3 ms·

It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself, it's like the SCOTUS mandate to decide what the wording of the constit

It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself, it's like the SCOTUS mandate to decide what the wording of the constitution really means or the Catholic papal infallibility doctrine - can't really have a law system without that sort of thing, religious or secular.

haivri 7y ago
Both of the above comments unfortunately reflect a deep misunderstanding of Jewish way of life. What is generally thought of as God is not what Jews refer to as God, and with time and study, the difference between the two can be properly understood. Also, there's no fooling going on. If you want to study the laws of Eruvim, here is a good resource: https://www.amazon.com/comprehensive-review-Eruvin-practical-applications/dp/1600912486 https://www.amazon.com/comprehensive-review-Eruvin-practical...
- seemslegit 7y ago
  There is no fooling going on because God is said to have promised to respect and validate these kinds of hacks, a form of devolved governance to the rabbinical law if you will. And a more conservative approach indeed does not distinguish between the word of G*d and the word of the rabbis but it is far from universal even among believing and practicing Jews.
- phonon 7y ago
  Ta Shma "In frustration, Rabbi Eliezer finally cries out, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it." From Heaven a voice is heard, saying, "Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?" Rabbi Joshua responds, "It [the Torah] is not in heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12). He responds in this way because the Torah, which was given by God to mankind at Sinai, specifically instructs those who follow it that they are to look to the received Torah as their source and guide. The Torah says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe" (Deuteronomy 30:12-14). Rabbi Joshua's response then expresses the view that the work of law is a work of human activity, and that the Torah itself supports this legal theory. The Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus. Rabbinic literature was capable of recognizing differing opinions as having a degree of legitimacy (Yer. Ber. 3b), yet the community remains united and the ruling which is ultimately followed comes through proper jurisprudence. As such, Rabbi Eliezer's miraculous appeals represent a differing legal theory and were outside of proper jurisprudence which meant that they would not be followed. Instead the Jewish community followed the ruling of the majority in this issue and in others. The Talmud asks how God responded to this incident. We are told that upon hearing Rabbi Joshua's response, God smiled and stated, "My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself Maybe, I'm not an expert in Judaism, but this comparison with that description: > it's like the [...] Catholic papal infallibility doctrine ...shows a deep failure to understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, and makes me suspect the characterization of the Jewish understanding is equally flawed.
- seemslegit 7y ago
  How so ? The papal infallibility doctrine retroactively aligns God's will with its interpretation by the Pope. Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The papal infallibility doctrine retroactively aligns God's will with its interpretation by the Pope No, it doesn't. Either in theory (where the direction of effect is the reverse described and there is no retroactivity) or in practice (where the theoretical restrictions on the applicability of the doctrine mean that on any issue where there is otherwise any controversy, the doctrine doesn't force a resolution it just expands the debate to include whether any papal statements ever made on the issue met the criteria for infallibility.) > Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." The latter isn't related to the basis for the doctrine of infallibility (whether papal or ecclesiastical) but it is part of the basis of doctrine around the priestly role in confession.
    - seemslegit 7y ago
      If I'm getting the names of the specific doctrines wrong - apologies, but the principle goes to way before they were formally defined. And yes retroactively - "You bind on earth" is present tense, "will be bound in heaven" is future tense - unless this is a translation artifact there is a clear causal ordering specified here.

haivri 7y ago

Both of the above comments unfortunately reflect a deep misunderstanding of Jewish way of life. What is generally thought of as God is not what Jews refer to as God, and with time and study, the difference between the two can be properly understood. Also, there's no fooling going on. If you want to study the laws of Eruvim, here is a good resource: https://www.amazon.com/comprehensive-review-Eruvin-practical-applications/dp/1600912486 https://www.amazon.com/comprehensive-review-Eruvin-practical...

seemslegit 7y ago
There is no fooling going on because God is said to have promised to respect and validate these kinds of hacks, a form of devolved governance to the rabbinical law if you will. And a more conservative approach indeed does not distinguish between the word of G*d and the word of the rabbis but it is far from universal even among believing and practicing Jews.
phonon 7y ago
Ta Shma "In frustration, Rabbi Eliezer finally cries out, "If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it." From Heaven a voice is heard, saying, "Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?" Rabbi Joshua responds, "It [the Torah] is not in heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12). He responds in this way because the Torah, which was given by God to mankind at Sinai, specifically instructs those who follow it that they are to look to the received Torah as their source and guide. The Torah says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?' No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe" (Deuteronomy 30:12-14). Rabbi Joshua's response then expresses the view that the work of law is a work of human activity, and that the Torah itself supports this legal theory. The Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus. Rabbinic literature was capable of recognizing differing opinions as having a degree of legitimacy (Yer. Ber. 3b), yet the community remains united and the ruling which is ultimately followed comes through proper jurisprudence. As such, Rabbi Eliezer's miraculous appeals represent a differing legal theory and were outside of proper jurisprudence which meant that they would not be followed. Instead the Jewish community followed the ruling of the majority in this issue and in others. The Talmud asks how God responded to this incident. We are told that upon hearing Rabbi Joshua's response, God smiled and stated, "My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oven_of_Akhnai

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It's been long accepted that a sufficient rabbinical consensus can out-lawyer God itself Maybe, I'm not an expert in Judaism, but this comparison with that description: > it's like the [...] Catholic papal infallibility doctrine ...shows a deep failure to understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, and makes me suspect the characterization of the Jewish understanding is equally flawed.

seemslegit 7y ago
How so ? The papal infallibility doctrine retroactively aligns God's will with its interpretation by the Pope. Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The papal infallibility doctrine retroactively aligns God's will with its interpretation by the Pope No, it doesn't. Either in theory (where the direction of effect is the reverse described and there is no retroactivity) or in practice (where the theoretical restrictions on the applicability of the doctrine mean that on any issue where there is otherwise any controversy, the doctrine doesn't force a resolution it just expands the debate to include whether any papal statements ever made on the issue met the criteria for infallibility.) > Compare "It is not in heaven" with ""Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." The latter isn't related to the basis for the doctrine of infallibility (whether papal or ecclesiastical) but it is part of the basis of doctrine around the priestly role in confession.
  - seemslegit 7y ago
    If I'm getting the names of the specific doctrines wrong - apologies, but the principle goes to way before they were formally defined. And yes retroactively - "You bind on earth" is present tense, "will be bound in heaven" is future tense - unless this is a translation artifact there is a clear causal ordering specified here.