To
explain the title of this article, I have to explain what I mean by
Karadoxy. It is a hybrid word, perhaps even an oxymoron, or perhaps
not. It refers to a hybrid form of Karaism and rabbinic Orthodoxy, or
at least a way of reconciling the differences in some areas. This
paradox, and concurrent solution, I call the “Tao”.
Let
me explain this by citing a rabbinic law written by Rabbanism's
greatest individual, Maimonides.
In
his Laws of Rebels or Mamrim, he writes:
Ch1:
Halacha 5
The
following rules apply when there are two sages or two courts that
have differing opinions in an age when there was no Supreme Sanhedrin
or during the time when the Supreme Sanhedrin was still
undecided concerning the matter - whether in one age or in two
different ages - one rules that an article is pure and one rules that
it is impure, one forbids an article's use and one permits it. If
one does not know in which direction the law tends, should the matter
involve a question of Scriptural Law, follow the more severe opinion.
If it involve a question of Rabbinic Law, follow the more lenient
opinion.
accessed
today :)
He
speaks of a difference of opinion between sages or courts, outside of
the scope of the Sanhedrin. That poses a problem, but we know that
the Sanhedrin was not always purely rabbinic, and sometimes it was
not existent at all. Suffice to say, there were always times when a
dispute existed, whether within the rabbinic structure or with it.
In
a case of doubt, the individual is allowed to differentiate between
Torah law and Rabbinic law.
As
far as torah law goes, he should go with the stricter opinion.
However, the dispute might not always be about strictness per se. For
example, counting the Omer is a dispute between the 2 sides, which is
not about one opinion being harder to keep than the other (except for
the fact that counting the rabbinic way is illogical and hence harder
to reconcile). It could also be said that keeping in line with the
strict interpretation of the Torah is also “stricter”. However,
what is very interesting is the second part of this statement, is the
question of rabbinic law. If there is a doubt regarding rabbinic
law, one is entitled to be lenient , ie to ignore the rabbinic law.
This
provides, in fact a double whammy for Karaites. Firstly, there is
always doubt as to the status of rabbinic law, since we know that the
Prophets and Priests opposed rabbinic law, and adding to the Torah.
Second, the very act of adding to the Torah is something to be taken
strictly. Since the strict interpretation of this law excludes any
extra-scriptural laws, then by choosing to be strict on the Torah
law, we can refuse to accept any rabbinic law.
Whilst
this won't persuade the rabbis, the logic at least works. They do not
recognize the authority of anyone else, but we are not forced to
recognize their either.
The logic doesn't work here. Maimonides is referring to post-biblical rabbinic enactments...not to rabbinic oral law, which has the status or biblical law.
ReplyDelete"In a case of doubt, the individual is allowed to differentiate between Torah law and Rabbinic law."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what i said?
You are referring to what they claim as Halacha L'Moshe mi sinai - ie the specific cases where they claim a law was given to Moses but was unwritten. And if you have a safek, doubt about this, vs another conflicting Biblical law?
Yes that it was you said. When you have a doubt you differentiate between Torah law, that which was written, and that which was oral, and between Rabbinic law...later rabbinic enactments.
ReplyDeleteIn the former you are strict, in the latter you are lenient.
Halacha L'Moshe Misinai refers to laws that have no connection to anything in T"NC (eg., Phylacteries must be black), while the oral law is based on derivations from T"NC (eg., they must be made out of something kosher)
You are arguing that the logic of this post doesn't work. However, all you have done is to give several categories of "oral law". So you haven't provided an argument that refutes this post.
ReplyDeleteSo I am arguing that in case of doubt, then d'rabbanan is lenient, ie we don't keep it.
On D'Oraita, we are strict. If we look at a famous dispute between the Sadducees/Karaites and the Rabbis, ie regarding the Omer, from when it starts, the dispute is not based on the strict-lenient axis. Choosing a wednesday (for example) is no more difficult than doing it correctly on a Sunday (ie the day after Shabbat). So I might argue that we have a more strictly textual interpretation :)
Regarding the rules of interpretation, that is a subject in itself, but a later sanhedrin can interpret things differently, not to mention they cn find an error in a previous decision.
You are arguing that Maimonides' rule of "Safek D'Rabbanan" l'kulah is self-defeating, since all the Oral law is "D'Rabbanan", and it is a doubt as to whether to keep it, therefore we don't need to keep it.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I don't understand. To accept this, you are accepting a Rabbinical position, and Rabbinically there is no doubt about Oral law.
