במהדורת חודש תשרי של ירחון ישיבתנו מתחה תלמידתנו ... ביקורת על רב אחד שהתבטא כך:
"ליהודים שלא אורטודוקסים אסור להיות רבנים כי הם פוסלים את האמונות שההלכה היא ממשה כאשר משה דיבר עם ד' בהר סיני... ליהודים שלא אורטודוקסים אין דת אם אין להם התחברות עם ד'."
... מדווחת שהרב הזה גם אמר:
"שהוא אוהב כל יהודי אבל הוא חושב שלקונסרבטיבים אין דת."
ובכן, גם אני אינני מסכים עם הרב הזה.
לדעתי, יש לקונסרבטיבים דת — religion בלע"ז — אבל זאת הבעיה. היהדות איננה סתם דת — היהדות היא אומה — nationality בלע"ז. ולכן אנחנו נקראים עם ישראל.
במה הבדל זה מתבטא? דת איננה זקוקה לחוקה — constitution בלע"ז — וחוקים. לדת מספיק שיהיו לה אמונות וטכסים, ורצוי גם "כתבי קודש". אבל עם צריך שיהיה לו חוקה וחוקים.
לעם ישראל יש חוקה: "אומתנו איננה אומה כי אם בתורותיה" (ספר האמונות והדעות לרבי סעדיה גאון, מאמר ג ד"ה וכיון שהקדמתי). בתורותיה — שתי תורות, תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה. ולעם לשראל יש חוקים — תרי"ג מצוות התורה ותקנות חז"ל.
וכשם שאדם המכהן כשופט או מנהיג בארצות הברית צריך להישבע ולשמור אמונים לחוקה ולחוקים שלנו, כך האדם המכהן כשופט או מנהיג בעם ישראל — הרב — צריך להישבע ולשמור אמונים לחוקה ולחוקים של עם התורה, שתי התורות, תרי"ג מצוות התורה ותקנות חז"ל.
הבה נראה אם היהדות הקונסרבטיבית מחייבת את הדבקים בה להישבע ולשמור אמונים לחוקה ולחוקים של עם התורה.
יש סיכום יפה של עקרונות היהדות הקונסרבטיבית באתר האינטרנט של אחד מן בתי הכנסיות שלהם —
http://www.torat-hayyim.org.il/masorti-heb.asp. יש שם שבעה נקודות, אבל לעת עתה נתייחס לאחת מהן, אשר מגלה את היחס של היהדות הקונסרבטיבית לחוקה ולחוקים של עם התורה:
*היהורי המסורתי... מאמין בתורה מן השמים: בין אם בשבילו תורה זו ניתנת מלה במלה מפי הגבורה בסיני, ובין אם תורת האלוהים הגיעתנו מנביאים אלמונים שבדורות רבים, ובכל דור רצון האל מתבהר טוב יותר לעומת הדור הקודם. הצד השווה ביניהם: דבקות בתורה כביטוי של רצון האל, ובפירוש המחייב של החכמים שבכל הדורות.
זאת אומרת: האמונה של היהדות הקונסרבטיבית בתורה מן השמים איננה תואמת את עקרונות התורה עצמה. בואו נראה את לשון הרמב"ם (בעיקר השמיני של הי"ג עיקרים אשר מבטאים בקיצור את החוקה של עם ישראל):
רמב"ם פירוש המשניות - מסכת סנהדרין פרק י משנה א
היסוד השמיני:
היות התורה מן השמים, והוא שנאמין כי כל התורה הזאת הנתונה ע"י משה רבינו ע"ה שהיא כולה מפי הגבורה, כלומר שהגיעה אליו כולה מאת ה' יתברך... הכל מפי הגבורה והכל תורת ה' תמימה טהורה וקדושה אמת. וזה שאומר שכמו אלה הפסוקים והספורים משה ספרם מדעתו, הנה הוא אצל חכמינו ונביאינו כופר ומגלה פנים יותר מכל הכופרים, לפי שחשב שיש בתורה לב וקליפה ושאלה דברי הימים והספורים אין תועלת בהם ושהם מאת משה רבינו ע"ה, וזהו ענין (סנהדרין צ) אין תורה מן השמים אמרו חכמים ז"ל הוא המאמין שכל התורה מפי הגבורה חוץ מן הפסוק זה שלא אמר הקב"ה אלא משה מפי עצמו, (סנהדרין צט:) וזהו כי דבר ה' בזה הש"י ויתר ממאמר הכופרים, אלא כל דיבור ודיבור מן התורה יש בהן חכמות ופלאים למי שמבין אותם ולא הושג תכלית חכמתם, ארוכה מארץ מדה ורחבה מני ים ואין לאיש אלא להלך בעקבות דוד משיח לאלהי יעקב שהתפלל גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך (תהלים קיט), וכמו כן פירוש התורה המקובל ג"כ מפי הגבורה וזה שאנו עושים היום מתבנית הסוכה ולולב ושופר וציצית ותפילין וזולתם הוא בעצמו התבנית אשר אמר הש"י למשה והוא אמר לנו והוא נאמן בשליחותו, והמאמר המורה על היסוד הזה הוא מה שנאמר (במדבר טז) ויאמר משה בזאת תדעון כי ה' שלחני לעשות כל המעשים האלה כי לא מלבי.
היהדות הקונסרבטיבית איננה מחייבת את האמונה שתורה שבכתב ניתנה מאת ה' לישראל, ואין אפילו זכר לאמונה שתורה שבעל פה ניתנה למשה מסיני.
עוד הערה. הדבר המוזר שכתבו: " ובכל דור רצון האל מתבהר טוב יותר לעומת הדור הקודם", נוגד את המסורת שלנו, אשר הביעו חז"ל באמרם (מסכת שבת דף קי"ב ע"ב): "אמר רבי זירא אמר רבא בר זימונא אם ראשונים בני מלאכים אנו בני אנשים ואם ראשונים בני אנשים אנו כחמורים...".
וכך מבוארת גמרא זאת בספר שם עולם (חלק א', פרק כ"ד):
וצריך האדם לידע, שהדורות שלפנינו כל מה שהוא מוקדם בזמן הוא מוקדם במעלה, וכמו דאיתא בעירובין (נ"ג) ליבן של ראשונים כפתחו של אולם ושל אחרונים כפתחו של היכל ואנן כמלא נקב מחט סדקית, אמר אביי ואנן כאצבע בגודא וכו', אמר רב אשי ואנן וכו'. ואם זה אמרו האמוראים בדורותיהם לגבי דורות שלפניהם, כל שכן מה נאמר אנחנו אזובי הקיר לגבי דורות הראשונים, [וכן הרמב"ם בהקדמתו לספר היד החזקה מנה ארבעים דורות מימות רב אשי ורבינא עד משה רבינו ע"ה, וכל מי שהוא יותר קודם בזמן הוא קודם בחשיבות עי"ש]. וכן כעין זה איתא בשבת קי"א אם ראשונים כמלאכים אנו כבני אדם, ואם ראשונים כבני אדם אנו כחמורים. ועל כן כשיתבונן האדם בגדולתם של הראשונים וכל שכן בראשוני ראשונים כגון נביאים וכמה דורות של תנאים [עיין ב"ב קל. אמרו עליו על ר' יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הניח מקרא משנה גמרא הלכות ואגדות וכו' שיחת שדים ושיחת מלאכי השרת דבר גדול ודבר קטן, דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא, והוא היה הקטן שבשמונים תלמידים שהיו לו להלל הזקן עי"ש בגמרא, ותלמידו יונתן בן עוזיאל היה גדול כל כך עד שכל עוף שפורח עליו בשעת לימודו היה נשרף באור התורה. וכן אפילו בדורות האחרונים של התנאים כגון בימי רבי, היה אליהו הנביא מצוי במתיבתא שלו כל יומא כדאיתא בגמרא (ב"מ פ"ז), וכן אפילו בתלמידיו של רבי אמרו (ע"ז י.) שהקטן שבהם היה יכול להחיות מתים, ור' חנינא בר חמא אחייה לעבדיה של אנטנינוס עי"ש, וכן בב"ק (דף קי"ח) שר' יוחנן אחייה לרב כהנא אחר פטירתו. וגם בלומדם בספר יצירה היו בוראים בעצמם אדם על ידי צירופי שמות הקדושים ואך בלא כח הדיבור כדאיתא שם בסנהדרין (דף ס"ו) רבא ברא גברא שדריה לקמיה דר"ז אשתעי בהדיה ולא אהדר ליה אמר ליה מחבריא את תוב לעפרך. וגם אצל ר' חנינא ור' אושעיא אמר שם דכד הוו מיעסקי בספר יצירה הוו מיברו להו עיגלא תילתא בכל ע"ש], ויראה כמה התחזקו הם בקיום התורה, וממש היה אצלם מסירות נפש על כל פרט ופרט, ממילא אף אנו בודאי יכולים לסמוך עליהם ולא לפקפק כלל בשום דבר ח"ו, ונתחזק בכל עוז בקיום התורה. ואם יקשה עלינו שום דבר מדברי חז"ל נתלה אותו הדבר במיעוט שכלנו כי במה נחשבנו נגד גדולי עולם כמוהם.
אכן, הרב הזה שאמר שהיהדות הקונסרבטיבית אינה דת טעה. יש להם דת אשר המציאו (וממשיכים להמציא). אבל אין היהדות הקונסרבטיבית שומרת אמונים לחוקה של עם ישראל (ראינו כאן איך זה מתבטא בפריט אחד בלבד, כי כאן אי אפשר לפורטם, כי רבים הם). ולכן אין אנחנו יכולים להסמיך אדם אשר מזדהה עם היהדות הקונסרבטיבית לרב ומנהיג בישראל.
נסיים בתפילה מעומקא דליבא. יהי רצון מלפני אבינו שבשמים שיכירו אחינו כל בית ישראל (וכל העולם כולו) ש"משה ותורתו אמת" (בבא בתרא דף ע"ד ע"א), ו"מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' כמים לים מכסים" (ישעיה פרק י"א פסוק ט').
יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
הרב:
ReplyDeleteאינני מבין את חשיבותה של ההתחמקות של התנועה הקונסרבטיבית לדרוש מחבריה להאמין בתיאוריה או מסורת מסויימת של איך בדיוק נתן ה' לעם ישראל את התורה.
הם עדיין מאמינים שיש לכל יהודי חיוב לשמור תורה ומצוות, אף על פי שהפרטים של ההלכות שלהם אינם תואמים בדיוק את הפרטים של ההלכות שלנו, לפי שיטותיהם ותקנותיהם בפסקיהם.
גם כן, לפי מה שלמדתי מחברים קונסרבטיבים ומה שלמדתי מכך שאני עובד כמורה בבי"ס קונסרבטיבי, יש להם אמונה ברעיון של עם ישראל. הקונסרבטיבים אינם ריפורמים - לא כריפורמים של ימינו ולא כאבות התנועה שעקרו מיהדותם כל זכר של זהות עממית או לאומית.
ראה את הכתב שלי על עניין אמונות שונות בנתינת התורה מן השמים
ReplyDeletehttp://margavriel.blogspot.com/2005/09/theology.html
As I am currently working on a Linux station without Hebrew support, I am writing this in English.
ReplyDeleteR' Bechhofer, I have a few points to raise about your suggesting that Conservative Judaism is not real Judaism.
First off, you chose to base your argument on m'sorti Judaism, which is not the same as Conservative Judaism in America. There are a number of rulings that differ, based on my understanding (including, but not limited to, the obligation of a woman to pray b'zman [m'sorti says "yes," while Conservative does not rule] and the ability to consume kitniyot on Pesach [m'sorti says "yes," Conservative says "no"). So, if you are going to denounce Conservative Judaism, at least base your arguments on Conservative doctrine.
Secondly, those of us who lost family in the Shoah are the living proof that non-Orthodox Jews are part of the faithful Am Yisrael. (You fall just shy of actually saying that they are not a part of Am Yisrael, but it would be a fair, if slightly stretched, conclusion to reach. This is because you cite faith as being a central tenet of Am Yisrael, and that non-Orthodox Jews lack that faith, a potential conclusion is that they are not actually part of Am Yisrael, being lacking in a central tenet. It is this that I challenge.) Or will you be so brazen as to say that the millions of non-Orthodox Jews that died did not perish for Kiddush Hashem? They may not have been as fervent as some on "Moshe v'torato emet," but they died just the same, in the same gas chambers, and lacking the same dignity. There are also those who are not Orthodox Jews because they have left the ranks of Orthodox Jews, for one reason or another. Are they, too, no longer Jews? I am thinking, as an example, of the descendants of Jews who died in the Russian pogroms, whose Russian grandparents are Orthodox and who are Reform Jews themselves. You have suggested that they are not a part of Am Yisrael. I suggest that they have designated their neshamot to the Jewish faith by the very blood of their ancestors. The descendant of a Jew is a Jew -- he may not observe anything whatsoever, cross himself, pray in a mosque, desecrate his body, and speak and act out against every Jewish tenet -- but he dies a Jew. To Hitler, he would be a Jew. To a Cossack, he would be a Jew. He would have died for Kiddush Hashem, because he was born into our Am. And, upon his death, I should think that he would be judged as a Jew.
Moreover, chaza"l teach that Hashem will wait for repentence even until the moment of death, and that if he repents, he will be accepted. To deny someone's status as a member of Am Yisrael is to deny him the option of t'shuva. Based on your logic, if a Conservative Jew were to repent, he would be accepted immediately as a member of Am Yisrael. He would not need to convert, he would just be accepted. As such, he must then have started out as a Jew. Furthermore, Conservative Judaism does teach t'shuva, and does encourage its members to be stricter in their observance. If that is not a principle shared by Am Yisrael, I cannot think of one that is.
B'shalom!
The Vortex
The Vortex,
ReplyDeletewhat a collection of sad misunderstandings! In short, you fight against imagined claims that no Orthodox Jews I know hold, and secondly, you're much in danger to define a Jew the worst way there is, that is exclusively by anti-Semitism.
R' Bechhofer,
do I understand you correctly that your main concern is the association with a movement that denies Toure min hashomayem, or at least considers it only one option for its members?
Do you think the person's own ideas have to be doubted, or even if he shares the Orthodox standpoint, the association alone disqualifies him?
I have difficulties to find out what exactly is the Conservative standpoint (call it dogma, ikkor, policy) in this issue, or if there is any. I haven't got satisfying answers from "right-wing" Conservatives to the question why they affiliate with CJ and don't call themselves O. The answers I received from O Jews about what exactly is the problem with the Cs usually focus on the dogma of Toure min hashomayim, in which many "serious" Cs don't diverge from a Centrist O view.
Practically, other issues might add. An easy example is, that even "shomer mitzves Conservative" rabbis tend to be much more open for conversions, most of which with people that don't keep the mitzves and never intended to. But there are O rabbis who do that as well, and in fact, the latter's geiresn might not be recognised by more scrupulous people. Nevertheless, they'd as a rule still be regarded as O. I'm afraid it's a smooth transition
Lipman--
ReplyDeleteDid you ever order that book "Emet Ve'emunah", whose Amazon link I sent to you?
No. Problem is, I'd have to read it first in order to decide if it is kefire or not and so if I'm allowed to buy/read it.
ReplyDeleteSeriously: It's 5.95 plus 8.98 shipping (rowboat) or 35.98 (2-4 days). Annoying. I'm afraid Zi:sçə won't be able to get it in Hoots-Lamachneville, NJ.
ידידי הנכבד שטעג
ReplyDeleteלא שייך לדבר על ההלכה כדבר נפרד מן האמונה אשר הינה בסיסה.
מבלי האמונה, הגישה הינה שווה לגישה לכל תחוקה אנושית, אולם תורת ישראל מגדירה את עצמה כתחוקה אלקית.
אין לך חילוק גדול מזה!
זאת לא אומרת, ח"ו, שאין יהודים קונסרבטיביים חלק מן עם ישראל - רק שאינם ראוים להורות דבר ה' זו הלכה.
כ"ט,
יג"ב
Reb Vortex:
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, Masorati Judaism in Israel is to the right, "halachically," of Conservative Judaism. For example, they admit that it is forbidden to drive to Shul on Shabbos. Reb Lipman responded succinctly to the rest of your post.
Reb Lipman:
Whether affiliation with the Conservative Rabbinate in and of itself is a pesul in the capacity of an individual to serve as a Rav or Manhig is an issue of debate. Reb Moshe Feinstein writes that this alone makes him pasul l'eydus, but there are stories of great Poskim accepting Conservative written gittin if it was known that the Rav involved was an O rabbi in a C synagogue.
I do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent. Conversely, I do not think you will find any C rabbi who accepts the ikkar of Moshe Rabbeinu's nevuah's uniqueness.
Thank you for your answer.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent.
But this latter modification is an important one, which, I think, not few O rabbis hold, openly or not. Also, to my very limited knowledge, many a "serious C" rabbi will be fine with that.
Conversely, I do not think you will find any C rabbi who accepts the ikkar of Moshe Rabbeinu's nevuah's uniqueness.
MG, I believe you've met some specimens of this species - would you agree?
I'm afraid Zi:sçə won't be able to get it in Hoots-Lamachneville, NJ.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I could get a copy to her within the next week.
MG, I believe you've met some specimens of this species - would you agree?
Hmm-- I'm not sure I've talked about this precise issue with any Conservative Rabbis. You might want to ask them yourself. (I shall send you an e-mail containing some addresses.)
"I do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent."
ReplyDeleteTraditional rabbinic Judaism, as proven by Professor Marc Shapiro, does not advocate the Artscroll Orthodox view of the Torah.
Over the millennia scribal errors have crept into the text of the Torah. The Masoretes (7th to 10th centuries CE) compared all extant variations and attempted to create a definitive text. According to modern Artscroll Orthodox dogma, their very efforts would be considered heresy!
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and Joseph Bonfils observed that some phrases in the Torah present information that should only have been known after the time of Moses.
Some classical rabbis drew on their observations to postulate that these sections of the Torah were written by Joshua or perhaps some later prophet.
Here is a huge example: The Talmud (tractate Shabbat 115b) states that a peculiar section in the book of Numbers 10:35-36, surrounded by inverted Hebrew letter nuns, in fact is a separate book.
On this verse a Midrash on the book of Mishle states that "These two verses stem from an independent book which existed, but was suppressed!"
Another, possibly earlier midrash, Ta'ame Haserot Viyterot, states that this section actually comes from the book of prophecy of Eldad and Medad.
The Talmud says that four books of the Torah were dictated by God, but Deuteronomy was written by Moses in his own words (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 31b).
Rabbi Judah ben Ilai held that the final verses of the Torah must have been written by Joshua. (Talmud, Bava Batra 15a and Menachot 30a, and in Midrash Sifrei 357.)
Parts of the Midrash retain evidence of the redactional period during which Ezra redacted and canonized the text of the Torah as we know it today.
A rabbinic tradition states that at this time (440 B.C.E.) the text of the Torah was edited by Ezra, and there were ten places in the Torah where he was uncertain as to how to fix the text; these passages were marked with special punctuation marks called the "eser nekudot".
In the middle ages, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several places in the Torah that apparently could not have been written in Moses's lifetime.
For example, see Ibn Ezra's comments on Genesis 12:6, 22:14, Deuteronomy 1:2, 3:11 and 34:1,6. Ibn Ezra's comments were elucidated by Rabbi Joseph Bonfils in his commentary on Ibn Ezra's work.
In the twelfth century, the commentator R. Joseph ben Isaac, known as the Bekhor Shor, noted that a number of wilderness narratives in Exodus and Numbers are very similar, in particular, the incidents of water from the rock, and the stories about manna and the quail. He hypothesised that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel traditions about these events eventually developed, both of which made their way into the Torah.
In the thirteenth century, R. Hezekiah ben Manoah (known as the Hizkuni) noticed the same textual anomalies that Ibn Ezra noted; thus R. Hezekiah's commentary on Genesis 12:6 notes that this section "is written from the perspective of the future!"
In the fifteenth century, Rabbi Yosef Bonfils while discussing the comments of Ibn Ezra, noted: "Thus it would seem that Moses did not write this word here, but Joshua or some other prophet wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and prophetic?"
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent."
Really? This pious claim is apopular statement, but is there any truth to it? Contrary to popular belief, some Orthodox Jews believe that the entire text of the Torah is not Mosaic.
(A) Aharon Arend writes "Another segment of Orthodox Jewry follows a number of paths taken by traditional scholars, which attempt to reckon with the approach of Biblical criticism. Amos Hacham, one of the authors of the Da'at Mikra Bible commentary, maintains that the questions asked in Bible research cannot be ignored. Faith in the sanctity of the Torah and its Divine origin is not harmed thereby, since this faith is not based on the Bible being comprised of a whole, but rather on its being eternal; i.e., on the fact that the Jewish people accepts its precepts for all generations.
We ought to learn from the Sages, who sought to prove that the Scroll of Esther was written "in holy spirit" (be-ruah ha-kodesh). First they argued many points, all of which were refuted. Finally they found one argument which was unrefutable: "the Jews ordained and took it upon them" (Megillah 7a). In other words, the very fact that all generations of the Jewish people accepted, accept, and will continue to accept the burden of the Torah and its commandments is itself the most faithful proof of its being divinely given. (Megadim 3 [1987], p. 71).
Thus, one must distinguish between difficulties in the text, which can be treated by the traditional approach which reconciles differences or through a more critical approach, and faith in the Torah's Divine source, which is based on the Torah being binding and everlasting."
(B) "The late professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz believed that the sanctity and validity of the Torah stem from the force of Jewish Halakhah and that which it has ascribed to itself. The Torah does not have a scientific or historic function, and therefore the problem of reconciling contradictions taken up by Bible criticism is an illusory difficulty. Judaism is a religion of practical commandments, not a religion of faith." - Aharon Arend
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/bereshit/arend.html
(C) Yehezkel Kaufman wrote "Several of the conclusions of this theory may be considered assured. To this category belongs the analysis of the three primary sources - JE, P and D - with their laws and narrative framework. The source JE is manifestly composed of parallel accounts...the tripartite separation is clearest in the legal material. There are three legal corpora, differing from one another in their general style and juristic terminology, containing parallel and at times contradictory laws. These differences were recognized by early tradition and gave rise to harmonistic exegesis which is one of the features of rabbinic midrash. Only by accepting midrash as the plain sense of the text can the presence of separate legal compilations be denied."
p.156, "The Religion of Israel", translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago, 1960).
(D) Rabbi Emannuel Rackman, writing in "The Condition of Jewish Belief" states: "The most definitive record of God's encounters with man is contained in the Pentateuch. Much of it may have been written by people in different times, but at one point in history God not only made the people of Israel aware of His immediacy, but caused Moses to write the eternal evidence of the covenant between Him and His people. Even the rabbis in the Talmud did not agree on the how. But all agreed that the record was divine, and they cherished it beyond all description, even as they cherished a manner of exegesis which Moses simultaneously transmitted to his colleagues and disciples."
(E) This subject sparked a major schism in the Orthodox community in England. The prime example is Rabbi Louis Jacobs, who at one time was a Modern Orthodox rabbi in the United Synagogue of Great Britain. He came to accept the results of higher biblical criticism, and agreed that the text of the Torah that we have today is non-Mosaic. Despite his public statement of such beliefs, and the publication of them in his book "We Have Reason to Believe" he maintained an important position within the Orthodox community. However, when he was chosen for a major promotion, his views were then used against him to deny him the job. This sparked a major debate in the British Jewish community. Eventually, he and other Orthodox Jews were forced to leave the United Synagogue of Great Britain; they then founded the Masorti Movement in England; this movement promotes traditional Judaism, and is open to historical scholarship.
See Jacob's later books including "A Jewish Theology", "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "God, Torah and Israel: Traditionalism Without Fundamentalism".
(F) Orthodox tradition notwithstanding, scholars in universaties and research institutions throughout the world are still toiling to determine who wrote the Bible, when, wherem why and how. They don't necessarily dispute the book's holy nature, just the fundamentalist view of its writing and transmission.
"I believe the divine word of God spoke through many people, through many generations," says Israel Knohl, an associate professor of Biblical studies at Hebrew University and an Orthodox Jew. "There was a continuity of revelation which rsulted in the Torah. God spoke to Moses on Sinai - but that was only the beginning." ["Who Wrote the Torah?", Calev Ben-David, Jerusalem Report, June 15, 1995]
(G) Rabbi Dr. Norman Solomon is an British Orthodox rabbi who accepts the documentary hypothesis.
See his article "Torah from Heaven"
http://www.art.man.ac.uk/reltheol/jewish/sherman01.htm
(H) Contrary to the official positions of Orthodox rabbinical organizations, many Modern Orthodox Jews are willing to accept the findings of modern scholarship. A recent survey of Modern Orthodox Jews in New York City showed this result: only 54% strongly believe that God revealed the entire Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai and 34% said that they agree with this belief, but less strongly. The rest disagreed outright.
See "Cosmopolitans and Parochials: Modern Orthodox Jews in America" by Samuel C. Heilman and Steven M. Cohen, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989 248 pages.
"I do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent."
ReplyDeleteTraditional rabbinic Judaism, as proven by Professor Marc Shapiro, does not advocate the Artscroll Orthodox view of the Torah.
I was not aware that Artscroll represents a school of thought.
Over the millennia scribal errors have crept into the text of the Torah. The Masoretes (7th to 10th centuries CE) compared all extant variations and attempted to create a definitive text. According to modern Artscroll Orthodox dogma, their very efforts would be considered heresy!
That is not true. Everyone agrees there are discrepancies, and almost everyone would agree that, perforce, some are erroneous.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and Joseph Bonfils observed that some phrases in the Torah present information that should only have been known after the time of Moses.
Some classical rabbis drew on their observations to postulate that these sections of the Torah were written by Joshua or perhaps some later prophet.
True. But they are very small snippets, not large blocs of text.
Here is a huge example: The Talmud (tractate Shabbat 115b) states that a peculiar section in the book of Numbers 10:35-36, surrounded by inverted Hebrew letter nuns, in fact is a separate book.
On this verse a Midrash on the book of Mishle states that "These two verses stem from an independent book which existed, but was suppressed!"
Another, possibly earlier midrash, Ta'ame Haserot Viyterot, states that this section actually comes from the book of prophecy of Eldad and Medad.
Skepticism alert: Pray tell, where is this Midrash? And who cares what a little-known Midrash says - which is in opposition to peshuto shel mikrah? - although, mind you, there is nothing in stating that it came from Eldad u'Medad to cause any concern.
The Talmud says that four books of the Torah were dictated by God, but Deuteronomy was written by Moses in his own words (Talmud Bavli, Megillah 31b).
It says nothing of the sort.
Rabbi Judah ben Ilai held that the final verses of the Torah must have been written by Joshua. (Talmud, Bava Batra 15a and Menachot 30a, and in Midrash Sifrei 357.)
Parts of the Midrash retain evidence of the redactional period during which Ezra redacted and canonized the text of the Torah as we know it today.
A rabbinic tradition states that at this time (440 B.C.E.) the text of the Torah was edited by Ezra, and there were ten places in the Torah where he was uncertain as to how to fix the text; these passages were marked with special punctuation marks called the "eser nekudot".
In the middle ages, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several places in the Torah that apparently could not have been written in Moses's lifetime.
For example, see Ibn Ezra's comments on Genesis 12:6, 22:14, Deuteronomy 1:2, 3:11 and 34:1,6. Ibn Ezra's comments were elucidated by Rabbi Joseph Bonfils in his commentary on Ibn Ezra's work.
All these (and the other sources you cite further) are classic Marc Shapiro-type peckings. They are intellectualy titillating, but not significant.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"I do not believe you will find any self-defining O rabbi denying Torah min HaShamayim - except, perhaps, to a "Marc Shapiro" (i.e., purported R' Yehuda HaChasid/Ibn Ezra) extent."
Really? This pious claim is apopular statement, but is there any truth to it? Contrary to popular belief, some Orthodox Jews believe that the entire text of the Torah is not Mosaic.
What, then, makes them Orthodox? Perhaps you conflate Orthodox with Orthoprax - being familiar, as you are, with Heilman and Cohen's fine work, you are doubtless aware of the distinction.
(A) Aharon Arend writes "Another segment of Orthodox Jewry follows a number of paths taken by traditional scholars, which attempt to reckon with the approach of Biblical criticism. Amos Hacham, one of the authors of the Da'at Mikra Bible commentary, maintains that the questions asked in Bible research cannot be ignored. Faith in the sanctity of the Torah and its Divine origin is not harmed thereby, since this faith is not based on the Bible being comprised of a whole, but rather on its being eternal; i.e., on the fact that the Jewish people accepts its precepts for all generations.
We ought to learn from the Sages, who sought to prove that the Scroll of Esther was written "in holy spirit" (be-ruah ha-kodesh). First they argued many points, all of which were refuted. Finally they found one argument which was unrefutable: "the Jews ordained and took it upon them" (Megillah 7a). In other words, the very fact that all generations of the Jewish people accepted, accept, and will continue to accept the burden of the Torah and its commandments is itself the most faithful proof of its being divinely given. (Megadim 3 [1987], p. 71).
Thus, one must distinguish between difficulties in the text, which can be treated by the traditional approach which reconciles differences or through a more critical approach, and faith in the Torah's Divine source, which is based on the Torah being binding and everlasting."
This is indistinguishable from Conservative theology.
(B) "The late professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz believed that the sanctity and validity of the Torah stem from the force of Jewish Halakhah and that which it has ascribed to itself. The Torah does not have a scientific or historic function, and therefore the problem of reconciling contradictions taken up by Bible criticism is an illusory difficulty. Judaism is a religion of practical commandments, not a religion of faith." - Aharon Arend
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/bereshit/arend.html
I do not regard Leibowitz as Orthodox - and certainly not as an Orthodox rabbi. He was a Reconstructionist who happened to also believe in a God.
(C) Yehezkel Kaufman wrote "Several of the conclusions of this theory may be considered assured. To this category belongs the analysis of the three primary sources - JE, P and D - with their laws and narrative framework. The source JE is manifestly composed of parallel accounts...the tripartite separation is clearest in the legal material. There are three legal corpora, differing from one another in their general style and juristic terminology, containing parallel and at times contradictory laws. These differences were recognized by early tradition and gave rise to harmonistic exegesis which is one of the features of rabbinic midrash. Only by accepting midrash as the plain sense of the text can the presence of separate legal compilations be denied."
p.156, "The Religion of Israel", translated and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago, 1960).
Yes, as Orthodox Jews we accept Medrash as th plain sense of the text. Vide "ayin tachas ayin..."
(D) Rabbi Emannuel Rackman, writing in "The Condition of Jewish Belief" states: "The most definitive record of God's encounters with man is contained in the Pentateuch. Much of it may have been written by people in different times, but at one point in history God not only made the people of Israel aware of His immediacy, but caused Moses to write the eternal evidence of the covenant between Him and His people. Even the rabbis in the Talmud did not agree on the how. But all agreed that the record was divine, and they cherished it beyond all description, even as they cherished a manner of exegesis which Moses simultaneously transmitted to his colleagues and disciples."
He only makes the point that some sections of the Torah may predate the Exodus, and have been incorporated by Moshe, by G-d's command, in the Torah. Nothing earth-shattering.
(E) This subject sparked a major schism in the Orthodox community in England. The prime example is Rabbi Louis Jacobs, who at one time was a Modern Orthodox rabbi in the United Synagogue of Great Britain. He came to accept the results of higher biblical criticism, and agreed that the text of the Torah that we have today is non-Mosaic. Despite his public statement of such beliefs, and the publication of them in his book "We Have Reason to Believe" he maintained an important position within the Orthodox community. However, when he was chosen for a major promotion, his views were then used against him to deny him the job. This sparked a major debate in the British Jewish community. Eventually, he and other Orthodox Jews were forced to leave the United Synagogue of Great Britain; they then founded the Masorti Movement in England; this movement promotes traditional Judaism, and is open to historical scholarship.
See Jacob's later books including "A Jewish Theology", "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" and "God, Torah and Israel: Traditionalism Without Fundamentalism".
Jacobs is certainly not a self-identifying *Orthodox* rabbi - he is irrelevant to this conversation.
(F) Orthodox tradition notwithstanding, scholars in universaties and research institutions throughout the world are still toiling to determine who wrote the Bible, when, wherem why and how. They don't necessarily dispute the book's holy nature, just the fundamentalist view of its writing and transmission.
"I believe the divine word of God spoke through many people, through many generations," says Israel Knohl, an associate professor of Biblical studies at Hebrew University and an Orthodox Jew. "There was a continuity of revelation which rsulted in the Torah. God spoke to Moses on Sinai - but that was only the beginning." ["Who Wrote the Torah?", Calev Ben-David, Jerusalem Report, June 15, 1995]
Once more, the issue was not whether there are academics who self-identify as Orthodox who espouse radical views. I certainly concede that there are. The issue was self-identifying Orthodox *rabbis*. BTW, this also covers your point H below.
(G) Rabbi Dr. Norman Solomon is an British Orthodox rabbi who accepts the documentary hypothesis.
See his article "Torah from Heaven"
http://www.art.man.ac.uk/reltheol/jewish/sherman01.htm
Never heard of the fellow. But it seems that early in his career he was rabbi of a shul in Liverpool that abolished duchaning! 'Nuff said. See:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/liverpool17.html
and
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7854/liverpool02.html
(H) Contrary to the official positions of Orthodox rabbinical organizations, many Modern Orthodox Jews are willing to accept the findings of modern scholarship. A recent survey of Modern Orthodox Jews in New York City showed this result: only 54% strongly believe that God revealed the entire Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai and 34% said that they agree with this belief, but less strongly. The rest disagreed outright.
See "Cosmopolitans and Parochials: Modern Orthodox Jews in America" by Samuel C. Heilman and Steven M. Cohen, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1989 248 pages.