Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah Russ, thanks so much for that great explanation. That's eaxctly the kind of info we need here.
Welcome! It's always great to speak to a believer instead of guessing what you believe based on what we read on the internet. Thanks again.
Got a question on authority. What if two rabbi's come to different conclusions based on their reading of the Mishnah, Gemara, and Torah? How are disagreements among rabbis handled?
Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah I'm also a result of Marti's invite. I'm a Catholic with a Jewish family and have lived 25+ years in both communities.
"What if two rabbi's come to different conclusions based on their reading of the Mishnah, Gemara, and Torah? How are disagreements among rabbis handled?"
By majority rule. Log onto a passage in Talmud and with any question there may be several competing answers, all of which are shown. But it's the majority that determines the outcome.
Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah "What if two rabbi's come to different conclusions based on their reading of the Mishnah, Gemara, and Torah? How are disagreements among rabbis handled?"
I am going to have to disagree with "gjkeywl" on this... his answer was not wholly incorrect, but was incomplete and misleading.
Roughly, we divide the rabbis into four groups, separated in time. The earliest group whose opinions are relevant are the Tannaim, the sages of the Mishna. When there are disputes among them, that was generally resolved by the next generation, the Amoraim, whose opinions are recorded in the Gemara. The Amoraim cannot disagree with the Tannaim, but can select among them. We know have general rules which help us remember which Tanna's opinion is followed in which kinds of disputes.
The next generation of the sages are called the Rishonim ("early ones"). They lived between the publication of the Talmud and the publication of the Shulchan Aruch. The Rishonim cannot disagree with the Amoraim, but can argue for the opinion of one Amora over another (seeing a pattern here?)
The sages since the Shulchan Aruch are known as the Acharonim ("later ones"). They have generally accepted the Shulchan Aruch, and apply its principles to new situations. We do not have a Sanhedrin to resolve disputes, so a rabbi's rulings are binding on those who consider him to be authoritative. Typically this is based on reputation and scholarship. The great sages publish the questions sent to them and their answers, and other rabbis scour them for precedents. Others may publish commentaries offering different perspectives on law. The number of such works is enormous.
But there is no forum nowadays for "majority rule" to apply, other than in the strict context of a Jewish court.
Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah I am going to have to disagree with "gjkeywl" on this... his answer was not wholly incorrect, but was incomplete and misleading
quote:
As Paul Harvey would say that's the rest of the story
Thanks again Russ
glad to see ya here. You're welcome to hang around and continue reading and posting!!
The be out shortly as soon as they spot your name.
Meantime,here's mine
(love that frog)
God Bless,
p4p
Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah Hi Russ, and gjkeywl:
I'm glad to meet you.
Thank you for talking to educate us on this subject! I am afraid I know much less than I should about Judaism. Much of what I know comes from the new testament. Of course, learning about a faith from people hostile to it is always faulty at best....
Do you mind some more questions?
What is the 'nature' of the Oral Tradition. Is it considered God 'revelation' like the Torah? Are the written and oral laws dual lines of revalation? Or, is considered it an 'interpretation' of revalation? Something someone else posted said that it most or all of it is considered to be revelation that God made to Moses, that just wasn't supposed to be written down.
Are its boundaries fixed? Is it being expanded by rabbis today?
Is the Oral Law subject to change, or re-interpretaion? I think you said the early sages the Tannaim and the Acharonim could not be disagreed with, but how about later parts of the oral tradition? Are the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch subject to re-interpretation, or are there parts that are rejected? (this could be either through outright rejection, or just ignoring it)?
Is it to be read literally? Or do you read some of it figuratively and metaphorically?
Re: Jewish Oral Tradition and the Torah Do you mind some more questions?
quote:
I'm going to let Russ answer the technical questions but as Catholics we share a common idea that the texts of scripture need interpretation beyond what we as individuals might think. Judaism has it's system and the church has hers. Although there are some differences both allow that God has given mankind the power to interpret scripture.
The Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) explains, "it is not in heaven" as follows:
After the Torah was given, it was no longer "in heaven." Hashem does not make Torah decisions in Heaven. Halachic (Torah law) decisions must be decided by human authorities following the guidelines given to Moshe at Har (Mt.) Sinai. It is Hashem's will that the Sages apply the laws of the Torah to the best of their human understanding. Decisions must reflect the opinion of the majority of a Bait Din (Jewish court), who are the final authority in all cases of Torah law.
The Talmud (ibid) brings this story to prove its point.
