Q&A: Is the Talmud Influenced by External Mythologies?
Is the Talmud Influenced by External Mythologies?
Question
Rabbi Abraham, hello.
I would like to ask about the Rabbi’s view regarding the extent to which Judaism is influenced by external sources. Very often, the aggadic teachings of the Sages mention mythological creatures that correspond almost perfectly to creatures and descriptions from the mythologies of various nations, and to a certain spirit that prevailed throughout the world in the Talmudic period and was influenced by the beliefs of many peoples and groups. See, for example, mermaids in tractate Bekhorot, the giant re’em, Rabbah bar bar Hannah who thought he had reached an island and in the end discovered that it was a whale, the hybrid creatures mentioned in various prophecies, and other animals and somewhat “bizarre” situations born of the imagination. Many times this is not just a general description or expression of an idea, but an assertion of actual fact. Should we think that Judaism is influenced by external sources and was not all given to Moses at Sinai? Or should we say that yes, it is influenced, but the Tannaim, Amoraim, Rashi, the Chida, and other sages who dealt with these matters were simply mistaken in some of what they said—and then there is no logic in analyzing their words word by word, but only as historical interpretation without any scent of holiness.
This leads to a bigger question. When we see a spring and a birth source of water, and then see a stream, we assume that the stream flows from the spring. Looking at the period, the various customs, and examining Judaism, it seems clear that the Jewish stream came from the circumstances of the era, and apparently has no connection to our own day. Starting with imaginary animals and ending with all sorts of “primitive” customs: the relatively inferior status of women, capital punishments imposed by the religious court, and so on. In their time, a woman was her husband’s property, execution was by the sword, whereas today these foundations are no longer valid. Why strain to explain the divine idea behind betrothing a woman when it seems clear that this law stems from the spirit of the age? Should I go and say that the stream flows from a spring hundreds of kilometers away, even though its waters look like those of the nearby spring?
I am a religious and believing person, and I looked for an answer in many books on faith, in references to medieval authorities and later authorities, but I did not find an answer to the “spring question” that puts my mind at ease and strengthens my faith. I would be glad for the Rabbi’s response.
Many thanks.
Yosef Kanter.
Answer
Hello Yosef.
Your question is one whose answer requires a great deal of elaboration. In general, of course the Sages were influenced by their surroundings, exactly as sages in our own generation are influenced by the ideas and information in their environment. Therefore, if mistaken ideas were common then, there is no reason to assume they did not also appear among the Sages, just as with the sages of all other generations. The Sages were not prophets.
Therefore, my basic view is that aggadic statements are not binding and authoritative; only Jewish law and its interpretation are. Of course one can find wisdom and conceptual depth in the aggadot of the Sages, but the scientific and factual descriptions there do not have to be precise. By the way, the Sages themselves also did not necessarily intend them as factual descriptions. See several articles on this in the introduction to Ein Yaakov, and also Maimonides’ introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah about the three groups in their required attitude toward the aggadot of the Sages: the fools, who interpret them all literally—as factual description; the wicked, who interpret them literally and mock them; and the wise, who understand that some of them are allegory meant to express an idea.
As for the conceptions that underlie Jewish law, the situation is more difficult. It is likely that the inferior status of women in Jewish law is also rooted in a conception that was widespread at that time. When the Sages came to expound the Torah, they used assumptions and conceptions drawn from their own world. On the other hand, the Talmud does have binding authority in the field of Jewish law. Here there are various tools for how to proceed, and I cannot spell them out here because that requires much broader treatment; in a book I am currently writing I will elaborate more. In any case, when there is a Sanhedrin with actual authority, it will of course be able to change whatever it sees fit. Part of our tragedy is the absence of an effective halakhic authority that can adapt Jewish law to the time and circumstances, as existed in ancient days.
Still, it is important to understand that the fact that ideas are transmitted through a medium stamped with the imprint of its period does not mean those ideas have no depth or are baseless. Not at all. Sometimes what is needed is a different application, suited to our own day, of that same conceptual layer. Thus the laws of damages were written in terms of oxen and pits, whereas in our day the medium is completely different. But the ideas of the laws of damages can be entirely relevant today as well. They are the same ideas in a different medium.
Discussion on Answer
Hello Yosef. You’ve made a wild leap. The Talmud is influenced, like every sage in every generation, but that does not mean that everything written in it is foreign influence, and certainly not all the laws that appear in it. Ritual impurity and sacrifices appear in the Torah itself, and the Talmud only interprets them. It’s like saying that Rabbi Ovadia is influenced by what people around him think, and therefore all his interpretations and rulings are worthless—just inventions out of thin air.
Beyond that, the Torah was not given to ministering angels. All these influences are part of us, and if some sage offers his interpretation, all kinds of influences upon him are included in it—and that is his interpretation. Interpretation is always a human one, and a person is shaped by the landscape of his birthplace and its influences. If he has authority, then one must heed him. One has to understand that the authority of the Talmud does not stem from the fact that it is right about everything, but from the fact that we accepted it upon ourselves.
The living word of God passes through human interpretation and processing all the time, and that is on that basis that the Torah was given to us. Therefore I do not see any special problem with this picture.
It is true that in this realistic picture there may be mistakes among the Sages and the sages of later generations, and it is certainly possible that a contemporary sage may interpret things more correctly, and still there is importance to preserving the framework and the authority.
I see that many people are pained by the nonsense written out in the open among the many insights found on every page of Talmud, but even a small stain on the clothes of a Torah scholar testifies to his unworthiness. So when will we remove these stains? When will this Sanhedrin arise?
It’s better to talk less and do more. How does the Rabbi think the Sanhedrin will be established? How is that supposed to happen, and who submits candidacy… how will the candidates be chosen?
Could the Rabbi indicate the level of importance of a Sanhedrin today on a scale from 1 to very important 10?
By the way, what depth is there in Rabbah bar bar Hannah thinking he had reached an island and then discovering he was on a whale?
The Rabbi said that we accepted the Talmud upon ourselves. I can’t accept the few foolish things in it that demean me so greatly.
I have nothing to add to what I wrote. When there are elections for the Sanhedrin, please let me know.
Rabbi, no leading rabbi will want a Sanhedrin to arise, and if they had wanted it they wouldn’t have waited 2,000 years—
I think we should make do with that fact. And indeed there is nothing to add; we have to start moving things and talking less, as befits one who teaches and fulfills.
Doesn’t the Rabbi think that the Sanhedrin will not arise easily, and that someone needs to arouse its establishment and persist?
Doesn’t the Rabbi think it is a commandment to establish a Sanhedrin nowadays?
What about the Hebrew Bible itself? And the Zohar? Scholarship claims they too were influenced by the environment.
What I mean is that this is not only a problem with the Sages, but supposedly with the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself operating this way. Just as when He appears through nature it doesn’t bother us, so too when He appears through human beings it shouldn’t bother us.
In a certain sense, nature too is divine.
As for the Zohar, that is of course only according to the view that the Zohar was given to Moses at Sinai..
David, why, did whoever wrote them socialize with ignoramuses? Give hundreds of examples.
What do you mean that God Himself works “like this”? Your words aren’t clear: who appears? What do you mean that God appears through human beings, and what does that have to do with the matter at hand?
Rabbi, maybe you should write a letter as a post and circulate it among the various circles, the way you tend to rebuke the head of Yeshivat Binah? And as you did in the yeshiva where you taught! Regarding “establishing the Sanhedrin,” and ask their permission to manage the moves on this matter. And don’t ignore me for the third time. Because God sees—and if you ignore me—you know—remember what the lion wrote (that’s what you called him), the Pnei Yehoshua, in the article here in column 65 (the Passover column), and as Mordechai the lion warned Esther. Because it really takes guts to dare in matters like this, and if you want, ask that we fast for a day too—just dare to advance this goal, and God will be with you… amen.
And every additional word is unnecessary.
Moshe, I trembled, quaked, and feared because of the force of your words, and therefore I will say only this to you:
Certainly there is an obligation to establish a Sanhedrin and ordain sages if the thing is possible—it depends on Maimonides’ view regarding the renewal of ordination. And yet I thank the Holy One, blessed be He, every day for the fact that there is no Sanhedrin and no chance of establishing one. The people who would populate it nowadays are people I would not want to give absolute authority over Jewish law and over me.
