alex@aecom.UUCP (Alex S. Fuss) (10/25/84)
Someone argued that the rabinic laws set up to protect the
Biblical laws serve no purpose. If one will not heed the latter, he will not
heed the former; if he will heed the latter, the former are superfluous.
The logic of this argument is faultless, but its underlying premiss
should be exposed. Implied here is that the Biblical laws are constraints to
which believers must conform, rather than guidelines for a better form of
life which believers desire. Seen in the positive way, the rabinic laws
serve the purpose of protecting a person from INADVERTANTLY transgressing
a biblical law. By the same token, fences around manholes protect passers-by
from inadvertantly being injured.
--
from the philosophical outlook of:
Alex S. Fuss
{philabs, esquire, cucard, ihnp4}!aecom!alexrobison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/29/84)
> Someone argued that the rabinic laws set up to protect the >Biblical laws serve no purpose. If one will not heed the latter, he will not >heed the former; if he will heed the latter, the former are superfluous. > The logic of this argument is faultless... I disagree with Alex Fuss on this. The argument is not faultless, and the fault is actually discussed very carefully in Talmud. The Torah is an extremely difficult book to understand unambiguously. It is full of passages that admit of many interpretations. In some cases, the interpretation selected by the ancient sages (which may represent an unbroken custom dating back to the times reported in Torah) is extremely difficult to infer from the plain words of Torah. There are also words of Torah whose meaning is unclear, but which are defined in Talmud. The point is simply this -- if you wish to have Torah without Rabbinic law, you will inevitably substitute some other set of interpretations for Talmud. At first this substitute may seem short, simple and perhaps not even require that it be written down. In time, you will doubtless repeat the historical process of collecting and codifying commentary, or bylaws, that clarify Torah, in some new way. The traditional view of the religion regards the Rabbinic tradition we have as the correct interpretation of Torah. Certainly there is no other that can make similar claims to holiness, historical tradition, and comprehensiveness. A classical example, given from the Talmud, concerns the correct position of the Tefillin. The traditional position used by most Jews alive today, and also apparently 2000 years ago, cannot be inferred from the Torah. But if one attempts to wear tefillin "just as described in Torah", there are so many unanswered questions that one would simply be creating a new tradition. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/03/84)
Mr. Fuss makes a good point here... however, I (who made the point to which he refers) think I also noted that those who had the desire to observe the safety fences should by all means - but that is not an imposition. It is the imposition of fences which I find of doubtful value. The point Mr. Fuss makes, however, is a good point and I agree for the most part.