I. Is there really a mesora about matan torah?
Kuzari Proof
If you listen to anyone who tries to prove that Judaism is true, their main argument is the so called "Kuzari Proof". The essence of the "Kuzari Proof" is as follows. No one could invent a story that alleges all of the target’s audience’s ancestors experienced some miraculous or otherwise special event. It is implausible that a lie could be consistently retold by millions. And, the audience’s reaction would be one of disbelief, “Why does he know all about this event, and we never heard of it before from our grandparents?”Since Judaism uniquely makes claims of national miracles and national revelations, events with audiences of millions who are the ancestors of nearly all of the target audience (excepting geirim) this gives Judaism a unique claim to authenticity. The commonality of the story amongst so many and the acceptance of the story by their descendents is unique. (In contrast, Jesus’s alleged miracles were only said to be witnessed by at most the 500 attendees of the wedding at Cana, and the target audience isn’t primarily the descendents of those guests.)
Refutation 1
The first refutation of the Kuzari proof is very simple. There have been times when the jewish people forgot the Torah. This is not me saying this, the Ramban al Hatorah says this (במדבר ט"ו:כ"ב) when talking about how the entire Jewish people could sin בשוגג. He writes:
In our sinfulness, this has already happened in the days of the evil kings of Israel, such as Jeroboam, that most of the nation completely forgot Torah and the commandments, and the instance in the book of Ezra about the people of the Second Temple.
The Ramban writes that in the times of the first Beis Hamikdash as well as the time of Ezra most of the Jewish people completely forgot the Torah. In other words, most of the people had no mesora, no memory of matan torah and Ezra convinced them of the truth of Torah.
Refutation 2
The assumption is made that the claim is made out of the blue, in a single stroke. It doesn’t account for gradual acceptance of a story. Say something starts out as a myth about a subset of the people, and it’s known to be a bed-time story. The next generation it’s “some say”. Over several generations, it can become “official history” about everyone, with no one generation expressing the disbelief that is critical to this argument. We see this happen all the time and this in fact one of the defining characteristics of an oral tradition.
II. Is there a Mesora about what happened at Har Sinai?
Since Matan Torah is the seminal event in Jewish and world history you would think that there would be a clear and undisputed tradition about the event. Yet, we find that disputes abound with respect to important aspects of what happened.
What date was the Torah given?
The average orthodox Jew will answer the 6th of Sivan. However, this is actually a machlokes in the Gemara Shabbos 86b:
Our Rabbis taught: On the sixth day of the month [Siwan] were the Ten Commandments given to Israel. R. Jose maintained: On the seventh thereof.
The Gemara explains that the machlokes is whether there were 2 or 3 days of פרישה.
How can it be that there isn't one clear tradition of the date of Matan Torah? How can there be a dispute about how many days of פרישה there were? How come the 600,000 people didn't all remember the same date and pass it on to their children?
What did the Jewish people hear at Har Sinai?
Again, you would think that there would be a clear and undisputed tradition about what was heard. In fact, this is a machlokes the Rambam and the Ramban. The Rambam states that for the first 2 dibros the people heard noise but did not hear or understand the words. For the last 8, they heard nothing. The Ramban claims that for the first 2 they heard and understood the words and for the last 8 they heard noise but did not hear or understand the words.
Again, this is the seminal event witnessed by millions of people and yet we don't even know what they people heard.
What did the Jewish people receive at Har Sinai?
Rashid at the beginning of Parshas Behar asks the famous questions מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני and answers that it is to teach us that we received all of the details of all the mitzvos at Har Sinai. However, this is not so simple. In fact, there is a fundamental dispute between the Rambam and the Geonim. The Geonim state that Moshe got everything at Har Sinai and any later disputes are because things were forgotten. The Rambam vehemently disagrees and claims that Moshe got the principle of how to derive halachos plus the basic halachos and some details. However, he did NOT get every detail and machlokes is regarding things learned from the principles.
In short, there is a fundamental dispute about what was received at Har Sinai, everything or not (I am planning on devoting a whole essay to the development of disputes).
Hey, I might be able to help you with the queries.
ReplyDeleteJust wanna know, are you looking for answers or just enjoying the questions?
I am looking for answers
DeleteJust a few brief points without digging into too much detail:
ReplyDeleteSection I:
- most of the nation may have forgotten the Torah, but you always had the scholarly class/rabbis, and seemingly we rely on them for the accurate transmission of the mesorah anyways
- I think a big problem with the 'gradual acceptance' theory is that its hard to work out how most of the biblical commandments would have come about that way (besides for the more general argument that few of them make any sense without an oral tradition)
- part of what's unique about the whole Passover concept is how it involves a detailed and clear transmission of specific events, laws etc. so that makes the gradual development theory a bit more difficult, although you could get around that
Section II:
- you could counter that the specific date isn't so integral to the mesorah as the details of the events itself, and seemingly its not a detail that was passed down orally
General thought:
What does it really mean that we have a direct mesorah? that you can trace it back in books? I may have heard something from my father or even grandfather and can relay it onwards a couple generations, but I don't have direct firsthand knowledge further than that.
@Dov "most of the nation may have forgotten the Torah, but you always had the scholarly class/rabbis, and seemingly we rely on them for the accurate transmission of the mesorah anyways."
DeleteDo you realize you may have just defeated the Kuzari argument ! A mesorah can be introduced to a mass of people ignorant of the mesorah by a relatively small class of people. This is what the Kuzari argues is not possible.
Regarding section 1 the big point of the kuzari proof is that there is a mass mesora. Once there is no mass mesora the story of Matan Torah is no better then the miracles of Jesus transmitted by a small fee.
ReplyDeleteThis Monday is July 4th, no one in America thinks it should be July 5th. Dates are important. In any case other critical details are not known as I pointed out there is a machlokes what they heard.
Hi AJWQ
ReplyDeleteRe your refutation 1, I disagree with it being a refutation. If you are looking for a tme where *most* jews forgot the torah, you don't need the Ramban etc. just look at today. The majority of jews do not believe in matan torah. However the point of the "kuzari proof (KP)" is that the mesorah has always been carried by "many people". As such the fact that there have been other periods in history where most jews forgot the torah is not really relevant, if you believe that the number that did not forget was “large”.
ACJA’s point is slightly more valid, as he notes that it is a “small class of people” introducing the mesorah. The crux of the issue is whether there was or was not always a “large number” of people who held the mesorah, however, of course unless, you can show externally that there was such then KP becomes essentially a circular argument.
The main problem with KP (as a proof of matan torah having happened) is that it spends half its time saying how unlikely such a mesorah is (and therefore how it could not have been forged) and the other half the time saying how if it is a myth then we should expect to find loads of similar myths. The two arguments neatly fold into each other. It is a myth, but one that is unlikely to form without specific circumstances. That is why no other religion can “create” such a mesorah (as you can’t just create a myth out of thin air), and also why we don’t see any very similar myths (as it is an unlikely myth). Case closed.
What KP is good at is showing truth of Judaism vs e.g. Christianity. Once you have accepted the veracity of matan torah then you are in a difficult place in terms of changing the law via any method other than public revelation. For this you don’t need a “constant mesorah”, you merely need acceptance of matan torah as reality. From memory the Kuzari never really focussed on the mesorah, he merely pointed out that no-one really disputes the story of the torah. I think that the “formal” KP (as developed by e.g. Rabbi Gottleib) goes a fair bit further and therefore has a bigger onus on showing that there always was such a mesorah.
@Unknown I have made some similar point in my series of posts on the Kuzari argument. When discussing the Kuzari argument it seems the proponents keep flip flopping from one premise to another. The Kuzari argument needs to be put into logical format. I think there are several variants that seem to get mixed up during a conversation. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i.html
DeleteUnknown,
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the kuzari proof is that a small group of people could never convince the masses that it happened. The fact that most of the Jewish people forgot it refutes this.
@Unknown - "The fact that most of the Jewish people forgot it refutes this."
DeleteWhat do you mean by 'it' ? If you mean a Sinai revelation can you source that most Israelites/Jews forgot 'it' ? Thanks
@Unknown How about Judges 2:10 - would this disprove the Kuzari argument ?
Delete