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 meaning of the Mishna is unambiguous. Like it or not, it says what it says: the 1st/2nd/3rd group has the least/relatively small/sufficiently large scriptural basis, respectively. This meaning is plainly evident from the Mishna itself and is clearly supported by the Gemara.

The only moot point can be the precise meaning of "ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH". One might suppose an inaccurate translation but my Hebrew is not up to it.

[brotherinlaw]

sarcastically: the implied sarcasm of the Gemara is obviously not directed towards the Mishna statement but to those readers who rush to accept it at its face value.

Scribal errors etc. are irrelevant here - so they are relevant to all written traditions but irrelevant to ours. This leaves us without commonsensical grounds.

healthy dose of ignorance and humility can be assumed in our discussions - which assumption is belied by this very discussion. Without a proper knowledge of what the Talmud is we are reduced to arguing on what it should be. (In other words, reduced to fencing, if you excuse this pun.) I therefore suspend discussing this Mishna/Gemara until I a obtain some external scholarly help.

[nedosionist]

implied sarcasm of the Gemara .. to those readers who rush to accept it at its face value
Well, as opposed to what? ;)

so they are relevant to all written traditions but irrelevant to ours
I've already outlined the differences here. Parallel processing can reliably eliminate random noise.

until I a obtain some external scholarly help
Surely, extra knowledge would help. But, - in both of these posts I'm addressing pshat construction. If you end up having to rely on drash commentary to form even basic grammatical understanding of what is being said, then it defeats the purpose: you effectively deny that pshat is readable. My reading, and your 1st alternative still stand.

We can continue fencing using weapons of your choice and time of your convenience. :)

[brotherinlaw]

I've already outlined the differences here. A reference to your previous argument does not make it more valid, nor does it invalidate my objections. (Now we are going circles explicitly - some progress:-/)

as opposed to what? to seeing an unsolved textual problem.

[brotherinlaw]

If you end up having to rely on drash commentary to form even basic grammatical understanding I wish I knew why a scholarly help should be a priori suspected of abuse of scholarship. Let me, rather, reveal my own (a posteriori) suspicion about your post: it (unwittingly) attempts to smuggle an improper drash (contra "акцент делается на ритуалы и гражданское право; это подход 'иудаизм - это не религия'") under the cover of the "discovery" of a nonexistent intended ambiguity.

[nedosionist]

Why, quite wittingly, Вы уместно видите связь между этими постами. :) Но в данном случае contra не моя, а Хазаль. ;)

Oк, будем ждать Вашу ученую кавалерию. :)

[brotherinlaw]

не моя, а Хазаль. ;) It may be soothing to know that you have dignified predecessors in such erring:) Averroes liked to claim that in his dead-end development of peripatetic philosophy he was merely repeating Aristotle himself.

external scholarly help

[nedosionist]

У нас есть три основных варианта интерпретации этой мишны (в основном последней фразы, и гемары):
1. Все законы Торы равны, Мишна не права/искажена, гемара ее поправляет.
2. Какие-то законы важнее, и это третья группа.
3. Какие-то законы важнее, и это не третья группа (т.з. поста).

Традиционная т.з. близка к Вашей, если Вам нужна кавалерия. :) Собственно, в этом-то и проблема. ;))
Вторая позиция несколько аргументирована, напр. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth, p.86, fn.8 p.190. У него есть дальнейшие ссылки.

Возможно, переход от первой позиции ко второй (как промежуточный шаг) проще, чем сразу к третьей.

Re: external scholarly help

[brotherinlaw]

2 and 3 are (a) utterly foreign to the tradition and (b) have nothing to do with the topic considered in the Mishna, which is the relative amount of the scriptural basis for different groups of commandments, NOT the relative importance of those groups. Jaffee, too, is within the scriptural basis theme and not the "importance" theme. Your identification of his position with 2 is thus incorrect. E.g.: "In any event, the real point comes at the end: 8. Abba Yose b. Hanan says: these eight topics of Torah are the essence of the halakot (/M. Hag.1:8.4)However, 1 is not necessarily true. The Mishna's statement may mean "These [the last group of laws] constitute the bulk of the corpus of Pentateuch laws." This differs from my uneducated guess, perhaps favorably, but not essentially. In any event, a conjecture of this kind is largely consistent with both your references. The implication is that studying this last group of laws can be done on the basis of the Pentateuch itself. (Your 1st reference, though it quotes the Gemara correction (?) of

Re: external scholarly help

[nedosionist]

The implication is that studying this last group of laws can be done on the basis of the Pentateuch itself.
"for a doubt in Hilchos Ohalos, he should look in the Mishnah, and for a doubt in Hilchos Nega'im, he should look in the Torah".
So, would you be willing to accept this thesis as a shared working hypothesis, as a move forward? :)

Re: external scholarly help

[brotherinlaw]

This is not a thesis, still less a hypothesis, but a statement of the fact. I doubt a move forward can be achieved so cheaply:\

Re: external scholarly help

[nedosionist]

If you are in doubt about anything concerning leprosy-signs search the Bible, but if you are in doubt about anything concerning tent-covering search the Mishnah.
1. Would you say that this is how it's done nowadays? Does Tradition actually keep following this fact/guidance?
2. Where does the authority of Mishna seemingly independent from the Scripture comes from?
3. Notice that your own phrasing that I cited just above is consistent with Soncino, and Ok; but daf-yomi makes an important (and improper) typical pseudo-synonymic substitution.
4. Does the Mishna as written equates these two (re: 2-3 here)?

5. R. Papa said: It means as follows: Leprosy-signs have considerable Scriptural basis and few laws, tent-covering has scant Scriptural basis and many laws.
Based on this phrase, and Mishna, to which groups of laws (1-3) in the Mishna you'd allocate respectfully leprosy-signs and tent-covering?

One spoon of sugar little fact goes a long, long way. :) That's just for starters.

fencing

[nedosionist]

the elitist view (in whatever form) is erroneous
Not quite. I mostly agree, that it is misguided as a normative stand, but it was (unfortunately) accurate as a positive description: it was not so in Temple Judaism, hence the priestly elite which eventually degenerated into the Sadducees. And it was not so for the next 2kyrs.

intended ambiguity, such as to spook off the amhaarets
Let me try this again.
Ambiguity - By now I'm sure it is there, generally ubiquitous, and in this section as well. The subjective proof being by construction - recovery of meaning. ;))

Intended - Most likely. Gemara is notoriously tortured writing, it is highly unlikely just to be the simplest way they found to express their thoughts, and happen unintentionally. How much does one need to know to understand that coupling pronouns the way they do is inherently ambiguous, as is citing the same phrase with opposite meaning etc. Even worse, Gemara explains Mishna thus reducing ambiguity; this Mishnaic meaning was supposed to be understood by reader directly,

Re: fencing

[brotherinlaw]

coupling pronouns the way they do is inherently ambiguous - I just don't buy into the idea that the Talmud would ever play on such natural syntactic ambiguities, for I haven't seen the slimmest evidence to this effect.

As for Scripture, it does employ ambiguities. The scheme seems to be as follows. Suppose sense A is something easily understood to everyone, and sense X (1) is also correct, (2) understood only with additional knowledge, (3) misunderstood if there is no additional knowledge (so if one does not have additional knowledge one is better off without X). Then Scripture may employ a text which straightforwardly means A and also may mean X but in such a way that X is likely to be rejected by the less knowledgeable reader.

Re: fencing

[nedosionist]

I suggest we move this branch here, since this is a methodological issue, and fits there better.

sadducees

[nedosionist]

In the comment just above I speculated that Tannaim might have obscured their discussion out of concerns about goiym. However there might be a cause of concern for them closer to home, so to speak: Sadducees. In Ber 10a position of r. Abbahu, that I cited in my post on juxtaposition is presented in an argument with Minim, who don't use it. Who minim are is ambiguous, some argue that they are christians, or gnostics, or sadducees. If that's the case it would indeed make sense to write Talmud in a way that would be understood by those who use juxtaposition, while being quite misleading for those sects who don't. It would be fitting, since arguably the main point of doctrinaire disagreement was Sadduccees' non-recognition of Oral Torah.