The Chapters of the Fathers begin with an account of the transmission of the Torah. The term that is commonly used for Torah transmission is the same one used in the first mishna of the Chapters and it is "mesorah". The other term utilized by the mishna is "receiving", or "kabbolah". These are obviously different terms with different meanings and our analysis will center on the relative meanings of these two terms.
The question of "mesorah" is an actual one in our time. It is common now to claim that everything that we received from the past generation is "mesorah", which is , therefore, unchangeable and inviolable. The problem with this approach, however, is that there appear to be in existence multiple "mesoras". The tradition of the Satmar Rav is very different, if not contrary to that of Rav Kook and the path hewn by R. Y.D. Soloveitchik differs in crucial respects from the "derech" of R. Aharon Kotler, or Ben Ish Chai, or Ger or Belz or R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. The claim that disagreements invalidate the claim to authenticity is an old one. It is the rejoinder that Karaites offered to the authority of the Mishna. However, its antiquity does not invalidate its power. Any explanation of "mesorah" must take into account the multiplicity of traditions in our own time and in the past and yet be able to explain why all of them are binding and true. I believe that the first mishna in the Chapters offers a sophisticated model of "mesorah" that can accomplish this task. What we will explore is not why the Sages disagree or the genesis of "machlokes", for that I refer you to an earlier post http://www.avakesh.com/2007/02/why_do_sages_di.html). Rather we aim to understand how the "mesorah" accommodates disagreement and authoritativeness at the same time.
Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over it Joshua and Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.
The key terms are "gave over (mosar) and "received" (kibbel). These are clearly terms with different and distinct meanings. We will explore these meanings shortly. For now, I note that the former term is used explicitly to refer to the transmission between Moshe and Joshua and again from the prophets to the men of the Great Assembly. Transmission from God to Moshe is termed "received". All other steps, from Joshua to the Elders and from Elders to prophets are listed without a transitive verb. This introduces an ambiguity as to whether these stages of Torah transmission consisted of receiving, as by Moshe from Sinai, or in giving over, such as from the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. From Antigonos Ish Soko the term "receive" is exclusively used.
This distinction is discussed in Ein Levanon, written by the controversial scholar Naftali Hertz Wesseley. He offers a fairly conventional approach to explain it. Our answer is different.
First let's backup just a bit.
We began by raising the question of what is "mesora" and how it is possible to have divergent world views and prescriptions for "avodas Hashem" that all lay claim to being the "mesora". I believe that there are only four possible positions in answer to this question
1. The different interpretations of Torah are products of human intelligence and effort, perhaps even if assisted by Divine Inspiration. The human element is predominant and that is why the interpretations vary so widely. However, they are all valid, in a a manner of speech, since all of them represent an engagement with some kind of the Word of God. I would call this a modified Conservative view and reject it on doctrinal grounds.
2. The interpretations differ because those outside of my camp are making a mistake. My "mesora'" is correct and theirs is in error. I, therefore, reject it and relegate it to a rejected sphere. The logical result of this position is to reject the validity of the bearers of variant traditions as "mesorah" Jews. This is undesirable on practical grounds and inconsistent with the ways of the Torah, which "its ways are ways of peace and its paths are are paths of pleasantness (Proverbs 2)".
3. "These and those are the words of the Living God". The disagreements are all a part of the Torah and all are meant to coexist. Even though mutually exclusive, all are true and all are valid (See Ritvo to Eiruvin 13). The difficulty with this approach is that what you believe determines how you act. If everything is right, any course of action is correct. This approach dilutes one's commitment to any particular way of Service and thus to Service itself (see Rashi Kesuvos 57a). It cools commitments. This may appeal to the post-modern sensibility that holds everything true and nothing true, but it is the way of compromise and mediocrity.
The fourth way and the one that I elect to follow in explaining the Mishna is to find a model for "mesorah" that allows us to accomplish the goals of preservation, respect and authentication. This model is that of TRANSLATION.
We know already that giving over is different from receiving. The receiver functions as a passive vessel that accepts all that is placed into it, without deviation or participation. Not so is the process of "mesora". It requires an active selection and adaptation to the level and ability of the receiver to contain and absorb what is being transmitted. The teacher adapts the material to the student. Translation results in the final product that is neither identical nor different from the source material. Translation is the only example of adaptation that is both the same and different, both identical and not the same. The translator gives over the exact meaning but in a different shape and form, in another tongue. This is the one situation in which distinct translators can produce different translations that can all be identically faithful to the original.
Just like there is translation from one language to another, so there exists translation from one culture to another. Each language possesses its own cultural assumptions, quirks and idioms. A good translator takes advantage of the destination language's expressiveness and gestalt in order to faithfully transfer the original meaning. In the same fashion, when the cultural environment changes there arises a need to "translate" the tradition in new terms. Depending on the assumptions and skill of the translator, different versions come into existence. (See http://www.avakesh.com/2007/04/the_task_of_tra.html )
It goes without saying that the times of great cultural change demand more translation. The multiplicity of approaches to tradition in our own time is undoubtedly due to the wrenching dislocations of the past 250 years and the vast cultural shifts that humanity has undergone since 1750. There are, however, two other periods of tremendous cultural change in Jewish society and Jewish religious life and both are referred to in our Mishna. This is the times when the mishna uses the term "mesora", giving over, rather than kabbola, or receiving. I refer to the transition from Moshe to Joshua and from Prophets to Men of Great Assembly. These two "paradigm shifts" required substantial translation of Judaism from one paradigm to another. Why this was so and in what manner is that which we will discuss next time.
Comments