ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
Chazal (our Sages of blessed memory) made statements having to do with our historical chronology that appear to be well-accepted by them, but are not based on the usual exegetical rules. They are considered to be the basis of chronological studies for all who are involved in this discipline, despite the fact that there are disputes among the Sages on certain points; for there is no true wisdom without various doubts and different opinions, and that which has no doubts about it cannot be considered a field of knowledge. Even mathematics is not considered a wisdom in this regard, save for those aspects of which are doubtful or require a solution.
In any wisdom, the two sides of a doubt are considered both to be “words of the living G-d.” For whoever’s intentions are purely for the pursuit of truth is in essence one who is in pursuit of G-d, about Whom is said, “The L-rd G-d is true;” and whatever the intellect of such a man tells him is in essence that which G-d has conveyed to him via his mind. If one were to say about a particular opinion in a particular discipline that it and only it is the word of G-d and that the other opinions are false and not Divine, he is actually denying and voiding the existence of that academic discipline. For if there are no doubts involved in that discipline, then even the correct opinion is not based on the principles of wisdom. For this reason, you will find that wise men and great tzaddikim, who are loyal to the Covenant of G-d and the words of the Sages, will never attempt to prevent others from disputing their words in anything not having to do with practical rulings, according to the accepted Talmudic Halakhah (to which I have already alluded in Article 3, in the name of Maimonides and the Tosafot Yom Tov). You will find that this is especially true in the chronologies drafted by the Radak and the Abarbanel.
Even in Halakhic matters, the ruling is that if one studied and came to a conclusion that is in opposition to that which was decided in the Sanhedrin, he is not liable to punishment; only if he instructed others to act in accordance with his minority opinion is he liable (Sanhedrin 86b). And the exemption of one who merely studies does not imply that he is still forbidden to do so, for only regarding Sabbath violations do we say (Shabbat 3a) “exempt, but forbidden” (not including three exceptions); any other time the Mishnah rules “exempt” it means that it is not even forbidden - unless the Talmud specifically rules that it is “exempt but forbidden” or there is evidence from another Talmudic passage that it is forbidden... Why, then, should we assume that it is forbidden for a man to study the Torah of G-d and to reach the conclusion that he feels in his heart and mind is true? Again, only one who instructed others to act in opposition to the decision of the Sanhedrin is considered a “rebellious elder” and is liable for punishment, in order that there not be discord and strife within Israel. A clear proof of this is found in the story of Akavia ben Mahalalel, who differed with the Sages on four points; he was told that if he would rescind his differing opinions, he would be installed as a Chief Justice on the Rabbinical Court. He said that he would rather be called a fool and not become an evil person [by giving up the “truth” as he saw it]. He persisted in his opinions, and only when he was on his deathbed did he instruct his son to accept the opinion of the Sages (Eduyot 5). From this we see that he was not forbidden from reaching his independent conclusions, for if so, he would have said that he would rather be called a fool and not act evilly by accepting forbidden conclusions! In fact, only instructing others to act according to his conclusion would be forbidden, as the Talmud says, “Why was Akavia ben Mahalalel not treated as a rebellious elder? - Because he did not instruct others.” Despite all this, he was still considered greater than all of Israel in wisdom and fear of sin (Brachot 19a)...
Further evidence that this is the case can be found in the fact that the Talmud, in discussing the crime of “discovering new ‘faces’ of Torah not in accordance with Halakhah,” does not include thereof one who simply reaches a conclusion different than that of the Sages. It must necessarily be, therefore, that not only is there no prohibition to do so, but he also fulfills the commandment of Torah study as long as he is simply dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and does not act with impudence, and does not instruct others to act according to his opinion. On the contrary: if he retracts his opinion not because he feels he was mistaken, but because he wishes to flatter certain people, or for other selfish reasons, he is considered, in the words of Akavia ben Mahalalel, “an evil person in the eyes of Hashem.”
And especially in matters of the chronologies, which do not involve any practical matters, the chief issue is the pursuit of truth, and there is no authority in the world before whom the pursuit of truth will surrender; despite this, we are not accustomed to taking issue and raising doubts about something stated decisively and absolutely by one of the Sages. However, in actuality, true and straight thinking must not give in to what we are “accustomed to,” but we must simply weigh all of the evidence carefully and logically, and the path will be clear to truth, humility, and justice.
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.