I have been reading with great interest and admiration your position on intellectual honesty, humanism etc. I have noticed however, that you spell God with a hyphen instead of the ‘o’. Is this out of respect for the Ultra-Orthodox elements who log on, or is it just that old habits die hard? And wouldn’t it be more accurate to refer to the authors of the Talmud as ‘the Rabbis” rather than Chazal? That word has a warm and fuzzy conotation which implies that these were indeed ‘wise men’. Considering your ongoing criticisms of their blatant mistakes, rash judgments, and general apathy to the propagation of humanisitic ideals, perhaps a re-examination of the term “Chazal” is in order? And by the way, what possessed these Rabbis to institute the concept of milchig milk, when it obviously emanates from a fleishig udder? Why haven’t such absurdities been challenged over the millenia?
Waiting for further enlightenment
Meir
Dear Meir,
Our English translations are done by a religious person. As long as it does not change the meaning of our words, we respect her preferences in the spelling of the word “G-d.”
As to the term “Chazal,” you are correct in assuming that the term has a positive connotation while we show that there were those among the “sages” who spoke words of racism, nonsense, and foolishness. In any case, one of our goals is to show that the myth of “Chazal” as expressed by the religious and non-religious public is not evident to one who reads their work. To do so, we must use the term which those people treat with glory and reverence, and show them that it is only an empty phrase.
The term milchig is a modern term. All languages change to meet needs. Therefore the idea of a milchig restaurant is a new one for a restaurant which serves no meat. Chazal dealt with milk as something which comes out of the animal, or, as they said, “That which comes out of the impure [like the milk of the ferret] is impure, and that which comes out of a pure animal [cow’s milk] is pure” (Bechorot 5b).
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
Dear Meir,
The prohibition against mixing meat and milk is written about in the Torah: “Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19) and you are right: the obligation of the commandments in the believing public’s eye — “the Divine Torah” — is that of decrees which no man can understand. Thus is it written in tractate Megillah 25a: the commandments are naught but decrees. Rashi adds “They are to place His yoke upon us, to announce that we are His slaves and the keepers of His commandments.” There is no point in seeking logic and reason in the commandments; whoever accepts upon himself the fulfillment of Torah and the commandments must negate his logic and will before the will of the text, which is considered Divine. For more about this, see the essay Morality in Halacha.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
Dear Meir,
The prohibition against mixing meat and milk is a decree of the Sages, lest such a mixture lead to the cooking of meat and milk together.
But to the body of your question: You must remember that the Sages gave themselves freedom to explain the Scriptures, even in contradiction to the plain meaning of the text. They drew this power from an exegesis which was also questionable: “According to the teachings they give you and the judgment they tell you do, do not stray from what they tell you, neither to the right nor to the left.” Rashi explains: “To the right or to the left — even if they tell you right is left and left is right” (Deuteronomy 17:11).
There is no point in trying to understand the interpretations of Chazal, for they treated the Torah text as though it belonged to them. They changed, distorted, and muddled the text, and then claimed the result to be Torah given to Moses at Sinai. Religious people accept their words as though they had been given at Sinai, yet even they do not try to understand the interpretations.
For more details, see the portion of Shoftim, Poetical Rhetoric, and The Torah Spoke in a Human Manner.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet