Q&A: If It's Based on Reasoning, Why Do I Need a Verse?
If It's Based on Reasoning, Why Do I Need a Verse?
Question
I’m currently reading the third book in the trilogy. At the beginning you wrote that one should distinguish between a verse that commands and a verse that states something. Later you wrote that every transgression has two aspects: the content and the command. The content can be learned from reasoning, but in the end it still lacks a command. For a command, someone has to command it.
In light of that, I didn’t really understand the Talmudic claim, “It is based on reasoning, so why do I need a verse?” What do you mean—the verse comes precisely to add the dimension of command!
I would appreciate an explanation.
Answer
I don’t understand the question. Reasoning is not a fact. For example, one can argue that if there is a logical reason that murder is forbidden, then the verse that forbids murder is unnecessary.
Discussion on Answer
And therefore? I agree. That really is the answer to why a verse is written even when there is reasoning.
The question “why do I need a verse? It is based on reasoning” arises only in contexts that are not commandments or prohibitions. For example, “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permits,” or “the burden of proof is on the one seeking to extract from another.” There we are dealing with a halakhic principle that is not a commandment or a prohibition. In such a case, if the matter is clear from reasoning, then the verse is unnecessary. I discussed this at length in my article on logical inferences.
Ah, nice. I understand. Thanks.
What I mean is that the verse comes to add the dimension of command (and therefore it is not unnecessary).