Last week in our discussion about Jesus, we had the following conversation:Me: Nowhere in the Jewish texts is there any hint that the messiah will be anything other than a human king.
EnnisP: What about Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
...Long discussion about whether the verse was actually talking about a virgin in the first place! Thanks to Phil, kvetcher, Ennis, and OP...
OP: I just think it's ironic that this whole controversy only begins because Matthew used the verse as a prooftext, but if Matthew hadn't so used it no one would even suspect that almah would mean virgin in that context.
Me: The same irony applies to most of Jewish halakha, which is based on rather flimsy "prooftexts" from the OT.
OP: No doubt, but the Gemara is also fully aware of that too - like mountains suspended by a hair (Chagiga 10a/b). As you know, large chunks of Halacha are based on oral traditions [aka Oral Law] and were only sought reference in the text for the sake of double authority.
For those who do not know the mishna in Chagiga, here it is in full:
א,ח היתר נדרים--פורחין באוויר, ואין להן על מה שיסמוכו; הלכות שבת חגיגות ומעילות--כהררים תלויים בשערה, מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות; הדינין והעבודות, הטהרות והטומאות, והעריות--יש להן על מה שיסמוכו. והן הן גופי תורה.Note the terse style of the mishna and its esoteric nature. The mishna here is giving us a rare, behind-the-scenes glimpse of the Rabbinic mind.
[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nought to rest on. The laws concerning the Sabbath, festal-offerings, and acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant Scriptural basis but many laws. [The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] services, Levitical cleannes and uncleanness, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and it is they that are the essentials of the Torah.
Luckily for us, the mishna itself defines what it means by "mountains hanging by a hair" (in English, we would say "thread"): sectors of Jewish law for which there is little Scriptural basis, but many laws. OP was using this mishna as proof that the rabbis were aware of the fact that their prooftexts were not the main source for many laws, but rather what the Talmud terms asmakhta - a sort of mnemonic device based on Scripture.
Well, while some prooftexts are truly pure asmakhta, others clearly have major halakhic ramifications. What is remarkable to me is that the rabbis never stopped to think, Wait a minute, if there are so few laws in the Bible about the Sabbath, why are there so many in the Oral tradition? In other words, why didn't the rabbis challenge this "Oral tradition" more thoroughly? This question becomes all the more compelling when we consider other cases, where the rabbis deliberately turned a blind eye to the plain meaning of Scripture. These are the same rabbis that say, "A verse cannot be separated from its plain meaning."
I'll continue this train of thought next post, where I'll specifically examine the topic of an eye for an eye.
--
14 comments:
Christians have no tradition upon which to base their interpretation of Scripture. The rabbis do.
Sure the rabbis have a tradition. But maybe it was wrong from the start. Why do you assume that the rabbis of previous generations were smarter then we are ? They were probably far more superstitious then we are , knew less and certainly had very little understanding of science at all. Start out with the feeling that the previous generations were all involved in superstition and see how far you can go forward. Who says that the rishonim were right, other rishonim. Nonesense.....Avi
Nice post, you make good points.
>In other words, why didn't the rabbis challenge this "Oral tradition" more thoroughly?
Because you are ignoring their major axiom. The oral law does not need to be challenged because it IS the correct interpretation of an ambiguous text.
>This question becomes all the more compelling when we consider other cases, where the rabbis deliberately turned a blind eye to the plain meaning of Scripture.
Understood, but I think the rabbis believe that it was the orals law intention of turning a blind eye toward the text, not them.
>"A verse cannot be separated from its plain meaning."
i believe they used this only for narrative, not halachic issues.
Mankind is not given to embracing the concept that there's doubt involved as doubt is to be avoided like cutting too much wood off a piece or leaving a splotch on a shirt. You specifically try to avoid doubt.
So you pile on anything you can to eliminate doubt. It doesn't have to have scientific precision, it just needs to be enough window dressing to keep people from questioning which is where doubt begins.
Tradition is what you get. It's up to you whether you want to follow and why you think you should and for what reason.
Of course, thinking for oneself is scary no matter how much the free spirit one likes to see oneself as.
CM,
"In other words, why didn't the rabbis challenge this "Oral tradition" more thoroughly?"
As I commented in the last post - the salient point of what distinguished the Pharisees (and later Rabbinates) from the other sects at the time was in giving the traditions of the people heavy weight - indeed, the Oral Torah was said to come initially direct from God to Moses. No other group believed in the legitimacy of the Oral Law.
You may as well be asking, "How come Moslems didn't question the 'Koran' more thoroughly"? If you didn't believe in the Koran then you weren't a Moslem. Likewise, if you didn't believe in the Oral Law then weren't a Rabbinate. Other options did exist and Jews did sometimes take them.
@OP,
As I commented in the last post - the salient point of what distinguished the Pharisees (and later Rabbinates) from the other sects at the time was in giving the traditions of the people heavy weight - indeed, the Oral Torah was said to come initially direct from God to Moses. No other group believed in the legitimacy of the Oral Law.
I agree with you to some extent I don't think it's quite so simple. The rabbis have dicta such as "ain mikra yotzay miday p'shuto." How did they follow through on this?
I am not sure what your source is for their infallible belief in the Oral Law - can you cite a Mishna to this effect? The first mishna in Pirkei Avot is often quoted to prove this kind of allegiance, but it's too vague to get much out of it.
There are later midrashim in the Talmud validating the Oral law (Rabbi Akiba darshening the crowns, etc.) but that's midrash and should not be taken too literally. Plus, I'm not sure to what extent any source represents the entire body of Talmudic and Mishnaic sages. I'd be most comfortable with a set of mishnas or toseftas that deal explicitly with the origin of the Oral law and what we are supposed to believe about it.
Perhaps the best sources on this "Oral law" business are the arguments between Sadducees and Pharisees. I do think a lot of the literal-minded Pharisees probably ended up in the Sadducee camp.
LMK if you know any good sources, because I don't know them all and have probably forgotten a few. I will continue the discussion and we'll see what comes up.
>"ain mikra yotzay miday p'shuto."
Like I said above, I believe they only meant this for the narrative.
CM,
"The rabbis have dicta such as "ain mikra yotzay miday p'shuto." How did they follow through on this?"
The answer to that question is the whole corpus of Talmud. Most times they did stay with the simple interpretations, but for many various reasons they felt justified cause to diverge. See, the key to understanding the approach to the Oral Torah is that it tries to span two distinct methods of authority. One, that it derives whole directly from Moses at Sinai but unwritten. And the second, that it's authority derived from proper heuristic understanding of the Written Torah.
This is why there are numerous discussion in the Talmud of rabbis searching for the Biblical source of a well-regarded tradition - not because they needed it per se (since the tradition could have had independent authority as handed down from Moses), but because they sought out a double authority to satisfy both theories.
"I am not sure what your source is for their infallible belief in the Oral Law - can you cite a Mishna to this effect? The first mishna in Pirkei Avot is often quoted to prove this kind of allegiance, but it's too vague to get much out of it."
What do you mean? I was thinking of precisely that chapter of Pirkei Avot and it's main purpose is to demonstrate the historical and theological legitimacy of the Oral Law, as derived from Moses. Aside from that, throughout the Talmud and Rabbinic literature specific oral traditions are constantly said to be l'moshe misini. Why else except to demonstrate their historical legitimacy?
Now, we may be speaking a bit at cross purposes here with respect to the earliest proto-Pharisees. Did they believe the Oral Law was as equal in revelation and stature as the Written? I doubt it. This was an evolved theory to bolster the authority of the collective traditions. Are you asking why *these* people didn't question the traditions more thoroughly?
The answer to this is simply likely because they thought they were correct traditions regardless of their authority.
@HH,
"ain mikra yotzay miday p'shuto."
Like I said above, I believe they only meant this for the narrative.
It's used often in the context of midrash halakha, if memory serves. We'll get into it. Sources needed, people!
"The rabbis have dicta such as "ain mikra yotzay miday p'shuto." How did they follow through on this?"
The answer to that question is the whole corpus of Talmud.
I understand what you are saying, although I think the Talmud is more about resolving baraitot than resolving the Oral law with the written.
I was thinking of precisely that chapter of Pirkei Avot and it's main purpose is to demonstrate the historical and theological legitimacy of the Oral Law, as derived from Moses.
I do not take that away from the Mishna, which says only that Moses accepted the Torah from Sinai and passed it along.
Aside from that, throughout the Talmud and Rabbinic literature specific oral traditions are constantly said to be l'moshe misini. Why else except to demonstrate their historical legitimacy?
