Oral Torah according to Rabbi Sharki
Peace and blessings
I have seen some correspondence here on the site regarding sermons on verses and halachic rulings.
In the past, I heard several lectures by Rabbi Sharki in which he claims that all the laws were handed down in the Oral Torah and that the sermons are later mumbling in an attempt to find a connection to the Written Torah. An example of the Four Species: He asks what exactly happened before they preached “fruits of the citrus tree” = etrog hadar in ilanu, etc. Like, they left the Beit Midrash and said, “Guys, from today we take an etrog”? It’s clear that they had already fulfilled this mitzvah.
I hope I didn’t misunderstand things – that’s what I understood.
I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
Thank you very much.
The thesis you presented in his name is that all sermons are trusting/sustaining and not creating.
This is clearly not true. The Rambam writes in several places (in the introduction to the Mishnah, the second root) that there are derisions that are both creative and close, and the vast majority of them are creative (except for about three or four, as he wrote in a reply to Rabbi Pinchas of Alexandria on the hal’ Ishut). Regarding the etrog specifically, the Rambam has already written that it is an authoritative derision, and this is clearly seen from the Rosh Hashanah issue. There, several different sources are cited, and all of them conclude that it is an etrog. This is an indication that the fact that it is an etrog was conveyed to them in advance and they sought a source to anchor it in the Torah after the fact. But in most derisions, this is not the case, and even in the Gezrah that a person does not discuss on his own unless he receives it from his rabbi, the Rambam and some of his students wrote that this is not the case (but only a detail came down from Sinai and the rest was completed by the derisions. See Anzit on ‘Gezrah Shovah’).
Beyond all of this, there is also no benefit to the thesis that all sermons are authoritative. It is still not clear why we needed this unconvincing chatter. Unless you show that it is convincing, then again there is no need to make the excuse that they are all authoritative.
The clearest example that is usually given for this is the sermon of the Rabbi on Shabbat 67 from the verse “Vahdu’ah Nidita”:
As Datania and Dovah Bandathe, the early elders said that she should not dye her hair, nor dye her hair, nor adorn herself with colorful clothes until Rabbi Akiva came and taught, “If so, you defend her husband and it is found that her husband has divorced her, what else will you learn to say?” And Dovah Bandathe, her bandathe, will remain until she comes into the water.
In the background, it should be remembered that the thesis that all sermons are reliable is based on the fact that they are not convincing, and in particular it was stated in response to the minimin who denied it in halakha and sermons.
In my opinion,
it can be explained that he means that there are two paths of Torah: the written Torah and the oral Torah (in matters of halakha).
And the path of the Toshb is a method that is detached from the literal meaning of the verses. And it develops in its own way that is detached from the literal meaning of the Bible. The same thing of equal derivation (and it has a literal meaning in another place).
And the sermons of the Sages are in the form of a compilation of the Torah only. After all, it is not possible that they were given by one shepherd and they are different... So the Sages come to teach us that they are in the form of hints in the Toshb.
As far as I know, also according to Rabbi Eliyahu, the words of the Sages are not the literal meaning of the Bible... Is that true?
And is the literal meaning of the Bible in the Hadoah Benedita? These are the words of the early sages or R.A.?
PS As far as I remember, in Beta Israel, during the niddah, she sits in a special house.
I completely agree with Risha and disagree with your conclusion. It is clear that the sermon is not obligated to simplify and does not try to replace it. I have elaborated on this in several places. But the conclusion that the sermons are all reliable does not follow from this and is also incorrect.
I didn't understand.
Do you believe that there are tools of sermonizing that are not related to the plain level of the Bible and that have the power to create new laws that are carved from the Bible?
For example, I had a question once, if the Sanhedrin wants to change a law and they don't know if it is the LBM (minority) or a law created by one of the houses of the law (majority). Can it be said that the minority nullifies the majority?
Indeed. This is what Maimonides believes, and so does my little ego, who clings to the hem of his robe. In fact, this is what the Talmud itself believes, unless you look at it with apologetic eyes.
Absolutely. I don't think it's abrogation, but rather following the majority.
Thank you very much for the answer. For those who are interested, here are the words from Rabbi Sherki's website: http://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1545:15451545-1545&Itemid=100513
From what I understood from reading, there is a fundamental issue here of defining the function of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah and not an apologetic/profitable thesis. In any case, I did not understand from the words whether, according to Rabbi Sherki, all the sermons are truly authoritative in a comprehensive way.
Rabbi Sherki brings it up in a more organized way here:
https://ravsherki.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:1212-12&catid=413&Itemid=100513
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
