Parsing Fancy

                                                                    

The gemaraⁱ has been the backbone of Jewish learning for centuries and, despite any criticisms, is entitled to much of the credit for our survival. When our sages might have been distracted by the world and the cultures around them they focused on the puzzles of the gemara and in creating solutions for them. Their dedication to our heritage was an important contributor to the persistence of that heritage. And the Torah,ⁱⁱ despite what we don't understand, is the basis for what has sustained us.

But the key, in the previous sentence, is “what we don't understand.” Man does not know everything. Nor should he be expected to. Thus we should be willing to accept apparent errors and inconsistencies as areas of our ignorance, rather than try to construct explanations. In some limited cases we admit we don't understand, and that is admirable. But when we say that someone meant something else rather than what he is said to have said, or when we add or disregard a word, we are placing our own egos on a pedestal and, basically, saying we know more than our predecessors did. We're saying that we can figure out what may have confused those who came before us. Unfortunately, taykuⁱⁱⁱ is not used enough. Too often our sages have tried to clarify the words they found in the Talmud but used methods that raise bigger questions in our minds.

Gemara commentaries read like rules for a children's game. They seem to be ad hoc, based on the desired outcome and without regard for reality or previous rules, or that contradict a rule we learned before. Whenever a situation is reached that cannot be resolved using principles with which we're familiar, another rule is introduced that solves the problem.

Sometimes there is a close observation of science, as in anatomy of kosher animals, and sometimes there is a total disregard of science. The fact that the “science” is wrong doesn't seem to disqualify any results based on the errors. We are cautioned against using the Talmud as a science book^iv

The most bizarre explanations are used to justify what was written. The basic premise is that the tannaim were always right. As such, if we don't understand, or if we disagree with one of their decisions, we are obligated to construct a scenario compatible with it. And that's what they “must have been” explaining. And if two disagree, they don't disagree. They were explaining two different situations, even if there is no such indication in the text. So we must hypothesize two such sets of circumstances.

And, since the Torah is the word of G-d, there are no errors^v in it. Here again we may have to “explain” what appear to be inconsistencies. And there are no extra words.^vi Thus every one must carry a lesson and we have to figure out what it is. It does not matter that there may be no obvious support for our position or that someone else may have a completely different explanation – one diametrically opposite – or a contrary opinion. “These and these are the words of the living G-d.”^vii

So how can we explain what doesn't make sense? The Rabbis have used many different methods. For example:

They [two authorities who seem to disagree] must have had different versions.

He meant something other than what seems to be the case. What he actually meant was ...

That word doesn't belong here.

There's a word missing.

There's a different rule in this specific case [even though the case seems comparable to another that was decided differently.

We have no choice but to reverse the opinions of the two authorities quoted.

There must have been a copying error.

There seems to be an answer for everything. I recognize the tradition that those closer in time to Sinai have a more accurate idea of Torat Moshe^viii than later generations so that the more recent cannot disagree with their predecessors.^ix I am less certain about the idea that they, therefore, are always right. It seems to be our view that they cannot make mistakes. If there is any statement that does not make sense or seems to be in disagreement with another, the mistake is ours and we must reevaluate our interpretation of what we read. I am troubled by the hoops we pass through in order to make a statement fit in to what we know. It often means that they have to suggest, and we have to accept, some unlikely, or even bizarre, scenario that would justify a statement, or we are expected to accept the view that something “must” mean the opposite of what it seems to say, or that it was copied wrong. Anything to ensure that the tanna^x (or whoever) is right. We turn them into deities who are infallible, even though we claim to believe that only Hashem^xi is infallible. By doing so, by refusing to accept the idea that one of them can make a mistake – we risk having all of Shas^xii called into question, especially painful if we are convinced that what we are defending contains errors.

And if we cannot accept all the explanations, there is always the approach of “Bottom line Judaism.” With such an attitude, we do not deny the Rabbis' conclusions, even if we don't understand the route to them. As we learn from the Torah, we must accept their interpretation of the law. But that does not mean that we accept the explanations they give for reaching their conclusions. It is hard to give complete credence to the explanations of two Rabbis who have reached the same conclusions by diametrically opposite routes, and who disagree with each other's arguments. But their conclusion is binding on us.

We may be determined to understand though. So how can we deal with what doesn't seem to make sense? Ask someone who knows – or claims he does – someone who can decipher the text and provide an interpretation that seems to be valid. But when seeking an explanation of contrary ideas, bizarre scenarios, and scientific errors, it is better not to allow the expert to demand the provision of a specific example, because he is likely to focus on the example and not address the basic principle – even if he's familiar with that principle and its problems. One of the “explanations” which I have cited is likely to be used as justification for what is written.

So we have to be careful when we choose someone to help us, or when we decide on the explanation of a great authority from the past. We may stand on the shoulders of the giants who preceded us, but if they fall we'll be badly hurt.

Next episode: “Something For Everyone" -- Except you.

i      The portion of the Talmud that “explains” the Mishna, which is, itself, an explanation of the Torah – both the part that is written and the portion given to Moses at Sinai but not written down at the time.

ii     The first part of the Bible, otherwise know as the “Five Books of Moses,” the Chumash, and the Pentateuch, among various other designations.

iii    “It stands.” It may not be resolved but the point will be elucidated when the Messiah comes.

iv     Or history book, or whatever.

v      On the other hand, there may be errors in the interpretations of those words, although that is unlikely. Indeed, the Rabbis were not wrong even if there are mistakes in the documents we have now. Any apparent errors are those of the people who followed them.

vi     See previous note. The extra words represent errors by the copyists, not by the ones who originally spoke the words.

vii    Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 13b.

viii   The Torah of Moses.

ix     But they are free to offer their own explications of the meaning of those who preceded them.

x      One of the Rabbis whose words – from the first or second century CE – appear in the Mishna.

xi     G-d.

xii    The Talmud.