Second, he is not referring to the Oral Law here at all, he is referring to a safek within later rabbinic enactments. The Oral Law (if you accept it) has the same status as Torah law (L'chumrah)
So if you don't accept Oral Law, that's great. But if you do, there is no self-defeating argument against it.
By the way, there are limitations to this rule also. We don't say since there is a doubt whether we mourn on the first part of sefirat ha'omer, or the second therefore we shouldn't observe mourning at all.
Likewise we don't say, since it is a doubt as to which two of the four cups should be drunk while leaning, therefore do none.
In this article, I am only discussing rabbinical law, ie d'rabbanan. The nature and origin of oral law (which rabbanim claim to be from sinai) has been discussed throughout this blog.
ReplyDeleteIt really depends on where and when you stand, and what your assumptions are. There was a time when the Sadducees held control over lawmaking. Yet the rabbis did not accept their authority either.
The example you bring is a very good one - ie mourning in the omer. Since this is not even mentioned in Maimonides, there may be later customs to mourn during this period, but there is doubt as to whether it is legally binding, hence one can choose the lenient position, ie Maimonides. What if there is a dispute between maimonides and nachmanides on a rabbinic issue? Again, one can choose the lenient position. By doing so it is in keeping with this principle.
There may be a doubt as to what period to mourn in, but everybody agrees that there is a custom to mourn! Therefore the choices are the first, the second or both.
ReplyDeleteIf Maimonides and nachmonides disagreed on a rabbinic law (not Oral rabbinate law, but rabbinic enactments), and there was no rabbinic consensus as to how to rule, then we rule leniently.
This is no way is cart blanche to throw away any rabbinic enactment!
Going to back to the four cups...we know there is an obligation to lean with two of them...just we are not sure which two. But not leaning for either of them gains you nothing, since we know that there _is_ an obligation to lean.
No they don't - Rambam doesn't include such a mourning period, and the Yemenites do not keep that minhag.
ReplyDeleteMourning during sefira is a custom (albeit a strong, community one such as refraining from kitniyot, or not using electricity on shabbat). Maimonidies and Yemenites obviously didn't have that custom.
ReplyDeleteBut even amongst those that do, there is no consensus of when, only that how.
since it is a custom, then it is less of a d'rabbanan, since was not instituted by the Chazal rabbis. A better example is the waiting between eating bird meat, eg chicken and milk. Some rabbis, eg Yosi HaGalili did not apply this stricture. so if one has doubt, in theory one can follow R' Yosi.
ReplyDeleteIndeed in his town, they did not consider fowl meat. However, this position was not accepted, and nowadays there is no longer a doubt about this.
ReplyDeleteThis is no different than any tannaitic opinion which is recorded, but not accepted as the halacha.
anyway, check the next post :) it covers the following chapter in mamrim.
ReplyDeleteregarding doubt, this is subjective. You may have a doubt about 1 thing, whilst your colleague may be certain about it, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteNext, the nature of doubt is also variable. Let's say one has a doubt about the dualistic formula "L'shem yichud", which is now printed in many siddurim. A rationalist may doubt or reject this , whilst the mystic will make a point of reciting it. People have the right to doubt, whether they are aligned with one movement or not.
That's not a question of doubt. The kabbalists have a belief that they must say this formula when doing a mitzvah. The rationalists do not have such a belief.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, doubt has to have a limit. You're right I can doubt anything. So forget rabbinic judaism, let's doubt all of Judaism as well.
Ahh, but there is doubt. If you are an ordinary observant person, and see it in some siddurim, but not in others, what are you supposed to think? One rabbi (mystic) says it is a mitzvah, and either you have logical doubts, or you read the opinion of a rationalist , and ten you have doubts.
ReplyDeleteThen you think one siddur put it in, and another didn't. Some siddurim have a prayer for the Israeli army, some don't. I'm not sure what your point is.
ReplyDeleteobviously you have forgotten the whole point of the post and the ruling of maimonides - he says where there are multiple opinions and a doubt arises as to which to take!
ReplyDeleteWith leshem yichud, the problem is even more complex - since D'Oraita, the dualism is forbidden, hence a strict biblical view would reject such heresy. The kabbalistic innovation is rabbinic or whatever it might be, but it cannot overall a biblical.
The point of your post was that since a doubt in a rabbinic level law means we can forget the rabbinic law, and since the oral law is rabbinic, and there is a doubt as to the rabbinic law, therefore we can forget the oral law.
ReplyDeleteYou so far have not proved this.
1) Maimonides is talking about post-biblical law, not the oral law.
2) Within those that accept the oral law, there is no doubt. The doubt is only for those that do not accept it. For them, there is no discussion.
Actually, what you do is make a distinction between the oral law, and the rabbinic additions. I have checked this post several times, and I don't see my mentioning of the word "oral" [I do that elsewhere].
DeleteIn fact I bring a totally separate argument for oral law. I say this is a something like a safek d'oraita ie a safek which is the correct interpretation of the written Torah.
You are right that those who accept the oral law do not have doubt about it, and I also said this at the end of my post. But actually, there are Mishnayot which show there was always some element of doubt even about oral law. look at this for example:
http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html?showComment=1414432028206
the rabbis can't even agree on what the oral tradition actually says!
The ability for the rabbis to make extra-bibilical laws in provided by Lo Tasur. Provided you agree with the rabbinical interpretation of this pasuk (which of course you don't have to), then there is no violation of adding on to to torah.
ReplyDeleteYea, that has been dealt with many times on this blog, for example:
ReplyDeletehttp://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/im-sorry-but-its-called-adding.html
Even Nachmanides was uncomfortable with this, as were all other major rabbis including Rambam.
Yet, none on them protested chanuka, or any other rabbinic enactments.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is all within the framework of the oral law. If you accept the oral law, then you accept the definition of don't add to be that definition, as did Nachmanidies and Maimonidies.
If you don't, then great. But Maimonidies rule is not self-defeating.
Actually they did! Nachmanides states that the prophets and sages protested agasint Purim being added for precisely this reason. And Maimonides makes the very telling comment that if you claim a rabbinic law is from the Torah, it is a violation of Lo Tosiphu. Thus, when he claims it is a Mitzvah - based on Lo Tasur - to listen to the rabbis and accept their additions, according to his comment in mamrim, it is a violation of Lo Tosphu!
ReplyDeletePurim is different. Since there were still prophets around, it was much heavier decision (since people might mistake this for a torah extension). The protest was not from Lo Tosiphu, but rather from "eila hamitzvot".
ReplyDeleteChanuka, since there was no claim that it was being added through prophecy, Nachmanides has no such protest.
This fits in very well with Maimonides definition of Ba'al Tosif.
Your second point makes no sense.
Again, you are mistaken - nachmanides writes this on his commentary to the verse which says Lo Tosiphu.
DeleteThe point is, only Purim was an issue, and only because there were Prophets involved.
ReplyDeleteThis does not apply to extra-biblical decrees and ordinances, not established by Prophets.
And in the end of the day, Nachmanidies himself was not protesting Purim...he was merely trying to show how creating a new holiday could also be a form of Lo Tosif. The discussion he mentions is not his own, but is part of our oral tradition, as recorded in the Bablylonian and Jerusalem talmuds.
In the end, everybody accepted Purim. There is no protesting from any rabbinical authorities after that.
There are plenty of protests after that, some of which have been addressed on this blog. Avot D R' Nathan for example protests the sin of the alleged "fence" around the Torah. Also here http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/golden-calf-of-talmud.html
ReplyDeletewe se the Talmud protests against the strictures of Shammai.
And many other cases. Anyhow, it is not just internal protests, but external that are important, ie those who dont agree with the oral law.
You are confusing a lot of differing things together. There has never been a protest against the device of La Tasur, or Lo Tosifu.
ReplyDeleteSince the point of your post was to show an internal inconsistency in maimonides statement, we are not talking about external protests.
The debate about the oral law is not new. You are not presenting anything that nobody's ever heard. But that is not what the discussion is about here.
You still have not demonstrated an internal inconsistency in maimonidies statement.
Of course there has. Firstly, maimonides says Lo Tasur is of Biblical stature, when it comes to rabbinic law. No, says nachmanides, he clearly stated that it is a joke, and that Lo tasur does not apply to rabbinic law. Remember, Maimonides didn't know Bible too well, whereas nachmanides was an expert in the field.
ReplyDeleteThis post is about a hybrid of Karaism and Rabbanism. That is why i called it Karadoxy. It is not about pure rabbanism, except that I am arguing along the same logical lines. I already stated that it won't be accepted by rabbanites. But the principle of doubt is an interesting one. If according to maimonides, rabbinic laws also are of torah status (lo tasur) , why then, is he meikil on them?
You sound like you think you're the first one to ever ask that question.
ReplyDeletelol - so obviously I am not, since there is obviously a contradiction here!
DeleteThis question has been discussed many times. The simplest answer is probably that built into every derabbanan is the exception of safek d'rabbanan lekula (that's the theory presented here (http://www.daat.ac.il/encyclopedia/value.asp?id1=2524) for example).
ReplyDeleteThere are other more complicated answers, like the shev shmat'ta.
Apparently, you've never been to a brisker style shiur before
thank you for the link - here is a TanakhEmet shiur:
ReplyDeletehttp://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/that-which-they-shall-tell-you-claim.html
The Torah says Lo Tasur is from the Kohanim, who you would call the Sadducees.
The rabbis misaoppropriate this verse and claim it is them, whilst the Christians do the same and claim it is the Pope etc. So, accordingly d'rabbanan has the same authority as d'Pappanan.
The sadducees themselves were corrupt, and already before them the power of legislature had been passed down to the men of the great assembly, and then to the sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteYou would have a hard time proving that Shimon HaTzadik subscribed to the sadducee philosophy.
The rabbi's were only against the maccabees because they attempted to usurp the kingdom of david. Hence, we still mention the maccabees in our liturgy.
Also, it does mention the judges, as well as the kohanim. The kohanim are not the explicit guardians of Jewish Law.
While it is unclear exactly where the idea of papal infallibility comes from, I have never seen anybody attribute it to that verse.
The rabbis were corrupt - but the Torah doesn't preclude the possibility of Kohanim being corrupt. I don't know if the Sadducees were actually corrupt and in any case there is no evidence they distorted Torah law.
ReplyDeleteMaccabees didnt claim to be of the line of David, and funnily enough , Rambam states that a King doesn't necessarily need to be from teh house of David.
it mentions Kohanim, Leviim and one Judge. There is no mention of sanhedrin, which ia a greco-roman product. The Kohanim are the explicit guardians of the Torah - that is why Moshe gave them the Torah to keep and guard. You are doing a replacement theology, just like the Palestinians claim that there was no Jewish Temple on Har Habayit, so you claim that the Kohanim did not guard Torah law.
Actually the concept of the sanhedrin comes from tanach. "Gather to Me seventy men of the elders of Israel" and the council of Jehoshafat "Moreover, in Jerusalem Jehoshaphat appointed certain Levites and priests and heads of families of Israel, to give judgment for the LORD and to decide disputed cases. They had their seat at Jerusalem."
ReplyDeleteRambam's position on that is unclear, as he does say that in sefer hamitzvot, and he does say that the messiah will be from the house of david. Much like other famous contraditions in the rambam, this has been beaten to death. It is not the point.
The point is the sadducees were not the only priestly family, and they were certainly corrupt.
You are not thinking logically, but relying uncritically on what you have been taught.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few posts regarding the Sanhedrin:
http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-torah-tells-us-not-to-follow.html
http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=50
Ex 18 refutes the claim you make:
26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.
If this was a sanhedrin, then why did they only deal with the easy cases, and leave the hard ones to Moses? The sanhedrin is a Greek establishment. Why isnt there a Hebrew word for it?
Ex 18 is from before the revelation at sinai, at least according to Ramban. It has no connection to verse I quoted.
ReplyDeleteEven if it did, it is an inconstistency in the written law.
The sanhedrin does have a hebrew name. It's called the beit din hagadol.
What rubbish you are talking. This is the structure and function of the legal system:
ReplyDelete21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
Are you saying these are non-binding? Perhaps that does make sense, since men of truth, hating unjust gain is not the basis of the rabbinic system.
That is a new term, but there is no biblical term for it. Your quote from Yeshoshafat is also false
2 Chron 19:
11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king's matters; also the officers of the Levites before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD be with the good.
Was this also before Sinai?
It is only inconsistent with the Oral law, since much of the Torah is contradicted by the rabbis.
I quoted you one verse in numbers, you quoted me another in exodus. Neither of those have to do with the cohanim.
ReplyDeleteAnd no one says the cohanim were not part of the sanhedrin. They certainly were, but they were not the only bearers, teachers, and guardians of the faith.
Even if Amaryahu was in charge, who was everybody else? Where they kohanim?
At a certain point the priests became corrupt and were outed of the sanhedrin.
the 70 elders were the men who helped lighten the workload for Moses, not a proto-sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteThe verse which Lo Tasur comes from is in Devarim , and this talks explicitly about the kohanim and leviim. The rabbis wanted to - and did - usurp the role of the Kohanim.
ט וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם, וְאֶל-הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם; וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ, אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט.
Since Lo Tasur is referring to the kohanim, then following the rabbis/oral law, is a a violation of this Torah law.
Those are the 70 elders of Jethro. There is no mention of lightening the workflow in numbers. Those were commanded by god, not suggested by Jethro.
ReplyDeleteAlso yeshoshafat's men were not meant to lighten anybody workflow.
It says the kohanim *and* the judge. So its not limited to just to the kohanim
Sigh.... In 2 Chron it says:
Delete11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king's matters; also the officers of the Levites before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD be with the good.
The Chief Priest is in the role of Aaron, for all religious matters. Look at
Ex: 28
29 And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually.
30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.
This is a Priestly thing. Aharon, and then his sons. Just because the rabbis usurped power , by use of force, it doesn't change what the Torah writes.
You are mistaken, my friend. Jethro is in exodus 18, where the extra manpower is to lighten his workload.
DeleteBut in numbers 11 it is the 70 men who also do the same:
17 And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
It is a continuation of the same thing. This is not a Sanhedrin, but local officers who deal with small claims, and Moses deals with complex ones.
We have a book of Shoftim, some of whom were women. Since the talmud does not recognize women rabbis, then either the book of Shoftim is treif, or the oral law is. Take your pick.
ReplyDeleteLet's face it. You are not convincing me of anything, and I'm not convincing you of anything. Actually I didn't even come here to try that...I just commented on your supposed internal inconsistency in Maimonides which you failed to prove.
ReplyDeleteAs we say in halachik literature, "yesh al mi lismoch". I find it very hard to believe that Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Chafetz Chaim, the Vilna Gaon, Rav Yosef Kairo, Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban, Rambam, Saadia Gaon, and everybody else before and after them were a bunch of corrupt conspiring rabbis with ulterior motives. I know you will criticize me for using emotion here, but if it was good enough for them, it is good enough for me.
This is way I was brought up, this is way my community is, and this is way my kids will are growing up.
You are not convincing anybody rabbinates here of anything, any more than you are going to convince a christian, a muslim or a budhist that they're religions are incorrect.
Judaism itself is not sitting a very secure base. We know very little about the first temple era, other than what is recorded in tanach. There is little to historical or archiological evidence of anything. The tanach itself is subject to academic skepticism. The standard academic approach has a bunch of people called hebrews who at some point (around second temple era) started a monotheistic religion (actually much of the Tanach seems more monolatristic then monotheistic). My only faith is based upon our tradition. The oral torah may have shaky foundation, but its not anymore shaky then judaism itself.
In our tradition, the verses in numbers are the basis for the sanhedrin. Don't like that? That's great. Its my tradition not yours.
In our tradition, the shofet in la tasur is referring to the sanhedrin.
You ask about devorah? You've been preempted by several hundred years. The simplest response is that she was simply picked by god.
OK, let me tell you something. I was once part of that very world (well, i held by the Rabbanim you mentioned).
DeleteI am not convincing you - I am only saying what seems rational to me. I have a friend who was frum for a few years but then threw it all out. He holds by the critical stuff you mention, so he claims that the Tanakh is no more convincing than than the oral law.
I go through a list of Rabbinic leaders, such as those you mention, and many many more. I can more or less piece a theology together from my favourite rational statements of the rabbis. That is the karadoxy i am referring to. For example, Ibn Ezra comments on the Omer controversy, and warns his fellow rabbis not to use the verses in Joshua 5 (day after the pesach) since it supports the Sadducee/Karaite view :)
I am not sure I want to convince you to become a karaite. It is a hard life, because we are such a small minority, and in exisential crisis. It was much easier and more convenient to be Orthodox, there is always shul somewhere to daven etc.
And I am not criticising you for using emotion, since you might argue my attachment to tanach is also emotion.
But academic skepticism is not so accurate - there is archaeological history in Israel which shows a 1st temple period, be it Tel Arad, Omri's palace, har Eval etc.
One thing I havent written much about is the verse in the Torah ze shmi l'olam, v'zichri ldor dor. The Torah tells us to call on HIs Name in each generation, yet the rabbis forbade this too. After a while, when you put all the pieces together, we see the mounting falsehood of oral law. It is not a convenient truth, but look at it the other way. If Orthodox peopel are relatively frummer than 1st Temple folk, who did not have any real gezeirot to keep, why has the exile been so severe?
Kol tuv, and thank you for reading my posts and carefully responding.