From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Who wrote the Torah?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:02:58 GMT

In article <58196@dime.cs.umass.edu> krovetz@cs.umass.edu (Bob Krovetz) writes:
>In article <C06Gvt.G33@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>In article <9212312025.AA17350@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>>>ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:

>>>> Conservative Rabbinical authorities share a basic belief that the
>>>> Torah is divinely inspired;


>>I was unaware of the precise Conservative view on this, which agrees
>>with the Reform view.  There is a major difference between divine
>>inspiration and being the literal word of God.

>>Even sages such as Rashi found it necessary to take the view that some
>>parts of the Torah were not to be taken literally.  Even Reform Judaism
>>does not automatically discard any of the writings in the Tanakh, the
>>Mishnah, Talmud, Responsa, etc.; they are considered holy books, and
>>divinely inspired.

>>There is a big difference between something being written (or dictated
>>word by word) by God, and being produced under a mortal's attempt to 
>>understand what God wanted done.


>I think it is possible for the Torah to be the literal word of G-d,
>even if everything isn't to be taken "literally".  There are two different
>notions of literal going on - whether the Torah was in effect dictated
>by G-d word for word, and what those words mean regardless of where they
>originated.

			.........................

>What I *would* like to discuss is the repercussions this distinction has
>on Jewish practice.  That is, how does the issue of divine authorship
>effect our interpretation of halacha? 

As I have stated, even Orthodox sages have had to admit that at least 
some of the words cannot be taken in any literal context.  I will add
that I find this to be true, even with alternate translations, such as
reconcile the account of Creation in Genesis with the Big Bang.  But
there are limits to this, and these limits do not go far enough to, for
example, account for the Flood, nor the biogenesis given.  Since such 
accounts can be given consistent with modern biology in the language of
those days, such as the astrophysical account given is generally consistent
with the Big Bang, that it was not done is strong evidence against the
account being the literal word of God.

Now the big question, stated in the last paragraph quoted.  It certainly
does affect halakha.  The matter of the Oral Law being given exists even
it the entire Sefer Torah is taken literally, and this has been discussed
already.  But even the legislation in the Written Torah comes into question; 
which parts are from God, and which are what those writing it erroneously
thought were from God?  Some of the prohibitions are stated to be so that
the people would not follow alien religious customs which were quite clearly
a threat to the survival of the worship of _adonai echad_; this was a major
problem from at least the founding of the kingdom until the Exile.

This certainly extends to the interpretations made by the sages.  Now they
had the same problems about the introduction of idolatrous and heathen
practices, as the narration of the Books of the Maccabees clearly states,
Furthermore, after the destruction of the Second Temple, something had to
be done to replace the ritual.  But again, what is from God, and what is
from the minds of his prophets who did not always understand Him exactly?

-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)