The Oral Talmud Episode 54: Who Owns Torah? (Kiddushin 32a)
SHOW NOTES
“ People who learn the tradition own that tradition and therefore can do with it what an owner can do with what an owner owns. If you own your house, you can knock down walls, you can build an extra story, completely change it. You can knock down the whole thing.” - Benay Lappe
Welcome to The Oral Talmud, our weekly deep dive chevruta study partnership, discovering how voices of the Talmud from 1500 years ago can help us rethink Judaism today.
Who owns tradition? God? The rabbis? Your teachers? Or you? This episode begins with a strange Talmudic argument about whether rabbis can “give up” the honor owed to them. But underneath that legal debate is a far more explosive question: who actually has authority over Torah once it enters human hands?
As Benay and Dan trace the argument deeper, the text starts to crack open. A verse from Psalms gets reread in real time. A rabbi changes his mind mid-argument. And suddenly the rabbis seem to be saying something breathtaking: Torah begins as God’s Torah, but through study, struggle, and deep internalization, it becomes yours. Not to preserve behind glass. To wrestle with. To reshape. Maybe even to save.
This week’s text: Kiddushin 32a
Access the Sefaria Source Sheet to explore key Talmud texts and find the original video of our discussion. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please help us keep both fabulous Jewish organizations going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation at oraltalmud.com. You can find a donate button on the top right corner of the website.
-
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 54: “Who Owns Torah?”
Welcome to the Oral Talmud, a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. I’m Dan Libenson…
BENAY LAPPE: …and I’m Benay Lappe.
DAN LIBENSON: The Oral Talmud is our weekly deep dive study partnership, in which we try to figure out how voices from the Talmud – voices from 1500 to 2000 years ago – can help us think in new ways about Judaism today.
Who owns tradition? God? The rabbis? Your teachers? Or you? This episode begins with a strange Talmudic argument about whether rabbis can “give up” the honor owed to them. But underneath that legal debate is a far more explosive question: who actually has authority over Torah once it enters human hands?
As Benay and I trace the argument deeper, the text starts to crack open. A verse from Psalms gets reread in real time. A rabbi changes his mind mid-argument. And suddenly the rabbis seem to be saying something breathtaking: Torah begins as God’s Torah, but through study, struggle, and deep internalization, it becomes yours. Not to preserve behind glass. To wrestle with. To reshape. Maybe even to save.
Every episode of The Oral Talmud has a number of resources to support your learning and to share with your own study partners! If you’re using a podcast app to listen, you’ll find these links in our show notes: First, to a Source Sheet on Sefaria, where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation – there we excerpt the core Talmud texts we discuss and share a link to the original video of our learning.
In the show notes of your podcast app, you’ll also find a link to this episode on The Oral Talmud’s website, where we post an edited transcript, and where you can make a donation to keep the show going, if you feel so moved. On both the Sefaria Source Sheet and The Oral Talmud website.
And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to the Oral Talmud. I'm Dan Levenson. I'm here with Benay Lappe. Hey, Benay.
BENAY LAPPE: Hey, Dan. How are you?
DAN LIBENSON: I'm good. How are you?
BENAY LAPPE: Good. Good. Thank you.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh, well, s- another, another week has gone by. Um, viewers w- viewers will notice that I finally cut my hair for the end of the pandemic, sort of, on Lag BaOmer, so, um, so you can track my, my COVID experience through, through hair length.
Um, anyways- You
BENAY LAPPE: l- you look very sharp.
DAN LIBENSON: Thank you. Um, well, and, I'm back to my Spara T-shirt, but you're not today, so- Not
BENAY LAPPE: today. Still behind on the laundry.
DAN LIBENSON: And we have a new student in the class.
BENAY LAPPE: Yes, it's Louis. Hey,
DAN LIBENSON: Louis.
BENAY LAPPE: Louis the dog.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, all right, so let's, uh, jump into it. Um-
BENAY LAPPE: O- okay, great.
DAN LIBENSON: So today, we are going to look at a text that is, uh, you know, along the lines of the text that we've studied, that we studied last week, and that we're, we're looking at this question of, um...
Yeah, I guess just to, yeah, w- just, just to, uh, remind folks that it's really this question of, um, you know, to what extent do the rabbis of the Talmud imagine that they have the power, that we have the power to, uh, take ownership of the tradition, right? I mean, is that, is that how you would frame it?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, as we've been thinking more and mo- more and more about myth, and the way that lots and lots of stories support that myth, um, stories and texts and conversations that become part of the tradition, this feels like one of those supporting debates- Mm-hmm ... um, that supports that idea of rabbinic authority, and by extension, authority of people-
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm
BENAY LAPPE: uh, who are deemed to have the qualifications, right? Not ordination, but an, some amount of learning and some s- savraness, savradicness, uh, to do what they will to the tradition- Mm-hmm, mm-hmm ... to make it better.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay, so let's just jump in and, and take a look at this text. So we are in the tractate of Kidushin.
Uh, page 32A. And, uh, the, the, this particular part starts this way, Rav Yitzhak Bar Shila says that Rav Matana says that Rav Hista says... By the way, is there, do you, do you, is there any, um, importance, do you think, to the number of sources cited for any given... You know, some- like sometimes it's just one or two, you know, this one said that this one says, but sometimes you get a whole long string.
BENAY LAPPE: I don't know. I don't know i- if that means anything. It's a good question because it's not as typical to have a whole string, although it's not unusual either.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: And I wonder if, now that you're raising the question, does a single, a quote in the name of a single rabbi mean that rabbi or that sage originated the idea?
B- and if he didn't, it... That's really interesting. Very interesting. It, it, it's particularly interesting at this moment for me what you're bringing up because, um, you know, I, I give this crash talk, this ta- talk of, of my theory, and more and more I'm, I'm realizing that some of the stories that I tell in the context of that talk, I'm no longer sure if they're my stories, if they're my teacher's stories, if they're my teacher's teacher stories.
Um, and I don't know.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. And, and I'm, I'm also thinking about how it, it makes a lot of sense if you say, you know, well, so and so would bring this up, but it was, he was citing the original source. Yeah. That's tr- typical. When you, when you cite a chain of sources, whether it's, in this case, three, or sometimes I think it's four.
I don't even know what the longest one, I think Lex might know, uh, uh, Lex Rofberg might know. I feel like he said something once, but, you know, four or five was the longest ever. You know, what, but, like, what, what is it that you're saying there? You know- Mm-hmm ... is it, is it something as simple as, well, this was, this was a, a quote sort of said, uh, quite often.
