"

"

The Great Sealing:

Why is the Talmud Authoritative?1
jrosenfeld@lss.org

1. R. Sherira Gaon (906-1006),

Iggeret R. Sherira Gaon
; pp. 19-202

1) How was the Mishna written

2) What is the reason that we left out all the early Rabbis for the later ones
3) Furthermore, if they ordered the tractates in a specific, thought out manner, what is the reason
they did it in this [seemingly haphazard] way
4) This Tosefta that we hear R. Hiyya wrote - was it after the closing of the Mishna, or concurrent;
and why did R. Hiyya see fit to commit it to writing and why did Rebbe leave it out
5) Also, how were the Beraitot written, and how was the Talmud written?
BasedupontheworkofBezalelNaor,
TheLimitofIntellectualFreedom:TheLettersofR.Kook
(Spring
Valley:Orot,2011),8896,272293.
Regardingtheredaction(quawriting)oftheTalmud,seeYaakovElman,OralityandtheRedactionofthe
BabylonianTalmud,
JournalofOralTradition
,14/1(1999):5299ForasummaryoftheTraditional
perspectiveonthisseeMeirTriebitz,TheRedactionoftheTalmud,
ReshimuJournal
(oftheHashkafa
Circle),Vol.3:3554Seealso
DavidWeissHalivni,
TheFormationoftheBabylonianTalmud
(trans.and
ed.JeffreyL.RubensteinOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013)
RichardKalmin,TheRedactionofthe
BabylonianTalmud",
MonographsoftheHebrewUnionCollege
12(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollege
Press,1989)MoulieVidas,
TraditionandtheFormationoftheTalmud
(Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press,2014).
For more on the authority and decision-making power of the Sages as a collective, see Michael S. Berger,
Rab
binic
Authority(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),especiallypp.97132MenachemMarc
Kellner,Maimonidesonthe"DeclineoftheGenerations"andtheNatureofRabbinicAuthority(Albany:
SUNYPress,1996),5569,8391.
InterAlia
,seeEliezerBerkovits,
NotinHeaven:TheNatureandFunction
ofHalakha
(NewYork:Ktav,1983)4761.
2
SeeRobertBrody,
TheGeonimofBabyloniaandtheShapingofMedievalJewishCulture
(NewHaven:
YaleUniversityPress,1998),1925,andalecturebyProf.AriBergmannofColumbiaUniversity,available
here:
http://ed.ted.com/on/HPIa41nl
.SeefurtherTalyaFishman,
BecomingthePeopleoftheTalmud:Oral
TorahasWrittenTraditioninMedievalJewishCultures
(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,
2012),2145.
1

2. Rashi, b. Bava Metzia 86a, s.v.

sof

Sof ha-Mishna
: The end of the Tannaim. Until their days, each man said his piece in the study hall
and the students would redact (= gorsim) the report piecemeal, and there were no ordered
tractates; And he organized and collected them according to an order, including that which was said
in the previous generations, and then organized the tractates - after that nothing was added save
for minor things.

Sof Horaah
: The end of all the Amoraim. Until their days, the Talmud was not in an organized
fashion, rather when a person had a query as to the rationale in a Mishna in the Beit Midrash or
when a practical [Halakhic] matter arose all would say their opinion, and then R. Ashi and Ravina
organized those reports of the previous Amoraim, and established it in the order of the tractates,
each one adjacent to the Mishna that was fitting and this was all set in the Talmud, the questions
and the answers and the rest were not placed in the Talmud according the tractates and the
Mishna that Rebbe ordered and R. Ashi and Ravina established.

3. Maimonides, Hil. Mamrim 2:1-2

"".

...

A. A great Beit Din which faithfully interpreted based on the principles [of Torah interpretation] that
which they saw fit - that the law should be as such and a later Beit Din came and saw fitting
reason to dispute it, they have the right to overturn it and rule as they see fit in their eyes
B. [if] A Beit Din that enacted a decree or made an edict, or established a custom and the matter
spread throughout the Jewish people, and then another Beit Din came and wanted to overturn the
previous [Beit Dins] rulings and uproot that edict or decree or custom, they are unable to do so until
they are greater than the first in number and wisdom even if the initial rationale has subsided
number is the number of Rabbis in the generation who agree, concur, and accept the matter that
the great Beit Din stated and did not dispute it.

4. R. Yosef Karo,
Kessef Mishna
, ad loc.
.'[
""(')"
"
""
'

."
"

:'

...and if you say like this, then why dont the Amoraim argue on the Tannaim, as we see in all places
that we question an Amora from a Mishna or a Beraita, and [the Amora] needs to say I said like
this Tanna, and if not, then we declare it difficult; and according to the words of [Maimonides],
permission is granted to [Amoraim] to dispute the words of the Tannaim.
[Therefore]
it is possible to say that from the days of the sealing of the Mishna, the Jewish people
arose and accepted that the later generations cannot argue on the earlier ones and they acted
similarly at the time of the sealing of the Talmud, that on the day it was sealed no more right
was given to anyone to argue on it.

5. Rabbeinu Yonah Gerondi,

Commentary on Pirkei Avot
; 1:1

And the Men of the Great Assembly gave it over to the wise men of their generation, and they to

their sons after them in every generation, and [thus] the transmission was from wise man to wise
man, until all the wise men of Israel gathered and tossed out the idea in unison - to commit the Oral
Torah to writing, and then they wrote and sealed the Talmud, and thereafter nothing was added nor
taken away from it. That generation also transmitted it to the Geonim, and [thus] it was a tradition
from Gaon to Gaon, Rabbi to Rabbi, until this very day.

6. R. Elhanan Wasserman (),

Kuntres Divrei Soferim
(a) p. 90

...nevertheless his reasoning was in accordance with the divine reasoning, that this was also the will
of God, just that He didnt explicitly command it, and therefore we could say that so, too, by all the
Mitzvot and prohibitions of Their Words that they are in accordance with the divine will
his point is that it is considered against the Will of the Torah3
despite the fact that it isnt explicitly
warned against.

(b) p. 94-95
Formoreontheconceptof,theWilloftheTorah,seeR.AsherWeiss,
MinhatAsher
(
al
haTorah
,Jerusalem:2003),356362.Seealso,R.AvrahamYeshayaKarelitz,
HazonIsh
,YD149:8.See
Rashi,
CommentaryonPentateuch
Ex.38:22,foramentionofthisconceptintheformof
regardingtheroleofBezalelinthefashioningoftheTabernacleanditsvessels.Ofcourse,special
attentionistobepaidtothisconceptinthecontextofShavuot,andthefactthatMosheaddedathirdday
onhisowni.e.,byvirtueofhisownrationale,andthatGodagreedtotheMosaicinitiative.R.Wasserman
alludestothisattheoutsetofhiscommentsherein
KuntresDivreiSoferim
.Perhapsthisismeantto
underscorethesignificanceofthehumanpartnershipwiththedivineintheunfoldinganddisclosureofthe
DivineWillasreflectedintheTorah.Thisconceptisowed(accordingtomyknowledge)toMichael
FishbanesideaofHermeneuticalTheologyasrelatedtoTorahandtherevelation/theophanyatSinai.See
his
SacredAttunement
(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008),

6371.Arelatedconceptisthatof
,awisemanispreferabletoaprophet,althoughitliesbeyondthescopeofthecurrentShiur.


...and all the above is stated in relation to the laws, enactments, decrees, and customs that had
originated after the writing of the Talmud, but the things written in the Babylonian4
Talmud - all
Jews are required to adhere to, and we force each and every place to follow all the customs
established by the Rabbis of the Talmud.. because all these things were agreed upon by all the wise
men of Israel, and those Rabbis - when they established, decreed, enacted, or ruled based upon it
and taught that the judgment is such and such - they are all of the wise men of Israel or the
majority, and they received the tradition of the foundations of the Torah completely, generation
after generation right up to Moshe Rabbeinu
and it seems from the Rambams words that an agreement made by all the wise men of Israel or the
majority of them has the force of the great Beit Din [ =Sanhedrin], and thus all Jews must listen to
them, just like an actual Sanhedrin
but a gathering of all the wise men of Israel or the majority of them from all places they might be is
the Beit Din of all of Israel and thus regarding them the Torah said...

OntheomissionoftheYerushalmihereandthequestionofitsHalakhicrelevancy,seetheoutlinebyR.
MichaelJ.Broyde,
http://www.torahmusings.com/2011/05/theyerushalmiasasourceofhalacha/
.

(c) ctnd

[
quotes
KessefMishna
,source4.JR]

And this tradition still needs to be explained, why is it so binding and strong - that it would be
impossible to even argue on the very principle of this tradition itself, just like it is prohibited to
dispute the Talmud without a tradition; but based on what we said earlier, the question of the
Kessef Mishna is not a question
[i.e., the issue of Amoraim disputing Tannaim. JR]
, because the
sealing of the Mishna was also done through a convocation of all the wise men of Israel or the
majority of them,5
attaining the power of a Sanhedrin, and thus it was forbidden to argue on them...

{7. R. Menachem Mendel of Skhlov,

Kitve ha-Garmam
; vol. 2, pp. 9-10}

astowhyR.Elhananconstantlyhedgeshisargumentherewithaqualifying...orthemajorityofthem.

8. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz (Hazon Ish),

Kovetz Iggerot ha-Hazon Ish
;
vol. 2, #24

-- but the truth is that this selfsame generation after the Mishna saw the diminishing of peoples
hearts compared to the masters of the Mishna and knew quite well that the truth is always with the
Rishonim6 [ =i.e., earlier generations. JR]
, and because they knew the truth of the matter - that they
could not apprehend the truth as well as the Tannaim before them, they [realised] there was no
permission to dispute, and therefore only taught their words...

