That’s not what the Bible says.
Does the rabbi know the book “It is not written in the Bible”?
This is a book written by Yair Zakovich and Avigdor Shanan, which attempts to prove how certain parts of the biblical canon were written due to the ideological/political leanings of the editors (sages, the royal family, the priests, all depending on the period in which the specific section was edited, of course).
The claim that caught my eye most blatantly is the claim that the Israelites did indeed build a golden calf after the giving of the Torah, but at the time this action was not seen as sacrilege, but was only presented as such many centuries later when it was decided to erect golden calves in the Kingdom of Israel. If you are not familiar with the book or the claim, I can post the full claim here in the comments, in any case I recommend reading the book.
And to the point – how does the rabbi relate to cases in the Bible that are scientifically proven (I don’t just mean the research, but also the fact that the claims themselves are convincing) and the fact that canonization influenced by a political trend affects laws to this day? (For example – a shofar cannot be a horn of a calf)
I don’t know. In general, my trust in this type of argument is quite limited. The gates of interpretation and associations have not been closed.
But regardless, to your question about the commitment to the product of this process, even if we assume for the sake of discussion that it is correct, I would like to make two points. 1. Our commitment is to the interpretation of the Sages of the Bible, not to the Bible. The Sages took the Bible out of its simple form in several cases. But of course, here the question remains with the Sages (they too acted from the patterns of their homeland’s landscape). 2. In the philosophy of science, a distinction is made between the context of discovery and the context of justification. There is the way in which a scientific idea appears, and it can be from mystical inspiration, a revelation from Einstein’s grandmother in a dream last night, or the interests and basic assumptions of this or that Gothic group. None of this matters, since the product is examined in its substance (in the scientific case, against laboratory experiments). The same is true with us. The way in which these perceptions arose can be related to interests and perceptions, but that does not necessarily mean that they do not have substance.
I have often cited as an example the dispute between the sages of Sephardim (Rambam) and France (the authors of the Toss) regarding the surrender of the soul in the sanctification of God. The Sephardim are lenient and the Ashkenazim are stricter. Scholars attribute this to the circumstances in which they lived (the Ashkenazim during the Crusades had to refine their messages and become stricter in order to prevent collapse, and the Sephardim lived in a more relaxed environment – everything is relative, of course). Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that this contextual analysis is correct. Does this mean that there are not two opinions here that need to be discussed in their entirety? Circumstances gave rise to each of the opinions, but after it emerged, it stands on its own and needs to be examined in its entirety.
In the 11th of Shvat 54
The claim that the golden calf was not perceived as sacrilege at the time is directly contradicted by the commandment in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.” Of course, it took thousands of years for the nations of the world to absorb monotheism, but in Judaism, monotheism was the foundation of the foundations.
Best regards, Fishel
I will take the example you gave regarding the severity or leniency in relation to the surrender of one's life for the sanctification of God. If indeed the reason for the difference lies in the different cultural context between the two communities, is it not important to understand that this is indeed the source (and that the source is not a divine revelation or a count of letters) in order to know how to act today? For example, I know that if I live in a relatively tolerant environment I can be lenient, but if I live in a "persecuting" environment I must be stricter.
This is exactly what I referred to in the past. I argued that if you take academia seriously, then there are no disputes in halakhah at all. Every opinion is a product of the circumstances in which it was created, and in any case, even today, the application is according to the circumstances. If the circumstances are like Maimonides', one should act like him, and if they are like Tusak, one should act like them. It turns out that there is no halakhic dispute at all, and everything is a reflection of different circumstances. This is exactly what I wrote about, which is not true. Because the dispute is on the level of justification and the academic explanations are on the level of revelation. See, for example, column 166.
Because sometimes you surprise even me with your statements.
You write that ”our commitment is to the interpretation of the Sages of the Bible, not to the Bible”.
The Sages themselves did not think like you. Perhaps it can be argued that in many cases they themselves extracted the correct or deeper meaning from the biblical text, but the very validity of this interpretation came to them, in their own way, from the Bible itself (at least from the Pentateuch). Unless you believe that the words of the Sages came to us directly from heaven and the Pentateuch itself is their later interpretation…
By the way, this is true for every case of relationship between the target text and the text that interprets it. There is always a hierarchy in which the target text precedes the interpretation.
