On Systematizing

[ymarkov]

The most integral idea in the Hebrew Scripture is that of a bilateral covenant, freely contracted between God and Israel. This covenant is the basis for all the laws and institutions governing the Jewish people. Professor Stone objects that "the rabbis of the classical period [did not devote] any systematic attention to the idea of a bilateral, negotiated covenant." This objection is the consequence of a belief in the need to subordinate Jewish ideas to Western canons of truth. It is true that the rabbis did not devote any "systematic attention" to the covenant, but also to little else. The whole notion of a system, let alone systematic attention, was alien to them. Not only did the Talmud fail to devote any systematic attention to the concept of covenant, but also to other concepts such as God, monotheism, oral law, history, canonization, family law, civil law, and so forth. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a single subject to which the Talmud had given systematic attention. At the same time, the expression ha-berit ("by the covenant!") in Rabbinic literature was used as an oath, reflecting supreme sanctity. More to the point, the Rabbis developed the concept of covenant not as a theological doctrine or philosophical postulate, but as a juridical principle. This principle is known as mushba ve-omed me-har sinai, "(he/she) was already duly sworn at Mt. Sinai." This principle stipulates that every Jew is regarded as having personally entered into the Sinaitic covenant. Therefore, an oath contravening any of the commandments is to be considered an oath "pronounced in vain" (levatalah). Maimonides codified this principle and regarded it as a basic Jewish concept.

- Dr. Jose Faur, "Monolingualism and Judaism"

Comments

[onionsoupmix.livejournal.com]

the whole medrash about God holding the mountain over them contradicts this concept...

[ymarkov.livejournal.com]

Medrash, mind you. From the same paper (it really is worth reading in its entirety):

The only proof-text offered by Professor Stone that appears to contradict the idea of a freely contracted covenant is an opinion mentioned in the Talmud, that God lifted Mt. Sinai over them and threatened the Jewish people with extinction unless they would accept the Torah. Professor Stone properly noted that this may have been a minority opinion. Other rabbinic sources seem to uphold the view that God's offer to accept the Torah was not coercive.

In evaluating this opinion, the following considerations are essential. This homily belongs to a special genre. The lesson is not intended to be taken verbatim, but rather, to show the rhetorical resourcefulness of the speaker. In this case, by cleverly reinterpreting a single word (takhtit), the speaker was able to acquit the entire Jewish people from sin, from the time of the Sinaitic covenant until the Persian period under Ahasheurus! The same genre of homily appears in the name of an earlier authority, who states: "I may be able to acquit from judgment the whole world, since the time of the destruction of the Temple till our days," on the grounds that with the destruction of the Temple, because of their suffering the Jewish people must be regarded as "drunken," and therefore with no ability to make rational decisions. Homilies that deliberately depart from the standard interpretation of the verse, and therefore were not intended to be taken verbatim, are introduced in the Babylonian Talmud with the technical term melammed ("it teaches"). This is precisely how this homily, about God lifting up Mt. Sinai and threatening Israel with extinction, was introduced. [...] Rashi stated that according to that thesis, the Israelites had a legal excuse to be exempted from punishment for sin. Rashi explained the legal basis for such a view, as follows:

So that in case God would summon them for judgment, [asking]:
why did you not fulfill what you have accepted upon you? They
have an answer: because they accepted it by coercion.

Even if one were to take that homily verbatim, as Professor Stone proposes, the main legal theory remains unaffected. What this homily would be ascertaining then, is that since the Sinaitic covenant was made under coercion, it did not become valid until the Persian period, when supposedly it was voluntarily accepted. In that case, what it would have demonstrated is that the author of the homily had a bizarre sense of historiography, whereby the entire prophetic mission and subsequent Jewish history was unwarranted until the time of Ahasuerus. It would then mean that the Sinaitic covenant did not take effect during the Exodus but instead over a millennium later. Regardless, the legal theory of the covenant remains the same.