David, the Zohar was given at Sinai? Including the names of the sages who appear in it? Was everything shown to Moses by the Almighty? If only I had wings like a dove to go ask Moses our teacher what he was shown regarding everything I will write until the end of my days. It would save me a lot of effort…
The Rabbi wrote in response to my question: “and the Talmud only interprets. It’s like saying that Rabbi Ovadia is influenced by what people around him think, and therefore all his interpretations and rulings are worthless—just inventions out of thin air.” Is the Rabbi comparing Rabbi Ovadia Yosef to the Tannaim and Amoraim? In the Jewish world, and especially in the yeshiva world, people analyze the words of the Talmud with great detail and precision. Every word, formulation, and source is examined at the finest resolutions. The words of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef less so. If the Rabbi claims that the Sages were influenced by external wisdoms and that their words are not one hundred percent divine, then one can say that just as mythology is influenced by foreign wisdoms, so too the laws and rulings are influenced by the spirit of the age. In an ancient and foundational source like the Talmud, we learned to assume that every word is the living word of God. If the Rabbi says that is not so, then why study it with such precision? Why study it at all? This external influence greatly reduces the importance of the Talmud as a divine source for the Oral Torah, and the importance we give it. Let’s study only the words of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, or practical Jewish law, while placing a question mark over every law influenced by the spirit of the age. I am sure Judaism would look different if we acted that way—from study in the yeshivot, to our attitude toward the Talmud and its sages and midrashim, and all the way to actual observance of the laws, the overwhelming majority of which were influenced by the spirit of the age and presumably would be “erased,” God forbid, by such an approach.
Hello Yosef. It seems to me that you are influenced by various mythologies, and that is a shame. The Talmud is a human text composed by flesh-and-blood people like me and you. People by nature are influenced by all kinds of sources, including the very greatest sages. That does not detract from the value of their words, because that is what a human being is. The Torah was not given to ministering angels.
It is not true that every word in the Talmud is the living word of God. Where did that nonsense come from? You study the Talmud because it is the central composition that conveys to us the tradition of the Oral Torah, and because it received authority from the consent of the nation. That does not mean there are no errors in it—there are, and not a few. It does not mean it was said with divine inspiration or prophecy—it was not. It only means that it is a composition reflecting the spirit of Jewish law and the information passed down in tradition and developed up to that time, including all the influences on every sage and every group. And as I said, none of this lowers its value, if you properly understand what its value is and do not develop mythological expectations of it.
As for the Zohar—I didn’t mean, of course, that it was given at Sinai in the version we have in hand or with the concrete explanations, but rather its principles. That, in my estimation, is the more prevalent opinion among Torah-oriented people. But that is not essential.
What I meant to say is that the fact that the Sages were influenced by their surroundings does not harm the fact that the matters are divine. By definition, God determines what is divine, and He has the “right” to give a “divine stamp” to the words of the Sages even if they were influenced by their surroundings (“and you shall do according to all that they instruct you,” etc.), just as the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself apparently gives a “divine stamp” to processes, opinions, and more that are carried out by people.
“If the earlier ones were like angels, we are like human beings; and if they were like human beings, we are like donkeys.” Of course they were human beings—but not on a simple level that we can understand. If they were human beings, then what are all the books of the medieval and later authorities that scrutinize every story about them, every custom of theirs, every thought that came from their mouths in the Talmud? Why did the later authorities analyze the medieval authorities, and the medieval authorities the Amoraim, every statement of those before them with such precision? When you read the words of the medieval authorities about the sages of the Talmud, do you encounter a dry view of some historical text, or a profound analysis as if every single word of theirs is the living word of God? Why do we not encounter in their words phrases like human error, influence of the spirit of the age, or a certain angle of the editor of the Talmud? Why is such great importance attributed in study to the order of the mishnayot and the baraitot and their explanation? Why do the Amoraim analyze every comma of the words of the Mishnah if it is only a composition representing the Oral Torah of that period, as you said?
Apparently many Talmudic discussions could be solved in terms of human feeling, human error, lack of time, or the limitations of their era. But no—Rashi, Tosafot, and other medieval authorities analyze every single aggadah as if it is scientifically, religiously, and in every possible way totally correct. Doesn’t that stem from total faith in their words?
Hello Yosef. I wrote what I had to write. If you disagree, that is perfectly fine, but there is no point in just repeating the same things again and again.
Rabbi, he’s not the only one. All the rabbis need to come out and admit, as you admitted, that there are many things in the Talmud that received influence from the spirit of the age and from external influences, and it is enough to admit this in order to remove lots of mosquitoes of one kind and another from above our bodies without going into the water.
It isn’t perfectly fine if he and those like him don’t agree with you, Rabbi. Let’s be real, and not sweep all the dirt under the rug. We urgently need a Sanhedrin, for good (and for bad—I don’t believe in bad, because every dispute for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure). Maybe at first you won’t trust them, and maybe you yourself will be one of them. And why belittle it, Rabbi! Trust in God too, even if you think there is no full providence nowadays.
