Recently - a Liberal Rabbi - Rabbi "Mattir" - approached me regarding an apparently "shocking" statement from Rava.
Rabbi Wolpoe: "what does Rava mean when he states in Yevamos 20a
«V'chol she'eino m'kayyeim divrei hachamim, kadosh Hu d'lo mikrei, rasha nami lo mikrei»"
[His translation:
«Anyone that does not fulfill the words of the Sages is neither termed Holy Nor Evil»]
Meaning so long as one disobeys the Rabbis he's still OK, but he is simply not Holy
But when one DOES obey the rabbis one would be holy."
As per this read, obeying the Rabbis is optional.
I protested that this cannot be what Rava means, because Abbayei said something similar and Rava is obviously disputing him
He then said to me - Rava is Abbayei's teacher. I found this really difficult because Rava was Abbayei's bar plugta and NOT his teacher.
Plus the conclusion of Rava's statement «ela amar Rava kadeish atzmecha b'mutar lach». [Rather Sanctify yourself with what is PERMITTED]
Implies that the previous statement was rhetorical, and that Rava said it to mean the Very Opposite of this Liberal Rabbi Mattir's read.
Why was this Rabbi Mattir opposed to reading Rava's previous statement as a rhetorical question? I was puzzled because the Talmud is replete with similar questions.
Apparently he never - or hardly ever - read the Talmud as using rhetorical questions as a debating device.
Strange indeed! Who would have thought the Talmud was devoid of rhetorical questions?
And who would read Rava here otherwise?
Shalom
RRW
No comments:
Post a Comment