Хагига 10: Мишна с плавающей точкой.

[nedosionist]

В развитие предыдущей темы. Точка в этой Мишне (см. текст ниже, после “BUT MANY LAWS.”) - поставлена как в классическом “Казнить нельзя помиловать”; но еще лучше. О нее спотыкаешься, как о камень лежащий посреди дороги, и перечитываешь текст с недоумением. Откуда это здесь?

Comments

[brotherinlaw]

The problem with the idea that some commandments are more important or more authentic than others is not that it is a heretical infringement of the traditional "holy-cow" principle of equal importance. Worse than that, it is meaningless. For if we are asked in what sense commandment A is more important than commandment B, we have to choose one of the following.

1. The scriptural basis for A is more solid than that for B. But this is precisely our Mishna's classification, so, with this criterion, the Mishna's last group of laws is the most important, and this is what the Mishna says.

2. A is more important than B as a legal regulation of our life. With this criterion, all 613 commandments are equally and utterly unimportant, for none of them is enforced as a legal regulation of our life. Instead, we have secular laws (both in the Erets and in the Diaspora). No one lives by them (Lev.18:5), however super-ultra-orthodox one may be, but people assume them if it is their free choice and if it is not against the (secular) law (otherwise,

[nedosionist]

Whenever after you've done such an exhaustive analysis and yet are facing Talmud stating otherwise, you're dealing with one of those talmudic juxtapositions (see " Dialectics of Juxtaposition"). That means you and them are using different meanings or assumptions; and you'd have to adjust yours, because they can't.

A bit more specifically, you've reverted to textualism. Mishna uses two core concepts differently form yourself; I have posts explaining both.

Option 3 is the best, in my view too. But in 3b you're making a subtle yet crucial shift there in the criterion from essence of Torah to practical importance. I can perhaps even generalize further the 3rd group in Mishna, saying that any such historically contingent commandments (your B) are not the essence of Torah (tentatively, there might be some grey area, for further analysis). In that sense your meaning 2 folds into 3b-B (hope that makes sense). ;) Some of them are indeed utterly unimportant; but only some.

[brotherinlaw]

Where the hell am I facing Talmud stating otherwise? Or are you equating what the Talmud says with what you suppose it says?

It is very important that the historically contingent still belongs to the essence of the Torah. The entire Torah is about what history has been (narration) and how to achieve the Purpose of history (commandments). Again, sacrifices are historically contingent and considerably removed from First Intention, as the Rambam showed in MN3:32, with a brilliant historical analysis. But the sacrificial commandments are no accident; the Teacher "had to" teach us them, for our human nature necessarily required this stage in the process of our enlightenment. And "had to" means that it was a requirement of His wisdom, in Maimonidean terms, and requirements of His wisdom are by no means accidental or inessential.

[brotherinlaw]

To avoid misunderstanding: my position is not sweepingly critical of yours. On the contrary, I believe that your looking for higher level pshat is a very constructive idea. This is what is badly missed in modern Judaism, represented by (1) mitnagdim-type sticking to a frozen tradition, (2) chasidic-type semi-charlatan mysticizm, (3) reform-type arbitrary cancellations/innovations. But IMHO you overshoot in your express or implied assumption that a valid alternative pshat cancels/invalidates the standard one and renders is a phantom. This often turns a good observation into an indefensible invention. Shabbat shalom!

[nedosionist]

Вы правы, нынешние варианты неудовлетворительны, и нужен современный синтез, либо что то же очистка. Куда-то еще надо добавить рационализм. ;) Причем здесь есть понятная и полезная оппозиционность а) 1-2/3, реформа-митнагдим/хасиды по отношению к традиции и самостоятельности, и б) 2-1,3 хасиды - реформа/митнагдим по отношению к мистицизму.

alternative pshat cancels
Ответил здесь, в развитие мысли. Иногда, не всегда конечно, может быть часто. Но важно понять, как и почему это происходит.

[nedosionist]

If you wish, I could then object, gemara-style, that there's no essence in the Scripture, and there's no narrative in the Torah. ;)) I somehow hope that would clarify, and not confuse (there are some important caveats, but let's ignore them for the moment). :)

still belongs to the essence of the Torah
What then would you leave out?

I should say that this conversation was quite productive for me, as I learned quite a few things meanwhile, thanks. Perhaps, unless we make a sudden breakthrough, it's time to agree to disagree, to move on, and may be to revisit it later on.

[brotherinlaw]

What then would you leave out? Basically, nothing. It is, after all, the word of God; how can it be inessential, or how can we measure its "essentiality"?

Here, by word of God one should mean the word of God (1) as it has been understood by humans (=by tradition) and (2) the understanding of which by human tradition has been endorsed by God - this Endorsement may be "reluctant" in the sense that the understanding is too imperfect for Him to endorse it "wholeheartedly," yet it is Endorsement nevertheless. And God only bestows His endorsement on something that is potentially infinite, or is related to the potentially infinite, and the potentially infinite is the essence of the Torah. (God does not seem to endorse what is not potentially infinite, = what is essentially finite; this seems to be one of His "pedagogic principles", since the truthfulness of the essentially finite, like science, can/must be evaluated/verified by human mind.)

[nedosionist]

I can more or less agree with the last two sentences, and the distinction you make in the last is parallel to what the Mishna points at, maybe the closest you've got thus far, imho. Except they flesh it out a bit more specifically, and at the same time broader, than the potentially infinite.

leave out...Basically, nothing...how can it be inessential
Then it doesn't make sense to speak of "essence of", as I said in prev. comment. "Essence of" by definition should be less than a whole.

the word of God; how can it be inessential, or how can we measure its "essentiality"?
First of all, by understanding what is meant by word of God, and what isn't; to put it slightly differently, what it is and what it isn't. This and next Mishna aim squarely at helping us sort this out. But that's complicated. Remember, Torah is written in the language of man.

[brotherinlaw]

"Essence of" by definition should be less than a whole The essence, as we know thanks to Avicenna/Maimonides, is equal to the whole if the whole is God. But the Torah is not God, so your statement holds: the Torah includes the essentially finite and therefore does exceed its essence, which is potentially infinite. However, because of deep textual and semantic interconnections, one cannot separate the two from each other by saying "this group of verses only deals with the finite and thus can be left out as inessential." It is even as one cannot separate a soul from its body without destroying the whole, a human being. A live soul, being potentially infinite, is possessed of a live finite body, by definition. The soul does not admit of localization, so the known associations of the soul with "heart" or "brain" are naive at best; similarly, an association of "the essence of the Torah" with this and not that verse misses the point. The division can be attempted but it must be not textual but logical, so to say. E. g.: sacrificial

[nedosionist]

Reusing your metaphor, I can then say that the Torah is the soul of the Scripture. It seems to be a good analogy, since couple of your further considerations carry on (potentially infinite, finite body, does not admit of localization). Notice also that, as per your suggestion, the Mishna does speak of logical/categorical divisions, and not division by verse (in that sense you argue with a straw man here).

improvement to your view...a considerable realization
Well, this is an improvement on your position! :), I wouldn't claim any of it. I doubt that there is a problem here can possibly count as pshat; and what is "negative," pshat? But with this said, any considerable realization counts here as a valuable stepping stone, and be a guidance for finding other unsolved problems. :)