tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760004395394142531.post8052236249646487468..comments2023-10-23T14:19:00.021-07:00Comments on Atheodox Jew: Why I Don't Care whether the Torah Is Factually True: Part II - Morality and MidrashAtheodox Jewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760004395394142531.post-87828560556720451532013-06-07T04:04:51.912-07:002013-06-07T04:04:51.912-07:00I'm glad you (and your chavrusas) are enjoying...I'm glad you (and your chavrusas) are enjoying the blog!<br />AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760004395394142531.post-47062068748600045022013-06-05T13:56:44.856-07:002013-06-05T13:56:44.856-07:00thank you for your clarification in the article yo...thank you for your clarification in the article you wrote "Torah Sheb'al Peh is one big declaration of how we choose to perceive Torah - and it's one which is meant to evolve over time." what was ambiguous here is if this is how it was understood at the time it was compiled or as you write in your reply it might be that they viewed it as "explaining" the meaning of the text based on rules of logic/exegesis if the latter is the case then to read there pronunciations with a relativist understanding is absurd because they were way off in there interpretations as they were actually trying to explain a relativist text through the lens of an assertive reading<br /><br />your blog is amazing we have tumulted over your posts in our kollel entire bain hasderim's thanks!!judanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760004395394142531.post-89496966040318040672013-06-05T12:37:29.300-07:002013-06-05T12:37:29.300-07:00Juda,
I'm not connecting the historical dots ...Juda,<br /><br />I'm not connecting the historical dots here re: tzedukim, kara'im, etc. (Though it's an interesting idea.) All I'm saying is that it's fairly clear (to me at least, and I'm hardly alone on this) that a lot of Torah sheb'al peh, including much of the corpus of halacha, is NOT contemporary to Torah shebichtav. It's a tradition which evolved over time that was later hooked onto the text, and treated as an extension/interpretation of the text. I don't think that's self-deception.<br /><br />Now it might be that Chazal would disagree with my thesis because they didn't see themselves as "creating" interpretations but rather as "explaining" the meaning of the text based on rules of logic/exegesis. But to me, <i>that</i> is self-deception.<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br />AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2760004395394142531.post-2713660539464408282013-06-05T10:39:32.788-07:002013-06-05T10:39:32.788-07:00i am now expressing the meaning i derived from you...i am now expressing the meaning i derived from your article you are essentially saying that the rabbis during the tanaic period or perhaps starting some time a little before then split with the tzidukim and various other groups that saw the torah in an assertive light and abandoned the torah as an absolute authority and started reinterpreting it in a relativist manner (much as the Christians read the old testament as alluding to Jesus) then later "rabbinic Jews" who should have been continuing this tradition got influenced by there assertive karrite coreligionists and lapsed into that view of torah but added all the books of chaza"l to the repertoire of assertive books that we must follow unquestioningly and try to remain faithful to there original intended meanings <br />sir while i agree with the sentiment you suggest i believe it is a tremendous act of self deception to try to project your idea back onto any of our forebearers all the best judajudanoreply@blogger.com