We know that (at least since the second set of tablets) that there is a prohibition to write the תורה שבעל פה/Oral Law. Over the centuries, and always only after careful consideration, parts have been put in written form. Like a life saving surgery, as much is revealed as necessary, but no more. First the mishnayos were committed to writing, then the gemara. Nonetheless, the mishnayos and gemara have been written in a way that learning them really requires a teacher who himself is part of the chain of tradition. Even ArtScroll consulted with sages of our generation on how to handle the translation into English. See their introduction and the הסכמות/approbations.
Interestingly, while there has always been a main core of the תורה שבעל פה/Oral Law that everyone knew and passed from generation to generation/rebbi to talmid, there were also lesser known -- thoroughly authentic -- teachings that were known to fewer sages. When a sage said something in beis medrash that had not been heard, they would write it down so it wouldn't be forgotten. It was also hidden away, as it contained statements that were not allowed to be written. This collection was called מגילת סתרים/Scroll of Secrets (Rashi, Shabbos 6a, מגילת סתרים). Ok, ok, maybe scroll of hidden statements is more accurate, but (a) Google translates it that way, and (b) I mean, you have to admit that "Scroll of Secrets" is way cooler.
Let's take another look a that statement discussed in a previous TftD:
Rav says he found the Scroll of Secrets from the Yeshiva of R' Chiya and it says in there: איסי בן יהודה says there are one less than 40 categories of forbidden labor on Shabbos, and the transgression of only one of them is a capital crime. The gemara says, basically... whoa!! that can't be right! So the gemara demurs and emends the statement to be: איסי בן יהודה says there are one less than 40 categories of forbidden labor on Shabbos, and the transgression of all of them is a capital crime, except one.
Go ahead, read that again. Let me ask you: how in the world could that be a copyist error? I mean maybe copying a ס (gematria 60) instead of a מ (gematria 40), but this completely changes the meaning and doesn't look like a scribal error at all. The Sfas Emes has a brilliant explanation of this gemara that doesn't read this is as gemara emending the text, but the gemara explaining the text. How so?
Let's start with the emended version. We know that moving an object from/to a private domain to/from a public domain on Shabbos is unquestionably a capital crime. Of the remaining 38 forbidden categories, transgression of one of them is not a capital crime, but a transgression of any of the others. Suppose someone is brought to beis din for transgressing one of those 38 categories of forbidden labor and there were two witnesses and they warned him and he said he doesn't care and he does it anyway. Open and shut case, right? Not quite. The court finds itself with two irregularities.
First, while it is true that he very likely transgressed a capital crime; after all the chances are 37 to one. Usually in halacha we follow the majority... but not in cases of saving a life. The mishna (Yoma 8:7) says that if a building collapses Shabbos or even Yom Kippur and we don't know if someone was in there when it collapsed (the building is usually unoccupied at the time). Moreover, even if someone was in there, he may have been killed by the falling debris (the collapse was total). Moreover, we don't even know if he was a Jew (most people who frequent that building are non-Jews). Even so, we search on Yom Kippur itself until we confirm that either no one is there or that he is definitely dead. When it comes to saving a life, we absolutely do not go by majority -- if there is the smallest chance of life, we push forward. The Sfas Emes says that saving someone from execution by the court is a case of saving a Jewish life. (That is a massive חידוש/halachic innovation, but that's what he says.) Since there is one chance in 38 that the labor he transgressed is not a capital crime, we can't execute him.
Secondly, says the Sfas Emes, the warning itself could not have been defininate. The witnesses would have had to say, "We see that you are about to transgress forbidden labor Y, which ... umm... may or may not be a capital offense! But believe us, it's not good what you are doing!" While there is some dispute, the court cannot execute someone based on provisional warning.
Given that, there really is only one of the 39 labors -- transferring to/from a public domain from/to a private domain -- for which, practically speaking, one could receive the death sentence!
Look at that. Instead of just a dry lecture on the intricacies of halacha regarding capital crimes, the gemara made a statement that seems to be preposterous. In excitement, it says what surely must have been meant... but when the dust settles, the original statement -- now explained by the emendation and put into context -- is true. That is an amazing pedagogic tactic!
It also explains why I am having more fun now than I've had in my life!
Comments