Q&A: Two Questions
Two Questions
Question
1. Have you ever seen or read Shay Yefet’s series of articles on his site, A Hint of an Idea, on biblical criticism? There he systematically refutes the traditional claims of Torah from Heaven.
Interesting that he bases himself on your response to Rabbi Amit Kula’s book, and I’m wondering what you would say about his conclusions there?!
2. When you talk about the difference between Torah in the object and Torah in the person, what would the Jewish law be regarding reading or studying in the bathroom something that for me is Torah in the person (a philosophy book and the like)? And in general, what are the laws regarding study and reading in the bathroom—what is permitted and what is forbidden?
Answer
1. No. I’m not especially interested in those worn-out issues, and I’ve already explained here why.
2. I can say that clarifying your first question can be done in the bathroom. In my opinion, one may also engage there in Torah in the person. Torah in the person is anything of value that is not Torah in the object.
Discussion on Answer
What is my opinion supposed to be?
Some of those examples raise no difficulty at all. Another part indicates that there are several verses that were added later. Quite a few medieval authorities already noted that.
How do you know it’s only a few verses and not the opposite? Is this the exception that testifies to the whole rule?
There aren’t any such medieval authorities.
I reached the conclusion that the Torah was given to us at Sinai. Now there are several verses from which it is proven that they are a later addition. Therefore the conclusion is that there are several verses that were added later. That’s all.
And regarding your remark at the end, I liked your decisiveness. If decisiveness were an argument, you could be a lecturer in logic. But unfortunately it isn’t. Too bad.
I don’t think you’re right, even on your own view.
The Torah that was given at Sinai is the Ten Commandments together with the rules of interpretation.
Not the book itself; you can also see that there’s a dispute in the Talmud whether it was written scroll by scroll or all at once at the end.
And the truth is that we don’t really have much of a tradition about the book on the level of the revelation at Mount Sinai.
Also, it doesn’t say in the Torah scroll that Moses wrote it. And many times he is presented in the third person.
Moreover, it says, “And Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi”—so if that’s the case, then the Torah is a different book.
The book itself also contains many anachronistic expressions.
B. Hand on your heart, if you encountered the Torah scroll not from a believer’s perspective, would you believe Moses wrote it? Or someone from his time, or later?
C. As for the additional medieval authorities, Rabbi Moshe already addressed it in a responsum and said it was a forgery.
That’s what you think. I don’t see any basis for it. Of course it is connected to my believing perspective. A person acts according to his conclusions and understandings. What do you expect—that I should look at this from a Hindu perspective?
C. Only regarding the Zionist one. There are others. And even regarding that one, this is a baseless apologetic invention of Rabbi Moshe.
What do you think about the baraita that Moses wrote his book and the section of Balaam? And the last 8 verses?
What about “and the Canaanite was then in the land”? Or “before any king reigned over the children of Israel.”
What about Arad and Dan?