levy@pyuxww.UUCP (S Levy) (02/27/85)
Hebrew is a language where almost all words have a masculine or feminine gender associated with them. As is common practice with most such languages the feminine plural is used only for females and the masculine plural is used for a group of all males OR a mixed group of males and females. It has always intrigued me as to how one determines whether or not the masculine plural used in the Torah was meant for a group composed of males and females or is just meant for males. I realize that there are laws specifically for females only, which may infer that a given set of related laws given to the masculine plural would indeed mean only males; however this isn't always the case. I would like to know if there is any concrete evidence that enabled the rabbis to determine that various laws apply to males only. I tend to question the interpretation of this "language ambiguity" by male rabbis from a historically male world. I'd be interested in hearing explanations of this. ---Sharon Levy
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (03/01/85)
> As is common > practice with most such languages the feminine plural is used > only for females and the masculine plural is used for a group > of all males OR a mixed group of males and females. > > It has always intrigued me as to how one determines whether > or not the masculine plural used in the Torah was meant for > a group composed of males and females or is just meant for > males. I realize that there are laws specifically for females > only, which may infer that a given set of related laws given > to the masculine plural would indeed mean only males; however > this isn't always the case. I would like to know if there is > any concrete evidence that enabled the rabbis to determine that > various laws apply to males only. I tend to question the > interpretation of this "language ambiguity" by male rabbis from a > historically male world. > > ---Sharon Levy The rabbis who decided on matters of halacha (Jewish laws) over the ages always had an oral tradition to guide them (Karaites notwithstanding). For example, the Torah states "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but we have an oral tradition that tells us to interpret this verse to mean monetary compensation equivalent to the value of an eye, tooth,etc. The Torah says "Ye shall not go out from your dwelling places on the Sabbath day", where again we have an oral tradition that allows us two thousand cubits leeway (a cubit being about half a yard).The Karaites, on the other hand, took this verse quite literally, staying in their house all Shabbat long. The Torah says not to do 'work' on Shabbat, but the types of work forbidden, the thirty nine melachot, are due to our oral tradition. Therefore, when the rabbis said that women weren't obligated in a certain mitzvah that men were obligated in, it was certainly based on oral tradition given to Moses at Sinai and not male chauvinism. appendix: ========= What was just said above is not trivially the case. For example, when Moses died the Medrash says that three thousand halachot were lost until Asniel Ben Kenaz restored them "bpilpulo".Clearly, the oral tradition was lost for these halachot until Asniel restored them through using the thirteen ways "shehatora nidreshet bahem". Also, the thirteen midot "shehatora nidreshat bahem" -- kal vachomer, hekesh, pratt u'klal,etc. seemed designed to derive halachot from looking at the literal Torah, even when Sinaitic tradition is not available for a particular verse or halacha. The Torah would then be like a database from which all relevant halachot were derivable when the right deduction rules were applied, namely the "thirteen midot". Furthermore, in the Talmud the question is often asked "from where do we know this halacha?", and the Talmud then goes out of its way to find a pasuk that substantiates this halacha (either directly or through using one of the 13 midot). For example, the Avot Melachot on Shabbat could be said to be learned out of the "semichat haparshiyot" (as Rashi says there), from the juxtaposition of the prohibition to work on Shabbat and the injunction to build the Mishcan, and not necessarily from any mesorah that was passed on . This, however, is clearly not the case. For example, we say that "ein adam dan kal vachomer meatzmoh". If kal vachomer is purely a logical form of reasoning out things that are implied in the Torah then why would a mesorah be required ? Yet we say that kal vachomer needs a mesorah of its own. Also, often the Talmud will say after citing a verse that is rather obscure as the source for a particular halacha that it is only an "asmachta be'alma", as if to say all we were really looking for from the start was an "asmachta". In fact many of the pesukim brought to substantiate halachot in the Gemara are so obscure that it seems almost impossible to assume that the Gemara had ever intended to learn the halacha from there, but rather, commenatries on the Gemara will often go out of their way, even when the Gemara doesn't, to say that a particular verse is only an "asmachta" and that the Gemara is not really relying on the verse but has a mesorah for this paricular halacha. But if most, if not all, of our halachot are based on mesorah and the thirteen midot "ein adam dan meatzmoh" then what purpose do the thirteen midot serve? And why not just have an oral tradition, without a written Torah? Part of the answer to this question might lie in the fact that the 'tradition' and halachot passed on from Sinai were certainly better kept,better sustained, throughout our history because of the written Torah. If not for the written Torah, if everything had been passed down orally, there is no question that much more of the mesorah and many more halachot would have been lost. Evidence of this is the fact that eventually even Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and Ravina and Rav Ashi had to say "eis la'asos" and write down parts of the tradition that were supposed to remain oral. If not for the written Law there would have been many more "machlokot" in the times of the Gemara and afterward. Even though Asniel didn't remem- ber the 3,000 halachot that were forgotten in and of themselves , he did remember where Moses had said a "kal vachomer can be made on this pasuk as follows, and a hekesh can be made on that pasuk as follows", and in that way he restored the forgotten halachot. Also, when Boaz wanted to marry Ruth, he cited not the halacha per se but the drasha of "moavi v'lo moavit", that drasha was better remembered than the mesorah of the halacha itself. So the written Torah plays a vital role in keeping the mesorah straight and in keeping halachot from being forgotten, yet at the same time it is entirely dependent on the mesorah, "halacha l'moshe mee' seenai". That's why "kol torah she'ein la bet av eina torah" and that's why the oral tradition is essential in understanding the Torah. Ari Gross Erev Shabbat, Parshat Zachor arig@cvl.arpa