Halakha and Gemara
Understanding Aggada
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #6a: Halakha and
Gemara
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
It was taught: "The
Tannaim (scholars of the Mishna) destroy the world." Could one truly think they
destroy the world? Ravina explains that the above source refers to those who
make halakhic decisions based on mishnayot. We also learned this idea in
a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua said, "Are they destroyers of the world? Do
they not build the world...? Rather, we are talking about those who decide
halakha straight out of mishnayot." (Sota
22a)
What is the problem with
making halakhic decisions based solely on mishnayot? Rashi explains that
such a methodology invariably leads to mistakes. A scholar who does not know the
Gemara's rationale for a mishnaic ruling could not possibly apply that ruling
correctly. The ability to extend or limit the scope of a particular halakha
depends on knowledge of the talmudic argumentation that led to that halakha. For
example, if someone knows that we light Shabbat candles before reciting the
berakha but does not know the rationale for this practice, he might
easily assume that the same sequence applies for lighting Yom Tov candles. Only
the person who understands the reason for our Shabbat practice (namely, that
making the blessing might constitute accepting of Shabbat, and thereby prohibit
the subsequent lighting) would realize that this rationale does not apply to the
festivals. On the festivals, it is permissible to light from a pre-lit
fire.
Furthermore, we do not
always decide in accordance with the mishna, as there may be other tannaitic
evidence that overrides a particular mishna. There are situations in which our
tradition follows a beraita, rather than the opinion recorded in the
Mishna. Finally, those who attempt to bypass the Gemara will frequently rule
incorrectly in the cases where a mishna incorporates multiple positions. Thus,
Rashi explains how several pitfalls will cause those who derive pesak
(halakhic ruling) from mishnayot to lead their adherents
astray.
The Maharal offers quite
a striking alternative explanation in his Netivot Olam (Netiv HaTorah,
16). He rejects Rashi's explanation on linguistic grounds. The Gemara refers
to those who derive "halakha" from mishnayot. The Maharal argues that the
term "halakha" implies a correct ruling, and not a mistaken ruling. If so, the
Gemara expresses negativity about those who rule out of the mishna, even if they
get all their rulings right. The problem is not just about the correct
pesak, but rather about the entire endeavor of Torah learning. Authentic
Torah is not just a fixed set of rulings, but a whole system of learning.
Apparently, we are not meant to experience Halakha as a set of arbitrary
commandments and prohibitions. Instead, we are to follow the halakhic argument
through its Talmudic pathways, until we understand the thought process that led
to a given conclusion. Learning the full depth of a Talmudic topic enables us to
see that halakha emerges from a rigorous, serious and profound system of
analysis. It is not arbitrary at all.
Many students wonder why
we emphasize Gemara study when we could seemingly accomplish more pragmatic
religious goals by focusing our energies on practical halakhic conclusions. The
sources we have seen suggest a dual counter-argument. If one learns only the
conclusions, he would invariably generate mistaken conclusions, and would also
have a misleading impression of God's Torah. The constant quest for growth in
learning should combine the ideas of Rashi and the Maharal. We learn both in
order to know what to do in a particular case, and to understand the profound
nature of Torah.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!