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]

"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 commandments are essential but their zero-level pshat, taken alone, is not. Or: the "you shall not murder" commandment is essential but its precise indication of the method of death punishment is not (more controversially, the death punishment as such may not be considered an essential part of the commandment).

As for this page's Mishna, our best option for the moment seems to be your suggestion to agree to disagree. I, however, can offer an improvement to your view on this subject that would IMHO render it acceptable, though unassuming.

The Mishna's ending, sudden and apparently inconsistent, speaks of the essentials of the Torah. Scribal error or not, it was preserved and transmitted to us by tradition. While accepting the Gemara's commentary, which defends and reasserts the traditional view of equal importance of the commandments, we ought to take a notice that this relation between the Mishna and the Gemara is unusual, which itself yields a new, though "negative," pshat: there is a problem here which tradition does not solve for us but wants us to realize that it is unsolved. This is already a considerable realization. We can then attempt to decisively solve the problem. In this, you or I made little progress, and perhaps there is no unique solution at all.

[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. :)