Midrash verses in the halakhic argument
Rabbi, how do we know how to treat the verse that is cited as part of the halakhic argument? Is it as a reference or a real sermon with a different validity? For example, the argument that women are disqualified from testifying is based (to the best of my memory, but it doesn’t really matter if it’s true, it’s just for the sake of the sermon) in the midrash of the verse “Ish” – and not “Isha”. But today, some claim that the basis for excluding women from the court was their lack of integration into the worldly life at the time of the Sages, and today, because things have changed, the status of women in the court must also be changed. But what do we do with the midrash of the verse? Perhaps the Sages did think that women were sufficiently enlightened in the world to testify in the court, but their hands were tied because that’s how they understood the verse? And since we’re on the subject of verses, can the rabbi briefly explain (or refer to an article), if we say that the essential basis is the sages’ understanding, what does the reference add? On the face of it, the verse seems to be merely an embellishment to their understanding…
Thank you very much.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A. So I didn't fully understand, isn't there a situation where studying requires a passage that would be contrary to the preacher's logic? After all, in the case of a man and not a woman, I think the sermon is quite clear and doesn't need much explanation from the preacher. B. I also didn't understand the end of my previous question - what is the role of the reference besides embellishing my idea?
Thank you
The preacher's logic enters partially. After the homily instructs us to preach, the explanation enters and says what sermon to preach. For example, after we know that the word "at" has something to say, we need to decide what to say. This decision is made by the preacher's explanation. But the explanation alone is usually not enough to create the law. Without the trigger of the homily, we would not create this halacha. For example, let's assume that there is no explanation for establishing a mitzvah to fear the Torah scholars. But after the verse "at the Lord your God, fear him" tells us to say something, the explanation says that if there is already a mitzvah, the most likely one is t.
The sermon "man" and not "woman" is really unclear. Usually, the word "man" is used in the sense of a person, male or female.
From what I understood from the rabbi's words, the sermon consists of a textual trigger plus an explanation. So isn't it correct to say that someone who wants to change a halakhah that incorporates a verse requirement should offer a different sermon for the textual trigger? Without an alternative explanation, would it still be fair for him to ask for a change in the halakhah?
Absolutely true. And that is exactly what Rabbi Shabbos did in his "Hadvah Nidda" (Hebrew: הדוה נידהתה).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
