As I have discussed many times, the Torah consists of a Written and Oral element. One is meaningless without the other. I often give the analogy of the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and American law. All U.S. law is based on the Constitution. Yet, when one visits a lawyer, he turns to your State's laws. One cannot go before a judge and argue that one's speeding ticket should be thrown out, since there is no mention of speeding in the constitution. Yet, a State's laws and enactments cannot violate the Constitution. So, the Oral Torah consists of explanations of laws given to Moses, and case law based on decisions of courts (Deut. 17:8-13). It also consists of enactments of the Sanhedrin, in accordance with the statements in that passage from Deuteronomy. Yet, the Talmud, which is the main repository of the Oral Torah, contains much more. There are stories, ostensibly giving the background information on Biblical events. There are statements on science, medicine, astronomy, history, in short, every aspect of human interest. But are these statements to be considered part of Torah? If not, what are they doing in the Talmud? There has been a huge debate on this topic for the last 1300 years. Each side has its defenders and detractors to this day. Let's analyze these one by one.
In medieval Ashkenazic circles, the Talmud was seen as a unified work, which had been dictated to Moses on Sinai along with the Written Torah. As such, it is infallible. As science progressed, some turned their backs on the new discoveries, defending what they saw as the "G-d given facts" expressed in the Talmud. Today, the primary defender of this approach is Chabad. Some other groups and individuals also take this approach. However, many great Ashkenazic authorities disagreed with this approach. Maharal of Prague (1520-1609) opines that the facts discussed in the Talmud represent the best knowledge of the day, but are certainly not the final word. The Talmud is, after all, the work of many generations of scholars, determined to preserve and interpret the Oral Tradition. It is not a unified work, but is essentially the record of discussion, carried on in study halls over several centuries (between 200 and 600 years, depending on which historians we may believe). Side issues came up and were discussed, and became part of the notes on the topic at hand. In most modern Yeshivot, these sections are simply skipped.
In Spain and the East, a totally different approach was taken. Rav Saadya Gaon (882-942), who lived first in Egypt and then Iraq, saw the narrative parts of the Talmud as literal, unless they either violated observable facts, or were beyond reason. In this case, they needed to be understood as allegories. A generation later, in Spain, Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid wrote an introduction to the Talmud, which is still printed in scholarly editions. He explains the structure and methodology of the Talmud. He divides its material into three parts. The first is the laws that have been handed down carefully since Sinai. In this, the Talmud is equal in authority to the Torah itself. The second consists of the interpretations of the various rabbis, how they interpreted Scripture, and derived principles. This, according to him, was NOT given to Moses. But, as these were such great men, their words must be carefully studied, and at least taken into consideration. The third part consists of legends and folklore that can well be ignored by us. Needless to say, this was a very radical approach. A middle ground was proposed by RAMBAM. I will discuss that in my next post.
In medieval Ashkenazic circles, the Talmud was seen as a unified work, which had been dictated to Moses on Sinai along with the Written Torah. As such, it is infallible. As science progressed, some turned their backs on the new discoveries, defending what they saw as the "G-d given facts" expressed in the Talmud. Today, the primary defender of this approach is Chabad. Some other groups and individuals also take this approach. However, many great Ashkenazic authorities disagreed with this approach. Maharal of Prague (1520-1609) opines that the facts discussed in the Talmud represent the best knowledge of the day, but are certainly not the final word. The Talmud is, after all, the work of many generations of scholars, determined to preserve and interpret the Oral Tradition. It is not a unified work, but is essentially the record of discussion, carried on in study halls over several centuries (between 200 and 600 years, depending on which historians we may believe). Side issues came up and were discussed, and became part of the notes on the topic at hand. In most modern Yeshivot, these sections are simply skipped.
In Spain and the East, a totally different approach was taken. Rav Saadya Gaon (882-942), who lived first in Egypt and then Iraq, saw the narrative parts of the Talmud as literal, unless they either violated observable facts, or were beyond reason. In this case, they needed to be understood as allegories. A generation later, in Spain, Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid wrote an introduction to the Talmud, which is still printed in scholarly editions. He explains the structure and methodology of the Talmud. He divides its material into three parts. The first is the laws that have been handed down carefully since Sinai. In this, the Talmud is equal in authority to the Torah itself. The second consists of the interpretations of the various rabbis, how they interpreted Scripture, and derived principles. This, according to him, was NOT given to Moses. But, as these were such great men, their words must be carefully studied, and at least taken into consideration. The third part consists of legends and folklore that can well be ignored by us. Needless to say, this was a very radical approach. A middle ground was proposed by RAMBAM. I will discuss that in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment