Another introductory essay
Some of this may seem repetitive if you read the previous blog entry. Back last September, I started a thread called "Torah 101" on an online forum I'd been reading. You'll be able to see from the post itself why I started that thread, and if you like you can read through the thread itself and see where the discussion went. I've blocked out some of the names which appeared in the post, just as a courtesy.
So... over on the Theistic Cosmology thread, the subject of Judaism came up. It's come to my attention that a lot of people on these boards are Christians, and that some of them have opinions of Judaism that are based on sources other than Judaism itself.
I'd like to take this opportunity to give a brief (yeah, right) overview of things.
Among the misconceptions I want to address are these:
Caveat: This is coming from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. The various non-Orthodox ("heterodox") movements, such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and so on, are all variant groups that no longer accept Torah law as binding. These are the groups that Occasional probably was referring to when referring to "spiritually dead" religion.
So: Torah 101
Let's start with the word "Torah". When we use that word, it can mean different things, depending on the context. It can refer to the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateuch. It can also refer to the entire corpus of Law and Lore given to the Jews by God at Mount Sinai. Which was a lot more than just those five books.
I'm going to be using it in that second sense. When I want to refer to the Pentateuch, I'll refer to the Written Torah.
When God gave us the Torah, He gave it in two main parts. The Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Those of you who have heard the term "Oral Torah" may have heard it equated to the Talmud. This is not the case. The Talmud does contain discussions of Oral Torah, but it is not, itself, the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah cannot, by its very definition, be committed to writing in its entirety. This is because it is not a book. In modern terms, it is most akin to an operating system. It is made up of information, and the system by which that information is to be used. The Written Torah can almost be seen as a reference guide, or a set of mnemonics that may be used to help recall information from the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah is the primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "rabbinic commentaries" on the Written Torah. It is the source of all Torah law.
Let's take the most well known example of the lex talionis. "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." I've seen written in any number of places that the rabbis modified this law to require only monetary damages. In fact, though, the law was always monetary damages. The various different terms in the verse "eye", "tooth", "burn", and so on, are used to help recall the various categories of monetary penalty that can come up in a case of damages. Time out of work, for example. Embarrassment. Pain. Loss of value as a worker. I don't recall them all, but I don't have to. It's not my job.
One of the reasons the Oral Torah cannot be written down is that it is a multiply redundant system that requires individuals to apply it according to principles, and according to current situations.
The fact that the Written Torah was written down allowed it to be co-opted by Christianity, for instance, and interpreted to mean something other than what Jews know to be the actual Authorial intent. I say this without intending to offend anyone. It should be fairly obvious that Judaism does not accept the various Christian and Christological interpretations of the Written Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (what is sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible).
The Oral Torah cannot be distorted in this way, because it is utterly dependent upon a continuous and multiply redundant chain of transmission, from teachers to students to their students, and so on.
During the course of our history, we've had some bad times. Times that interfered -- somewhat -- with the proper transmission of the Torah. Of course, God being omnicient and all, the Torah takes that possibility into account, and provides for what to do.
Among the things that were done were the compilation of the Mishnah, and later, the compilation of the Gemara. These two books together constitute the Talmud.
The Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince around 230 CE (or thereabouts). It is an extremely terse composition, and is almost impossible to understand unless you learn it from someone who is part of the chain of Torah transmission.
Let me deal briefly with terseness in Torah literature. Consider a building. You're in this building, and you see a sign that says, "Exit building through rear door." What does it mean to you?
In the normal, very loose and easy way we talk nowadays, it seems simple. It means that when you're ready to leave, you should go out the back, rather than the front. At least, I think most people would read it that way.
Looking at that same sign through Torah methodology, here is a very limited list of questions that would immediately pop into mind:
If you use language loosely, you need a lot more verbiage to make yourself understood. You have to cover every situation explicitly, or just accept that there will be holes. But if you use language rigorously, you can convey a vastly greater amount of information much more tersely.
That's how the Mishnah and related works work. I remember the first time I was learning the Mishnah regarding the shofar (ram's horn) that we blow on Rosh Hashanah. One of the things it said was that there are straight ones and curved ones, and that the curved ones are not valid to be used for Rosh Hashanah. I was baffled. I mean, I know for a fact that every shofar I've ever seen used on Rosh Hashanah is curved.
After about an hour of banging my head against the wall, I went to one of the rabbis where I was learning, and asked him. He led me through the various possibilities, and as Sherlock Holmes says, once you eliminate all impossibilities, what's left has to be it. The resolution to my confusion was simply that the terms "straight" and "curved" as used in that Mishnah are not congruent to the mathematical terms I'm familiar with. And the curved ones that we use are "straight" in Mishnaic terms. Curved ones are... I don't even remember. Twisted even more, I think.
The Mishnah was compiled at a time when there was a bit of a let-up in Roman persecutions. Rabbi Judah the Prince was on extremely good terms with the Roman Emperor at the time, and this respite provided a moment in history when it was possible to collect all the various traditions that had diverged somewhat during the troubles, and compile them into the Mishnah. Some few that weren't included wound up in other contemporary compilations that are equally important.
The way the Talmud works is, we start with a line from the Mishnah, and start asking questions about it. Bear in mind that the discussions in question took part over about half a millenium or so. The ones that were compiled into the Talmud were those that would clarify things that were getting harder to clarify over the years. The respite during the life of Rabbi Judah the Prince was only temporary, and the level of redundancy we'd once had was dropping still some more.
The redaction of the Talmud took place, once more, in a time of respite, when some of the rabbis were on excellent terms with the Persian rulers. This was very shortly before the birth of Islam.
The Talmud is terse, like the Mishnah, but less so. At this point, it was necessary to include more detail. Furthermore, by showing the way in which the Mishnah was learned, it functions as a snapshot and a model for our own learning.
I think I'm going to stop for now. Later, I'll explain how Torah law was originally determined authoritatively, and why that system is currently in disrepair. But I imagine that what I've written here so far is very different from the image that most Christians have of it.
And to most Jews, I might add. Even to some Orthodox Jews.
So... over on the Theistic Cosmology thread, the subject of Judaism came up. It's come to my attention that a lot of people on these boards are Christians, and that some of them have opinions of Judaism that are based on sources other than Judaism itself.
I'd like to take this opportunity to give a brief (yeah, right
Among the misconceptions I want to address are these:
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
quote:These were the main quotes that made me think this was necessary.
Originally posted by Occasional:
I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
Caveat: This is coming from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. The various non-Orthodox ("heterodox") movements, such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and so on, are all variant groups that no longer accept Torah law as binding. These are the groups that Occasional probably was referring to when referring to "spiritually dead" religion.
So: Torah 101
Let's start with the word "Torah". When we use that word, it can mean different things, depending on the context. It can refer to the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateuch. It can also refer to the entire corpus of Law and Lore given to the Jews by God at Mount Sinai. Which was a lot more than just those five books.
I'm going to be using it in that second sense. When I want to refer to the Pentateuch, I'll refer to the Written Torah.
When God gave us the Torah, He gave it in two main parts. The Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Those of you who have heard the term "Oral Torah" may have heard it equated to the Talmud. This is not the case. The Talmud does contain discussions of Oral Torah, but it is not, itself, the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah cannot, by its very definition, be committed to writing in its entirety. This is because it is not a book. In modern terms, it is most akin to an operating system. It is made up of information, and the system by which that information is to be used. The Written Torah can almost be seen as a reference guide, or a set of mnemonics that may be used to help recall information from the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah is the primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "rabbinic commentaries" on the Written Torah. It is the source of all Torah law.
Let's take the most well known example of the lex talionis. "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." I've seen written in any number of places that the rabbis modified this law to require only monetary damages. In fact, though, the law was always monetary damages. The various different terms in the verse "eye", "tooth", "burn", and so on, are used to help recall the various categories of monetary penalty that can come up in a case of damages. Time out of work, for example. Embarrassment. Pain. Loss of value as a worker. I don't recall them all, but I don't have to. It's not my job.
One of the reasons the Oral Torah cannot be written down is that it is a multiply redundant system that requires individuals to apply it according to principles, and according to current situations.
The fact that the Written Torah was written down allowed it to be co-opted by Christianity, for instance, and interpreted to mean something other than what Jews know to be the actual Authorial intent. I say this without intending to offend anyone. It should be fairly obvious that Judaism does not accept the various Christian and Christological interpretations of the Written Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (what is sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible).
The Oral Torah cannot be distorted in this way, because it is utterly dependent upon a continuous and multiply redundant chain of transmission, from teachers to students to their students, and so on.
During the course of our history, we've had some bad times. Times that interfered -- somewhat -- with the proper transmission of the Torah. Of course, God being omnicient and all, the Torah takes that possibility into account, and provides for what to do.
Among the things that were done were the compilation of the Mishnah, and later, the compilation of the Gemara. These two books together constitute the Talmud.
The Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince around 230 CE (or thereabouts). It is an extremely terse composition, and is almost impossible to understand unless you learn it from someone who is part of the chain of Torah transmission.
Let me deal briefly with terseness in Torah literature. Consider a building. You're in this building, and you see a sign that says, "Exit building through rear door." What does it mean to you?
In the normal, very loose and easy way we talk nowadays, it seems simple. It means that when you're ready to leave, you should go out the back, rather than the front. At least, I think most people would read it that way.
Looking at that same sign through Torah methodology, here is a very limited list of questions that would immediately pop into mind:
- Does the sign mean you must exit the building through the rear door now, or can you stay a while before leaving?
- What if there are two doors on the rear side of the building? Is either one okay, or is there something that would indicate that only one of them is the "rear door" that was being referred to?
- Can you leave out a rear window? That is, does a window you use to exit a building have the same function as a door, and is it considered a door for that purpose?
- If windows never count as doors, what about a full size sliding glass door? Does it count as a door or a window?
- Suppose the entrance is on a side, and there are doors on the back (from the street perspective), and on the wall opposite the entrance? Which is considered the back door?
- Suppose the building you're in has a door in the back left corner, built diagonally? Is it considered a back door, a side door, both, or neither?
- Was there some reason you might have thought that exiting through the rear door wasn't allowed, and that the sign is not there to exclude the front door, but only to permit using the back door as well?
If you use language loosely, you need a lot more verbiage to make yourself understood. You have to cover every situation explicitly, or just accept that there will be holes. But if you use language rigorously, you can convey a vastly greater amount of information much more tersely.
That's how the Mishnah and related works work. I remember the first time I was learning the Mishnah regarding the shofar (ram's horn) that we blow on Rosh Hashanah. One of the things it said was that there are straight ones and curved ones, and that the curved ones are not valid to be used for Rosh Hashanah. I was baffled. I mean, I know for a fact that every shofar I've ever seen used on Rosh Hashanah is curved.
After about an hour of banging my head against the wall, I went to one of the rabbis where I was learning, and asked him. He led me through the various possibilities, and as Sherlock Holmes says, once you eliminate all impossibilities, what's left has to be it. The resolution to my confusion was simply that the terms "straight" and "curved" as used in that Mishnah are not congruent to the mathematical terms I'm familiar with. And the curved ones that we use are "straight" in Mishnaic terms. Curved ones are... I don't even remember. Twisted even more, I think.
The Mishnah was compiled at a time when there was a bit of a let-up in Roman persecutions. Rabbi Judah the Prince was on extremely good terms with the Roman Emperor at the time, and this respite provided a moment in history when it was possible to collect all the various traditions that had diverged somewhat during the troubles, and compile them into the Mishnah. Some few that weren't included wound up in other contemporary compilations that are equally important.
The way the Talmud works is, we start with a line from the Mishnah, and start asking questions about it. Bear in mind that the discussions in question took part over about half a millenium or so. The ones that were compiled into the Talmud were those that would clarify things that were getting harder to clarify over the years. The respite during the life of Rabbi Judah the Prince was only temporary, and the level of redundancy we'd once had was dropping still some more.
The redaction of the Talmud took place, once more, in a time of respite, when some of the rabbis were on excellent terms with the Persian rulers. This was very shortly before the birth of Islam.
The Talmud is terse, like the Mishnah, but less so. At this point, it was necessary to include more detail. Furthermore, by showing the way in which the Mishnah was learned, it functions as a snapshot and a model for our own learning.
I think I'm going to stop for now. Later, I'll explain how Torah law was originally determined authoritatively, and why that system is currently in disrepair. But I imagine that what I've written here so far is very different from the image that most Christians have of it.
And to most Jews, I might add. Even to some Orthodox Jews.
posted by Lisa | 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home