Q&A: A Challenge to One of the Justifications for the Methods of Derash
A Challenge to One of the Justifications for the Methods of Derash
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the third part of the trilogy, you lay out several reasons that strengthen the credibility of the interpretive tools of derash (in Jewish law).
One of them is that the sages have nearly unlimited legislative authority, and can even uproot something from the Torah, at least through passive omission, and perhaps even through positive action.
If I understand correctly, when they interpret according to the rules of derash, that gives those interpretations the authority of Torah-level law, which is presumably stronger than the authority of their rabbinic commandments.
In other words, one could argue that they do in fact have an incentive to interpret rather than legislate, and it turns out that the credibility is not really strengthened by that claim.
What do you say?
Answer
I didn’t write anywhere that this strengthens the credibility of the interpretive tools of derash. But as for your claim: if you suspect them of acting in an interested and dishonest way, then there’s no point in the whole discussion.
Discussion on Answer
On the contrary, I completely agree. I’m only arguing that in any case the midrash has to hold water; otherwise they could simply uproot something from the Torah and wouldn’t need to offer dubious interpretations. Their goal is practical, and it doesn’t matter whether the outcome is Torah-level or rabbinic. On the contrary, a rabbinic law is harder to change (see the beginning of chapter 2 of Hilkhot Mamrim).
I didn’t say I suspect specifically self-interested conduct, but I do suspect that they want to take things in a certain direction even before they interpret them for that purpose (not necessarily out of self-interest, but because they think that’s what’s right).
You brought this argument in order to say that it’s not reasonable to think that way, and that’s what I was challenging…