And I am very sorry that I distressed the Rabbi with my words, and I hope the Rabbi forgives me. It’s just that since I was in my mother’s womb I’ve been used to speaking what is in my heart without fear, and all my desire is His desire. (I couldn’t find other words earlier—and you may do as you see fit with my previous message, because I already conveyed the message.)
Rabbi, if we establish a Sanhedrin there will be more unity—and they will discuss many matters whose time has passed and whose sacrifice has lapsed. And know that great merit will be yours, because you raised this idea and encourage it!
I am sure that this will also bring the redemption, because unity is good even if there are a few thorns that prick. This is the time to burn/remove/nullify and sell the leavened food, in every sense. And with God’s help, may the Messiah come and be aided by the Sanhedrin.
The last Saturday night before the festival of redemption—may we all have a kosher and joyous holiday, amen, and so may it be His will.
I decided to dare and write how important it is not to cling to the Gentile spirit of the age—they don’t have a trace of Torah—and every Jew is the brother of every other Jew, whether he is religious, hardal, or secular… and I don’t know what else. As explained in the following video:
http://www.baba-mail.co.il/video.aspx?emailid=39694
And the message is clear.
Moshe, this is only a question for clarifying the matter. I identify with the Rabbi’s statements; they provide a certain answer to my questions, and I wish a Sanhedrin would arise, as the Rabbi mentioned in his words. It’s just strange for me to hear a rabbi say that the Talmud was indeed influenced by external sources. In not a few attempts to clarify the question, he is the first one I have seen who holds this opinion. This opinion stands in complete contradiction to everything my friends and I were taught in the Religious Zionist institutions in which we were educated. As for the Haredi institutions, there is nothing to discuss. And it seems that making such a declaration is like sawing off the branch on which many assumptions in today’s Judaism rest.
Rabbi Michi, Heaven forbid there was any intention here to belittle or disagree with someone far greater than me, but truly to clarify the matter—which has been burning in my believing bones and searching for truth for many years—in depth, with a rabbi who holds views different from those I am used to hearing. I read quite a few of the Rabbi’s articles and thought that perhaps here I could settle my mind. In my last response I only wanted to show the Rabbi how this claim—that the Talmud was indeed influenced by external sources—is not as trivial as the Rabbi describes it. In any case, thank you very much to the Rabbi for addressing my words and answering each of my questions and difficulties very quickly. Another layer has been added here to my clarification of the matter, and may I merit to understand the subject מתוך complete faith.
Between us, dear brother Yosef Kanter, (do you live around Jerusalem?)
I don’t know if I’m gossiping right now, but everything is for the sake of Heaven.
The Rabbi is afraid that a Sanhedrin will arise—you understand? He isn’t willing to rely on those who would impose Jewish law on us and on him—unfortunately he doesn’t specify the intended names of those he objects to as halakhic authorities, and he doesn’t specify which laws he fears would apply to him if they were ordained into the Sanhedrin!
A Sanhedrin is God’s counsel—as opposed to appointing a king, which is against His will.
The Rabbi does indeed hold more realistic views, but is that enough? He needs to be more daring. To act—like King David acted. He was really a little chick compared to the mountain that was Goliath. And still he fought him, because he went in the name of the Lord of Hosts to wage war.
May strength be granted to the honorable Rabbi. “The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation.” “The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace”—a Sanhedrin needs to arise. It’s a shame this isn’t state law!
By the way, what else was added for you to clarify?
The Sages were people who revived the dead, asked for rain and it came down for them from heaven, and performed all sorts of miracles. Why assume they were mistaken in other matters—if they were such spiritual people? How can one compare the sages of our time to the Sages?
Exactly when did the sages’ mystical ability end? With Rav Ashi? Was the sealing of the Talmud the end of miracles? And another thing: according to your view, what is the difference between Amoraim and prophets?
It is worth looking at Maimonides’ introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah about the three groups in relation to aggadot.
So the Rabbi is basically saying that there is no divine significance to what is written in the Talmud, since it was also heavily influenced by the worldview prevalent at the time. Meaning, can one learn from it only the conceptual aspect? If so, what is the significance of Jewish law and the various legal rulings? After all, they too are an outgrowth of a worldview, just as aggadic teachings draw from it. In other words, the inferior status of women, laws of ritual impurity, perhaps even the issue of sacrifices, and more and more—almost all the laws and rulings in the Talmud draw from one external source or another that belongs to history, and they are not relevant today? What the Rabbi is saying basically undermines Judaism’s whole basic view of the Torah and its commandments as the living word of God, valid as on the day they were given and forever. The Written Torah and the Oral Torah.