??
Did the Sages think differently from me, since they were obligated to the Bible and not the Sages? A fascinating argument. In fact, God, the Almighty, also thought differently from me, since he is obligated to the truth and not to God. The Israeli legislator also thinks differently from me, since he does what he thinks and demands that I do what the legislator says.
And by the very nature of the argument, it is clear that they wanted to interpret the Torah, and I am obligated to their interpretation of the Torah.
I have no doubt that you are joking. But as a courtesy to other readers, I will give a simple example from the world of the haters I hate.
A new immigrant who does not know Hebrew enlists in the IDF along with his friend who speaks Hebrew. The immigrant is shown the commander, explained to him that he is the source of authority, but added that since the commander speaks only Hebrew, any orders from him will be translated (“interpreted”) to him by the immigrant's friend.
Who is the source of authority in this analogy:
1. The commander
2. The friend who speaks Hebrew
3. My grandmother
4. There is no source of authority
All I can do is direct the question to you, and then read my words again.
I see you're in a humorous mood this morning 😉
My answer is that the source of authority in the analogy I gave is the commander (the Bible).
Your answer was the Hebrew-speaking friend (Chazal).
Now I want to speculate on what we had here. When you wrote that ”our commitment is to Chazal's interpretation of the Bible and not to the Bible” you meant exactly what I wrote, namely that “the commander” is in your opinion the source of authority. However, in your distraction, you came up with a somewhat awkward formulation that could be interpreted the opposite of your intention, as actually happened. This is only a guess on my part, but if it is correct, you have no problem here. Simply say that you meant exactly what I just wrote, and come to Zion Goel.
As usual, I urge readers to intervene in the debate in favor of one of the sides (possibly against both).
Indeed, and there is no need to explain this. This is a completely reasonable way of expressing ourselves: we are bound by the sages' interpretation of the Bible, but the commander is the Almighty. This is self-evident and I do not understand what this strange discussion is about.
I understand that you are trying to correct the initial statement, but in my opinion, the course of the correction is also sloppy. Instead of saying, as you said in your last response (“We are committed to the interpretation of the Sages of the Bible, but the commander is the Holy One”), you should have said this:
The Tanakh is the primary source of authority for Judaism (and not the Sages – contrary to your explicit words) because it was given to us directly at Sinai (at least the Pentateuch or parts of it were given).
And again: You hold, in principle, reasonable and correct opinions (in my opinion) but formulate them – in this case – sloppyly and in any case make your readers think that you really meant these nonsense words. When you are pointed out, you shrug off responsibility and call it a strange discussion. This is conduct that is itself very strange on your part.
On the 12th of Shvat, 2017,
Regarding the army's rule, I would like to point out that the highest source of authority in the army is the citizens of the country. They are the ones who elect the Knesset, which elects the government, appoints and gives instructions to the Chief of Staff, who gives instructions to the generals, who gives instructions to the division commanders, who gives instructions to the brigade commanders, who gives instructions to the generals, who gives instructions to the lieutenants, who gives instructions to the lieutenants, who gives instructions to the platoon commanders, who gives instructions to the translators, who gives instructions to the soldiers. Thus, the highest source of authority is: the grandmother, the soldier, the translator, the commander, and millions of other citizens of the country.
Their authority is derived from the law of the Torah given by the Creator of the world, which commanded that the sages be obeyed in saying: ‘And you shall do according to all the Torah that you have taught’, and they commanded: ‘Dina de Malchuta Dina’. The truth of the Torah is attested to by the grandmothers, who received it from their grandmothers, who received it from their grandmothers and their great-grandmothers who were present at the event on Mount Sinai.
This is the fundamental source of authority. In fact, the soldier must listen to the instructions of the interpreter, who is a faithful messenger to the entire hierarchy mentioned.
With greetings, Sergeant (res.) Fish”
Sergeant Fishel, formerly Levinger, formerly (here comes a list of about twelve names that change according to the Hebrew calendar, the heartbeat of the speaker and singer Tzaina and Raina) I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the refinement and innovation in your last response. Without it, the entire discussion would have been worthless.
Health and happiness.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
