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: Interpretations Message-ID: <1683@ucf-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 09:29:12 EST Article-I.D.: ucf-cs.1683 Posted: Wed Nov 7 09:29:12 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 07:11:19 EST Organization: UCF, Orlando, FL Lines: 105 From robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Sun Feb 6 01:28:16 206 Subject: Re: "fences" (cont) 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. ********************************* Yiri responds: There is no logical basis for your 'therefore'. Further, there are no premises even offerred to support your assertion that meanings must be invented. On top of that, new problems and situations will always continue to present new challenges in understanding the intent of Torah. I just don't think your position is very strong logically. For one thing, it seems more valid to me to look back into Jewish history into the time when there were many sects within Judaism to ascertain more clearly what kind of flexibility there was in this area before the Pharisees began to legislate additional constraints. If interpretations are based on these findings, then it is not valid to asssert that these are new interpretations, or re-interpretations, or invented meanings. If anything, the converse would be more valid - that the Pharisaic position was the new interpretation, etc. and the old interpretation was the valid interpretation. I quite agree with your position however, against substituting new interpretations for established interpretations... except where new situations, conditions, or knowledge show there has been error in understanding the new situations, etc. Such errors should be corrected. While the jury is still out as to whether there were errors regarding the definition of fire, electricity, etc. it is my OPINION that there seems to have been. Therefore, it should be carefully reconsidered. This is not happening (except maybe on our net). The rabbinic leadership shows only intransigence and obduracy in this area. I don't think this is healthy for Judaism. I think Judaism should be a religion where the scholar and intellectual can take satisfaction that Judaism is in harmony with logic, physics, mathematics, and the other sciences rather than stubbornly rejecting them as secular - and this is happening in significant measure. ******************************* 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 ******************************** Yiri responds: Of the two premises... - consider that it may not be divinely inspired, and may contain errors which may be an impediment to continued learning and the health and progress of Judaism - it has not necessarily withstood the test of time in the longterm since the available evidence suggests that it does not predate the Hasmonean period. ********************************* 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. ********************************* Yiri responds: I do not agree that reverting to an earlier more flexible position would in any sense result in any 'equivalent other Talmud'. This will have to be shown. It is not to be assumed. The modern position in fact, necessarily implies that pre-Hasmonean Judaism, at least for the most part, either had no sense of what Torah means or had an equivalent other Talmud - neither of which is a valid supposition. ********************************* 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?? ********************************* Yiri responds: I am also deeply suspicious of many new attempts but I think we need to be more stringent in defining what we are suspicious of. New conditions make new interpretations necessary. Few would seem to argue that. The problem becomes more pronounced (in my attempt to focus in on the problem perhaps a LITTLE closer?) when there is an attempt to CHANGE the interpretations BASED ON SUBJECTIVE considerations rather than on such considerations as emergence of new phenomena such as electricity, nuclear power, travel in space, etc. In summary then, my opinion is that 1) reverting to an old, more flexible, position is not a new interpretation 2) new interpretations are justified by new conditions 3) new interpretaions without new conditions should be viewed with suspicion unless error can be shown in the understanding and/or perceptions of those who made the interpretation regarding such new conditions