The contribution of the creation of Chazal to general culture
The old man
It is commonly believed, in my opinion rightly so, that Hazal’s influence on general world culture is very minimal, if any at all.
A. Do you agree on a factual level? If not, can you point to a real cultural influence that does exist?
on. I think this is puzzling, since even an ignorant, self-righteous, and auto-anti-Semite like my esteemed friend recognizes that there is immense richness and depth in Hazal.
third. The question also has a theological dimension, and it may itself be part of the answer: Chaldean theology (meaning theologies, in plural…) is “weak” both in terms of thought and in the practical aspect of providing a response to human beings’ existential urges. Therefore, it loses much of its attractiveness.
D. Obviously, for my question to be fair, a comparison group is required, i.e. a control group. For example, if someone were to come forward and point out the poor influence of Islamic religious culture on general culture, that would challenge my assumption.
E. But in my opinion this is not really a real challenge… There is really no cover for Islam’s pretensions to faithfully continue the original message (what was given in Sinai). Therefore, it can be said that the “shadow” of Islam is flawed from the very beginning (and I ask in advance for the forgiveness of the Muslim readers of this hostel…).
F. Not so with Hazal’s work. In her opinion (which is justified in my opinion), she is faithful to the original message, a message that should have been more vital from a historical perspective. Therefore, the bewilderment remains in place.
What do you think?
In my opinion, it is mainly a question of accessibility. The Talmud is not accessible to the general reader, and it requires language proficiency and halachic knowledge that he does not have. Mythology is literature and as such is accessible to everyone. The fact is that even the secular Jew today is hardly familiar with the Talmud and has no influence. So what do you expect from a Chinese or Indian Gentile?
Doron,
I think that the Chazal (the medieval rabbinic literary tradition) has an influence on European philosophical culture.
In the Middle Ages, the theologian Thomas Aquinas was influenced by the Rambam, in the Renaissance, the philosopher Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (who is usually credited with the beginning of the philosophy of the resurrection) was influenced by Kabbalistic literature (he writes about this explicitly in his writings), in the Enlightenment, Friedrich Hegel was influenced by the Chazal. And more broadly, Christianity and Islam are derivatives of the Chazal thought.
Shai,
Regarding the historical influence: Rambam's influence on Aquinas is purely philosophical and theological as far as I know. In any case, that part of Rambam's work that has a rabbinical-sage nature has nothing to do with it. Moreover, I was talking about the work of Chazal Proper and not about a figure who worked many centuries later in a different context.
The same thing about Kabbalah, which, as you know, only began to take shape in the 13th century in southern France/northern Spain.
The same thing about the Maharal.
Regarding your assertion that Christianity and Islam are derivatives of Chazal thought - you are definitely re-inventing yourself; can you provide significant examples of this?
Mikhi,
I agree that there is indeed an accessibility problem here, but isn't that exactly what I am complaining about.
Philosophically and theologically, I would expect a work that relies on divine Torah to be much more “accessible”. What is lacking in Chazalism is that Cuckian “generality”.
Once again, I will use a critique group: Buddhism. Although Buddhism was cut off for centuries (and perhaps thousands of years) from the West - the standard-bearer of general world culture - from the moment physical proximity was established, it began to permeate general culture. Why? Because it apparently has the same generality that is a necessary condition for the existence of something valuable.
On the other hand, Chazal's thought is found, literally, in the alleys of the houses of the Gentiles in Europe, but this proximity did not help it at all to settle in the hearts.
Just to emphasize: I am not claiming that there is some problem with a culture that requires “specialization” and ”professionalism”. Rather, he argues that even such a culture should base its charges on sufficiently universal foundations in order to be “accessible”. As we know, all Gentiles are much stupider than we are, but even their stupidity has a limit. If they had recognized something of sufficient value in the sages, they would not have been ashamed to draw more from it.
They did not do so.
Doron,
Aren't Christian values values taken from Judaism during the time of the sages?
I suppose that if Jesus had lived during biblical times, Christianity would have taken on a very different character.
Doron,
Buddhist culture deals with man and universal matters. Therefore, it is completely accessible (except for the question of linguistic translation). The sages deal with the redemption of a severe punishment and the laws of impurity and purity. What do you want a foreign reader to do with this?
Shai
I wasn't talking about "values" but about "creation". I'm mainly referring to the texts, the traditional themes they deal with, the literary and aesthetic charges they carry, and so on.
But even if we were talking about pure values, the central value of Chazal's creation is the development of the Oral Torah. Where do you see that this value has been assimilated outside of Judaism? Even in Judaism itself, it hasn't always been accepted.
Beyond that, Chazal greatly consider the sanctity of the land and the sanctity of the Jewish people (at least its uniqueness). Show me a non-Jewish culture in which these are central values.
Mikhi,
It is difficult, very difficult to do business with you and certainly stealing horses together would be impossible.
I ask about A’ and you answer me about P’…
Despite this, I actually like you, to your misfortune.
Happiness and health
I answered exactly what you asked. The sages did not try to create literature or influence the world. They tried to build a halakhic Jewish people. Therefore, they do not create texts that are supposed to be accessible and influential. It interested them as little as a garlic peel (and me too).
Doron,
There is a series of lectures on this in the ”Broadcast University” (published by the Ministry of Defense), ”The Jewish Origins of Christianity”. The author of the book brings up the direct influences of the Oral Torah on early Christianity.
https://kotar-cet-ac-il.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/KotarApp/Viewer.aspx?nBookID=25819309#1.0.1.default
This type of question is very tricky. It is very difficult to define cultural and value influences. Almost anything created at some point can be traced back to previous roots in various places. The question of who is entitled to the creator's right to an idea or value is almost impossible to answer.
I discussed this in a lecture I once gave in front of Yehoshua at a conference held at Bar Ilan. I chose to talk about the buds of Briscian thinking in his teaching (he really wasn't one, but there are several places where he presents a distinctly Briscian idea). In the introduction, I discussed the difficulty of locating and defining cultural influence and the formation of an idea or way of thinking. Unfortunately, I can't find a recording of this conference or lecture online.
Shai
There is no access via the attached link.
If you brought this source (I looked at it years ago…) as support for your words, you can probably also bring two or three significant examples of Hazal's influence on Christianity.
What are they?
Doron, for example: the concept of messianism and the focus on the correction of the soul.
But, in general, I don't understand why it matters who influenced whom, the question that should be interesting is whether it is true and not who the thinker is.
Regardless of whether the two concepts you brought up are a matter of “creation” or “values” (and I admit, of course, that the distinction between the two is not that sharp), we still have to make it difficult: do Flusser and serious researchers like him really testify to a deep connection between the work of the sages and significant historical phenomena in world culture?
As a layman in the field, all I can tell you is that on the surface the two concepts you brought up (messianism and correction of the soul) are found in a very different context in the transition from the sages to Christianity.
First of all, the messianism of Christianity is first and foremost achieved through the image of a man (Jesus). This is not the case with the sages.
Regarding correction of the soul, it is about the same: the basic Christian thesis speaks specifically of redemption in the world to come through faith in the Messiah, the Son of God. This probably does not exist among the sages. They are much more practical.
Regarding the fundamental question, you are right. It really matters less because the main thing is the truth. But the path to the truth also passes through different cultural prisms. Hence our ability to assess the strengths or weaknesses of those cultures (to the extent that we think they have strayed from the truth).
I pointed out a reasonable possibility of interpreting the central trend in the work of the sages as a deviation from the truth.
As mentioned, if professional researchers do indeed say things different from the impression that has formed in me, I will certainly rescind my opinion to them.
In other words, the apparent flaw that I find in Chazal's work - or rather in the background of the work, that is, in its philosophical and theological assumptions - is supported, in my opinion, by the rabbis themselves. I mean the meta-halakhic view that they themselves hold and that is reflected in legends such as Akhnai's oven or the legend about the "training tour" that God takes Moses to in Rabbi Akiva's seminary. I can't think of any other meta-halakhic legends like that right now, but I'm sure someone with your Dos background (I assume you are Dos) knows more.
In any case, I've always thought that the self-irony of these guys is much more problematic than they would dare to admit.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
