Eight More Theologically Provocative Talmud Sugyot: Rosh Hashanah 17b-18a by Rabbi Mordechai Silverstein

Theologically Provocative Sugyot from the Talmud - Lesson 8

Rosh Hashanah 17b-18a

This last lesson, the eighth is longer than any of the previous lessons because I want to finish the section on the Mishnah which we began.

Sources

Guide Questions and Issues

Section 1

The first sugya centers on Rabbi Johanan's meimra which speaks of the great power of teshuva not only to transform a person but also to exact a change in a person's sentence before God for theirsins. According to this teaching, the power of teshuva seems totally transformative.

1. Rabbi Johanan’s teaching is based on a verse from Isaiah (6:10).

a. What is the intent of the verse in its Biblical context?

b. How is it being used here as proof for Rabbi Johanan's postion?

2. Rav Papa raised a challenge to Rabbi Johanan's position.

a. What theological problem prompts Rav Papa's challenge?

3. How does Abaye resolve Rav Papa's challenge?

a. Abaye uses a point raised in the verse from Isaiah as his point of departure to solve Rav Papa's problem. Map out how he uses the verse to answer Rav Papa.

4. Another challenge to Rabbi Johanan. This time from a baraita, making it more powerful than Rabbi Johanan's meimra. It argues that only teshuva carried out between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur can avert the decree, namely before the decree is issued on Yom Kippur.

a. How does this contradict Rabbi Johanan's opinion?

5. The Talmud resolves the contradiction by way of a hiluk (adistinction) so that the two sources are talking about two different situations.

a. Identify which opinion refers to the meimra and which to the baraita.

b. Who has more power to affect a change through teshuva, the individual or the community?

c. What statement is the Talmud making in here about individuals and communities?

6. The Talmud challenges this hiluk with a baraita. This baraita talks about God's allotments of rain. Once the allotment is made, it is made.Teshuva can change where and when it rains but not the amount allotted. This would seem to indicate that even teshuva does not change what has already been decreed.

7. The teirutz here wants us to know that there is again no contradiction. The Talmud explains that this baraita does not intend to teach that God will not override a stern decree when necessary but here there it was not necessary because it was sufficient to send the allotted amounts to the right places to cause a positive effect.

8. This baraita quotes from Psalm 107. Take a look at this Psalm. From this Psalm, we derive the practice of reciting Birkat HaGomel upon being "rescued" from dangerous situations. Here, however, this Psalm is being quoted to assert that crying out to God is only effective before the God has issued His sentence, again contradicting Rabbi Jochanan's origin baraita.

9. The Talmud resolves this kushiya by asserting that the situation in this baraita speaks to the situation of individuals and not the community.

10. Another challenge to Rabbi Johanan from a baraita. This time we are privy to a fascinating anecdote about a convert who asks a tough question regarding a contradiction between two verses from the Torah. The convert, Bloria asks how in one verse God, seemingly shows favor to certain of His subjects, while in another the Torah asserts that God does not show favoritism.

We are presented with two different answers to her challenge. The first one is interesting but not pertinent to out discussion. Only Rabbi Akiva's answer is relevant to the sugya.

But Rabbi Yose's answer deserves a moment or two. In his parable, Rabbi Yose resolves Bluria's question by asserting that God can show favor to those who sin against Him exclusively if they do teshuva but for those who sin against other human beings God cannot show special favor because there is another party involved.

a. What is Rabbi Yose's essential lesson here? Note how he builds a values lesson out of the resolution of an apparent discrepancy in the Torah.

Rabbi Akiva resolves the discrepancy through a hiluk - a distinction - before and after the sentence. This distinction is what creates the kushiya on Rabbi Johanan. We have seen this kushiyah in different forms already and in step 11, we see an already familiar teirutz to this question.

Section 2

The previous section aligned Rabbi Johanan's meimra with God's judgment on the community. God shows special forgiveness to the community for doing teshuva. This section treats God's response to the repentance of the individual.

In this baraita, the Talmud presents three interpretations of why two people who are seemingly equal in all ways will suffer different fates.

Rabbi Meir pins the different responses on sincere prayer versus less sincere prayer; Rabbi Elazar asserts that the person's fate will depend on when they pray - before the final sentence or after; Rabbi Isaac asserts that prayer can avert the decree both before and after the final sentence.

One does not necessarily have to see a difference between the Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Isaac. What is especially interesting here is the effectively of prayer in changing the fate of the individual.

Question for Discussion

Can prayer avert the "stern decree"? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Section 3

We once again return to questionthe conclusion of the first section that the fate of the community can be altered after the final sentence.

1. In this kushiya, the Talmud brings two contradictory verses from the book of Jeremiah. Look up these two verses.

a. How do they contradict each other?

b. How does the Talmud resolve this contradiction?

c. How does this resolution pose a kushiya for Rabbi Yochanan (according to the conclusion in section 1) that the final sentence against the community can still be altered?

2. The Talmud reject this "hiluk", "destinction" in favor of a different "hiluk" which would not refute the conclusion of the Rabbi Yochanan sugya.

a. What is the hiluk?

b. How does it accommodate the conclusion in section1?

c. Who makes the oath with is unbreakable?

d. What does this say about God?

e. What is the textual evidence for the effects of this oath? Look up the story of Eli and his sons. (1 Samuel 3:14)

f. What theological concerns does the conclusion reached in this step create?

