Q&A: That’s Not What It Says in the Tanakh
That’s Not What It Says in the Tanakh
Question
Is the Rabbi familiar with the book That’s Not What It Says in the Tanakh?
This is a book by Yair Zakovitch and Avigdor Shinan, which tries to show how certain parts of the biblical canon were written due to an ideological / political agenda of the editors (the Sages, the royal family, the priests—depending, of course, on the period in which the specific passage was edited).
The claim that caught my eye most starkly is the claim that the Israelites really did build a golden calf after the giving of the Torah, but at the time this act was not perceived as a desecration of holiness, and was presented that way only many centuries later, when it was decided to set up golden calves in the Kingdom of Israel. If you don’t know the book or the claim, I can post the full argument 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 Tanakh that are demonstrated by scholarly research (I don’t mean only the issue of scholarship, but also the fact that the claims themselves are persuasive), and to the fact that canonization influenced by a political agenda affects Jewish law to this day? (For example—a shofar cannot be made from the horn of a calf.)
Answer
I’m not familiar with it. In general, my trust in this type of argument is fairly limited. The gates of interpretation and association have not been locked.
But regardless, regarding your question about commitment to the product of this process, even if we assume for the sake of discussion that it is correct, I would say two things. 1. Our commitment is to the Sages’ interpretation of Scripture, not to Scripture itself. The Sages interpreted Scripture away from its plain meaning in quite a few cases. But of course here the question remains about the Sages themselves (they too acted מתוך the landscape-patterns of their native world). 2. In philosophy of science, a distinction is made between the context of discovery and the context of justification. There is the way a scientific idea comes into being, and that can be through mystical inspiration, a revelation from Einstein’s grandmother in a dream at night, or the interests and assumptions of one intellectual group or another. None of that changes anything, because the product is judged on its own merits (in the scientific case, against laboratory experiments). The same applies here. The way these conceptions arose may well be connected to interests and outlooks, but that does not necessarily mean they have no substance in themselves.
I’ve often given as an example the dispute between the sages of Spain (Maimonides) and France (the Tosafists) regarding self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God’s name. The Spanish authorities are lenient and the Ashkenazic ones are stringent. Scholars attribute this to the circumstances in which they lived (the Ashkenazim, during the Crusades, needed to sharpen messages and be more stringent in order to prevent collapse, whereas the Spanish authorities lived in a more relaxed environment—everything is relative, of course). Let us assume for the sake of discussion that this contextual analysis is correct. Does that mean there are not two positions here that must be discussed on their own merits? The circumstances gave rise to each of the views, but once it emerged it stands on its own and must be examined on its own merits.
Discussion on Answer
I’ll take the example you gave regarding being more stringent or more lenient about self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God’s name. If the reason for the difference really lies in the different cultural context of the two communities, isn’t it important to understand that this really is the source (and that the source is not divine revelation or counting letters), in order to know how to act today? For example—I would know that if I live in a relatively tolerant environment I can be lenient, but if I live in a “persecuting” environment I should be stringent.
That is exactly what I addressed in the past. I argued that if you take academia seriously, then there are no disputes in Jewish law at all. Every view is the product of the circumstances in which it was created, and therefore today too the application is according to the circumstances. If the circumstances are like those of Maimonides, one should act like him, and if they are like those of Tosafot, one should act like them. It follows that there is no halakhic dispute at all, and everything is just a reflection of different circumstances. That is exactly what I wrote is incorrect. Because the dispute is on the level of justification, whereas the academic explanations are on the level of discovery. See, for example, column 166.
Michi, sometimes you surprise even me with your formulations.
You write that “our commitment is to the Sages’ interpretation of Scripture and not to Scripture.”
The Sages themselves did not think like you. Maybe one could argue that in many cases they themselves extracted the correct or deeper meaning from the biblical text, but the very authority of that interpretation came to them, according to their own view, from the Tanakh itself (or at least from the Pentateuch). Unless you believe that the words of the Sages came down to us directly from heaven and the Pentateuch itself is their later interpretation…
By the way, this is true of every case of a relationship between a target text and the text that interprets it. There is always a hierarchy in which the target text precedes the interpretation.
??
The Sages thought differently from me because they were committed to Scripture and not to the Sages? Fascinating argument. Actually, the Holy One, blessed be He, also thought differently from me, since He is committed to truth and not to the Holy One, blessed be He. The Israeli legislator also thinks differently from me, since he does what he thinks and requires me to do what the legislator says.
As for the claim itself, of course they wanted to interpret the Torah, and I am committed to their interpretation of the Torah.
I have no doubt that you’re joking. But as a service to other readers I’ll give a simple example from the world of the kiruv activists I can’t stand.
A new immigrant who doesn’t know Hebrew is drafted into the IDF together with his friend who does know Hebrew. They show the immigrant the commander and explain to him that he is the source of authority, but add that since the commander speaks only Hebrew, every order from him will be translated (“interpreted”) for him by the immigrant’s friend.
Who is the source of authority in this analogy:
1. The commander
2. The Hebrew-speaking friend
3. My grandmother
4. There is no source of authority
All that remains for me is to refer the question back to you, and then to reread what I wrote.
I see you’re in a playful mood this morning 😉
My answer is that the source of authority in the analogy I gave is the commander (the Tanakh).
Your answer was the Hebrew-speaking friend (the Sages).
Now I want to guess what happened here. When you wrote that “our commitment is to the Sages’ interpretation of Scripture and not to Scripture,” you meant exactly what I wrote—namely, that in your opinion “the commander” is the source of authority. But absentmindedly you ended up with a somewhat clumsy formulation that can be interpreted opposite to your intent, as indeed happened. That’s only my guess, but if it’s correct, then you have no problem here. Just say that you meant exactly what I wrote now, and all will be well.
And as usual, I urge readers to jump into the argument on behalf of one side or the other (you can also be against both).
Indeed, and it is hardly even necessary to explain it. This is a perfectly reasonable way of putting it: we are committed to the Sages’ interpretation of Scripture, but the commander is the Holy One, blessed be He. That is self-evident, and I do not understand what this strange discussion is about.
I understand that you’re trying to correct the original statement, but in my view even the correction is sloppy. Instead of saying, as you said in your last comment (“we are committed to the Sages’ interpretation of Scripture, but the commander is the Holy One, blessed be He”), you should have said this:
The Tanakh is the primary source of authority in 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: in principle you hold reasonable and correct views (in my opinion), but you formulate them—in this case—sloppily, and thereby cause your readers to think that you really meant this nonsense. When people point it out to you, you shrug off the responsibility and call it a strange discussion. That conduct on your part is itself very strange.
With God’s help, 12 Shevat 5784
Regarding the army parable, I would note that the supreme source of authority in the army is the body of the state’s citizens. They elect the Knesset, which elects the government, which appoints and gives instructions to the Chief of Staff, who gives instructions to the generals, who give instructions to the division commanders, who command the brigade commanders, who command the battalion commanders, who command the company commanders, who command the platoon commanders, who command the squad commander, who commands the translator, who commands the soldier. So the ultimate source of authority is: grandma, the soldier, the translator, the commander, and millions of other citizens of the state.
Their authority is derived from the law of the Torah, given by the Creator of the world, which commanded us to heed the Sages when it says: “And you shall do according to the Torah that they instruct you,” and they instructed: “The law of the kingdom is law.” The truth of the Torah is testified to by the grandmothers, who received it from their grandmothers, who received it from their grandmothers, and from their grandmothers’ grandmothers who were present at Mount Sinai.
That is the principled source of authority. In practice, the soldier must obey the instructions of the translator, who serves as a faithful agent of all the hierarchy mentioned.
Best regards, Sgt. (res.) Fish”l
Sergeant Fish”l, formerly Lewinger, formerly… (here comes a list of some twelve names that change according to the Hebrew calendar, the beating of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda’s heart, and the song of Tze’enah U-Re’enah)… I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the precision and originality in your latest comment. Without it, the entire discussion would not have been worth a thing.
Health and happiness.
With God’s help, 11 Shevat 5784
The claim that the Golden Calf was not seen at the time as a desecration of holiness is flatly contradicted by the command in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness… you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.” Obviously, among the nations of the world it took thousands of years for monotheism to take hold, but in Judaism monotheism was the foundation of all foundations.
Best regards, Fish”l