yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (10/22/84)
Using quotes from the sages to prove the validity of quotes from the sages is begging the question and dependance upon circular reasoning. Surely if their authority is so divine as to dictate to the Creator and he must rubber stamp their decisions there must be better arguments for their authority? If not, I certainly reject the notion on scholarly grounds. Further, it seems to me that to insist on valid grounds (as contrasted with proofs) from written Torah is to 'guard Torah' from change through any kind of evolution. The keepers of written Torah went to a lot of trouble to see to it that we received a true copy. To assert that I must listen to the sages if I serve the Creator infers several things which I think you should deal with: 1.) 'If' I serve the Creator. Who are you to question/determine that? 2.) By listen do you mean 'listen' literally? If so, then I agree. 3.) On the other hand, if by listen you mean I am compelled to accept their decision as binding in ALL matters, then I disagree. There are (many) matters in which I am compelled to do so. In my opinion, there are also some matters in which I am NOT compelled to do so. What is your position vis-a-vis accepting their binding decision in ALL matters? It seems to me that there is a difference between 'mishpat', which Torah authorizes our authorities to decide, and fences in addition to mishpat (over and above, in excess of) which written Torah itself forbids - "You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it" (Dt. 4:1-2; 13:1). You apparently need to be reminded that neither the Sadducees, the Temple Priests, nor the Torah Scribes nor any of the other 1st century sects of Judaism accepted the 'oral law'. The Pharisees alone accepted it. The difference between mishpat and fences was especially clear in that era. That may seem irrelevant to someone who blindly and unquestioningly accepts the authority of the sages, but it is not irrelevant to someone who looks to his/her Jewish roots to compare and contrast modern forms of Judaism with Biblical forms of the times of Moses and the Prophets. To assert that 'to separate yourself from the sages, therefore, is ludicrous' betrays your lack of valid argument. Since you have no strong basis for your 'therefore', you must simply label it ludicrous. Which is ludicrous? I suggest begging the question and circular reasoning is the ludicrous. You assert also that we have authorities today to ask. Just who are the authorities today? By what authority are they authorities? (No circular reasoning please). Whose opinion should we accept as to who the authorities are? The orthodox? The ultra-orthodox? The Reform? The Conservative? The Reconstructionists? And so on ad nauseum. Many of these strictest 'authorities' are widely acknowledged to be anti-intellectual - in scholarly Jewish circles (re articles in the Jerusalem Post over the past year as AN example, there are many others). You write that 'better scientific knowledge these days and perhaps even better religious knowledge does not exempt one from following the sages, for two reasons:'. I'll deal with the two reasons in a minute. This notion implies to me that the written Torah given to us by the Creator is not perfect with respect to scientific know- ledge and religous knowledge; that we have in our human wisdom surpassed the knowledge which the Creator had at the time of the giving of Torah on Har Sinay - or that he gave it to us in an incomplete form which needed to change over time - but wrote through king David and the Prophets that He Himself is immutable and that the Torah was perfect. If science and truth are out of synch with the sages, then I maintain that the sages are out of synch with Torah, not the Torah out of synch with science, learning, knowledge and truth. If the authorities are not in synch with science, knowledge, learning and truth then they are not valid authorities and I reject their claim of authority. Such are not representing Torah as they claim. With regard to the two reasons you offerred. If they make mistakes in mishpat, we are obligated to follow them while trying to get them changed. If they make mistakes in additions (fences), then Torah itself tells us they are wrong and we are not to follow them when we know they are wrong. What Torah forbids is for each individual to follow his own ideas to the exclusion of the authorities. There must be Torah and obedience to Torah in a recognizable unified sense. On the other hand, there is no support for the notion that we are to blindly and unquestioningly go to the opposite extreme and follow the sages in ALL matters as you suggest. Again, I remind you to refrain from circular reasoning. You will soon discover the frailty of your arguments if you will discipline yourself in that regard. So there is an unsettled question of who is an authority to ask today as well as in which cases is their word Torah. Your two reasons are weak at best. It is a well known point that we can struggle with the Creator, and prevail - WHEN we are within Torah... as Yakov did. On the other hand, when we are out of synch with Torah, it is no longer called a struggle, it is called disobedience, defiance, arrogance, straying, etc. To stretch this to mean that the sages can make their own laws and force the Creator to rubber stamp them is, in my mind, tantamount to blasphemy. It is also not a logical conse- quence of the story of R. Eliezer which you gave since R. Eliezer asserted that it was because they had followed the rules of Torah. The Tenakh offers abundant evidence that authorities can not only make mistakes, but can lead Israel astray if they follow. That we are to follow such leaders is not at all to be assumed from these examples. You also assert that, 'even if erroneous, it becomes Halakhic truth'. Well, it may become Halakhic something, but if it is erroneous, it is not truth; and if it is not truth, it is not Torah; and if it is not Torah, then it is not from a legitimate authority. If your point is to be made, then I call upon you to refrain from circular reasoning. Knowing that 'I do not accept a notion simply because the sages/rabbis say it is so' (as I stated in my last article), why do you offer quotes from the sages to convince me? Also, I request that you be more careful in not twisting my words. I stated that 'I insist on demonstrating some reasonable grounds for everything from written Torah'. That is significantly different from your assertion that I demand 'proofs' from written Torah. It is much easier to attack my position if you, first of all, exaggerate my position and then attack the exaggerated position. However, that is not the correct way. (Besides, I have enough trouble trying not to word something carelessly anyway.) Perhaps one of my greatest criticisms is the anti-intellectual nature we have increasingly seen over the past few years from these 'authorities'. To convince me (and, hopefully, many others), such arguments must be based on scholarly considerations rather than simply more quotes from medieval sages. Talk to me about the Judaism of the period when the shekhinah was evident in the Temple, even of Judaism in Second Temple times, or of Judaism in the time of Moses, or Yakov. It seems to me there was more there than we see now. I'm very reluctant to do what appears to me something very similar to what the Christians did in following medieval leaders who insisted the earth revolved around the sun, etc. Knowledge is supposed to be the cornerstone of Judaism. When knowledge and 'authorities' are at odds, one or the other is in error. The correction MUST be made and then we can proceed. Else what is the distinction between light and darkness?