Rabbi J.H. Hertz’s Epic Introduction to the Talmud (with a little controversy mixed in)

by rabbifink on January 17, 2012 · 23 comments

I am indebted to Alan Brill of the Kavvanah blog for sharing this gem.

One of my favorite topics and themes in Judaism is understanding the structure and methodology of the Talmud. I am constantly looking for more sources and studying, adapting and adjusting my understanding of the issues. Until I read the post on Kavvanah I did not know about the introduction to the Talmud written by Rabbi J.H. Hertz. I read it and I loved it.

I strongly suggest you read the entire introduction. It is written beautifully and with such an inspiring view of the Talmud that it becomes required reading.

Some highlights:

Like nearly every one of the rabbis, he earned his bread by manual labour.

Speaking about the rabbis of the Talmud, R’ Hertz reminds us that the rabbis of the Talmud worked for a living. They studied when they were able. He wrote this before the standardization of kollel. But it is almost prophetically inspired.

Concerning the exact time at which the Mishnah was committed to writing, diversity of opinion has prevailed among eminent Jewish authorities during the last nine centuries.

I never knew this. But apparently, R’ Sherira Gaon and Rashi, among others held that the Mishna was not actually written down until the 8th or 9th century. I would love to see a citation for this. Either way, this is astounding to me. I was always taught that R’ Yehuda HaNassi codified AND wrote down the mishna. It seems that these authorities held that the Mishna was codified by R’ Yehuda HaNassi and was transmitted orally for a few hundred years before it was published in written form. Clearly, Rambam disagrees. Fascinating.

Here is the best part:

Halachah, as we have seen, means ‘the trodden path’, rule of life, religious guidance. To it belong all laws and regulations that bear upon Jewish conduct. These include the ritual, the civil, criminal, and ethical laws.

Everything else is embraced under the term Haggadah; literally, ‘talk’, ‘that which is narrated’, ‘delivered in a discourse’. This again can he subdivided into various groups. We have dogmatical Haggadah, treating of God’s attributes and providence, creation, revelation, Messianic times, and the Hereafter. The historical Haggadah brings traditions and legends concerning the heroes and events in national or universal history, from Adam to Alexander of Macedon, Titus and Hadrian. It is legend pure and simple. Its aim is not so much to give the facts concerning the righteous and unrighteous makers of history. as the moral that may be pointed from the tales that adorn their honour or dishonour.

That some of the folklore element in the Haggadah, some of the customs depicted or obiter dicta reported. are repugnant to Western taste need not be denied. ‘The greatest fault to be found with those who wrote down such passages. says Schechter, ‘is that they did not observe the wise rule of Dr Johnson who said to Boswell on a certain occasion, “Let us get serious, for there comes a fool”. And the fools unfortunately did come, in the shape of certain Jewish commentators and Christian controversialists, who took as serious things which were only the expression of a momentary impulse. or represented the opinion of sonic isolated individual, or were meant simply as a piece of humorous by-play, calculated to enliven the interest of a languid audience.’

In spite of the fact that the Haggadah contains parables of infinite beauty and enshrines sayings of eternal worth, it must be remembered that the Haggadah consists of mere individual utterances that possess no general and binding authority.

This is a loaded paragraph and one that today is considered highly controversial. R’ Hertz has the broad shoulders necessary to make such a statement and I admire him greatly for making it. What he is saying is that the Talmud has statements that are binding and many that are not. The difference between the two is whether or not they are halachic. Further, it should not be a surprise to anyone if the rabbis of the Talmud were inaccurate in their non-halachic statements. Some were mistakes, others were made for purposes other than for their truth. R’ Hertz charges those who take these non-serious statements with greater seriousness than they were intended as fools. I wouldn’t be so harsh. But I agree with the sentiment.

I wonder what would happen if a prominent rabbi wrote this today.

And finally another excellent line in conclusion:

My purpose is merely to give a brief presentation of the Talmud as a book. I shall therefore conclude with the words of I. Abrahams. ‘The Talmud,’ he says, ‘is one of the great books of the world. Rabbinism was a sequel to the Bible; and if, like all sequels, it was unequal to its original, it nevertheless shares its greatness. The works of all Jews up to the modern period were the sequel to this sequel. Through them all may be detected the unifying principle that literature in its truest sense includes life itself; that intellect is the handmaid to conscience; and that the best books are those which best teach men how to live. The maxim, Righteousness delivers from death, applies to books as well as to men. A literature whose consistent theme is Righteousness, is immortal.’

Through it all, the Talmud is one of the greatest books ever written. It’s true, the sequel is at least as good as the original. We follow the Talmud in our lives and the Talmud interprets the Torah. It’s world certainly seems different to the naked eye than the world of the Bible. Says, R’ Hertz, this is a good thing.

Above all, the Talmud is an attempt at righteousness and aids us all in our attempts towards the same.

Now go study!

Link: Halakhah.com

Also, buy R’ Hertz’s Chumash. It’s my personal favorite: Amazon.com

Related posts:

  1. Big News From Artscroll: The Talmud is Coming to iPad in Spectacular Fashion
  2. New Koren English Talmud
  3. Intro to Talmud 2
  • http://twitter.com/MordMaman Mord Maman

    Hertz Chumash is fantastic but once or twice when reading it in shul a few people have felt they must inform me of their veiws about both the Rabbi and his chumash. and lets put it this way, they weren’t nice.

    • Anonymous

      Why daven in a place with such vocal not nice people?

      • http://twitter.com/MordMaman Mord Maman

        these were the kind of people who think there is a religious reason not to use a three wheeled buggy.  they are also normally the most vocal about things too.
        Lovely shul.

  • I Tick

    There is much greater controversy, if I recall. I believe R Hertz mentions something about halacha not really existing in a systematic, clearly delineated form until after Ezra. Now, in some sense, halacha was clearly not as it is today until [the Mishna and the Gemara, the Rif and the] Rambam, and Tur Shulchan Aruch, but it still sounded rather thorny to me from a contemporary Orthodox perspective.

    I’ve heard that the Mishna was originally oral, and that it’s genesis was complex, with several forms even before Rebbi, etc, but I’d never imagined that it wasn’t written down until the Geonim. Did the Geonim not possess manuscript Talmuds? Were there no manuscripts of the Mishna from the Roman and the Byzantine periods? Hard to believe the entire Talmud was oral until the 8th century.

    • I Tick

      Okay, so it seems I’m reading too much into the quote. It just seems to say that Ezra was the originator of the substance that we call halacha, like Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir originated the substance of the Mishna, because the tradition was filtered through them and their opinions and their teachings. It doesn’t clearly imply that they were the first to have systematic teachings, just that it is their particular strand of the oral tradition that survived, like one genetic line from several original ones.

      Also, R Hertz refers to halacha there simply as popular practice, and that it was Ezra’s take that was accepted.

      But there is a reason that R Hertz chooses to introduce the entire concept of halacha with Ezra, suggesting some sort of shift in how the tradition of Moses was taught and practiced.

      • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

        It’s impossible to avoid the Ezra issue if you read Tanach. Impossible.

  • I Tick

    Here’s the quote, from early in R Hertz’s preface:

    “At the re-establishment of the Jewish Commonwealth, Ezra the Sofer, or Scribe, in the year 444 B.C.E. formally proclaimed the Torah the civil and religious law of the new Commonwealth. He brought with him all the oral traditions that were taught in the Exile, and he dealt with the new issues that confronted the struggling community in that same spirit which had created the synagogue. His successors, called after him Soferim (Scribes’), otherwise [page xiv] known as the ‘Men of the Great Assembly’, continued his work. Their teachings and ordinances received the sanction of popular practice, and came to be looked upon as halachah,”

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      I think this is less controversial than you think it is.

      It’s almost explicit in Tanach!

    • DG

      ITick: What your quote is saying is simply that Ezra declared the laws of the Torah to be the laws of the land. And the teachings of his successors, the Men of the Great Assembly, were accepted by the people. He isn’t saying that halachah was nothing but popular practice. He’s saying that the rabbinic enactments were accepted by the people (in addition to the halachah that they already had).

      • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

        Right. But the missing point is that NO ONE knew the laws of the Torah until Ezra taught them!

        • DG

          No one knew any of the laws, or no one knew some of the laws?

          • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink
          • DG

            But they clearly all knew that this was the Torah that they were supposed to be keeping. Otherwise they wouldn’t have gone along with Ezra. They wouldn’t all have just believed him out of the blue. (You can fool some of the people some of the time but …) It says explicitly that the Jews had never dwelt in sukkas before, which is pretty shocking.  But what about the rest of the Torah? What was going on in the meantime?

            • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

              Ezra was their leader. He took them from exile and brought them back to the Holy Land and autonomy. His word was the law and the people listened to him.
              We don’t know much about the Israelites before Ezra because what we do know is from Tanach and Tanach is not a history book.
              Clearly, idol worship and civil wars were a major part of their life during the First Temple.

          • DG

            So how do you explain that they didn’t know these things (whatever these things might be) — bearing in mind Torah mi-Sinai and not Torah mi-Ezra?

            • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

              I presume a select few kept the laws diligently while the masses were largely ignorant and illiterate.

  • http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ S.

    There’s tons to say about the writing of the Mishna question, and I am truly impressed that you display such chochma as to find it astounding (i.e., you understand the difference).

    Briefly, there are two versions of the Iggeret Rav Sherira, more or less called the Ashkenazic and the Sephardic rescension. The Ashkenazic one says that the Mishna was first written at the same time as the Gemara, and the Sephardic one has the Mishna literally written, not only arranged, by Rabbi Yehuda.

    • http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ S.

      Also, a quasi-proof is that there are many differences between the Mishnah of the Talmud Yerushalmi and Bavli. See, eg. משנה בבבלי ובירושלמי by Rabbi Melech Schachter (R. Hershel’s father):

      http://www.hebrewbooks.org/41001 

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      Thanks for providing some illumination. Do you have any links for articles on this issue?

    • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

      Even according the Ashkenazik version, that would be ~800 the latest. Right?

      • http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ S.

        Offhand I’m not sure, but I would guess so, something like that, given when Rav Sherira lived. Also, I misspoke – it is known as the French rescension, not “Ashkenazic.” This makes sense given Rashi’s position (and the Rambam’s). I’ll get back to you on the recommendations for what to read.

        • http://finkorswim.com E. Fink

          Thanks!

          • http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/ S.

            Just came across this interesting source from Sefer Ha-ittim by R”i Barceloni, who cites a letter from Shmuel ha-Naggid about the introduction of the written Talmud to Spain – written from memory:

            נטרונאי נשיא בר חכינאי והוא שכתב לבני ספרד את התלמוד מפיו שלא מן הכתב למריבות 
            והשלימו ביניהן שיהיו עוסקין בתלמוד

            (link)

Previous post:

Next post: