Thursday, June 11, 2009

ask the wrong question, get the wrong answer: reading a text as a historian vs. reading as a halachist

"She'eilat chacham chatzi tshuvah" - if you don't start with the right question, odds are you are not going to get the correct answer. In reacting to the previous post some of the comments suggested that Chazal in Pesachim 94 must be interpreted as being in conflict with science because in the historical context in which they wrote that is the more plausible meaning of the sugya. Putting aside whether this is in fact the case, the central problem with this argument is that it asks the wrong question. When confronted with a text that requires explanation, one can try to: 1) figure out historically what the original meaning of the text was, or 2) figure out what meaning text has to the reader in his/her present day context. The former is how a historian reads a text; the latter is how a halachist reads it. Even if it were theoretically possible to determine which reading of a Talmudic text is closer to its original meaning (answering question #1), that determination has absolutely no bearing on the meaning constructed and assigned to a text by its present day community of readers (question #2). We are halachists, not historians, and our interpretation is needs to be taken on those terms.

For example, I sincerely doubt (with all due forgiveness to Briskers) that the Rambam had in mind notions of tzvei dinim and gavra/chaftza when he wrote the Yad. Historically speaking, R' Chaim imposed his own system of thought on the Rambam; he did not uncover original meaning or authorial intent. Does that make his interpretation false? Only if you are a historian, but not if you are a halachist.

A halachist's concern is for the meaning of the Rambam's conclusion as an abstract philosophical or legal idea for himself and his community. The halachist acknowledges that this meaning is a construct and not a discovery of original meaning, but that does not matter, because Torah interpretation is validated and measured by communal consensus regarding those conclusions and not by degree of historical fidelity to some unknowable original intent.

Roland Barthes essay entitled "The Death of The Author" (thanks to my wife for her help with Barthes) makes the point that a text does not exist as a means to uncover or convey its author's meaning and voice -- "a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination" -- that destination being the reader and the meaning s/he constructs. The difference between lit crit and the reading of Torah is that in the world of lit crit it is up to the individual to construct his/her own meaning; in the world of Torah scholarship meaning is constructed by consensus of the chachamei hador. As that consensus changes over time, meaning changes and Torah evolves ("u'kmo she'hanefashos mishtanos m'dor l'dor *kein haTorah*, v'haynu hatorah sheba'al peh shemischadesh b'chol dor chadashos *al y'dei* chachamei yisrael" -- Tzidkas haTzadik #90).

When we have a halachic conflict between Rashi and Tosfos as to how to read a gemara, the fact that we pasken like Tosfos does not necessarily mean that the Amoraim had Tosfos' interpretation in mind when they wrote the gemara! What it does mean is that the consensus of talmidei chachamim looking at the issue in their own historical context have preferred Tosfos' reading.

As the overwhelming consensus of talmidei chachamim is to accept the idea of pnimiyus haTorah as a means of interpreting Talmudic text, that agreed upon communal consensus becomes the accepted meaning of the text vis a vis the halachic system, irrespective of whether it is historically more or less valid. It is subscribing to that consensus of interpretation which makes for identification with the Torah community.

36 comments:

  1. "As that consensus changes over time, meaning changes and Torah evolves ("u'kmo she'hanefashos mishtanos m'dor l'dor *kein haTorah*, v'haynu hatorah sheba'al peh shemischadesh b'chol dor chadashos *al y'dei* chachamei yisrael" -- Tzidkas haTzadik #90)."


    "As the overwhelming consensus of talmidei chachamim is to accept the idea of pnimiyus haTorah as a means of interpreting Talmudic text, that agreed upon communal consensus becomes the accepted meaning of the text vis a vis the halachic system, irrespective of whether it is historically more or less valid."

    Very interesting post!

    1) Regarding the Tzidkas haTzadik, I belive the Netziv in Hameak Davar emphasizes the flowering of Torah S'bal Peh during the Bayis Sheni. I would have to see his exact point, again.

    2) Do the "consensus of talmidei chachamim" agree that the mystical interpretation is valid "irrespective of whether it is historically more or less valid"? I would think that all those who opposed R. Slifkin on these matters believe that their interpretation is historically valid, ie, the *original* intent of chazal!

