Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: "fences" (cont)
Message-ID: <1227@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Nov-84 12:54:21 EST
Article-I.D.: eosp1.1227
Posted: Mon Nov  5 12:54:21 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 06:57:08 EST
References: <1638@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton
Lines: 53
Summary: 

I'd like to make sure my main argument is clear.  If one decides
to base Judaism on the Torah, and not on Talmud, one must re-interpret,
and invent meanings for, many things.  The Torah is not an unambiguous
document.  Therefore it is not possible to view rejection of Talmud
as "going back to basics", or any similar notion.

Because a great deal of Torah interpretation is necessary, it makes
a great deal of sense to stay with the mainstream that we have
(in Talmud).  Among the compelling reasons are:

	- consider that it may indeed be divinely inspired
	- it has withstood the test of time as a driving force
	  in the longterm survival of the religion

Although I stated that other interpretations would also "constrain" the
meaning of Torah, I did not mean to imply that other interpretations
would inevitably lead to a system of fences.  (I suspect this is
inevitable, but that is just my opinion.)  Another interpretation of
Torah will lead to an equivalent other Talmud (first oral, later
written).  This alternative may differ in style and structure,
and it may differ in the degree of adherence it requires, but it will
certainly exist to fill in the question of what Torah means.

I personally am deeply suspicious of new attempts to interpret Torah
along new grounds, or to bring it "up to date".  My concerns are
the reasons listed above.  I particularly feel that new interpretations
may create a religion that cannot last 200 years.  Who knows what makes
a religion last for millenia??

And now, my favorite example of how not to revise Talmud -- the
following paraphrased quote actually exists in a reform prayer book
(sorry, as usual I can't give source; I saw this book 15 years ago):

	There are two reasons why women die in childbirth:
	- failure to light the Sabbath lamps
	- failure to take the Challah portion.

The reform prayer book was quoting from Pirke Avot, where the original
gives THREE reasons.  the third is:

	- failure to observe the rules of menstruation [translation
	  very approximate].

While few of us would ever be guilty of such an extraordinary
anachronism as to think that women today are condemned to death for
two of these reasons and yet not the third, all of us, in trying to
reinterpret the law in a spirit of RELEVANCE, can fall into similar
traps.  There are good reasons why good law evolves slowly.

	- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
	allegra!eosp1!robison
	or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
	or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison