How do those who propound the theory that texts recently discovered were kept out of the main stream by god’s will, understand why did he allow us to find them now? As a test or as a hint that now is the time to incorporate them or something else?
Kt
Joel Rich
It seems to me that if one holds there is some magic date at which halacha is frozen, then it would make sense that Hashem would suppress those texts that He didn't want us to follow before that date, and then release them later because Torah Hi Velilmod Ani Tzarich. We need to know what these chachamim taught, but they shouldn't influence our practice, so once we froze our practice it was safe to release them.
Of course that is only if one actually accepts this whole premise.
.
R' Joel Rich asked:
How do those who propound the theory that texts recently
discovered were kept out of the main stream by god’s will,
understand why did he allow us to find them now? As a test
or as a hint that now is the time to incorporate them or
something else?
I can't imagine what "test" you might be referring to. Could you be
suggesting that if we were to find a genuine text written by a genuine
authority, but it had been only recently discovered, we should treat that
text as an evil temptation?
My approach to this is to remember that for the first 2448 years of this
world's existence, all of Torah Sheb'ksav was in the category you describe.
There was a time before that when (in a certain respect) Torah consisted of
nothing more than Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach. And before that there was only
one mitzvah.
Please don't quibble over any details in that paragraph; it was a bit
poetic, true. My point is that the world changes, and what's right for one
generation is not the same as what another generation needs, and it is
obvious to me that Hashem gives us what we need exactly when we need it.
(If a text was lost, Hashem had a reason for it. So too when it was found.
Sometimes I wonder if Ravina and Rav Ashi had edited and finalized a Gemara
Bavli on one or more of the missing masechtos. Perhaps they did, and every
single copy got burnt in the bookburnings, or otherwise lost somehow or
other. Perhaps it was Hashem's judgement that we didn't really need them?)
A related question is how much weight to assign to those discovered texts.
If it was written by a rishon, for example, but discovered nowadays, do we
treat it as a rishon, despite missing out on centuries of vetting and
comparison with other writings? This is way above my pay grade, and I will
not attempt to answer it.
Akiva Miller
I can't imagine what "test" you might be referring to. Could you be
suggesting that if we were to find a genuine text written by a genuine
authority, but it had been only recently discovered, we should treat that
text as an evil temptation?
Like Rabbeinu Chananel and the Meiri. Works we knew from quotes and
citations they existed, but we didn't have the text themselves and the
vast majority of what they said until the 20th century.
A related question is how much weight to assign to those discovered texts.
If it was written by a rishon, for example, but discovered nowadays, do we
treat it as a rishon, despite missing out on centuries of vetting and
comparison with other writings? This is way above my pay grade, and I will
not attempt to answer it.
In the other direction, it definitely interferes with halakhah kebasrai
when the latter authority couldn't have seen the former's work.
On the other hand, we don't have various acharonim arguing peshat in
the Meiri the way we do for Rashi and Rambam. We have much more clarity
about what they said, or more importantly -- what potential meaning of
what they said is to enter the discussion.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha