Q&A: On the Border Between Thought and Jewish Law
On the Border Between Thought and Jewish Law
Question
I heard a lecture by the Rabbi about the deficiency that exists in the world of thought because of the lack of precision in defining concepts, the influence of the surrounding world, and so on…
If I have a question about a passage in the Talmud, and after deep and genuine study there is no simple way to resolve the passage except through a spiritual/philosophical explanation that resolves it perfectly, then seemingly that is a kind of quasi-halakhic grounding, no? (I know of this kind of learning approach in a certain yeshiva, and I’m interested to know what level of grounding the Rabbi gives it.)
And also, what is the path the Rabbi proposes for reaching the world of thought through Jewish law? How does one do that?
Answer
Hello.
Indeed, except that usually that is not the situation. Personally, I do not believe in “spiritual” resolutions to questions in a halakhic passage. Usually either it can be resolved in a conceptual Talmudic way, or there is no resolution. The “spiritual” explanations are usually an escape into “constructive ambiguity.”
If you mean Yeshivat Ma’alot, I do not find this there.
I do not have algorithms for this (that is part of the problem with the field). Each person builds it as he understands it. The only advice I have is to ask at least one more “why?” question after finishing the regular analysis. The answers you arrive at will be your own school of thought.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, there is no deductive algorithm, but I get the impression that there is an internal logic. Not everyone just does whatever they feel like. My impression is that the Sages understood what they were talking about, and even when there was a dispute, it was conducted within an agreed discourse. That does not happen in the realm of thought. Everyone puts forward his own musings without any real basis, and there is no way to examine, clarify, and decide. It is a collection of monads that do not really speak to one another. Moreover, in the realm of Jewish law there is decision and there is authority, which is not the case in the realm of thought.
Thank you, and yes, I was talking about Ma’alot…
The Thirteen Hermeneutical Principles also didn’t have an algorithm, and it looked as if everyone just did whatever they felt like…
Are you saying there is no algorithm as a description of the current situation, or that by definition you don’t think an algorithm can be developed for this?