Q&A: Rabbinic Exegesis
Rabbinic Exegesis
Question
Hello Honored Rabbi,
There are many passages in the Talmud that derive rabbinic commandments from verses. That seems strange, and I’ve heard people say that this is merely an asmakhta, but from the give-and-take of the Talmud it looks like it’s being taken seriously. The Talmud asks what each opinion will do with the other one’s exposition. And in general, what does asmakhta mean?
Answer
For an efficient discussion, it’s best to bring a concrete example. In general, when there is give-and-take, that is an indication that this is not an asmakhta, although because of difficulty the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim) sometimes write that despite this, it is still an asmakhta. But it is possible that originally this was a full-fledged exposition, and they later concluded that it was an asmakhta because of one difficulty or another (and you do not necessarily have to accept that conclusion).
Sometimes there is also a dispute over whether it is an asmakhta or not.
As for the question of what an asmakhta is: simply speaking, it is only a mnemonic aid or a literary expression. But some medieval authorities (Rishonim) (such as the Ritva, for example) wrote that there is something substantive in an asmakhta: it expresses the spirit of the verse even if it is not really learned from it.
Discussion on Answer
That is actually a counterexample. First, these are verses from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Second, it is clear that this is midrash, not an asmakhta. Therefore they really do ask what each of the disputants expounds from those verses.
Beyond that, the Talmud mixed in aggadic expositions here, so I would say in general that the give-and-take and the “why each one is needed” discussions are mainly for rhetorical flourish, not because there are genuine difficulties and real resolutions here. It is just a way of presenting the different expositions. In particular, see there regarding “an Ammonite, but not an Ammonite woman,” which straightforwardly is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, not an exposition from a verse (see Yevamot 77–78. Though see the Chatam Sofer on Ketubot there).
What do you mean by “rhetorical flourish”?
They want to present these ideas, and they attach them to verses, and even build a give-and-take around what so-and-so would do with such-and-such verse, and so on.
How can one rely on the rabbinic exegeses of the Sages if it is known that there are different textual versions of Scripture, some of them even earlier than the Masoretic text we have? After all, it could be that those expositions based on the hermeneutic principles rely on incorrect words that originated in error.
That is possible. We follow presumptive status, as in any doubt in Jewish law. Beyond that, the text that stood before the Sages was earlier than the one before us.
Thanks.
Here’s an example: the Talmud in Ketubot 7b brings a verse for the blessing of bridegrooms, which is rabbinic: “the Lord, from the source of Israel.” And there there is give-and-take about what the other opinion does with the verse, and that isn’t understandable if it’s merely an asmakhta.