Was there a debate in the Talmud regarding weather Klal Yisroel was still mechuyav Mitzvoth in Galus after the Churbun?
-
If I recall correctly there's a Roman who challenges a rabbi, claiming they're no longer obligated, and the rabbi refutes that argument. So a debate recorded by the Talmud, yes; a debate between rabbis of the Talmud, no. Need to track it down bli neder.– ShalomCommented Jul 22, 2016 at 22:59
-
It seems to me based on these 2 responses that there were 2 debates. Is this possible?– user12998Commented Jul 24, 2016 at 16:38
-
1Did you hear that there was such a debate (and you're asking for substantiation of its existence) recorded in the Talmud, or is this more of an "I wonder if there ever was a debate"? If the former, please clarify that; if the latter, please clarify what prompted this curiosity.– Seth JCommented Jul 25, 2016 at 18:47
-
I heard there was a debate in the Talmud weather Klal Yisroel was still mechayiv Mitzvoth after the Chorban Bais HaMikdosh, and I wanted to find out what and where it was.– user12998Commented Jul 26, 2016 at 4:51
-
1@user12998 No. God's covenant with Israel is eternal.– Double AA ♦Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 19:50
|
Show 1 more comment
2 Answers
No. The conversation of the Gemara takes place after the churban. The fact that they are discussing the practical application of halacha proves they held ot binding in their era.
answered Jul 22, 2016 at 22:53
-
Could you please give the source for your assertion? Commented Jul 24, 2016 at 10:26
-
Yes. Just look up nearly any page in the Gemara and you will find rabbis discussing law or stories of rabbies behaving in accordance with the law. Commented Jul 25, 2016 at 18:40
-
1You could clarify that you mean all conversations in the Gemara. It currently reads as though you mean a particular conversation (perhaps the one asked about by the OP).– Seth JCommented Jul 25, 2016 at 18:41
-
1I think you meant "the conversation" to mean "the entire corpus of text recorded as a conversation, that is 'the Gemara' itself." Is that what you meant?– Seth JCommented Jul 25, 2016 at 18:43
I think that I found this talmudical debate the words are not precisely the word of the OP, but the consequences are the same. Up to day I have not found a better source.
This Gemara is in Eruvin 64b-65a:
R'Shesheth citing R'Eleazar B`Azariah observed: I could justify the exemption from judgment of all the [Israelite] world since the day of the destruction of the Temple until the present time, for it is said in Scripture: Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted and drunken but not with wine.
The Gemara comes after a discussion about the capacity of a Chacham to think rightly when he is drunk.
Later, the gemara shows an adverse opinion which debates with this. And din is discussed as din Tefila, and two kinds of drunkennes are separated...
Rashi:
לטעון על כל ישראל לפני הקב''ה דבר שיפטרו כולן מדינא לע''ל לומר שהן שיכורים ואין נתפשין על עונם: To advocate for the whole Israeli (Jew) people, before the Holy Blessed Be He, an argument which can exonerate everybody from the forthcoming judgment, saying that they are drunk and do not be caught because their fault.
-
Tho doesn't argue that the Torah isn't binding but that everyone has diminished ability to discern right and wrong without the temple. Commented Jul 25, 2016 at 18:41