Regarding your theory of halakhic change and the Maimonides’ method regarding the change of tripot

שו”ת › Category: Halacha › Regarding your theory of halakhic change and the Maimonides’ method regarding the change of tripot

0 Vote Up Vote Down

asked 3 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
Maimonides, in the Laws of Sacrifice, writes as follows:

12 And there is no need to add to these defilements, at all: whatever happens to a beast or animal or bird, other than those that the sages of the first generations named, and upon which the courts of Israel agreed – it may live. And even we have learned from the way of medicine that there is no end to life. [13] And so are those that we have named and said are a curse – even though it may appear from the ways of medicine that we have that some of them do not kill, and it is possible that you will live from them: you have nothing but what the Sages have named, as it is said, “According to the Torah which is taught you.” ( Deuteronomy 17:11 ).

How does this fit in with the theory of halakhic change that you presented in the last series of lessons on innovation, conservatism, and tradition? Or perhaps in your opinion, Maimonides was a simple conservative?
Best regards,

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 3 years ago

Many have already argued this (R. Feinstein and Rabbi Rabinowitz, and others). Some have understood his words to mean that tradition says that the criterion of a non-living animal being eaten is not a reason but a sign. If it weren’t for tradition, I really wouldn’t accept it. By the way, in the case of a person being eaten, Maimonides writes the opposite, and that has also been argued. In any case, in the case of a person being eaten, you see that he is indeed a Midrashic Conservative, and in any case, in the case of an animal being eaten, this is probably a tradition (a sign and not a reason).

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

אורן replied 3 years ago

Following on from this question, I remember you saying in the Innovation, Conservatism, and Tradition classes that the laws of trepto should change in accordance with current medical science. In other words, do you believe, contrary to the Rambam, that this is a cause and not a sign? And if so, why?
Best regards,

מיכי Staff replied 3 years ago

Apparently there is such a tradition, but I highly doubt it. To me it sounds more like implausible apologetics (like the theory of the two thousand years of Torah of the Prophet). Although if it is a question of apologetics then I would expect the Rambam to adopt such an approach also in the case of human sacrifice, and apparently the fact that he does not do so constitutes evidence that this is really how he thinks and this is not apologetics. But it must be remembered that in the case of human sacrifice it is not so practical, and not as threatening as changing the laws of kosher sacrifice. I do not know what was the case in the Rambam's time, and whether there was such a threat then or not. In any case, I have not seen good evidence for the thesis that these are signs and not causes.