Sanhedrin 046
|
BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel
RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP
|
|
|
Today's shiur is dedicated by Cheryl Birkner Mack on the occasion of her mother's Yahrzeit – 17 Tammuz, ie. this Shabbat.
|
|
DISCUSSION (continued):
The Mishnah [TRACTATE SANHEDRIN, CHAPTER TWO, MISHNAH FIVE] states that No one may ride on his horse, or sit on his throne, or wield his sceptre. Concerning this respect due to the king, Alan (or Judi) Wilenski writes:
Reading this, I immediately thought of Mordechai, being led through the city on the king's horse by Haman: "Thus shall it be done to the one the king delighteth to honor." I respond: As Alan assumes in the continuation of his message, our mishnah is concerned with the honour and respect due to a king of Israel. While we are obviously required to show great respect to a worthy non-Jewish Head of State, the mitzvot of the Torah are only concerned with a Jewish king of Israel. Alan continues: Do you know of any commentaries or references to the Book of Esther that distinguish the two cases? I respond: The only passing reference that I have been able to find for you is the following comment by Avraham Ibn-Ezra [on Esther 6:8] –
Some say that Haman sensed that the king was angry at the inclusion of the royal crown, because of the respect due to his sovereignty. That is why [when the king repeats Haman's orders] he says and give him the cloak and the horse, but he does not mention the crown. I, however, think that the word "his" [and upon his head is placed the royal crown] is qualifying the horse. For kings do have a particular horse upon whose head the royal crown is set when the king rides upon it and none of the king's servants are permitted to ride that horse. This is well known.
I don't know whether this is what you had in mind.
Michael Simon writes: I find this topic of Mosaic authorship of the Torah fascinating… Assuming this view of Conservative Judaism is that of fluidity and the Torah is a living document, where do we as Conservative Jews draw the line in interpretation or are we free to go anywhere with our interpretations, and if so, how does that make us different from Reform. I respond: I have written before, and I shall doubtless write again, that while each of us is entitled to understand and interpret the Torah as his heart prompts him, the only understanding and interpretation of Torah that binds us collectively, from the practical point of view of mitzvot, is that of the sages and the licensed practitioners of halakhic exegesis in every generation. The Written Torah is not "a living document" if that means that it is still developing. It is the Unwritten Torah that is constantly making the Written Torah relevant to the developing situation of those who would observe it. According to Biblical Criticism it was a living and developing document until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It no longer is. (Perhaps Michael was using the term "Torah" in its wider sense, including both Torot.) Michael continues: I know you're not getting to this topic for a while but since you started this Mishnah, can you also elaborate on the concept of the ressurection of the dead… I respond: I would rather leave that discussion until we reach Chapter Ten. However, I have already written somewhat on the subject during our study of Tractate Berakhot. When we were discussing the Second Berakhah of the Amidah, I wrote on this subject at some considerable length. Bill Wiesner writes: I was reading what you wrote about the writing of the Torah and I have a few questions… When and why did the Torah stop being written in ancient Hebrew script and start being written in block letter Hebrew script? I respond: Actually Bill asked a good few more questions, and I shall try to find the time [sigh] to answer them privately, since they were not directly concerned with our Tractate However, Bill's question reproduced above, most certainly is dealt with by our Tractate [Sanhedrin 21b], as part of the discussion on the Sefer Torah that every monarch was expected to have written for his own private use.
Mar Zutra (or possibly Mar Ukba) says that originally the Torah was given to Israel in the Hebrew script and in the holy tongue [Hebrew]. It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in the square script and in the Aramaic language. Israel chose the square script and the holy tongue, leaving to the lay people the Hebrew script and the Aramaic language. Who are the "lay people"? Rav Ĥisda says that they are the Samaritans.
The "Hebrew script" referred to here is the Canaanite Alphabet that was adopted by the Hebrews upon their entry into Canaan. This is the script in which all documents surviving from the Biblical period were written: the Gezer Calendar, the Siloam Inscription, the Mesha Stele, the Lakhish Correspondence, and many others. (It was this script that the Canaanite – Phoenician – merchant sailors taught to the Greeks. The Greeks passed it on to the Romans … who passed it on to the Western world.) The "Square script" is the Hebrew [actually, Aramaic] Alphabet that we now use. Two things are worthy of note in this passage. Firstly, the adoption of the Aramaic alphabet (what we now inaccurately call the Hebrew Alphabet) is to be dated to the time of Ezra. Secondly, and more importantly from the point of view of Biblical criticism, we have here a clear reference to "a giving of the Torah" by Ezra. This is underpinned by the continuation of the passage:-
Rabbi Yosé says that Ezra was worthy enough for the Torah to be given to Israel through him, except that Moses came before him.
The Baraita then goes on to elaborate on the points of coincidence between Moses and Ezra, culminating in these words: "even though the Torah was not given by him, it was changed by him".
There is still one message outstanding that I shall have to hold over until our next shiur, but with our next shiur we shall begin our study of Chapter Three. Shabbat Shalom to everybody. |