Hot Town, Kugel in the City

May 29, 2008 at 10:31 am | In beliefs, halacha, orthodox, science, torah | 4 Comments

I recently attended a lecture by Dr. James Kugel, who was recently in New York for a series of speaking engagements, along with other members of my weekly Kugel with Kugel learning group. The lecture itself focused on letters sent to Dr. Kugel in response to his recent book How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now. I was a bit disappointed; though the content was good, Dr. Kugle spent his time on a letter from a reader that Dr. Kugel had already published on his website.

Many readers have hoped that Dr. Kugel would have some new answers to the questions posed by Biblical scholarship to traditional modes of thought. To date, those readers have been disappointed. Like many Jews of his generation, be they scholars, rabbis, or laypeople, Dr. Kugel is basically a compartmentalist. Though he has some non-traditional ideas about the origins of the Biblical text – ideas that are largely consonant with modern scholarship – he does subscribe to the historicity of the Torah, and especially the Exodus. For many Jews of my generation, compartmentalizing the teachings of our faith separately from the results of scientific study is no longer satisfactory.

One question that must come up whenever Dr. Kugel speaks is the challenge posed by an evolving Biblical text to the assumptions of a static, perfect text that undergird the entire tradition of the Oral Torah, from the Mishnah to the Talmud to the latest works by contemporary Orthodox rabbis. It is disturbing to think that the great Jewish sages produced Rabbinical Judaism on the basis of a false assumption! For many, this is a fatal flaw that collapses the entire edifice of Rabbinical Judaism.

But why is that so? The rabbis of the first half of the first millennium BCE had many basic misconceptions about the nature of the world around them. These included a belief in geocentricism, spontaneous generation, and the many ahistorical stories of the Bible. Modern Orthodoxy has already chipped away at some of these notions by finding or originating interpretations that allow its adherents to affirm their scientific beliefs that evolution occurred, that the Earth is billions of years old, and so forth. One might argue that this simply adds a new challenge to belief – why accept that these rabbis had any special access to Divine knowledge if they were mistaken on so many things?

The Torah itself contains the answer:

הַנִּסְתָּרֹת–לַיהוָה, אֱלֹהֵינוּ; וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ, עַד-עוֹלָם–לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת.

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Explicitly, the Torah tells us that not everything is revealed to us, and that we are only responsible for that which we know. The implication, too often ignored, is that as more is revealed to us, our responsibilities change. Ignoring knowledge, no matter how disturbing to our traditional beliefs that knowledge may be, is ultimately a repudiation of our responsibilities to God, to ourselves, and to our children.

Scientific knowledge has enormous impact on our moral choices. Advances in communicating with the deaf, have changed the halachic status of deaf people from a non-obligated non-entity into full members of religious society. Insights into economics have brought innovations that allow Jews to lend money with interest. Revolutions in medicine have redefined the borders between life and death, and with that, the responsibilities due to those at that threshold.

I propose that the knowledge we have gained about the Biblical text in particular, but about the world and its inhabitants in general must inform our religious philosophy and our moral choices. The sages of our Mesorah certainly did, and we can do no less. We are in no way impugning their spiritual stature or relationship with God, nor are we repudiating their mission and goals. But we must accommodate our newfound knowledge, because all knowledge is ultimately a gift from God, and any new insight into the world is a new insight into Creation, and ultimately is itself a form of revelation that lets us better understand the mind of God.

4 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

where does a belief in the critical view of the biblical text leave us, halachically, though? Is that not one of the issues that came up in the Law Committee gay marriage debate? Are we required to stop giving even a clear bible text overriding say in the halachic process on issues that are central to human life? What is our relationship to Torah then?

I remain unconvinced that the actual historical process of the formulation of the Torah is necessarily decisive. Does the historical affirmation of the Torah, as it came to be written, by Am Israel not count in the halachic process? Can a Judaism remain seriously Halachic if all key issues can be decided freely, without constraint, by each generations rabbinate, in line with the values of the generation?

Perhaps this wasnt what you were raising here, or Im missing the perspective. I just happened on your blog.

Comment by justayid — June 10, 2008 #

Reply
The plain text of the Torah is overridden countless times in the Talmud and later halacha. I would actually argue that entire enterprise of the Talmud rests on the underlying truth that it is not possible to determine halacha from the Torah text at all – only to ‘lean’ various practices on hints in the text. The Talmud routinely limits, channels, or expands the application of verses in the Torah with little regard for the plainest meaning of the text.

In response to the second part of your comments, I don’t think that the process of the formulation of the text is decisive either, and that deciding all things anew in each generation is neither desirable nor possible. But to me, the goal in all this is not to ensure that Judaism remains seriously halachic. It’s to ensure the Judaism remains an honest relationship between Man and God. If halacha no longer enables such a relationship then it must be modified, perhaps fundamentally.

