In our series 'On Tanach" we have proposed that the books of Nach were written twice, once by the original author and later by Anshei Kneses HaGedolah. Only books found at the last editing to be written with Ruach Hakodesh were canonized and this process of canonization was also guided by Ruach Hakodesh. Consequently, as Netsiv points out, fragments of inspired works ended up being imbedded in other inspired works. As we will now see, inspired fragments also ended up imbedded in works which were not inspired, lending them a special status.
The enigma of Ben Sira
The book of Ben Sira is unique among the Apocryphal books. It is the only such book quoted frequently by the Talmud and Midrash; more importantly, it is at times referred to in a way reserved for quotations from the Tanach itself, "diksiv"[1]. This is difficult to reconcile with other statements that prohibit study of this book[2]. In addition, Sanhedrin 100a approvingly quotes a number of verses from Ben Sira and concludes that “good things from it you can read but bad (nonsensical) things from it you may not read”. The Talmud brings examples of some of the “bad” things; it is obvious that they are rejected as aphorisms of no great depth or significance.
After what we have established in the preceding discussion, a solution suggests itself after a perusal of the introduction to the book of Ben Sira. This introduction explains that it was written and “almost competed” by Ben Sira “who “did not only gather the grave and short sentences of wise men who were before him but also uttered some of his own…” Farthermore, this Ben Sira lived “in the latter times, after all the people have been led away captive and called home again and after almost all of the prophets”.
It may be suggested that Ben Sira represents a work that is a compilation of statements of various prophets and inspired authors that lived before him. However, and crucially important, it had never undergone a second editing under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh; rather it was put together and added to by someone who did not possess Ruach Hakodesh. The Sages, however, knew which verses stemmed from which source. They did not refrain from quoting or commenting on those fragments that were originally divinely inspired, even to the extent of referring to them with the same language ordinarily used for Scripture. They did not accept the book as a whole, however, for average people were not capable to make this determination and would come to treat verses that are not inspired as if they are.
[1] Bava Kama 92b, See Tosafot ibid s.v.meshulash bektuvim, Chagiga 13a, Eiruvin 65a, and more than a dozen other places. Maharits Chiyos in Kol Sifrei Marits Chiyos, Vol1, p152 maintains that the acceptability of Ben Sira is subject to a disagreement of Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.
[2] Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 28a,Sanhedrin 100b, Kohelet Rabba 12,12,Tosefta Yadaim 2,13,
Comments