yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/01/84)
Toby has asserted that the logic of a statement is faulty without providing ANY basis AT ALL of its fault! Simply stating that there is some nebulous reason in Talmud for it being faulty is, at best, weak. I reassert that statement until a better criticism is shown. The assertion that Talmud 'may represent an unbroken custom dating back to the times reported in Torah', is an oft cited notion which doesn't square with historical facts in my opinion. The only sect which embraced that idea 2 millenia ago were the Pharisees. None of the other sects, which were 'mainstream Judaism' of the time, agreed that this was the case. So 'Judaism' did not admit to this 'unbroken custom' at all. Further, the Pharisees themselves only date back to circa 200 BCE I think (give or take a little) in the time of the Maccabbes. This notion was not a premise of Judaism prior to that time - which means that the notion was more likely extrapolated back by the Pharisees since prior to their assertion (and 'their assertion' could not have pre-dated 'them') it was not an element of Judaism. To defend the notion would require that the Pharisees (and thus rabbinic Judaism) claim that, all along, they were a secret element within Judaism who were right while all the time the more obvious sects of Judaism (including the Prophets, etc.) were wrong and, in fact, were not really a legitimate expression of Judaism (since that it the prevailing conclusion today). We may safely conclude that SOME of these traditions did indeed date back as asserted - for the rest of Judaism certainly did not disagree with the Pharisees on everything. The problem be- comes: which authentically date back and which do not? It seems to me a non-sequitor to assert that all of the rabbinic fences would have to be replaced by some other (equally cons- training) 'rule'. It is a thoughtful note to consider the idea however and Toby's point is certainly not trivial. The key to the non-sequitor is the insertion of the phrase 'equally cons- training'. It seems true that some competing convention would be adopted to replace the constraint - but the replacement could be more tolerant of flexible within bounded interpretations of Torah rather than being constrained to THE rabbinic inter- pretation. It appears that the example of t'fillin is a fitting example. Prior to the Pharisaic ruling, it could well be that the t'fillin could have been worn anywhere from 'be- tween the eyes' to the accepted spot as declared by the rabbis. If it was worn low on the forehead between the eyes, that may have been ok. If it was worn high on the forehead, that may have been ok too. For one sect of Judaism to arbi- trarily impose a constraint IN ADDITION TO TORAH upon all the rest of Judaism seems not only rather unjustified, but an actual transgression of Torah (Dt. 4:1-2; 13:1 with Ex. 24:4; Dt. 27:3,8 & 31:24). In short, I don't think that replacing what may earlier have been 'flexibility within confines of written Torah' with 'extra-Torah rabbinic cons- traints'. Yet, the question is to discern which is which historically.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/05/84)
I'd like to make sure my main argument is clear. If one decides to base Judaism on the Torah, and not on Talmud, one must re-interpret, and invent meanings for, many things. The Torah is not an unambiguous document. Therefore it is not possible to view rejection of Talmud as "going back to basics", or any similar notion. Because a great deal of Torah interpretation is necessary, it makes a great deal of sense to stay with the mainstream that we have (in Talmud). Among the compelling reasons are: - consider that it may indeed be divinely inspired - it has withstood the test of time as a driving force in the longterm survival of the religion Although I stated that other interpretations would also "constrain" the meaning of Torah, I did not mean to imply that other interpretations would inevitably lead to a system of fences. (I suspect this is inevitable, but that is just my opinion.) Another interpretation of Torah will lead to an equivalent other Talmud (first oral, later written). This alternative may differ in style and structure, and it may differ in the degree of adherence it requires, but it will certainly exist to fill in the question of what Torah means. I personally am deeply suspicious of new attempts to interpret Torah along new grounds, or to bring it "up to date". My concerns are the reasons listed above. I particularly feel that new interpretations may create a religion that cannot last 200 years. Who knows what makes a religion last for millenia?? And now, my favorite example of how not to revise Talmud -- the following paraphrased quote actually exists in a reform prayer book (sorry, as usual I can't give source; I saw this book 15 years ago): There are two reasons why women die in childbirth: - failure to light the Sabbath lamps - failure to take the Challah portion. The reform prayer book was quoting from Pirke Avot, where the original gives THREE reasons. the third is: - failure to observe the rules of menstruation [translation very approximate]. While few of us would ever be guilty of such an extraordinary anachronism as to think that women today are condemned to death for two of these reasons and yet not the third, all of us, in trying to reinterpret the law in a spirit of RELEVANCE, can fall into similar traps. There are good reasons why good law evolves slowly. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) (11/08/84)
Women who don't observe the three sets of laws which Robison references to Pirqei Abot will probably only have non-Jewish descendents.