IJJER
International Journal
of Jewish Education Research,
2016 (9), 63-82.
Reconceiving Talmud Torah: David
Weiss Halivni on the Post-Holocaust
Theological Justification of HistoricalCritical Study of the Talmud
Dr. Ari Ackerman1 | ackerman@schechter.ac.il
Schechter Institute
Abstract
he article examines David Weiss Halivni's post-Holocaust
approach to the question of the relationship between faith, halakhah,
and history, his reconceiving of the nature and purpose of talmud Torah
and the educational implications of these theological relections. For
Halivni, the Holocaust commands the re-imagining of the purpose and
nature of Torah study. Torah learning in a post-Holocaust world must
recognize the damage incurred by the expansion of human freedom
and independence from God, and relect the hope and yearning for
the restoration of God's dominion and presence that was evident at the
Sinaitic revelation. Halivni avers that these twin goals are accomplished
through historical criticism, which detects the human corruptions
that contaminated the Bible and Talmud and attempts to restore the
unadulterated word of God through recovering the original revealed
text. Hence, he views the historical investigation of canonical texts as
the telos of the strivings of a person of faith. he article concludes with
1 I would like to thank Zvi Leshem who reviewed the article and provided helpful
comments and criticism.
63
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
the educational implications of Halivni's approach to the relationship
between talmud Torah and historical criticism and his attempt to navigate
between the conlicting commitments of the educational approaches of
the traditional approach to Talmud study and that of the academic study
of Bible and Talmud.
Key words: David Weiss Halivni; Talmudic criticism; postHolocaust theology
One of the foundations of pre-modern Jewish education was the
commitment to talmud Torah - teaching boys and young men cultural
literacy through textual engagement in the heder and yeshivah. In these
two primary educational institutions of traditional Jewish society,
Jewish canonical texts were studied in a ahistorical fashion as a means of
understanding God's will. he tradition was thereby transmitted from
generation to generation while also allowing for its probing, exegesis
and development in the conines of the Talmudic academy. Torah was
viewed, then, as an ininite source of relection and interpretation and its
study was upheld as an exalted religious and educational ideal.
However, modernity has challenged the supremacy of talmud
Torah on a number of fronts.2 Haskalah and subsequently Zionist
ideology—with their emphasis on productivity—criticized the excessive
engagement in theoretical study of abstruse Jewish texts in traditional
Jewish education. he Haskalah also argued that general knowledge
and universal values, rather than Torah knowledge and particular Jewish
values, are crucial in cultivating an educated, moral, and cultured
human being (Bildung) and allowing entrance into the surrounding
society. Likewise, the rise of historical criticism and the accompanying
Wissenschaft movement viewed the ahistorical approach of the yeshivah
as subjective pilpul divorced from objective truth. Historical scholarship,
which views canonical texts as human creations that underwent
transformations (as well as corruptions), questions also the theological
foundation that undergirds the value of talmud Torah: the belief that
the Bible and Talmud are products of God's revelation and contain
truths impervious to historical contingencies. In addition, the rise of
Jewish nationalism provided other forms of Jewish identiication and
2 On the modern challenges to the commitment to talmud Torah see Moshe
Halbertal, People of the Book, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997, pp.
129-136; Judah Levine, "Talmud Torah in Modern Jewish hought: Martin Buber
and the Renewal of Text-Centered Judaism," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Chicago, 2010, pp. 29-86.
64
Dr. Ari Ackerman
commonality that replaced the text as the foundation of the rabbinic
text-centered community. Finally, the drive for self-realization in modern
culture looks askance at the valorization of dedication to Torah study for
no personal gain (Torah lishmah).
In response to these multiple challenges, modern Jewish education
introduces innovative educational institutions grounded in alternative
conceptions of talmud Torah (as well as educational institutions grounded
in alternative educational ideals). hese include the nineteenth-century
Lithuanian yeshivah, which developed a highly conceptual approach
to Talmud study;3 the Jewish heological Seminary of Breslau, which
trained rabbis though a curriculum compatible with Wissenschaft
aspirations;4 the Frankfurt Freies Jüdisches Lehrhaus, a non-Orthodox bet
midrash for adult Jewish learning which fostered a dialogical community
on the basis of textual study;5 and the network of contemporary secular
and pluralistic Israeli batei midrash, which has fostered a renewal of
cultural interest among a sector of secular Jews and learning partnerships
between secular and religious Jews.6 Each of these institutions promoted
a novel understanding of the nature and goal of Torah study. And these
alternative conceptions of talmud Torah were often envisioned and
justiied by a particular Jewish thinker.7 In this article, I would like to
suggest that the theology of David Weiss Halivni could also be read as
3 Shaul Stampfer, Lithuanian Yehivas of the Nineteenth Century, Oxford: Littman
Library of Jewish Civilization, 2012.
4 Andreas Braemer, "he First Years of the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary," in From
Breslau to Jerusalem, ed. Guy Miron, Jerusalem: Schechter Institute, 2009, pp. 2750; Guy Miron, "he Breslau Rabbinical Seminary: he Final Generation," in From
Breslau to Jerusalem, pp. 86-99; Esther Seidel, "he Jewish heological Seminary of
Breslau (1854-1938)," European Judaism 38 (2005) pp. 133-144.
5 Rivka Ulmer, "Franz Rosenzweig’s Jüdisches Lehrhaus in Frankfurt : A Model
of Jewish Adult Education," Judaism 39 (1990) pp. 202-214; Michael Brenner,
he Renaissance of Jewish Culture in Weimer Germany, New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1996, pp. 69-99; Paul Mendes-Flohr, "he 'Freies Jüdisches Lehrhaus'
of Frankfurt," in Jüdische Kultur in Frankfurt am Main, ed. Hrsg. von Karl E.
Grozinger, Wiesbaden: Harrosowitz Verlag, 1997, pp. 217-229; Ephraim Meir, he
Rosenzweig Lehrhaus: Proposal for a Jewish House of Study in Kassel Inspired by Franz
Rosenzweig’s Frankfurt Lehrhaus, he Rappaport Center for Assimilation Research and
Strengthening Jewish Vitality, Bar Ilan University: Ramat Gan, 2005.
6 Yair Sheleg, he Jewish Renaissance in Israeli Society, Jerusalem: he Israel
Democratic Institute, 2010 [Hebrew]; Rachel Werczberger and Na'ama Azulay,
"he Jewish Renewal Movement in Israeli Secular Society," Contemporary Judaism 31
(2011) pp. 107-128.
7 See below in the concluding section of the paper.
65
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
ofering a new understanding of talmud Torah that views the raison d'être
of Torah study as the restoration of revelation through the employment
of the critical-historical methodology in studying the Bible and the
Talmud.
I. Halivni and the Historical Methodology
David Weiss Halivni has distinguished himself as one of the
leading Talmudists of his generation. His monumental work, Mekorot
u-Mesorot (Sources and Traditions), skillfully investigated the redactional
history of the Talmudic text and is the irst critical commentary of
multiple tractates of the Talmud,8 In his later works, he began to explore
theological questions as well.9 he bedrock of his theological inquiry is
unsurprisingly a theological justiication for the historical-critical study
of the Talmud.
Halivni defends the legitimacy of Talmudic scholarship by
grappling with the standard objection raised by Orthodox scholars
against the historical-critical approach to canonical texts. Orthodox
8 On Halivni's contribution to Talmudic scholarship see Irwin Haut, he Talmud
as Law or Literature: An Analysis of David W. Halivni's Mekorot Umasorot, New
York: Bet Sha'ar Press, 1982; Hanan Alexander, "David Halivni and Shamma
Friedman: Conlicting Trends in Talmud Criticism," Conservative Judaism 39 (1987)
pp. 45-57; Louis Newman, "he Work of David Weiss Halivni: A Source-Critical
Commentary to b. Yebamot 87b.," Semeia 27 (1983) pp. 93-102; Jacob Neusner,
"David Weiss Halivni’s 'Sources and Traditions' Revisited," in Judaism in Late
Antiquity, volume three, eds. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner, Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 2000, pp. 77-106; idem, "Did the Talmud’s Authorship Utilize Prior 'Sources'?
A Response to Halivni’s Sources and Traditions," in From Ancient Israel to Modern
Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox, volume two, eds. Jacob Neusner et al.,
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989, pp. 53-79.
