Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

Artes e Humanas
Negócios
Ciência da Computação
Ciência de Dados
Tecnologia da informação
da saúdesaúde
Matemática e Lógica
Desenvolvimento Pessoal
Ciência e Engenharia Física
Ciências Sociais
Línguas
Notas
Certificados

Explore todo o Coursera

Navegar
Pesquisar
For Enterprise
Entrar
Inscreva-se gratuitamente

Video 10 Using Logic in Reading Critically

Loading...

The Talmud: A Methodological Introduction

Universidade Northwestern

4.6 (141 classificações) | 10K alunos inscritos

The Talmud is one of the richest and most complicated works of literature the world has ever known. Since being composed around 1500 years ago it has inspired not only religious reverence but significant intellectual engagement. In this course learners will be introduced to the unique characteristics of this text and the challenges that inhere in studying it while studying a chapter of the Talmud. Students of the course can expect to develop an appreciation for how the Talmud works and why it continues to inspire religious and intellectual devotion. They will be challenged to employ critical reading skills and to analyze legal and historical concepts.

Visualizar o programa do curso

Avaliações

4.6 (141 classificações)

5 stars
99 ratings
4 stars
28 ratings
3 stars
10 ratings
2 stars
3 ratings
1 star
1 ratings

BL

Jan 08, 2017

This course is both a traditional and non-traditional Talmud course. The non-traditional gives a historic prospective of the basis of Talmud with a modern view of its derivation.

TP

May 21, 2016

An outstanding look into the complexities and nuances of the the Talmud. Well-taught, thought-provoking, interesting...

Na lição

Reading the Bible & Rabbinic Logic

Interpretation is a major component of Rabbinic literature and the Talmud. This module introduces the specific features of Rabbinic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible—its assumptions and its reading tools.

Video 10 Using Logic in Reading Critically7:09

Ministrado por

Barry Scott Wimpfheimer
Associate Professor

Transcrição

[MUSIC]

In the previous video,

we learned about one logical tool that the rabbis used to read the Bible.

A too known in Hebrew as kal va-chomer.

In a kal va-chomer argument, an analogy is made between two cases.

One of which is deemed to be a stronger version of the other.

Because the first case leads to a certain consequence, the argument infers that

the second case must by all accounts lead to that same consequence.

Kal va-homer is often translated as all the more so.

In the passage we examined in the previous video, one early third century rabbi

provided a Midrashic rationale for the Mishna's law while another third

century rabbi attempted to justify the same law through a kal va-homer argument.

A later rabbi rejected this argument from a kal va-homer by employing

a reductio ad absurdum argument by playing the argument out to its ridiculous

logical consequences.

The Talmud's anonymous voice.

The part of the tax that is not attributed to a specific rabbi rejects the kal

va-homer in favor of the midrash.

In the passage that immediately follows,

we'll see the exact same structure playing out again.

Now that the Talmud has tried to explain the first law in the Mishnah,

the case of the witnesses who try to invalidate a priest,

the Talmud moves onto the second case.

That of witnesses who accused someone of being an unintentional murderer.

We testify about so-and-so that he is liable to be exiled as an unintentional

murderer, etc.

From where do we derive this?

Yet again, the Talmud wants to know the mission or source for this law.

Once again, the Talmud responds with a midrash.

Resh Lakish said that the Bible says, he will flee to one of the cities.

He and not his Edim Zomemim.

Resh Lakish is an early third century Palestinian rabbi

who is also sometimes called Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as in the previous passage.

He provides a midrash explanation for

why the false witness would not receive the normal punishment for

unintentional murder, which is exile to a city of refuge.

Much like the midrash, attributed Resh Lakish in the previous passage.

This midrash picks up on a subject pronoun in the verse, as a limiting factor.

The nudrash cites one of the biblical verses about unintentional murder.

Deuteronomy chapter 19:11 and reads, he, as specifying the person

who commits manslaughter, but not anyone else such as Wdim Zomimem.

As in the previous passage, another explanation is then suggested

based not on a midrash, but on a kal va-homer argument.

Rabbi Yohanan says, kal va-homer.

If he who did a deed intentionally is not exiled, is it not logical

that those who did not do a deed intentionally should not be exiled either?

Rabbi Yohanan, a prominent Palestinian rabbi who is a contemporary of Resh Lakish

suggest analogy between someone who murdered intentionally and

is not exiled, because exiles only prescribed for unintentional murderers.

And someone who did not do a deed, that is the Edim Zomemim

who only try to get their victim put to death, but were unsuccessful.

If the person who committed murder doesn't get sent into exile, then clearly

someone who didn't managed to commit murder should not get sent into exile.

The Talmud again rejects the kal va-homer.

This time though, the rejection challenges a different point of the kal va-homer.

The kal va-homer is premise on two syllogisms.

First, that actual murder is worse than attempted murder through testimony.

Second, that exile is a punishment.

If the punishment is not meted out for actual murder, the worse offense.

How can it be meted out for attempted murder through testimony,

the lesser offense.

The Talmud anonymous voice rejects the kal va-homer by critiquing

the second that exile is best understood as punishment.

The Talmud expresses this by producing a new kal va-homer in which exile is not

understood as punishment, but as an opportunity for an accidental murderer to

achieve atonement, but that logic implies the following.

If he who did a deed intentionally should not be exiled, because that way,

he will not get atonement, perhaps those who did not do a deed intentionally

should be exiled, because that way they will get atonement?

In other words, if one thinks of exile as atonement rather than punishment,

then maybe it is logical for the lessor criminal to have the opportunity for

a Talmud or the greater criminal did not.

It is logical that an intentional murderer is not sent to exile and

given an opportunity to atone, but maybe the attempted murder through testimony

is enough of a lessor offense that atonement shouldn't be possible.

You may be surprised that the Talmud chooses to bring a new rejection for

this kal va-homer.

Since the rejection brought by Ravina for the first kal va-homer,

the idea that it would contradict the entire rabbinic understanding

of the law of Edim Zomemim might apply equally to Rabbi Yohanan's kal va-homer.

Rabbi Yohanan's kal va-homer, like the one of Bar Pedra seems to imply that

the Edim Zomemim should get off Scott free,

because they didn't successfully commit their crime.

If this is Rabbi Yohanan's point, then one could channel Revina and point out

that this logical argument would destroy the notion of Edim Zomemim entirely, but

the Talmud does not choose to reject Rabbi Yohanan's logic on these grounds.

Instead, the Talmud critiques the assumption that exile is a punishment and

suggests that it can be considered an atonement.

The conclusion of the anonymous rejection is not 100% convincing.

If an intentional murderer doesn't get atonement,

then perhaps an attempted intentional murderer really shouldn't either.

But it still highlights the real problem with treating exile solely,

as a punishment.

Thus, Rabbi Yohanan's kal va-homer is rejected.

Using exactly the same language as the first passage,

the Talmud upholds Resh Lakish's midrashic explanation.

According to it, getting sent to the city of refuge is a consequence that only

applies to an actual unintentional murder, but not to Edim Zomemim.

Thus far,

we have seen that the Talmud analysis of the Mishnah often demands accountability,

but there needs to be some explanation for the Mishnah's specific laws.

These rationales take the form either of direct biblical inference or

logical analogy from established legal concepts,

which are themselves ultimately based on biblical sources.

In our next video, we will look at other forms of logical argument from the Bible

and reflect upon what it means to read the Bible as the rabbis do.

[MUSIC]

Explore nosso catálogo

Registre-se gratuitamente e obtenha recomendações, atualizações e ofertas personalizadas.

O Coursera proporciona acesso universal à melhor educação do mundo fazendo parcerias com as melhores universidades e organizações para oferecer cursos on-line.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

Baixar na App Store

Baixar no Google Play

Coursera
Sobre
Liderança
Carreiras
Lista de cursos
Certificados
Certificados MasterTrack™
Notas
For Enterprise
For Government

Comunidade
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

Conectar
Blog
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
Tech Blog

Mais
Termos
Privacidade
Ajuda
Acessibilidade
Imprensa
Contato
Diretório
Afiliados