Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Breakdown of the Halakhic System - Two Earth-Shattering Shiurim - Exclusive
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:12:55 AM ---
You are correct some are based on sevarah or mesorah, I do agree with that but that doesn't contradict what I"m saying. A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.
All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
--- End quote ---
That Torah commandment applies only to a Sanhedrin. If it applied to every individual opinion then it would be a D'Oraitha commandment to put on tefilin on Shabbath because Rabbah Bar Bar Hana is certainly a valid source. It would ALSO be a D'Oraitha commandment NOT to put on tefilin on Shabbath because of the valid opinion of the Hakhamim. Perhaps a real Post-Modern philosopher can wrap his brain around that but I would rather go with the tried and true method of study described by the Ramban in his Haqdamah to Milhamoth Hashem, the Maharshal in his Haqdamah to Yam Shel Shlomo, the Rambam in his Haqdamah to Mishne Torah and all the great sages over the ages before this modern era.
Lubab:
As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:12:55 AM ---<snip>
A mesorah would be quoting someone else who must have used the 13 principles and sevarah is what is logical, but the thirteen principles really are the essence of logic so they are not really two separate things.
All valid Rabbinic opinions do in a sense carry Biblical weight because the Torah commands that we follow their directives "Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
--- End quote ---
mesorah is tradition.
and I assume sevarah means reasoning. Though I am not sure.
1) rabbi yishmael's 13 rules are Not logic.
infact, rabbi dovid gottlieb, former prof philosophy and PhD in mathematical deduction, said they are not logical.
I wouldn't put it like that.. They are just rules. Applied logically.
This is a book on formal logic. I am familiar with the professor that wrote it.
Proo f and Disproof in Formal Logic: An Introduction for Programmers (Oxford Texts in Logic) (Paperback)
by Richa rd Bornat (Author)
Rules like this are the essence of logic. And they can be written using mathematical symbols.
A--->B A
-----------
B
an example would be that
I believe that when A happens, B happens.
I believe A,
So I conclude B
That is nothing like the 13 rules.
The 13 principles are ways of deriving the encoded meanings that the author (G-d) encoded into the Torah. For example, a general statement followed by an emumeration of particulars e.g.
Don't steal, don't steal apples, oranges, pears.
Has a different meaning to
Don't steal apples, oranges, pairs, don't steal.
The rule that these are different, is not "the essence of logic". It's not logic at all.
It's just a rule, applied logically.
2)
Secondly, not every tradition is derived from the 13 rules, infact I think you'd find that very few are.
I don't think you'd be able to use the 13 rules to conclude that potiphera's testicles were crushed.
Or the tradition that Cain and Abel had a twin sister.
Yes, there is a superfluous word there (Et - direct object marker). But no rule to get from that to the tradition that he had a twin. It is a hint to the tradition. But the source of the tradition is not the superfluous word.
3) Rabbinical fence laws are in gemara too, and not derived from those 13. neither are rabbinical mitzvot. You won't derive purim or chanukah from the 13 rules.
Infact. I reckon very few of the laws in gemara are derived from the 13..
I think the malbim had 613 rules, but you still won't get about potiphera's damage, or cain and abel's twin sisters.
Here is an application of rules.. perhaps not of the 13. But you see it is not going to get you creative traditions, fresh stories , that are blatantly not derived.
This is an example of something derived, by rules like rabbi yishmael's. It is quite different to what you suggest. The conclusions cannot be as open ended as you posit. It's just not the ball game that you think it is.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Passover/TO_Pesach_Seder/Matzah_368/matzahfirstnight/matzahfirstnighttexts.htm
Mekhilta, Pischa 8 (Lauterbach)
One verse says "Seven days you shall eat matzah" and one verse says
"Six day you shall eat matzah." How can both of these verses be
maintained? The seventh day was included (in the first verse) but then
excluded (from the second verse). That which is excluded from a more
inclusive statement is meant to teach us about the whole statement. So,
just as on the seventh day it is optional (r'shut), so on all of the
other days, it is optional. Does this mean that it is optional on the
first night also? The verse "In the first month, on the fourteenth day
in the evening, you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) fixes it as an
obligation (hovah) to eat matzah on the first night.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Lubab on June 29, 2008, 03:40:52 AM ---As an aside: is this Rabbi Bar Chayim the same one as the one on mesora.org?
--- End quote ---
no
The mesora one is called Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim. He is quite conservative except that he is very anti the more "out there" kabbalah, and very openly and unapologetically and unreservedly, anti chabad on his site.
This one is Rabbi Daweed Bar Hayyim
q_q_:
what do these phrases mentioned mean?
I have the translation for one of them.
"Lo Sasur Min Hadavar...".
"Aseh Lecha Rov"? make for yourself a rav
"elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version