We need to understand how a crossbeam should be placed in an alleyway so that we can determine where one domain begins and where another domain ends. When the beam is placed correctly, we will know where we are allowed to carry objects on Shabbat.
The rabbis argue about the intentions of different baraitot in Eiruvin 3a and 3b. They debate about the structure of the sanctuary and how different measures were required in different places - decorative and other finishings included. The rabbis look at prooftexts including the placement of roofing in our sukkot as commanded in Leviticus. They question the meaning of strange words in the baraitot to elucidate inferences. They wonder about what is and what is not a doorframe in the first place.
Part of my study of Talmud feels like literary criticism. I cannot truly grasp the full meanings intended when I have not read the original works, the baraitot, to which the rabbis refer so frequently. I can appreciate the effort, the form and the pace of the text; I can pore through the words for consistencies of character and storyline. I can even grasp onto clauses that speak to something familiar. But I cannot immerse myself, for I am speaking a different language - literally and figuratively. Truly I am swimming in an ocean where I have no air tank... nor even a snorkel.
Does it truly matter whether a crossbeam is 10 or 20 or 40 cubits above the alleyway? To me, not at all. But it seems that the intellectual exercise of the rabbis is a useful one both in understanding how our halacha has developed, and in understanding how to think. When I wade through these details that seem so distant and bereft, I often come back to the larger lesson of "how to think". The rabbis look for proofs: they use the repetition of letters or words, the creative connection of seemingly unrelated texts, anything that they can to add strength to their ideas. This exercise of building an argument with creative thought - all within a stratified structure - is endlessly fascinating.
Posts
Two thoughts: the Talmud is an edited document -as you know not everyone in the discussions even lived in the same century or place. But also they did not always have access to the same texts themselves. Sometimes certain rabbis arguments seem odd and it is because they had different versions of the Briytot- nor none at all. (Forgive me if this is repetition to you- I just thought your description of Talumd study involving textual critisim was 100% spot on!)
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think one of the reasons the rabbis need "proof" how ever odd or 'creative' for their ideas because their worldview is that everything came from the Torah and every rule has a proof text. It would be too unsettling for them to challenge that idea.
It is almost impossible for me to imagine the worldview of the Rabbis. We were talking about this with Dov recently, attempting to explain how G-d was a given until very recently. We spoke about only knowing what we know. For example, in the past, the knowledge that the world was flat. Or that it was fine to help deliver baby after baby without washing one's hands because there was no concept of 'germs'. Or, in the future, how silly it might seem that that we understand the placement of the earth in the universe, for we learn that our idea of the universe is in fact only one cog in a much, much larger system, and that our lives are actually serving that larger need. For example, of course. We are limited by what we know as much as we are limited by what we don't know. And the Rabbis, though often brilliant and educated and creative, were human beings who were limited by what they knew and what they did not know. Which is why Talmud study is such an amazing sociological study as much as it is a study of history and halacha.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of when I first studied Plato in university. I though well, this is so obvious, so basic, -- it is like someone just wrote down common sense-why do people classifly him as such a brilliant philosopher? Then I realized that my entire worldview was influenced by his thoughts, so much so that I could not even imagine a differnt way of thinking - which must have exisited before his time.
ReplyDelete