Q&A: And the Camel and the Woman
And the Camel and the Woman
Question
The Torah speaks in human language.
Stories too, descriptions, expressions, and poetry are spoken and written in the human language known at the time.
Could that also apply to the commandments?
When there still was no camel 🐫 in the world, if the Torah had been given then, presumably it would not have appeared as the example of something that does not have split hooves but does chew the cud.
I assume that even if it had been given in an era when it was already extinct, it also would not have appeared as an example.
But more basically: if it had been given before there were animals with split hooves that chew the cud, or after they had gone extinct, that would not have been the determining criterion…
Also slaves…
If it had been given at a time when there was no slavery, there would be no laws of slaves.
And likewise, in a situation where the status of women rises, perhaps it would not only be the man who betroths and divorces.
And if so, where is the boundary line for the Sanhedrin to legislate?
What is the framework they are bound to?
And what, because of the time in which it was given, needs to be changed and ought to be changed?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. In any case, it is far too general. I suggest you give a specific example.
Discussion on Answer
Obviously yes. The authority to derive interpretations is given to everyone. Such interpretations are binding only if they are made by the Sanhedrin, but in principle a person can derive an interpretation for himself, and it will bind him, because from his perspective that is what the Torah says.
But it is not enough that nowadays we believe in equality for women. That has to be anchored in the text and in the methods of interpretation. It is not reasonable for everyone to do whatever they want. There is a difference between saying that interpretation and exposition include the interpreter’s assumptions, and saying that the interpreter does whatever his assumptions tell him to do. That completely ignores the text and the methods of interpretation.
See on this my series of columns (starting from 475) on Modern Orthodoxy, and especially column 478, where I explained the difference between this and Reform. That is exactly the point.
It’s strange to obligate a woman to give a divorce to a man even though she is not commanded at all to marry, on grounds of “equality.”
If the Torah were given today, maybe it wouldn’t say, “and he gives her a bill of divorce and places it in her hand,”
but rather, “and they give one another a bill of divorce and place it in their hands,” and so on.
The question is whether the Sanhedrin has the power — and perhaps even a religious court nowadays — to lead the halakhic ruling in that direction?
Like what they did with “an eye for an eye,” and so on.