Q&A: Regarding the Rabbi’s approach to ukimtot
Regarding the Rabbi’s approach to ukimtot
Question
I read the Rabbi’s article, “A Platonic View of Ukimtot.”
I too was greatly troubled by the issue of ukimtot in the Talmud, and the various approaches to it did not seem convincing to me. But the Rabbi’s approach definitely made more sense to me, and I very much enjoyed reading his analysis of the Talmudic discussions according to his approach (especially tractate Pesachim). I still have a number of problems:
- How can the Rabbi’s approach be read into the words of the amoraim? At first glance it seems far-fetched to explain that this is what they actually meant according to the straightforward reading of the Talmud.
- The Rabbi rejected every approach that claims the amoraim did in fact disagree with the tannaim in an “elegant” way, on the grounds that this lacks intellectual honesty and it is hard to believe that this is how the amoraim treated the Mishnah. But according to the approach that holds that the supremacy of the Mishnah comes from its absolute acceptance among the amoraim, and in a case where they find a problem in the Mishnah their commitment is only to the wording, there is some logic to the idea of an “elegant” dispute. In addition, isn’t there an advantage to such an approach because it fits the straightforward reading better—that perhaps the amoraim really did disagree with the Mishnah?
- According to the Rabbi’s approach, aren’t there many halakhic ramifications? If so, there is a problem, since we do not find that the medieval authorities (Rishonim) or later authorities (Acharonim) viewed the Talmud this way, and there would seem to be a need to go passage by passage and check how the law developed.
- I would be glad if the Rabbi could explain the Talmud’s ukimta in the passage “If one found scattered produce” in Bava Metzia 21a.
The Mishnah says: “If one found scattered fruits … they are his.”
Rabbi Yitzhak defines the degree of scattering: “A kav within four cubits.”
Rav Ukva bar Hama explains the case: “We are dealing with a threshing-floor gathering place.”
Thank you very much, Rabbi!
Answer
- I don’t see why this is forced in the language of the amoraim.
- Even if the commitment is only to the wording, a ukimta empties the words of their content. Every challenge from a Mishnah to an amora, I would expect, could be resolved with a ukimta. There is no problem making ukimtot in any case, and therefore objections from mishnayot lose their significance. The fact is that this is not done in many cases.
- I showed practical ramifications in the passages I discussed. This is a general question, and one has to check in each passage whether there are ramifications and whether they are not brought up. Sometimes they are brought up, but it is not presented as a consequence of the conception of ukimta (as in the Beitzah passage), but one can understand that it is indeed a consequence.
- Mekhanashta de-vei darei is a ukimta that comes to present a situation in which the manner of falling or being placed has no significance; only considerations of effort are relevant (degree of scattering versus value). Rabbi Yitzhak, who sets a measure for scattering, is necessarily speaking about such a situation (because otherwise there is no meaning to setting a measure for scattering, as the Talmud itself asks). Note that this is a ukimta for the amora, not for the Mishnah.
Discussion on Answer
1. Indeed, that is what the Mishnah means. That is, that is the case it is dealing with. All the terminology of laboratory conditions and the like is irrelevant to the matter. It is a modern formulation meant to clarify a simple principle, and the amoraim could make use of it without any philosophy.
2. But then no amoraic opinion would ever be rejected because of an argument based on a Mishnah or Talmudic passage. Whenever necessary, they would make a ukimta. And in general, it is a pointless game. If you can always reconcile your opinion with the Mishnah, then why raise an objection at all? Just say that you disagree, and that’s it.
With pleasure,
1. On a simple reading of the Talmud, it seems they were simply claiming that this is what the Mishnah means. Obviously you can’t really think that, but from there to moving from an abstract world into laboratory conditions and so on—that seems difficult.
2. One could answer that the amoraim simply aspired to use ukimtot as little as possible, and therefore an objection from a tannaitic source is a problem. That is, there is an aspiration to stick to the plain meaning of the words, but when that is impossible they set up the words in some particular way.
Have a good week, and thanks again, Rabbi!