    3) Once you say that an interpretation is not historically valid on *fundamental* items, is there not a philosophical and theological problem? Namely, that this is conceptually the same as heterodox positive-historical theology on halacha, that it "developed" and was not the *original* intent of the Torah(cv's). I understand the difference one would make, but if something is historically untrue, then it's not eternal, and lacks in truth!

    I would suggest somewhat differently, that the later generation merited hisgalus, revelations, which Rishonim didn't have(or was lost), yeridas hadoros nonwithstanding. They therefore were m'chavein to the *original*, *historical* emes. Alternatively, the consensus paskens l'mafrea and determines what the metziyus was, just as on halachic matters when one is at the "sof horaah" for a period.

    Returning to R. Tzadok, what are his specific examples? I would think that on a matter as fundamental as chazal/science(as opposed to perhaps less fundamental areas), one can only say there is *one* emes, the historical emes.

    Thanks for an interesting post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. didn't read the whole post yet, but...

    "it seems odd that the same people point to the historical bias of reading text through a mystical lens of post-Talmudic origin don't acknowledge the bias of reading through the lens of Medieval philosophical ideas that may been just as foreign to Chazal"

    i thought i did acknowledge that, a few times...

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When we have a halachic conflict between Rashi and Tosfos as to how to read a gemara, the fact that we pasken like Tosfos does not necessarily mean that the Amoraim had Tosfos' interpretation in mind when they wrote the gemara! What it does mean is that the consensus of talmidei chachamim looking at the issue in their own historical context have preferred Tosfos' reading."


    But when a posek decides between Rashi or Tosafot, he is indeed deciding which he believes is the correct and true meaning of the gemara. Not that he *prefers* it, but that he thinks it is true. Then multiply this across all poskim and get a consensus.

    Truth is to be the guide of psak. To cite Rav Schachter, "There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the amoraim misunderstood the tannaim, the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the achronim misunderstood the rishonim. “But don’t get me wrong,” they would say “– I’m Orthodox! And therefore I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is not the Orthodox position. If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it[2]."

    That would seem to be an opinion against the communal consensus theory you have laid out.

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll give R. Chaim B's idea some more thought tonight...

    Josh,

    Regarding your quote, in general, see also R Shulman quoted in page 10 of Hamevasear, starting at beginning of page.

    http://www.kolhamevaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/kol-hamevaser-26-finalr.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  5. interesting idea. there are different ways and directions of applying it, and any idea, to the present discussion, of course. what specifically do you see and *how* would you apply it to the present question? (obviously, the very idea Chazal can be wrong in science is not necessarily denying the masorah, if Rishonim held this and were not denying the masorah...)

    but i don't want this to distract from my rav schachter quote, which was that Emes should be the arbiter of psak, not consensus or intellectual developments that we really know is false.

    the rav (and IIRC Rav Chaim Brisker) had a similar approach: if you (of the appropriate level) have pshat in a gemara which differs from all the rishonim and acharonim, learn the gemara again, and see if you can be convinced that theirs is the proper reading. if not, read through the gemara again. (and perhaps repeat and repeat.) but if, at the end of all of this, you still believe your understanding is correct, you have the *obligation* to pasken as you think, rather than as others rule.

    of course, other rabbanim might well have a different approach to this issue and say the opposite. but if so, then this is then another hashkafic divide.

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>>I would suggest somewhat differently, that the later generation merited hisgalus, revelations, which Rishonim didn't have(or was lost), yeridas hadoros nonwithstanding. They therefore were m'chavein to the *original*, *historical* emes.

    Your approach may be better than mine. I like it!

    >>>But when a posek decides between Rashi or Tosafot, he is indeed deciding which he believes is the correct and true meaning of the gemara.

    I don't see how what you is saying is different than what I am. All i am adding is that on a communal level some ideas gain currency as "the norm" and others remain a da'as yachid -- there is a consensus on a communal level.
    (P.S. I removed the parenthetical remark that you did not like).

    ReplyDelete
  7. you said:
    "I don't see how what you is saying is different than what I am. "

    but you also said:
    "The halachist acknowledges that this meaning is a construct and not a discovery of original meaning,"

    according to what i am saying, a posek, a halachist, should *not* be paskening something which he truly believes is a mere construct and not the original meaning. that is not the orthodox position.

    and that for a halachist, it should not matter if the majority (or even) all the Rishonim and Acharonim say differently.

    your main thrust seems to be the opposite. i would say the historian and the halachist have the same goal.

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't understand why you don't understand what we are saying.

    The pashtus of the Gemara in Pesachim 94b is that Rebbe conceded that the Chachmei Yisrael were wrong. And this is how all those closest in time to it, i.e. the Geonim and Rishonim, interpreted it. If we are interested in what the Gemara actually means - which is what some of us are indeed interested in - there would have to be very, very good reason to think that this understanding is actually incorrect.

    You have not provided a single reason to think that it is incorrect - you are instead claiming that we should not be interested in what the Gemara means, only in how the Gedolim choose to interpret it. Well, none of my rebbeim ever taught me such an approach. Especially since we are not talking halachah here! We are talking about how to understand the Gemara. I am intrigued that you think that this has nothing to do with making our best assessment as to what the Gemara actually meant to say.

    Furthermore, as pointed out above, I think that the Gedolim would take great exception to your claiming that they are not trying to claim what the Gemara actually means.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I would suggest somewhat differently, that the later generation merited hisgalus, revelations, which Rishonim didn't have."

    Why have such a conflict between the Rishonim and the emes? Isn't it better to say that when the Acharonim said that the Gemara isn't literal, they weren't speaking literally, and there is a deep mystical meaning to their deep mystical approach which nobody was aware of? That way, we can accept the Gemara, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim! Perfect!

    ReplyDelete
  10. >>>You have not provided a single reason to think that it is incorrect

    Sure I have -- because we have a mesorah from the GR"A and others that **don't** read it that way even though they had access to all the same Rishonim and evidence you do.

    As Josh put it, we read the gemara based on what is closest to "emes", not based on the reading that was accepted at a particular point in history. The GR"A and other achronim held their reading is closer to the emes.

    What you have failed to explain is why you think you can just toss out the GR"A. He did live later than the Rishonim, he did know as much as you, and still he chose to *not* read the gemara like you did. The answer is "because my reading is emes" pits your opinion of "emes" vs. that of the GR"A.

    In an ideal world Josh is right -- we should follow the emes. But would anyone in his right mind dream of paskening like what he thought was "emes", even with compelling proofs, against a consensus of Achronim who held otherwise? Not me!

    ReplyDelete
  11. >>>They therefore were m'chavein to the *original*, *historical* emes.

    The one quibble I have with this is that we can pasken even against what the historical metziyus is. E.g. see Shabbos 63b -- we pasken against R' Eliezer's opinion as to how the tzitz was made even though he saw it in Rome, i.e. he knew that the metziyus/historical record was on his side.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let's say you think you have a great ra'aya to a particular din from a Rishon or even most Rishonim in a sugya in hilchos Shabbos. Yet, the GR"A, R' Akiva Eiger, and the Mishna Berura, who all saw the same Rishonim as you did, pasken otherwise. I would venture to say most bnei torah (not just chareidim) would for practical purposes live with a kashe as to how the Achronim learned up the sugya rather than claim that they missed the real "emes" and the halacha is wrong. You need very, very broad halachic shoulders to make such a case.

    Using the above analogy, if your rebbeim held like an approach against that GR"A and Mishna Berura and you follow it, kol tuv, no problem. But that does not make your approach "emes" or correct for public consumption.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >Sure I have -- because we have a mesorah from the GR"A and others that **don't** read it that way even though they had access to all the same Rishonim and evidence you do.

    Why don't you have a second post asking the same kashya on the Gra, ie, how/ why coulkd he and the others say as they did?

    I think, at least, if you frame it as two halves of the same question, each requiring an explanation, then some of the participants here would more readily see where you are coming from.

    The fact that you don't seem to be in a quandary as to how the Gra's position is justifiable, is a bit of a puzzler.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >>>You have not provided a single reason to think that it is incorrect

    Sure I have -- because we have a mesorah


    That's not a textual or contextual reason, it's an appeal to authority.

    It's not me against the Gra. It's the pashtus of the Gemara plus ALL the Rishonim plus several Acharonim (plus my own rebbeim) against many Acharonim.

    The reason why the Gra etc. learned differently from the Rishonim is that they were coming from a completely different worldview. This isn't a "hilchasa k'basrai" type of situation.

    You are free to choose to follow the Gra school. But you can't be either critical or questioning of others choosing to follow the Rishonim. Especially since we have textual and contextual reasons as well as an appeal to authority, and you only have an appeal to authority.

    (Halachah is a different matter; there is such a thing as halachah being canonized and therefore binding even if the basis appears mistaken.)

    ReplyDelete

  15. Halachah is a different matter; there is such a thing as halachah being canonized and therefore binding even if the basis appears mistaken.


    This is the basic point that it seems to me has been left out throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Why have such a conflict between the Rishonim and the emes? Isn't it better to say that when the Acharonim said that the Gemara isn't literal, they weren't speaking literally, and there is a deep mystical meaning to their deep mystical approach which nobody was aware of? That way, we can accept the Gemara, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim! Perfect!"

    R. Slifkin,

    There is another way to have your mysticism and eat it too.

    I quoted R. Emanuel Feldman's Baal Teshuva friend (from Cross Currents "Ready to Be Orthodox but No Place to Go")who suggested that the gemara's science may not be congruent with today's, but there is still a deep, mystical meaning. Therefore both the Rishonim and Acharonim are correct. This should appeal to Briskers who like to satisfy all shittos!

    On the other hand, there seems to be the yeshivish opinion that the mainstream approach of Rishonim disagreed with R. Avroham. According to this approach, there is also no contradiction between mainstream Rishonim and Acharonim!

    You described such attempts as "likely to fail in the impossible task at rewriting the history of Jewish scholarship"("Defense of the Ban"). My own thoughts are to wait and see what points are made...

    I'll also reference Rav Dessler (Michtav Me'Eliyahu Vol VI page 354) that there can be a a second approach needed for the "nevuchim", even if it's not preferred.

    That was the status quo before the controversey started. My own opinion, as I've mentioned in the past, is that there are other areas of Maskilic challenge which are difficult enough, and it would be foolish to throw out an approach which Rav Dessler says has historical merit and worked in the past.

    וסבור אני לחשוב כי עשו זאת למען הנבוכים, והיינו להראות שיש כמה וכמה פנים אפילו לפשט הפשוט במקראות, וכי רשאי אדם לחדש פשט מדעתו לפי הנראה. והיינו למען שאם יהיה אחד אשר לא ימצא מקום בדעתו לאיזה פשט או פירוש מדבריהם ז"ל, אזי טובשישוב ויאחוז בפשט הנראה לו (כמובן אם איננו נגד יסודות האמונה). והוא על פי מה שכתב הרב שמואל הנגיד ז"ל הנ"ל.

    Throwing out such approach is based on confidence, and on the assumption quoted in the JPost article on R Nadel:

    "The educator at Machon Lev agrees that answers should be provided, but believes the apparent contradiction between science and religion is not a burning issue for most religious youth.

    "A century ago the contradiction destroyed the spirituality of thousands of Jews. But today there are many religious scientists and professors who have refuted supposed inconsistencies.

    "I think what truly bothers contemporary religious youth is a much more personal, existential question. The real thinkers are concerned with why they were put on this earth and what they are supposed to do here."

    The above may be true for some, but I think it ignores Daat Emet and other sources of challenge. But this question is the crux of whether to ban or not to...

    Kol Tuv

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is another way to have your mysticism and eat it too... the gemara's science may not be congruent with today's, but there is still a deep, mystical meaning. Therefore both the Rishonim and Acharonim are correct.

    That approach may be possible in some cases, although it reeks of intellectual dishonesty, but in cases such as Pesachim 94b it just isn't possible and the Rishonim would certainly have rejected it.

    On the other hand, there seems to be the yeshivish opinion that the mainstream approach of Rishonim disagreed with R. Avroham. According to this approach, there is also no contradiction between mainstream Rishonim and Acharonim!

    It's a myth. Just go through all the Rishonim on Pesachim 94b.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just noticed this phrase above from Chaim B.:

    "What you have failed to explain is why you think you can just toss out the GR"A."

    Tell me, would you describe yourself as "tossing out" the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim who interpret the Gemara otherwise? I am sure that you wouldn't like to be described that way. So why do you think that it's alright to describe me that way?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You can't slice it both ways. Either you are telling me (like Josh and others have written) that your own brain is the final arbiter of "emes" regardless of what anyone else says, in which case *you* are doing the "tossing", or you are telling me (as I have argued) that authority/consensus wins in which case *it* does the "tossing" and you are just an innocent observer. If the latter is your view, the only difference betweem us being that your rebbeim follow the authority and tradition of rishonim and I follow the authority and tradition of other sources, then I welcome you to the anti-rationalist camp : )

    BTW, why logically should you treat halacha any differently than hashkafa?

    ReplyDelete
  20. But there are different authorities/consensuses (consensi?). So in choosing which ones to follow, you are likewise making a judgement! And if you want to say that your rebbe is choosing - well, you are choosing who to have as a rebbe! Whichever way you slice it, you are also making a choice.

    Incidentally, I don't see why choosing to follow one view over an another should ever be referred to as "tossing" the other. "Tossing" implies disrespect.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There are several reasons why halacha is different from hashkafa. With halachah, there are reasons for following it even if the reasons behind it may be incorrect. Tannur shel Achnai, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would use the word "tossing" to describe someone who not only rejects an alternative approach, but rates it as outside of the framework of Torah and not even worthy of mention. Something that I have only seen done by people in the anti-rationalist camp to the approach of the Geonim/Rishonim/some Acharonim.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous8:17 AM

    http://markonzo.edu Very funny pictures actual ashley furniture [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536072]actual ashley furniture[/url], mlyayet, watch allegiant air [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536075]watch allegiant air[/url], tmqau, best pressure washers [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536078]best pressure washers[/url], bwcly, follow dishnetwork [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536080]follow dishnetwork[/url], nmmum, fresh adt security [url=http://jguru.com/guru/viewbio.jsp?EID=1536076]fresh adt security[/url], tygclkm,

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous7:40 PM

    http://lumerkoz.edu Your Site Is Great!, http://malgorz.com/members/Buy-Augmentin.aspx evacuation http://epsaservicecenter.com/members/Buy-Cipro.aspx rosenberg http://barborazychova.com/members/Buy-Lexapro.aspx tagge telecasting http://www.ecometro.com/Community/members/Buy-Zyprexa.aspx kaneh bilal http://soundcloud.com/altace mailto bellamo

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous9:39 AM

    A human beings begins icy his perceptiveness teeth the senior without surcease he bites out more than he can chew.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous3:08 PM

    To be a upright human being is to procure a make of openness to the far-out, an cleverness to trust aleatory things beyond your own pilot, that can front you to be shattered in very exceptionally circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something very outstanding with the fettle of the principled compulsion: that it is based on a conviction in the unpredictable and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a plant than like a treasure, something rather tenuous, but whose very precise handsomeness is inseparable from that fragility.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous1:39 PM

    To be a noble benign being is to from a philanthropic of openness to the mankind, an skill to trusteeship aleatory things beyond your own control, that can govern you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances on which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly important thither the condition of the honest compulsion: that it is based on a corporation in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a spy than like a jewel, something somewhat tenuous, but whose very precise attraction is inseparable from that fragility.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous10:16 AM

    I don't like the durable of all those lists he's making - it's like intriguing too innumerable notes at high school; you feel you've achieved something when you haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous10:37 AM

    In harry's life, at some occasion, our inner throw goes out. It is then bust into flame by an encounter with another hominoid being. We should all be thankful for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner inspiration

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous5:59 AM

    In every tom's sustenance, at some dated, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into flame beside an be faced with with another benign being. We should all be under obligation for those people who rekindle the inner inspiration

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous6:14 PM

    In everyone's existence, at some pass‚, our inner fire goes out. It is then bust into passion at hand an contend with with another magnanimous being. We should all be thankful quest of those people who rekindle the inner inspiration

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous7:43 AM

    In the whole world's time, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then blow up into zeal at hand an contend with with another hominoid being. We should all be glad quest of those people who rekindle the inner transport

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous9:24 AM

    In everyone's existence, at some occasion, our inner throw goes out. It is then bust into enthusiasm beside an face with another human being. We should all be glad quest of those people who rekindle the inner inspiration

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous5:31 AM

    In the whole world's existence, at some pass‚, our inner pep goes out. It is then blow up into passion by an be faced with with another human being. We should all be thankful for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner transport

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous8:15 AM

    In everyone's time, at some pass‚, our inner fire goes out. It is then break asunder into passion by an face with another hominoid being. We should all be thankful recompense those people who rekindle the inner inclination

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous7:58 AM

    In harry's existence, at some occasion, our inner foment goes out. It is then break asunder into zeal at near an contend with with another hominoid being. We should all be thankful for the duration of those people who rekindle the inner spirit

    ReplyDelete