3. While the conclusions reached in step 2 refute the kushiya on Rabbi Yochanan, it creates new problems. This step comes to assuage the problem caused by the conclusion reached in step 2.

a. What is the resolution?

b. How does it soften the problem?

4. Abaye and Rava are "bnei plugta" meaning they often dispute with each other. How are their opinions different?

5. In steps 5 and 6, the Talmud brings anecdotal material as an antidote to the harsh conclusions found in step 2.

a. How do these stories support the opinions of Rava and Abaye?

b. What is their theological purpose in this sugya?

Question to discuss

What does this sugya tell us about the rabbis and the shaping of theology?

Section 4

This section develops the idea that the opportunity for the community to avert the decree against it is always available.

1. This sugya opens with a meimra in the form of a question which is not immediately answered. The question is looking for textual support to prove that a sentence against the community is never sealed and that there is always the possibility to overturn the decree.

2. The Talmud challenged this conclusion by bringing a biblical verse which would see to indicate otherwise. Look up the verse in Jeremiah.

a. How does this verse seemingly challenge the conclusion in step 1?

3. As a result of the challenge in step 2, the Talmud is forced to reshape the question asked in step 1. In this step, the proof verse is added. Look up this verse from Deuteronomy.

a. How does this verse prove that the possibility of overturning the decree is always possible?

4. This step raises a kushiya from a verse from Isaiah.

a. How does this verse contradict the one in the previous step?

5. This verse disarms the kushiya.

a. How does it accomplish this?

b. What are the religious implications of this terutz?

c. What does it say about the religious significance of the individual? The community?

6. Steps 6 and 7 come to remedy the religious problem created by step 5.

a. What is the nature of the remedy? (Step 7)

Section 5

This section is linked associatively to the previous section.In this section, we relate to the story of David and Nabal. Take a look. It's a great story (1 Samuel chapter 25). At the end of this story upon hearing of the threat to his life from David's forces, Nabal has some sort of heart attack. He lingers for ten days and then dies. It is the "ten days" which prompts the Talmud to adopt this story here.

The Talmud poses two answers to explain the significance of the "ten days". The first answer relates it to an element of the plot of the story. The answer of Rav Nahman relates it the ten days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. This is what makes it relevant here.

Section 6

Steps 1-3

In this section, we come to explain the last part of the Mishnah: "On Rosh Hashanah, all mankind pass before Him like "Bnai Maron". Apparently,in the period of the Mishnah, the term "bani maron" was understood since the Mishnah itself offers no explanation of this term. In the Talmud, however, this term seems not to have been clearly understood as is indicated by the fact that the Talmud offers three different possible explanations.

1. "like a flock of sheep" - deduced from the Aramaic word for sheep (amarna).

2. "as in the ascent of BethMaron" - from the similarity between the word "Maron" and a place name.

3. "Like the troops of the House of David", understanding the word "maron" to relate to the word "marut" (master), making everyone the subject of the king.

Before we move on with the sugya, I want to say a word about the plain sense of this term "bnai maron". In actuality, if we look at the medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah, we find that the term is not "bnai maron" but "bno miron" or as one word "bnomiron", "numiros", which is a military order. The plain meaning of this sentence is that all pass by God in an orderly way to be judged. What happened here is that because this is a Greek loanword, its original; meaning was lost and then midrashic interpretations "took over".

4. In this meimra, Rabbah barbar Hanna wants to make a statement about how God processes this review. Hewants to say, that no matter how God's creatures pass before Him, He reviews them in a single glance.

a. What does he say about God in this statement?

b. What is his presumption about the nature of God?

5. In this step, Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak seeks to find support for this same position from the verse quoted as a proof verse in the Mishnah:

To understand whatRav Nahman is doing, we need to look at the verse quoted as well as the preceding verse (Psalms 33:14-15):

(יד) ממכון שבתו השגיח אל כל ישבי הארץ:

(טו) היצר יחד לבם המבין אל כל מעשיהם:

14 From the place of His habitation He looks intently upon all the inhabitants of the earth;
15 He that fashions the hearts of them all, that considers all their doings.

Rabbi Nachman, first, proposes a super-literal interpretation of verse 15 where he reads it tome an that God created us and united all of our hearts (read: mind). He rejects this reading because it does not match the reality that he knows. He, therefore, adopts an interpretation of this verse which conforms with the interpretation of the Mishnah just cited in the name of Rabbah bar bar Hanna, namely, that God as Creator sees all the hearts of His subjects at once and is able to understand their deeds. This understanding is based upon reading verses 14 and 15 together.

I want to extract a bigger lesson from this final teach of this section of the Talmud, in part, because it serves as a fantastic conclusion to our course. If we take a close look at Rav Nahman's methodology, we learn something valuable about rabbinic theology and, in turn, how we should shape our own thinking.

Rabbi Nachman starts out with a proposition about how to interpret a particular verse from the book of Psalms. His interpretation meshes with the words of the Psalm but does not mesh with reality as he sees it. This causes him to seek out another interpretation which better conforms to his understanding of the world.

This method really speaks to the shaping of theology. Theology has to make sense so it will constantly evolve along with its interpreters. This means that theology will always be influx because our understanding of the universe is constantly in flux. Remember, theology is not God's reality. It is our very human attempts to understand God's reality. It is as helpful to us as it is helpful but it cannot be dogmatic, lest it create a false interpretation of whom and what God is.

I hope our studies together will only be the beginning of our search.