Q&A: Acceptance of the Talmud
Acceptance of the Talmud
Question
Hello and blessings,
I read the article (“Hermeneutics of Canonical Texts”), and especially the comments there that you wrote in 2020.
If I understood correctly, you write there (in the comments, your later view) that when we study, we try to understand “what is written in the text” and not “what Abaye intended.” Because we accepted upon ourselves the Talmud, etc.
To be honest, I’m not really managing to understand. What is the meaning of the text if not what the Amora thought?
If someone thought of some content and poured it into words, what other meaning can that content have besides the meaning that *he* put into it?
When there is a contradiction in the Talmud, what are we looking for? To invent a possible explanation that fits our intuition? Meaning, creating Jewish law rather than discovering it?
You compared it to the laws of the Knesset, which judges interpret, but there it really is a bit of a farce—that is, the judges are bound by various words (which certainly do not have one clear meaning), and they come up with a plausible explanation (something like the principle of charity).
Am I missing something?
Thank you!
Answer
If we accepted upon ourselves some book, then what we accepted is what is written in it, not the author. But in most books that really makes no difference, because in any case neither the book nor the author has authority. We study them in order to form our own view. In the Talmud, this can be relevant.
This is not creating Jewish law but discovering it. The Jewish law is the book, not the author. Even if you look for the author’s intention, you could argue that this is creation rather than discovery—just the author’s creation rather than yours.
Discussion on Answer
If it is in the Talmud, then the resolution is meant to explain what is written, not to reconstruct what was in the author’s mind.
Thank you for the answer.
I still didn’t understand, so I’ll give an example so we don’t stay in the abstract.
Suppose there is a contradiction between two assumptions in a Talmudic passage, and we look for a resolution.
Is that resolution necessarily something that someone thought of (even if not consciously)? Or could it be that there is actually a mistake in the passage, but because we accepted it upon ourselves, we come up with a resolution that the one who made the assumptions never thought of (and in reality he would have admitted his mistake)?
What exactly are we looking for? A resolution that will allow us to live in peace with the two halakhic rulings that we accepted upon ourselves?