Q&A: Questions Following What You Said About Two Weeks Ago
Questions Following What You Said About Two Weeks Ago
Question
A question following your lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SVdPzsI9Cw&t=127s
It sounded like you were dismissive of the reliability of the Sages' exposition that disqualifies a woman from testimony ("dubious interpretation"), while on the other hand you see it as a binding halakhic source. That seems dissonant to me. I would be glad if you could explain your attitude toward unclear expositions found in the Sages, such as this one. How do you relate to a lack of interpretive logic, or lack of necessity, or forcedness in them, and nevertheless treat them as something serious and binding?
Answer
I didn't listen to the lecture again, but I don't think you understood me correctly. What I say is that the expositions sometimes came to support a reasoning process—something like an exposition used as support, but supporting reasoning rather than tradition—and when the reasoning changes, the Jewish law derived from them will change as well. I demonstrated this with the exposition that disqualifies women from testimony, since it really does seem problematic and not grounded in the text.
Beyond that, the authority of the Sages is not based on their being more correct, but on the fact that we accepted them upon ourselves. Therefore, even if I do not accept the exposition, I still have to accept its halakhic conclusion. The authority of the Knesset is also not based on its necessarily being right, and there is an obligation to uphold its decisions even where I do not agree with them.
Discussion on Answer
First, there aren't many. Second, even if there are many—most of them can be attributed to the loss of the skill of these expositions (I don't understand how they interpreted). Third, even if I became convinced that an exposition has no substance, that doesn't mean the bottom line is incorrect. After all, I explained that in these cases the expositions come to support a reasoning process (for example, even if you don't accept the exposition from the word "et" that comes to include reverence for Torah scholars, it may still be that reverence for a Torah scholar is a correct law. In the case of women, the result is not reasonable for our times, so the fact that the exposition is dubious has significance, and even there the Talmud has authority unless I reach the conclusion that it was not speaking about the women of our time). Fourth, even if everything is dubious—it is still the law. The validity of Knesset laws is not contingent on my agreement. There is "do not deviate."
The first three things you said put my mind at ease.
As for your fourth statement—I still don't understand how, if the laws are dubious, I would accept them upon myself. Isn't that disrespect toward the position of the Sages, and as a result disobedience to the Sages? Why would I accept upon myself a dubious system of laws?
Let me ask you positively: what is the foundation that causes the Jewish people to accept upon themselves the laws of the Sages?
It seems to me that what was accepted as authoritative was not the Sages, but the Talmud. We are not talking about people, but about a text or textual corpus. In my opinion, the reason for this is technical: without it, when the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world, nothing would have remained of us. It was necessary to establish a framework within which the halakhic discourse would be conducted throughout the world. I've written about this several times. See a short explanation at the end of this thread:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%A7%D7%96%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA
If many of the Sages' expositions don't fit with your straightforward reasoning or don't seem textually grounded to you, why do you see a need to accept them upon yourself? It's not one or two expositions—it's a lot… How is it intellectually honest to accept lots of Jewish laws that are built on almost nothing?