Ask about Judaism

[agricola]

I think I just explained 'Jewish lawyers'.

[Shrubbery]

Jews believe God LIKES it when we argue with Him, and that argument ('dialog') is the best way to determine the best course of action - it is called 'arguments for the sake of Heaven' and it is the normal way of Jewish study - get a partner, and start arguing about what this verse means, what this WORD means, what ALL the possible meanings would mean...

Does this come from Jacob wrestling with God?

[agricola]

It actually begins with Abraham, who argued with God about the meaning of 'Justice'. Abraham doesn't ask God if God is ABLE to destroy the Cities of the Plain, instead, he asks if it is RIGHT to destroy the innocent along with the guilty.

And God CONCEDES: God will not destroy the Cities as long as at least ten righteous people are within them (sadly, that low bar was not met).

Renaming Jacob to 'Israel' (meaning 'wrestle with God') is just re-affirming that approach, really.

Moses also argues - and God not only allows it, but makes concessions (not on every point, but on some).

From the ancient Jewish POV, God does 'command', but is open to argument too.

There is an amazing story from the Talmud which I love - let me see if I can find it quickly -

It is the story of an oven...

What was the “oven of Akhnai”?
If an oven is cut into rings, and sand is placed between the rings, Rabbi Eliezer says it is pure. But the sages say it is susceptible to impurity. This is the oven of Akhnai. Arabian vats, which are holes dug in the ground and plastered with clay—if the plastering can stand by itself, it is susceptible to impurity; otherwise, it is not susceptible. This is the oven of Ben Dinai.

– Mishnah Kelim 5:10

So what is so important about this sort of oven?

During the rebellion against the Romans, the sages of the second century CE met in secret - learning Torah - the discussions on the interpretations of the Law - was a capital offense.

The underlying assumption here is that a natural object is not susceptible to ritual impurity, while a man-made object is susceptible. But when does such susceptibility actually commence? Only when the object is a completed tool. Here, the fact that the oven is composed of individual parts, none of which is susceptible to impurity on its own, is the basis for declaring it pure. However, once the thing is put together, the sages rule that its status changes from a collection of random objects (each of which isn’t complete enough to be impure) to a finished product.

You'd think such a discussion wouldn't be very important, given the dangerous times. But hey, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing, right?

At that time, there were two main approaches to applying the principles of Torah to communal and private life: the traditional approach and the Babylonian approach.The traditional method depended upon very precise preservation of earlier traditions, word for word. These “Divrei Sofrim” were very carefully handed down from teacher to student. This is the approach of students of Shamai such as R’ Eliezer ben Hyrcanos.

The newer system of interpretation had been brought from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael by Hillel. Hillel’s approach used exegetical methods to reinterpret texts so that they could be applied to later times. This was the approach of R’ Yehoshua and his students.

So - context, context - There was an extremely important rabbi named R. Yochanan ben Zakkai (I've visited his grave, in Galilee).
Ben Zakkai preserved Judaism. HE SAVED JUDAISM. Out of Roman destruction and the burning of Jerusalem, R. Yochanan escaped with his students, taking them north into the Galilean hills, where he continued to teach, at a place called 'Yavneh'. It is the school at Yavneh that preserved the traditions and preserved - and developed innovations - Judaism for a time in exile, without a Temple.

His students are extensively quoted in the Talmud.

R’ Eliezer was one of the founding pillars of the School of Yavne, along with his friend and sparring partner, R’ Yehoshua. Their teacher, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai described R’ Eliezer as “a plastered cistern that never loses a drop.” For his part, R’ Eliezer’s maxim was: “I never said anything (in Halakhah) that I did not hear from my teachers.”

While R’ Eliezer was a strong proponent of the Mesorah approach to Halakhah, R’ Yehoshua was the champion of innovation and creative interpretation. Both approaches were vital to the success of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai’s program. Both were needed to ensure that something survived the devastation, to grow and flourish when the darkness had passed.

So, of course, their 'discussions' were sometimes rather HEATED, and one of the most famous of the discussions was concerning the ritual purity - or lack thereof - of the oven of Achnai:

[agricola]

The story of the oven of Achnai:

Here is how our story is recorded in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud)
They wished to excommunicate R. Eliezer. They asked, “Who will go and inform him of this?”

R’ Akiva volunteered. When he came to R’ Eliezer, R’ Akiva said, “Rebbi, your friends are excommunicating you.”

R’ Eliezer took him outside and said, “Carob tree! Carob tree! If the Halakhah is like the Chachamim, uproot yourself!” The tree was not uprooted.

“If the Halakhah is like me, uproot yourself!” The tree was uprooted.

“If the Halakhah is like the Chachamim, let the carob return to its place”. The tree did not return. “If the Halakhah is like me, let the carob return to its place!” The tree returned.

All this praise, and the Halakhah is not like R’ Eliezer?

R’ Haninah said, Since the Torah was given, we follow the opinion of the majority.

But did R’ Eliezer not know that we follow the majority?

He was upset because they burned his Tahor food in front of him [showing that they ruled that it was Tameh].

The Mishnah [in Masechet Keilim] teaches: If they sliced up a [Tameh] earthenware oven and inserted sand in between each slice, R’ Eliezer says that the oven is Tahor and the Chachamim say that it is Tameh. This is called the Chachinai oven.

R’ Yirmiyah said: A great disaster occurred on that day—wherever R’ Eliezer looked, the crops were ruined. Even in the same wheat stalk, one half was ruined and the other half was not; and the pillars of the Study Hall trembled.

R’ Yehoshua said: If friends are disagree, why should it interest you?

A Heavenly voice came out and declared, “The Halacha is like my son Eliezer”.

R’ Yehoshua responded, “It [the Torah] is not in the heavens!”

–Moed Katan Perek 3

R. Akiva was very brave, and very much a 'grown up'. Sometime after this, he was arrested by the Romans for teaching Torah, and was executed (tortured to death) at the Roman amphitheater in Caesarea. He was bound to an iron grate over a fire, and his skin was removed with iron combs.


So that's one version - I've highlighted the salient statements. (continuing on)

[agricola]

There are, in fact, TWO Talmuds: the Jerusalem version (the Yerushalmi) and the Babylonian version (the Bavli).

Here is the same story from the (longer and more authoritative generally) Babylonian Talmud:

It is taught: On that day R’ Eliezer answered with every answer on earth, but the Sages did not accept them.

Finally he said to them: “If the Halakhah is in accordance with me, let this carob tree prove it!” The carob tree immediately uprooted itself and moved one hundred cubits—and some say 400 cubits[4]—from its place. They said, “No proof can be brought from a carob tree.”

Again, he said to them “If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the channel of water prove it!” The channel of water flowed backward. They said, “No proof can be brought from a channel of water.”

Again he said, “If the Halakhah agrees with me, let the walls of the house of study prove it!” The walls leaned as if to fall. But R’ Yehoshua rebuked the walls, saying, “When scholars engage in a halakhic dispute, what right have you to interfere?” They did not fall in deference to R’ Yehoshua but in deference to R’ Eliezer they did not resume their upright position; they are still standing aslant.

Again he said, “If the Halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved from the Heavens” A heavenly voice proclaimed “What do you want with R’ Eliezer, with whom the Halakhah always accords?” R’ Yehoshua sprang to his feet and said “It is not in Heaven!”

So -

[agricola]

There are many (and extensive) commentaries on this story. And it is a truly famous story - it is told to children, for instance.

However, ONE lesson - one 'takeaway' - is that the Law is not 'in Heaven'. Even when the very VOICE OF GOD comes down out of the sky, and informs the committee of assembled scholars that (darn it) Eliezer is RIGHT -

The voice from Heaven does not decide the matter. The Law is no longer 'in Heaven'; it is in our hands, and we have the ability, the right, and the RESPONSIBILITY to decide matters of the Law, through discussion, and argument, and then the consensus of the assembly.

Even with MIRACLES and a VOICE FROM HEAVEN - the assembly retains its authority.

and....

[agricola]

This - THIS is the next paragraph in the Babylonian Talmud. It is in Aramaic, showing that it is 'commentary by the entire committee' so to speak, rather than just more of the same discussions.

And what does it say?

What does it mean: “It is not in Heaven?” R’ Yermiya said “Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we pay no attention to heavenly voices, as long ago at Mount Sinai You wrote in your Torah at Mount Sinai, ‘After the majority incline’. (Ex. 23:2)”

R’ Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah and asked him, “What did the Holy One (God) do at that moment?”

Elijah: “He laughed [with joy], saying, ‘My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me.’

”

[agricola]

Whew.
I love this stuff.

[SolaDude]

That was cool...

[agricola]

I should have added some definitions - 'chachamim' means 'the wise ones' (referring to the scholars) and 'halakha' is Jewish law. The exact translation of 'halakha is 'the way'.

You should, in fact, re-read that bit in the NT where Jesus says HE is 'the way' and that nobody gets to God without going through Jesus - let me just mention that Jews find that particular statement incredibly obnoxious.

I believe it is one of the passages which is considered 'dubious' and an addition from somewhat later.