Sermons that create or empower
Hello Rabbi. I have heard and read your words regarding the way of creating sermons by the sages. You are accustomed to quoting from Maimonides’ response to Rabbi Pinchas the Dayan and from his second root in the Book of Commandments.
I want to understand, do you think it is possible to understand from Maimonides’ words there that sermons are creative and not authoritative?
It seems to me that he is mainly trying to say that the laws that come from the sermons of the sages are the laws of the rabbis and not the laws of the Torah. But there is no explicit reference to the historical question: did the sages attach a sermon to a law that was already accepted, or did the sermon appear first and only then did the law follow.
I know your distinction between the various sermons (which the Etrog sermon, for example, was authoritative). I am currently only asking for an explanation, whether in your opinion there is an answer in the words of Maimonides to my question.
I quote from his words in reply to Rabbi Pinchas the Dayan:
Maimonides’ Responsa, year of the rat
And in those chapters I explained that not everything that is taught in a strict or a strict and a strict manner or in a similar way or in the thirteen measures that the Torah requires is a law of the Torah until the Sages explicitly say that it is from the Torah. And I brought evidence for this. And there I explained that even something that is a law from Moses from Sinai from the words of the scribes was transmitted to him, and there is nothing from the Torah except something that is explicitly stated in the Torah, such as Shatnaz, Khilaiim, Shabbat, and Aarit, or something that the Sages said is from the Torah, and they are like only three or four things.
Thank you very much.
There is an answer in the words of Maimonides.
The Rambam’s division between midrashic laws that are from the Torah and midrashic laws that are from the scribes is based on what he wrote in the introduction to the Mishnah and in the second root. There he explains that the halakhah that confirms is from the Torah and the halakhah that creates is from the rabbis. The fact that the rabbis say that it is a halakhah from the Torah is a sign, not a reason. It is a sign that the halakhah confirms, not creates.
And from this you will understand that the division between Torah and Rabbinic teachings is parallel to the division between the creator’s sermon and the one that confirms it.
And the Rabbi accepts that those reliable things are indeed from the original Daur?
I didn't understand the question. This is the definition of the Somekh sermon: the halacha was received in tradition from Sinai and the sermon anchors it in Scripture. Interpretation: the halacha is original. What is there to accept here? This follows from the definition.
The Netziv in the beginning of the valley again states that there are halacha created by the sages in the sermon and passed on in tradition, and then this is halacha that comes to us in tradition but is not from Sinai. He explains that this is the meaning of the expression “Gemara gamiri lah” (Sharsh”yi always explains it as a halacha, but the Netziv claims there that the Rambam disagrees and explains it as such), as opposed to the halacha.
Is an authoritative sermon of the LBM a Torah, or is a Dachyon that is a rabbinical sermon a rabbinate?
It is explicit in the Rambam (in the second root and in the introduction to the Mishnah) that it required that the authority of the Mishnah be the Torah.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
