Rosh Hashana 8

We examine three more clauses of our most recent Mishna.  

1) Rabbi Elazar & Rabbi Shimon say that the New Year for animal tithes is the first of Tishrei
2) The first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years
3) The first of Tishrei is also the New Year for counting Sabbatical years

Following each of these statements, the rabbis present verses from Psalms and from the Torah. They each interpret these verses differently, using the 'ancient' words to help them justify their interpretations. 

For example, the rabbis use poetry describing the land in its glory to conclude that animals go into heat and become pregnant at certain times of year.  They have their young after differing gestation lengths.  We are taught that this proves that the New Year lines up with animal tithes.  Through interpretation of texts, we learn that Jewish Kings and Gentile Kings; Jewish people and Gentile people are judged at different times.   We learn about the announcement of Sabbatical and Jubilee years.  We also learn about Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur compared with our Festivals.

What amazes me is that the rabbis would all agree that the chosen verses indeed teach us how to interpret our seemingly unrelated Mishnayot.  How can they be so certain?  Perhaps those verses are metaphors but they do not refer to this Mishna.  There is no hard science involved in our rabbis' interpretation of poetry and verse.  

Much of rabbinic literature is founded upon the notion that the rabbis have found "the answer" through their learning.  Principles for consistent interpretation are formulated and followed to this day.  Numbers are counted and recalculated.  everything about the notion of Talmudic study speaks to truth and certainty.  But so much of the rabbis interpretations are just that - interpretations.  

This idea reminds me of my first philosophy class in university.  Beginning to learn about logic, we were taught, "Given that G-d exists, ...".  I found that opening statement frustrating.  How can we say that we are searching for truth if we begin our search with "Given that G-d exists"?  For if G-d does not exist, the entire argument will fall apart.  And because we cannot 'prove' that G-d exists, we are arguing toward something less than fully examined.

Many of the arguments presented in the Talmud are based on leaps of logic that astound me.  However, this is my tradition.  The interpretations of our rabbis have informed the traditions that I fall back upon in times of need.  So whether or not their arguments are based on 'truth', they continue to be valuable and meaningful.