Re: "From behind a barrier"

[Jordan Hirsch <trombaedu...>]

>
> >  the right of
> > >Rabbis to interpret the Torah, even at the risk of misunderstanding of 
> > >God's
> > >intention.
>
> WHAT rihgt?
> Who gave them the right to do this? and who gave them the right to do at
> "at the risk of misinterpreting GOd's intention"???? Really? Really,
> really, God said, "go ahead men, it's your call, interpret however you
> please even if you get it wrong"???????
> where does it say this?
>

Since I wrote it, I will explain it. (Again)
In the Talmud, which according to Jewish Rabbinical Tradition is the central 
work
of the Oral Law, and in Orthodox tradition authoritative, numerous points in the
Torah are explained as giving authority to Rabbis to interpret Jewish Law. In
order to be a Rabbi in the time of the Talmud, one had to receive Smicha, which
was the laying on of hands from a Rabbi already part of this tradition. One 
could
only reach that stage after extensive mastery of the Oral Law, which until the
redaction of the Mishnah by R' Yehudah Hanasi was litrerally oral, and of course
exemplary p[iety and knowledge of the Written Torah. Some of the more famous
examples of such Drash, are the interpretation of the verse  which  states "Lo
Tosur," which the Rabbis of the Talmud interpret as do not turn from the words 
of
the sages. Also "Lo Bashamayim Hi" which is interpreted in a famous passage in
Baba Metzia, 59b as explaing the idea that explanation of a point of law is in 
the
hands, not of God, but of the consensus of the Rabbinical Court, or Yeshiva of
it's day. The story is actually rather stirring:
In a discussion in the Beis Medrash, Rabbi Yehudah quotes R' Shmuel describing a
certain kind of oven, a tanur shel  achnai, and that it can become impure. R'
Eilezer that day was answeriung allthe questionms in the world, aong which was
what was the naturee of this oven, and he did not accept the Halacha of R' 
Yehuda,
which was in this case accepted by the Rabbis. He said, "If the Halacha is like
me, this carob tree will prove it. And the Carob tree moved over. The Rabbis
responded, we don't bring proofs from a carob. He said, if the Halacha is like 
me,
let this spring of water prove it. And the spring ran backwards. They said, we
don't bring proof from water. He said, if the Halacha is like me, let the walls 
of
the Beis Medrash prove it. And the walls started to come down. At that point, R'
Yehoshua got up and scolded the arguers, and the walls did not continue to fall
out of respect for him. So they didn't go back up, because R' Eliezer was right,
but they didn't continue to fall, because of R' Yehoshua. Finally, R' Eliezer
says. "If I am right, let the heavens prove it!" At which point, a voice from
heavan calls out and says,"whats your problem with R' Eliezer, when the halacha 
is
like him so many times?"
Now, in the wake of a heavanly voice, things get pretty quiet.
R' Yehoshua stood up in the silence and said "Lo Bashamayim HI!" The Torah is 
not
in Heaven!!!
The Gemara explains, what does this mean? R' Yirmiyah answers, "Since the Torah
was already given at Mt. Sinai, we are not guided by a Bas Kol (heavenly voice).
After all, the Torah itself states (when discussing Jewish law) "Follow the
Majority" (Exodus 23)."
So in answer to Judith's question, based on this and other sources, it is the
stance of the Talmud that yes, it is the call of mankind to interpret and
understand His laws, and that even at the risk of getting it wrong, they have to
do the best they can to interpret it.
Now, one may fairly ask,isn't that just a self perpetuating system? And  the
answer to that question is yes. Basically, the Rabbis of mishnaic times saw
themselves as inheritors of a chain of tradition going back to Mt. Sinai, when
they believed both the oral law and written law were given. That is the meaning
and intention of the entire first chapter of Pirkei Avot, which is a tractate of
the Mishnah, not just a bunch of nice sayings. The tradition of interpretation 
of
Halacha is carried on by the Rabbis of the Gemara, and tgether te Mishnah and
Gemara make up the Talmud. Some time in the middle of the early medieval period,
the true Smicha was lost or discontinued, but to be accepted as an interpreter 
of
the Talmud, one obviously had to have great erudition. The great medieval
interpreters of the Talmud wrote three kinds of works: Commentaries directly on
Talmud texts, such as Rashi, The Tosafot, Rivah, Rashba, et al; Codes, such as
Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Tur;  and Responsa, many by the same Rabbis. From the Tur
the Shulchan aruch was fashioned, and carried with it its own commentaries. This
structure is the heart of Jewish jurisprudence. within this system, precedent is
king, and interpretations of halacha have tobe rooted in some kind of process
already in place, even when dealing with new problems. It is an independant
system. It does not require the word of God. So wy would one follow such an
enclosed system. "Listen to us, because we are empowered to tell you to listen 
to
us" does not fit our moden age.
The answer is tha it is a matter of faith. The adherents of this Rabbinic
tradition Believe in Mesorah. They beleive that it represents a chain of 
tradition
going  back to the Oral tradition of Mt. Sinai. As Sylvia pointed out in one of
her posts, this idea of legal tradition was a radical departure from the Temple
tradition. And not all Jews of the time of R' Yochanan Ben Zakai accepted it.
Those Jews did not perpetuate themselves. But the Jews that did  ensured the
urvival of the Jewish people.
We are all descendents of the Rabbinic tradition. Ironically, in many ways, 
Reform
and Conservative Rabbis depend even more on Rabbinical judgement, as they often
interpret Halacha outside some of the more Orthodox methodologies. When
Conservative Rabbis allowed driving on shabbos under certain circumstances, they
used their own judgement to deal with what they felt was a pressing need. God 
was
not asked, nor could he have answered.
Jewsih Law has always depended on the judgement of those expert in it, whether
Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist.

What I have been trying to get at is that we all have to make choices about how 
we
observe Judaism. Some men listen to womens voices, some men don't. This can be
unfair in some circumstances, although some find it liberating. (The last time
this subject went around, I pointed out that many of the halachaot of this
category were designed to prevent the objectification of women. That is 
certainly
a good thing. But restrictions for good reasons are still restrictions, and come
at a price.)
All these choices are personal, as is mine,which is incidentally to listen to
women sing.
The only objection I have had, and still have, is the unwillingness on some
people's part to accept that for it's adherents, Halacha is a system, and change
in that system has to be part of and a result of that system. We can be angry
about whatever we wish, and should express it.  But if we cannot do so with
respect for a fundamental principle of Jewish life for the last 2000 years which
some see as still in place today, then we cannot fairly expect our people to get
anywhere on the road to true acceptance and tolerance of each other.
I have much more to say about this, but this E-mail is too long already.
But if we want to continue having this discussion, we need to quote more from
jewsih sources, not less.
If you want to tell me that man does not have a say in Jewish law, show me a 
book
of Jewish law that says it.

Jordan Hirsch

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+