Masechet Purim

I know that Purim is still a long way away, but I just discovered this fact (in the very interesting book Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg To Schottenstein

Nowadays, a spoof of a current event has to be made within a few hours, or at most a few days, otherwise it loses its bite. However, it wasn't always so.

The first complete set of Talmud Bavli was printed by Daniel Bomberg in Venice and completed in 1543 (it took 23 years to put out the entire set)

It was bound in pigskin (which was the best quality leather for binding) and the first printing was of 1500 copies. It was reprinted several times and was a 'best-seller'.

But only 9 years later the first 'spoof tractate' was printed in 1552, also in Venice. It was entitled "Masechet Purim" and was printed together with Sefer Havakbuk Ha-Navi (a parody of Habakuk Ha-Navi - which translates as "The Book of the Bottle Prophet")

You can download a copy from the amazing HebrewBooks.org - save it for Purim and learn it with your friends and family. Or condemn it for being leitzanus.

It just amazes me that someone invested the time and money to create and print a spoof talmudic tractate - especially when printing was so new and still quite rare.

Rabbeinu Chananel

This shiur is really about the Rabbis of Kairouan and the codification of the Talmud. Having never heard of Kairouan at all until very recently it amazes me how many famous Rabbis lived there or learnt there.

I have also wondered for many years about what made the Talmud a binding text on all of Yisrael. We know that Ravina and Rav Ashi were the end of the Amoraim, but they were not the last Rabbis to add to the Talmud. At what stage (and why) did it switch from a fluid, oral, 'text' to a written text which was accepted by all of Yisrael?

I think the answer may be something to do with Kairouan and the story of the Four Captives (even though I recognise that the story is probably not a 'true' on - in the sense of having happened as written. But it may allude to a true principle about the Talmud).

As well as Rabbeinu Chananel this shiur mentions Rabbeinu Nissim, and their student, Rav Yitzchak Alfasi.

Also in this shiur - why learning 'Rif Yomi' is possibly more important for you than learning 'daf yomi'. (Though I also know that daf yomi has a lot of advantages that are nothing to do with the learning and the Torah).

Here is the shiur:

Here is the audio shiur (and the pdf sheets to download if you want).

Rabbeinu Chananel

(Right click and then 'download as')

Rabbeinu Chananel source sheet

Sources of Talmudic Sayings

I was just browsing randomly (I know - there is no such thing as random, but the beauty of the internet is that you can begin looking for an explanation of a gemara in Nida and end up in a California library), and discovered this book Echoes of Wisdom:



It is a collection of sayings from the Talmud, with their Latin parallels. It is by Godfrey Taubenhaus, who I now nothing about. This is only part 1 (aleph) and his intention was to go through the entire aleph bet, but I don't think he managed to get any further than this.

He is also one of the translators of the Rodkinson translation of the Talmud.

Not sure whether this is brilliant or misguided, kosher or heretical.

What do you think?

Would you still be Religious?

Someone asked me the following question this week. This blog is my attempt at an answer (though I still don't have a final answer, and may change my mind in the future)

Let's say archaeologists find writings from 2700 years ago, were King Josiah and the priests discuss the name of what is going to become their new national hero. They were deciding between John, Samuel, Sebastian and Moshe, (finally decided Moshe) and you can read their opinions were they say they cannot believe that people actually believe what they tell them, etc. An actual proof for an open mind that Torah was invented for political reasons. It is a hypotetical case, that obviously is never going to happen, but I would like to know if you would continue being a rabbi.

I'll make the question slightly stronger, since I never wanted to be a Rabbi in the first place, - 'would you continue being religious?'

++A word to the wise. This is not a question about the validity of the Torah. The question is about what is the basis for my faith. Could my Judaism survive without the Chumash?++

For years I thought the answer to this was a simple 'no'. If the Torah isn't true, then everything that is built on it is also false, and why would I be religious if it wasn't true.

I could never really understand people who keep mitzvot without believing in revelation at Sinai.

But now that I'm actually confronting the question (and perhaps because I am a bit smarter now) I'm not sure. If the question includes certain knowledge that G-d did not give any commandments to the Jews or any system of legislation, or indeed any message, then I still think I would pack it in tomorrow. In the words of one of my Rabbinical colleagues 'We could be playing glam rock in Maddison Square Gardens'. Perhaps not! but you get the point.

On the other hand, if the question asks us to imagine that the Torah as we have it is not an authentic document, but it is based on traditions, customs and beliefs going back a millenia before Josiah, I think I would still be 'in'.

I'll try to explain why (though I'm not entirely sure myself). Perhaps the best analogy is to the Zohar. Many scholars and Rabbis held (and hold) that the Zohar is a forgery compiled by Moshe de Leon over a thousand years after it was allegedly written. R' Yaakov Emden wrote a book, Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, proving that the Zohar is a forgery. Yet he also wrote several kabbalistic works and commentaries on sections of the Zohar. He used kabbalah in his halachic works and commentaries. How could he hold that it is a forgery, and at the same time consider it authentic? (I know one could argue that he only claimed the Zohar was a forgery because of the threat of Sabbateanism, but I don't think it is possible to prove so convincingly that it is not genuine unless he really believed what he wrote, and I also tend to assume that people write what they think is true).

Perhaps the answer is that the beauty of the Zohar and the kabbalistic system is not dependent on the authority and accuracy of the text, but is a self contained system which works. It can be an expression of the Divine Will if it was written by Moshe de Leon just as much as if it was written by R' Shimon bar Yochai.

I'm not trying to show whether this Zohar is authentic or not, just giving an example that even if it is not genuine, it can still provide a basis for faith.

Perhaps the same could be true for the Torah. Even though I'm convinced that it is true, I think my faith could survive even if it were not. As long as I felt it was an expression of the Divine Will. As long as I can believe in G-d, and as long as the system works, I think I would still be religious.

Perhaps this kind of belief is 'cutting the saplings' which was Acher's heresy in the Talmud Chagiga. Perhaps it is heretical to say that Judaism could survive without the Torah.

On the other hand, none of our halachah comes directly from the Chumash. Our Halachah is from the Talmud through the eyes of the poskim. I think the Talmud could stand without the Torah. The derashot may be 'reverse engineering' anyway (according to 'Doros Rishonim' for example). And (with a few exceptions) Yeshivas certainly don't seem to spend much time, or have much interest, in learning Chumash and Nach. They know full well that Judaism is about Talmud and Shulchan Aruch, not Bible.

So, as of today, I think I would still be religious, even were the Torah to be proven to be a forgery.

I'm open to other opinions, and I reserve the right to change my mind. But after a week of thinking about this issue, these were my thoughts so far.

Over to you, my readers.