As noted in my first return to my old “laws,” I’ll be periodically be posting items drawn from a little writing project I’ve been working at on the side. Here’s the second sample:
Bible study is a discipline, not a ritual event.
Two of the hardest things about serious Bible study are getting started and then sustaining the effort. While a word like “sustaining” naturally speaks of regularity and continuity, I’m not talking about treating Bible study like your morning “devotional” routine. I’m not suggesting you make it part of a routine at all. If routine helps, then have a go at it. Being faithful at something doesn’t mean always doing it the same way or at the same time. All too often spending time studying Scripture deteriorates into an item on a checklist to be dutifully checked off. “I’m devoted now.”
Since Bible study is more than Bible reading, by definition it involves thinking. Thinking is work. It’s not for sissies. If you’re not at least a bit mentally spent (or stimulated) after doing what you presume is thinking, you aren’t really thinking. Sometimes our days don’t afford the time for the kind of sustained effort that goes into serious Bible study. Don’t let that bother you. Rather than fret over missing the study session you put on your checklist, my advice is to periodically devote the small increments of time that you do have to just thinking about what you’ve studied before. Sometimes it’s better to evaluate what you’ve taken in rather than take in more.
The point is this: It’s more spiritually productive to develop clarity on some point of the text, or figure out a way to frame a question for future study, than to just mark time with an open book (even if it’s the Bible) just for the sake of maintaining a daily ritual. Ultimately, Bible study is about developing aptitude in the Scriptures, the source material for knowing God, not score-keeping.
The life of the mind can be cultivated just about anywhere. You always bring your mind with you. Whatever you’ve been studying lately can be brought back and worked over again. Your brain has stored the fruits of your study. Precise recall isn’t a pre-requisite, either. Retrieve some thought and probe it for weakness, or thank God for its clarity. You’ll be surprised at how just thinking from time to time somehow helps you process a given issue or problem in altogether fresh ways.
Do you think the old rabbinic technique of gezera shawa has validity? Lately, our preacher has been tying passages together based on that and it seems to make good logic.
Short answer: no. Here’s a description from the Jewish Encyclopedia:
The second rule of Hillel and of Ishmael, and the seventh of Eliezer b. Jose ha-Gelili. This may be described as argument by analogy, which infers from the similarity of two cases that the legal decision given for the one holds good for the other also. The term “gezerah shawah” originally included arguments based on analogies either in word or in fact. Before long, however, the latter class was designated as “heḳḳesh,” while the phrase “gezerah shawah” was limited to analogy in the case of two different Biblical laws containing a word common to both. The gezerah shawah was originally restricted to a δὶς λερόμευον, i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages. The gezerah shawah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. (source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14215-talmud-hermeneutics#anchor5).
The last three sentences are the issue.
“The gezerah shawah was originally restricted to a δὶς λερόμευον, i.e., a word occurring only in the two passages offering the analogy. Since such a word is found nowhere else, there is no reason to assume that it bears different meanings in the two passages.” The logic here is based on the infrequency of the terms – terms so infrequent (occurring only twice) that *surely* their usage must have had the same thing in mind. Maybe. Maybe not. This logic neglects the fact that the corpus (the Hebrew Bible) is small/limited. There were far more words in the Hebrew language than one (even lengthy) collection of books would entail. You’d only really know what a word’s semantic range was if you had more examples of usage. The idea that a writer / writers would automatically have shut off his / their brain(s) to an entire semantic range merely because a word shows up only twice is quite artificial.
The last sentence is more troubling: The gezerah shawah consequently attaches to the word in the one passage the entire sequence of ideas which it bears in the other. Wow. Really? the “entire sequence of ideas of one passage is transferred to the other on the basis of the presence of ONE word that occurs in each? Count me out. This ignores meaning in context — by which I mean contexts (worldview, literary, grammatical, etc.).
A lot of rabbinic “technique” amounts to what we’d call word games. And why would we assign authority to a POST-biblical interpretation of the OT text? This is akin to saying the best way to interpret the NT is to filter it through the church fathers and their debates. Again, count me out.
I think, perhaps, you ignoring a key element in the description which says:
…which infers from the similarity of two cases that the legal decision given for the one holds good for the other also.
The gzerah shava, if memory holds was utilized for legal rulings, not for what the “worldview” means. Meaning, when a legal ruling HAD to be decided upon (i.e. when the people needed to know the actual PRACTICAL application of a said law) a ruling had to given over. Now obviously if context is known than the context would be used. The point of gzerah sheva is that the context wasn’t known, but practical halacha (law) had to be decided once and for all. So if context is not understood… If the grammar is not understood, than you go to the next tool in your toolboox: gzerah shava. Gzerah Shava, is just a tool when other tools don’t help.
Is this REALLY that different when one reads the varying opinion from both sides of the aisle on 2nd amendment rights? Both sides claim they know the proper reading, proper intent and proper understanding based on history. In the end, the judge has to find a way to decide.
I could buy your distinction IF you can convince me that the rabbis used Scripture in its own context to make legal decisions. It seems they used it quite loosely and wouldn’t hesitate to use a “legal” decision in some other argument or context. (Honestly, I view what the rabbis did with Scripture as sort of the Wild West of Bible interpretation).
In order to convince you I would certainly need more than just a superficial understanding myself. Though there are obviously other rules for interpreting the (non-legal) text, I do believe, speaking specifically about gzera sheva was only for determining legal instruction in the text.
Check this link out for essay. http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/talmudtorah/tt4.8.html (The author also discusses prioritizing Qal VaHomer vs. Gezerah Shava. Anyways, the author uses this example for Gezerah Shava.
For example, We are told to “Remember” (*zakhor*) what Amaleq did to us when we left Egypt (Deuteronomy 25) and we are told to “Remember” (*nizkarim*) the Purim story (Esther 9). Since we already know that remembering Amaleq must take place by reading from a scroll, we apply that reasoning to the Megilla and must read the Purim story from a scroll (BT Megilla 17).]
Notice, this is not a statement of truth. It’s merely one for practical [legal] application.
Regardless I would like to suggest two things: A) Wild West implies anarchy with no rules and anything goes. Clearly, there are rules. Now you may not agree to the rules, but it doesn’t mean it is the Wild West. B) All this might stem from a different viewpoint about what scripture is used for. In short, “Lo Bashamayim Hi”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven
So I do agree with you that context is needed. Off the top of my head, I think the sin of wasting seed is very much taken out of context in the story of Onan and Tamar. But then again, if there wasn’t this broad ability to reinterpret, would Jews have stopped executing adulterers, idolaters, homosexuals etc. etc.?
As one who has had some extended discussions with people who were steeped in Jewish mysticism, I can only say: lol!!
I often find myself wondering where the heck some of the interpretations come from. An understanding of PaRDeS and gezerah sheva can be good to understand modes of Jewish thinking and understanding, but some of the interpretations it brings forth are head scratching to say the least.
yes – to say the least.
Nothing I said has anything to do with Jewish mysticism.
And if you really want to know where the interpretation comes from, you can always study the sources.
A good reminder, and well put! One thing I have discovered too is that it is both good to have time working through a commentary and such, but also good to sit alone with a text. And pray while exercising your mind!