Talmud: Authority or Truth?
I woke up on Saturday to a wonderful comment and I was interested in hearing your thoughts on it.
Over the years, I have noticed that there are differences in approach regarding the weight of the Talmud text between Beit Yosef and the Chazo’a, while Beit Yosef gives it a secondary treatment in relation to the interpretation of the words, and Beit Yosef’s statement that the emphasis of the language is better than the emphasis of the matter, [and in fact, this can be seen in many places in Beit Yosef, where when there is a dispute about which comes first, he strongly emphasizes the language of the Gam], in contrast, the Chazo’a apparently treats the weight and the weight of the Gam seriously, and the interpretation of the words is secondary to him. In one of his collections, he even writes that one should not prolong the interpretation. I understand his point to be that the main thing is the calculation of the text, and the interpretation can be bent in favor of the text.
Now I thought that they apparently have their own opinion on this matter, because it is known what they disagreed about, namely that the Amoraim do not disagree on the Tannaim, according to the Kasam, because that is how they received it, and according to the Chazo, they are less wise than the Tannaim, because according to the Kasam, according to his opinion, the opinion of the Gamma is not necessarily correct, and because we received it, we did not only receive the text, and according to the Chazo, the Gamma is necessarily correct, and the wording of the text is important.
What do you think?
By the way, the last lesson with the real and imaginary texts of Rabbi Kook is particularly entertaining.
This is interesting because I would say exactly the opposite. The Chazo’a constantly weighs the explanation very strongly. He even writes that the intellect is the angel who guides us, etc. Indeed, Yo’od 6:15, 6:3, and more. And what should not be extended in the explanation is only because in his opinion it is difficult to convince of it (each with his own understanding) and not because the explanation is incorrect.
By the way, the Chazo’a often resorts to esoteric explanations (meaning he doesn’t say what he really thinks, such as the shattering of two thousand years of Torah and the like, but instead offers an explanation that will be accepted because the principle must be correct in his eyes), so I’m not sure he really means to say that the authority of the Gemara is due to its immense wisdom. It is possible that he estimated that people would accept it more that way, and therefore wrote what he wrote.
Regarding the Bible, it is true that it is well known that he wrote (as I believe Rabbi Si’ Rak’ah) that it is better to suppress the language than to suppress the explanation, but as someone who entered the authority of the Rishonim and ruled in a very precedent-based manner (unlike the Chazo’a), I would expect that he would stick to their language. When you come to settle one of the Rishonim, you of course have to decide to follow the language or the explanation, but the very fact that you bother to settle them all means that you are precedent-based.
The Sama has already written that the opinion of homeowners is the opposite of the opinion of Torah. As Newton said at the time, I do not assume any hypothesis?
I will think about these things some more.
Regarding the thousands of years of Torah of the prophet, you raised it for me to consider, because I understood (I don't remember from where) that you do not accept his claim on this (no wonder, a legend, did we already say?), and as I remember the words of the prophet were said regarding the trespasses that the Sages named.
Do you think that the Sages do not have authority over reality, the laws of trespasses depend on the reality we know today?
Assuming that it really depends on reality, it is clear that the laws of trepit are different today. But as we know, there are opinions that it does not depend on reality (the Maimonides distinguishes in this matter between trepit of a person and trepit of an animal).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
