Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: The Talmud Message-ID: <653@fisher.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 13:49:13 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.653 Posted: Wed Jun 5 13:49:13 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:41:42 EDT References: <411@oakhill.UUCP> <564@sfmag.UUCP> Organization: Princeton University Department of Statistics Lines: 99 > > > .............................. Such a supreme court reflects the > > > will of G*d by FAITHFULLY explaining His Torah just as our > > > supreme court (supposedly) explains the constitution (rather than > > > introducing innovations which were not there.) > > > > The side comment by Yitzchok is illuminating, ironic, and contradictory. > > > > Illuminating in that it reveals Yitzchok's sympathy for the > > Conservatives' desire for a strict interpretation of the U.S. > > Constitution. > > Sorry, but the pigeonhole is incorrect (and not relevant to the > subject of the Talmud). Actually, I have no preference one way > or the other concerning the constitutional issue (strict vs. > broad). I hoped that readers would understand that the analogy to > the supreme court is necessarily simplistic and not get side- > tracked by the obvious differences. I threw in the word > "supposedly" only to avoid the side issue of discrepancies > between ideal and practice, not to suggest that I favor strict > construction. Actually this issue deserves to be addressed. > > > Ironic in that he implicitly presumes that, while the secular > > jurisprudence is subject to error and may be questioned in good faith, > > religious jurisprudence is not and may not be. > > Why not ask me to clarify what I meant before attacking me for > what I presumably presume? It sounds like you're interested in > criticism rather than information. However, since you raised a > good point, I'll answer briefly for readers. > > All men are fallible, in reasoning and in their vulnerability to > temptations and partiality. The Torah deals with the latter > weaknesses by placing extensive emphasis on the moral caliber of > judges and in the impartiality of court proceedings. Similarly, > Torah sages are required to achieve high levels of piety as well > as scholarship. This emphasis contrasts with the relatively > confined emphasis on scholarship in the realm of secular law, > lehavdil. > > The Torah also obligates us to heed the rulings of the sanhedrin, > and the sages of later generations. Accordingly, those who > receive the oral tradition learn to revere their teachers and the > sages of earlier generations. (It is forbidden to learn Torah > from someone who lacks basic moral integrity.) Such reverence may > seem slavish or arbitrary to an outsider, but it can be > understood by someone who invests labor in understanding the > Torah she'bal peh (oral Torah.) > > The Talmud and the halacha is characterized by strenuous debate. > This implicitly recognizes that there are many points of view. > However, the moral caliber of Talmudic and later sages is > appreciated by Torah scholars and their INTEGRITY is not > questioned. Again, this contrasts with the common attitude that > secular lawyers and judges frequently fail to be impartial or > disinterested. > > The oral tradition hinges on understanding the fact of this > integrity. Moreover, the Torah view is that the sages, while > fallable, are given Divine help to prevent them from stumbling. > The Torah requires us to accept their rulings as authoritative > despite the logical possibility that they erred. There are > provisions however, for peers of the sages to correct such > errors. Such an approach would obviously be inappropriate for > a man-made law. However, for a G*d given Law, it is not illogical > to accept the idea of a commandment to obey the sages "even if > they say right is left and left is right", in the Torah's words. > The Talmud explains that it may appear to us that they are > saying right is left. It may be that we don't understand them, or > that they actually erred. We can't be sure which is the case. > However, to allow ourselves to veto their authority would > undermine the overall system. Our interests and biases could > easily mislead us to believe that they were wrong. Therefore, G*d > commanded us to subjugate ourselves to their authority > unconditionally. The assurance that He often prevents them from > erring makes this palatable. (However, someone unaccustomed to > thinking in terms of G*d and Torah will find this difficult to > digest, even if he can see that it is not illogical.) > > > Contradictory in the advocacy for literalism in interpreting the US > > Constitution. Surely Yitzchok does not take the Torah literally, but > > abides by an expansive interpretation of it. > > Yet it is Yitzchok who has selected the analogy of Torah to > > Constitution, Talmud to Supreme Court rulings! It may be a good > > analogy for someone who wishes to narrowly (or broadly) interpret > > both, but not for someone who would narrowly interpret one and broadly > > interpret the other. > > A very shallow criticism. A minute's thought would tell you that > their is no reason to extrapolate from a man-made constitution to > the G*d given Torah (lehavdil) and hence no contradiction. > Analogies can be used to illustrate points without requiring that > we apply them literally. > > Yitzchok Samet > > PS - It seems to me that you are arguing solely for the sake of > criticism. This is a waste of time. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***