But is it?
R. Yehiel replied: It is a legal presumption that all
agent carries out his mission.
R. Nahman ruled: In [respect of a law] of the Torah,
there is no legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission; in
[respect of a law] of the Scribes there is a legal presumption that an agent
carries out his mission.
R. Shesheth, however, ruled: In respect of the one as
in that of the other there is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his
mission
What follows is an
extensive attempt to show examples of Torah laws in which the presumption of an
agent’s success is a given. The problem is, the examples are all of Beit Din
or Priests or individual rabbis (chaver) carrying out their duty.
There [the presumption is justified] for the reason
stated: Because it is known that Beit Din would not shirk their duty.
The same holds true for
the others. So it is hard to demonstrate that an ordinary agent would be
presumed to have carried out the responsibilities for a Torah law, as opposed
to a Rabbinic ordinance.
-------
On a different subject,
there is a remarkable and rare aside on this page. In a discussion of a fine
point of law, and a well-argued point, there is this parenthetical:
(But did not they themselves explain [their
difficulty] thereby? — In fact it was this that they said to him: ‘Did you
embody it in the Gemara?)
A statement which seems
to be an early stage of addition to what will become the Talmud – the question
being asked is, ‘has this excellent point been added to the commentary?’ It is
a glimpse into the process by which the rabbis decide what will be in the text
and what will not.
No comments:
Post a Comment