Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

What do Jews mean by divine inspiration

What do you (or the article) mean by "divine"? It certainly can't mean written by G-d or prophets, since all Orthodox Jews accept that the Mishna and Talmud were written by men, and that no new prophets were created after the destruction of the First Temple. And what is meant by "infallible"? Given that these works present all sorts of disagreements, they can't all be right, so I don't see what "infallible" means in this context. And since they additionally contain all sorts of emendations and edits or "girsahs", obviously the people making these emendations did not consider them infallible. The Mishna is often compared with Baraitas and Toseftas; is the Mishna "more" infallible than the other sources of Mishnaic law? Is the Talmud Bavli more "divine" than the Yerushalmi? Jayjg 17:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to answer your questions. One needs to know Jewish theology on the origin of the Bible and Mishnah. You should also know that Orthodox Jews do not accept that the Mishna and Talmud were written by men alone, nor that no new prophets were created after the destruction of the First Temple. Rather, Orthodox Jews believe that the Mishna and Talmud were written by men under divine inspiration, from the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). Similarly, Orthodox Jews do not believe that the non-Torah books of the Bible were "written by men" alone. Rather, they believe that the books of the rest of the Bible were written by men under divine inspiration, from the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). As quotes from a consensus statement in the Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ:
  • The first five books (Pentateuch, Chumash) were dictated by G-d to Moses, while Moses was in a conscious and aware state.
  • The N'viim (the Prophetic writings) were transmitted by G-d to the prophets by various means (such as by a dream or vision) and transcribed by the prophet in his (or her) own style and wording. G-d communicated with all prophets (except Moses) through dreams or visions. These writings are considered a level "below" that of Moses. Specific laws are not derived from the Prophets, except through examples of how a mitzvah was actually performed. There were many more prophets in the history of Israel than are recorded in the Neviim. See Section 12.11 "Who were the prophets?"
  • The K'Tuvim (Sacred Writings) were the result of "Ruach HaKodesh" (roughly: "Divine Inspiration"), which is one level below "prophecy". Visions from the writings are more mystical and may be complete allegory. Unlike prophecy, they do not have to come true.

Contrary to popular belief, Orthodox Jews do not teach that all prophecy ended after the destruction of the Temple. They only make such simple statements in their "Introduction to Judaism" books; in Orthodox Jewish works that discuss the issue more fully, they state that some lower forms of prophecy still exist. The Talmud only teaches that the most direct forms of prophecy no longer occur. However, classical Judaism affirms that other less direct forms of prophecy still occur. One example of this is the 'bat kol'. [e.g. Tosefta Sota 13:3, Talmud Yerushalmi Sota 24b, and Talmud Bavli Sota 48b] RK

RK, this says nothing about the Mishna and Talmud. Jayjg 21:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, please re-read. You missed the long section I just added on the Mishnah and the Talmud! Keep on scrolling down; its right there! RK
Read and responded. Jayjg 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nor did I say that "all prophecy ended after the destruction of the Temple." Rather, I said that Orthodox Judaism teaches that "no new prophets were created after the destruction of the First Temple." And, in fact, that is the case. I choose my words quite carefully. Jayjg 21:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. Classical Judaism does teach that prophecy and prophets still existed...but not the exact same kind of projecy and prophets. See below for the discussions I have recently added. (And note that, by definition, it is impossible to have prophecy without prophets! A prophet is someone who received the experience of prophecy.) Don't get caught up in the semantics. Orthodox Jews do not refer to the rabbis of the Mishnah as "prophets". Instead, they refer to them as "rabbis who were writing under the influence of the Ruach HaKodesh", and things like that. And it is this which we are talking about. RK
Classical Judaism believes there are different levels of interaction with G-d, and that the higher level known as prophecy no longer exists. Calling Ruach HaKodesh "prophecy" is incorrect, since something said based on Ruach HaKodesh may not be true or come true (as your own references have pointed out). This negates the "infallible" claim. Jayjg 23:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, acording to you and me this would negate any such claim. But as Rabbi Emanuel Rackman writes in the Encyclopedia Judaica (see the recently added quote) many Orthodox Jews view the Mishnah and Talmud in a sacred light, and will not admit that there are any errors in it. They somehow manage to see things differently. When I flew to Israel in late 1990 I sat with Hasidim who - based on the Talmud - believed that the Sun orbited around the Earth. They were under the impression that the Talmudic point of view was somehow verified by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. In their (overly simplified and thus mistaken) understanding of his theory, all position in space is relative, and thus A orbiting B is equivalent to B orbiting A. That's not what Einstein meant, but the point is clear. RK

The Talmud notes that each time a Jew studies the Torah or its rabbinic commentaries, God is revealed anew; there is still a link between the God and the Jewish people. The Talmud in fact declares that rabbinic interpretation is superior to the biblical forms of prophecy.

Rabbi Abdimi of Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, the prophetic gift was taken away from the prophets and given to the Sages [Rabbis]. - Is a Sage not also a prophet? What Rabbi Abdimi meant to say was this: Although prophecy has been taken from the Prophets, prophecy has not been taken from the Sages. Amemar said "A Sage is even superior to a Prophet, as it says "And a Prophet has the heart of Wisdom" (Psalms 90:21) Who is usually compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater? [Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 12A]

Hillel taught that all Jews still receive ruach ha'kodesh, the Holy Spirit, which is an indirect form of prophecy. In the tosefta (Pesah 4:2) this is stated outright, while in later rabbinic literature {Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 17a and Pesach 33a, Talmud Bavli 66b) his statement is that the Jewish people, if not prophets, are at least the bene nevi'im, the sons of prophets. Although not widely known, many Jews believed that the more direct forms of prophecy still existed as late as the middle ages; a few medieval rabbis in this era were thought to be prophets by some, including Rabbeinu Tam. This is discussed by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in his book "Prophetic Inspiration After the Prophets: Maimonides and Others" (Ktav). RK

Right, Ruach HaKodesh is still believed to exist, and there's even a Rabbi in the Talmud who states that the Sages are "superior" to the Prophets. But getting back to the original question, even though the Sages, or perhaps all Jews (if we believe Hillel), may have Ruach HaKodesh, what part of Orthodox Jewish thought indicates that the Mishna and Talmud themselves, as works, are "divine"? Jayjg 21:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
For those following the topic, see the quotes below as reply: RK

Traditional and Orthodox views of the Mishnah and Talmud

Orthodox Jews do not claim that the Mishnah and Talmud are direct quotations from God; however they do hold that they were written and transmitted under divine inspiration. Their views are just as valid as anyone else's views, and thus should be mentioned. Such views could help illuminate are present articles on fundamentalism, Orthodox Judaism, the Mishnah, Talmud, etc. For example: RK

  • See "The Chumash: The Stone Edition", published by Mesorah, one of their Artscroll books. (This is sometimes referred to as the Artscroll chumash). Their introduction states that the oral is just as authentic part of the divinely inspired Jewish tradition as the five books of Moses. They go so far as to state that anyone who doubts its holy status is a "blasphamer" (p.xxv)
  • See Aryeh Kaplan's "Maimonides' Principles: The Fundamentals of Jewish Faith", which is accepted as a mainstream Orthodox point of view by a wide variety of Orthodox rabbis.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah Mamrim: [The Sanhedrin], the great court in Jerusalem, is the basis of the Oral Torah. It stood as the pillar of Law, and from it laws and judgements emanated to all Israel. The Torah assures us [of this court's authority] when it says (Deut. 17:11) "You shall abide by the Torah according to how they teach it to you." This in itself is a commandment of the Torah. Everyone who believes in the Torah must therefore accpet this court's authority and depend on it regarding all matters concerning our religion....One who doe believe in the Oral Torah...is counted as a heretic (Apikores.) If one openly denies the authenticity of the Oral Torah, he in the same category as all other heretics...But this does not include the children of those who goastray of their descendants.
  • Judah Halevi, in his Kuzari, iii 67, states that no human being could have written such a work of literary excellence without God's divine assistance.
  • "Rabbi Sherira ben Hanina, Gaon of the Pumpeditha academy during the second half of the 10th century...[wrote a letter to the Jews of Kairawan.] The Gaon Sherira declares in his responsum that the entire Talmudic material in its complete bulk was an ancient tradition and that all Rabbi Judah the Prince did was to rearrange the material and clarify it. The essence of his answer is that the total material constituted an unbroken tradition going back to antiquity, and that all the various men whom we might think of as authors were not that at all, but merely interpreters and transmitters of this ancient tradition. While explaining this basic principle, namely, that the Oral Law as found in the Mishna, Talmud and their accopanying books, is virtually of equal antiquity with the Written Law and therefore of equal authenticity, he also lists the rabbis of the various generations who worked, expounded and transmitted this ancient oral material." (Quoted from A Treasury of Responsa, Solomon Frehof, JPS, 1962, chapter 1: The History of Tradition) Note: Jayjg, the actual entire responsa is included in a book I have, and I could type it in if you would like to read it. RK
  • Many Orthodox rabbis I have spoken with have stated that the precise formulation of words in the Mishnah is due to the human component of the equation; the wording is human. But, in their view, the laws and principles described therein came directly from a verbal revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. If you go to a Jewish bookstore and check out books on Jewish theology by Orthodox authors, you will see such statements in a wide variety of works. RK
  • The following is from the Encyclopedia Judaica:
Oral law, the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law (Torah, which is the text of the Pentateuch) which was regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral Laws constitute together "two that are one." "It is related that a certain man stood before Shammai and said 'Rabbi, How many Torahs have you?' The rabbi replied 'Two—one written and one oral'" (ARN1 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351). There is a strong and close bond between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other—both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality....It can thus be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law existed not merely from the moment the Written Law was given (and in this sense it is correct to say that the Written and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Sinai), but it may even be maintained that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Written Law not only assumes the observance of the Oral Law in the future, but is in effect based on its previous existence. Since the written law relies—by allusion or by its silence—on statutes, customs, and basic laws not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, business; see above), theses statues are ipso facto converted into a part of the Oral Law. {This section of the article was written by Moshe David Herr, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and gives the Orthodox point of view. It is followed by a section giving the Reform and Conservative points of view. RK}
  • The following is from the Encyclopedia Judaica:
'Orthodox Judaism, Developments in Modern Orthodoxy
With regard to parts of the Bible other than the Pentateuch, some hold that all of them were written because of the Holy Spirit; others are more critical and do not dogmatize with regard to their authorship, accuracy of texts, dates of composition, or literal interpretation. Some extend the doctrine of the inviolability of the Torah to all the sacred writings including the Talmud and the Midrashim and do not permit rejection even of any of the most contradictory legends or maxims. Others are "reductionists" and restrict the notion of inviolability to the Five Books of Moses. (This section of the article was written by Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, Chancellor, Bar Ilan University, member of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America.)
Right, the Oral Torah is itself considered to be of divine origin. But who considers the works of Mishna and Talmud themselves to be infallible? This is the question. You point out that Orthodox Rabbis believe the words themselves come from men. In fact, your description of the relationship of Orthodox Judaism to the Mishna and Talmud is almost exactly the position of the Conservative movement towards the Tanach, and yet you consider the Conservative movement to be "anti-fundamentalist" in philosophy. This is exactly where we get to the "what may be termed a fundamentalist way" hand waving arguments. Jayjg 21:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need to be precise in our wording, and need to distinguish between (for instance) Orthodox and Consercative views on this issue. The above material is all from a classical rabbinic or Orthodox Jewish point of view. I haven't yet added Conservative views on this issue. I will try and clarify the differences.

(A) Most Orthodox Jews believe that although the specific wording is from men, the content comes directly from God at Mount Sinai. That is why many Orthodox rabbis consider it "blasphemy" to deny that the laws in the oral law come directly from God. In this view, the original laws of the oral law were actually quoted to Moses on Mount Sinai, just like I am writing words to you. While the exact wording has not been transmitted (in some classical views, it has not been transmitted exactly on purpose) the general form, rules and content has been transmitted.
(B) In contrast, most Conservative Jews believe that both the specific wording is from men, and the rules and content are from men. Most Conservative Jewish views of revelation hold that although God is real, and can reveal himself to man, the result of such divine revelation is not specific laws that can be quoted; for theological reasons, most Conservative Jews reject the idea that God and man can communicate in such ways. How specifically do most C Jews view revelation? I just added a lot of specific quotes on this topic to Talk:Conservative Judaism. (It also includes one Reform Jewish POV, although other Reform views exist as well.) RK
I was taught (by an LOR) that the Oral Torah was of Divine Nature, and that the Oral Torah was contained in the Mishna & Talmud. Because the Oral Law is said to be in the Mishna and Talmud, they are at least partly holy because of it. That's what I was taught anyways.--Josiah 22:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removing Orthodox Judaism from "Fundamentalism"

With all due respect, the term "fundamentalist" remains a highly charged pejorative as it is associated with present-day Terrorism in most rational people's minds, and it is a blight and stain on the good name of any segment of Orthodox Judaism to be associated with that ugly word. Peace Now is no less a fundamentalism movement than anything "Orthodox". I put forth a motion that (certainly as self-respecting Jews) all efforts be made to extract the Orthodox Judaism paragraph from the fundamentalism article ASAP as it is an unambiguous anti-Semitic slur. IZAK 07:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic, but I'm not too impressed with its inclusion either. As far as I can see, the article basically says "Orthodox Judaism is different from other fundamentalist groups in all these ways, but it's still fundamentalist." Jayjg 16:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, and this is the basic difference between it and all the other Jewish denominations. Tos ay anything less would be Orthodox apologetics to hide this highly significant difference. Further, it is not an ugly word. We cannot rewrite all of Wikipedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand what the word means. Our job is to educate...not to rewrite the dictionary in order to appease fundamentalist Jews, Christians or Muslims. And please remember that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism. Wikipedia is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. We also have articles on all religions, and use the term "fundamentalist" there as well. All of the Orthodox POVs here aboput not using this word have already been seen here on Wikipedia from fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. And all have been rejected. We need to follow the same policy for all topics; we can't have special exception for the adherents of one religion. RK

12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you believe Orthodox Judaism is fundamentalist, but if it's true the article needs to explain why that is so. So far it seems to mostly contain handwaving of the "fundamentalists are Scriptural literalists, Orthodox Judaism is not Scripturally literalist, but it's still fundamentalist" kind. Jayjg 15:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(A) It is not a matter of anyone's belief. Given what religious scholars use this word to mean, it is true by definition. (B) In any case, the valid point you raise is a different point from that raised by Izak. On this point I totally agree with you.I think it would a very good idea to clearly explain what we do mean by this word, and to counter mis-nderstanding, to explaimn what we do not mean by this word. RK 13:28, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
We may be agreeing here, but to re-iterate, if the word applies, then it should be explained exactly how it applies. Assertions are not proofs. Jayjg 00:27, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am in agreement with you. RK

The word "fundamentalism" is defined by Webster's as meaning "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Regardless of whether you view Orthodoxy as a "movement", by that definition Orthodoxy is fundamentalist. And, for the record, I would also say that Karaite Judaism could be labeled as such also.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a rather monolithic view of Orthodoxy. Read Rabbis Kook, Soloveitchik, Hoffmann, Weinberg, or a huge host of more recent writers. Do they or the deep inner tensions that their writings reflect meet a simplistic application of Webster's definition? (Even if some of their students do!) Wouldn't a serious Conservative Jew meet the same test? Or an ideological secular Zionist? By throwing around the bombastic term "fundamentalism" all you really achieve is to say that certain people and communities are more ideological than others. There are much better ways to describe this.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Um, we Wikipedians are not using the dictionary definition of the word for this topic. In fact, we do not use the dictionary definition of a term alone for any topic. In fact, one should never use a dictionary alone to help us write an article. When a person wants to contribute to an article that deals with a topic, that person should have at least read on encyclopedia article on the topic (not a tiny dictionary definition); better yet, someone should have read a few books or journals on the topic. Its not that I disagree with your analysis of the limits of that one dictionary definition (we in fact are in agreement); its that your discussion is a red herring. It has nothing to do with how scholars of religion use the term in the real world, or how we have always used it in our many Wikipedia articles on religion. RK 17:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
"fundamentalist" is generally only associated with terrorism when involving Muslims.--Josiah 06:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maybe some people in the general public believe that, but that is not correct. Most Muslims are fundamentalist, yet most Muslims are not terrorist. Our job is to get people to read the articles and become educated. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

As above, I agree with JFW that the term is heavily loaded (and this particular case I also agree with IZAK that it is commonly viewed as prejorative). It would be beneficial to use more careful, nuanced terms.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please see my summary above of the mess that is currently in the Judaism section of the fundamentalism article. Jayjg 15:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)