The authority of the sages of Israel to demand verses after the destruction
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to understand a little more about the authority of the Talmud and the sages in general. (Of course, I had studied Rambam in the Commentaries and the Commentaries there before.) We are bound by the words of the Great Court because “you shall not depart,” and supposedly only they have the authority to demand verses and to amend regulations (especially against the Pasha).
After the destruction, the Talmudic court wrote their commentaries on the Mishnah, and we have taken upon ourselves to act in these commentaries in accordance with the words of the Great Court (to require a Great Court in wisdom and in the relevant places, etc.), and this is simple and clear.
Now, assuming that “La Tesur” refers only to the Sanhedrin, the question arises, why in the first place do the (later) Mishnah or Talmud scholars themselves have the authority to demand verses and the like against the plain text? This is only permitted for the Sanhedrin, isn’t it? Similarly, why are they allowed to amend regulations themselves? (This explanation is clear. But from the verse “La Tesur” it seems that it is only for the Sanhedrin..)
It is clear that, if it is within their authority, I have the right to impose the procedures of the Great Court on them, for I have the right to accept any stricture (as long as it does not contradict the plain meaning), but it seems to me that in later regulations that removed a commandment (blow the shofar on Shabbat) or changed verses from their plain meaning (eye for eye), it is not clear why this is legitimate… (Even in Rambam, he refers to the requirement of verses only to the Great Court and relates only to it the phrase “do not deviate”).
(All of this, of course, refers only to new regulations and interpretations, and not to ancient Sanhedrin traditions that they put down in writing)
thanks
It is accepted among the jurists that the Talmud has a law in the Great Council because the whole of Israel has accepted their authority. According to Maimonides, it is simple to renew the ordination “from below.” But perhaps everyone thinks that the consent of the whole community is beneficial (and not the sages of the Land of Israel, as Maimonides wrote and caused controversy). See also Beit Yishai, Sermons 615 on the authority of public acceptance, as a kind of validity of public acceptance that is due to public acceptance. Beyond that, there is the educational theory that the sages must have authority to interpret and teach the Torah, and this should not change when there is no Sanhedrin. Indeed, according to this, if a consensus is formed today, it will also be binding.
The Rabbi's answer is useful in retrospect, but in their time, where did they get their authority? After all, we even find that in the place of Rebbe of Galilee, they ate chicken in milk according to his sermons. In general, the Tannaim taught and ruled each one for his students from the very Torah and according to the standards that everyone taught.
Can any person simply teach in the Torah? So what is the Sanhedrin useful for? What is its power?
First, poultry in milk is a rabbinical prohibition.
Second, any person can use the homily to preach to himself and to others. The difference between him and the Sanhedrin is that a sermon given in the Sanhedrin is binding on everyone. This is just like any halachic instruction, which a person can make for himself, but a Sanhedrin instruction is binding on everyone.
When the authority of the Talmud was accepted, its sermons were also accepted as binding.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
