From: Herb Basser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ian, Whatever halakhah might or might not mean, it never refers to scriptural exegesis or any exegesis for that matter. It can refer to laws which are justified by some scriptural prroftext or other but never to the process of derivation.The methods of interpretation are called din, kal vehomer, gezerah shava, kllal ufrat, ribui umiut and on and on, but nowhere do we find any method called, even generically, halakhah. In its generic sense it refers to a coherent living system of definite laws, something akin to cosmic laws: One might remark "the halacha says" "According to the halakhah..." "That's the halakhah.." In more ancient sources we find: halakhah-- Esau hates Jacob, "The halakhah is according to the Hillelites", Halakhah can refer to rules that are not derivable from any source but are purely received from the tradition (you might add here "of the elders" and I wouldnt object, and Mark 7 complains that scribes allow such rules to trump Scripture). As a plural it again refers to rules that might not be found in scripture (see m. hagigah 1:8). Why do you think it is a method in the field of ritual purity? My colleague (and former student) Hannah Harrington is a worthy guide on these matters, does she claim it is a "method". So I question the accuracy your assertion: >However, when used in a generic sense to > describe a method of interpretation, which is the only way I have seen it used > in the field of ritual purity, I would argue that it is entirely appropriate. >
_______________________________________________ g-Megillot mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot
