Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

The Torah is enough 1: literalism [ Critique ]

From the start, Wolpe raises the straw man of literalism. Literalism. Holding that the Divine truth is adequately expressed in the Tanakh, without the need for an Oral Torah, means being a "literalist", denying all interpretation, ossified in the distant past, having no relevance to the modern world. Though Wolpe does not do this, others also remember the Fundamentalist Protestant Christians and / or the Wahhabis, who take their scriptures literally as well. There are also the Sadducees who, *gasp*, being so steeped in their literalism, denied such fundamental religious truths as the resurrection of the dead.

"Literalism" is an old canard thrown against those of us who deny the Divine origin of the Oral Torah. Yet, the accusation of literalism is completely false.

1. "Literalism", which is often used as a pejorative, means ignoring reason and context and instead reading each sentence, or at times each word, in isolation. When the text is "read" in this way, without any understanding, any meaning can be pushed upon it. I deny the Divine origin of the Oral Torah, yet I am strongly opposed to this "literalism".

"Interpretation", in its proper meaning, is understanding the text with reason and by considering its context. All books require interpretation. Denying the Oral Torah does not mean that denying interpretation. On the contrary. Many Orthodox Jews simply ask their "LOR" ("local Orthodox rabbi") what to do on every issue, since they believe that the Oral Torah gives him the power to make such decisions for them. It is the Jews who deny the Oral Torah who have to interpret the text for themselves.

Among other things, using context means that we

• examine the passages before and after the passage in question;
  
• examine similar passages in other parts of the text;
  
• examine passages containing the same words or idioms; and
  
• learn all we can about the historical context in which the text was written, and how the original readers would have understood it.

Language itself is based on metaphor. In the Torah, God uses metaphor as well. How do we know when God is using metaphor and when He is being "literal"? The same way we know whether anyone else is using metaphor or being literal: reason and context.

If the argument is that the Oral Torah is an interpretation of the Written Torah, then why isn't there an Oral Torah for any other book?

2. Here, Wolpe tries to portray the Oral Torah as merely an interpretation. Who in their right mind can argue against interpretation? Yet, this is not what the Oral Torah is.

• Orthodox Jews believe that God gave Moses laws that were not recorded in the Written Torah, but that were instead passed down orally. This has nothing to do with interpretation. These are not the interpretations of Moses or of the Rabbis. These are standalone Divine laws, that simply did not make it into the written text.
  
• What are the specific rules of interpretation used in the Oral Torah? Do these rules make any sense? Can we reconstruct the entire Oral Torah with those rules? The truth is that the Oral Torah is not interpretation, but simply a collection of the pronouncements of the Rabbis. The pronouncements are often tied to the text in bizarre and illogical ways. When pressed, many Orthodox Jews will admit that these are not interpretations of the text but rather the pronouncement is tied to the text as a "mnemonic device".
  
• Why are the Oral Torah "interpretations" everlasting (for practical purposes)? Isn't it possible for someone interpreting the text to make a mistake? If so, we should be able to overturn the "interpretations" of the past. But according to the Oral Torah, this is virtually impossible.

3. Tefillin and mezuzah. This is where the Orthodox argument falls apart. The Rabbis claim that, while the commandments describing these objects are in the Oral Torah, the commandments to have these objects are in the Written Torah. Yet, the only way to see these commandments in the text is to read the text "literally", that is, to ignore context. So first the Rabbis scare everyone into thinking that, following the plain meaning of the text would be a disaster because of "literalism"; but then, they themselves use literalism when it suits them.

The truth is that neither the "literalism" approach nor the Oral Torah approach are correct. The correct approach is to try to understand the text with reason and in its proper context.

Posted by Ami at April 11, 2004 01:49 AM | TrackBack