The Sages were debating whether or not a certain type of oven could become tamay (impure). The majority of the Sages ruled that it could. Rabbi Eliezer ben (son of) Horkenos held that it could not.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos, perhaps the most outstanding Sage of the generation, cited many proofs in favor of his position, but the Sages, who were the majority, would not accept these proofs.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This carob tree will demonstrate that the Halachah (Torah law) follows my opinion."
A miracle occurred whereby the carob tree uprooted itself and replanted itself 100 cubits away. (some say, four hundred amot).
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a carob tree.* "
[*Since Rabbi Eliezer was a very righteous man, the tree might have been uprooted at his command. This does not prove, though, that his ruling was correct.]
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "This stream of water will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion." The stream of water began to flow backwards against the current.
The Sages replied: "Halachah is not established on the basis of a stream."
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The walls of the Bait Hamidrash (House of Study) will demonstrate that the Halachah follows my opinion."
The walls of the Bait Hamidrash began to tremble and fall, and the Sages feared that any moment they would collapse.
Rabbi Yehoshua called out to the walls: "Why are you interfering in a Halachic debate among Sages?"
Immediately, out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua, the walls did not collapse, but out of deference to Rabbi Eliezer, they did not return to their original upright position either. They remained slanted.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkenos declared: "The heavens will attest that the Halachah follows my opinion."
A bat kol (heavenly divine voice) proclaimed: "Why do you contest Rabbi Eliezer? The halachah always follows Rabbi Eliezer's teachings."
Rabbi Yehoshua rose and declared:
"It is written: 'It is not in heaven." ' (Devarim ibid).
What is meant by; 'It is not in the heaven'? Rebbi Yirmiah said: It means that we don't listen to a bat kol in matters of Halachah, for the Torah was already given to man at Har Sinai.
Rabbi Yehoshua continued:
"We don't listen to the bat kol because You (Hashem) already wrote in the Torah at Har Sinai (Shmot, Exodus 23:2) 'According to the majority (the matter) shall be decided.'*
[*R' Yehoshua understood this to mean that Hashem would never interfere with the judicial process through which the law is decided. Accordingly he interpreted the Heavenly echo to be merely a test of whether the Sages would hold their ground. And the next story proved him correct.]
Later, one of the Sages, Rabbi Natan met Eliyahu Hanavi (Elijah the prophet). He asked him: "What did Hashem say during this argument?"
Eliyahu replied to him: "He was laughing and saying (with satisfaction), 'My sons won me in the discussion.' "*
[*The Heavenly Voice was meant as a test for the Sages, whether or not they would follow the majority opinion, as commanded by the Torah, and they passed the test.]
Onslow7 wrote:
What is the 'nature' of the Oral Tradition. Is it considered God 'revelation' like the Torah?
It is a combination of things. It is helpful, possibly, to imagine the Written Torah as Moses's "lecture notes." If you have ever missed a lecture and borrowed someone else's notes, you know that you can often get a good deal of the information you missed, but not all of it. A notation that made perfect sense to your friend and reminded him of an explanation he heard could be completely opaque to you. So one thing the Oral Tradition includes is G-d's explanation to Moses of the Torah, and in that sense it is indeed part of the same revelation.
It also includes the things that "everybody knew" but which would not be so obvious to us nowadays, separated from Sinai by thousands of years and technology and culture. Both of these things are immutable.
But yet another component of the Oral Tradition is how the lawful authorities handled specific situations as they arose. Their rulings set precedents for us, which are in theory changeable - but it takes a larger and more authoritative court to overrule them, and at the present we do not have such an authority.
It is certainly possible for rulings by the Acharonim to be disputed by other authorities, and we do not have a consensus on all such matters; however, most of those tend to be on relatively minor technical issues.
The Talmud is very complex - it consists primarily of discussions and debates conducted over several centuries, as well as anecdotes intended to amplify and defend various points. So it is hard to say that "it" is authoritative, without (á la Clinton) determining exactly what "it" is. Nowadays, it is the Shulchan Aruch to which our authorities turn, as it contains a consensus of rulings on the issues raised by the Talmud.
The Shulchan Aruch itself primarily reflects the practice of the Sephardic Jews, but it is always published nowadays with the annotations by Rabbi Moses Isserles (the ReMA), indicating where Ashkenazic authorities disagree. As such it is pretty much universally accepted and modern sages do not disagree with it. As it is specifically rulings, it is indeed read literally.
gjkeywl
be out shortly as soon as they spot your name.
(love that frog)
