Rabbi Zev Farber's "Crime" and religious hypocrisy

There are a lot of issues that need addressing, but moderation won't allow some of them to be addressed in the proper forum.

1) I see lots of people throwing around technical terms like "apikorus" "heretic" etc., but not actually defining them. Rambam in the 3rd chapter of Hilchot Teshuvah defines them.

a. Min = heretic.  i. no God, ii. no Divine Providence, iii. multiple gods; iv. corporealism; v. worships a created object as a god or as an intermediary to God.

Nope, don't see R' Farber falling into any of those. OTOH, one major division of contemporary Orthodoxy does fall afoul of the fifth definition.  Which division of contemporary Jews talk about a "ממוצע המחבר"?

b. Apikorus: i. no prophecy or other Divine communication with Man; ii. refutes the prophecy of Moses (ding ding! - if Moshe didn't exist, he was no prophet); iii. God does not pay attention to the actions of man (that's another contemporary rav's view).

c. Denier of Torah: i. says that one word or letter was written by Man without direction from God; ii. one who denies the Oral Torah like Tzadok and Boethius; iii. one who claims God has overturned any mitzvah.

So, R' Farber seems to fall afoul of being an apikoros by definition ii. I don't see him actually falling afoul of c.i - even the prophets were guided by God's "wave".  Certainly not c.ii - the Oral Torah is valid, whatever its origin.  The Sadducees denied the whole Oral Torah, process as well as details, preferring nevuah as a source of psak

2. Disavowing: this is a broader issue.  YCT via R' Helfgot and R' Katz speaking in the name of the school, disavows the ideas, but does not disavow the person.  Which is probably wise, and follows precedent.  Has anyone ever lost their smicha from RIETS for changes in personal ideology?  Has the RCA ever cast anyone out for it?  There was an attempt 20+ years ago to revoke R' Avi Weiss' membership in the RCA.  Ironically, given his later IRF/YCT leadership, R' Angel was head of the RCA trying to expel him, and they couldn't find it in their hearts (or the RCA constitution) to do so.

R' Gordimer, by the same token, doesn't have a leg to stand on.  He belongs to the RCA, which has not cast out Chabad.  Why is that relevant?  The situations are analogous.  Many in Chabad hold a view that the Rambam describes as heretical.  The central organization won't cast them out, because it would break up families including their own.  And the RCA won't condemn them and declare them a heretical movement for a) having them as members, b) tolerating them.  This is RD David Berger's "scandal of Orthodox indifference" all over again.  If the RCA won't reject Chabad (and really, for institutional reasons, they can't - it would traumatize the kashrus inspection business), why would R Gordimer think that YCT must be rejected for tolerating R' Farber?

3. R Gordimer and RYA go overboard in their criticisms.

a. I don’t see RZF denying the Oral Law one bit. Not even its divine origin – that remains, even though the Written Law’s origin is demoted to the same prophetic level.

b) RYA quotes a Gemara and Rashi saying that denying that resurrection is from the Torah makes one a kofer – but I don’t see RZF denying either resurrection or its origin. And I don’t think even the Mishnah requires that one see it as coming from the Torah. I’ve never understood this need for it to be sourced in the Torah, which Rashi and (for political reasons) Rambam demand – it’s not a mitzvah, which would have to be present in the Torah, it’s a prediction of future events, which the Neviim are full of. So what’s wrong with it being sourced in the Neviim, where it’s explicit?

Rabbi Zev Farber's Choice

Rabbi Zev Farber has caused quite the online tumult.  It remains to be seen whether this will remain a tempest in an online teapot, or spread to the larger Jewish world of press releases.

After rereading the long essay, and some of the attacks and defenses, and discussing this with others, I'm left feeling rather sad about the whole business.  Namely, that R' Farber has real concerns, but that he may not have been the person to express them, or that this may not have been the time to do so.

As it is, most of us laypersons are being presented with a choice as to what should be an Orthodox approach to the textual problems of Torah.

1) Tradition, including the principles of Maimonides, based on 2000 years of biblical interpretation, most of which we don't actually know (how many of us have studied 20 supercommentaries on Rashi, as is included in one collection from the publisher of the big red modern Mikraot Gedolot?), but which we take on faith to have dealt somehow with the apparent inconsistences; or

2) Modern Biblical Scholarship, as presented by R' Farber, which includes:

1. treating all of the narrative in the Torah as allegorical/legendary;
2. treating at least some of the legal material in the Torah as affected by then-common social mores;
3. eliminating Divine Providence "if the stories are nothing but history, then the details are nothing more than the random accidents of history" - do we eliminate Divine Providence, or do we make the Torah into legends?  Either way, a massive part of tradition is cut away.
4. as a result, several of Maimonides' principles become no longer tenable.  The Wave Theory undoes the Seventh Principle (the primacy of Moses, who never existed anyway), and the Eighth Principle (which is today widely tempered by the knowledge of a few spelling differences between known Torahs), and even impinges on the Ninth Principle by partially abrogating the Law.  
1. And the Wave Theory itself is based on solid texts in Jeremiah - where the people go to Chuldah to get a more merciful prophecy, rather than Jeremiah, because while she taps into the same flow of Divine will, women are more merciful. R' Farber loses me when he applies the Wave Theory to hypothetical pseudo-Mosaic prophets.

In other words, a choice of authorities as to who gets to define one's view of Judaism. Since most of us haven't spent the years it takes to master either approach, let alone both, we are left choosing who to believe has the correct interpretation of revelation and transmission of Torah.

And that is really no choice.  Do we go with the weight of 2000 years of tradition, hundreds or thousands of expert interpreters, communal acceptance of the model, and a mostly-consistent axiomatic system?  Or do we go with a model that is less than 200 years old, which was promoted largely by 19th-century antisemitten and Wissenschaftliche Reformers who deliberately wanted to undermine traditional Judaism?  A model which, by R' Farber's own admission, necessarily undermines practice and faith?

Others have proposed "heretical" ideas in the past 50 years, but generally from a position of a long history of building up the community, both institutionally and intellectually.  

• R' Yitz Greenberg has some odd ideas about theology, but he keeps them in his academic writing, not his popular writing and speaking; meanwhile, he has built a life as a pillar of Modern Orthodoxy, developing institutions, writing, advocating.  Most people don't even know about his odd theology, and he & they are quite happy keeping it that way.
• R' Rackman z"l proposed and built a court for freeing agunot based on questionable psychological premises; while the idea was rejected, nobody was going to reject the whole person, because he had spent 80 years building up Modern Orthodoxy in the US and Israel, at Bar-Ilan and YU, in his shuls, in his capacity as an officer-chaplain in the US military for over a decade, helping Soviet Jews, etc.

R' Farber, on the other hand, is at the start of what looks like a promising career. He doesn't have the broad communal record on which to maintain his reputation.  Reading the comments to the attacks, he seems to be mostly known for writing a series of increasingly radical articles on Judaism. 

So whose opinion should we take on authority as a dogmatic model for Judaism?  Hundreds of writers over thousands of years, ratified by communal acceptance, or a young (well, not that young, after earning a PhD, many years in several yeshivas, and working in day schools, he has to be past 40) upstart, who proposes a theory of Revelation almost indistinguishable from those put forth by Conservative and Reform thinkers, except for a repeated claim of fealty to halacha?

Having struggled for years to convince myself that (a minimalist form of) the traditional view is plausible hence believable, I know where I'm putting my money.

Spiritual Blemishes

Dvar Torah: Lv 1:2 - one may bring offerings from the cattle, from the herds, and from the flocks.

Why three froms?  Rashi (from B. Tem. 28a-b, Toras Kohanim)- exclusions: not from animals that were used for bestiality, nor used or even just set aside for idolatry, nor a goring ox - but all of these are only for cases without sufficient evidence for conviction and execution.

What's the commonality?  They are all metaphysical/spiritual flaws in the animal.  I.e., not just physical blemishes can disqualify offerings, but also use of the animal for anti-holiness (big-3 prohibited behavior).

What's the takeaway? Just as animals used for anti-holiness but not convicted are still disqualified, so too when we do the wrong thing,  it has consequences beyond simple reward/punishment.  Which is why we pray to the Investigator of Failures and Hearts (bochein k'layot valeiv) for forgiveness.  Let's remember the spiritual meaning of chametz (leavened food) qua bad behavior, and remember to clean up our behavior while we're cleaning our houses of chametz.  Repentance/forgiveness are not just for the High Holidays, they're for every day, as we pray thrice.

First they came for the Imahot

A Reconstructionist minyan in Germantown is considering adding Bilhah and Zilpah to the text of the Amidah.  Of course, this comes after adding the usual Fore Mothers (Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, and Leah).  They have a lengthy post with discussion both pro and con.

I have some problems with this proposal, aside from simple Orthodox "my way or the highway."

1. Slippery slope (this seems to have been intentional in many congregants' thinking).  You start adding and there's no end to adding.  The same is said for adding praises of Hashem - start adding and there's no end to adding, which is how we have the list of praises in Yishtabach - these are praises explicitly said by Moshe.  It's also said in the Talmud at the beginning of Tr. Yoma, that one doesn't appoint a substitute wife for the Kohen Gadol, because the first might die and he needs a living wife to do the service - the mishna explicitly says if you do, "there is no end" to the substitutes you'd have to appoint.  

2. National consensus. There has been a lot of regional variation in the texts of the Amidah, some still remains, but everybody (from the Talmud until the 1980s) has followed the consensus text of the first three paragraphs, which are laid out in the Talmud.

3. Theology (I-Thou). It seems to me that we include the Avot because the Torah gives us some clue about their varying relationships to God.  What clue do we have about the varying relationships between the Imahot, let alone Z&B who are barely mentioned as brood mares, and God?  Sarah & Rivka related to God as arbiter of disputes between themselves and their husbands over preferential treatment of the children.  Rachel & Leah's relationships to God only come out of Midrash.

4. Textual. Well, really, we include the Avot because most of the Amidah is made up from verses or phrases from verses.  Is there a verse "elokei Sarah, elokei Rivkah, elokei Rachel Leah Bilhah uZilpah"? Or even of each phrase separately?

Shoehorning the Imahot into the Amidah feels about as awkward as the love interests shoehorned into "The Hunt for Red October" (Clancy's publisher forced him into it) or the movie version of "Fantastic Voyage" (Asimov's novelization has no love interest, but I did learn a lot about biology from it).

Full disclosure: I've been teaching a series on the brachot of Shmoneh Esreh for the past year and a half, intermittently, when the rabbi is not present at seudah shlishit, at the Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush.  I cover both interpretation (phrase by phrase and structural, via Baer, Gra, Netiv Binah, RY Emden, and others) and textual history (via Fleischer, and Luger's book on the Genizah texts of the Shmone Esreh).  We're in the middle of the Blessing of the Righteous, and I plan to cover Al Hanisim during Chanukah.  If you're in the area, come on by - mincha at 4 pm Saturdays for the next 3-4 weeks.

Halachic Eras

Addressed to someone who seems to think that the Rishonim are “a movement”:

> there must have been something brewing prior to that time that eventually compelled them... not as individuals but as a movement. After all... isn't that how we think of them... as a movement? Otherwise we

No, why would you think that?  We refer to the Dark Ages as a historical period, not as a movement.  There wasn't a pan-European revival of  obscurantism as a positive value.  But philosophical and scientific  discovery were repressed by historical factors beyond their own fields of endeavour - overcrowding which made it harder to earn a living, followed by plagues which, by emptying out land, made it easier to acquire land and live off of that, but by the same token, it was hard to till all that  land oneself, feudalism didn't lend itself to a society of patronage of the arts and sciences, etc.

> would not refer to them in a group like that. We would refer to them as individuals such as when we refer to the Vilna Gaon vs the Baal Shem Tov and their respective followers.

We do refer to them as individuals.  But as a group, they're a historical era, like the Dark Ages or The Renaissance.

(warning, history lecture coming on: )

Do you really not know how we divide halachic eras?  We have an overarching principle of "yeridat hadorot" - that the farther we get from the Sinaitic Revelation, the less access we have to authentic Oral Law tradition.   Sometimes, throughout history, there are catastrophic events that wipe out most of a generation's intellectual leaders; the next generations,  not having had the time to absorb everything from the earlier generations, are then classed as a lesser era.  Alternatively, during an era of general hardship, a work may be composed which gains universal acclaim, which too can mark the end of an era.

Within a given era, people are assumed to have roughly the same level of halachic authority.  Some individuals may be greater than others, but not sufficiently as to say this individual's word is final within the era.

So the general halachic eras are, as far as I know,

1) Tannaim (from the era of political-intellectual parties during the Hellenistic period until the codification of the Mishnah in 200)

I don't know what historical event might have made 200 a dividing line, I suspect it was simply the universal acceptance of the Mishnah as the starting point for all future rabbinic discussions, giving  a structure to legal thought.

2) Amoraim (from the close of the Mishnah to the close of the Gemara, c. 200-500 CE - interesting how that era-closer coincides with the rise of  Islam) characterized by textual criticism, intellectual rigor and halachic creativity, story-telling, etc. - the period of creation of most of our fundamental texts, the Gemara, most of the Midrashim, etc.  The usual method here seems to be a) establish the correct text of the Mishnah, b) establish that the rule known from Tradition is correct, by comparing it with lots of hypothetical alternatives that make less sense.

3a) Geonim (500-1000), a period of traditionalism, their teshuvot are characterized by laconic answers, without much reasoning.  Their legal texts are likewise summaries of the Talmud, e.g. the Halachot Gedolot,  c. 800.  Many believe that these brief responses reflect the Geonim having the last known traces of authentic Sinaitic traditions, so they could say "this is the answer" without having to prove it from a bunch of alternative ideas.

The next cataclysm, the Crusades, seems to have marked the  boundary between the Geonim and Rishonim.  E.g. the H"G and the Rif are both summaries of the Talmud, but the Rif inserts more interpretive  material, which marks him as the beginning of the Rishonim. [N.B.: there isn't really a difference in halachic authority between Geonim and Rishonim, nor is there an authoritative code that demarcates a boundary.  However, there is the historic dislocation and a shift in interpretive style.  So the next period should be 3b, not 4. See comments for discussion.]

3b) Rishonim (1000-1550): again a period of creativity and explanation  of earlier ideas.  Lots of different rishonim had different agendas, e.g. the Tosfos' agenda, according to RRW and his teachers such as Agus and Grinstein at YU, was to promote the Bavli as the primary study text - while the Yerushalmi and oral tradition were more relevant as psak texts for daily life among the Jews of Christendom.  So Tosfos (as a movement with an agenda) demonstrated time and again how Ashkenazic practice, while differing from the Bavli's ideal, fulfills the same  underlying goals.  E.g., covering the challah on Shabbat/Yom Tov reflecting the change in foodways between Greco-Roman Judaea and Franco- German Europe, in Ch. Arvei Pesachim.  Or the worldwide change in parchment production of the early Middle Ages, being justified against the Bavli in Megillah.  Meanwhile, the Rashba was making stabs at  probability theory, in trying to understand and explain the rules of sfek sfeka - when do we add probabilities, when do we multiply them, how does rov quantify as probabilistic, etc.  The early 19th C. author of Shev Shmaitsa also gropes in that direction, shortly before Bayes systematized probability theory.

We talk about them collectively, because they collectively explain the  Gemara, the main text of Jewish law.  They collectively are the major commentators on Tanach and Talmud, so their ideas on understanding the texts have to be our starting point in understanding them.

4) Acharonim (1550-present?)  I'd guess the global upheavals affected this transition, but it is mostly marked by the publication of the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch (with Mapah).  If there was a transition era, it might run from the Tur (late 1300s) through the Mapah (1560s). Well, what upheavals?  The Black Death of 1348-1350, which killed 1/3 of Europe.  The Renaissance of the 1400s-1500s, with new wealth generated by fewer people working the same land of Europe, and the shift from  feudalism to patronage.  The end of Byzantine Rome and the rise of the Ottomans in 1455.  Printing in 1450.  Availability of printed Talmuds and printed Rabbinic Bibles starting c. 1521.  And, of course, the end of Jewish Spain - the expulsions, the conversos, the Christianos Nuevos, the re-converted back to real Judaism, the exile all over the Mediterranean basin, the Inquisition (what a show).

The Shulchan Aruch (1565,1578), the Zohar (1558), and the teaching of  the Ari in the early 1570s all happened within a decade or two.  As a marker of a shift in Jewish intellectual history, it's hard to beat that period.

And the Acharonim largely explain the Rishonim, and try to reconcile them to find a final psak, or compare their ideas one to another to decided which is more convincing, or introduce Kabbalah into the

Read the books of R' Zechariah Fendel for discussions of the various eras and major figures in each era.

> The point is... why are we referring to them in such a large grouping? We must recognize that they were doing something different than the previous grouping and different yet again from our current grouping.

Yes, they had a lesser level of connection to Sinai than the Geonim,  and a greater one than the Acharonim.

> On a side note: I think our own era is not well defined as yet because how can we be the last (Acharonim)? Is someone suggesting that the Messiah is in the offing? Then when he arrives, if it is not in my lifetime, won't those folks that come after me be the last?

Some have proposed a 5th era, tentatively called the Tachtonim (those underneath), marked by the dislocations and death of 1870-1960 -  a unified Germany that led to Nazism, the Shoah itself, the mass migration to America between 1880 and 1924, the expulsions of the Jewish communities in almost all the Muslim countries, the founding and continued existence of the State of Israel, etc.  Certainly death and dislocation have caused a rupture in the Tradition.  I don't see a singular text yet that is accepted by klal Yisrael - maybe a combined edition of Igros Moshe and Yabia Omer?  This postwar era certainly is characterized by  indexing and codification, as well as a revival of Kabbalah among the  Ashkenazim, who had largely suppressed it after 1820 to undermine the Sabbatean movement.

Transliteration or Translation

In reading the bibliography of Zvi Mark's recent "Mysticism and Madness," on R' Nachman of Bratslav, I had to wonder - why the strange spellings?  Between Prof. Mark and two stages of translation, somehow a number of names, transliterated from Hebrew to English, were done by someone who didn't know that some of the authors already spell their names a certain way in English (or German, etc.).

E.g., מ' פכטר, which you would think is Mordechai Pachter, becomes Fechter.
Moshe Hallamish is rendered Chalamish.
Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer becomes Schatz-Oppenheimer.
Chabad bibliographer and historian Yehoshua Mondshine becomes Mundstein.  Since there's no Tet or Tav in מונדשיין, that's just careless.
Mendel פייקאז', usually rendered Piekarz from Polish, is now Feikazh.  Which is probably how the Polish name is pronounced.

And when he cites European non-Jewish authors, whose Hebrew names are already transliterations, we enter the world of Invisible Insanity.

Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens becomes Hoyzinga, האדם המשחק.
And who is Poko, author of Toldot haShigaon?  None other than Michel Foucault, author of History of Madness.

Evidently, Prof. Mark is more comfortable reading in Hebrew than other languages, which is understandable, so he listed his sources as he read them in Hebrew translation, as much as possible.  But somewhere along the line, someone didn't realize that these authors, writing for a wider academic world, had spellings that they used for their own names in Roman alphabets.

I've seen this before, in that R' Yuval Cherlow is often advertised as R' Sherlo, transliterating from Hebrew.  But he prefers that English audiences see his name as it should be spelled, not just as a transliteration from Hebrew.  And then there are names that are just confusing, like Dr. Shlomo Pines.

Angel names

Metatron, Sandalphon, Akatriel - these are the names of high-level angels.  Metatron is the Prince of the Countenance, God's right-hand man and scribe.  Sandalphon stands behind the Divine Throne, taking our prayers and weaving them into crowns, to be passed to the Divine.  Akatriel sounds like Sandalphon's function (I will crown God), but is also taken as a God-name.

What differentiates the first two from the last name?  The first two sound Greek, while the last is clearly Jewish.  The most common name-form for angels in Hebrew mythology is a Hebrew word or expression suffixed with -el or -iel.  E.g. Michael -who is like El?  Gabriel- strength of El. Etc., where El is a God-name.

Metatron is one of the more interesting myths.  Enoch, who lived between Adam and Noah, is not listed as dying in the Begats list.  Rather, he "walked with God".  This anomaly is the basis of the Enoch myth, where Enoch is taken up bodily into Heaven, much like Elijah was centuries later, and is transformed into the chief angel, Metatron.

However, in early apocalyptic literature, Metatron is known under different names, more like the standard theophoric angel names: Yahoel (a combination of the God-names Yaho and El), or Hashem Katan, the small God.  By the time of the Tannaim, though, he is known as Metatron (which sounds like a Japanese robot name, like Voltron; or a 1950s computer, like Datatron).  Sandalphon (which sounds like the late-antiquity version of the Sports Illustrated Sneakerphone[TM]) only appears in the Tannaitic period.

Which leaves me wondering, why the sudden shift to Greek names for the highest-level angels?  Had the names become so holy that they needed kinnuyim (euphemisms)?  Even today, many religious Jews won't even pronounce the Greek angel names, preferring an abbreviation such as "the angel Mitat" for Metatron.  Did a new growth in metaphysical speculation engender a shift to exotic foreign cognomens?

Further, what do the names mean?  The articles below offer a variety of suggested etymologies for Metat and Sandal, but generally leave them as "we don't really know".  I checked out Metatron (with a couple of possible spellings) on Google Translate, and they translate the word as "conversion" or "converted".  I wonder if it could be that simple - Enoch was converted into Jahoel/Metatron - so his name could be "the converted one".

Sources:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13172-sandalfon
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10736-metatron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron
Gershom Scholem, "Jewish Gnosticism and Merkabah Mysticism", JTSA 1965.

Reverse Seder

R Moshe Sokol, our LOR, In his Shabbos Hagodol drasha suggested that the modern Seder is the reverse of the pre-Hurban seder. We say maggid then eat. In Temple times, if you read the Mishna, and even in the post-Hurban Tannaitic era, it seems that they ate first, then said Maggid, and benched.

Which fits

1. Mah Nishtanah - the child asks about the oddness of the meal he has *just eaten*.
2. the Sages sitting up at Benny Baruch telling of the Exodus - after the meal.
3. eating the Korban Pesach hot off the spit, rather than 3 hours later.

Ha Lachma Anya then is seen as a later addition, introducing Maggid, when we haven't eaten yet. It reminds us we're in practice mode, in a broken world, waiting for the Final Redemption when we can do it properly.

Shofar Blessings

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin

The Blessings of the Shofar

Although, as your cantor, I am very much engrossed with the proper interpretation of the Yomim Noraim liturgy, there is no question that the moment that captures the attention of every worshipper is when the shofar is sounded.

The blowing of the shofar is the oldest ritual that is still heard in synagogues all over the world. It is interesting to note that it was used to proclaim the Jubilee Year in biblical times, as seen in Lev. 25:9-10: "to proclaim liberty throughout the land," the same verse engraved on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia! The shofar's purpose is to proclaim G-d's Kingship, and at the same time, to summon the Jewish People to repent. As the Baal Tokeahfor at least one day of R"H, I will recite two blessings in a traditional melody which is also used for the Megillah on Purim, and which some also utilize for the Shehecheyanu on Yom Kippur Eve. My teacher, Cantor Macy Nulman, theorizes that "the same melodic theme was intended for all three occasions in order to direct the worshipper's attention to the same sentiment. On Rosh Hashana the shofar reminds us of the Day of Judgment, on Yom Kippur each person's lot is determined, and on Purim Haman cast lots to determine the most favorable month and day ... to exterminate the Jews of Persia."

May the sound of the shofar awaken our hearts and encourage us to repent. But, may it also be the harbinger of the day when all of the world will recognize G-d's kingship and usher in an era when humankind will live together in peace and harmony.

Shana Tova! Daven well and sing along!

DAVEN WELL, DON'T TALK, AND SING ALONG!

© 2011 LSS and Sherwood Goffin

Musical Mnemonics

I have a bunch of musical mnemonics I picked up from Mom, who I think got them in elementary school. Do other people know them, or know similar things? Where did you pick them up?

E.g.

Have you heard, of Beethoven's Third?

Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning da dee da da dee da de dah
and: In the hall of the mountain king, the mountain king, the mountain king. In the hall of the mountain king: the Peer Gynt Suite by Grieg

This is, the symphony, that Schubert wrote and never...

___
So, I don't have to be profound all the time.

Siyum Seder Taharos - Dad's Yahrzeit

.
This is a very long one. It's the speech I gave at our shul's siyum mishnayos, somewhat elaborated for a wider audience.

Siyum Seder Tohoros, Shabbat afternoon 25 June 2011

Yavneh Minyan of Flatbush,

Siyum of the community mishnah study program, the first year we were able to cover all six sedarim of Mishnah

Two days before the yahrzeit of Dad, Sydney Baker, hareini kaparat mishcavo

I want to talk about the Pharisees and Sadducees, or Prushim and Tzdukim, or Chazal and the Kohanim.

What's the most common characterization of the Tzdukim in the Talmud? That they don't accept the Oral Torah. That's true as far as it goes, but doesn't explain their total difference with Chazal over biblical legal and narrative interpretation.

Who are the Sadducees? Yechezkel designates the family of Tzadok Hakohen to be the future Kohanim. As for their legal positions vis-à-vis the Pharisees, we turn to Josephus:

Antiquties XIII:10.6: What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.

Aharon Shemesh (Halakhah in the Making, 2009) notes that where the Pharisees derived law through the drasha process, including explicating verses through the Thirteen Hermeneutical Principles of Rabbi Ishmael, from the opening of Midrash Sifra, the halakhic midrash to Leviticus, the Sadducees derive law through continuing revelation. That is, they study and meditate on the literal text, and the get ideas about interpretation which they attribute to Divine revelation. This can, of course, lead to chaos, as Korach wanted to do because of his personal interpretations of Scripture, so the system of development based on a defined process is probably better as far as uniform understanding of the law goes.

Lawrence Schiffman – "From Text to Tradition" 1994 notes that some have suggested that they have their own exegetical methods, which are not simply literalism, and which are non-rabbinic. He believes, and there seems to be growing acceptance of the idea, that the Qumran people were a kind of super-Sadducees – they had the Sadducee calendar, they had multiple copies of a document called MMT (Miqsat Maaseh Torah, or the Halakhic Letter, a catalogue of legal issues wherein they differ with the Pharisees and the Pharisee-dominated Sadducees who were running the Temple) indicating its importance, and, most important, MMT (only released in 1990) parallels known Pharisee/Sadducee arguments in the mishnah. So passages in the mishnah and in the DSS can shed light on Sadducee exegesis and their legal assumptions.

We can see that through a few cases drawn from the mishnayot in Seder Tohorot

	Mishnah text	English mishnah translation	4QMMT
Parah 3:7	ג,ו ]ז] לא הייתה פרה רוצה לצאת--אין מוציאין עימה שחורה, שלא יאמרו שחורה שחטו; ולא אדומה, שלא יאמרו שתיים שחטו. רבי יוסי אומר, לא משום זה; אלא משום שנאמר "והוציא אותה" (במדבר יט,ג), לבדה. זקני ישראל היו מקדימין ברגליהם להר המשחה, ובית טבילה היה שם. ומטמאין היו את הכוהן השורף את הפרה, מפני הצדוקיין שלא יהו אומרין במעורבי שמש הייתה נעשית.	THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL USED TO PRECEDE THEM ON FOOT TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, WHERE THERE WAS A PLACE OF IMMER-SION.44 THE PRIEST THAT WAS TO BURN THE COW WAS (DELIBERATELY] MADE UNCLEAN ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEDDUCEES: IN ORDER THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SAY,45 ‘ONLY BY THOSE ON WHOM THE SUN HAS SET46 MUST IT BE PREPARED’. (44) Also built, like the causeway, over a hollow as a protection against a corpse uncleanness in the depths. (45) Var. lec., ‘because they used to say’. (46) Sc. those only who are in all respects clean.	And also in what pertains to the purity of the red heifer in the sin offering: 17 that whoever slaughters it and whoever burns it and whoever collects the ash and whoever sprinkles the [water of] 18 purification, all these ought to be pure at sunset, 19 so that whoever is pure sprinkles the impure. For the sons of 20 [Aaron] ought [to be…]

First idea: Parah – it's rabbinic legislation how we deal with a tevul yom (one who has gone to the mikvah to be purified from some tumah, but the next sunset has not yet passed – many know this from the first mishnah in Brochot, that the evening Shema is said "from the hour when the Kohanim go in to eat their trumah", that is, when the sun has set after they had gone to mikvah) vis-à-vis burning the parah.

The text in the Torah is not entirely clear – the kohen who burns the parah is not a tevul yom until after burning the parah, as we just leined now (Shabbat afternoon). Which implies that it's not relevant before the burning. But the Sadducees don't accept rabbinic legislation. The clear situation for many types of purification is that one's purification doesn't end until sunset after going to the mikvah, and the kohanim have to be pure to do divine service, so they have to be fully pure to burn the Parah.

But the Rabbis legislated that it was OK for a Tevul Yom to burn the Parah. The Sadducees didn't accept rabbinic legislation, and would object, so the Rabbis deliberately did this to prove "We're not Tzdukim."

Yadayim 4:7

ד,ז אומרין צדוקיין, קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים: שאתם מטהרין את הניצוק

THE SADDUCEES SAY: WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE PHARISEES, THAT YOU DECLARE AN UNINTERRUPTED FLOW OF A LIQUID TO BE CLEAN.42 THE PHARISEES SAY: [DO] WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE SADDUCEES, THAT YOU DECLARE A STREAM OF WATER WHICH FLOWS FROM THE BURIAL-GROUND TO BE CLEAN?43 (42) Cf. Maksh. V, 9. If a liquid is poured from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel, the liquid remaining in the former vessel remains clean, as the uninterrupted flow does not form a connective. (43) Cf. Mik. I. 4. The Sadducees agreed that this was the case. On this controversy v. Finkelstein, The Pharisees II, p. 638.

And also concerning flowing liquids: we say that in these there is no 59 purity. Even flowing liquids cannot separate unclean 60 from clean because the moisture of flowing liquids and their containers is 61 the same moisture.

Similarly in the case of poured liquids (irui, nitzok) – we have a case of conflicting legislation in an unclear case. In our case, we rely on the rule of "heat rises", or "tata'ei gavar", which may be familiar from one's study of the rules of meat & milk. Only when the stream springs back up on disconnection, like thick honey, does it physically carry the tumah to the upper container. They evidently don't have that rule, so any connection connects tumah.

Yadayim 4:7 continued

ד, אומרין צדוקיין, קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים: מה אם שורי וחמורי שאיני חייב בהן מצוות, הריני חייב בנזקן; עבדי ואמתי שאני חייב בהן מצוות, אינו דין שאהא חייב בנזקן. אמרו להם, לא, אם אמרתם בשורי וחמורי, שאין בהן דעת--תאמרו בעבדי ואמתי, שיש בהן דעת, שאם אקניטנו, ילך וידליק גדישו של אחר ואהא חייב לשלם.

THE SADDUCEES SAY: WE COMPLAIN AGAINST YOU, O YE PHARISEES, IN THAT YOU SAY, MY OX OR ASS WHICH HAS DONE INJURY IS LIABLE,44 YET MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT WHO HAS DONE INJURY IS NOT LIABLE’.45 NOW IF IN THE CASE OF MY OX OR MY ASS’ FOR WHICH I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO NOT FULFIL RELIGIOUS DUTIES,46 YET I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAMAGE, IN THE CASE OF MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT FOR WHOM I AM RESPONSIBLE TO SEE THAT THEY FULFIL RELIGIOUS DUTIES,47 HOW MUCH MORE SO THAT I SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DAMAGE? THEY SAID TO THEM: NO, IF YOU ARGUE ABOUT MY OX OR MY ASS’ WHICH HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING, CAN YOU DEDUCE ANYTHING THEREFROM CONCERNING MY MANSERVANT OR MAIDSERVANT WHO HAVE UNDERSTANDING? SO THAT IF I WERE TO ANGER EITHER OF THEM THEY WOULD GO AND BURN ANOTHER PERSON'S STACK AND I SHOULD BE LIABLE TO MAKE RESTITUTION?48 (44) I.e., I am responsible for the damage they do. Cf. Ex. XXI, 35. The Sadducees did not dispute this, as it is expressly stated in the Torah. (45) Cf. B.K. VIII, 4. Not being expressly ‘stated in the Torah, the Sadducees did not accept this. (46) Since the Torah does not enjoin religious duties on animals. (47) E.g., to see that they do not work on the Sabbath. (48) Hence the law provides that I should not be liable for the damage they do. On this controversy v. Finkelstein L. op. cit. II, p. 684.

Second idea – drasha. We mentioned the 13 Exegetical Principles at the beginning of the Sifra – since it's midrash, it's a foundational document of rabbinic exegesis. Further, its inclusion in the priestly midrash (Toras Kohanim) seems indicative, that even in the Temple the rabbinic writ extends, despite the Sadducees. Look at the liability case. The Sadducees use kal vachomer, the first of the 13 Principles, the only one that is purely logical, not requiring a tradition about some part of the argument. Thus, it's the one principle that doesn't require a mesorah (tradition). Shemesh notes a few other places where the Sadducees use kal vechomer, but that's the only one of the principles they use.

So they have their own exegetical methods, perhaps based on logic, but not on mesorah. Aviram Ravitzky, in his recent book on the relationship between the 13 Principles and Aristotelian logic, notes that even kal vachomer isn't quite the Aristotelian syllogism of the Prior Analytics. Kal vechomer the other ideas, such as combinations of generals and particulars, or the gezerah shavah – the similar language idea that REQUIRES a tradition. So, looking at the elaboration of the Main Categories of Damages in the first few pages of Tractate Bava Kamma, we see a rabbinic elaboration, that looks like what I think of as the uncertain origin of drash. That is, whether it's rabbinic exegesis or Mosaic tradition, it's treated as part of Torah law. The Sadducees don't have that, so they rely on syllogism alone, kal vechomer.

Let me elaborate on what I mean by uncertainty, and share some of my personal journey. It took me a long while to convince myself to be Orthodox, and my main sticking point was the Divine origin of the Oral Law.

I had read a book by Rabbi Elliott Dorff on the varieties of Conservative Judaism. All of them shared one idea that distinguished them from Orthodox Judaism – none of them accepted a Divine origin of the Oral Law. To Conservatives, the Oral Law, while necessary to understand the Torah, is a completely human construct. And that makes a lot of sense – if the laws weren't written down until the Mishnah or after, how can we know that they were reliably transmitted from Sinai? How do we know that the laws as we have them aren't the result of a 1500-year game of telephone, distorted by time and transmission?

Then I spent a few weeks learning the Rambam’s introduction to the commentary on the Mishnah. He classifies the laws into different categories. One is the “halacha lemoshe misinai”, a tradition that is a) universally accepted, b) not argued with, and c) not derivable from Scripture. Examples include the requirements that tefillin be square and black. There’s no way to get that from “totafot” etc., but everyone agrees, and the archeological evidence shows that it was the case all the way back, at least in the last 2000 years.

Then there are the regular laws, which are details of the mitzvoth which are known through drasha, and argumentation, etc. What relation do these bear to a possible Sinaitic revelation? I read somewhere, I don’t remember where, that basically, it doesn’t matter whether these laws are known by drasha or by tradition. The laws generated by drasha, since drash is part of the system, are equivalent to laws known by tradition. We generally hold, or at least in the time of the Tannaim they held, that a law known by tradition, from one’s teacher and one’s teacher’s teacher, is not to be argued with, it’s “hilcheta gemiri lah”, learned law from ancient tradition. This is generally held in higher esteem than laws known by logic, which are in turn considered stronger than laws derived from a verse. But they’re all d’oraita laws, Torah-originated laws.

That was another thing, I had to understand that d’oraita vs. d’rabbanan, as against written law and oral law, were different spectra of legal origin. Rabbinic law is legislation. D’oraita law is law derived from the Sinaitic revelation. And I realized, it doesn’t matter whether a given law is known by tradition or by drash. It Doesn’t Matter. They’re all considered d’oraita. Because laws reconstructed (yes, reconstructed, we know that legal matter was lost over the generations – there’s a tradition that 3000 laws were lost at the death of Moshe, and the continuing pattern of exile and death continues to erode our capacity for oral legal transmission) through the drash process, through the 13 Principles of Exegesis, or the 32 Principles of Midrashic Interpretation, etc., since the interpretive rules are themselves part of the system of law – derived law is the same Torah-originated law as traditional law.

So imagine my pleasure at finding the Mishnah in Yadayim 4:3 which validates this whole outlook.

Here it is:

ד,ג בו ביום אמרו, עמון ומואב מה הם בשביעית. גזר רבי טרפון, מעשר עני; וגזר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, מעשר שני. אמר רבי ישמעאל, אלעזר בן עזריה, עליך ראיה ללמד, שאתה מחמיר--שכל המחמיר, עליו הראיה ללמד. אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ישמעאל אחי, אני לא שניתי מסדר השנים; טרפון אחי שינה, ועליו ראיה ללמד. השיב רבי טרפון, מצריים חוצה לארץ, ועמון ומואב חוצה לארץ--מה מצריים מעשר עני בשביעית, אף עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. השיב רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, בבל חוצה לארץ, ועמון ומואב חוצה לארץ--מה בבל מעשר שני בשביעית, אף עמון ומואב מעשר שני בשביעית. אמר רבי טרפון, מצריים מפני שהיא קרובה, עשאוה מעשר עני, שיהו עניי ישראל נסמכין עליה בשביעית--אף עמון ומואב שהן קרובין, נעשים מעשר עני, שיהו עניי ישראל נסמכין עליהן בשביעית. אמר לו רבי אלעזר בן עזריה, הרי אתה כמהנן ממון, ואין אתה אלא כמפסיד נפשות: קובע אתה את השמיים מלהוריד טל ומטר, שנאמר "היקבע אדם אלוהים, כי אתם קובעים אותי, ואמרתם, במה קבענוך; המעשר, והתרומה" (מלאכי ג,ח). השיב רבי טרפון. אמר רבי יהושוע, הריני כמשיב על דברי טרפון אחי, אבל לא לעניין דבריו: מצריים מעשה חדש ובבל מעשה ישן, והנידון שלפנינו מעשה חדש; יידון מעשה חדש ממעשה חדש, ואל יידון מעשה חדש ממעשה ישן. מצריים מעשה זקנים, ובבל מעשה נביאים, והנידון שלפנינו מעשה זקנים; יידון מעשה זקנים ממעשה זקנים, ואל יידון מעשה זקנים ממעשה נביאים. נמנו וגמרו, עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. וכשבא רבי יוסי בן דורמסקית אצל רבי אליעזר ללוד, אמר לו, מה חידוש היה לכם בבית המדרש היום. אמר לו, נמנו וגמרו, עמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית. בכה רבי אליעזר ואמר "סוד ה', ליראיו; ובריתו, להודיעם" (תהילים כה,יד); צא והודיעם ואמור להם, אל תחושו למניינכם--מקובל אני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי, ששמע מרבו, ורבו מרבו הלכה למשה מסיניי, שעמון ומואב מעשר עני בשביעית.

As you can see, it’s very long. I’m not going to translate the whole thing. To summarize: It’s a story of a dispute held on the day that R’ Elazar b. Azariah became the head of the academy. You all know about that, he was “like a man of seventy years” because his hair miraculously turned white, to give him gravitas when made Rosh Yeshivah at age 18. Anyway, they’re arguing a question. Various people argue with R Elazar, he gives counterarguments, then they vote, and R’ Elazar loses.

Now the crucial bit:

WHEN R. JOSE B. DURMASKITH22 VISITED R. ELIEZER23 IN LYDDA HE SAID TO HIM: WHAT NEW THING DID YOU HAVE IN THE HOUSE OF STUDY TO-DAY? HE SAID TO HIM: THEIR VOTES WERE COUNTED AND THEY DECIDED THAT [X_idea]. R. ELIEZER WEPT AND SAID: THE COUNSEL OF THE LORD IS WITH THEM THAT FEAR HIM: AND HIS COVENANT, TO MAKE THEM KNOW IT.24 GO AND TELL THEM: DO NOT HAVE ANY APPREHENSION ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR VOTING. I RECEIVED A TRADITION FROM R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI WHO HEARD IT FROM HIS TEACHER, AND HIS TEACHER FROM HIS TEACHER, AND SO BACK TO AN HALACHAH GIVEN TO MOSES FROM SINAI,25 THAT [X_idea is true].

And there you have it. By arguing and voting, by following the reconstructive process, they came to the correct conclusion, the correct halacha, which was validated by the tradition received by R’ Eliezer. So IT DOESN’T MATTER that laws are lost and we can’t say for certain whether a given law comes from tradition or from reconstruction – they’re the SAME THING. They’re all d’Oraita laws, originated at Sinai, even if the transmission path isn’t direct and reliable. We have error-correcting codes built in.

But I had to work all this out from first (or second) principles. It was never enough to just take on faith ideas that sounded ridiculous, like “the Oral Torah came from Sinai, just as we have it.” I had to dig, to understand that while true, it was a ridiculous oversimplification.

* * *

My father also took a spiritual journey, although his went through emotions and behavior rather than intellect. Started out atheist, knew Yiddish and a bit of Hebrew. As we went to school, and switched to R Riskin's O shul, he taught himself Hebrew. He later took R Cohen's intro Talmud class, and learned more biblical exegesis following Mom's example.

Because he could sing and read/understand Hebrew, he learned to lein and daven, because the summer C-nagogue needed people, following my example (I learned to lead High Holidays shacharit/mincha so that they could hold services without having to pay someone). At 68, he was the "kid" in their davening/leining crew.

After some years, I asked if he was still an atheist. He told me that after davening for all this time, he thought that maybe there might be something there. By the end, in the nursing home, he was insisting on kosher (icky frozen meals) rather than fresh kosher-style food, and wore a yarmulke all day. Now, I don't know about his theological state at the time, communication was difficult with his lost hearing aid, but I have to figure that the insistence on behavioral correctness reflected a change in internal belief. Atheist – agnostic – by the end, I think a believer, to some extent, although I may be fooling myself.

At any rate, at Michael's (Michael Klein, organizer of the community Mishna study program) urging, I undertook to learn all of Seder Taharot in Dad's memory, so that we could, as a shul, complete all six orders of Mishnah for the first time. I want to thank him for his organizing efforts, I want to thank all of you for your efforts in this program. I want to thank Debbie for her support this year, forgoing a public honor because I was insecure during shloshim, and I want to thank Dad (and Mom too, of course), for support during his life, for sending us to Ramaz despite a lack of belief in God, although he always believed in the value of tradition and Jewish peoplehood, for being proud of his children whether or not they followed his own path. Yehi zichro baruch.

Variations in the Siddur - Cantor Goffin

MUSICAL NOTE by Cantor Sherwood Goffin

Variations in the Siddur

I have often been asked why one siddur uses one form of a word, and another siddur uses another form of the same word. For instance, we pronounce the phrase sho-ato hu, which is found in Modim and the paragraph after Sh'ma, whereas it is pronounced She-ato hu in a Nusach Sfard siddur. This often causes a Baal tefilla to pronounce the word incorrectly in our Nusach Ashkenaz services. Here, the difference is simply a matter of difference between the text of Sfard versus Ashkenaz. It makes no grammatical difference. However, one leading the services at LSS should use the version found in our siddur, so that the congregation will not think that he has made a mistake. Sometimes, within Ashkenaz siddurim, there are differences, such as the word Na-avo at the end of Mizmor Shir/Hashem Moloch in our De Sola Pool RCA siddur. The Artscroll siddur, however, writes the word as No-avo. Again, I counsel those leading the services to read it according to the way our siddur writes it. One of the most startling changes is that in the Adon Olam of the Chabad siddur, which writes the words Ye-tsur Nivra, instead of Ye-tsir Nivra which we know well. Sometimes the changes are because we follow the Vilna Gaon's customs, such as Yisga-dale instead of Yisgadal, etc. The best rule, generally, is to always read the version that is found in our siddur.

Daven Well, Don't Talk, and Sing Along!

© 2011 Lincoln Square Synagogue & Sherwood Goffin

Can you tell a Bible by its cover?

Well, maybe not. I was in a local bookstore this afternoon, and saw a display of JPS English and Hebrew-English pocket-sized Bibles. They had a black covered Hebrew-English, a pink-covered all-English (I guess for girls), the website has other colors such as black, white, and green - nice and neutral. The translation is the usual New JPS - terrific translation, been using it for over 30 years. Where it says "b--b meaning of Heb. uncertain", it's a sure sign to go check out the meforshim (commentaries, mostly medieval).

But the one that caught my eye was the one printed in "Denim". A back-pocket, to be precise, mirrored on the back of the book. IOW, the cover of this Bible was a tuchus. I don't know what their cover-designer was thinking, probably trying to be "hip" or whatever, but what comes across is "the Tanakh is compared to a tuchus." Or maybe, the product of the backside? Really not the message I'd think a Jewish publisher would want to project about their flagship product.

Hm, thinking about denim-jeans images - I had a passbook bank account when I was in Jr High and High School. The original passbook was the same design as my parents' - a photo of a local park. I lost it at one point, and had to get a replacement, so they gave me a "kids'" model - with a drawing of a pair of jeans. I felt rather condescended to. Maybe designers of kid-versions of adult objects should consult with real children of the age they're targeting.

BTW, "tuchus" may sound Yiddish, but it's really direct from Hebrew - tuchus is an Ashkenazic pronunciation of "tachat", which means "underneath".

(image copyright Jewish Publication Society, used without permission qua fair use - quotation in a review)

Changes in Jewish publishing - response

Gil Student wrote an article in Jewish Action, the OU magazine, on the changes in Jewish and mainstream publishing. He avoided the one big question looming on the horizon of Jewish publishing, as it is beginning to make inroads into mainstream publishing: the e-book.

He addresses the information-chunking and short-attention-span issues pretty well.

But there need to be heterim found for e-book readers on Shabbos, if we're not to have people dropped from Orthodoxy for "half-shabbos", esp. as more and more seforim are online in PDF and etext, if they wish to learn Torah stored in an ebook reader. Do you really learn all those seforim in your shrank, bought when a kid in yeshiva, or are they mostly for show, and occasional reference?

I carry around a good-sized library in my e-book reader, whether Torah or fiction, academic or popular material. Until people start using iPads or Kindle DX's widely, things like Gemara pages will still be difficult, although who knows - maybe the small-format Gemara may yet make a comeback. I have, for instance, a scanned PDF of Bava Kamma from the Lemberg half-page edition on the ebook-reader. Legible, but barely, on the 3x4" screen. But if I can get e-texts of Rishonim from Bar-Ilan, in pieces (how many blatt gemara does an in-depth once-a-week shiur cover, after all), that makes it more accessible to be on the Palm or the EZ-Reader.

The standard Gemara page was defined by Bomberg in the 1520s, because he issued the first full set of Shas. It made sense to keep using the same pagination for standard reference. Why did he use that page size (folio pages)? Ultimately, because of the size of sheep. Sheep are a certain size, so their skins are a certain size, which governs the dimensions of parchment pages made from those skins.

Technology has changed. We need no longer be governed by the sizes of medieval sheep. It is certainly possible to maintain indicators to standard pagination in text of other configurations (just look at, e.g., a two-volume two-column Zohar of the 17th century which has indicators of the pagination of the by-then standard three-volume single-column Zohar, so you can find page references easily.

So too here - as e-readers and pad computers improve, we should be able to use them with cross-linked etexts of the Talmud, Tanach, Midrashim Rishonim and Acharonim. Must we continue to spend hundreds of dollars on dead trees for use on Shabbos alone? Perhaps rabbis should work with electrical engineers to design an e-book reader that will not violate Shabbos, as Tzomet has done for doctors and the handicapped. Perhaps we should resurrect the arguments used by RSZA, and only not implemented out of respect for the Chazon Ish, and find ways to use solid-state technology lehagdil Torah uleha'adirah. After all, we don't slavishly follow the Chazon Ish, at least not in Galut, where we don't eat normal gelatin (which the CI approved).

If we don't find ways to adapt to such changing technology, then we, and our dead-tree obsession, will be left in the dustbin of history, along with our decaying paper.

Zohar maybe not from Rashbi

I was reading the Zohar in the Berg-ite translation, and came across the following passage:

30. There are questions that are the garments of the Ha-lachah, NAMELY THE GARMENTS OF MALCHUT, of which it says "inwrought with gold" - as it is written: "The King's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is in-wrought with gold" (Tehilim 45:14). You, AMORAIM, cut THE GARMENT INWROUGHT WITH GOLD into several le-gal sentences and later fix and explain them away using various arguments.

31. If one chapter of the Mishnah is missing, and it has been maintained that something is missing from the Mishnah, you fix it. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PLACES WHERE IT IS STATED IN THE GEMARA: "A CLAUSE HAS BEEN OMITTED, FOR THIS IS THE WAY WE HAVE LEARNED IT...," such is wanting that can be numbered. If a sim-pleton comes and spreads an evil report of the craftsman that cuts the garments, saying: The Torah is lacking - STATING THAT IN THIS PARAGRAPH OF THE MISHNAH, A CLAUSE HAS BEEN OMITTED. Yet, it is written: "The Torah of Hashem is perfect," (Tehilim 19:8) perfect in all the members of the body, the 248 positive precepts, as written: "You are all fair, my love; there is no blemish in you," (Shir Hashirim 4:7), and perfect in her garments. How can anything be lacking in the Mishnah?

32. HE ANSWERS: Say to him - look carefully and find the MISSING piece. You may find it mixed with other verses and Mishnahyot, MEANING, IT IS THE CUSTOM OF THE TORAH TO BE LACKING IN ONE PLACE AND RICH IN ANOTHER. For it is the way of the craftsman to cut garments into several pieces, AND THAT WHICH IS MISSING IN ONE PLACE IS FILLED UP IN ANOTHER. The students, inexperienced in connecting the Halachah to those pieces THAT ARE IN ANOTHER PLACE, confuse the sentences and questions, and cannot explain the dilem-mas until the craftsman comes and explains all the doubts they have. At that time, Halachah the daughter, NAMELY MALCHUT, rises before the King, perfect in eve-rything, in body, garments and jewelry. And in it the verse comes true: "And I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting Covenant" (Beresheet 9:16). Sometimes the craftsman has an experienced student whom he sends to correct them, NAMELY ELIJAH, AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE.

Note that this passage, in addressing the students of the Amoraim, is clearly set after the time of R' Shimon bar Yochai. It seems to start out criticizing the Amoraim for "cutting up the golden garment" of the Mishnah, but winds up praising them for bringing the disparate parts of the Mishnah together in a coherent whole. They do this by looking for what is missing, perhaps it can be found in another mishnah or in a midrash or Tosefta, and splice it in. Or perhaps they extrapolate what was missing, as in chasurei mechsera vehachi katani - "this is how the lacuna should be read".

In any case, this is clearly the textual criticism that makes up much of the Gemara's discussion of Mishnayot. This story praises the early Amoraim for their textual activity (the early Amoraim feeling freer to emend the text of the Mishnah).

If Rashb"i lived in the late Tannaitic period (according to the JE article on Simeon ben Yohai, citing Graetz, he fled to the cave c. 161), it had to have 50-100 years after his time that this story took place. Thus, this part of the Zohar necessarily postdates Rashb"i.