...and their entire agreement was made with divine guidance/inspiration, with the influx of the
Divine Spirit, and God had already concurred with them in the generation of the sealing of the
Talmud
6

Seeletter#23proceeding,inwhichtheHazonIshdismissesoutofhandthediscoveryofnewmanuscripts
ofmedievalprovenanceasnotbeingpartofthechainoftradition.Intruth,thisisdifficultforme,asthere
seemstobeacontradictionintheHazonIshsapproachtothewordsofthesagesofantiquityas
sacrosanct,andyetaffirmingin#24thatthisisonlysobecauseofthepoweroftraditioni.e.,the
agreementandaffirmationofthesuccessivegenerations.SeefurtherZviA.Yehuda,HazonIshonTextual
CriticismandHalakha,
Tradition
18:2(Summer1980),andShnayerZ.Leimanrejoinderin
Tradition
19:4
(Winter1981).Finally,seeMosheBleich,TheRoleofManuscriptsinHalakhicDecisionMaking:HazonIsh,
HisPrecursors,andContemporaries,
Tradition
27:2(Winter1993),2255.

...and in truth, was not the whole Torah given/revealed at Sinai, even the novel thoughts of a future
seasoned student? And the Tannaim only rediscovered that which was forgotten, and until the time
of Rebbe, not all had been (re)revealed. However, by the time of the Mishna, all that was destined
to be revealed was revealed, and nothing new was to be revealed, rather all was hinted to in the
words of the Tannaim.7

9. Rashi, b. Bava Metzia 33b, s.v.

bymei

ForaKabbalistic/HassidicrenderingofthisideaastheuncoveringoftheveilintheOralTradition,see
YaakovElman,R.ZadokHakohenontheHistoryofHalakha,
Tradition
21:4(Fall1988),812especially.

...the amounts of Torah disputes increased, and it was almost as if there were two Torahs, because
of the oppression of the government and persecutions they inflicted upon them, and because of this
they were unable to fully clarify the words of the disputants until the days of Rebbe - when Hashem
granted him grace in the eyes of Antoninus, King of Rome, and thus they were able to rest from
distress, and then he went and gathered all the wise men of Israel. Until his days there were no
ordered Tractates and he paid attention to clarify the correct view in a dispute, and to organize
the Tractates in order to establish the Halakha like them...

10. R. Moshe of Coucy,

Sefer Mitzvot Gadol
[Mechon Yerushalayim ed.];
Introduction, pp. 7-8

And in the days of Rabbeinu haKadosh, called Rebbe in the language of the Mishna - that
God granted him grace in the eyes of Antoninus the king of Rome, and he gathered all the
wise men of the lands, and established the six orders of Mishna according to the tradition,
and yet in some of them the majority and minority opinions argued (because of the stresses of
the destruction of the Temple, they did not fully agree on some matters)...

and after them there were even more struggles and the wise men of the generations were
dispersed, and many doubts as to the correct interpretation of the Mishna arose, because of
the diminishing of the hearts, and then Amoraim and their students with/after them arose
and explained the reasoning of the Mishna and its disputes. When time drew on, because of
the great dispersion/diaspora, the wise men of the lands were unable to reach a consensus
and agreement as to the understanding of the Mishna, until R. Ashi rose 358 years after the
destruction, as is written in the writings of R. Sherira Gaon, the father of R. Hai Gaon.


This man, R. Ashi, was the Rosh Yeshiva of the diaspora, and from the days of Rebbe until R. Ashi we
have not found greatness and Torah in the same person, and thus God granted him grace in the
eyes of the King of Persia, and he went and gathered all the wise men of Israel that were in all the
lands, and they systematically concretized the explanation of the Mishna, and this is what we call
the Babylonian Talmud, and they arranged and organized it through the agreement of all that
generations wise men.

{11. R. Shlomo Fischer,

Derashot Beit Yishai
; 123-131 (See Addenda)}
12. R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook,
Eder ha-Yakar ve-Ikvei ha-Tzon
;
pp. 37-38

...and this whole matter is not solely dependant upon lofty wisdoms. Know that we fulfill the
customs of Israel with love, despite knowing that we were not commanded to do them through
prophecy, and all of this is because of the love of our nation, a love...

...and an honor that it is dear to us - a holy endearment, divine and elevated. So too with all the
Mitzvot of our Rabbis that we fulfill, the basic foundation of them is the acceptance of the entire
nation, which is to say that honor of the nation and its historical, everlasting divine endearment [for
these Mitzvot] - in that all that it follows more, it holds more dear, and through it is revealed the
true natural drive of the entire nation the clear foundation is the acceptance of the whole nation...

...many have assumed that the main foundation of Oral Tradition is that it was accepted by the
nation based on the greatness and holiness of Hazal and they began to brazenly and openly
criticize [ =deconstruct], thinking that somehow this would weaken the force of the practical
imperative [of the Mitzvot they enacted]. Yet these people did not realize that the great value of
Hazal and their lofty, divine spiritual heights is something that is ontologically true on its own but
the true everlasting foundation is only the notion of the nationwide acceptance for all its
generations to follow this path in life.

__
{Addenda}

(a)

(b)