Suppose there was a previously unknown collection of midrash or sayings or halachah or commentary that was discovered in an archaeological excavation and is hundreds or thousands of years old.
Suppose that this text is not only readable but it is also somehow clear (to archaeologists or historians) that it is teaching from a well known sage of that era.
Since that text was not handed down from teacher to student over the generations, is it ineligible to be incorporated into official Jewish "canon"? Or could it still be considered in some sense authoritative simply on the basis of the ancient sage who wrote it? Would it depend on the type or genre of material or era?
Has anything analagous to this occurred before, and if so, what was the result?
Answer
There is a teshuva of the Rema in which he writes that if you find a Teshuva of the Gaonim, you could follow its opinion.
I asked R' Zvi Berkowitz about this and he said this was restricted specifically to the period of the Gaonim, because the Rishonim themselves (on whom much of our codification is based) would have taken the position of the Gaon into account and may very well have changed their opinion accordingly. However, if it would be a "discovered" Rishon, it would not have this authority, because the existing body of Rishonim would not have been impacted by the opinion of yet another Rishon.
Therefore, manuscripts can be accepted, but their impact into Halacha would depend on the authority they would have had in the Halachic process had they been known.
I know that there are others who accept the Meiri's Beis Habechira (written in 13th century and rediscovered in the 20th century) as having the authority of any other Rishon. I was told by a student of R' Avraham Yehoshua Soloveitchik (Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk) that the Brisker tradition treats the Meiri as having the authority of an Acharon, and can be used but not against the opinion of a Rishon.
No comments:
Post a Comment