They do not demand a reason for reading and interpreting the scripture.
Is there a relationship between them? That is, does Rav Shimon believe that the verses of the Torah should be seen as written decrees and that one should not seek their meaning and logic, which is above human reason?
You mean Rabbi Yehuda, not the R.S., who demands a reason to read.
The concept of the gezirat of the text does not always appear with the same meaning. Each place and its context. As a rule, Rabbi Yehuda only says that one should not use the reason to interpret the verse according to the law. But in his opinion, one can of course interpret the verse and its reasons in order to learn and understand. Therefore, there is no necessarily an assumption here that this is the gezirat of the text. Furthermore, in my article on the fifth root, I extended the Maimonides’ method on this, and I showed that in his opinion one does not require a reason to read not because we do not understand the reason, since this is also applied to the commandments whose reason the Torah itself writes (such as “He shall not multiply wives for him” in the King).
I understand.
And regarding gazhak (in the sense of no reasoning or logic), is it a retrospective concept, which is applied only when we have not found a reasoning, or does it also belong to the level of the beginning, meaning that we all already know in advance that it is gazhak and we should not look for a reasoning for it?
N.M., when a law has been defined as gazhak, can someone else come and claim that he has found a reasoning, and then this law loses its subtitled ruling, or if this law was once defined as gazhak, is it a sign that in essence it is like that and it will not change.
It is certainly possible and appropriate to seek an explanation. See my articles on conspiring witnesses and the decree of Scripture and in the article on the fifth root.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
