“... the law is a [sic] ass ...”i That was Mr. Bumble's assessmentii in a particular case involving marital law, but, according to many observers, it is an accepted principle with far wider application. Nonetheless, it's binding on us, even if we are ignorant of it. Even the legal text we laymen see is usually in small print or too long and complex (by design) for us to understand.
Far be it from me to cast the first stone.iii I won't judge, lest I be judged.iv But the observance of the law can be very difficult for a number of reasons. Most important is that there are so many types of lawsv that we have to observe. We have local, state, and national laws of course, and even international laws.vi And in addition there are religious laws (which I'll discuss shortly) and “Natural Law,” which was cited in the Declaration of Independence as one of the bases on which our society was founded,vii since it was required for our “separate and equal station,” and had been denied us.
But I'd like to discuss religious law today. Specifically Jewish law, with which I'm most familiar.viii First of all, it's important to establish its nature. According to the Christian Bible, “In the Beginning was the Word.”ix Conceptually that may be similar to Jewish teaching in the meaning familiar to the Christian reader,x but it is very different in terms of the meaning of the text itself. According to the Jewish understanding, the first being in human form (Adam) wasn't created until long after the first word, or more accurately words, existed. That was the Torah, which preceded the formation of the earth. The Torah, and some additional teachings (the “Oral Law”), were given to Moses and the Jewish People at Mount Sinai, and together what was given then are Hashem'sxi words and the basis of Jewish law.
Every time we read the Torah we say: “Not in any man do I trust. Not on any angel do I rely, only on the G-d of heaven Who is the G-d of truth, Whose Torah is truth and Whose prophets are true, in Him do I trust.” Clearly our obligation is to follow G-d's words and His Law.
That's straightforward enough, but there are many layers of the law that complicate the issue. One layer is based on the fact that following the Torah and related teachings wasn't always possible because some of the words needed definition, and some of the ideas required explanation.xii For centuries there was an oral tradition that was used to clarify these points, but eventually it was reduced to writing – the Mishna – which was an interpretationxiii of the original teachings. The Mishna itself, however, was opaque to many of the people and there developed an interpretation (the Gemora, and together they constitute the Talmud, which is usually printed with additional commentaries) for which a given was that all of it was the word of G-d. Thus the Rabbis whose thoughts appear in the Gemora focused on providing scenarios and explanations that justified all that had come before. And since the Talmud contained many apparent contradictions, some of the “explanations,” including the ideas that many of the words were missing or miscopied or inadvertently misattributed, were recorded along with the descriptionxiv of imaginative scenarios and distinctions that justifiedxv what had been written before. Indeed, new interpretations continue to this day, all the while meant to be understood as clarifications of G-d's words.
Unfortunately, there are problems with this approach. The interpretations weren't always uniform. Some of the text and its application can be understood in different ways. For example, there is a story in the Talmud that illustrates this situation: A voice from Heaven declares, in response to an argument between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, “These and these are the words of the living God, and the law is according to the House of Hillel.”xvi But having read that the House of Hillel was “right” and the House of Shammai “wrong,” we learn that that decision had nothing to do with their arguments but only their personal attributes.xvii Thus, we learn, that the words of both sides were equally true and Hashem's words, themselves, can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, and different understandings may be acceptable even now, with varying opinions and rulings about the law issued by different authorities.xviii
Even more confusing, with dispersion of the Jews all over the world, the different interpretations and approaches have led to the development of different traditions, customs, and practices – even different prayers and prayer books. This may be the case on a “macro” level,xix or in a small community or synagogue, or somewhere in between. They may all be different, but that doesn't mean that they aren't all valid.
But there are more problems – some which might be more confusing than the ones raised already. For example, a rabbi can teach the law without saying a word. If he does, though, Man's word may take precedence over G-d's. But although G-d's laws are eternal, a ruling made by a man can be withdrawn or changed. And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes supersede what the Rabbis have taught – be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem. Fundamentalism and literalism are easy, but they don't represent the views of a majority of those who consider themselves Jews.
But I'll deal with those issues, and maybe some others, next week.
Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.
i There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”
ii In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”
iii John 8.7
iv Matthew 7.1– sort of.
v I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.
vi Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.
vii The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.
viii Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.
ix It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.
x Since most Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.
xi G-d's
xii There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.
xiii It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.
xiv Creation?
xv And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.
xvii We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai. In fact, we're not even told what the dispute was about. It seems the views of the two sides were irrelevant.
xviii This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.
xix For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.
Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.
i There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”
ii In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”
iii John 8.7
iv Matthew 7.1– sort of.
v I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.
vi Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.
vii The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.
viii Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.
ix It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.
x Since Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.
xi G-d's
xii There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.
xiii It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.
xiv Creation?
xv And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.
xvi Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.
xvii We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.
xviii This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.
xix For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.