Q&A: Who Determined That Study and Intellectual Engagement Are the Top Priority / the Main Thing
Who Determined That Study and Intellectual Engagement Are the Top Priority / the Main Thing
Question
As I understand it, in your view intellectual engagement and learning (say, of the Talmud) are the top of Judaism.
Clearly, from the moment rabbinic Judaism arrived (the Pharisees, or later the Sages), study became a supreme value.
But looking at the Prophets does not show a religion centered on Torah study.
True, there is “you shall meditate on it day and night,” but on the other hand, from even a quick look at the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), it is pretty clear that in the age of prophecy (when they knew exactly what God wanted), the overwhelming majority of the people were not engaged in study.
So why do you think that learning and intellectual engagement are the very top, or that this is what God wants from us?
Answer
In my opinion, looking at the Prophets does not yield many insights. What is described there is ordinary life, and Judaism there seems to have very little real content. You have to be a good person, pray, and bring sacrifices. Our tradition says something else, and I accept that. Within it, of course, there is room for different emphases—more intellectual and cerebral, or less. Personally, I identify with the more intellectual side. Incidentally, looking at the Torah, it certainly seems that Jewish law, commandments, and prohibitions have a central place. Most of them do not appear in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), which suggests that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is probably not a full description of Judaism even in that period.
In any case, if you are bringing your proof from the age of prophecy, back then there were more sacrifices and fewer prayers, whereas today there are no sacrifices and no prophecy either. So quite a bit of water has flowed through the Yarmouk since then. But if you want to go back there—be my guest. All that remains is for you to restore prophecy, and then we will know exactly what is incumbent upon us. Good luck.
Discussion on Answer
They taught in Judah, with the Book of the Torah of the Lord with them; they went around through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people
Who said there was analytical learning in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)? By the way, who said there wasn’t? Hasidism wasn’t there either. If you accept developments, I don’t understand what the discussion is here. Ways of learning change over the generations, and that is perfectly fine. Believe me, they didn’t even know basic practical Jewish law guides. Those are the result of our pilpul discussions.
The verses you brought prove nothing. The fact that the public needs to be taught means there are many ignoramuses. How does that relate to the question of what and how they studied there? Don’t people today also need to be taught Torah publicly? By the way, those emissaries weren’t teaching Ketzot HaChoshen and Shev Shema’tata, but the Book of the Torah. What you might be able to prove from this (and even that is wrong, as I said) is that they didn’t know the Torah, not that they didn’t study dialectics.
I accept every legitimate development.
What I have a hard time with is the opposition to Hasidism, or opposition to approaches that place building and developing the land at the center.
The verse I brought from Chronicles shows that Torah study was something rare, carried out by a few individuals.
True, it is not like the Talmudic style of learning we have today, but maybe one can still infer that whatever they did study was not in an “analytical” way (pilpul, etc.) like the way it is supposed to be done today among the whole people (according to the Haredi-Lithuanian approach).
The way I see things, the king’s emissaries and the prophets would come to various places and give everyone a bit of basic practical Jewish law, and that was it.
My opposition to Hasidism is unrelated to the question of what existed in the time of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and also unrelated to the centrality of study. In my view it is nonsense, and the ideas are wrong (the status of the tzaddik, etc.).
I didn’t really write that we need to go back to sacrifices. I actually do think Judaism renews itself—Hasidism is great, Kabbalah is great, and maybe learning is great too.
I only wrote that there is no real evidence that there was analytical learning in the period of Israel described in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and it’s not even certain that this is what makes God happy with us in heaven now.
They did know Jewish law in the period of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), that yes. They carried out legal rulings based on two witnesses (that is proven from the Prophets), and they offered sacrifices. And of course there are more examples.
It’s just that among the general populace there were no pilpul-style dialectics, and apparently there was no need for that either. At most they knew the equivalent of some basic practical Jewish law guidelines, and that was it.
Here is a verse from Chronicles indicating that King Jehoshaphat had to send special emissaries in order to teach Torah to the people—that is, it was not something widespread at all.
In the third year of his reign, he sent his officials—Ben-Hail, Obadiah, Zechariah, Nethanel, and Micaiah—to teach in the cities of Judah. And with them were the Levites: Shemaiah, Nethaniah, Zebadiah, Asahel, Shemiramoth, Jehonathan, Adonijah, Tobijah, and Tob-Adonijah, the Levites, and with them Elishama and Jehoram, the priests. They taught in Judah, with the Book of the Torah of the Lord with them; they went around through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people.