Response to Jay
I received the following comment from Jay in reference to the post http://www.avakesh.com/2007/04/answering_the_h.html.
"Please read http://karaite-korner.org/shavuot.shtml and be sure to proceed and read the 7 webpages linked to at the bottom.
If you read through all those webpages and you still stick to the ridiculous Rabbinic interpretations on this issue, you're valuing Rabbinic authority over truth and your position will have rightly earned fierce contempt."
Jay, I take up the challenge, lovingly. It is not my intent to revive the old controversies. Karaism is gone and in practical terms it is no longer a challenge to Rabbinic Judaism. It is worthwhile, however, to face its challenges because through respectful debate we might better understand not only these verses but also clarify the entire rabbinic approach. In my Chumash series I proceed from the assumption that we need to reconstruct the assumption underlying the rabbinic approach to interpretation, so we might be able to understand it. I invite you to dialog regarding the specifics of this approach and not to dismiss without understanding.
Before I address the "9 classic Karaite proofs" against the rabbinic interpretation of Shevuos, I ask you, Jay, one question. Can you propose a reason why the Rabbis would have pursued a difficult and non-surface interpretation of the verses instead onfthe apparent meaning? Don't respond with slogans and insult the Rabbis, as Karaites routinely do. I assume that you would agree that, whatever you think of Rabbis, they created a great civilization and left us a legacy which still, stands, unlike Karaism. If you can't explain this, you are left with a question no less grave than the ones you ask. Why would smart , pious and committed people willfully misinterpret unambiguous passages? Isn't it more likely that they did not do this but did something entirely different? My initial post was designed to show that the text demands their interpretation. I suggest that the meaning of the word Shabbat, which does not mean the same as our Sabbath, forces the rabbinic interpretation.
Now to the responses. Responses to the 9 arguments are in italics
First Argument: The name "Sabbath" is a special name which the Torah uses to describe the Seventh Day of the week and this name can not be transferred from one object to another, that is to say, it can not be used to refer to any other day.
Not so. It can refer to the Sabbatical year and as Shabbaton is refers also to holidays. My contention in the post that it caries the meaning of a religious holiday (refraining from work) rather than "the seventh day". The root is "shvs", refraining from something.
Second Argument: The Scripture says "the Morrow after THE Sabbath" with the definite article, proving that the Scripture means the Sabbath of Genesis as it is written [only a few verses earlier] "it [the 7th Day] is a Sabbath to Hashem in all your habitations" [Lev 23,3]. If the Scripture intended another day other than that generally known as the Sabbath, it should have mentioned it specifically.
Just the opposite. The definite article makes it more specific, more the day of cessation from work than Saturday.
Third Argument: If Shavuot is supposed to fall on a fixed calendar date [as the Rabbanites maintain] like all the other Holidays, [the Torah] should have mentioned this date, as it indeed does for all the other holidays. However, if Shavuot is meant to always fall on a Sunday, as we maintain, the calendar date would change every year and this explains why the Torah did not mention a date for this holiday.
This is an exception. Shevous is determined by the number of 49 days after Passover. It could conceivably fall on different dates depending on whether the month of Iyar is male or chaser, and that depends on the moon. As such, a date cannot be listed for it in teh Torah.
Fourth Argument: It is written in the Book of Joshua "And they ate of the produce of the Land on the morrow after the Passover [Sacrifice]" (Joshua 5,11). The Passover sacrifice is on the fourteenth of Nissan. Thus they ate after the Waving of the Omer, which was carried out on the First Day of Hag HaMatzot (the 15th of Nissan) and not on the following day, the 2nd day of Hag HaMatzot (which is when the Rabbis believe the Omer must be brought). Apparently in that year the 14th of Nissan was on a Saturday and the morrow was the 15th. If the "morrow after the Sabbath" is always the 2nd day of Hag HaMatzot, as the Rabbanites claim, then this verse in the Book of Joshua is an outright contradiction to the words of the Torah, something which is not possible.
The reference is to the holiday of Pesach, not the sacrifice. The holiday is on the 14th and the morrow after is on the 15th. This is addressed in the footnote 5 in the original post.
Fifth Argument: If we interpret "Sabbath" as a Yom Tov, that is, as a Holy Day [on which work is forbidden], how do we interpret the verse "Seven complete Sabbaths". If the meaning here is a week which contains in it a Sabbath, as the Rabbanites claim,1 we find that in one instance the meaning of "Sabbath" is Holiday and in another instance its meaning is a week which contains in it a Sabbath. This is untenable for the Torah mentioned "Sabbath" twice in the same breath and it can not have two different meanings unless the Scripture explicitly indicates it does.
I cede this one to you; in fact, I mention it in the post. However, it is not uncommon to find the same word with different meanings within the same sentence or close to one another. This is how Biblical Hebrew works. Homonyms exist in every language, especially so in Semitic languages with their "root" system. See http://www.rhlschool.com/eng3n15.htm
Sixth Argument: If we interpret the word "Sabbath" as a Holy Day [on which work is forbidden], it makes more sense to interpret it as the last Holy Day of Passover [=7th Day of Hag HaMatzot], the Seventh Day of Assembly, and not the morrow of the first Holy Day [=1st Day of Hag HaMatzot].
I didn't understand this one. In chronological order, the first mention of Shabbos should refer to the first yom tov.
Seventh Argument: The Jubilee year is analogous to the Feast of Shavuot. Just as Shavuot has a period of seven times seven followed by a 50th day which is holy and which comes after a Sabbath day, so too the 50th Jubilee year follows a seventh year which is called a Sabbath [year].
Yes, and if the Sabbath refers to Yom Tov, this is also true - Yom Tov is Sabbath.
Eighth Argument: The Rabbanite sages claimed that the meaning of "Seven Weeks" [Dt 16,9] is seven periods of seven days and that the Torah did not mean a week beginning on Sunday and ending on Saturday. This is in contradiction to the language of the Bible. When the Scripture wants to refer to a seven day period it says "a week of days" [Shavuot Yamim (Ez 45,6)], meaning a span of any seven days. This term is in contrast to the term "week" [Shavua] which is a fixed week, beginning on Sunday and ending on the Sabbath Day. The Feast of Shavuot always falls out on the morrow of the seventh week and therefore is on the First Day [Sunday] of the following week.
No, it means a seven day period, not a chronological week, from Sunday to Sunday. For example: And Laban said: 'It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the first-born. Fulfill the week of this one, and we will give thee the other also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.' (Gen. 29)
See also Shoftim 14
I appeal to a better understanding of the text. The Rabbis were not arbitrary, malicious (CH'V) or ignorant, notwidstanding Karaite polemics. Let's give them their due and understand what and why they said what they said. Let us not reject in ignorance.
Sir, your rebuttal doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Thanks for proving my point anyway.
Posted by: Jay | July 04, 2007 at 03:15 AM
Before posting my first comment I didn't pay enough attention to your address to me, so I'd like to remark on some of your assertions.
>Can you propose a reason why the Rabbis would have pursued a difficult and non-surface interpretation of the verses instead onfthe apparent meaning?
My take on this is that the ancient rabbis wanted to counter and eventually replace the Torah-true interpretation that adheres to the text's plain meaning. This is my proposition, take it or leave it.
>Don't respond with slogans and insult the Rabbis, as Karaites routinely do.
Orthodox Rabbinites routinely parrot ignorant and in many cases mendacious slogans and insults about the Qaraite Jews. Here are several examples: http://orahsaddiqim.org/Resources/Myths_About_Karaism_Lies_and_Misconceptions.shtml
>I suggest that the meaning of the word Shabbat, which does not mean the same as our Sabbath, forces the rabbinic interpretation.
Sorry, you're indulging in the typical Rabbinical delusions that do not change the truth according to the text's plain meaning.
>I assume that you would agree that, whatever you think of Rabbis, they created a great civilization and left us a legacy which still, stands, unlike Karaism.
Qaraism still stands and is doing rather well given all that has happened. I'm afraid you've got much to learn that proves you wrong in this regard and your only problem might be an *unwillingness* to do some reading in the Wikipedia webpage on Qaraite Judaism(leaving aside some conspicuous factual faults) and the Qaraite websites it links to.
>Karaism is gone and in practical terms it is no longer a challenge to Rabbinic Judaism.
More power to your elbows if you believe you've convinced yourself of that. I've noticed many Orthodox Jews insist that Qaraism has disappeared. This is hilarious.
Yet currently there are more than 2,000 followers in the US alone. According to the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs' website there exist 40,000 Qaraite Jews in the Land of Israel while the lowest reliable estimate of followers in Israel is 25,000. Smaller communities exist in France (about 1,000 persons), the UK and a few other Western European states.
Back on the real date of Shavu`ot (according to the Torah) I had an exchange with a young Haredi in Jerusalem who was surprised to hear that 25,000 to 40,000 Qaraite Jews were present in Israel, let alone the existence of other communities abroad.
Rabbinical Jews are increasingly switching to Qaraism and I can vouch for this personally since I've witnessed it happen even by myself in Israel. Let me give you some examples of former observant Orthodox Rabbinical Jews who've long been Qaraite:
1. Eli`ezer ben Ephraim haKohen (Qaraite since 1998)
2. Nehemia Gordon (Qaraite since the mid 1980's)
3. Melekh ben Ya`aqov
4. Yosef Me'ir Rekhavi (Qaraite since the mid 1980's)
These names are easily found through internet searches, albeit with slightly different spellings.
>It is worthwhile, however, to face [Qaraism's] challenges because through respectful debate we might better understand not only these verses but also clarify the entire rabbinic approach.
You may have been respectful to me personally but you haven't shown a readiness to break with the untenable Rabbinic methods of exegesis like Drash and Remez.
I fail to see what needs to be further clarified about "the entire rabbinic approach". The Jewish world is inundated with it and the explanations that ostensibly uphold them as is, and it's not like you're going to convince me to abandon my Qaraite convictions and interpretations. At this point it's best to agree that we disagree.
Posted by: Jay | July 04, 2007 at 04:04 AM
CLARIFICATION:
One of my first sentences in the last post should read:
My take on this is that the ancient rabbis wanted to counter and eventually replace the Torah-true interpretation that adheres to the text's plain meaning in order to undercut the Sadducees and other Jewish currents that subscribed to a straightforward exegesis by the plain meaning.
SORRY.
Posted by: Jay | July 04, 2007 at 04:12 AM
Thank you, Jay, for your comments. All I suggest is that using new interpretative methods shows many rabbinic interpetations to be eminently reasonable. This is the way forward. Ultimately, if this thesis can be demonstrated, Karaites should also accept them, or at least clarify how far "sebel hyerusha" goes when new methods demonstrate a new understanding of the old texts. I don't claim we are there yet, but using these methods, as I do in many of my posts, can, I believe, eventually take us there.
This said, I think that much of old bitterness and division can be let go at our time, when the enemy of Judaism is ignorance and apathy to the word of Hashem. In some ways Karaites and Rabbanites are alies against these forces.
An appendix in a newly published book discusses the new interpretative critical tools in regard to 'contra' Biblical Criticism. It's a good introduction to the approach that I also propose. The rest of the book restates traditional rabbinic anti-Karaite polemic. See http://www.yasharbooks.com/Advocate.html
Posted by: avakesh | July 04, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Avaskesh, you're welcome for reading my recent comments.
I've got no idea which new interpretative methods you have in mind. It is not enough for rabbinic interpretations to seem or be reasonable though this is certainly progress over downright exegetical falsehood; they must match the text's plain meaning and follow Hebrew grammar rules and fit the context of a given passage. "Reasonable" just isn't good enough when YHWH's Word is at stake. Furthermore, in the final account no Qaraite Jew is under any obligation to follow any given interpretation reached by his/her counterpart let alone Orthodox rabbis. The topic you're commenting about, Qaraite Judaism, is one you're too ill-informed about, what with the fact you're still laboring under the untenable belief the ancient rabbies reached by taking out of context a certain passage in Sefer Devarim as if it endows the rabbis with exegetical authority over the entire Jewish people. The same false understanding of this Torah passage is also what grants the "oral" Law its authority in the rabbis' eyes. Your reference to Sevel ha-Yerusha is another demonstration of how insufficiently informed you still are since no one is bound by it unless they agree to be, and most Qaraites not born into the Egyptian descended congregation don't accept it while some of the more traditional Qaraites at least question it on occasion.
Qaraite Jews aren't interested in sleights of hand and other forms of "trickology" merely devised to mislead unsuspecting or uncritical Jewish believers into acceptance of trite untenable Rabbinic interpretations. But if you (plural) are genuinely seeking real new Rabbinical understandings of Torah commandments that sit well with the plain meaning, we'll be most interested in hearing them.
Posted by: Jay | July 04, 2007 at 02:44 PM