8

I am currently learning in a s'micha program. I was challenged by one of my old friends to find a source for our modern understanding of rabbinic authority that does not require circular reasoning for its explicit authority by relying on a rabbinic source to justify itself.

The best I could do was Devarim 1:16 and 17:8-11, however I was unable to demonstrate anything more from these pesukim other than their explicit mention of rabbinic authority to determine individual practical halachic issues (e.g. if something is kosher, tamei or mutar, etc).

EDIT Update: The full spectrum of rabbinic authority as we interpret it today (e.g generating novel rabbinic law, determining the true interpretation of biblical texts, etc) seems to transcend the explicit intention of the rabbinate in the Torah. This 'creative' aspect of rabbinic authority appears in the Torah only via its own creative rabbinic interpretation. This presents a significant conflict of interest and raises great doubt on its authenticity.

This dilemma greatly pains me and challenges my conception of Rabbinic Judaism. I understand the reluctance of my peers to struggle with this concept which is why I cannot engage openly about this issue. Fundamentally, I find the issue devolves onto a willingness to accept the concept of "emunat Chachamim" which is where I find no biblical sanctioning. I would love to have complete reliance on Chazal however man is fallible and the only man the Torah ever placed trust in was Moshe [Shmot 14:31] but that was because he was a perfect conduit speaking the word of G-d, not contaminating them with his own interpretation.

Accepting an expert's authority to determine a practical legal question is demonstrable from the Torah as above, but suggesting that Chazal or later rabbanim can creatively expand upon the Torah is not explicit. The Torah is explicit in its understanding of the fallibility of human leadership [Vayikra 4:13]. To conclude that the Torah would sanction allowing flawed human reasoning to command final authority on Torah interpretation seems exceptional and requires explicit demonstration; which it appears to lack.

I have a great hesitation accepting rabbinic authority without scriptural proof as it requires surrendering my intellectual honesty that I am practicing Judaism as was intended by the Torah. I would expect others to feel similarly given the gravity this potential error could hold on our religious practice.

(A great source text attempting to resolve this issue was written by Jews for Judaism and can be found here, but in my opinion it fails at the task as it makes a significant leap to conclude the biblical intention of the rabbinic creativity. Why would the concept of rabbinic 'creativity' require itself creative interpretation to be derived from the Torah rather than explicit mention as the other sources of basic rabbinic interpretive authority? As the author himself compares such a concept to the American Supreme Court which derives its authority to 'make law' from explicit permission in the constitution, not via interpretation of legal example in the constitution, so too if the intention of the Torah was for rabbinic authority to be both interpretive and creative, then both should have been mentioned equally as explicit. To argue otherwise is precisely the type of circular reasoning I was hoping to disprove.)

  • 1
    Not sure what your title has to do with the body of your question, but Rav Asher Weiss writes regarding the latter: אך באמת נראה בזה עוד דעצם המצוה לשמוע בדברי חכמים אינה נובעת בהכרח ממצות לא תסור, אלא יסוד הוא ועמוד החזק שכל התורה נשענת עליו והוא יסוד כל תורה שבע"פ ומשה קיבל תורה מסיני ומסרה ליהושע ויהושע לזקנים ולולא חכמים והציות להם אין תורה בישראל, ודבר זה גופא הלממ"ס הוא. Ie: our source is mesora, which by your standards is circular – robev Aug 26 at 14:16
  • Talmudic logical stringency? What logic and what stringency? Rabbis are not bound by any logic (I don't say they are not logical). Ask yourself if any Talmudic conclusion known to you couldn't be reversed just as easily as it was ruled? Once the Prushim Rabbis accepted that לא בשמים היא they freed themselves from submitting to any formal rational system. – Al Berko Aug 26 at 15:07
  • Welcome to MiYodeya Sam and thanks for this first question. You might want to edit it to narrow it and ask a specific question (rather than general thoughts). After the helpful background, try starting your question by "What is the basis for XXX". Also since MY is different from other sites you might be used to, see here for a guide which might help understand the site. Great to have you learn with us! – mbloch Aug 26 at 15:27
  • 1. The article you cited gives a very knowledgeable explanation, please explain why "but it too failed at the task"? - I think this is the best you can get. 2. Any scriptural source would require some form of interpretation, you render as circular, so maybe your expectations are unreal. – Al Berko Aug 27 at 6:15
  • כך מסרו לנו אבותינו הראשונים שזה אלף וזה בית וזה גימל – Dr. Shmuel Aug 28 at 5:41
1

Their job of determining the true understanding of texts

I have heard from many sources, Rabbi Orlofsky being the most recent. The idea that the fact that the torah says וְאַתָּה דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אַךְ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ כִּי אוֹת הִוא בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם לָדַעַת כִּי אֲנִי ה' מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ: (שמות לא יג-יד That you need to keep shabbos or else you will die (rough translation) without specifying anywhere how to keep shabbos, proves that the torah was given with an oral tradition. An oral tradition requires people to be keepers of that tradition.

As far as novel halacha - they are simply applying handed down halacha to novel circumstances ( an important distinction in general)

By my extension those keepers were clearly not meant to only memorize and pass on by rote (that would be the same as something b'chtav) so their knowledge would have to be applied knowledge hence the role of Rabbi

1

I don't think that you will be able to find a solid source, because during the biblical era the authority came from the prophets, not Rabbis. After prophecy stopped, the Rabbis took over the prophets.

בבא בתרא יב א

אמר אמימר וחכם עדיף מנביא

Bava Batra 12a

Amimar said, a sage is better then a prophet.

1

Full disclosure here, I'm not Orthodox, I'm a Reform girl, but this is what I was able to grab, insomuch as understanding where the Orthodox position stands on rabbinic authority.

First, some clarification. Halacha is Jewish law with a practical basis. Aggadah, which was not passed down from Halacha L'Moshe Mi'Sinai, is Jewish folklore. Today, we won't be discussing anything to do with the aggadah, as it does not pertain to our study.

I. PROOFS FROM OUR TORAH

The first proof comes from Shemot 23:19. There, we find חלב, now, whether it's chalav or chelev is unclear if you don't have the Torah she-be-`al peh as a guide. Keep in mind that the vowels were invented in the 10th century, however, it's clear they were part of the mesora, and hence, passed down from one generation to the next. Other examples we can choose from have already been discussed, such as how one keeps Shabbos, and what does it mean to be punished by death if you refused to keep it.

I want to move on, specifically, to biblical references. One prime illustration comes from Nechemiah 13:15-17, where some Jews violate Shabbos by separating grain from the husks via a squeezing press. The Navi quoted these strict legal bindings from Torah, but none of the above are found in the Torah she-bi-khtav. Clearly, then, he meant the Oral Law.

As far as rabbinic authority goes, we learn from Vayikra 18:30 and Shemot 18:13-22 that legal safeguards are to be erected by the elders to deal with case law and hermeneutics - in short, Klal Yisrael [1].

This teaches us that the correct interpretation of passages such as Yehoshua 8:34-35 are to be understood in light of the above.

Note that while there were debates over a certain takkanah, there was never an issue between Chazal over the principle of there being an Oral Law in the first place. This means that there has always been a legal procedure in which Chazal could study and make rulings. Note further that the Gemara purposefully decided to record all opposing views so that when a future Sanhedrin is reestablished, they will know that these discussions have been properly dealt with.

II. HISTORICAL PROOFS

Even though verses such as Devarim 6:7 and Tehillim 1:2 exist, secular scholars still come away with the claim that our ancestors forgot the law for a thousand years (citing Melachim Bais 22:8). The verse in question, however, isn't talking about the founding (or invention) of the first Torah scroll, but rather, the discovery of the original parchment. Shmuel Alef 4:19-22 is clear how the people felt about it, and they sure weren't up in arms, as secular scholars would have us believe. Moreover, one may compare innumerable Torah mandate with its application elsewhere in Tanakh before the age of Yoshiyah HaMelech [2].

Regarding the Isiyim, they too were Perushim, though it is a little known fact. Evidence for this comes from the strict nature of their Shabbat observance, such as added time before nightfall; prohibiting business dealings, perfumes, labor, cooking; while permitting walking a thousand cubits and breaking Shabbos to save a life.

Now, if we turn our attention to Josephus, we'll find that he too followed the Oral Torah, and ascribed it all to Moshe Rabbeinu (see Antiquities Book 3, 5.6). To be brief, he agreed with the Mishnah's ruling that Nisan was the first of the month, and that the months were to be lunar [3]; to carrying a branch of myrtle, willow, pomme citron, and a bough of palm on Sukkot [4]; for allowing forty stripes minus one for the accused [5]; for prohibiting a kohen from marrying a harlot [6]; for prohibiting the testimony of women in court [7]; saying the Shema twice a day; placing a Mezuzah on your doorpost; and wearing tefillin [8].

Keep in mind that he wasn't from the Perushim sect by birth, in fact, he criticized them at first, and only after much study, came to the conclusion that what they taught was from Hashem.

III. THEY FOUND THE MISHNAH IN ETHIOPIA

For 2,400 years, the Abyssinian Christians have unknowingly kept a fringe of oral tradition. This is because they were once Jews who fled after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. In 1992, researcher, Graham Hancock, published his journal of discoveries in search for the lost Ark of the Covenant. One slice of his account recalls his meeting with an Ethiopian priest by the name of Memhir Fisseha. He recollected the way his people used to offer burnt offerings by collecting the blood of the lamb in a "bowl" - he used here the Hebrew "gomer," which means "finished" or "complete," and is utterly foreign to his native Ge'ez. The blood was then scattered over the stones of the tent, which, he claims, once housed the Ark. When asked to rehearse the action, Fisseha “positioned himself next to the stones with the bowl in his left hand, dipped into it with his right forefinger, swept his right hand above the level of his head and commenced an up-and-down motion. ‘The blood was scattered in this way,’ he said, ‘over the stones and over the tent of the Ark. Afterword, as I told you, what was left was poured thus.’ He then tipped the bowl sideways above the cup-shaped hollows in the tops of the pillars." It was as if, Hancock later reflected, he’d been wielding a whip instead.

Back in England, Hancock poured over ancient sources only to discover that Fisseha’s actions had fitted exact descriptions of the Kohen Gadol, as recorded in the Mishnah’s tractate, Yoma. Accordingly, the blood was collected and stirred so as to not be congealed. Then, the Kohen Gadol would arrive and take the bowl, sprinkling the blood “once upwards and seven times downwards [on the curtain outside, facing the Ark]. . . . as though he were wielding a whip."

Fisseha had never read the Mishnah, and yet, it seemed as if he knew exactly what it said [9].

IV. WHO ARE THE KARAITES?

They were basically a break-away movement (no relation to the צְדוּקִים) in the mid 760s CE. The Exilarch, Shlomo, was childless when he died, and so the Geonim, doubting his nephew's character (Anan), passed on his position to another. Anan rebelled, and was locked up by the Caliph, whom he later convinced to be set freed. Once free, he started his own interpretation of Torah, often taking on a hand's-down literal approach, such as not allowing a doctor to heal your illness (Shemot 15:26), which, unsurprisingly, resulted in his own death. It should be noted that the Karaite movement, while rejecting our Oral Torah, wear kippot and do other decrees only known orally.

Well, I think that about wraps. Proof of an Oral Law is easy to come by when you know what to look for, and of course, this short introduction isn't by far exhaustive. Nonetheless, I'm glad to have done my part. Reach out to me if there's more you'd want to know, the examples are literally never-ending.

Sources:

  1. See Bava Metzia 59a-b, B.T., for a talmudic reference and Devarim 20:14-20, 23:25-26, Vayikra 14:33-34 for these applications in action. Specifically see Rut 4:1-2 for a local beit din.

  2. To name a few, compare Devarim 8:10 with Shmuel Alef 9:13; Vayikra 22:4 with Shmuel Alef 21:5, 28:3; Vayikra 13:46 with Melachim Alef 5:1-5, 7:3; and Vayikra 20:27 with Melachim Bais 4:23 and Amos 8:5.

  3. Antiquities, Book 3, 10.2-5.

  4. Ibid. 10:4.

  5. Compare Devarim 25:3 with Maakos 3:10 and J. Book 4, 8:21.

  6. Compare Vayikra 21:7 with Kiddushin 4:1, Kesubos 2:5, J. Book 3, 12:2.

  7. Compare Mishnah Shavuot 4:1 with J. Book 4, 8:15.

  8. J. op. Cit. 8:13.

  9. Hancock, Graham, The Sigh and the Seal: the Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant. A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, NY (1992). 600 pp. pp. 141, 214-218.

  • 3
    You don’t need to classify yourself as reform. If your mother is Jewish you are Jewish and we all may be at different levels of doing mitzvahs and observing Torah, but we are most importantly all Jews without labels. :-) – Akiva___ Aug 28 at 15:51
  • 1
    @Akiva___, thanks, I agree with you. – Rivka Aug 28 at 16:24
  • 2
    Thanks for this contribution. Are you quoting from someone else or did you write this? Your introduction sounds like you might have found this elsewhere. Quoting from other sources is fine, but please use blockquote formatting and attribute. – Monica Cellio Aug 29 at 17:33
  • @Monica Cellio, I did write it, that's why I didn't quote a source other than the "proofs." But thanks for the nice comment! That's a complement to me as a writer and I appreciate it! – Rivka Sep 2 at 6:32
  • 1
    Thanks for your reply. It's delightful to see a thorough, footnoted answer from a new user. May you go from strength to strength! – Monica Cellio Sep 2 at 15:44
0

It depends which kind of rabbinic authority you are talking about - nowadays there isn't much. When there was a clear centralised rabbinic body accepted by all, that had a power similar to that of the Sanhedrin. See How does halacha work?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .