The Authority of the Gemara and the Evaluation of the Wisdom and Morality of the Amoraim
In honor of Rabbi Michael Shalom,
She asked me-
I see expressions in the Gemara that seem to me incorrect and harmful regarding women and the peoples of the lands. (Like there was a rabbi who wanted his daughter to die so that people would not look at her beauty, or that the evil inclination was created with the woman, or that it is appropriate to tear the peoples of the lands like fish, and there are many more.)
To me, this indicates a not-so-high moral standard on the part of the writer.
Should I then accept the words of the Amoraim just because they were ordained to the rabbinate? After all, the rabbis themselves ordained themselves in place of the priests, claiming that the priests were incorruptible. The Sadducees and priests continued to believe that the Pharisees were wrong.
So if the moral validity of Chazal does not stand up to them, doesn’t the foundation on which they relied fall, in your opinion?
But the main thing is – how can one receive Torah from someone whose character is not correct? “And if he does not appear to you as the angel of the Lord of hosts, let them not seek Torah from his mouth.”
With many thanks and best wishes,
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a difference between the laws of the Knesset and the laws of the Torah.
The laws of the Knesset are chosen out of choice to establish a social order, because otherwise – one would swallow one's life. And at the same time, there are individual freedoms, which balance the duty of obedience.
On the other hand, the laws of the Torah come to correct the soul and the social-moral order. And they are also valid for what a person does in his private rooms.
How can one compare?
A. In order to correct morally, one must be moral, otherwise how will you know what you are talking about?
B. There is no survival need for the laws of the Gemara as in the laws of the Knesset.
I agree regarding the laws of justice between a man and his fellow man and the laws of the Temple and other laws that require a social decision that must rely on the Gemara, but why trust the sages of the Gemara, for example, in the laws of prayer and matters between the sexes? (In which there can be a halachic agreement between the spouses)
The sages of the Gemara were also chosen to establish religious order and provide a framework for Halacha. I see no difference.
Do you see the Gemara as a halachic framework and religious order? So in your opinion, is it possible to deviate from it according to personal or family understanding, like a state law when a special contract is written between several people?
Ostensibly, if the Gemara only comes to govern a religious order or framework, then as soon as there is a family organization around a different order, say an agreement on how a sukkah or kiddush should be, or when the individual feels that it is more appropriate for him to recite the blessing in prayer in a different way, then the Gemara is only interesting as a suggestion.
I'm talking about a binding religious order. The law does not allow anyone to deviate from it even if the whole world agrees on it. There is contract law in which there is freedom of contract, and this is also true in Halacha.
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed writes in the latest Revivim column, in the Besheva newspaper:
“That is, when the people of Israel are seated in their land with all their systems – Temple, monarchy, priesthood, prophecy, judges and police, and the members of the Great Court represent the entire people and their sages in a complete manner, they have the authority to decide. However, when the situation of the people of Israel weakens, they are unable to establish a great court with authority, and then the authority returns to the entire people and the decision-making process becomes complicated and lasts for generations. However, since the Torah was given to the people of Israel, in the end the people of Israel decides.
Thus, in the days of the first and the last, we find different opinions on every issue, and over time, some of the opinions were rejected completely, some were remembered as individual opinions that are sometimes taken into account, and some were accepted as central opinions. Who decided this? The sages and the public alike. Sometimes most of the sages wanted to decide in one way, and the public decided according to the opinion of the few sages, such as in the new prohibition and shaking in public domain. This is the “acceptance of the nation” in the words of Maran Rav Kook zt”l.”
And it is clear that this explains the authority of the Talmud
https://revivim.yhb.org.il/2018/06/07/%d7%a8%d7%91%d7%a0%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9b%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%99%d7%99%d7%a6%d7%92-%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%94%d7%a2%d7%9d/
There was a Sanhedrin and it was not to be abandoned even when there was no king and no prophet. Not to exaggerate. On this matter, Rabbi Fisher elaborated in Beit Yishai Ch. 2 (Dereshot) 15.
And yet there is an innovation in the sentence: “However, since the Torah was given to the people of Israel, in the end the people of Israel decides.”. Accepting the Torah according to this is not just passive but actually active. The power of decision is given to the people of Israel and it precedes the words of the sages. The Sanhedrin and not Tesor is a delegation of authority when there is a Temple, but the source remains in the hands of the people.
(Unfortunately, the book Beit Yishai is not in my possession)
I will ask Oren to insert this sign from the house of Yishai here.
Please:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZJWSUJ_PCTfJ0N1HM5VGVh39mNA0EOxH
Thank you very much.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
