-1

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. – Shalom Jul 22 '16 at 22:59
  • It seems to me based on these 2 responses that there were 2 debates. Is this possible? – user12998 Jul 24 '16 at 16:38
  • 1
    Did 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 J Jul 25 '16 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. – user12998 Jul 26 '16 at 4:51
  • 1
    @user12998 No. God's covenant with Israel is eternal. – Double AA Jul 28 '16 at 19:50
0

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.

  • Could you please give the source for your assertion? – Avrohom Yitzchok Jul 24 '16 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. – Clint Eastwood Jul 25 '16 at 18:40
  • 1
    You 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 J Jul 25 '16 at 18:41
  • 1
    I 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 J Jul 25 '16 at 18:43
0

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. – Clint Eastwood Jul 25 '16 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .