Torah MiSinai: Conservative Views
The first excerpt is from "A Modern Approach to a Living Halachah", by Conservative Rabbi Robert Gordis. It is printed in Mordecai Waxman's "Tradition and Change", and also in "Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Conservative Movement 1927-1970", volume III, p.1135-1141. The second essay is by Masorti Rabbi Michael Graetz, from the Masorti Movement's e-mail list.
Rabbi Gordis writes:
Basically, the sanction of halachah lies for us in its Divine character. We regard the Law, both Written and Oral, as the revelation of God. What Moses, the prophets, sages and rabbis taught, from Sinai to our day, is divinely inspired. That it has functioned so effectively, not merely for the preservation of Israel, but, what is much more significant, for the enhancement of human welfare and the elevation of human character, buttresses -but does not supplant - our faith that its source is God. Hence we accept as fundamental to vital Jewish religion, the principle of Torah min hashamayim", "The Torah as a revelation of God".
Like our predecessors in rabbinic, medieval, and modern times, each of us is free to give the term a greater or lesser degree of definiteness and literalness of meaning. The common core in all such views, however, and the irreducible minimum, is the belief that the Torah, which encompasses the ethical and ritual tradition of Israel, inaugurated at Sinai and carried forward through Biblical, Talmudic and post-Talmudic times to our own day, is an emanation of God, a revelation of Divine truth. This conception does not mean, for us, that the process of revelation consisted of the dictation of the Torah by God, and its passive acceptance by men. To be sure, this is implied in some, but by no means all, rabbinic references to the subject, such as the explanation offered for the presence of the last twelve verses in Deuteronomy, which describe Moses' death:
"Until this closing section, God spoke, Moses repeated and wrote it down. When this passage was reached, God spoke and Moses wrote in tears". (Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra 15a)
Revelation depends not merely upon its infinite and Divine source, but upon its finite and limited human instrument. Just as traditional Judaism found no derogation of the creative power of God in describing man as "the partner of the Holy One in the work of creation", so Revelation is not impugned by viewing it as another aspect of this eternal partnership or cosmic symbiosis, where God depends on man, as truly as man depends on God.
That traditional Judaism recognized this variable human factor in Revelation is abundantly clear from our sources. The Bible itself distinguishes between the immediacy of the relationship possessed by Moses and that of the other Prophets (Numbers 12:6)
"If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so; he is trusted in all My house; with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and Not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord doth be behold."
This distinction the rabbis amplify in their parable of Moses as a star-gazer with a clear telescope unlike the other prophets who had blurred instruments of vision. (Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 49b). The Talmudic comparison of Isaiah to a city dweller looking upon the king, and of Ezekiel to a rustic gazing in unfeigned astonishment at an unfamiliar spectacle (Hagigah, 13b, represents a distinction as well as an evaluation....
Not only does Revelation differ in content and depth, varying with the individual, but it is not limited in time. In other words, it is not an event, but a process. After the period of the Patriarchs, Sinai marked the commencement, not the conclusion, of Revelation. The theophany on Sinai may be conceived of literally, mystically, or philosophically, but it represents a basic historical fact without which all the subsequent history of Judaism, and indeed of the Jewish people, is inexplicable....
..as Rabbinic literature abundantly recognized, there were revelations after Sinai. The relationship between these sages and Sinai is expressed in an utterance of Rabbi Johanan: "God showed Moses the derivations in the Torah and the words of the scholars, and whatever the scholars were to originate in the future" (Megila 19b). The verb hadesh "create anew" makes it clear that the rabbis recognized that their function was active, not passive; creative, not repetitive. The same view reaches classic expression in a passage which has been misinterpreted by some of its strongest professed advocates, no less than by some of its strongest opponents:
"Even that which an able pupil was destined to teach before his master was already said to Moses on Sinai". (Talmud Yerushalmi, Hagigah I, 76d.)
What this statement sets forth is the belief, which we share, that the entire development of Jewish law after Moses is implied in the giving of the Torah on Sinai, and that the organic unity binding it all together gives to it all the same Divine sanction.
