Over at A Fire Burns In Breslov, a post I'd like to comment on. It is short, so I will first reproduce a good portion of the story which forms the post:
The idea behind this seems to me to be that Biblical critics raise "difficulties" in the text. But these difficulties are not new discoveries, and have been adequately addressed by Rishonim who acted as Biblical commentators.
Now, the assumption in this story appears to be that the Rishonim, as commentators, only act in accordance with Oral Law and tradition. This is not necessarily the case. Some operated on a peshat level, and tried to resolve difficulties not on Oral Traditions (if that is what midrashim are), but based on other textual cues.
However. Just as this particular Bible critic did not know Rishonim, this particular Rabbi did not know the work of Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar. This proof is indeed Pharisee / Karaite Polemics 101. And so we should expect the Karaites to have some response to this particular proof. And indeed, the Karaites do respond. Aharon ben Yosef wrote a running commentary on all of Tanach, so you are not going to surprise him with some verse he is unaware of. And he is well aware of the traditional rabbinic interpretation of many pesukim, as well as the commentaries of Rishonim, Ibn Ezra especially.
Since this story turned into an anti-Karaite polemic, I wonder how the story would have developed were the Biblical critic to respond with the Karaite response to this prooftext. That is, the prooftext was about shechitas chullin, in parashat Re'eh. In Devarim 12:
Yet while earlier, we find commands regarding bringing olot and zevachim, we do not find a place regarding chullin that could function as an expansion of וְזָבַחְתָּ ... כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ.
Therefore, this must have been explained to Moshe orally. That is the proof.
So what do the Karaites respond? Let us look to Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar:
"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ, as I have commanded you: you shall [specifically] slaughter and then eat [Josh: as in Devarim 12:15, six pesukim earlier, תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ]. For that which is slaughtered is permitted and not that which is strangled, nor that which had a messed up slaughter. And shechita in the Hebrew language is the severing of the signs of the throat [trachea and esophagus]. And that which is stated [in Bemidbar 14] וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם בַּמִּדְבָּר [Josh: that the Egyptians would say, ch"v, that Hashem has slain the Israelites in the wilderness, in an instance which is not severing of the trachea and esophagus], this is an idiom that He has slain them like sheep.
And it is more correct [to say] that כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ means that he had commanded them in the wilderness that they eat chullin [non-korban meat] according to the laws of the sacrificed, now that He came and permitted them to eat them as chullin, He said 'as I commanded you' when they were korbanot, you shall eat them as chullin in every place, just so long as they are slaughtered as they were initially when they were korbanot."
End quote of Aharon ben Yosef.
To summarize, Aharon ben Yosef does not take כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ to mean the specific details of shechita, which would then need to be explicitly commanded, and would then need to appear in the written text, unless there were an Oral Law. Rather כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ simply means that, as I mentioned immediately above in pasuk 12:15, they need to be shechted. And don't then tell me that the definition of shechted needs to be an explicit Divine definition, and command. The Hebrew language has words, and words have meaning. And the meaning of shechita as a word was known to the Israelites. Further, the link to pasuk 15 can be that it is as I have commanded you in pasuk 15 about korbanot andthat they need shechita, just with this minor other distinction now that your borders have expanded, in pasuk 20.
If so, the Bible critic has his ready answer.
It is nice to have our own arguments, and even to find them convincing. But as we develop, it pays to also understand the difference between peshat and derash, and maybe to realize (if it is indeed so) that there are other ways of understanding the pasuk. This famous explanation of kaasher tzivisicha is found in Rashi, who is citing Chazal:
A certain rabbi once ran into a “freethinker” who considered himself quite a scholar. With hardly a word of introduction, the non-believer declared that he was learning Bible criticism and had spoken to many religious people who were unable to reply to the compelling questions he posed.An inspirational story, meant to inspire. There seem three points to this story.
The rabbi asked the academic what Rishonim he had learned. The academic was obviously taken aback and his halting reply showed that he had never studied rishonim at all. He defended himself with the statement, “Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.
“Anyone who thinks so has not learned it carefully,” replied the rabbi. “For example, the verse tells us, [Josh: in Re'eh] ‘and you shall slaughter of your cattle...as I have commanded you,’ yet nowhere in the rest of the Torah do we find instructions as to how we are meant to slaughter animals. Obviously, the accompanying instruction was transmitted orally—the oral Torah of the rabbis that you find superfluous.”
The academic was flustered for only a moment before blurted out his ignorant response, “There is no such verse.”
“Try parshas R’ei,” the rabbi replied. “And it’s not just there. Many mitzvos cannot possibly be fulfilled with only the written instructions.....
- The questions raised by Biblical critics are addressed by the Rishonim.
- Biblical critics are ignoramuses, which is why they even think these are real questions.
- And so you should not be threatened by questions raised by them. Even if you don't know, a better educated person would know the answers.
- Here, indeed, is a great proof
A certain rabbi once ran into a “freethinker” who considered himself quite a scholar.This story is then, likely, a polemic, meant to prove a point. Once, a rabbi, a freethinker, and a chimpanzee walk into a bar...
With hardly a word of introduction, the non-believer declared that he was learning Bible criticism and had spoken to many religious people who were unable to reply to the compelling questions he posed.This is indeed a weak point. Many religious people don't really know how to learn in depth, and are not trained to address specific types of questions. It seems that the rabbi in this story was better prepared to engage Biblical criticism -- even though as it develops, the discussion turns into one of Karaism.
The rabbi asked the academic what Rishonim he had learned. The academic was obviously taken aback and his halting reply showed that he had never studied rishonim at all. He defended himself with the statement, “Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.This might well be a good response to many an individual. And yet, other Biblical scholars / critics probably have studied at least some rishonim. Just as it was silly for this "Biblical scholar" to think that the inability of random Jews to answer his questions demonstrated anything, it it silly to think that the deficiencies of this particular fellow demonstrates anything about the validity, or lack thereof, of Biblical criticism.
The idea behind this seems to me to be that Biblical critics raise "difficulties" in the text. But these difficulties are not new discoveries, and have been adequately addressed by Rishonim who acted as Biblical commentators.
Now, the assumption in this story appears to be that the Rishonim, as commentators, only act in accordance with Oral Law and tradition. This is not necessarily the case. Some operated on a peshat level, and tried to resolve difficulties not on Oral Traditions (if that is what midrashim are), but based on other textual cues.
“Clearly, the Torah must be a work that is complete in and of itself, requiring no added exposition by the rabbis...” he began.This is a silly argument by the Biblical scholar. Every text needs exposition. There are scholars of Shakespeare. And there are (religious and nonreligious) scholars of Bible, who explain the meaning of verses. An explanation by Rashi, or Ibn Ezra, of the Biblical text is a deep, close reading of the text itself. Furthermore, if he subscribes to Biblical criticism, why should he think that the Torah, as a single entity, is a complete work? Couldn't something have been left on the cutting-room floor, in a non-canonized work?
“Anyone who thinks so has not learned it carefully,” replied the rabbi. “For example, the verse tells us, ‘and you shall slaughter of your cattle...as I have commanded you,’ yet nowhere in the rest of the Torah do we find instructions as to how we are meant to slaughter animals. Obviously, the accompanying instruction was transmitted orally—the oral Torah of the rabbis that you find superfluous.”This is Pharisee / Karaite Polemics 101. It is a fairly standard argument in favor of the existence of an Oral Torah. The Bible critic's response,
The academic was flustered for only a moment before blurted out his ignorant response, “There is no such verse.”is indeed a flustered and ignorant response.
However. Just as this particular Bible critic did not know Rishonim, this particular Rabbi did not know the work of Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar. This proof is indeed Pharisee / Karaite Polemics 101. And so we should expect the Karaites to have some response to this particular proof. And indeed, the Karaites do respond. Aharon ben Yosef wrote a running commentary on all of Tanach, so you are not going to surprise him with some verse he is unaware of. And he is well aware of the traditional rabbinic interpretation of many pesukim, as well as the commentaries of Rishonim, Ibn Ezra especially.
Since this story turned into an anti-Karaite polemic, I wonder how the story would have developed were the Biblical critic to respond with the Karaite response to this prooftext. That is, the prooftext was about shechitas chullin, in parashat Re'eh. In Devarim 12:
| כא כִּי-יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם, וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה לְךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ--וְאָכַלְתָּ, בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ, בְּכֹל, אַוַּת נַפְשֶׁךָ. | 21 If the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul. |
Yet while earlier, we find commands regarding bringing olot and zevachim, we do not find a place regarding chullin that could function as an expansion of וְזָבַחְתָּ ... כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ.
Therefore, this must have been explained to Moshe orally. That is the proof.
So what do the Karaites respond? Let us look to Aharon ben Yosef, the Karaite scholar:
"כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ, as I have commanded you: you shall [specifically] slaughter and then eat [Josh: as in Devarim 12:15, six pesukim earlier, תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ]. For that which is slaughtered is permitted and not that which is strangled, nor that which had a messed up slaughter. And shechita in the Hebrew language is the severing of the signs of the throat [trachea and esophagus]. And that which is stated [in Bemidbar 14] וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם בַּמִּדְבָּר [Josh: that the Egyptians would say, ch"v, that Hashem has slain the Israelites in the wilderness, in an instance which is not severing of the trachea and esophagus], this is an idiom that He has slain them like sheep.
And it is more correct [to say] that כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ means that he had commanded them in the wilderness that they eat chullin [non-korban meat] according to the laws of the sacrificed, now that He came and permitted them to eat them as chullin, He said 'as I commanded you' when they were korbanot, you shall eat them as chullin in every place, just so long as they are slaughtered as they were initially when they were korbanot."
End quote of Aharon ben Yosef.
To summarize, Aharon ben Yosef does not take כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ to mean the specific details of shechita, which would then need to be explicitly commanded, and would then need to appear in the written text, unless there were an Oral Law. Rather כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ simply means that, as I mentioned immediately above in pasuk 12:15, they need to be shechted. And don't then tell me that the definition of shechted needs to be an explicit Divine definition, and command. The Hebrew language has words, and words have meaning. And the meaning of shechita as a word was known to the Israelites. Further, the link to pasuk 15 can be that it is as I have commanded you in pasuk 15 about korbanot andthat they need shechita, just with this minor other distinction now that your borders have expanded, in pasuk 20.
If so, the Bible critic has his ready answer.
It is nice to have our own arguments, and even to find them convincing. But as we develop, it pays to also understand the difference between peshat and derash, and maybe to realize (if it is indeed so) that there are other ways of understanding the pasuk. This famous explanation of kaasher tzivisicha is found in Rashi, who is citing Chazal:
| you may slaughter… as I have commanded you: We learn [from here] that there is a commandment regarding slaughtering, how one must slaughter. [Since this commandment is not written in the Torah we deduce that] these are the laws of ritual slaughtering given orally to Moses on [Mount] Sinai. — [Sifrei ; Chul. 28a] | וזבחת וגו' כאשר צויתך: למדנו שיש צווי בזביחה היאך ישחוט, והן הלכות שחיטה שנאמרו למשה בסיני: |
6 comments:
Yes, but stories like this always go the same: Freethinker challenges rebbe. Rebbe swats him down with answer. Everyone is happy.
Never mind the answer can be challenged. It almost never is because, well then the rebbe might have to mount a real defence.
I believe polemics like this have a place. They are useful much in the way an inspirational story is. To make a basic point that will reinforce the audiences belief in God and tradition.
"His jacket was stuck in the taxi door, causing him to be late for the plane. Why is Hashem doing this to me? Jack cursed his luck. Until the plane exploded mid air..."
Never mind that it's a statistical anomaly or that Sue had the opposite story of being pumped onto the doomed flight.
So, sure, we can't take a polemic too seriously as an intellectual exercise, but it serves its purpose all the same.
R.Josh, are you good at midrashes?
When the Holy One—blessed be He !—created the world, it was a level expanse free from mountains ; but
when Cain slew Abel his brother, whose blood was trodden down on the earth, He cursed the ground, and immediately hills and mountains sprang into existence. Midrash Vayosha
Does it really happened, or it's again parable?
nice.
i'd have to see it inside, for context.
however, please take a look at this midrash in the Yerushalmi, about mountains being flattened in messianic days, based on a pasuk in Yeshaya.
from the halachic context, it certainly seems that they took this literally. and if so, it removes one of the great mental obstacles for taking it literally.
also relevant, as perhaps a feed or perhaps a contradiction, would be Iyov 15:7:
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2715.htm
הֲרִאישׁוֹן אָדָם, תִּוָּלֵד; וְלִפְנֵי גְבָעוֹת חוֹלָלְתָּ.
Art thou the first man that was born? Or wast thou brought forth before the hills?
Simple implication would be that the hills preceded any human. But alternatively, maybe they interpreted it that Adam HaRishon and company were the only ones brought forth before the hills...
This Yerushalmi is quite complicated, speaks about form of Earth.
These lines from Iyov proves, that it was physical, Hashem clearly relates to old times, beginning of the world.
In Yeshaya it may be tikkun olam, valleys changing to mountains, mountains to valleys.
Dear Rabbi Waxman
The opinion of this Karaite is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda his student
That " kaasher tzevitiha " refers to probably " veshahat "
Post a Comment