Comment by rejewvenator — June 10, 2008 #

Reply
while I am familiar with some limitation and channels on clear biblical texts, such as Hillels resolutions of the debt and jubilee year issue, my understanding is that these always involve some loophole (such as the above) that maintains at least nominal accord with the biblical text. Otherwise, I dont see the point of the Tshuva, I think it was by Gilman, et al, which seemed to say that there was a novum, BECAUSE of our modern undestanding of the biblical text. There was also a relevant halachic point – the liberal accepted resolution, the Dorff Tshuva, limited the application of Leviticus ban on male-male sex to anal sex, and used that interpretation as the basis for dramatic changes in practical halacha – BUT it left in place the ban on male-male anal sex. IIUC the Gilman tshuva, in challenging that remaining ban, did NOT site pre-modern precedent wrt limiting, channeling, and expanding the text – they based their limitation of the text on modern critical views of the bible in general. I dont have the expertise to judge, but I think given the “firepower” of the rabbis who supported the gilman tshuva, if there was a way to get there while citing precedent they would have done so. Maybe.

As to an “honest relationship between Man and God” I find that a huge issue, one that impacts a range of philisophical questions, personal questions, etc – I am not sure any law making body, and rabbinial organization, etc can encompass all that it involves. Im am drawn more to Halacha as a communal – historical vehicle for maintaining Jewish existence, continuity, and yes, “authenticity”. As someone with Reform roots, some study of western philosophy, and later concern with deeper rootedness and a drawing toward Conservative/masorti J, I want a Halacha that to some extent is free wrt to specific philisophical-theological arguments.

If its not that, and if we have to radically change it, Im not sure the Conservative/Masorti project makes sense. Why accept the authority of the Rabbinate over issues of importance to me as a lay person (from what I can serve at my childs bar mitzvah, to intermarriage) when the rabbinate has arrogated to itself (it hasnt yet, but thats the direction of the Gilman tshuva, as I see it) the right to make changes without any limit from the biblical text or from halachic precedent on those issues that THE RABBINATE has decided are key to human dignity (like gay ordination or commitment)? Why not go just go Reform/Recon, where I as a layperson have overt input on the range of issues of “practice” (since not all Re/Rec would accept the term halachac)?

Comment by justayid — June 11, 2008 #

Reply
I don’t think that there is a hard-and-fast line between reinterpretation (i.e. loopholes) and novel jurisprudence. For example, consider the reinterpretation of the verse ‘lo yavo amoni umoavi b’kehal Hashem”, which appears to ban converts from Amonite or Moabite descent. The talmud reinterprets this to allow women converts (thus validating Ruth, and her descendant, King David) by explaining Moavi v’lo moaviah – the verse only excludes a male convert.

This reinterpretation is inconsistent with normal Biblical Hebrew grammar, and there is no external indication to point to this new reading as preferred. Nothing impels such an interpretation, except the need to validate Ruth’s Jewishness in an age where such questions had relevance (in the era of the Judges, of course, there was no institution of conversion whatsoever, making the challenge to Ruth’s Judaic creds non-sequitur)

Even in cases of entirely new legislation, even legislation that uproot Biblical text, an effort is made to have some touchstone with the Biblical text. The writing of the Oral Law, which was acknowledged as a new legislation, was itself ‘based’ on the verse in Psalms ‘Et Laasot Lahashem’ – it is a time to acton behalf of God.

My position then is that the text is malleable, and that real Halacha tries to tie all ruling back to the text, even if these ruling are in contradiction with the plain meaning of the text. Decisions are often made on the basis of shifting values or public policy, but these must be read back into the text.

Regarding homosexuality in specific, my preferred approach (and it is not my own idea, but I don’t remember whose it was) is to see the word Zachar in the verse “v’et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey isha” as indicating gender – a zachar, that is, a male attracted to females – should not engage in homosexual conduct. The verse has nothing to say to one who is not a zachar, like a man who is predominantly attracted to other men. Perhaps one could evolve weak and strong positions from here on homosexuality, such that one could argue that a man with any attraction to women would be barred from pursuing homosexual sex, or the opposite – any man with some attraction towards men would not be truly a zachar. I leave that for another time.

I would not, btw, that halacha has long arrogated to itself the right to make changes without any limit from either text or precent – at least in theory – see commentaries, especially the Ramban, on Deut 17:10 requiring people not to stray fromt he words of the Elders neither left nor right. However, halachic authority in practical terms rests in text, precedent, and the acquiescence of the governed, even in the most Orthodox of settings.

Comment by rejewvenator — June 11, 2008 #

Reply