"If he gave us mitzvos they’re for us. [what for - is beyond the scope of this article] ergo the definitions for mitzvos should be our own."
Conceptually, I would argue that it is non-sensical to get into theories of halacha if you haven't established the point of any of it in the first place. If the mitzvos are for A, you may (theoretically, though I can't see how tbh) be right but if they are for B you may be wrong. To use undefined words just to make a point, if the mitzvos are for a spiritual purpose, you need to consider spirituality in your definitions. If they're for a practical purpose, you need to consider the practicalities, etc.
I'm sorry but I believe your point is floating in the air with nothing beneath it and no way to evaluate it.
“If God gave us mitzvos they’re for us… ergo the definitions for mitzvos should be our own.”
Let’s grant the first half for the sake of argument, even though plenty of kabbalistic and medieval positions would dispute this.
How far do you take this?
If we all become nocturnal, do we start putting tefillin on at night and not during the day?
I don’t accept this move. The fact that they are for our benefit doesn’t grant us total authority over their definitions.
The meaning of the command is anchored in the Commander’s intention, not whatever contemporary society happens to call “day,” “night,” “life,” “death,” or anything else. Human benefit doesn’t imply human-defined categories, and no serious halakhic framework has ever operated that way.
Happens to be we pasken לילה זמן תפילין and we don't wear tefilin at night מדרבנן שמא יישן ויפיח בהם, so that would absolutely change if we become nocturnal.
But that's besides the point, the truth is commander's intention doesn't contain a defintion and why would it. Or put differently the intended defintion includes societal variables.
Ok, fair, I chose a bad example. Use milah instead
I still want to know where the line is. If we redefine marriage, does the definition of arayos change? What about melacha on Shabbos, I don't define writing or flicking a light switch as "work".
The problem I'm having is that we're shifting from command to somewhat vague guidelines.
Changing defintion doesn't mean we can decide one day that red is green, obviously. Rather it sort of implies a hard defintion maybe call it a meta-definition and what is included in that definition changes.
The problem is that the halcha was codified using culture and history dependent language.
Reverting to the shma case, the definition of bedtime and waketime didn't actually change only the way it was codified in relation to solar time was reflective of a historical reality no longer. My assumptioin is that the intended defintion was really about people and not the sun.
ולא אמנע מלעורר בעיקר הדבר מאחר שתלתה התורה ענין ק”ש בשכיבה וקימה, ולא נכתב בהדיא הזמן, אם דרך בני אדם מצד חולשתם שירדה לעולם משתנה, וכעת כולם ישנים יותר או קמים מאוחר יותר, יש מקום לומר דיש כאן חיוב דאורייתא, והגם שלא מצאתי הדבר מפורש, לענ”ד הסברא נכונה, ומכל שכן במקום שטבע האקלים גורם לזה, כל הלין אפשר לומר הנח להם לישראל.
This is why we say 'Hashem looked at the Torah, before creating the world'. People's basic physiology is in line with the Torah's principles. Even when details change, the people and Torah are still in sync.
Solid point, lavish delivery.
If I understood correctly this article is basically “דיברה תורה בלשון בני אדם (בזמנם)
Nice post! Love it!
My really nasty response posted here:
https://dovidykornreich.substack.com/p/taking-mr-hyde-out-of-retirement
"If he gave us mitzvos they’re for us. [what for - is beyond the scope of this article] ergo the definitions for mitzvos should be our own."
Conceptually, I would argue that it is non-sensical to get into theories of halacha if you haven't established the point of any of it in the first place. If the mitzvos are for A, you may (theoretically, though I can't see how tbh) be right but if they are for B you may be wrong. To use undefined words just to make a point, if the mitzvos are for a spiritual purpose, you need to consider spirituality in your definitions. If they're for a practical purpose, you need to consider the practicalities, etc.
I'm sorry but I believe your point is floating in the air with nothing beneath it and no way to evaluate it.
Great post.
The Anglo-Saxon can do a deal on a handshake because the culture is high trust and based on personal honor.
“If God gave us mitzvos they’re for us… ergo the definitions for mitzvos should be our own.”
Let’s grant the first half for the sake of argument, even though plenty of kabbalistic and medieval positions would dispute this.
How far do you take this?
If we all become nocturnal, do we start putting tefillin on at night and not during the day?
I don’t accept this move. The fact that they are for our benefit doesn’t grant us total authority over their definitions.
The meaning of the command is anchored in the Commander’s intention, not whatever contemporary society happens to call “day,” “night,” “life,” “death,” or anything else. Human benefit doesn’t imply human-defined categories, and no serious halakhic framework has ever operated that way.
Happens to be we pasken לילה זמן תפילין and we don't wear tefilin at night מדרבנן שמא יישן ויפיח בהם, so that would absolutely change if we become nocturnal.
But that's besides the point, the truth is commander's intention doesn't contain a defintion and why would it. Or put differently the intended defintion includes societal variables.
Ok, fair, I chose a bad example. Use milah instead
I still want to know where the line is. If we redefine marriage, does the definition of arayos change? What about melacha on Shabbos, I don't define writing or flicking a light switch as "work".
The problem I'm having is that we're shifting from command to somewhat vague guidelines.
Changing defintion doesn't mean we can decide one day that red is green, obviously. Rather it sort of implies a hard defintion maybe call it a meta-definition and what is included in that definition changes.
The problem is that the halcha was codified using culture and history dependent language.
Reverting to the shma case, the definition of bedtime and waketime didn't actually change only the way it was codified in relation to solar time was reflective of a historical reality no longer. My assumptioin is that the intended defintion was really about people and not the sun.
ולא אמנע מלעורר בעיקר הדבר מאחר שתלתה התורה ענין ק”ש בשכיבה וקימה, ולא נכתב בהדיא הזמן, אם דרך בני אדם מצד חולשתם שירדה לעולם משתנה, וכעת כולם ישנים יותר או קמים מאוחר יותר, יש מקום לומר דיש כאן חיוב דאורייתא, והגם שלא מצאתי הדבר מפורש, לענ”ד הסברא נכונה, ומכל שכן במקום שטבע האקלים גורם לזה, כל הלין אפשר לומר הנח להם לישראל.
שו"ת רי"ח זוננפלד סוף סימן כ"ג
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20038&st=&pgnum=82
What defines the meta-definition. Do we have a general rule that tells us what is meta, and what is subject to social changes?
I don't know. you want me to do all the work?
I can try but not all at once.
This is why we say 'Hashem looked at the Torah, before creating the world'. People's basic physiology is in line with the Torah's principles. Even when details change, the people and Torah are still in sync.
Thank you for writing this. I loved the story of the little boy and the parsha.