Autonomy in Halacha
Hello.
Regarding autonomy in Halacha.
Can we be sure that we know the language of the Talmud at all, as the Rishonim did, in order to decide between the Rishonim (and since we know from the Rashal Dasal that it is also possible to decide on the sufficiency of the Talmud)? Apparently, this question is important to the discussion itself, even if we assume that in terms of greatness in wisdom we are allowed to disagree about generations of Rishonim (by the way, in the Agram it is explained that a wise man is allowed to disagree about those greater than him), we need to know the language in which we are discussing.
For example, can we know where validity can be established and where not, when a problem is a problem and when it is a solution, and so on?
This question raises a more complex question: what is the language of the Talmud in general? There is no doubt (for the record) that the method of analysis that exists today was foreign to the Talmudists. Doesn’t this close the doors to us from discussing the Talmud at all?
It should be noted that the Rashba and Ran’s method of thinking was apparently also foreign to the Talmudists. There is no hint among the Ge’onim of a type of thinking similar to theirs, and yet the first did not refrain from analyzing issues according to the style of thinking that was accepted in their time. Do you know of anything that addressed these points?
We certainly cannot be sure of anything, not even that we know the language of the Talmud as the Rishonim did. On the contrary, it seems that they were closer and therefore have an advantage (although we have tools that they did not have – philology and the like). But there is no need for this, since the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. We are supposed to do according to our understanding even if it is wrong. And contrary to what is usually interpreted, in my opinion this is the meaning of “not in the heavens”. When a voice comes out of the heavens, then the truth is certainly with it. The principle of not in the heavens means that we are supposed to do everything according to what seems to us and not according to the truth. The accepted interpretation is that heaven has no authority, but regardless of the conflict between autonomy and truth. The NEP is if I have a tool that is not from the heavens that I assume is more true than I think. In my opinion, it is still not to be followed. And evidence for what you say, D.P.K. De’Rubin, is that they did not rule on the halakha of the rabbinic Rabbi because his friends did not come to the end of their minds. If he was such a great wise man, then each of them must have assumed that if the R.M. disagreed with him, it was likely that the R.M. was right. And yet they did not rule like him. This suggests that autonomy is preferable to truth.
See my words 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%90%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/
And 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%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%90-%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA/
Therefore, there is no need for the AGM to say that it is possible to disagree with those greater than me, because that is completely clear. On the contrary, whoever says it is impossible should prove it. The authority in halakhah is only the Great Rabbinate (and the Talmud, which is considered like the Great Rabbinate, apparently by virtue of public acceptance).
The methods of analysis are not a matter of concern. Even the Rambam would not have understood and would not have thought of R. Chaim’s analysis, and this does not mean that R. Chaim is wrong. R. Chaim performs an analysis that reveals Rambam’s intention. Rambam himself was not aware of this tool and language, and therefore did not think in this way. But there is still room for the claim that this is the formulation of Rambam’s opinion in our language and terminology.
I don’t know anyone who has specifically dealt with these points (I touch on them more than once), but it seems simple to me and doesn’t need treatment.
I am familiar with the evidence from Rabbi Meir that no one has ruled on Halacha like him, and although he was apparently great in wisdom, I may have seen it in your article on these and those Da'ach that I read a few years ago, as I think the introduction to it also speaks of this.
However, I have some (good) thoughts on this evidence, a. This statement is in a transitional stage between the words of aggadot and the words of Halacha, so it is possible that there is nothing here but the words of aggadot (your opinion on aggadot is probably known to you).
b. It can be interpreted that Rabbi Meir did not cut things off but rather showed favoritism and permission, and this has some significance in the words of the Gamma. We find a passage in Meir (I do not remember where it is now) that he complained about great sages in the Talmud who do not know how to rule on Halacha.
According to your understanding, there is a great innovation in general (mentioned in 7:1) that the halakha is great in wisdom, according to your words, it is great that is not too great. Perhaps it is a shadow of your understanding that the rule that the halakha is great in wisdom is only for those who are satisfied and not for those who see fit to disagree with that great one clearly.
I cut short because the journey hastened for me and today's mitzvot (the entire Day of the Lifting) is before us.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
