The path of the sermon around the parable of the rebellious son and the teacher
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask about the method of sermonizing surrounding the parsha of the son of a rebel and a teacher. You already said that there are two types of sermon, a creative sermon and a supporting sermon. But it seems that the method of sermonizing in the parsha of the son of a rebel and a teacher is of a completely different type. A kind of sermon motivated by the goal of narrowing the application of the parsha. If we look at the Mishnah level, the level of absurdity of the sermon there is relatively low but still exists, for example: “We do not listen to our voice, and we are not deaf,” but when we reach the Gemara level, things are completely out of proportion there, for example: “Rabbi Huna said, ‘He is not obligated until he buys cheap meat and eats cheap wine and drinks, as it is written, ‘Zol 1: 1-2 and Sova.'”
Maimonides explains the matter this way: “This eating that he is obligated to do – there are many things about it, and they are all halakha from the mouth of Kabbalah .”
That is, according to the Rambam’s method, the sermon here is a sermon based on somech. The Sages accepted the tradition that the meat should be cheap meat, and based this on the verse “Zolal and Soba.” But according to this method, why not simply say what the halakha was handed down in tradition without attaching it to the verses in such a delusional way?
I remember that in the past you called this an abusive sermon (or that the Sages abused these verses). If it is an abusive sermon, then it seems that you mean that it is not a matter of tradition, but that the Sages themselves created this abuse. But how can it be that the Sages use the tool of the sermon to abuse the verse? After all, a sermon is an interpretive tool that is intended to strive for the true and correct interpretation, and not to arrive at the desired interpretation. Furthermore, if the Sages wanted to limit the application of this verse, why don’t they simply say what the reason is, without playing with sermons in such a strange way.
These are indeed very difficult sermons. If it is a matter of tradition, then so be it. The question of why a certain sermon is needed is asked about every certain sermon, since it is always possible to state the halakha without finding a sermon for it (perhaps it could be explained that after we have found a certain sermon, the verse is understood and no other sermons should be required from it, and therefore there is a point in this).
But if this is not a tradition, then it is very difficult to accept that such abuse is a sufficient condition to take a verse out of context. It basically means that you can do whatever you want. I don’t have a good answer to that side.
It seems to me that this is the foundation that underlies the issues of “in our hearing, read as it is written,” regarding the wayward son and the remote city.
As for the side that is being discussed, tradition is something that should be better known to the generation of the Tannaim than to the generation of the Amoraim (because they are closer to the source). So, why is the tradition regarding the condition that the meat be cheap not brought to us in the Mishnah, and suddenly it appears in the Gemara? Furthermore, it is a bit strange that there are disputes over the way the parasha demands if it is a tradition and a certain teaching. For example: “Rabbi Yehuda says if his mother was not like his father in voice and appearance and stature, he would not become a rebellious son and a teacher. Why would he say, "Read, we do not hear, we hear with our ears
Traditions are sometimes passed down orally. It depends on the editorial considerations of the Rabbi. The Bereituot and the Tosefta will prove it.
It is possible that there was a tradition that a rebellious son is not applicable, and it was left to the sages to demand and interpret to arrive at this. This also explains how the Tanna knew that a rebellious son would not be.
I meant that the discussion of whether this is abuse or a certain doctrine is at the root of the “read as it is” issues.
Quite often the feeling arises that they did not believe in the Torah from heaven.
It seems that they saw the morality in the Torah as primitive, and they did everything to straighten the crooked line of the Torah, including using crooked tools.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
