Q&A: What Did the Tannaim Study Without the Talmud?
What Did the Tannaim Study Without the Talmud?
Question
Hello to the knight of faith or the hero of non-belief!
What do you think the Tannaim studied? Did they have enough textual / oral material to delve into and study for a whole day, as the sages of Israel did after the writing of the Babylonian Talmud? After all, the entire ethos of Torah study and in-depth analysis stems from the scope and indescribable difficulty of the Babylonian Talmud (and think how difficult it was before Rashi’s commentary, as Maimonides testified in a similar context) — because to encompass all that material requires a whole lifetime. But what did Hillel study? What did Rabbi Akiva study? Can one suppose that they occupied themselves leisurely in their spare hours with study, when the scope of their knowledge was fairly negligible and included at most oral traditions on the scale of the Mishnah, which they could have memorized together with the Hebrew Bible already in elementary school? According to this, the superiority of some of them over others was mainly thanks to their sharpness, not their learning. Or do you think there was something they could engage in in a linear, progressive way, a study built brick upon brick — the kind of study that if you did not devote all your time to it, you wouldn’t be able to open your mouth in the study hall? If so — what is that hidden body of knowledge? And did such a thing also exist in earlier times, in the days of the Zugot, Yose ben Yo’ezer, and so on? How much did they really need to know? Or perhaps their analysis was actually in some philosophical style — similar to Plato and Aristotle — and as such it contained something, some sort of intuition acquired through the toil of scholasticism and apprenticeship under sages, which was not based on a textual body of knowledge but more on virtual intellectual pilpul, somewhat like what is common in Eastern wisdom, Zen Buddhism, Dao, and the like. Can your analysis of the thirteen hermeneutical principles yield for you some unconventional answer (not in the style of “they knew the entire Babylonian Talmud by heart”), etc.
Thanks, from the one who licks the edges of your plate, and prays in the Sephardic rite like you
Answer
I don’t know, but I don’t think they were unable to engage in pilpul over everything we do today. At the end of the day, even if the books were not written, the discussion is about ideas, not books. Even today, when I study a Talmudic passage, I can do so without opening almost any books, since one can raise possibilities and examine them within the passage.
But it is certainly possible that they also dealt with other things and in other ways. Don’t forget that they also expounded the Torah through the hermeneutical principles, which we do not do today. They also argued over everything until the Jewish law was crystallized.
Discussion on Answer
Moshe, where did you get the idea that the Tannaim had “divine spirit” with answers to everything? On the contrary, when that happened, for example in Rabbi Eliezer’s case with the Oven of Akhnai, they didn’t listen to the heavenly voice that came out.
In my opinion, the Oral Torah was not transmitted already interpreted, and that can be proven.
Reading the Scripture twice and the translation once is Jewish law (though the Rabbi wrote a few days ago that maybe not). Even if the reason for it (what is it, anyway?) no longer applies, it’s not so easy to stop immediately.
Abraham — there’s a difference, brother, between divine spirit and answers to everything. Oy oy oy, you’re mixing up concepts badly, but don’t worry. We’ll manage with you…. Easy, easy… I’ll start with the fact that even after the sealing of the Torah they used prophecy to decide Jewish law, and that can be proven. The daughters of Zelophehad,
The fact that a heavenly voice came out is one thing, and the fact that they didn’t listen to it is something else..
You need to explain why the heavenly voice came out. Why didn’t they listen to it? And why from the outset didn’t they rule according to the law that the majority decides? Meaning, did the heavenly voice just come out for nothing?! Does that sound logical to you? Does it sound logical to you that one sage was right all the time (as the heavenly voice testified about him) and a thousand sages were wrong — yes, wrong, because the heavenly voice didn’t say “these and those are both the words of the living God.” And why did the heavenly voice delay? After all, the walls of the study hall leaned, and so on and so forth with the other miracles. You’re claiming that this isn’t some kind of divine spirit? Don’t you notice how sure Rabbi Eliezer is of himself? How despite that did they change the law only because the majority decides? And even though they knew the heavenly voice is as trustworthy as a thousand witnesses? Have we forgotten how the Oral Torah was given — if not through a heavenly voice, then how?
What exactly are you trying to say, that they didn’t listen to the heavenly voice? What? And why did you say that…
I’ve never seen someone serious state his opinion and then say afterward that it can be proven. Delete the words “in my opinion” from the sentence you wrote: “In my opinion, the Oral Torah was not transmitted already interpreted, and that can be proven.” And when you’re decisive, present the proofs..
As for reading the Scripture twice and the translation once, we’re talking about Torah study — meaning, if the Rabbi thinks there’s no need nowadays to study Torah, then let him convince the leading sages of the generation to abolish that Jewish law…
Oy oy oy, you’re mixing up concepts… but don’t worry, we’ll manage with you, easy easy.
1. The daughters of Zelophehad are part of the Torah. Do you think Moses wrote that before the event?! *After* the giving of the Torah, they no longer use that.
2. The heavenly voice came out probably to honor Rabbi Eliezer. They didn’t listen to it because they’re not supposed to listen to it. At first they didn’t rule Jewish law because they were still in the middle of the argument. The heavenly voice delayed because they hadn’t yet asked it to come. Rabbi Eliezer is indeed sure of himself. So what?.. I agree that it’s a kind of divine spirit. And I prove from here that they don’t listen to it. (The Torah was given on the understanding that the majority determines.)
3. I wrote that it can be proven because I don’t have time and/or energy to prove it. The Rabbi also agrees with me, and surely he can refer you to what he already wrote about it.
4. The “leading sages of the generation” can’t abolish any Jewish law. The Rabbi thinks there isn’t much value in studying the Hebrew Bible. What does that have to do with stopping the Jewish law (if it is indeed Jewish law, as is commonly thought) of reading the weekly portion twice and the translation once?
I suggest you answer directly and to the point, and not with hints and rhetorical questions and insults.
Thanks for the suggestion — I didn’t force you to participate in the discussion taking place here for a good purpose. And if I insulted, it was for the honor of the Torah and zeal for it, so you have nothing to worry about. And sorry if you were hurt by something.
1. The giving of the Torah took place at Mount Sinai, and therefore it makes no difference at all when things were written, because everything was transmitted orally. There is a difference between receiving the Torah and writing the Torah.
2. Who said Rabbi Eliezer was pursuing honor? And how did you conclude that, if we never found a heavenly voice coming out to honor someone? Right now you’re slandering yourself!
The heavenly voice belittled all the sages — look and check and you’ll see I’m right — and it came out in order to prove them wrong, brother, and the proof is that afterward it says that God said, “My children have defeated Me,” meaning they defeated the heavenly voice. Meaning, look what you’re trying to claim: that the heavenly voice came to honor Rabbi Eliezer, and on the other hand it didn’t honor God? Because it caused Him a “loss”? Does what you said sound logical to you?
If the law was always “follow the majority,” then why did Rabbi Eliezer need to argue against a crowd of sages at all? And the heavenly voice admitted that the Jewish law accords with him everywhere, and despite that, suddenly from this one case onward, the law is “follow the majority,” as if that had not been practiced before. Does that sound logical to you?
I’m glad you openly admitted that there is some kind of divine spirit here. You know it’s funny what you wrote — that even though there is divine spirit, they don’t listen to it when the majority thinks otherwise — because Moses our rabbi was one, and Korah and his congregation were many, but with whom was the Jewish law — with them or with him? What happened to those who rebelled against the law? The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them. How will you understand from here that Jewish law depends on following the majority? And let’s leave aside divine spirit for the moment, which as is well known really spoke with Moses and guided him as to whom to choose as High Priest and as those who served in holiness in all the Levitical roles…
What’s important for me to understand from you personally is: do you think the law of “follow the majority” always existed, or only after the writing of the Torah?
3. No problem, I’d be happy to receive proof that the Oral Torah was not given already interpreted. In the meantime I’ll present a verse that proves it was given already interpreted: “Moses undertook to explain this Torah.” And if it was not given already interpreted, then the sages can expound it however they like, and that can disrupt and change Moses’ explanation, as he himself expounded it. And that will cause a huge change in Jewish law, because no person expounds something like someone else, and that can change a lot in the Oral Torah, especially since it was transmitted orally.
Meaning, think about it: everything is passed on orally, and suddenly they expound it differently from how it was expounded before, and you need to change the version of the Oral Torah that was originally transmitted… does that sound logical to you?
4. Good question, listen — if you see a person grinding water because someone told him to do that (because there was something suspicious in the water), and that’s what he’s doing, now you know there are teachers of Jewish law who see that there is no point in studying Torah — won’t they determine that people should stop reading the weekly portion twice and the translation once? Won’t you stop the man who is grinding water after the suspicion has passed?
Practice what you preach.
Our aspiration is to be wise and move forward with our heads. Meaning, whatever in Jewish law is no longer relevant and unnecessary — we must make sure they change it … that’s why it’s called halakha, because it should fit the present time all the time.
Moshe, you write very enthusiastically, at great length, and with lots of unfounded assumptions, but with absolute confidence. It’s really impossible to have a discussion like that.
Moshe,
1. Not the entire Torah was received at Mount Sinai. Do you think Moses knew that the sin of the Golden Calf would happen? The Torah was written as the events happened. After the “sealing” of the Torah, “follow the majority,” and a prophet is no longer permitted from now on to introduce anything new.
2. Rabbi Eliezer was not pursuing honor. The heavenly voice came out to honor him, even though it “knew” that apparently it would not be accepted. Rabbi Eliezer didn’t give in immediately because he was trying to convince them. (It could be that he thought the Jewish law did follow the heavenly voice, but that is beyond our scope here.)
Korah and his congregation are not relevant. “Follow the majority” was said about a majority in the Sanhedrin. It doesn’t mean that every time a majority of the Jewish people decides something, that’s what happens.
3. The Torah was not given already interpreted — at least not in every detail — “The Torah was not given cut and dried” (Jerusalem Talmud somewhere), and see Maimonides’ introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah
I didn’t understand why the Rabbi says they could and did engage in pilpul over what we do even today. I always thought they received everything on a silver platter. Really, what was even innovated in that period that they needed to debate and analyze?… How do you know they engaged in pilpul? They had some kind of prophetic inspiration, like divine spirit, so why would they need pilpul? And if so, why would they disagree? Their divine spirit should have been identical, not different — where did the disputes come from? That’s also a problem that will only be solved when there is a Sanhedrin!!
I also didn’t understand why they expounded the Torah through the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Surely the Oral Torah was already transmitted in interpreted form… How did you conclude that they re-expounded the Torah?
Also, I didn’t understand what the Rabbi is claiming one should study today, if not Torah. And does the Rabbi think there is no point to reading the weekly portion twice and the Aramaic translation once, since that too is a form of Torah study.