Q&A: Tractate Sanhedrin, Sefer Yetzirah
Tractate Sanhedrin, Sefer Yetzirah
Question
A question about the Rabbi’s approach regarding Kabbalah: in tractate Sanhedrin 65b, the story appears there about Sefer Yetzirah and the golem. It seems that all the rabbis of that period treated it as authentic and had no problem with it. Does that mean Sefer Yetzirah should be granted absolute legitimacy? How does the Rabbi relate to Kabbalah, if it is known that he “does not grant any legitimacy to kabbalistic theology and that Judaism is specifically Jewish law”?
And a second question: it seems that the Rabbi does not attribute any significance to aggadic literature, but aggadah is very often the metaphysical layer of Jewish law, especially in Torah-level laws. So how can one nevertheless say that it has no significance? In addition to that, the Tannaim and Amoraim did in fact relate extensively and respectfully to aggadah. It seems that the Judaism the Rabbi is trying to present conceptually does not fit the objective picture of how to understand what the Tannaim and Amoraim really thought. But I may be completely mistaken, and perhaps there is a different way to look at it.
Answer
Absolutely not. Who said the Sages were right? And furthermore, who said that the Sefer Yetzirah we have in our hands is the book referred to there?
Aggadah is not the metaphysical layer of Jewish law. That is far too sweeping a statement. But even if it were, the obligation to Jewish law is not because it is correct, but because it has binding force. Explanations and aggadic teachings do not have that kind of force. Therefore, for example, you can be obligated by a socialist halakhic system without being a socialist.
My attitude toward aggadah cannot be judged based on what various Jews thought or wrote, important as they may be. My claim is that there is no way to seriously learn anything from it. Whoever claims otherwise should demonstrate it. Declarations by supremely holy people that it is very important to study aggadah do not help me. My claim is that in practice there is no way to do so.
To the best of my understanding, aggadah is nothing more than the kind of homiletics we know today, except that it was said and written back then. That does not turn it into something else. And by the way, my attitude toward aggadah already appears among the Geonim and in Nachmanides in the Disputation, and elsewhere. So this approach also has precedent, although as I said, there is no real need for that.
Discussion on Answer
At the very least, when you ask me for a less vague answer, after I wrote clearly and plainly, don’t insert contradictions into that very message itself.
I said that the authority of the Sages does not stem from the fact that they were right; you yourself mention that, and then write the opposite of it (at the beginning of your message).
In short, I see no point in this discussion. My approach is explained in many places, including on the site. If you disagree — health to you.
It’s true that the answer wasn’t vague; it was simply absurd, and therefore I dismissed it from the outset because I did not imagine that this could be considered a legitimate answer. About that I have only one thing to say: what you believe is something like the Catholic Church that was in Rome. And no, I do not believe for a single moment that they are God and have authority to do whatever they want without limits, and that God told them so — certainly not. And that there is obligation whether they are right or not, an obligation independent of everything — I already showed an example that this is not true based on testimony that they themselves did not think that way. It is simply a primitive legislative authority more than a thousand years old.
So now my answer was not vague. That did not stop you from writing that it was. It seems impossible to get two sentences from you that are consistent with each other. Fine then — may we all have a happy holiday.
What I meant was that the intent was vague, not the answer. Also, there is a loophole in “Jewish law without aggadah”: according to what you hold, I have no obligation whatsoever to believe in a mass revelation at Mount Sinai (tractates Shabbat 88a, Makkot 23b, Megillah 31b) as long as they are considered aggadah. Regarding principles of faith taken from tractate Sanhedrin, why should I accept that they can force beliefs on me? Just because a judge or rabbi says I must believe some story does not necessarily mean it happened, only that I am obligated to believe the story by virtue of the binding force you mentioned. But all their legitimacy derives from revelation, so this is a circular loophole. Happy holiday.
As best I understand, when you say, “Who said the Sages were right?” — after all, you base your whole world on the fact that the Sages were right and that they have the tradition; you have nothing else to base it on. And regarding the metaphysical layer, there is a lot of evidence in the Talmud pointing to that, for example tractate Kiddushin 69b about “intermingling” and “conversion.” How do I know Sefer Yetzirah is that same book? Everyone testifies to that, just like I rely on the fact that the Pharisees say they have a tradition from Ezra, etc. I didn’t really understand what methodology you are working with, except that even if the Sages were mistaken, you still have to do what they say? That is absurd, and it is also based on the evidence of individuals. Just like Sefer Yetzirah — were they right? I don’t know. I didn’t claim such a thing. You are the one who has to establish some basis. In tractate Chagigah they show how much aggadah built Judaism. The Geonim you mentioned agree with me, so I didn’t understand why you brought them as proof. I would appreciate a more structured and less vague answer.