Reference to Halacha considerations
Hello, Your Honor!
From time to time, it emerges from your statements in various places that the law should be considered according to its overt reasons that appear in the Talmud and that you do not accept claims based on hidden reasons. From this, you propose to be lenient or stricter on a particular matter, all according to the taste of the mitzvah.
But regardless of the mysteries, occasionally a halakhic rule arises that is given a certain meaning in the Babylonian Talmud and a different meaning in the Jerusalem Talmud (such as blowing the shofar on Shabbat). Sometimes the Talmud reveals the meaning of the mitzvah and research suggests another, much more obvious meaning (such as the Havdalah candle).
If truth is our guide, how can we confidently “mess around” with the law of the koola (or bitula) in the name of halakhic truth while not examining the halakhic issue from a research perspective (as far as we can)? Perhaps the true meaning of the mitzvah is still intact and alive?
Hello Jonathan.
You can never be sure of anything. Does this prevent us from using reasoning? There are no penalties from the law, and some have interpreted it because of a fear of contradiction (a very problematic explanation in my opinion). But according to the Talmud, the very prohibition is learned from the law. There is no interpretation in the world that is certain, and yet the process is full of conclusions from interpretive considerations. Fearing error is a neutered and unnecessary thing. In very rare cases, the Talmud says, “And because we imagine, we do an act.” Usually, actions are definitely done by virtue of reasoning.
It is clear that if there is a regulation whose apparent meaning does not fit within its boundaries, it is certainly worth examining or worrying about hidden meanings. But this is usually not the case and there is no reason to assume that this is always the case. If there are different meanings in the Babylonian and Jerusalem texts, it only means that the Talmudic sages also debated what the meaning was and allowed themselves to interpret it. In any case, we need to consider both the Babylonian and Jerusalem texts, of course.
And finally, I have written several times in the past that no change is not necessarily the default. Sometimes no change has much heavier costs than change. Therefore, it is not always true that the changer has the upper hand. Hence, even if there is concern about hidden motives, there is no less concern that there are no hidden motives and that change is right. Now we must do what we think is right, and of course also consider the costs of change or no change.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
