Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucf-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!duke!ucf-cs!yiri From: yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: "fences" (cont) Message-ID: <1638@ucf-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 09:05:31 EST Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1638 Posted: Thu Nov 1 09:05:31 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 07:34:03 EST Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL Lines: 55 Toby has asserted that the logic of a statement is faulty without providing ANY basis AT ALL of its fault! Simply stating that there is some nebulous reason in Talmud for it being faulty is, at best, weak. I reassert that statement until a better criticism is shown. The assertion that Talmud 'may represent an unbroken custom dating back to the times reported in Torah', is an oft cited notion which doesn't square with historical facts in my opinion. The only sect which embraced that idea 2 millenia ago were the Pharisees. None of the other sects, which were 'mainstream Judaism' of the time, agreed that this was the case. So 'Judaism' did not admit to this 'unbroken custom' at all. Further, the Pharisees themselves only date back to circa 200 BCE I think (give or take a little) in the time of the Maccabbes. This notion was not a premise of Judaism prior to that time - which means that the notion was more likely extrapolated back by the Pharisees since prior to their assertion (and 'their assertion' could not have pre-dated 'them') it was not an element of Judaism. To defend the notion would require that the Pharisees (and thus rabbinic Judaism) claim that, all along, they were a secret element within Judaism who were right while all the time the more obvious sects of Judaism (including the Prophets, etc.) were wrong and, in fact, were not really a legitimate expression of Judaism (since that it the prevailing conclusion today). We may safely conclude that SOME of these traditions did indeed date back as asserted - for the rest of Judaism certainly did not disagree with the Pharisees on everything. The problem be- comes: which authentically date back and which do not? It seems to me a non-sequitor to assert that all of the rabbinic fences would have to be replaced by some other (equally cons- training) 'rule'. It is a thoughtful note to consider the idea however and Toby's point is certainly not trivial. The key to the non-sequitor is the insertion of the phrase 'equally cons- training'. It seems true that some competing convention would be adopted to replace the constraint - but the replacement could be more tolerant of flexible within bounded interpretations of Torah rather than being constrained to THE rabbinic inter- pretation. It appears that the example of t'fillin is a fitting example. Prior to the Pharisaic ruling, it could well be that the t'fillin could have been worn anywhere from 'be- tween the eyes' to the accepted spot as declared by the rabbis. If it was worn low on the forehead between the eyes, that may have been ok. If it was worn high on the forehead, that may have been ok too. For one sect of Judaism to arbi- trarily impose a constraint IN ADDITION TO TORAH upon all the rest of Judaism seems not only rather unjustified, but an actual transgression of Torah (Dt. 4:1-2; 13:1 with Ex. 24:4; Dt. 27:3,8 & 31:24). In short, I don't think that replacing what may earlier have been 'flexibility within confines of written Torah' with 'extra-Torah rabbinic cons- traints'. Yet, the question is to discern which is which historically.