Q&A: Expounding the Torah in Light of Maimonides’ Words
Expounding the Torah in Light of Maimonides’ Words
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I came across Maimonides in Laws of Rebels (2:1), where he says that any religious court may expound the Torah on matters derived through the thirteen hermeneutical principles (not the part of the thirteen principles that expresses a tradition).
I wanted to ask: is this Maimonides’ view universally accepted? Does Maimonides agree with the Kesef Mishneh there, that they accepted upon themselves not to disagree across generational gaps? Maimonides himself writes something similar in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah, so Maimonides’ words are not clear to me.
Does the Rabbi think this will be renewed in the future? Is there room for this in our generation? What conditions are we waiting for in order to do this?
And if so, how much of it would be study of the plain meaning of the Torah, and how much would be the thirteen principles?
Thank you very much.
(I would especially appreciate sources; I want to study the topic in depth.)
Answer
I didn’t understand which principles “express a tradition.” Do you mean supporting derashot?
In any case, I know of no source that requires ordination or membership in the Sanhedrin as a condition for using the hermeneutical principles. As far as I know, there is no basis for that anywhere. Therefore Maimonides assumes in several places that there is no such limitation. Moreover, it is not only any religious court; logically, any person could do so. Of course, a person’s derivation obligates only himself and not others, so we speak about a religious court. But in principle even that is not required. The hermeneutical principles are interpretive tools like any other interpretation, and therefore every person should use them.
I also did not understand the question of whether Maimonides agrees with the Kesef Mishneh. The Kesef Mishneh says this as an interpretation of Maimonides. I also did not understand the connection to the previous question. You present them as though they were the same question.
This will be renewed when we have enough confidence that we understand how to derive properly. The problem is not authority but skill. This is one of the reasons I devoted several years to researching derash, in an attempt to contribute to renewing the field. It ought to be renewed, but unfortunately I have not merited prophecy, so I cannot say whether it will actually happen.
I did not understand the question whether this would be study of the plain meaning or the thirteen principles. What exactly would be plain meaning or principles? Would Torah derivations through the principles be plain meaning or principles?
I have no sources, nor is there any need to rely on them. These things seem entirely simple to me, in my humble opinion. Instead of dealing with the question of whether the derivations will be renewed and under what conditions, it would be better to engage in the hermeneutical principles and in derash itself, in the spirit of: “Do not say, ‘The day will come’; bring the day.”
Discussion on Answer
The question about plain meaning or the principles is this: according to Maimonides, would the learning proceed by way of the thirteen hermeneutical principles, or would the plain meaning of the Torah itself also serve as a parameter?
In my humble opinion, and begging the Rabbi’s pardon, saying that the matter is simple does not help me, because to me it is not simple.
(As for bringing the day ourselves, Rabbi Kook writes there in that letter that whoever does so before the proper time is among those who destroy the nation.)
I looked for sources on the matter, but I found only Rabbi Kook’s words. If the Rabbi has additional sources, I would be glad.
Thank you very much.
There is no contradiction at all between Maimonides and the Kesef Mishneh. On the contrary, the Kesef Mishneh starts from Maimonides’ point of departure that every generation can disagree with its predecessors, and therefore he asks why the Amoraim do not disagree with the Tannaim, and why we do not disagree with the Amoraim. To this he answers that we accepted their authority upon ourselves. So everyone agrees that every generation can formulate derashot, advance logical arguments, and offer interpretations. However, regarding authority, if there is a derivation against the Talmud, it will not be accepted as Jewish law. But that is not unique to derashot. Exactly the same is true of rulings and interpretations that are not midrashic.
Rabbi Kook raises a hypothesis based on his own reasoning. That is of course his right, but it has no halakhic basis. It is not a halakhic requirement but a spiritual assessment of what will happen. As I wrote, there is no halakhic limitation on using derashot. And the same applies to bringing the day ourselves. Whoever is able to rule, interpret, and reason can also expound, so long as he has the skill. It is only a question of knowledge.
I still do not understand the question. What people will do in the future is what they always did: interpretation with plain-sense elements and midrashic elements. What is the question? Do you think they will do only midrash and no plain meaning, or the reverse? Why? I really do not understand what the discussion is about.
What sources do you want? I did not see in your words a question that requires clarification, and that is why I wrote that there are no sources and none are needed. If there is a specific question, I would be happy if you wrote it and we’ll see. At this point I haven’t seen one.
If the Rabbi is speaking about expounding Torah without practical legal implications, that is not what I mean. And certainly that can be done, and there is nothing new in that.
I do not think Maimonides is speaking about a religious court’s expounding in general, but about expounding the Torah for practical Jewish law. That is what I mean: will this be renewed, or will religious courts never do this again, because they accepted the previous generation upon themselves, as the Kesef Mishneh says?
If I understood correctly—the Rabbi does not agree that this will be renewed in the future?
As for the thirteen principles—how much does the Rabbi think they are an expression of the plain meaning of the Torah, and how much are they other types of derivations that do not express the straightforward understanding of the Torah?
I do not understand this discussion. I explained that in my opinion this can indeed return, and that there is no contradiction between actually making a derivation and the authority of the Talmud, except where the result of the derivation contradicts Talmudic Jewish law. There is no problem at all with a new derivation aside from skill. And even with respect to the authority of the Talmud, that too can change when the generation decides that the Talmud has lost its authority. The mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted. Just as ordination can be renewed, so too can the authority to disagree with the Talmud be renewed.
Derash is not an expression of the plain meaning but a parallel explanatory plane. I discussed this at length at the beginning of the second section of my book The Spirit of Justice. See also the series of articles by Hanska in HaMaayan, 1977–78.
Yes, I mean supporting derashot.
Indeed these are separate questions. Does Maimonides agree with the Kesef Mishneh, when apparently their tendencies are opposite—Maimonides says that every great religious court has the authority to expound the Torah, whereas the Kesef Mishneh says that in practice this can be done only in that same generation, but afterward one can no longer disagree. Would Maimonides agree with the Kesef Mishneh (so that in effect his words are much more narrowly limited)?
For example, Rabbi Kook (Letters, vol. 1, no. 90) writes that this will happen only when we are spiritually and physically complete. Is the Rabbi saying that there is no need to wait for that?