Pages

Friday, September 28, 2012

A Useful Discussion with Carl Kinbar

So today on James' blog I had a discussion with Carl.  He made the assertion that the Talmud is a mandatory authority based on "clear" rulings.  I disputed this and Gene naturally chimed in saying that I was arrogant to argue against Carl's opinion.

So I cited a link to something which, all reasonable minds will agree, PROVES that there is nothing "clear" about the Talmudic decision-making process:

See here.

Enjoy.

29 comments:

  1. Hi Peter,

    Actually, I wrote that "Clear Talmudic decisions have 'mandatory authority.'" Obviously, there are numerous unresolved disputes and loose ends. And of course even clear decisions require application.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carl,

      Thanks for the clarification. You believe that there are clear rulings in the Talmud that are mandatory, yes?

      I disagree that there are clear rulings on the basis that what we have in the Talmud is a translation of an oral tradition. Translating is an inherently ambiguous task. For example, we must ask "Is the Mishnah upon which the Talmud is based an accurate representation of the Oral Tradition?" The answer is ambiguous. There's no way we can know. Therefore, it is unrealistic to say that there are clear rulings. To have have a clear ruling, the source of law must be clear, yes?

      Delete
  2. Carl, please define "mandatory authority," in light that the majority of Judaism does not accept this "mandate?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Dan. What do you mean by "Judaism"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mainstream Judaism, of course. And here is the irony, messianic Judaism will never be accepted by mainstream Judaism, but we of course feel that we are qualified to speak for them.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you really mean that? "Judaism" means "Mainstream Judaism"? I've never heard that before.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, it cannot mean MJ since it is comprised from 90% Gentiles, don't you think so? so what we are left with is Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and reconstructionist...

    If a Jew is not a Gentile, then MJ does not have any business to call themselves Judaism....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Dan, you wrote, "If a Jew is not a Gentile, then MJ [which you say is 90% Gentile] does not have any business to call themselves Judaism...."

    You seem to have understood my descriptive definition!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Right, Carl, but I am still waiting for your definition of "mandatory authority" as it pertains to the Talmud...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Peter, You wrote, ". . .we must ask "Is the Mishnah upon which the Talmud is based an accurate representation of the Oral Tradition?" Ah – Now I understand where you’re coming from. I certainly agree that loss and ambiguity occurs to some degree when extensive oral discussions are summarized and written down, though I’m not as skeptical as you seem to be about the existence of any clear decisions. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Mishnah was actually an attempt to write down the oral tradition but was intended as a sort of handbook that would be used only in the context of the oral explanation itself. The Tosefta, recorded not long after, was another, overlapping handbook three times the size. Based on this premise, the Mishnah should not have been understood as the attempted equivalent of the oral tradition.

    When one compares parallel passages in the Mishnah and Tosefta, they usually agree. But not always. There is a substantial body of parallels where there are subtle or even marked differences. The Bavli does its best to harmonize these.

    An example is found in the parallel at Mishnah Shabbat 6:3 and Tosefta Shabbat 4:11. It can be argued that T. Shabbat 4:11 is simply dependent on M. Shabbat 6:3, since only the Mishnah has the antecedent mention of a spice box and a vial of spikenard oil (at M. Shabbat 6:2 A.). Another possibility is that the two traditions became independent at an early stage and took on slightly different structures. A third possibility is that that both the Mishnah and Tosefta are drawn from a larger body of traditions that include (1) most or all of the items mentioned in this parallel (a needle that has a hole, a ring that has a seal, a key on the finger, a cochlae brooch, a spice box, and a vial of spikenard oil); (2) R. Meir’s opinion at T. Shabbat 6:3 B. (= the Tosefta’s anonymous 4:11 B.); (3) R. Eliezar’s opinion at T. Shabbat 4:11 C. (attributed to the SAGES in M. Shabbat 6:3 C.); (4) the SAGES opinion; and finally (5) the כלל, appended during transmission (or by the Tosefta’s redactors).

    I think this illustrates some of the ambiguity you are talking about.

    On the other hand, many Mishnah/Tosefta parallels are in complete agreement, as you know.

    But I don’t understand your conclusion, that “To have have a clear ruling, the source of law must be clear, yes?” As I understand it, the very lack of clarity in legal sources often provokes a further effort to achieve clarity. For example, the Supreme Court rules on controversial cases, many of which involve competing principles of law, every year. Insofar as the majority decisions are well-written, they are clear; they are mandatory even if unclear! Whether they are right or wrong is not at issue: if the judges of the Supreme Court or a majority of Mishnaic sages rule (as in “the Sages say . . .), it is considered mandatory. I think you are saying that, in the case of the Mishnah, is loses force because it is not certain or evident that the Mishnah correctly represents the oral tradition.

    It is certainly true that a legal decision loses force if it does not accurately interpret its sources. However, if the judges or Sages bear authority, their decision is still law.

    Another point is that the oral halakhic process is an endeavor to interpret and clarify previous sources which, if perfectly clear, would seemingly require no interpretation.

    While the Talmud sometimes restricts the applicability of the Sages’ ruling in the Mishnah, the norm is to accept it at face value and then attempt to harmonize external traditions to it. The infrequent limitation of the Sages’ rulings in a small number of cases does not undermine that clarity of other decisions which have been practiced ever since.

    This is my response based on what I believe you were saying on the other blog. We agree that the Talmud bears persuasive authority, but not on whether it contains mandatory authority as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "However, if the judges or Sages bear authority, their decision is still law."

      That's a big "if." Because the Torah vaguely says "or to the judge who is in office at that time," meaning that one judge cannot speak for all ages. That means the "judgments" of the Talmud can't hold today UNLESS a contemporary judge interprets that law as still binding--the contemporary judge must be persuaded, yes? This and other reasons is why I say it's persuasive authority. Would you agree?

      Delete
    2. Wait a minute. One argument at a time! I responded to your argument that the authority of the Talmud's decisions is "persuasive" because its sources lack clarity. My argument is that clarity of decision does not depend on clarity of sources.

      Delete
    3. Carl,

      I noted that the source of law was ambiguous. Yet you offered an analogy of the Supreme Court deciding a case on well-established precedent. This shows you didn't understand my argument. So I moved on. But, yes, let's go back by all means.

      Your analogy has quite missed the point. Here's how we could properly analogize my argument that the source of Talmudic law is dubious (in that it must essentially be taken on faith as being an accurate representation of the Oral Tradition). Image the Supreme Court of the United States deciding a case based on the precedent of a single case--the case of X. When questioned about this precedent which was unknown to everyone, the Court responded "Yes, we decided the case based on a precedent that was known only to us. However, you must obey us because we are the Supreme Court."

      Now, it's not a great analogy because the Talmud is not the Supreme Court of anything. But it does highlight the absurdity of claiming a clear ruling when the ruling is based on a dubious precedent.

      You seem to think that the way a dubious source of law can be rehabilitated is by issuing a clear ruling. I'm afraid that's quite impossible. You're conflating two distinct functions--legislation and adjudication. If you want to make that argument--that the Talmud has legislative authority--then you have to argue along entirely different lines. You would need to establish that the Talmud is an institutional authority. So I jumped ahead of you and explained how that is not possible. It's difficult for me to think only one move at a time. : )

      Delete
    4. Hi Peter,

      Over the years I’ve been involved in countless discussions in the academic and spiritual communities I belong to, where ideas are debated, challenged, processed, and refined. The parties involved usually treat learning as a collaborate effort and learn from one another.

      Unfortunately, it seems to me that you and I don’t share enough common understanding of the issues to have that kind of discussion. IMO, we’re just spinning our wheels.

      Delete
    5. Carl,

      You don't see the dissonance on your end when you say the Talmud is mandatory yet you reject clear Talmudic rulings on such matters as matrilineal vs. patrilineal descent? This is a logical contradiction.

      For me, this is about logic. If you don't like logic then you'll find me a very poor collaborator.

      Delete
    6. Peter,

      Of course there is dissonance between those two thoughts AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM. If you had simply asked me to explain how I can hold them logically or, better yet, what I mean by them, you could have avoided insulting me. But no – you see fit instead to imply that I am stupid (“don’t you see the dissonance”?) and illogical before taking the simple step of asking for an explanation. You even imply that I don’t “like” logic.

      IMO, you jump to conclusions like this too frequently (on the other blog you even accused me of “making fun” of you, which I did not and never would do – and you repeated the false accusation in your Sept. 25th post on this blog) and your responses are, to be frank, less than gracious.

      I wanted to exit this discussion without laying any blame because I truly believe that we are approaching the issue from such different and deeply held approaches that further discussion is pointless. But you feel the need to assign blame. This is all very sad – insult and unfounded blame are not the stuff of grace.

      Delete
    7. Carl,

      I'll tell you what I'd tell any brother of mine: stop being so sensitive. If you want to debate me, expect a tough debate. I'm not going to sugarcoat what I have to say to you. You hurt the gentiles with your false doctrines. So when I call you out and you cry about it I don't have a lot of sympathy for you.

      You shouldn't run from debates--it just makes you look scared. I notice you don't allow comments on your blog. That figures. You're afraid of losing a debate. You're more concerned about protecting the supposed integrity of your lofty office in the UMJC than pursuing truth through heated debate.

      Here's what your blog says beneath each post: "Comments Off."

      This tells us everything we need to know about you.

      Guess what? My comment system is up and running and I'll NEVER shut it down.

      Have a nice day,

      Peter

      Delete
  10. Hi Dan. My discussion with Peter concerns the existence (or not) of "mandatory authority" in the Talmud's clear decisions. Peter denies that there are aclear decisions while I maintain that there are because (contra Peter), clear decisions do not require clear sources in the Talmud any more than they do.

    Obviously, the decisions are construed and received as mandatory primarily by the successors of the Bavli's sages and their communities.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Welcome to secterianism Carl....So let me understand, does the branches that does not include the Bavli Sages and their community should not been identified as "Judaism?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Dan. Could you explain why you are welcoming me to sectarianism? LOL. Anyway, I used the words "successors" and "communities" (both plural). How is that sectarian, especially in light of my descriptive definition of Judaism?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Carl,

    Because I know of at least three Jewish branches that do not accept the authority of the Talmud. I don't even want to start on what the confused MJ UMJC style accepts...That by itself makes what you call "Judaism" sectarian.

    So why pick on OL when your hands are full with "Judaism?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bottom line is that you definition of "Judaism" is lacking. You might have answered Peter's question but you failed to define "Judaism." Let alone "mandatory authority..."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan, I didn't write the descriptive definition for this blog. It was Peter's idea to publish it here. I'm sure Peter would welcome your definition of Judaism, so why not give it a shot?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I get it now Carl...Since your definition of "Judaism" was published on YOUR blog, it must be the truth....

    How come I did not think of this?......

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan, So you know that (1) I published the definition on MY blog; and (2) if I publish something on my blog, I think that it must be the truth?

    So you think you can read minds, too, just like Peter? Well, you must have your wire's crossed because (1) I didn't publish it on MY blog; and (2) I'm not deluded to think that publishing something on my blog would make it "the truth."

    I'm disengaging from this blog now. You be well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone,

      Under a separate post just now, Carl denied holding office in the UMJC. Just so everyone knows the truth, I responded with the following:

      "Carl and Everyone,

      Carl's statement that he doesn't hold office in the UMJC is false. The UMJC includes its Rabbinic School (MJTI). Carl belongs to the faculty of MJTI. Thus, Carl serves on the Rabbinical training arm of the UMJC. See the following links for proof:

      http://www.mjti.org/about/faculty

      http://www.umjc.org/education-mainmenu-49/schools

      How can you trust someone who says such misleading things? He's clearly a part of the UMJC. To be ordained in the UMJC you have to go through MJTI faculty such as Carl.

      Oy vey. Just speak plainly and be honest about your position."

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just so everyone knows: this comment was removed by Carl Kinbar, not me. I don't censor comments.

      Essentially, he tried to deny that MJTI and UMJC operated as a single entity. But it's ridiculous to deny that they operate as a single entity. The MJTI faculty belong to the UMJC and have oversight of the UMJC and they train the leaders of the UMJC. Thus, they operate as a single entity. Anyone who would deny this is just trying to hide something.

      Delete