The strength of the credibility of tradition versus reliable testimony.
On today’s daily page. Shabbat Seg:
“El Abaye and Titz is a cloth, and the Tanya is like a kind of gold plate, two fingers wide and encircled from ear to ear, and it is written on it in the Hebrew script, “Yod” 51 above, and “Kodesh to the Lord” below. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Yossi, said, “I saw it in the city of Rome, and it is written “Kodesh to the Lord” in one style.”
It is explained that even though he brought the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer, they did not accept his words about the appearance of tradition, and preferred to rely on tradition.
And it seems that they believed that in retrospect, the one who saw it was kosher in retrospect, and it is possible that they once did such a thing in retrospect.
Here we see the relationship between facts and tradition, that if a fact can be explained retrospectively, there is a stronger place for the accepted tradition.
The oblivion of tradition seems to be strong in this case as well, and as such, where there is no evidence one way or the other, the tradition is not understood.
Does the Rabbi disagree with my conclusion?
And so is the explanation in the above verse.
It is impossible to set firm boundaries on this. It depends on how strong the credibility of the tradition is in their eyes, and how difficult it is from an explanation or a reading. Each case is different. It is like the question of whether to prefer to be strict in language or in explanation. It is a completely undefined question (the question of how strict it is in language versus how strict it is in explanation).
Why doesn't the above case constitute evidence that tradition is even stronger than reliable testimony?
Tam – Why do you assume that they disagree on the conclusion? Maybe Abaye also agrees with Ra”a because he brings evidence, and therefore they go like Ra”a.
In short, your assumptions in the question are also really unnecessary.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
