Study and ruling
Hey Rabbi Michi
You said in one of your lessons between Chapters 1 – 6, I don’t remember, that somehow a lot of signs entered the Shul that shouldn’t be there – because they are not Torah (if I understand correctly)
The statement doesn’t surprise me, and it actually makes sense. I think you were quite clear and concise in your statement.
And I have a few questions for you on this subject:
- Why would there even be such an assumption that only “Torah” is written in your opinion in the Shulchan Arbiter? After all, the Shulchan Arbiter did not bother with what is “Torah” and what is not, but rather he completed, wrote, renewed, summarized, collected, every issue that concerns the halakhic practice what the sages who preceded him and who accepted the Talmud as a halakhic/theoretical basis, etc…. didn’t he?
2. And if we say this about the Shulchan, we say this about the Rishonim, the Amoraim, etc.. Is that true?
3. Your argument is also about the Talmud, right? After all, according to you, there is not only “Torah” there and you can throw a lot of pages in the trash.
Thank you very much.
I don’t think I said that about a lot of signs. I said that there are such signs, and I think my words were about the issue of congregation regulations and community leadership.
The Shulchan Aruch is supposed to contain a summary of the halakha, and what is not part of the halakha should not appear there. The medical instructions of the Rambam did not appear in the Shulchan Shulchan (nor did the Yad HaHakka).
I didn’t understand your question about the Talmud and the Rishonim.
I just wanted to make sure I understood you completely, those community regulations you mentioned were taken from the first ones who also didn't write Torah to the same extent according to your opinion... because it's a fact that they were printed with Torah responses
If I understand you correctly, the uniqueness of the Shulchan Aruch according to your opinion is to lay out Torah halakhic rulings that concern everyday life and nothing else. Is that what you mean?
I also explained there the need of the first ones for the matter. In the absence of a secular authority (king) and a Sanhedrin (which could amend regulations) they turned to the poskim.
There is nothing unique about the Shul. It is a book of halacha like any other book of halacha.
I think I understood you
Is there a situation where, in your opinion, a community custom in life will not “become”(I don't know what term is appropriate here) Halacha, and perhaps according to the Shul”a there is such a possibility?
In fact, the point of clarification is what is the place of the custom in Halacha? If there is such a place at all?
This is not a question about customs. My argument is that the category of conducting communal life does not belong to halakha. At most, it will become a custom by virtue of the fact that this is how it is done in practice, but there is no halakha here and there is no way to clarify it in light of halakhic sources and considerations.
And the fact is that no one thinks of applying these halakhas or treating communities that do not apply them as criminals.
The question of whether, despite all this, all of this has the validity of a custom is a different question. In my opinion, no.
Yes, I understand the point you made. Thank you very much, and I hope you will continue to bring a different light than what we are used to reading and hearing.
Why is the law of the Wall between partners called Torah?
A. Because it is tort law. Perhaps you mean to ask about the law of neighbors (especially P”B D”B). But they are also part of tort law.
B. Because sages in the Gemara who had authority included them in the law. Those who have authority can include additional issues in the law, such as regulations or decrees. But after the signing of the Talmud, there is no such authority. All you can do is interpret what was established in the Sanhedrin or in the Talmud.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
