Q&A: Halakhic Determinations of the Sages Without a Source
Halakhic Determinations of the Sages Without a Source
Question
To Rabbi Michi
What authority do the Sages have to establish rulings without a source, such as a woman's singing voice, or a woman's calf, etc.?
Answer
If indeed there is no source, then this could be one of three mechanisms:
- A rabbinic decree or enactment.
- An interpretation of the text.
- Reasoning.
Explanation of #2: In many cases, this is an interpretation of something that does appear in a verse. For example, the prohibition of approaching forbidden sexual relationships, which appears in the Torah, and the Sages interpret it (based on their reasoning or on various interpretive considerations), or determine its parameters (in the sense that Scripture entrusted this to the Sages).
In all these cases they have authority, and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagreed about its source. Regarding enactments and decrees, according to Maimonides it comes from "do not turn aside," and Nachmanides disagrees (and his view is not clear. I discussed this at length in my book The Spirit of the Law). In interpretation and exegesis of verses, the authority comes by virtue of "do not turn aside" (and here Nachmanides also agrees). And likewise regarding reasoning: in that respect, each person has authority for himself, but rulings of the Sages obligate everyone.
Discussion on Answer
1. Of course there are also laws transmitted to Moses at Sinai, but those are not determinations of the Sages; they are a tradition they transmit.
2. There are also supporting derashot, if that's what you mean. And again, these are not determinations of the Sages but a tradition that passes through them. That is essentially a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai.
Thanks,
How do you distinguish between supporting derashot and derashot that are merely textual supports for rabbinic determinations?
A. What practical difference does it make?
B. If I'm not mistaken, many times in the Talmud they say: "It was learned as a tradition, and the verse is merely a textual support" (I found this in Pesachim 81a), as opposed to just "the verse is merely a textual support" or "rabbinic, and the verse is merely a textual support." Maybe that's an indicator.
I didn't understand the phrase "derashot that are textual supports for rabbinic determinations." Do you mean what is called "merely a textual support"? There are no clear criteria for distinguishing between them. There are various indications. In most cases, the medieval authorities (Rishonim) determine that a certain derashah is merely a textual support if there is evidence that the Jewish law derived from it is rabbinic.
Student of wisdom,
A. The practical difference is whether it is Torah-level or rabbinic.
B. Those are two types of textual support (I seem to recall that the Encyclopedia Talmudit, entry "Asmachta," noted this). "It was learned as a tradition" is usually a Torah-level law, and the derashah that comes to support it is the textual support. By contrast, when they say "the verse is merely a textual support," they mean a rabbinic law. Is that what you meant?
I distinguished in my remarks between full-fledged derashot and textual supports, not between two types of textual supports.
Rabbi, hello,
1. Aren't there also determinations whose source is actually the Oral Torah itself—traditions transmitted from Sinai?
2. Do all the derashot of the Sages belong to the 3 categories above, or perhaps they are really just providing textual support for a tradition already in their hands?