This concept may be succinctly summarized in the words Torah miSinai [Torah from Mt. Sinai]...As a technical term, it is essentially late, being often used in modern Orthodox apologetics interchangeably, though incorrectly, as a synonym for Torah min haShamayim, [Torah from Heaven] and it is then taken to mean that the entire Torah, Written and Oral, was given to Moses on Sinai. Such a dogma means to pass judgement on a question which only historical and literary scholarship can legitimately decide, and which, contrary to widespread impression, is of little consequence for religious faith. At all events, for us both phrases summarize the belief that Jewish law, in its entire history and unfoldment, bears the same relationship to Revelation at Sinai as spreading oak to its original acorn, in which all its own attributes are contained.
That this concept does not bind us to a static concept of Halachah [Jewish law] is clear from the Talmud itself. By the side of the passage just quoted, which emphasizes the unity of the Halachah through time, must be set the profound legend in [Talmud Bavli} Menahot 29b which describes its growing and changing character.
Moses found God adding decorative crowns to the letters of the Torah. Upon asking the reason, the lawgiver was told, "In a future generation a named Akiva ben Joeseph is destined to arise, who will derive multitudes of laws from each of these marks." Deeply interested, Moses asked to see him, and was admitted [into the future, into Rabbi Akiva's time] to the rear of the schoolhouse, where Akiva was lecturing. To Moses's deep distress, however, he found that he found that he could not understand what the scholars were saying, and his spirit grew faint within him. Then he heard Akiva say "The ordinance that we are discussing is a law derived from Moses on Sinai" and upon hearing this, Moses's spirit revived.
Hence the Sages could say "Things not revealed to Moses were revealed to rabbi Akiva and his colleagues" (Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah, 19:6, Vilna edition). It is significant that the same verb is here used of Moses as of the interpreters of the law a millennium and a half later.
Revelation is therefore a never-ending process suffering all the vicissitudes of human life, because human beings, weak and imperfect, and varying widely in their profundity and insight, are creative partners in the process. Moreover the process does not end with the Mishna or gemara, Saadia, Maimonides, Jacob ben Asher, or Joeseph Karo, Rabbi Issac Elhanan Spector or Rabbi Abraham Issac Kook. It also follows that not every stage is equally creative and fruitful. We venture to hope that the Rabbinical Assembly, dedicated to the cause of a meaningful and vital Judaism, may prove one of the instruments of divine revelation, and that its contributions will ultimately enter the mainstream of living Jewish tradition.
Thursday, 13 Mar 1997. Pinah Masortit #118a (vol. 3) Pekudei "Hazak Hazak ve-Nithazek"
Rabbi Michael Graetz
This weeks portion ends not only the book of Exodus, but also the story of the building of the Tabernacle. The large amounts of raw materials brought by the nation as the stuff out of which the Tabernacle would be built is totaled up. The exact records of how much was collected and how much was utilized is presented for all to see: "These are the records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of the Pact, which were drawn up at Moses' bidding-the work of the Levites under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest. Now Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, had made all that the Lord had commanded Moses" (Ex. 38:21-22)
Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur is the craftsman and the artist who actually made, or, as in some Midrashim, taught others to make, or supervised the making of the Tabernacle. But, we have met him before. This is the third time that Bezalel is referred to with his full patronymic, a usage which is not common in the Torah. The commentary of Baal ha-Turim (Yaakov ben Asher) on this verse notes that these three citations represent the three qualities for which Bezalel is the paradigm, namely, wisdom, insight and knowledge ("hokhma, tevunah, ve-daat"). We usually associate Bezalel with artistry, which certainly includes those qualities, but is there more to Bezalel's character than this? Just what other qualities does this "wisdom" imply for our tradition?
Moses got the plans for the Tabernacle from God, he passed them on to Bezalel who implemented the plans. This seems to be the simple meaning of the end of verse 22: "[Bezalel] had made all that the Lord had commanded Moses". We know that God did not command Bezalel directly, so what is this verse saying? The Talmud Bavli, the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Midrash, note that the verse does NOT say that "[Bezalel] had made all that Moses had commanded him [Bezalel]", AND THIS IS WHAT IT SHOULD SAY. In reality, Moses commanded Bezalel. (Berakhot 55a) But, the biggest textual problem with this verse is that it is simply NOT TRUE. Bezalel does things that Moses did NOT say to him.
Rabbi Shemuel Bar Nahmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan points out that this verse informs us precisely of Bezalel's "wisdom" and that his name is a direct expression of that wisdom. How so? God told Moses to make, in this order, a Tabernacle, ark and vessels. But, Moses turned the order around! Perhaps he was confused and excited by the incident of the golden calf. In any case, Moses told Bezalel to make, in this order, an ark, vessels, and a Tabernacle. Now, Bezalel could have just accepted Moses' word without question. This is, after all, Moses, the prophet who had spoken to God face to face, why should Bezalel not just take Moses' word for it?
What are the qualities in a person which would lead them to question Moses' word? According to our text that is exactly what he does!! Bezalel says to Moses: "Moses, our Rabbi, the logical way of the world is that first one builds a home, and afterwards puts in the furniture. But, you tell me to build the ark and vessels and then the Tabernacle. Where shall I put the vessels I make until the Tabernacle is finished? Perhaps God really said to you a different order, Tabernacle, ark, vessels?" To this query Moses responds: "perhaps you were under God's shelter ("be-zel el") and knew what God intended?"
This is an astounding understanding of the transmission of God's word to Israel. One of the questions which most nags at us about revelation is the possibility of misunderstood communication. We all know the game wherein someone whispers a phrase to another person, and that person whispers to another and so on, until the last person says what they heard. That phrase is almost NEVER the same as it started. Is there any danger of such confusion with God's word? Even if we assume that Moses wrote down everything, here we have a case where Moses reversed the order! Bezalel's courage and willingness to question what was commonly accepted as the undisputed word of God, through the prophet, and his application to that word of human logic and research IN ORDER TO QUESTION IT are what makes Bezalel who he is, in the "shelter of God". IN THIS CASE IT IS LOGIC AND INQUIRY WHICH REVEAL GOD'S INTENTION, NOT THE TRANSMITTED WORD OF REVELATION!
What is most intriguing is the way the Talmud Yerushalmi dealt with this same textual problem. The Yerushalmi takes an even bolder approach to the question of Bezalel's initiatives (Yer. Peah 3 side a). The Yerushalmi starts from the same verse, but says simply that "even the things [which Bezalel did] which he did not hear from his teacher [Moses], was accepted just in the same manner as what was said to Moses on Sinai". There were other things that Bezalel did, such as the copper coverings for the boards, which Moses did not tell him at all. But, since they were the result of human "wisdom, insight and knowledge" they have the force of Divinely revealed rules.
The Yerushalmi then goes on to apply this same principal to another case, that of Joshua and Moses. R. Yohanan in the name of R. Banay quotes Joshua 11:15, which includes the same phraseology as our verse "[Joshua] did not deviate from all that the Lord had commanded Moses." They apply the same inference to this case, namely, even though Joshua did things OTHER than what Moses had commanded him, those things are really what God intended.
What was it that Joshua did that was NOT in accord with Moses' charge to him? He did not carry out the Herem to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan! After Jericho and Ai, Joshua stops the killing. Even though he could have carried out this command against the Gibeonites, for a treaty arrived at by trickery is legally void, still he kept the treaty, which meant abandoning Moses' specific words. It is this decision which comes in for praise in the Yerushalmi.
There is danger in such an approach. There is danger in calling into question the "certainty" of the word of God delivered by Moses. These texts, however, set out conditions under which such inquiry should be held. One cannot call transmitted revelation into question only on the grounds of preference or whim or of changing times. But, our Talmudic tradition embraces the idea of learned and responsible inquiry using human wisdom, insight and knowledge to critically examine the received tradition. But, even more than that it embraces the idea that when this examination reaches the conclusion that the received tradition must change, not only is that permitted, but THAT CHANGE ITSELF becomes part of God's revelation at Sinai. The change is not an aberration which at best should be tolerated, but it becomes an inherent part of the revelation just as if it was uttered at Sinai.
Shabbat Shalom
Shalom to all my colleagues. Please feel free to use what I send in sermons etc. My only request is that if you print it anywhere that you cite me as the source.
******************************************************************************
Masorti Movement RAISRAEL@JTSA.EDU
Rabbinical Assembly of Israel Tel:972-2-678-2433
4 Rav Ashi Street Fax:972-2-678-2441
Jerusalem, ISRAEL
http://www.masorti.org/
