The Gemara continues its discussion of a theft of an animal. The quoted verse is analyzed further to understand how the addition or substitution of the word 'donkey' or other animals might change halachic implications. Further, how can we be certain which words suggest a detail and which suggest a generalization? Without knowing that it would be impossible to determine halacha based on this verse.
The rabbis focus on himatze timatze, if the theft shall be found. How do witnesses play into the judge's decision? Is this similar for one who incriminates himself, or are those people excluded from these consequences? And do oaths play into these considerations as well? Or were oaths not the Torah's intent?
It is amazing to watch the rabbis twist and turn in their attempt to determine the 'Torah's intent'. Their assumption is that the Torah is clear and consistent. It should be without ambiguity. The rabbis work logically through different lines of reason. It seems that every possibility can be disputed, for it is inconsistent with another line of reasoning, another understood truth, or another principle already developed.
While I am able to follow this logic (and while I am in awe of its complexity and the tenacity of the rabbis), I find it incredibly tedious to do so regarding this topic. It is so dry, and so entrenched in the lives of our ancestors that I find the process quite difficult. However, I will continue to plug away. Hopefully I will find a way to reengage with this material again soon.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment