Proposition: [The Tanakh states that the Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation:] "In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you - right or left." (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand "Judges" to refer to the Rabbis. But as I mentioned above, there is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law, from G-d to Moses, to the Elders, Aaron, his sons, and the entire Jewish nation. The Oral law teaches that this refers to the Rabbis.
Response: 1. "Interpretation": This is a very important point to understand. The Oral Torah is often misrepresented as merely Rabbinic "interpretation". It is not! "Interpretation" implies that the Rabbis derive their rulings from the Written Torah. But this is not what they do. The Oral Torah is a separate code of law, which is not derived, and which cannot be derived using any logical means, from the Written Torah. The use of the term "interpretation" is very misleading.
Consider, for instance, the Rabbinic prohibition on eating meat and dairy together. This is often presented as an "interpretation" of the verse "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." Yet, there is no way that the Rabbinic prohibition can be derived from this verse. In fact, according to Rabbinic theory, the verse serves simply as a "mnemonic" for remembering the Rabbinical law. Yet, this fact is often not mentioned, which results in many people being misled into thinking that the Rabbinic law actually derives from the verse.
2. Here is the verse that Ben-Chaim quotes, in its context:
If a case is too baffling for you to decide, be it a controversy over homicide, civil law, or assault -- matters of dispute in your courts -- you shall promptly repair to the place that YHWH your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that YHWH chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there YHWH your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die. Thus you will sweep out evil from Israel: all the people will hear and be afraid and will not act presumptuously again. (Deut. 17:8-13)
I have discussed this passage before. Here is another take:
a. The passsage establishes a Supreme Court as the court of last resort for all legal cases, whose rulings on these cases cannot be appealed.
b. The physical location of the court is in Jerusalem ("the place that YHWH your God will have chosen").
c. The court is composed of the priests or the Judge.
d. These priests or this Judge are alive at the time of the case. How else are the parties in the case to present themselves to them? Also, "in charge at the time".
None of these things give the Rabbis the authority over Torah "interpretation". The passage gives the Supreme Court the authority to rule on cases that are brought before it. Certainly, if it so wishes, a Supreme Court may rely on precedent set by a previous Supreme Court. But nowhere does it say that it has to. Any Supreme Court can therefore decide differently than a previous Supreme Court did in a similar case. Thus, the Supreme Court is not setting any laws. Even if a previous Supreme Court set a precedent, it is not law. A new Supreme Court is free to decide a similar case differently.
The Rabbis, on the other hand, set laws, not simply precedents in legal cases. These laws are permanent, or almost permanent, as the Rabbis say that the contemporary Rabbis cannot overrule previous ones, such as the Rabbis who lived in Talmudic times.
Point b: the Supreme Court is to be located in Jerusalem. Yet, how many Rabbinic laws are set by Rabbis actually located in Jerusalem? Possibly the most important work of the Oral Torah, the Babylonian Talmud, was written nowhere near Jerusalem. Maimonides, who codified Talmudic law, did not live in Jerusalem either.
Point c:
I. The court can be composed of either the priests or the Judge. Certainly, the Priesthood is not the same thing as the Rabbis. No amount of Oral Torah can change that. The Priesthood is hereditary and does not depend on ideology. Being a rabbi is not heredirary and depends on believing in the authority of the Oral Torah.
II. What is the definition of the word shofet ("judge")? A shofet is not just someone who writes abstract responsa involving the Law; it is someone who has the ability to and actually does implement their decisions in this world. We know this from the text. Firstly, someone who does not obey the Judge is to be executed. That is, the Judge must be able to enforce his ruling on pain of death. Second, the Book of Judges describes many Shoftim of the pre-Monarchy period. All of these people were rulers with real physical power, not scholars devoid of the ability to enforce their decisions. As the JPS translation notes, the word shoftim is better rendered as "chieftains"; "the corresponding verb shaphat is usually rendered not 'judged' but 'ruled' or 'led'."
The Rabbis, in their capacity as Rabbis, do not have such powers. In other words, a rabbi might happen to have these powers, but they do not derive from him being a rabbi. Certainly, none of today's Rabbis have any such powers.
Point d: The Supreme Court must be alive at the time of the trial. This means that if we have a dispute today that we cannot resolve, we must go to someone alive today, not to ancient books. Rashi on this verse says as much:
Even if he is not comparable to the other judges who preceded him, you must obey him --- you have no one but the judge in your day. {Otherwise, "during those days" is redundant --- is it possible to approach a judge from another day? (Rosh Hashanah, 25:b)} (Rashi Yomi)
If the Supreme Court is "interpreted" to mean the Rabbis, it must be today's Rabbis. Yet, they do not have nearly enough power to qualify them as Shoftim, as pointed out above.
If this passage refers to any entity in existence today, that entity is the Government of Israel (or a part thereof), not the Rabbis. The Government of Israel decides legal cases (through its court system) and, for Israelis, it is the court of last resort. The Government of Israel rules from Jerusalem. The Government of Israel has the power to enforce its decisions (again, only on Israelis, not on all Jews). And, finally, the Government of Israel exists today.
3. One of the ancient Shoftim was Deborah (Judges 4:4), a woman. Yet, Rabbinical law forbids women to become rabbis. (Although, if we assume that the Oral Torah is true, it is theoretically changeable, and it is possible that at the time no prohibition against women rabbis existed. In that case, however, I'd like to know the circumstances under which this law changed. Also, if Deborah was such a great rabbi, why do the Orthodox powers that be of today refuse to allow women to become rabbis?
4. Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis: This is yet another case of circular reasoning:
a. The passage gives certain powers to the Shoftim.
b. The Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis.
c. Thus, Rabbis have these powers.
d. Rabbis having these powers means that the Oral Torah is true.
First, as already discussed, the passage does not grant the powers claimed by the Rabbis to anyone. Second, the purpose here is to prove the veracity of the Oral Torah. Yet, Ben-Chaim has to assume the Oral Torah in step (b) in order to "prove" it in (d).
5. There is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law among those who do not dispute this. And there is no dispute that the Earth is flat among those who believe that the Earth is flat.
6. All of this raises another interesting question. Who are the Rabbis? If I get the appropriate degree from Yeshiva University, will I become a rabbi? Smicha has been lost, remember? How then can the rabbis of today claim to have the tradition of the former Rabbis, who did have smicha?
Posted by Ami at August 20, 2004 02:36 AM | TrackBackS.L.
Respectfully, in Judaism there is no distinction between civil and religious law. They are all codexed in HaTorah and all equally the same under the directive that we obey that which the rightful Judges or Priests have decided upon. Shalom!
Stop trying to work things out for your selves and read the Yisrael oracle for your edification.
Posted by: eretz yisrael at September 20, 2004 11:10 AM“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Lord Acton)
Parshat Shoftim is more about maintaining a civil and organized society than anything else. In a few short chapters it spells out both the restrictions and responsibilities for all levels of society and for all people. No one is above or beyond the law, and within this hierarchy, as listed by the Torah, the limits of power are clearly stated.
The Rabbinic assumption that a ‘judge’ is one who can revise, reinterpret, or reinvent Torah Law from this chapter is nonsense. Such an assumption drags the verses completely out of context. Shoftim does not mean to give additional power to the judges or officers of the court, but to RESTRICT the natural inclination of those who assume power to abuse it. Power corrupts, and the Torah is cognizant of human frailty, thus warning those holding such powers to remain mindful of those over whom they express that authority. Shoftim comes to LIMIT power, not to increase it, as is demonstrated from the plain reading of the verses.
The Rabbinists would also like us to think that Shoftim grants them the authority over all Jews in all instances, but this is clearly not the case. The Torah is only speaking of those who bring their cases to the government and/or courts for resolution. The motive here is not to establish universal control over the citizenry, but to set the guidelines for social order and a peaceful, organized resolution of legal disputes. A Jew who never has occasion to appear in a courtroom, either in conflict with a neighbor, or as a witness to a crime, will never suffer the need of a judge’s authority. There is already a universally accepted legal, moral, and ethical system in place for every Jew to follow in his day to day life. Shoftim, like many of the other mitzvot, speaks (as far as the average citizen is concerned) of a specific situation, and though it has far-reaching implications, the mitzvah is purely situational, and one need not worry until one is involved in legal proceedings, or serves in a position of authority.
I find it ironic that the very chapter dedicated to limiting the power of authority is used by the Rabbinists to gain a stranglehold on the Jewish people. The context of Shoftim is clearly one of limitation and restriction, whether one is speaking of litigant or prophet.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at September 7, 2004 12:51 PMAmi...
I can't see much I disagree with here except for the temporality of the "Courts" judgements. HaShem instructs us not to turn to the left or to the right from His Commandments and again concerning the Priest's/Judge's decisions. This, to me anyway, indicates a similar level of respect for both....and a lack of temporality for either (unless it is a temporary measure of course).
I wrote a very similar article several years ago (during my anti-orthodox phase), also dealing with what the court could judge, why they would be asked to judge (a controversy, for example) and where said judgement could take place (Temple). Much of your article could have come, word for word, from mine. Guess that's why I don't disagree too much ;) Shalom!
ps Ya'akov....please tell me more about your beliefs and how you differ from Messy Jews. Please post on the link, so as not to step outside the bounds Ami has set forth for her group. I tried your link but there was little there.
Posted by: Rav2B at September 6, 2004 04:05 PMYa'aqov,
Thank you for expounding more on what I was saying here.
Posted by: Ami at August 29, 2004 02:15 AMGreg,
Thanks for your comments.
1. Jerusalem issue. It is true, the place was at various locations *before* Jerusalem. But those were temporary locations. Jerusalem became the permanent place. Ya'aqov, in a comment following yours, provided the Biblical passages.
What specifically are you saying? Are you saying that the location of the place, once again, came to be somewhere other than Jerusalem? I have never heard of this. Could you tell me more?
2. Overruling previous courts. Yes, I know that in theory, it is possible. But in practice, right now, and for many centuries before, and for all time in the foreseeable future, it is impossible.
We are supposed to obey the Supreme Court that is in charge in *our* time. Certainly, the Sanhedrin of 2000 years ago does not exist in our time.
3. ***So, if I understand your argument correctly***
What the Rabbis were at the time of the Temple I do not know. I do know that in the form that they are right now, they do not have Divine sanction, and there is no reason for any Jew to obey them.
You could say that it is "unfair" due to an "outside reason". But will you tell God that He is unfair? After all, it was He who created this "outside reason".
In the same way, do you continue with the sacrifices? Isn't it unfair that we cannot bring sacrifices any more due to an "outside reason"? No, things are as they are; we do not change the rules.
Posted by: Ami at August 29, 2004 02:13 AMFor more or less of a summary for what seems to be Ami's position (and that most Qaraites) of the matter is this:
Yes; the Torah needs to be understood by the masses on how to apply it in local exilic cultures in contemporary times.
Yes; there are aspects of the Torah which require a familiarity with ancient Israelite culture to fully ascertain and apply it, and our ancestors - particularly those whose writings were published during the literary "Golden Age" of the 2nd Temple - are valuable guides in putting ourselves inside that ancient mindset.
However: this does NOT predicate that we need to follow the Talmudic theory that unless you listen to that group's idea of Mesorah (tradition) you are not truly Torah observant - nor do we need to believe in the "halakhic authority" exclusive of Rabbis to understand how to apply the Torah in our modern-day lives (the consequences of being deemed an unqualified Torah scholar in terms of delivering a ruling can be - according to some sources - a deed worthy of death).
Like any other student of ancient literature and language, a good knowledge of the culture and of several streams of tradition is paramount to fully understanding a text; and as with any other student of the law, the need for experienced and skilled men who can be trusted to explain a difficult legal matter in terms of what already has been written is ideal in any community - we simply do not (unlike Xtianity, for example) treat such trusted authorities as exclusive spokesmen for the Word of the Most High.
Simply enough, the orders to obey the court from Parashath Shofetim work are because these men were to be able to explain how the Written Torah was to be applied in your situation - so of course the inquirer is instructed to follow the Mitzwoth in question, now that he understands what's supposed to be done [see my response from the 8/20/2004 below].
Shalom uVrakhah,
Ya'aqov (James Walker, II)
Perhaps you might have forgotten what happened right after Binyan Beith HaMiqdash HaRishon..? ('the Construction of the First Temple', for those whose are still new to Hebrew):
Melakhim A' (1 Kings) 9:3 "I have sanctified this house that you have built to **set My name there forever;** and My eyes and My heart **shall be there forever.**"
And that this reponse is referring specifically to the designation Yerushalayim as the final "maqom asher sam YHWH shemo sham" ('place which YHWH has set His Name') for all future times is understood by the following passages:
II Kings 21:7
"And he set a graven image of the Asherah that he made in the house of which YHWH had said to David and to his son Solomon, 'In this house, and in **Jerusalem**, that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, **I will set My name forever**.'"
II Chronicles 33:4
"And he built altars in the house of YHWH, of which YHWH had said, **In *Jerusalem* shall be My name forever**."
II Chronicles 33:7
"And he placed the engraved image of the idol that he had made in the house of God, of which God had said to David, and to his son Solomon, In this house, **and in *Jerusalem* that I have *chosen out of all the tribes* of Israel, I will set My Name forever**."
So the Tanakh explains the emphasis on Jerusalem as the final location for the national religious and civil center since the first temple... particularly Ami's focus on it. The Torah uses aptly generic language because Shilo and other places would be used for that national center in the "interim" between the days of the Desert and of King David.
Hope this is of help,
Ya'aqov (James Walker, II)
I would alos like to apologize for my horrific spelling in the last post ;)
Posted by: Greg at August 24, 2004 02:57 AMI didn't finish reading your whole post, but I wanted to point out a few things.
First off, no where, at least in the Torah, does it say that "the place where God chooses" is Jerusalem. In fact, it was many other places before it was Jerusalem (Shiloh, etc.). You argument about laws being decided outside Jerusalem belies little to no nuance in the understanding of the evolution of the post-Temple Jewish legal system, and is a bit disingenous.
In addition, Maimonides states that when the Sanhedrin was constituted before the Destruction of the Temple, as regards any laws learned out via the 13 exegetical methods, a later Sanhedrin could overrule and reinterpret the ruling of a previous Sanhedrin. Only after the destruction of the Temple, and the loss of the Schechinah, was the ability of later generations to overrule the derashos of earlier courts revoked.
So, if I understand your argument correctly, you wish to show that the current Rabbis are not equivalent to the Sanhedrin or Courts listed in the parsha because they have differing legislative capabilities. I would say that is an erroneious claim; they were congruous in the time of the Temple, but no longer due to an outside reason.
Posted by: Greg at August 24, 2004 02:56 AMShabbath Shalom LeKol! [Sorry... it's long...]
First, allow me to introduce myself a bit: I'm Ya'aqov (born as James Walker), a 20 year-old North Carolinian Netzari Israelite - meaning, one who studies and applies Tanakh according to the school of Yeshua HaNatzari [NOT an xtian or a 'Jew for JC'... Chalilah! There is GREAT difference] This means I am a form of Qaraite, as I do not subscribe to the writings of Rabbanites any more than as mere uninspired ancient references - much like the writings of Josephus, etc. On this note as well, may I add that the volumes long misunderstood as the holy book of some new religion, known as the so-called "NT" are simply - in their Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts - casual writings explaining how to apply the Torah in daily life while living in the exiles, among other things. Over 1/3 of their content is devoted to quoting the Tanakh, as that is the only Inspired Resource worthy of teaching from.
That said, I'd like to say that I truly enjoy reading this blog, and there are some additional comments I'd like to make on this Shofetim business...
A) There is a key phrasing in the Hebrew that we need to appreciate to understand what's going on here:
i) Deut. 17:8 Tells you what is in case a nuance of the Torah eludes for application in your particular situation (all four examples in the text (such as understanding what to do in case of a Neg'a ["(house/'leprous') afflication", see Thazri'a and Metzor'a]interestingly enough are from places that require one to pay close attention to the words of the *written* Torah - remember this point, it'll be proven shortly)
ii) v. 9: You're told to take your case to the equivalent of the national Supreme Court, where the plural language of the Hebrew indicates that the kohanim, Lewiyim, AND judge are *all* involved in deciding what should be done - not just one man - just notice the wording here: "WeDarashta [and you (sg.) will inquire/ask] WeHagidu [and *they* will declare to you (sg.)]"
iii) v. 10: Simply says that you're to to exactly as told - which is fine and dandy... but look at the concluding words: "WeShamarta La'Asoth KeKhol Asher Yorukha - And you shall safeguard to do according to all that *they* instruct [using Yarah, the same root as Torah] you (sg.)" See that subtely? By using the same root as the Torah, the ruling is 1) based on the Torah of Mosheh and 2) a set of instructions (literally a 'torah').
iv) v. 11: Again, notice - "'Al-Pi HaTorah Asher Yorukha... Lo ThaSur... Yamin USmol - According to the Torah [or set of instructions] that they will teach you [using the same verb root as Torah again]... you shall not turn... right or left". Any good Torah student realizes what's happening here, and why the next verse carries a familiar tone, too: it's the EXACT same language YHWH uses elsewhere when referring to the words of his holy Torah!
Just sentences later in v. 8-9 "...to safeguard to do ALL THE WORDS OF THIS TORAH... and that he may not turn aside from the Commandment, to the RIGHT or to the LEFT"
Also in Yehoshu'a 1:7, notice just how close the Hebrew is to the above noted vereses cocerning the ruling: "...La'Asoth KeKhol HaTorah Asher *Tziwekha* [from same root as mitzwah; 'he commanded you'; compare to how *Yorukha* is used above] Mosheh 'Avdi, Al-TaSur Mimmenu *Yamin uSmol*... - to do according to all the Torah that Mosheh my servant commanded you, don't turn *right or left* from it"
v) And so, to further validate the understanding that this 'ruling' is really a set of instruction (the altternate meaning of 'torah', remember?) on how to properly fulfill the *Written* Torah in your difficult situation (and NOT some Halakhah the Rabbis make to 'fence the Torah', etc.), the penalty for willful disobedience (now that you fully know what you should be doing) is expected to be simply the same punishment for intentional sin: death.
Recall from Shelach (right before the Tzitzith passage) these words: Num. 15:27-30 "If a soul sins unintentionally... it shall be forgiven him... a soul which shall act high-handedly... *scorned the Word of YHWH* and broke his commandment; that soul will surely be cut off, its sin being upon it."
B) Now to see the theoretical put into action... all from the writings of our Sacred Tanakh. Since knowledge of the complex Chuqqim ("statutes") concerning purity are essential to operating the Temple, Chaggai HaNavi followed the Deut. 17:8 procedure to see if the Kohanim had forgotten those areas of the Torah due to being in the Babylonian exile (when many of those laws, like today, were easy to overlook without the ability to visit the Temple).
i) Haggai 2:11 "...now ask the Kohanim [the]Torah, saying" - notice how intricate the situations in question are...
ii) v.12-13 "12 'Behold, one bears holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and touches his skirt to the bread, or boiled food, or wine, or oil, or any food, will it become holy?' And the Kohanim answered and said, 'No.' 13 And Chaggai said, 'If the unclean of body touches these, would it be unclean?' And the Kohanim answered and said, 'It will be unclean'."
SOF DAVAR (Sum of the Matter)
And so, to conclude, any serious Torani (Torah-Observer) can see that both parties were seeking answers from the Scriptures (otherwise, how could you test somebody when any answer they'd give you is supposed to be taken as the truth? As it happens, they only answered the second question correctly, so the "all-powerful" ruling would have been invalid, which is why priests, levites, AND a judge all come together to seek Yah on the issue) The answers that should have been provided by the Kohanim are derived from the *Written* Torah - the 1st from Parashath Tzaw and the 2nd from (among other places) Parashath Chuqqath.
So now, my friends, now you had further evidence that the strongest proof-text for the alleged binding authority Rabbis get to have over their fellow Yisrelim is nothing more than a - *cough* suprise *cough* - another example of reading into the Torah whatever dogmatic pontifications they might already have had (also known as "rabbinic midrash" *ba-dum pish =P* ).
Again, my appologies for a lengthy diatribe here, but that's what I had on my heart to say =).
May the Most High lead you into a wonderful Shabbath Menuchah (Sabbath of Rest)...
Hope this was of help,
-Ya'aqov ben Yisrael (James Walker, II)
Too bad the apikorsim can't organize themselves like that. That could be a lucrative venture.
The apikorsim tend to be skeptical and critical of most everything. "Shofet" means to judge, which requires critical thinking and rational skepticism. Maybe the Torah saying one should listen to apikorsim!
SL
Thats really a definitive reply Ami.
The Circular reasoning is quite common, and especially in Ben Chaim's works: "the oral torah is true becasue it says so itself" kind thing.
Yes, and the same goes for the New testament, the Koran, they all claim that they are the true continuation and interpretation of the Torah.
Further to your last point, perhaps it refers to the Reform rabbis, or Jews for J... anyone can say that the "shoftim" refer to "our" group. The Mormons claim that they have prophets, and they have the true authority. So, as a logical argument, I am sad to say, it is pretty worthless.
By the way, i once emailed Ben Chaim, and pointed out that the Oral Law wasnt undisputed, sicne we had the entire 2nd temple period with Sadducees disputing the Oral Law - to which he agreed.!!
Posted by: eddie at August 20, 2004 11:58 AM