Welcome to the Nishma Insight Discussion Forum blog.
The NISHMA INSIGHT is our popular dvar Torah, distributed almost every week by e-mail, that touches upon an important concept in the Parsha, theme in a holiday or event in contemporary society.
Often, readers respond, via e-mail, with comments that initiate a further dialogue. Through this Discussion Forum, we now wish to open this dialogue to others. If you have a comment on the INSIGHT, we invite you place to your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.
(If you are not receiving the NISHMA INSIGHT, we invite you join our mailing/e-mail list through completing our sign-up form available at our website.)
I think it may be necessary for me to clarify my words in the Insight. I am not saying that I am not interested in any dialogue with those who do not share Orthodox beliefs. I actually can see value in some such encounters. What is important to me, though, is that such engagement be built upon a knowledge of and respect for variant theological perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI think that my problem with this group that I mentioned in my Insight was that I did not perceive this construct but rather I felt that there would be a general atmosphere promoting similarity in the name of unity -- and in this case it was not solely for Jewish unity but a unity almost of all religions. It was this that I was not interested in and my point in the Insight was really to challenge this perspective.
It is actually my belief that dialogue is important in the interest of Jewish unity but that this objective is only attainable through an understanding of the theological differences within our nation (as I expressed in my article "Adjective Non-Adjective Jew" (http://www.nishma.org/articles/introspection/introspection5761-2-adjective_jew.htm).
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Thank you for the Insight and your comment - it is a very relevant topic. I find myself often in dialogue about theological differences with both non-observant Jews and individuals of other faiths. It is interesting to note how much the 'context' of our thinking makes a difference and makes it sometimes difficult to really meet. Your insight gave further clarification and understanding of this phenomena.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, I remember once hearing that learning Torah with non-Jews was not recommended... is that true? Is that in-line with what you are saying? Was that what the individual you mentioned in your Insight was suggesting?
The issue of learning with non-Jews is a most complex one with different opinions. One of the concerns, it would seem to be, is this one of context. Interestingly, Rambam permits learning chumash with Christians (although he believed them to be halachically idolaters while maintaining a prohibition to study chumash with Muslims because they challenge the truth of the chumash.
ReplyDeleteRabbi J. David Bleich in his Contemporary Halakhic Problems has a compete chapter on this issue and I would recommend anyone interested in this topic to take a look at it.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Is a Talmudic statement of and by itself necessarily clearly true? And if so, why?
ReplyDeleteIs there some reason/grounds for believing that the rabbis of the day may have voted to presumably accept certain opinions because non-acceptance would cause too much discord in Jewish society?
The fundamental question is really: what is Torah She'b'al Peh? The revelation of the Written Torah is clear to understand as we have a defined text that we can turn to and say this is from God. The Oral Torah that accompanied this Written revelation is, however, harder to define. People like to think of it as simply a transmission of information orally that was then passed on through the generations. The oral then would really be similar to the written in terms of a concretely defined entity. This however is not what it would seem was transmitted by God to Moshe. Rather it would seem that God gave Moshe a collection of data and basic constructs for analyzing this data that the Jewish nation would have to apply to truly understand God's direction. A Talmudic statement, as such, while it could possibly be a direct statement from God to Moshe that was passed on (such as the fact that the pri eitz hadar referred to in the verse that states that it must be take on Succot is an etrog - to which there is no disagreement), is usually the conclusion reached from the analysis of this revealed data.
ReplyDeleteAs such the Talmudic statement that Avraham Avinu kept the entire Torah most likely was a conclusion reached from analysis of this revealed data. This does not mean that everyone subscribed to this opinion although it does seem to be a dominant opinion. This very fact, though, indicates that there whedas a decision making process involved in that people had to determine if they agreed with that position. It would seem that given that this would seem to be the dominant opinion, it was the one that most rabbis of the time agreed upon. This conclusion over time then becomes binding on subsequent generations as we no longer have the ability to really voice an opinion on the issue. How do I know what Avraham did? As such I can only state thoughts given my acceptance of opinions. If there are variant opinions, though, I may have some discretion as to the one I wish to follow. There is also the further question of what exactly does it mean that Avraham observed the entire Torah -- so why did he not do a bris right away when he started following other laws? There are many other questions that can be asked on this as well leading to a variance of opinion of what this statement the Avraham observed the Torah really means. All this is okay for there is continuation of the analysis.
As to your question of how certain opinions became adopted, generally is was, I believe, through a consideration by the group as to the view they felt was best. There may however have been situations whereby a certain opinion carried the day because of practical considerations such as dealing with discord because a consensus on theory could not be reached but a conclusion was necessary. This would be a case whereby one would say that the theoretical debate about the concept continued but as a practical conclusion had to be reached, it was arrived at through other considerations -- and, at certain, times this would be successful.
I hope this is helpful.