Re: "From behind a barrier"

[Jordan Hirsch <trombaedu...>]

I did not mean to send this to the list.
My apologies.

Jordan

Jordan Hirsch wrote:

> Judith R Cohen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > But thr worst I've read so far is:
> > >  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?
> >
>
> Judith,
>
> Here is the respoonse I sent to the list. Ari suggested that it was too long 
> and
> might therefore do more harm than good.  I send it to you because you took 
> issue
> with something I said, which in the halls of any Yeshiva, be it Orthodox,
> Conservative, or Reform would not be coonsidered controversial in the least. I
> wanted to give you some insight into where I am coming from. This in no way
> reflects my personal opinion of how to observe or not observe the Halacha 
> question
> in play here. In fact, as a matter of social criticism, I probably agree with 
> you
> in more ways than you would imagine. Because of what I post below, I might 
> fairly
> add that I see the solutions as perhaps coming from a different angle.
>
> Jordan
>
> 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 literally oral, and of 
> course
> exemplary piety 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'
> Eliezer that day was answeriung all the questions in the world, among which 
> was
> what was the nature 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
> heaven 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 the 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, Ritvah, 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 to be 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 why would one follow such an
> enclosed system? "Listen to us, because we are empowered to tell you to 
> listen to
> us" does not exactly fit our modern age.
> The answer is that it is a matter of faith. The adherents of this Rabbinic
> tradition believe in Mesorah. They believe that it represents a chain of 
> tradition
>
> going back to the Oral Law recieved wth the Written Law at 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
> survival 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. Jewish 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 halachot 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
> Jewish 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.
>

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