The phrase "l'moshe misinai" is a colloquialism that means "old tradition." Check out the last mishna in eduyot, e.g., where the term is practically defined as such (plus it's very unlikely that Moses was taught about Elijah, who didn't live yet):
ח,ז אמר רבי יהושוע, מקובל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו, הלכה למשה מסיניי, שאין אלייהו בא לטמא ולטהר, לרחק ולקרב, אלא לרחק את המקורבין בזרוע, ולקרב את המרוחקין בזרוע
CM,
"although I think the Talmud is more about resolving baraitot than resolving the Oral law with the written."
Alright, but it does so by appeal to the Written.
"I do not take that away from the Mishna, which says only that Moses accepted the Torah from Sinai and passed it along."
You think that meant just the written text? The fact that the first chapter cares particularly about the passage of Torah through those particular Rabbinical leaders implies to me that the proper interpretation is the key. They could have just as well noted that the Torah was based from generations of High Priests but they didn't.
Separately, let me also remind you of the primary role which mesorah holds in Talmudic discussions. One rabbi who heard something from a reliable of the previous generation is typically considered in better standing than one who figured something out on their own.
"The phrase "l'moshe misinai" is a colloquialism that means "old tradition." Check out the last mishna in eduyot"
I don't see what your saying. He says he heard from this other rabbi who heard it from the generation before him all the way back - a halacha from moshe misini. In what way do you conclude figurative colloquialism?
From:
mishnahyomit.org/eduyoth/Eduyoth.doc
The Rambam points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai did not actually have a tradition that Moses said these very words. Rather this is how the tradition understood Deuteronomy 30:3-4, which states that if you are scattered to the four corners of the earth, God will bring you back. This is understood to mean that if a family was illegitimately not allowed to intermarry with other Jewish families, Elijah would redeem the situation.
G-d is the professor.
Moses is the TA.
We are the students.
The Torah is the textbook.
The oral tradition is the lectures.
The Talmud is the lecture note service.
@OP,
The fact that the first chapter cares particularly about the passage of Torah through those particular Rabbinical leaders implies to me that the proper interpretation is the key.
It is strange for you to bring a proof from Avot, which is clearly a collection of original pithy sayings.
@Dr. Dave,
The Rambam points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai did not actually have a tradition that Moses said these very words. Rather this is how the tradition understood Deuteronomy 30:3-4, which states that if you are scattered to the four corners of the earth, God will bring you back.
I don't know where the Rambam is getting this, his position seems halfway between mine and OP's. Personally, I do not see how Moses could have transmitted a law about Elijah, who was not born yet much less "taken away".
My impression of the term halakha l'moshe misinai is based on other sources, as well as the mishna in Eduyot. The Talmud tends to use it in the sense of 'a tradition for which we cannot find a prooftext.' I believe for example it is used in this way with respect to ritual slaughter (in Hullin?), although I may be remembering that wrong.
Dr. Dave,
G-d is the professor.
Moses is the TA.
We are the students.
The Torah is the textbook.
The oral tradition is the lectures.
The Talmud is the lecture note service.
That is a great illustration of what happens in many different religions. They start with G_d who speaks to or through some prominent leader (Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Joe Smith) who produces a written record of the interaction (Torah, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon).
And, as time goes by, there is the tendency to "expand" on the original text (oral tradition).
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting the groups are equal in character. I am only pointing out the similarities in the trend.
In my experience I was taught a lot of things on the "oral tradition" level that I completely reject now. I haven't, however, thrown the baby out with the bath water. I love the OT and read it thoroughly. I know that any conclusion that ignores the original text is suspicious at best.
What I have observed (in my religious circles) is that people tend to give more credence to the expanded ideas (tradition) than to the original text and they do that to be accepted by the group. Psychologically, group acceptance takes precedence over acceptance by G_d.
JP's remark about the lack of tradition for Christians is partly right and partly wrong.
We do have tradition but it isn't quite as static or as old (for obvious reasons).
Different groups of Christians have come up with different "traditional" ideas to govern lifestyle and religious practise (all claiming to be an interpretation of the Bible) but no one has attempted to amalgamate all of them into one set of beliefs (Talmud).
In fact, the differences have caused friction among the various groups which to my mind is a strength of Christianity not a weakness. It drives us back to the original textt, which is the point.
Post a Comment