the Mishnah wrote.
1. This is not according to me. This is the opinion of all the poskim. It is very likely that there are incorrect interpretations. What is the chance that the sages have always been right?! Zero.
2. You are asking a contradiction in the Rambam. What does this have to do with me or the Ksam? Except that your question is the Ksam question, and to that he answers that they have agreed not to disagree. See inside.
1) Thank you, I understand. Just out of curiosity, can you point to one or two laws that stem from the interpretation of the Talmud that you think is wrong?
2) So according to the KSA, the Talmud has both formal authority (like the Sanhedrin) and an acceptance not to disagree with it (which neutralizes the possibility of disagreement in the field of interpretation).
In your opinion, if I understood correctly, the Talmud only has formal authority (the people accepted the Talmud as binding = as the Sanhedrin's instruction; they did not accept not to disagree with the interpretation of the Talmud). So do you think it is possible to disagree with the Talmud in the field of interpretation?
And if you answer me that in fact all the sages (geonim and rishonim) accepted not to disagree with the Talmud, I will comment that:
i) Why would the agreement of a small group (of sages) create formal authority (let alone the entire Jewish people, for the group of the 18th century, that's a question for me)?
ii) Today there is widespread agreement among the "sages" not to dispute about the first. Why should such an agreement prevent you from thinking that it is possible to dispute about the first?
1. Can't vote. Maybe about creatures born from the search (which according to science there are none). My argument was in principle that it is unlikely that there are no errors. There are of course various scientific errors.
2. The formal authority is by virtue of Kabbalah. These are not two things. In the field of biblical interpretation, it is certainly possible to disagree, and sages have done so. It does not concern halacha, so what is the meaning of this dispute?
There is no agreement, no disagreement on the Rishonim. There is agreement to give significant weight to their opinion.
1. This is not an error in the halakhic interpretation of the Gemara. In your language, it is not a bridge principle, it is a fact. My question was about pointing out an incorrect bridge principle or an incorrect halakhic sermon. If there is none… then there is none. But it surprises me that Rabbi Michi would not find a single bridge principle that he considers incorrect in a book of 2711 pages 🙂
2. Sorry, I did not understand you when you wrote: "The formal authority is by virtue of Kabbalah. These are not two things." Perhaps we can take an example to simplify the discussion.
Situation (fake) 1
Let's assume that a Sanhedrin of samuchim (with formal authority) in the 5th century interpreted: "The word melacha appears 39 times in the Torah, therefore in practice there are 39 melacha on Shabbat."
Can a Sanhedrin of the 21st century come and say: "What a pity! It is written in the Torah, "every work" and in the Gematria, "to the people." Therefore, it is forbidden to do "service works" on Shabbat!"? According to Maimonides, it can (because it is a dispute over the interpretation of the Torah). And the law will change.
Do you agree with me?
Situation 2
Suppose the Gemara said: "The word "work" appears 39 times in the Torah, therefore, in practice, there are 39 "service works" on Shabbat."
Can a 21st century court come and say: "What the hell! It is written in the Torah, "every work" and in the Gematria, "to the people." Therefore, it is forbidden to do "service works" on Shabbat! And we disagree about the interpretation of the Gemara, and of course this has practical consequences?"
I assume you will answer that this court is forbidden to disagree about the interpretation of the Gemara.
But why? Who has the formal authority of the Sanhedrin and who has the formal authority of the Gemara?
(I know this is the question of the KM. But his answer, as best I understand it, is that the sages of the period of the signing of the Talmud agreed/accepted not to disagree about the Talmud and that future generations will not disagree either. This has nothing to do with any formal authority of the Talmud. But you dismissed this division when you wrote: "The formal authority is by virtue of Kabbalah. These are not two things")
I don't understand this delusional discussion. It is permissible to eat worms that are born from the fruit. And forbidden to eat worms that are born inside the fruit, and so on. This is a halachic error (based on a factual error). If you don't like the example, respect it and look for others. I didn't claim to have examples. What I said is that it is unlikely that there are no errors in the Talmud. When I talk to God and can check the matter with Him, I will try to provide you with more examples.
Situation 1: Absolutely.
Situation 2: Absolutely can disagree on the Gemara, when they are concordant. Today there are no concordant ones and they cannot disagree. Today we cannot even disagree on the rulings of the ancient Sanhedrin. Something that a minyan would need another minyan to permit.
In short, everything seems completely clear and simple to me and I don't understand this discussion.
Sorry, but I'm not clear. Simple question:
The Rambam tells us that a court of laymen (non-affiliated people) can disagree with a Sanhedrin (of an ancient period) regarding the interpretation of the Torah and can change the law.
Why can't we (the court of laymen) disagree with the Talmud (the Sanhedrin of affiliated people)?
Where have you seen laymen's councils? Even those close to them cannot. Only the great council. Every council in the House of Mary is a great Sanhedrin.
It seems to me that you yourself said this. In lesson 1 on Midrash and Logic: https://m.soundcloud.com/mikyabchannel/1-8?in=%2Fmikyabchannel%2Fsets%2Fkvoyihqnym7n
@ From 11:53 to 12:25 you actually say:
"Every court in every generation can interpret the Torah completely from all previous generations." It seems to me from your words that this is true for every court (even a court of three) and for every generation (including our generation, which no one is close to). And you go on to say "If a court comes today and decides by virtue of these or other interpretive, doctrinal considerations that there are only two Avot Melachah on Shabbat and not L"T, then that's what will happen. There will only be two."
@ From 17:38 to 18:20 I quote you, "From the simple references in the Rambam, every court of law in every generation... every court of law of three [...] does not need a samukhin [...] uses the midrashic toolbox."
This is what emerges from the sequence of your words.
Nothing is out of line with my words. You are constantly mixing things up here. So I will close the discussion by summarizing my position (actually summarizing the halacha, regardless of my position. There is nothing new in it on this matter):
1. There is no limit to the authority to demand the Torah. Any person and certainly any bi'd of three can do so, even in contrast to previous generations (but not in contrast to the Sanhedrin). But what they determine is binding only on them and does not become binding halacha.
2. Binding halacha is determined only by the Sanhedrin. Such a halacha can only be changed by another Sanhedrin according to the rules for changing halacha described in Rambam 12:2 Memmir. The term "bi'd" in Rambam there deals with the great bi'd (=Sanhedrin).
That's it. I'm done.
Oh, one more thing:
3. The Gemara has formal authority by virtue of public acceptance (even though it is not a Sanhedrin), and this is similar to the Sanhedrin, although it is not based on “You shall not deviate”. Its words should not be disputed, regardless of rank and minyan, until a Sanhedrin is established and the rules for changing the laws are restored as before (Achi”R 2”A).
It surprises me when you write, "Every Jewish court in the Holy Land is a Great Sanhedrin."
In the context of a temporary freeze or "preparation and punishment that is not from the Torah," Maimonides speaks of a Jewish court, and this is true even for a Jewish court that is not a Sanhedrin (Chapter 2, Halacha 4).
I understand. Thank you very much for your answers.
True. This is only with regard to the freezing process that I discussed elsewhere. This is proven by his language there. Freezing is not a change. If you read the entire chapter, you will see that the first two halakhahs (which and only which we have dealt with here, because they deal with changing the halakhah) refer to the Great Court.
Very clear. Thank you.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
