העורך Editor

On the fringes of mainstream Aggadeta, we continually hear the following claim:

The sages of Talmud Yerushalmi were more attuned to true Torah than the sages of Talmud Bavli. Therefore, although in Halacha we follow (at least for now) the Bavli (though even this rule is not as firm as it is thought – Rabbi David bar Chaim), in Aggadeta we ought to prefer Yerushalmi, which is more… fill-in-the-blank (Zionist, feminist, anarchist, intuitive, applicable to our pre-Redemption generation, mystical, etc.). “Chazal” explicitly praised Israeli Chazal and their Talmud in comparison to Diaspora Chazal.

Since this site and I myself travel on the fringes of many topics (and I naturally include some of these claims), I wish to make clear my opinion on the above:

Since many of the sages would travel back and forth between the countries, differentiating between personalities is not so plausible. Rabbi Yochanan was the true leader of both schools. Also, Halacha is the real “meat” of Judaism, so why would the Halacha follow Bavli in disputes between the Talmuds, if it was inferior in even Aggadeta? (By the way, I am not yet convinced in the slightest by the aforementioned Rabbi Bar Chaim). And just because the Bavli sages may have been personally worse in some behavior (e.g., “vicious” debates, whatever that means), it does not follow their Talmud reflects their lackings, to the extent studying Bavli will make you a worse person than studying Yerushalmi.

It may very well be one can find certain points made in Yerushalmi which are more relevant to us, seeing as the Yerushalmi was written during and where… WXYZ. But from that claim to the claim that the Bavli would also wrongly disagree with those insights, the distance is far. Indeed, in Halacha, we say the opposite: Everyone then knew and /or agreed with the stricture against Pilegesh, for instance.

That is, the Yerushalmi may happen to make explicit a conclusion the Bavli omits, but a sufficiently wise scholar could deduce the same detail on his own. Or it may give factual data the Bavli deems less important. We interpret Bavli using Yerushalmi.

In general, even if many of the “Yerushalmi is better” crowd’s claims might be – even are – correct, it is my impression they have hardly begun to prove their case. And prove it they must. Many/most Yerushalmi enthusiasts explicitly rejected these ideas, including (to my memory) Radbaz, Ohr Same’ach, the Rogotchover, Gur, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, etc. Quoting Rabbi Kook once or twice doesn’t suffice. (And I don’t see the method of his Teshuvos differing (much) from classical Bavli Halacha, either.)

And when I say Yerushalmi-supremacists haven’t made their case, I am being very polite…

There’s a test, y’know: If I presented any Machlokes Bavli Yerushalmi in the opposite form, they would still say: Ah, we again see how Yerushalmi is “so much more WXYZ!” Try this for example (unless you remember the facts):

אבנט מכפר על הרהור הלב\אבנט מכפר על הגנבים…

Can you take an oath as to which opinion above was the Yerushalmi’s? I didn’t think so…

Find the answer at the end of this link.

(I delayed making this point for the longest time, hoping to make it perfect, but, spurred by a private letter, I type this up now, since something is better than nothing.)

P.S. Rabbi Maimon (father of Maimonides), quoted in Ritva Yoma 57a says Israeli sages weren’t always better, see HebrewBooks here:

משום דדיירי בארעא דחשוכה אמרי שמעתתא דחשיכן. פי’ הרמב”ם ז”ל בתשו’ שאלה דר’ ירמי’ לטעמי’ דאמר במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם זה תלמוד בבלי וטעמא משום דלא נהירי להון טעמי דמתנייתא כהלכה כמה דנהירי לרבנן דא”י. ור’ זירא נמי בעי דלשתכח לי’ טעמיה דבבלאי משום דלא נהירן לי’ בתר דשמע טעמא דמערבאי דמנהגא דעלמא דמדכר איניש טפי מאי דגמר ברישא. מיהו לאו בכל הדורות היו כן אלא בימי רבה ורב יוסף ואביי ורבא דהוו להו שמדות כדאיתא בהשוכר את הפועלים. ואמרי’ נמי בפרק אלו טריפות ערקו רבה ורב יוסף ור’ זירא אמר להו ערוקאי שהיו בורחין מחמת השמדות ואמר להו ר’ זירא שעם כל זאת לא ישכחו דברי התורה ואמרינן בפרק המנחות והנסכים והיו חייך תלואים לך מנגד זה הלוקח תבואה משנה לשנה ואם כך ללוקח תבואה משנה לשנה כ”ש לשמדות שיש בו סכנת נפשות וזהו טעמן של ר’ זירא ור’ ירמי’. אבל אח”כ נתגברה התורה בבבל כ”ש בימי רב אשי דאמרי’ מימות רבי ועד רב אשי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד ע”כ דברי רבינו ז”ל וחיים הם למוצאיהם.

So claiming his own son, the Rambam, forged a new pro-Yerushalmi Halachic method, as Rabbi Bar Chaim says, to explain various puzzling Rambams (while no one else considered this simple explanation, by the way) is now a tiny bit even less likely.

בתורה כתוב (דברים כ”ד ז’):

כי ימצא איש גנב נפש מאחיו מבני ישראל והתעמר בו ומכרו ומת הגנב ההוא ובערת הרע מקרבך.

(אגב, רש”י על “לא תגנב” בעשרת הדברות מפרש שמדובר בגניבת נפש.)

העובדה שכנופיית גנבים מכנה את עצמה בשם המפוצץ “מדינה”, אינה מהווה היתר ליחידים המנויים בה לעבור על איסורים. בתי כלא: זה לא איסור גניבת נפש?! לא עיינתי בזה “כל הצורך”, אבל גם “והתעמר בו” מתקיים שם: יש שם עבודות בכפייה (“עבדות” בלע”ז) כדי להעביר את הזמן, כתרפיה בעיסוק, ועוד מטרות נעלות (תמורת פרוטות, אגב)…

ושימו לב, נמצאו כל גדולי ישראל המפלגתיים עוברים על איסור דאורייתא מעשרת הדברות: לא תגנב! הרי אין שום חוק (מלבד אות מתה) שאין עונשה, בסופו של דבר, ישיבה בכלא. וכל מה שעושים בכנסת זה לחוקק חוקים, (מלבד עוד שאלות רבות). ובערת הרב מקרבך!

כלומר, פשעי המפלגות החרדיות אינם מסתכמים באיסורים ספציפיים כברית אוסלו וגירוש יהודים מבתיהם. כל חוק, כל סעיף ממנו, בכלל (ואולי ה”ה לשתדלנים בחו”ל). ואמנם י”ל במקרי קיצון, אך לא מעבר.

אם יצליחו לעשות בתי כלא פרטיים, כמו שהמדינה ניסתה בעבר, הרי יקיימו את התנאי שיהפוך את זה ג”כ לחיוב מיתה, “ומכרו“.

The Incredible Bread Machine p. 57 – 59:

In 1795 James Madison commented on an interesting phenomenon which he described as “the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government.” Madison knew what he was talking about.

…

Years ago the federal government undertook to subsidize cotton farmers. But then it was discovered that the persistently high price of American cotton was hurting cotton exports. So the government subsidized exporters. But then American mill owners pointed out that foreign mills were getting American cotton cheaper than American mills could get it. So now the American mills are being subsidized. And so the growers, the exporters, and the mills are now all indebted to the State for assistance. And what the State subsidizes, to an appreciable extent it controls. “The old trick is to turn every contingency . . . ”

The bureaucrat will force rates higher and then demand greater power in order to force them down again. Or, he will seek to “protect” the farmer and as a result generate a mountain of rotting surpluses; then he will demand still greater control over agriculture in order to cure the problem he himself has created. Or, he will regulate the railroads nearly into bankruptcy and then urge a program of government loans to “help” them. Or the State, through various pieces of labor legislation, will all but eliminate employer resistance to unending union demands. Then, when union power grows to ominous dimensions, labor disputes will be settled by presidential fiat rather than by free market bargaining. “Turn every contingency … “

You may think you know what I am going to say. If so, you are wrong. (Note: I write the word “never” advisedly.)

There lies danger in encouraging incipient authoritarians by revealing the following, but the danger is small. So I continue.

It is commonly said some politicians pay for some of their crimes/errors. Examples are given of “blowback” to the nation, even the man himself. Many history books try to show “Haman hanged on his own gallows“. This is taken to be the meaning of בקדרה שבשל בה נתבשל and ראיתי עבדים על סוסים ושרים הלכים כעבדים על הארץ, חפר גומץ בו יפול ופרץ גדר ישכנו נחש.

They are all wrong.

Why are they wrong?

Hold on. I first wish to bring one example of this common claim (boldface added):

Since mala prohibita are not wrongful in any traditional moral sense, people tend to take them less seriously. This poses a problem for legislators, politicians, and judges, who are offended their handiwork may not be taken seriously enough by the citizens whom such laws purportedly benefit. And since things like drugs laws, or prohibitions of gambling, are commonly and even generally ignored, the only solution these worthies can imagine is to increase the penalties until people take the laws seriously enough.

Thus, a recent offender was threatened with life imprisonment for the possession of some brownies baked with marijuana, while persons convicted of murder historically may serve five years or less in prison. The grotesque injustice of this is usually evident to all — except for the legislators, politicians, and judges who are responsible for such a legal regime. They seem to like it just fine. Until, of course, they or theirs get caught in the web.

The part about increased penalties is correct. But the bolded part is not, as stated.

Again, why is this wrong?

Because the psychological satisfaction gained by power drowns out all aches and pains. Psychopathy Pays! Pols don’t “feel your pain”. They don’t feel their family’s pain. They don’t even feel their own pain. They enjoy the ups and they enjoy the downs. Nothing has Providential significance to them.

Drunkenness reduces sorrow and pain. Power-drunkenness does the same.

Likewise, I disagree with the pseudo-diagnosis of State-supporters as suffering from a kind of mass “Stockholm Syndrome“. There are personality types of “leaders” and “followers”. Followers don’t themselves need to wield power to enjoy it vicariously. “Enjoy” being the operative word! Much of the State’s “intellectual bodyguard”; journalists, teachers, etc., live off an average salary, for instance.

(I speak only of This World, of course. The Next World is a different matter.)

הוספנו כעת גם מאמר דרך תשובה לנשים ונערות, ונוסח מקוצר של העניין.

מצאו זאת כאן.