Halachic logic and common sense
I recently read the article by the author of the book “The Jewish Law” by Soloveitchik. One of his arguments is that the law has its own logic, not the research/scientific logic, and therefore only those who come from within the realm have the authority to interpret beliefs, etc. We should also not get excited about the lack of compatibility between the law and social reality, etc., to criticize the status of modern women, as he puts it.
Another claim is that Hazal’s holdings, to fish for food and to fish for meat, are eternal ontological and therefore it is irrelevant to discuss its changes in different social circumstances.
In another article about Korach, he argued, similar to Nell, that Korach made logical claims of honest human reason (a house full of books will not get rid of a mezuzah, etc.), but that Torah and Halacha deal with reason and special logic.
I was almost shocked. On second thought, I told myself that this does indeed lead to his words about the lonely man of faith.
What do you think?
I think we need to clarify more what this is about.
His claim that the possessions came down from Sinai and are therefore eternal is utter nonsense. I assume he himself did not believe this, and wrote this in response to the species.
It is true that there is a rather unique way of thinking about halakhic matters, as there is in other fields (such as law, etc.).
It is not true that those outside the field have no authority to say anything about it. They certainly do. These ways of thinking were developed by humans and therefore can also be changed by them.
Claims about reality are, of course, claims about reality, and if they do not correspond to reality, then there is an error (either ours in reading reality, or ours in interpreting the source, or the halakhic source itself). That’s all.
Why shouldn't the shaqoot be from Sinai? If you think that they say something about reality, then of course you can't claim that they are from Sinai and unchangeable. But if you think that they are part of the halakhic world, which is anyway a kind of incomprehensible game of God (and has no purpose that we can understand how it is fulfilled), then the shaqoot can also be part of it.
Indeed, anything could have been true. But in fact, the beliefs did not come down from Sinai, but were determined by the sages based on an understanding of reality.
I think so too. But in general you are much more willing to believe in the things that came down at Sinai than I am. If you are willing to accept that the core of Kabbalah came from Sinai, and that the ways of the sermon came down from Sinai (which are delusional things in my opinion), why not accept the same regarding the Hizkut?
I don't suppose you expect me to answer this bizarre question (I'm writing in extreme understatement, of course). All the first wrote that the maxims are the central tenets, and I tend to accept that. Not even a cat wrote that the tenets came down from Sinai until the age of apologetics. Regarding Kabbalah, I said that I am willing to believe that there is a core that came from Sinai (because these are things that are difficult to renew on your own) and maybe not. What does that have to do with simple factual statements like tenets? Why invent that it came down from Sinai?
What do I care if the first invented it or the second?
If cats could write, maybe they would write it. Maybe even kissing snakes. You never know. In any case, I wouldn't be surprised to find out if the Rabbis wrote something like this, just as they wrote that the Hanukkah lamp and the tablet are from Sinai.
I of course agree that this is apologetics. This is exactly the interpretation of the LBM.
Well, never mind. So the Torah is also apologetics, and perhaps Julius Caesar is also, and in fact, God is also. If so, there really is no point in discussing it. I thought you were aiming for a real question.
Come on. The question of whether the Torah was given at Sinai is a good and worthy question, and as far as I know today, you also admit it. When I ask what the indication is that something written in the written Torah was given there, then there are answers that can be debated about how good they are (and in your opinion, not all of the written Torah was given there, contrary to what is generally accepted by almost everyone we have heard their opinion on the matter over the last two thousand years; maybe cats are not). But what indication is there that the qualities required by the Torah were given there? This was said only to justify them thousands of years after the giving. Did the ancients have a tradition about this? Maybe. But the same perhaps applies to the Ger”d as well.
Well, I'll write one more time, because it's really not worth a response. Regarding the Torah, there are others who have written that not all of it was given there (and not just scholars). But it really doesn't matter, because there are sides here and there. Regarding the virtues, you decided for some reason that they weren't given there even though there is a well-established tradition to that effect (at least for the last two thousand years). One can of course doubt this, but what does that have to do with the question of suppositions. There are no such sides here at all and there is not the slightest reason to think so. This is a ridiculous delusion. Okay, I've exhausted it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
