Monday, 5 October 2009
Cognitive Dissonance Pt. 14 - Written and Oral Torah
Torah Shebichtav - TSBK or Miqra
Torah she'b'al peh - TSBP
The dichotomy of this hybrid system goes away back in history
Those who failed to tolerate ambiguity during Bayit Sheini might have signed up with Zadokites or even "Essenes"
Yet as we see in the famous Aggadic passage in T.B. Shabbat about the Roman converts confronting first Shammai and then Hillel, that the only apparent common denominator between them seems to be the dual Torah.
And indeed, the two seem to be in conflict at times - and the "WHY" for this may be addressed BEH in future posts.
At any rate, the heritage of Pharisaic Judaism is of a complex nature, and does not readily resonate with those seeking a simplistic approach to life or to Judaism
See NishmaBlog: Life is complex. Decisions are complex. Torah is complex. http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2009/09/life-is-complex-decisions-are-complex.html
+++++++++++++++
Thus the dual Torah provides a dual authority, and much decision making is a synthesis of the 2
Here is a general approach to Miqra Vs. TSBP
The TSBK has the Middat Hadin
The TSBP manifests Middat harachamim
Or - we as a society refuse to execute TSBK as is due to the human fallibility of any Beth Din shell Mata.
Therefore we "punt it" to the Beth Din shell Ma'alah
Shalom,
RRW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I fail to see the "dual Torah" theme of the 3 convert stories. One wants to become kohein gadol -- the written Torah relegates that to benei Aharon. Another wants a single principle (regel achas) for the whole Torah, or as usually translated, a quick summary -- a question that would also make sense without an Oral Torah.
As you know from Avodah, I would say that TBSK has values, middos statements, and TSBP has the halakhah that expresses and anchors those values. That's certainly true of Nakh, the majority of TSBK that [in theory, there are exceptions that need explanation] has no halachic authority (except as historical testimony).
-micha
Without stating that this idea applies fully, universally or 100%, mu understanding of the distinction between TSBK and TSBP is that the former presents value concepts in absolute terms, almost in the theory of a vacuum. The latter is the realm that thus deals with the convergence of all these values, i.e. the real world. Thus in TSBK, we are told of numerous death penalties for variant transgressions for these should be the result of such negation of these values represented in the particular mitzvot. The fact that a Bet Din rarely carried out such a punishment -- and that to Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva there is a value in never carrying out such a punishment -- is an indication of what occurs in the real world with swirling multiple value constructs.
While I have not really worked out this idea, this may to some extent explain how the distinction between TBSK and TBSP permeates all three convert stories. As is often the case in the search for religion, the goal is often the pristine value without the complexity of life. This is why many religions demand the monastic life for their most devoted adherents -- the religion does not really work in the real world with its true complexity. It may be that the converts had a similar vision of Judaism. The answer of two Torahs is thus a statement that we do have our realm of clear, pristine values but we also have a realm that recognizes the complexity of divergent values colliding with a need to articulate a solution in the real world. Thus to the ger who wanted to be Kohen Gadol the answer was ultimately that the kehunna is not the only path of Torah - there is also, for example, effectively the political path of the melech.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment