Distinction between Torah in Haftza and Torah in Gebra

שו”ת › Category: philosophy › Distinction between Torah in Haftza and Torah in Gebra

asked 9 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
I have read your approach in several places regarding ‘Jewish thought’ – if I understood correctly, these are understandings that originate from the private understanding of the sages and not from what we received from heaven (speculations in the Bible). In any case, it is not a ‘Torah object’, but rather any mundane thing that can indeed be done for the Lord’s Supper, but does not have the Torah’s boundary… Therefore, one should not recite the Torah blessings for it, it should not be placed separately from mundane books in the library, in principle it would be possible to study it in services (if it were not for the verses, etc.)… (I wonder whether the rabbi will also permit the study of Jewish thought books on Tisha B’Av)…
But isn’t it correct to distinguish between mere philosophy about the world and an attempt to explain the Torah… Just as human speculations and analyses made to deepen and understand the laws of the Torah are part of the Torah (‘Talmud’), so too is a mental exercise that attempts to explain the fundamental facts of the Torah considered part of the Torah… The concept of God, revelation, reasons for commandments… and even an attempt to deduce ‘fundamental concepts’ of the Bible regarding history, etc….
And although every thinker brings the philosophy of his time, there is a difference between philosophy books of that time and a book that deals with analyzing the facts and fundamental beliefs of the Torah, and of course does so based on the understanding of his time… Maimonides brings a lot of philosophy, but deals with how we must explain it according to the Torah (why not accept the precepts, how to explain fulfilling expressions of the Torah, etc.)…
Although everyone brings their own ideas, even in the Talmud different understandings are presented…
And regarding the value, we can learn from them how to analyze the Torah in the light of wisdom, and therefore what are the important principles that can also be applied to philosophy in our day (for example, Maimonides’ approach to the question of the Aristotelian and Platonic method of creating the world can teach us how to relate to the method of evolution – we should not stick to a simple understanding of the verses, as long as there is a possibility of divine intervention, the explanation is possible, etc….

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Hello. It’s hard to generalize, but it seems to me that a lot of this is personal insight. It’s not a Torah hafza, but it can be a Torah in the gebra (if it’s useful to you, then it’s no less important than the Torah in the hafza). The uniqueness of Torah hafza is not in its importance, but that it is a hafza, meaning that its status is objective regardless of whether it speaks to you or not. In the realm of thought. I think it’s permissible to study it on Tisha B’Av (what’s more, this study is far from making me happy. But of course, that’s a personal taste). If all understanding of Torah is Torah, then physics studies are also Torah. It seems to me that they teach us a lot about the creation of the world, much more than the vortices of Torah commentators. Intuitively, this seems unlikely to me. I must note here that one of my articles on the subject was written in response to an article by Rabbi Dror Pixler, who argued exactly this. You can certainly learn all sorts of important things from the MN. Even from Kant and Dostoevsky. Thinking things does not mean a Torah hafza. Otherwise, you have turned all the departments and faculties of the academy into yeshivas. —————————————————————————————— Asks: But there is a difference between something that stands alone and can be used for the purpose of a mitzvah, etc., and something that is said while engaging with the fundamental facts of the Torah… Just as the book of Sha’arei Yosher is considered a Torah fragment even though it deals with a logical analysis for understanding Torah laws, a philosophical analysis of the principles of the Torah (God, revelation, etc.) would also be considered (this is actually theology, not philosophy)… A philosophical understanding that has been lost and passed away is like an opinion in the Gemara that has been rejected… (The scope is indeed much broader, but that does not change the principle)… The question is whether the ‘thoughts’ are presented to understand the Torah, or do they stand on their own… What is the difference between a logical understanding of the concept of ownership in the Torah, which is a specific law in the Torah, and a logical understanding of God, a path to reach it, revelation, the meaning of the commandments, their purpose, etc…. Both are analyses that deal with things that originate in revelation… —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: It doesn’t seem to me to be divided according to intentions. Torah in the hafza does not depend on intentions. This is exactly the meaning of the term “hafza”. Perhaps a person who studies will have a reward as a Torah student, but his Torah is not a hafza of Torah. I understand that your opinion is different. That’s fine. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Sorry for the hassle, but I still don’t understand the distinction between beliefs within the confines of the law and beliefs based on mitzvot, revelation of God, etc…. A fragment of Torah is ostensibly only what was received directly, such as the Bible, and possibly also the halacha… Also the halacha as it progresses or develops – the Sus discusses the application of that halacha in our day… This theoretical business in the Talmud is already in its infancy, how does one understand the logic of that law… It’s like a theoretical business about what is contained in that revelation… Or in another way, we may actually be analyzing the story of Yitro (the situation at Mount Sinai)… And the Gemara has already discussed the issue of the Torah blessing: should one recite the blessing “Ar” over a reading, a Mishnah (which is actually halakha) or even a Talmud… and it was ruled that one should also recite the blessing over a Talmud. I don’t mean to imply that the matter was taught or written (a physics book that says every few lines, “How great are your wonders, O God”), but rather what it deals with… Is it trying to explain the facts (be it the revelation itself or the commandments themselves, as the halakha does), or is it simply dealing with hypotheses? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Opinions within the boundaries of migo are an interpretation of the concept of migo, which is part of the laws of evidence and the commandments: “You shall judge your neighbor with justice, you shall not steal, etc.” Opinions based on the commandments or the revelation of God are not interpretations, but reflections. They do not stand the same tests and are not expressed with the same seriousness. No discipline was established there and there is no tradition that is gradually being built on it. Each thinker speaks from the reflections of his heart. But it is difficult for me to dwell on this here. I have written about this in several places that I think I have already referred to, and I will expand further in my book.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.