robert@brl-tgr.ARPA (Robert Shnidman ) (11/01/84)
I'm preparing an answer to your request for me to elaborate on my previous listing, but am quite busy so it will take a bit. However I consider a scholarly discussion to include references and sources for statements. I attach little or no value to statements of historical "facts" unless they are backed up. I am specifically refering to your inferences of the history of the Oral Law. Robert Shnidman robert@brl-vld.arpa
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/03/84)
Chaya has raised some interesting points which I think should be
considered... and some which should be corrected at least a little.
Regarding the legitimacy of sects which did not accept the Oral
Law and the validity of the Oral Law, the wording is very careful
and very correct. The inference that the reader may be lead to
however is misleading because a piece of information is left out.
These sects which denied the Oral Law predated Rabbinic Jews by
centuries. Further, it was also these sects which were 'mainstream'
Judaism at that time - NOT rabbinic Jews (the Pharisees). The
Pharisees began to enjoy greater popularity only toward the end
of the 2nd Temple period. Prior to this, the rabbinic sect of
Pharisaic Judaism had only been around a couple of centuries.
In fact, it was the rabbinic sect of Pharisaic Judaism then which
was regarded as the suspect sect. By the end of the 2nd Temple
Period there were a multitude of Jewish sects - ALL of which were
using the term 'min(im)' on each other. The point here is that
it was the denial of Oral Law which was the more 'legitimate
form of Judaism' up until the end of the 2nd Temple Period. So,
while 'the fact that they existed does not mean that their ideology
was accepted as a legitimate form of Judaism' is entirely logical,
it does not deal with the issue. The legitimacy of denying the
Oral Law was not based on that at all. It was based on the fact
that Oral Law was NOT a legitimate expression of Judaism prior
to the last few decades of the 2nd Temple period. When Chaya
writes that 'those sects were not recognized as legitimate by
Rabbinic Jews', there are two flaws: 1) prior to the last couple
of centuries of the 2nd Temple era, there were no Rabbinic Jews
and 2) up until the last few decades of the 2nd Temple era, it
was the Rabbinic Jews whose legitimacy was suspect - not the
REST of Judaism. The statement Chaya makes is correct. The in-
ference it leads the reader toward is not correct. Could this
be the kind of reasoning we are supposed to see if we will only
'read some of their writings'?
It should also be noted that it is not merely me ('YOU claim....)
who claim that many of the orthodox 'authorities' are anti-
intellectuals. One need only have read the Jerusalem Post over
the past couple of years to know that there are many distinguished
Jewish scholars from a variety of disciplines which have made this
assertion. Attempting to reduce this to 'you claim' is a cop out.
You also implied that I am unfamiliar with all of their writings.
How is it that you know this? And which of us is apparently un-
familiar with the Jerusalem Post articles over the past couple
of years - and apparently with a lot of flap from archaeologists,
etc. in Israel over this subject. It is not wise to charge that
someone is unread unless you know such is the case. Simply be-
cause someone disagrees with you is no sign they are (necessarily)
unread (at least not enough of an indication in itself). I also
take sharp issue that reading their (often myopic) writings shows
so clearly that 'that claim is false'. In fact, I think that it
often shows the claim is quite true. It should be noted that
'blind faith' is not always contradictory to scholarship. If
there are two ways to believe, and one decides to believe with-
out checking into the scholarship, there is a 50/50 chance they
will be in (out) of synch with scholarship. It is not the 'blind
faith' I criticise. Rather, it is the intractable opposition to
scholarship which these leaders sometimes take. There is no ex-
cuse for that in my opinion. Please note also that I do NOT
imply that this is true of all orthodox leaders/authorities.
I know many for whom I have a lot of respect.... and whenever
ANYONE asks me about learning about Judaism, etc. I INSIST on
an orthodox rabbi. The same leaders who sometimes take open
opposition to scholarship are the same ones who demand blind
obediience from their followers. I haven't found this to be
true of all orthodox leaders either... so what is their excuse
for doing this?
On the matter of 'Torah min ha-shamayim', Chaya writes "to
reject the 'Oral law' even while accepting the Divine origin
of the Bible is nonetheless to deny 'Torah min ha-shamayim'".
Well, I don't care if that is agreed upon by every sage on
earth, it simply isn't logical. Whatever the statement is
which is supposedly implied there, a more logical phrase
should be found to state it. By this standard, no Jew prior
to the last few decades of the 2nd Temple period believed
in 'Torah min ha-shamayim'... because they did not believe
in the oral law prior to that. This was an innovation of
the Pharisees.
I think it would also be helpful if a distinction were
maintained in discussions between 'mishpat' and 'oral
law', since this is the distinction which prevailed in
the time period to which we have been referring (prior
to the last few decades of the 2nd Temple period). Failing
to use logically precise and unambiguous terms always
hinders mutual communication and understanding (the same
reason for requesting a better term than 'Torah min ha-
shamayim', since one CAN logically believe in Torah from
the skies and a Divinely given Torah without believing
in the Oral law).
I suppose I should comment on my impressions of some of
'their writings': strong in metaphors, strong in allusions,
very flowery, designed to impress listeners/readers as very
deep, very impressive to the sophomoric, quite shallow and
frequently self-serving.
Again, I bracket my remark on both sides that I am NOT
talking about all orthodox authorities (OR the sages for
that matter). I'm talking principally about some contem-
porary leaders who are developing followings and are in
undisguised opposition to reputable and distinguished
Jewish scholars in various disciplines; some of these leaders
regard the teaching of science as superfluous, etc. I am also
speaking of the inertia we permit through our continued and
unquestioning acceptance of post-2nd Temple thru middle
ages 'scientific' determinations which are clearly neither
scientific nor scholarly by modern standards.