You know, this is very, this is significant because there were key people in multiple generations that really had this as their catchphrase, but it actually, we should cite the original source, and it does go back to, in this case, Rav Hista. But, but, you know, really this is a biggie because people kept saying it, and it wasn't- Yeah
you know, or is it something else? You know, it's like PhD dissertation someone should write.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. I, I love that question. I never thought about it. And by the way, w- w- it, we should probably note that the context of this passage we're learning today in the tractate of Kiddushin is on the question of what does it mean.
The rabbis are asking, "What does that piece of Torah mean where it says y- you should honor, uh, thy mother and thy father?" What is, what, what does it mean to honor? Uh, or in fear. There are two separate, um, commandments. Mm-hmm. So this is in a big, a big examination of w- what do we owe our parents, and, um, how exactly do we honor them?
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. Okay. So Rav Kis- Rav Yitzchak Bar Sheila says that Rav M'tana says that Rav Chisda says, "With regard to a father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone." So we're talking about here that, you know, there's one of the 10 Commandments that you have to honor your father and mother, but if a father says, in some fashion, "You don't have to honor me," or more likely something that is, that is, uh, known to be a way in which a son is to honor a father, tr- you know, uh, I don't know if there's a specific example of what that is in your mind, but if the father says, "You don't have to do that thing for me," then the s- the son doesn't have to, and he hasn't violated the commandment, right?
BENAY LAPPE: That, that's right. We should unpack this because this is big, and I think vexing. And I apologize, there is a tree being cut down, uh, just outside my window, so I apologize for- You don't hear it
DAN LIBENSON: too, too much. Sorry Okay,
BENAY LAPPE: great. So
first of all, some examples of what it looks like to honor. So the previous page s- fleshes that out. Some of the ways that a child is obligated to honor a parent is to not sit in the parent's designated place, whether that be at the dinner table, in the synagogue, or in some other social gathering. Th- that's a one way.
Another way is to, um, not contradict the parent when the parent is in some sort of dispute with somebody else. Right? Not to take the side of the other person. That was, that was a big one when, when I was a child. I think my father didn't realize how much Talmud was behind him when he used to say, "Don't contradict your
DAN LIBENSON: father."
I, I, I was thinking my kids are, you know, oh for two so far, but keep going.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, another one is to escort your parent in and out, um, which, you know, I, I'm not sure exactly what that means. Like, to take their arm. You know, I'm thinking of my mom, who's elderly, and there are some steps going up to her house and, you know, I help her up the step.
M- maybe it's that. Um, and to make sure your parent is, has clothing and is cared for. Interestingly, you don't have to do it yourself. You know, Rambam specifically says, you know, if your parents are driving you nuts and you cannot tolerate to be around them, you don't have to. But you have to make sure that somebody else takes care of them the way that you should have, which is kind of interesting.
Okay, so these are some of the concrete ways that you're obligated to honor your parent. And what I think is really vexing about this sentence, and I don't see it addressed anywhere, is why would a parent have the ability to release a child from that obligation to honor them when it's God that's commanding it?
You know what I mean? I- God commanded you to honor your parent. Why would the parent have the right to interfere, like, to intervene in that actual relationship between you and God to say, "Oh, that's okay, you don't have to do that"? Like, I'm picturing God going, "Whoa, who, who said you could do that? That was my order and only I get," right?
It, I think it's funny, and oblig- honor your, honoring your mother and father, it's one of the big, it's one of the Big 10.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh.
BENAY LAPPE: So it's just funny. Why would a... And by the way, it's not necessarily only by the parent's words. It doesn't say how a f- let's say in this ca- it, it specifies father, but I think it means either parent.
If a father wants to be mochel, wants to release the child, does it have to be in words? Um, could it be in actions? Could the father do something which would be tantamount to releasing that child? Um, I, I hope it's not too distracting to, to tell you a story of, of, you know, w- why I think this could be the case.
Back in my first year of rabbinical school, um, we all had to write di- uh, theses, dissertations bec- because they, they, they sort of throw a master's degree at you after a year or two and you write a big paper. And I was well into my thesis on a completely different topic when my advisor, Danny Gordis, called me into his office and he said, "Benay, I want you to change your topic completely.
In the last 24 hours, I've had three inquiries on a question by people. I'll, I have a letter here. I've got two, I got two phone calls. I don't know the answer. I want you to answer the question." And the question was, if a parent has sexually abused a child, does that child still have the obligation to say Kaddish for that parent when that parent dies?
And, uh, so I changed my topic to that and I tried to answer that question. And one of the- questions, sub-questions I needed to answer was, can a parent do anything which would effectively release the child from the obligation to honor that parent? And if so, is abuse one of those things which, though it's not in words, "I release you, you don't have to honor me," is an action which effectively releases the child.
So it doesn't have to necessarily be words. I'll leave the, the question of my thesis aside and how I answered it, but th- that's the question here. Can a parent do something that releases the child? And seems like Rav Chisda says yeah, the parent can say, "You don't have to honor me." Hmm.
DAN LIBENSON: Th- by the way, that's a very amazing story, and also, you know, note for professors out there how to get, you know, free research assistants.
I
BENAY LAPPE: mean- Yes ...
DAN LIBENSON: from your top students.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Um, w- I, I, I've also, um, I, I've done a lot of thinking about this, and I think one possibility for why a parent, you would want a parent to release a child, is that if a ch- according to Jewish law, if a child strikes a parent, that's a capital offense.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay? So if a parent knows that a child is about to do something like that, the parent actually has the ability to release them from the consequence of the action they're about, that kid is about to take by saying, "You're no longer obligated- Mm-hmm
to honor me, therefore, whatever you do, you're sort of- Mm-hmm ... exculpated. I don't know if that's part of what's going on. I just think it's a really interesting thing, and I'm, I, I'm always surprised that it's not interrogated more.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh. Yeah, uh, uh, it's interesting, 'cause I also think about the other, uh...
I mean, sometimes we're told about the Ten Commandments, that the first five are between, uh, human beings and God, and the second five are between human beings and other human beings. But the honor your father and mother is in the, is the fifth commandment, I think, so it's in the category of the ones that are between people and God.
So all the more so. I mean, even in the ones that are between people and people, like thou shall not kill or thou shall not murder, uh, well, you can't really just tell somebody, "It's okay to murder me," you know? So, uh- Right ... right, so even, even in those, all the more so the ones between people and God. So, so that's very interesting.
Um- Yeah, so we'll
BENAY LAPPE: have to leave a sticky on there.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, okay.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay, so in any event, though, this case is looking at, uh, or is, is saying that the father can, uh, sort of forgo this honor- And Rav Yosef says, "Even with regard to a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone as it is stated, 'And the Lord went before them by day,' in Exodus 13:21."
We didn't, we didn't have the rest. I didn't put the rest of that.
BENAY LAPPE: I, I think I may have interrupted you. Did we get out into, uh, onto the table the idea that Rav Ḥisda said, even though a father can forgo the honor due to him, a Rav, a teacher cannot do so. Did we get that out?
DAN LIBENSON: No, we didn't. So, okay. Okay. So...
Oh, sorry, I skipped, I forgot to, I skipped to read that. Okay. So yeah, so, so let me start again. So, uh, Rav, uh, Yitzchak bar Sheila says that Rav Matana says that Rav Ḥisda says, "With regard to a father who forgoes his honor, his honor is forgone. Uh, but a rabbi who forgoes his honor, his honor is not forgone."
BENAY LAPPE: Right. Right. Yeah. So, so the f- the first thing that I think is funny is that it's like wh- where does it say that you have to honor a Rav- Uh-huh ... anyway?
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh.
BENAY LAPPE: That's not at all obvious.
DAN LIBENSON: And a father is in the Ten Commandments.
BENAY LAPPE: E- exactly. So first we have to have assumed that, that you're obligated to honor a Rav to even ask the question, well, what if that Rav says, "You don't have to honor me anymore."
And it's a little bit of an obscure reference, but, uh, you know, there's a line in Leviticus that says, "You should rise," you know, "before the..." Oh, do we have that verse? We have
DAN LIBENSON: that. Mm-hmm. Yeah. "
BENAY LAPPE: You shall rise before the age and show deference to the old." Which, you know, on its face has nothing to do with a teacher, but the rabbis seem to want to root this obligation to honor a teacher in the Torah.
Um, interestingly, it could be a move to make it, make this obligation Torahitic, which makes the undoing of it all the more dramatic. But we'll, we'll circle around to that at the end. So, okay, someone who is old and whatever, s- that's the, the verse that roots the obligation to honor a Rav. Okay. And Rav Ḥisda's saying, if a Rav says, if your teacher says to you, "You don't have to honor me," those words will mean nothing.
Mm-hmm. That doesn't effectively end your, the student's obligation to honor their teacher.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: And by the way, is there a l- a list of things given for that, like sitting in the place or, uh, you know, holding their... when they go to the chair? You know what? I'm
BENAY LAPPE: not, I- I'm not sure I'm not sure
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm
BENAY LAPPE: I oughta look that up.
B- Yeah,
DAN LIBENSON: because you, 'cause you would be, uh, you would be- ... able to get a lot of goodies if- Yeah ... it turns out that- Yeah ... there's a list.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. I- you know, it, it, the, the idea is called l'sharet et ha-rav, to serve one's master, to serve one's teacher. I'm sure there, there must be an enumeration somewhere. I should definitely look that up.
Um, if-
DAN LIBENSON: Rabbi Esphara, do you get, do you get... Is there a, you know no. Okay. Um-
BENAY LAPPE: I don't, I, I don't, I don't get a lot of special treatment, but I d- I do get a lot of kavod. I do get a lot. Um, and by the way, this whole thing of pitting parent against teacher, not directly against each other, but comparing what you owe to one and the other, and your relationship to your parent versus your relationship to your teacher, is a theme all throughout the Talmud.
Um, and there are lots of stories and anecdotes about, you know, if you're drowning, uh, y- you and your parent and your teacher, all three of you are in a boat, and the boat sank, who do you save first? And if you can only save one, who do you save? It's really interesting. Uh, I suppose I should- Is
DAN LIBENSON: it, is it the teacher?
BENAY LAPPE: It is the teacher.
DAN LIBENSON: Oh.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. You let your parent drown- Right ... and you save your teacher. And they ask, "Why would that be?" And the answer is, "Your parent gave you this world by birthing you and raising you, but your teacher gives you the world to come-
DAN LIBENSON: Hmm ...
BENAY LAPPE: by teaching you Torah." And that, you know. Hmm. Anyway, so parent/teacher, there, there's a, there's a really interesting sort of cultural shift in, you know, where we should be facing, that the rabbis are, are trying to make between the familial unit and the learning unit, student to teacher.
DAN LIBENSON: By the way, like, it strikes me that, uh, if I recall correctly, I forget if it's Jesus or Paul that writes this in the New Testament, but it's, I think that there's something along those lines in the New Testament as well, that, that Jesus, I think, says, you know, "You might, you, you might have to leave your family- Right
to come follow me." You know, something along those lines. Mm-hmm. And y- that I think strikes Jews as, like, some kind of, you know, breaking with Judaism. That's what... You know, as opposed to, like, actually a consistent with the philosophy of the rabbis or of this period, so that's interesting. Yeah. Absolutely.
By the way, I, I should note that we're gonna do a session at our, uh, Judaism Unbound, uh, Jewish Life Shavuot, uh, study session, and it's gonna... Which anyone watching can join us. It's from, uh, Saturday, uh, May 15th at 6:00 PM Eastern, all the way through 30 hours later at 11:59 on Sunday night, uh, the 16th.
And, uh, you and I are doing a session at, um, at I think s- seven, and also another session at 10 Eastern, uh, that is, um, with Gary, uh, Stevens, who does a, a podcast called History in the Bible. W- but this season he's looking at this divergence between Rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, so, you know, maybe a question like this could come up, you know, to what extent are, are some of these things just kind of in the air and in the water of, uh, late second Temple Judaism and early Rabbinic Judaism, early Christianity, and, and which of these things actually represent sort of innovations of, of Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. I can't wait to hang out with you and Gary.
DAN LIBENSON: That'll be fun.
BENAY LAPPE: I'm still chuckling to myself that he thinks I'm jolly.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, he wrote an email that he said you were the jolliest person on the internet.
BENAY LAPPE: And which makes me think jolly must mean something different in Australia. Yeah,
DAN LIBENSON: that's what I was, that was something I was wondering.
Anyway, but-
BENAY LAPPE: I mean, not that you're
DAN LIBENSON: not jolly, but-
BENAY LAPPE: I know, I love that. Gosh, I, it could, like, completely change my story about myself.
DAN LIBENSON: Right.
BENAY LAPPE: Uh, but getting b- wait, I realize I sold the rabbis a little bit short and left the poor parent drowning, um, a little bit unnecessarily because the end of the text that I mentioned where it says you should save your, your teacher actually goes on to say, but what if your parent is your teacher?
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh.
BENAY LAPPE: In which case you save your parent. A- a- and I think the dot, dot, dot for me at the end of that is what, you know, what parent isn't their child's teacher?
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh. Right?
BENAY LAPPE: Right. Okay, so parents, don't worry if you are drowning. Feels like a lot of pressure to make
DAN LIBENSON: under a d- a decision in a drowning situation.
Hopefully it's more like a thought experiment. Okay. Yeah. So, um, so, so, so Rav Chisda says that you sh- a father can forgo his honor, but a rabbi cannot. Mm-hmm. Uh, and then Rav Yosef comes along and says, "No, even with regard to a rabbi, he can forgo his honor. He can, he, it can be the sa- it can be that situation where he says, 'You don't have to honor me.'"
Um, and he's- That's right ... using as a proof text from Exodus this, uh, verse, Exodus 13:21, "And the Lord went before them by day." Uh, how does that connect to that? I don't-
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Okay. So this has always been slippery for me, and the last time I taught this text, one of the students in the Beit Midrash came up with what felt like, yes, that's the answer, and I've lost it again.
But he... Okay, so here's what we've, here's what I think I have. This verse is describing the time in the desert between Sinai and entering, um, Canaan. Canaan. Mm-hmm. And the image is that God led the people Through the desert. And I think the assumption here is that that's kind of a, a lowly activity for God.
Mm-hmm. I always, I always picture the, the tour guides, you know? I remember when I was a kid, my parents took us all to Europe. Instead of throwing me a ba- big bat mitzvah party, they said, "Which do you want? Do you want a big party or a trip to Europe?" I took the trip to Europe and Israel, and I, I, I remember the tour guides, for some reason it really impressed me, who are always like, you know, walking backwards.
We're walking, we're, you know, with the flags, and I'm like, that... It- it's a little silly to i- imagine God doing that. Here's God. We're walking, we're walking, God with the flags. It- that's kind of demeaning for God. I mean, maybe for a tour guide it makes... But God? Like, God's, like, doing... I think that's the message, that if God is willing to lower God's self so much as to be the tour guide, "Come- Uh-huh
come on, come on," then surely a teacher can lower themself and forgo their honor. So, so this image of God leading human beings, sort of coming down-
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm ...
BENAY LAPPE: from on high, down to Earth, is tantamount to God, um, releasing the honor that we owe God, sort of demeaning or lowering God's self. And this is the kal- a kal vachomer.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: If God can release God's honor by coming down in such a lowly way, certainly a rav can.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: I think that's- Yeah. What do you, what do you, what do you think?
DAN LIBENSON: No, that sounds right. That, that, that, I think that that's how I understand it basically, although, you know, the ca- it's a little bit of a weird case and, like, it makes me wonder, like, first of all, is there a better case?
Like, is there some other case where- There's
BENAY LAPPE: always a better case. There's always a better proof, w- which is, I think, part of what the rabbis are doing. They're always- Yeah, exactly ... demonstrating their distance. Sorry,
DAN LIBENSON: say
BENAY LAPPE: it again. The rabbis are always demonstrating, and this is, you know, something that David Kramer articulates really clearly.
They're always demonstrating not the extent to which they need the Torah to support what they're saying, but the degree to which they don't need the Torah, and the v- their, the forced proofs are there to show those who can- Yeah ... see what they're doing and tolerate it, the
I clearly don't need support because if I, if I did, I'd find better support. Uh, but if you need something for you to feel better, here, have this first.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, because, like, if I... Just, like, uh, just, like, scanning my mind, I, I'm thinking, like, oh, there was the case in, you know, Sodom and Gomorrah where Abraham negotiates with God, and, you know, in a sense God is lowering his, uh, honor by saying, like, "I'm willing to even engage in a negotiation with this guy," you know?
And, and there are cases where Moses, uh, you know, get- yells at God for, uh, trying, wanting to kill the people and whatever, you know, and that seems much more of a clear-cut case of God, you know. S- and God agrees with Moses. You know, he says, "I- Right ... I'll forgive them as you ask," you know? And, and it's a great case of God lowering God's self to, you know, to, uh, to give in to a man, you know?
And, and this one s- I mean, this one feels like, oh, he- So wait, you're saying he lowered himself because he, he led his people through the wilderness to his promised land? I mean, that's kind of, like, what he was doing. Like, he was the leader. Like, he wasn't, you know, or God wasn't, uh, trying to lower God's self.
God was actually hi- higher, you know, raising God's self by taking this leadership position. So yeah, so I think it's, it's kind of what you say. Either, right, either it's like, oh, this is a bad pr- or, or it's intentionally a bad example. Yeah. Yeah, really interesting.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. So, so that's Rav Yosef's proof for why it is that it's okay for a Rav to forgo the Rav's honor.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. Okay, and then Rava comes in and says- Our hero.
BENAY LAPPE: Our hero, Rava.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. And says, uh, you know, b- this was kind of what I was thinking. How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to the story of God, uh, lowering God's self by leading the people, uh, with regard to the Holy Blessed One, the world is His and the Torah is His, and therefore He can forgo His honor.
So I mean, that's what I was saying. Like, if, if, if I'm, like, Joe Biden and Joe Biden, you know, comes to a kindergarten and he lets the kids, you know, sit on his lap, he's the President of the United States. Like, he can, you know, he wants to have some fun with the kids. I mean, like, he can do that. That doesn't mean that, uh, that doesn't mean that anybody can now go around saying, uh, "Oh, if you, you know, shoot the president with a water gun, don't worry about it, you know?
He already gave up his honor to the kids, you know, and so now we can treat him any way we want or we can treat his staff any way we want." Like, that's not, that's not a good example.
BENAY LAPPE: Exactly. And, and Rava's successful in his challenge to this proof text. You can't have, uh... Um, I always forget if it's major to minor or minor to major, but in, in Jewish terms, you can't have a kal if there's no chomer.
In other words, it, it, you have to have the surprising, unlikely case, uh- fall in the surprising way to get the less surprising, to be able to deduce the less surprising case. And it's, this isn't a surprising case. God being able to give up what, that's not surprising, just as Rava says. Because the whole world belongs to God, and the Torah is inside the world, so God owns the Torah.
And the, the assumption is that the honor due to a Rav isn't to the Rav themself, it's to the Torah that the Rav teaches. Mm-hmm. Right. That's what you're honoring. You're honoring that person's Torah.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm.
BENAY LAPPE: So, um, God owns the Torah. Uh, it, you know, so that's why God can forgo it.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: That isn't surprising, therefore we can't deduce anything less surprising from it.
Mm-hmm. Does that make sense?
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I'm trying to think of, like, another, you know, uh, are there, are there other kind of examples. I mean, I, you know, I was thinking, like, you can, you can decorate your house, you know, the outside of your house in whatever crazy way you want, but if some kids come and do that, it's vandalism.
You know, just because you, just because you- ... uh, did it to yourself doesn't mean that you've now opened the door for everybody to do it. And there's some version of that, 'cause like you say, the rabbi here is playing, like, an intermediate role, you know, so it's not quite a great example. But it's, it's in that, it's in that realm.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. It, it, I th- I think that's a, a, a good example.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. Okay. So then it goes on. Um, by contrast, and this is still Rava speaking as you read it?
BENAY LAPPE: I, yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. So by contrast, here it is, here it is his Torah. Here- I- is it- ... is it his Torah that the teacher can forgo its honor? So, you know, so, so Rava's saying, um, no.
You know, so in the initial f- uh, the initial thrust, or parry or whatever, is, uh, the, the Torah belongs to God. It doesn't belong to the rabbi. The rabbi is just kind of an agent of God. And so just the fact that God lowered God's self in one case doesn't mean that the rabbi can now take liberty to lower the rabbi's self, which is functionally lowering God's self by, or, you know, lowering God.
But because it, the Torah belongs to God, right? That's the, so the r- so it doesn't follow from that- Right ... as you said. So
BENAY LAPPE: this is, this is the last piece of Rava's challenge. Mm-hmm. It's the rhetorical question, "Eh, wait a minute, God can forgo God's honor because God owns everything, including Torah, and God can, okay, do whatever God wants with the Torah, including telling you you don't have to honor it.
But is Torah the Rav's? No, of course not. Therefore, the, the Rav doesn't have the ability- To grant you permission to no longer honor him, her or them, uh, which is essentially to the Torah.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: I didn't say that well, but does that, that make sense?
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Okay. So then, and so then Rava comes, comes back and he says, "But actually..."
Right. So,
BENAY LAPPE: yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Wait, that a- yes. Yes, it is the Torah.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. So I- I'm o- this is the moment where Rava changes his mind, and where he just said a moment before, "Does the Torah belong to the Rav?" The implication is of course not. And then the very next moment, Rava reconsiders this structure of Hadar Amar basically means, and then Rava reconsidered and said the opposite.
Yeah. And I always wonder what happened between the word he and the word Hadar. What happened between the word, the sentence, "Does the Rav own Torah?" and, "Wait a minute." Uh-huh. "Wait a minute. Actually, the Rav does own Torah." I wanna know what caused that.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh. It, that- Is that, is that a structure, a se- a structure that sugge- like, is that a, a common structure or a rare structure, where you have this Hadar Amar, you know, he also said or then said?
BENAY LAPPE: You know, I don't have a lot of experience in Talmud, but I've seen it a handful of times, which tells me that it's not super rare.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh. 'Cause I, I, I was thinking, like, does it mean that he kind of changed his mind? Like, is this, um, is this, is this... Uh, 'cause obviously this, uh, is not written by Rava here.
This is written by an editor or, you know, put together by an editor who, who is, um, you know, got previous records or traditions or whatever about what happened. So is the editor telling us, you know, first Rava said X, and then he reconsidered and said Y? Or is the editor telling us that Rava had this kind of, uh, it wasn't that Rava reconsidered, it was that Rava wanted to catch you in kind of a whiplash- Mm-hmm
you know, by leading you down one path and then pulling you back to the other. And, and the reason why it makes a difference for me is that if it's Rava reconsidered, that's one thing. Then we, then the question that we would ask is I think the question that you asked, which is, well, what made him reconsider?
And the other is, if he intentionally wanted to, us to have a whiplash, um, you know, what, what was he doing here? What was his trick? You know, what was his game? And he, he wanted us to, um, you know, not so fast. You, you can't, just because a father can, you know, doesn't mean a rabbi can, but it turns out that actually a rabbi can.
And, and so, you know, he's actually making a point in that, in that middle category.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. My sense is that it really is recording a change of- mind.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh .
BENAY LAPPE: Uh, the, the, the stama, the editor does do what you're saying often, leading you through a very highly curated back and forth debate- Right ... which the stama's creating, which never really existed in history-
DAN LIBENSON: Right
BENAY LAPPE: leading you over and over to moments where you go, "Oh, yeah, right. I, I, I, I am totally down with what, you know, the stama just had me agree with," only to be, um, sort of taken up short in the, in the next utterance where you realize, oh, I didn't think hard enough. And I think it's the stama's meta agenda to keep, uh, crashing you, so to, to tell you, "Hey, you're not thinking deeply enough."
Right. "But let me show you, you know, how to think better." I, I don't think that this structure is that. I, I can't be sure- Uh-huh ... again, should be someone's PhD dissertation, but my sense is really that there was a ch- it's recording a change of mind. And it could've been as instantaneous as, as soon as Rava said, "Well, does a person, does a teacher own Torah?
Oh, wait a minute." You know, it could've been that. You know, my, my daughter and I are now watching all the reruns of House.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh-huh. You
BENAY LAPPE: know, the TV show about this doctor- Yeah ... who in every show has that moment where someone will say something extraneous, unrelated, he'll be in a conversation, and then he'll realize the key to the case.
You know, it, it could be one of those moments where Rava himself said, "What do you think? A, a rav owns Torah? Wait a minute. Wait a minute." Like that.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: I'm not sure.
DAN LIBENSON: Or, I mean, I feel like I've, I've... I'm trying to br- I've, I, I can't, I can't, uh, sort of place exactly the, these cases, but I feel like I've been reading recently in the Talmud about where there was a case or something about, like, you know, rabbis who taught it one way for their whole life and then, and then later somebody confronted them with something or whatever, and they said, you know, "I was actually wrong about that."
Um, so- Y- ... yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, I don't know. It's, it's... I will have to do some digging. It would be really interesting if, if this was, like, early Rava and late Rava.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: But this whole idea of who owns Torah is what's at stake here. Mm-hmm. And what you get to do. What, like, w- what's the difference between owning, being acknowledged to own Torah, and the understanding that, no, we don't own Torah?
The, I think that's what's, what's at play here.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. So, so Rava comes in and he says, uh, "Yes, no, yes, it is his Torah." Yeah. "As, as it is written," and he quotes from Psalms, "For his delight is the Torah of the Lord, and in his Torah he meditates day and night." This is from Psalm 1
BENAY LAPPE: Right, and this requires a lot of unpacking.
So now Rava changes his mind and realizes, oh, wow, the Rav, the person who learns the tradition, owns that tradition. And what's never actually articulated is w- what do you get to do when you own the tradition? But knowing Rav, knowing that Rav was one of these champions of svara, he expanded the notion of svara from a mere logical deduction to the moral impulse, which is, he is quoted as citing over and over as the reason why he is radically reshaping the tradition.
It seems like what's at stake is do we or don't we get to reshape the tradition ourselves? And well, you only get to do that if you own it, and now he says, "Yeah, actually, we do own it." Now, his proof text is really interesting, and we should look at, uh, the text in the original because he's using a play on the Hebrew to not only establish the fact that, yes, the Rav owns Torah, but what the, what it is about the Rav, what is the Rav doing which effectuates that ownership, which, like, kicks in ownership.
DAN LIBENSON: Should, should we just, I mean, I just, uh, just for the, you know, sort of sake of completeness, like, just to show, uh, viewers here, and, and listeners can look it up, you know, on our source sheet, we have Psalm 1 here. And, um, the, this, the Psalm 1, it, you know, just in context it says, "Great, happy is the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked, or taken the paths of sinners, or joined the company of the insolent.
Rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight, and he studies that teaching day and night. He's like a tree planted bet- be- beside the streams of waters," et cetera. So this, you know, again, as always, this, uh, quote has nothing to do with the context here of whose Torah is it, you know? This is saying that a person is happy who studies the Torah, right?
Who, who, who studies God's, you know, God's idea. Yeah. W-
BENAY LAPPE: w- what, you're bringing out something that I think is important, which is we have to keep, um, sort of subverting the idea of, of a sage and a rabbi. Th- that's not someone, uh, qualitatively different from the everyday person. You know, the rabbis democratized Torah and said, "You no longer have to be in a hereditary relationship to leadership and authority."
Any person, this is like happy is the man. This is any, every person. This is amcha, this is the public, not just some elite class. Um, and it's interesting that, that Rava's using a Psalm that talks about the everyday person because I, I really believe that the rabbis are saying e- any person has the capacity to be a Rav.
DAN LIBENSON: I, I agree. I agree with that. But the, but I mean, like, the other piece that I just want to bring out of this, of the source for this proof text, and it's the same thing that we were saying earlier, it's like they could have probably found a better text for this proof as well. Rava could have. You know, this particular one, if you look at it, it is so obvious that it's about a completely different topic.
It's, it's saying, you know, happiness doesn't come from, uh, doing bad things. You know? Yeah. Happiness comes from doing good things, you know, and you should, you should, you should spend your time studying and, and studying the Torah and, you know, doing good things. Uh, and at the end of the day, the good people will win out and not the wicked people.
So the point is that it's not saying here, it's not... I, I don't, I don't think. You know, right? The original intent of the author here is not to say one way or the other who owns the Torah. Like, you know, right? And what we're about to see, you know, in terms of like you were saying, the wordplay is, uh, genius and wonderful, you know, but I mean, but, but see it for what it is, which is, uh, wordplay, and it is using a...
You know, to call it a proof text, right, is almost a misnomer because I think when people think about what a proof text is, people haven't studied a lot of Talmud and, or, or even people, many people who have studied a lot of Talmud because they don't actually look up the, the source text in context. They think that what a proof text means is, like, this is a text from the Torah that said the thing that the Talmud is saying, so the rabbis aren't doing anything really significant here.
They're just, they're just footnoting their work to the Torah, and if you looked it up, you would see that it was exactly that. And here actually is really not. And so, um, you know, now maybe, maybe that, maybe in the context of what we're, what we're talking about, who owns the Torah, you know, that point is, is all the more true.
I mean, they're almost, like, demonstrating to you that- Yes ... we own the Torah by the virtue of the fact that we are misquoting the Torah. Absolutely.
BENAY LAPPE: Absolutely.
DAN LIBENSON: So, okay, so- Okay ... so back to- So let's
BENAY LAPPE: go to that verse in Psalms.
DAN LIBENSON: Oh, in Psalms? And show
BENAY LAPPE: how they're reading it- To prove, uh, Rava's point that actually s- a rav, someone who...
By the way, let, let's remember that rav doesn't actually mean teacher. Okay? It's one of my pet peeves that, you know, what does rabbi mean? Oh, rabbi means teacher. Rabbi does not mean teacher. Okay? It, it comes from the root r- resh, bet, bet, which means, which means much.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Like rov, the majority. A rav is just someone who just knows a lot of stuff, period.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Okay?
BENAY LAPPE: So, you know, by virtue of knowing some stuff, you know, if you know aleph, teach aleph, you get to teach a bunch of stuff. But it isn't a- it doesn't actually mean teacher and it, uh, it just means someone who knows a bunch of stuff. Okay. Anyway, let's take a look at the verse.
DAN LIBENSON: So you want to look at in Psalms?
So the verse here- Yeah ... verse two. Yeah. "The teaching of the Lord is his delight, and he studies that teaching day and night." In Hebrew, Okay. So it takes Rashi to walk us through how this verse proves Rava's
BENAY LAPPE: point. Um- Sorry ... but, and this is how, um, Rashi explains it. And by the way, whenever we, we look at Rashi, we're not really looking at Rashi to know what Rashi said, as if Rashi is, like, some god and we should believe Rashi.
Rashi is m- more often than not bringing down the tradition of how the text was understood, the Talmud text, um, and the proofs and so on. So he, he's just being a little bit of, of, of cliff no- I don't know what the analogy is. It, he, he's not giving you his personal opinion that we should believe him.
Mm-hmm. He's, he's just letting you in on the traditional backstory. So,
DAN LIBENSON: okay. Yeah, or at least the tradition as it, as it came down to him in the, is it the 11th century Rashi? Yeah. So, uh, you know, I, it's funny 'cause I, I asked, uh, I remember asking, uh, Richard Elliott Friedman, the Bible, academic Bible scholar, uh, "You know, is it, is it possible that there were these traditions that kind of were really very ancient and that made it a- you know, to Rashi.
And so when Rashi is interpreting the Torah, that we actually could think that maybe he actually knew of a very, very, very ancient story that had made it all the way to him?" And, and he, he seemed pretty dismissive of that idea, you know, that it was kind of, like, too long, too, too, too long a- you know, ago. I mean, we're talking about 1,000 years plus, you know, that some story would have made it all, you know, through 1,000 years orally to Rashi.
And that he would actually have it as... So, so, you know, the point being that if something is in Rashi, it could be maybe 100 years old, you know, but it's probably not 1,000 years. So, you know, there's some sense in wh- you know, well, when did... So, so he's not... So it's what you're saying. I mean, he's not just giving his opinion.
He's not just a smart guy who's reading this stuff and saying, "Well, this is how I read it." You know, he's saying this, "This is how, this is how I was taught it. This is what, what the tradition in my community has been." But we don't really know how old that tradition is.
BENAY LAPPE: Right.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, okay. So anyway, so Rashi's take on, uh, where Rava, wh- where Rava says it, it is his Torah.
Is it- Or is it his Torah?
BENAY LAPPE: Right. So this is the Rashi on the previous statement where Rava says, and in the case of the Rav, does the Rav own the Torah? And Rashi's telling us in amazement, "." You know, like with astonishment and shock. That's wh- Like, that's how you should read
DAN LIBENSON: it.
BENAY LAPPE: That's how you should read it.
Rashi, this is Rashi's way of saying that's a h- that's a-
DAN LIBENSON: Question mark ...
BENAY LAPPE: rhetorical-
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah ...
BENAY LAPPE: question which ends with, uh, an interrobang, basically- Yeah, interrobang. Right?
DAN LIBENSON: Question mark, exclamation point.
BENAY LAPPE: Question mark, exclamation par- point. Thank you, Lizzie Heideman, for teaching that, teaching me that word. Uh, yeah.
So Rash... Be- because H- Hebrew has no syntax shift the way English does to indicate statement versus question, right? Mm-hmm. In English, we say, "It's his Torah." That's a statement. Or, "Is it his Torah?" Mm-hmm. That's a question. Mm-hmm. Hebrew has no shift in word order to indicate statement versus question, so it's up to Rashi here to make sure we understand this as a question, and specifically a question with an interrobang.
Okay. And Rashi goes on to say that the honor to the Rav is due to the Torah that the Rav has, and therefore the Rav shouldn't be able to renounce the honor of the Torah that belongs to God. Okay, so we had established that. So here comes now the Rashi which explains how Rava is reading out from the Psalms verse this idea that actually the Rav does own Torah.
That people, at the end of the day, people who learn own the Torah they learn. People who learn the tradition own that tradition, ... And therefore can do with it what an owner can do with what an owner owns.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: You know, mess with it, change it. You, if you own your house, you can knock down walls, right?
You can build an extra story, completely change it. Mm-hmm. You can knock down the whole thing.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Right? And, and so in Psalms, just to look at the original verse before we go here, uh, you know, it's really, "The teaching of the Lord is his delight." Now, his here is the, the person who studies, right? That's right.
So it's saying that the teaching, you know, happy is the person who does not follow the wicked, rather the person who delights in the teaching of God. Uh, and he studies that teaching- That teaching of God's ... of God, right? And, and it's really, and he's... This is not actually a great translation. It, it should be something like, "And he studies his teaching"-
BENAY LAPPE: That's right
uh, day and night. Which means God's teaching.
DAN LIBENSON: So if we say God's, then we're giving it away in a way. But it, but, you know, in the, in the kind of King James, it, it should've been translated as capital H-I-S, right? And, and he studies his teaching- That's right ... day and night. That's right. But Rashi is reading, is gonna read it differently.
Right. Or, or
BENAY LAPPE: Rava. Rashi's telling you how Rava read it.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm, right.
BENAY LAPPE: That's right. Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: And so he's translating, uh, his not as capital H. In his teaching, he meditates day and night,
BENAY LAPPE: but in Rashi- Right, but f- right. But first you have to... First Rashi's unpacking the his, uh, sorry, the, who the Torah belongs to at the beginning of the verse.
And if the Torah of God is his delight. Okay, so in the beginning, the Torah belongs to God, right? The verse says the Torah of God. Okay. So first the Torah belongs to God. Mm-hmm. In the beginning, the Torah belonged to God.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. And then it says, and, and, and if you engage with this Torah that belongs to God with delight, and and in his Torah, here's where the antecedent is, the antecedent of his is not explicitly stated.
It just says his Torah. And Rava's saying, now this his is no longer referring to God, but rather to his own.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And how does it become his own? And in his own Torah w- he will, uh, engage night and day. And, and Rashi's saying here is, um, Once he learns it and goes over it. And this is a, a set expression to is to, um, learn to the point of memorization and complete internalization, and to be able to orally teach it out.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And one... And Ra- and Rashi says once he does that, clearly the verse says the Torah is his. Mm-hmm. Because now the his, says Rava- Is his the, the person's.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. A-
BENAY LAPPE: first of all, I want to say that I love Rashi's fleshing out of the process of, like, what you need to do to make the Torah yours, because it so meshes with...
This is not a plug, a shameless plug, but it, this is the way we learn at Svara.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Uh, it, it's, it's slowly and deeply to the point of absolute memorization, and we call it ownership. And it's not a coincidence. A- and I f- I, I don't know, I find it very affirming that the tradition also names that process, that kind of internalization, as the process of coming to own, bracket, and therefore being sort of, um, pr- permissioned- Uh-huh
to, to do with what an owner can do with, to mess with- Uh-huh ... Torah. That, that's how the Torah becomes yours. And, uh, it, this also reminds me of what we wrote about last week.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. We w- we wrote a piece la- based on our show from last week- Yeah ... which you can find at the Svara website. But, um, it, so, um, well, it's interesting.
So first of all I'll just note, and I can change this, but I, I translated as processes it. I think it, there was a different translation- Mm ... that, that... And I, and I thought processes 'cause it's, like, sort of chewing it up is what I meant. You know, like, you sort of y- you... And, and, you know, so d- maybe digest is a better word.
You know, it's like, um- That's interesting ... right. But the, I was trying to sort of get at that, it, like you said it very beautifully, that the translation, just to note that that w- word was my choice, and I was trying to kind of get it to be what you said. I- I, you know, but not in a, using technical terms, you know.
Anyway, um, the- But you're,
BENAY LAPPE: you're actually, in the s- in the spirit of the Svara method, you're quite right, 'cause the root does mean to chew up.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I thought, like, and I thought chew would be a little weird, so I, you know, it didn't, wouldn't quite get it, so I, that's where I came up with processes.
But anyway, that's just the source of the translation. Um, the, um, because by the way, Rashi's not, I believe, not translated, or at least it's not consistently translated on Sefaria, so, um, so that was, uh, so that's why I, I did the translation. But, um, the, um... It's interesting though, because, like, what I, I, what you just said, like, I'm a little bit torn on that question.
Like, I, uh, in other words, and, and maybe it gets to that question of, like, how much should we call Rashi- The tradition with capital T, capital T, you know. In that, um, on the one hand, that's what he's saying, that you have to kind of learn the Torah and chew it up before you can own it. On the, and, and then you say, "Well, that's how we do it at Svara," and that's true, and it's wonderful in its own right.
And at, at Svara, you know, we're only able to study some limited amount of texts and of the Torah, and so does that mean that you only sort of own, uh, in the, in the sense of being able to play with, you know, the, only the texts that you've really studied to that level? Uh, right. Or, or, um, you know, is there some way in which...
And then, and then the other way that I'm looking at this, it, but again, it, it also has, like, two points of view, is to say the fact of the quotation from Psalms in this way itself is indication that it's, it's not, that, that there is a lot of play there. You know, and, and yet, right, in order to be able to misquote something so cleverly in a way, you actually have to know it very well.
Um, and so yes, you have to know it, but don't get confused that knowing it well means being, means being, um, uh, of, of too overly vener- what's the word? Like, venerating it, you know. That, that, that, you know, knowing it doesn't mean that you somehow then, uh, give away your, your capacity to play and to even misquote.
You know, it's, it's, it's the knowing that allows you to do it even more cleverly, even more boldly, even more making it more, um, suitable to the needs that we have today, et cetera. So, so, you know, I don't know. Like, I feel caught between this place of wanting to have the takeaway be, "And therefore we should study every word," which by the way, I'm trying to do.
You know, like, that's the, that's the, one of the reasons why I'm doing the Daf Yomi even though, you know, the daily Talmud page, even though it's not really the greatest way, is, is that I ju- I'm trying to know everything that there is, you know, at least to have some familiarity with it. And, on the other hand, you know, I don't actually believe that you need to know everything in order to have that authority to play.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Well, I think it's important to remember that everything was very little, uh, in the time of Rava, right? Uh, there was no Talmud in the time of Rava, so he wasn't referring to the Talmud. Um, what passed as learning was Mishnah.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And, and that was a teeny, tiny amount. I mean, I don't know. Anyway, if, you know, if you take out all the commentaries, it's l- smaller than this.
It's, it's a very small amount. You could easily have memorized it, and that's what it meant to know. So- So number one, it wasn't so immense, and number two, I, I also wanna be careful about kind of privileging a certain level of learning as, uh, you know, the criterion before which you don't get to play at all.
I, I, I'm, I'm wor- I c- I'm cautious about that as well. Mm. May- maybe the corollary to if you know aleph, teach aleph, is if you know, if, if you know aleph, play with aleph. And I
DAN LIBENSON: don't know,
BENAY LAPPE: I'm not sure.
DAN LIBENSON: I don't know. Like, I think it's, like, a little more than that, and I can't quite ... You know, like, I think it's almost like, it's almost like when you, when you see a, um, when you see, once you kind of see the k- like, like think about this, this show.
I mean, you know, I think, I was thinking about just, like, I think at the beginning of our hour, and I was thinking, like, "Are we just talking about the same thing every week?" You know, like, are we basically saying the same thing every week? Um,
BENAY LAPPE: and- The Talmud is talking about the same thing on every page.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, exactly. That's what I, so that's what I'm saying. Like, the, and the answer- Yes ... is yes and no. I mean, I think that, I think, you know, we've heard from people that they're not bored that we're just talking about the same thing every week. And yet, you know, there's some certain pretty small core truth here, with a capital T, you know, that we, that we've got.
Maybe we haven't quite got it to the level that we could write it, but we did write that piece last week. Like, we're getting there, right? And, and it's like once you have chewed that up, and processed that, right, then, like, at that point you can come to any part of the Torah, so to speak, and by that I mean the Talmud and, and all of the, the tradition, and, um, and, and you, you can have ownership over it, um, because you have the key.
It's sort of like having the key, you know, once you have the key to the house, you own the house, something like that.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. The, the
Yeah. I think the Talmud is one gigantic document whose one single pr- or primary point is w- we have the right to do whatever we want with the tradition, and if we don't- Take on that responsibility, this thing is gonna die.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: That, it, it's a, it's a manifesto to empower a new group of people to start rolling up their sleeves.
Um, and in- And whatever we, whatever we want- Yeah ...
DAN LIBENSON: I just wanna clarify, it doesn't mean that, you don't mean, I know you don't, but, you know, like, oh, we can just do whatever, anything we want, you know, like... No, the, the, I mean, we make, maybe we could, but the point is, is that, like, that's not the attitude here.
The attitude is that we can do what we need to do, right? Yes.
BENAY LAPPE: I, I shouldn't be so flippant. It, the, the assumption that I have underneath, we can do whatever we want, is given a certain amount of, of trepidation, and concern, and deep s- taking a stake, and, uh, being invested in, and, you know, wanting, understanding it enough to know where, where it's going to try to make it get there better.
It, als- all sorts of things that have to do with an orientation of respect and, um, honor. For sure. Um, so this text that, for me, the text that is in the context of the question of can't, uh, can a teacher or a parent renounce their honor, and what does that mean about your relationship with them and their relationship with you?
Um, it, again, that's the surface content of this text. I, I don't think this text is here because the editor really wanted to make the point that a parent can relinquish their honor, but a teacher can't, or maybe a teacher can. That, that's not the point. I think the, the, the meta point here is we own Torah.
Um, and the Talmud is telling this group of people, "I know we drove home to you that this came from God to Moses at Mount Sinai, and you th- you think maybe we shouldn't touch it, and that it is perfect, and will always be exactly this way in its perfection because it's go- But that isn't so." I mean, they really have to undermine the myth that they sold to establish this new myth which requires people to mess with it, with care, and with respect, and with honor.
Um, and I think that's its ultimate message.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, so I think that's where we'll leave it today. I, we'll have another show between now and Shavuot, but I do wanna, um, say that, like, I think that with Shavuot coming up, it's, it's, uh, right, what does it mean- To have this marking of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in our time.
You know, and, and I think what we're still sort of playing with is this idea that that revelation, it's not, it's still, it's ongoing. It's, it's, uh, it- and, and if we're talking about, as we've talked about and as we wrote about last week, like the Sefer Torah, the Torah that's in our own, in our own bodies, in our own moral intuition, uh, that, that, that, that that means that we are actively participating in the revelation as opposed to remembering something that once happened.
And that's why we're doing this, you know, 30-hour ... You don't have to come for all 30 hours, you know, but that's why we're really taking it seriously, that we're not just studying the Torah, uh, but we are maybe making it. So, um, so I'm really excited to have that. And,
BENAY LAPPE: and that's, that's another great example of how we've expanded our myth in an important way, right?
The, the myth started with one person stood at Sinai. Then it became we all somehow, our souls all stood at Sinai, whether we're genetic, biological Jews or, or converts, our souls all stood at Sinai. And our, every year we have that experience again, and every generation in the future has that experience which imparts a, a, an, a sense of authority and, "Okay, this is mine.
What am I gonna do with it?"
DAN LIBENSON: All right, so we'll see you next week.
BENAY LAPPE: All right. Thanks, Dan.
DAN LIBENSON: Bye.
BENAY LAPPE: Bye.
DAN LIBENSON: Thanks so much for joining our chevruta today! We hope you’ve enjoyed learning with us… and with the Talmud. You can find links to the source sheets for all episodes in the show notes and on our website at oraltalmud.com. Your support helps keep Oral Talmud going. You can find a link on the website to contribute. We’d also love to hear from you! Email us with any questions, comments, or thoughts at hello@oraltalmud.com. Please, share your Oral Talmud with us – we’re so excited to learn from you. The Oral Talmud is a joint project of SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva and Judaism Unbound, two organizations that are dedicated to making Jewish texts and ideas more accessible for everyone. We are especially grateful to Sefaria for an incredible platform that makes the Talmud available to everyone. It’s free at sefaria.org. And we are grateful to SVARA-nik Ezra Furman for composing and performing The Oral Talmud’s musical theme. The Oral Talmud is produced by Joey Taylor, with help from Olivia Devorah Tucker, and with financial support from Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah. Thanks so much for listening–and with that, this has been the Oral Talmud. See ya next time.
Watch on Video (original unedited stream)