9 On Halivni's theology see Avi Sagi, "Between Peshat and Derash," Tarbiz 61 (1992)
pp. 583-592 [Hebrew]; Baruch Schwartz, "On Peshat and Derash, Biblical Criticism
and heology," Prooftexts 14 (1994) pp. 71-88; Peter Ochs, "From Peshat to Derash
and Back Again," Judaism 46 (1997) pp. 271-292; idem, "Talmudic Scholarship as
Textual Reasoning: Halivni's Pragmatic Historiography," in Textual Reasoning: Jewish
Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century, eds. Peter Ochs and
Nancy Levene, London: SCM Press, 2002, pp. 120-143; idem, "Recovering the God
of History," in Jews and Christians—People of God, eds. Carl Braaten and Robert
Jenson, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003, pp. 114-147; Jonathan
Cohen, "Halivni and Halbertal on the Interpretive Enterprise of Hazal: Educational
Implications," Studies in Jewish Education 8 (2003) pp. 91-107; Ari Ackerman,
"David Weiss Halivni and the heology of the Conservative Movement," in New
Perspectives on the Conservative Movement, ed. Avinoam Rosenak, Jerusalem: Van Leer
Publications, forthcoming [Hebrew].
66
Dr. Ari Ackerman
theologians, such as Samson Raphael Hirsch, view historical criticism as
incompatible with the traditional conception of revelation which depicts
God dictating to Moses the exact text of the Pentateuch. Orthodox
dogma also opposes historical research of sacred Jewish texts because
it runs counter to the belief in the perfection and immutability of the
Torah. Halivni accepts that dogmatic status of the belief in Torah min
ha-shamayyim. Yet he counters that the revealed text became distorted
from a lack of concern on the part of the Israelites who practiced the
idolatrous religions of the neighboring nations.10 Due to the "sins of
Israel," the Masoretic Biblical text cannot be identiied with the revealed
text transmitted to Moses and historical criticism therefore does not
conlict with belief in the revealed status of the original text that was
transmitted to the Jewish people at Sinai.
Halivni's justiication of historical methodology, however, is
not exclusively occupied with fending of the attacks of Orthodox
critics. It is far more ambitious, arguing that historical analysis of the
Bible and the Talmud is the highest form of talmud Torah. Halivni's
reconceiving of the commandment of Torah study also relates to another
aspect of Halivni's religious philosophy: his theological response to
the Holocaust. In understanding the nature of talmud Torah, Halivni
grapples with the issue of the meaning of religious activity in the wake
of God's absence during the Holocaust. hus Halivni, a survivor of the
concentration camps Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen and the labor camp
Wolfsberg, provides a post-Holocaust conception of talmud Torah and
its relationship to the scientiic study of the Bible and Talmud.
II. Halivni's Post-Holocaust heology
Halivni's latest work on theology, Breaking the Tablets: Jewish
heology After the Shoah,11 seemingly addressed a new theological
issue. His previous works grappled with the issue of the relationship
between historical scholarship, faith and halakhah. In contrast, as the
title indicates, his new work concerned itself with theological problems
concerning the radical evil of the Holocaust. In particular, Halivni
addressed one of the most debated questions among post-Holocaust
theologians: Can the sufering of the Holocaust be explained as
10 Halivni, Peshat and Derash, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 132-134;
idem, Revelation Restored, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, pp. 4-5.
11 Halivni, Breaking the Tablets: Jewish heology After the Shoah, ed. P. Ochs, Lanham
and Boulder: Rowman and Littleield Publishers, Inc., 2007.
67
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
punishment for sinful behavior? In response, Halivni argues vociferously
against any position that would attribute the sufering of the Holocaust
to punishment for sin. In attempting to refute this position, his concern
is primarily exegetical. He marshals Biblical and rabbinic proof-texts in
order to demonstrate that the Jewish tradition rejects the notion that
God could deliver a punishment as horriic as the Holocaust.12 Yet,
despite his exegetical focus, Halivni's opposition to the explanation
of the Holocaust as punishment clearly derives from a sense of moral
outrage. As he asserts, "there is no sin or transgression that merits a
punishment like the Shoah."13 He further buttresses his moral claim with
the following argument: "Whoever seeks to explain the Shoah reduces it
to some natural phenomenon, belittles its evil and assuages the guilt of
those who perpetuated it."14
hough rejecting the explanation of the Holocaust as punishment,
Halivni is unwilling to abdicate God's providential role in directing
history. He must therefore provide some justiication for God's lack
of intervention in squashing the horrors of the Holocaust. He suggests
that God's lack of involvement might be the result of the need to foster
human free will. his justiication, however, fails to explain God's
previous involvement in Jewish history and God's failure to intercede at
this juncture. To address this problem, Halivni employs the kabbalistic
notion of tsimtsum ("divine contraction").15 He argues that periodically
the need arises for God's contraction so that human autonomy can be
preserved.
Halivni's treatment of this seminal issue of post-Holocaust
theology can be compared with that of other post-Holocaust
theologians. His vociferous rejection of the equation between sufering
in the Holocaust and divine punishment is shared by many other postHolocaust theologians such as Eliezer Berkovits, Yitz Greenberg, and
Emil Fackenheim,16 and his employment of arguments concerning free
12 Breaking the Tablet, pp. 17-27.
13 Breaking the Tablets, p. 24.
14 Breaking the Tablets, p. 26.
15 Breaking the Tablets, pp. 31-34.
16 Berkovits, Faith after the Holocaust, New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1973, p.
89; Greenberg, "Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire: Judaism, Christianity and Modernity
after the Holocaust," Auschwitz, Beginning of a New Era?, ed. E. Fleischner, New
York: KTAV Publishing House, 1997, pp. 7-55; Fackenheim, God's Presence in
History, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970, pp. 3-8.
68
Dr. Ari Ackerman
will resembles those of Berkovits and Greenberg.17 However, my concern
here is not to gauge Halivni's contribution to post-Holocaust theology.
Rather, I will conine my comments to the relationship between his
theological relections on the Holocaust and his conception of history,
halakhah and faith, arguing that the former illuminates the latter. Indeed,
I will maintain that his theological relections on the Holocaust provide
the Archimedean point from which to observe the core motivations and
objectives of Halivni's scholarly project.
In order to understand the nexus between Halivni's post-Holocaust
theology and his scholarship, we must examine his conception of
the Holocaust as a "revelation of God's absence."18 For Halivni, the
Holocaust signals God's ultimate withdrawal and distance during which
Israel is slaughtered by its demonic enemy. he revelation of God's
absence at the time of the Holocaust is contrasted with the revelation
at Sinai, which signals God's presence. Yet Halivni does not view the
Holocaust as rupturing the covenant established at this foundational act
of revelation. He views the covenant as unbreakable even in light of the
horrors perpetuated during this dark age of human and Jewish history.
Instead, he views the revelation of the Holocaust as bringing about a
reorientation in which we realize that God has been gradually withdrawing
while augmenting human autonomy.19 By viewing this process through
the lens of the Holocaust, the increased human involvement in response
to divine contraction is conceived in tragic terms, as a mechanism of
destruction and devastation. hus, the Holocaust bears testimony to the
destructive force that arises from God's contraction and the expansion
of human freedom.
Halivni further claims that these two revelatory acts—Sinai as
testifying to God's presence and the Holocaust to God's absence—
should not displace one another. But they should be held together
in a dialectic manner by accepting the reality of God's absence while
positing the ideality of God's presence. hat is, we must solemnly
acknowledge that God's redemptive power has increasingly absented
itself. Consequently, humanity at large and the Jews in particular are
17 Berkovits, Faith after the Holocaust, pp. 101-107; Greenberg, "Voluntary
Covenant," Perspectives, New York: CLAL, 1982, pp. 33-3.
18 Breaking the Tablets, p. 107.
19 In this regard, Halivni's conception of revelation is similar to Irving Greenberg's
notion of "orienting experience" and Emil Fackenheim's concept of "root experience." See Fackenheim, God's Presence in History, pp. 8-14; Irving Greenberg, "Cloud
of Smoke, Pillars of Fire: Judaism, Christianity and Modernity after the Holocaust."
69
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
vulnerable to the damage incurred by human frailty and weakness. But
we must also anticipate and yearn for the return of God's dominion and
a restoration of the divine presence felt at Sinai.
For Halivni, Jewish existence, particularly in the post-Holocaust
period, oscillates between these two revelatory moments. Halivni
depicts the impact of this luctuation on our religious orientation in the
following manner:
Israel's spiritual history took place, moving between God's embracing
us at Sinai and God's withdrawing from us at Auschwitz, between
our sense of connection and our sense of detachment. Every aspect of
spiritual life is afected by this movement: the way we believe, the way
we pray, the way we study His Torah, and the way we make ritual
decisions. he way we view His connection to us afects our place and
purpose in the universe.20
He claims that the new spiritual orientation is exempliied by
prayer during the Holocaust. In particular, the blessing of malkhut
("Divine Sovereignty"), added to the amidah of the musaf service of
the New Year, is uniquely appropriate for bringing to the surface the
nature of prayer in the unprecedented situation of a Nazi concentration
camp (and by extension in a post-Holocaust world).21 In this prayer, we
beseech "God and the God of our Ancestors, rule over all the world, in
Your full glory." his prayer captures our deep longing for the restoration
of God's dominion at a time of divine absence. hus, with the increase
of human sovereignty and the attendant evil and sufering, according
to Halivni, human beings pray for a return to Sinai, a time when God's
proximity was evident.
III. Halivni's Post-Holocaust Conception of Talmud Torah
Halivni argues that even more than prayer, the Holocaust charges
us to reevaluate and re-imagine the purpose and nature of Torah study.
Learning Torah in a post-Holocaust world must embody the dual
movement, and must recognize the damage incurred by the expansion
of human freedom and independence from God. Likewise, it must
relect the hope and yearning for the restoration of God's dominion and
presence as was evident at the Sinaitic revelation. For Halivni, these twin
20 Breaking the Tablets, p. 107.
21 Ibid, p. 36.
70
Dr. Ari Ackerman
goals are accomplished through the detection of the human corruptions
that contaminated the Bible and Talmud and the attempt to restore "the
unadulterated word of God" through recovering the original revealed
text.22
Let us irst relate to Halivni's understanding of the corrupted
Biblical and Talmudic text. According to Halivni, once the Torah was
given over to human beings, it became susceptible to their limitations. As
noted above, Halivni employs the notion of hatei yisrael ("sins of Israel"),
which entails that Israel was immersed in idolatry and failed to observe
even the most essential commandments from the revelation at Sinai to
the period of Ezra. his neglect of the Torah led to a corrupted and
maculated Biblical text. Consequently, Halivni accepts the conclusion
of Biblical critics that the contradictions and lacunae of the Masoretic
Biblical text is evidence of its human province.23 But, according to
Halivni, this historical conclusion does not contradict the belief in Torah
min ha-shamayyim, because once the revealed Torah was given over to
human beings, it became exposed to the devastating impact of sovereign
human action.
As with his view of the Bible, Halivni believes that the Talmudic text,
too, is tainted by textual problems. However, in the case of the Talmud,
the cause of the textual corruption is not neglect, but the product of a
faulty understanding of the earlier traditions by the Talmudic redactors.
As Halivni asserts, "If the text of the written Torah, Scripture, is marred
by maculation, the text of the Talmud is marred by forced interpretation,
dochok, the efort to cover over, or rationalize, the maculations of received
texts."24 For Halivni, these "forced interpretations" are the foundation
of the later anonymous strata of the Talmudic text (stam). Indeed, more
than any other contemporary Talmudic scholar, Halivni underscores the
pervasiveness of the dochok in the formation of the redacted Talmud.
Hence, his detailed commentaries on numerous Talmudic tractates
attempt to show the extent that the redactors of the Talmud whose
discussions are recorded in the stam—which makes up the majority of
the Talmudic discussion—misunderstand the apodictic statements of
the earlier Tannaim and Amoraim.
Halivni buttresses his conception of the corruptions of the
Talmudic text with two historical theses—both of which run contrary
22 Ibid, p. 53.
23 Ibid, p. 2.
24 Breaking the Tablets, p. 59.
71
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
to the accepted views of traditional Judaism and earlier approaches to
Talmudic criticism. First, he argues that the earlier scholars transmitted
their legal decisions in the form of apodictic statements.25 he stam, then,
received Tannaitic and Amoraic statements, which lacked the dialectical
argumentation and explanation to properly understand them. Secondly,
the redaction of the Talmud occurred generations after the promulgation
of the legal decisions of the Tannaim and Amoraim.26 Hence, according
to Halivni, the proper understanding of the original statements was
unavailable to the redactors of the Talmud due to their fragmentary state
and the temporal distance between them and the Tannaim and Amoraim
who formulated the Mishnaic and Talmudic urtext. he redactors were
therefore compelled to speculate about their meaning, unequipped with
the proper historical tools necessary to arrive at peshat.
For Halivni, then, the importance of recovering these ancient
traditions is due to their source in divine revelation. Halivni therefore
views certain traditions of the early Tannaim as records of divine
revelation rather than human interpretations of the Written Torah. Some
of these Tanaitic statements originate with Ezra who was well aware of
the problems of the Biblical text and was concerned with restoring it to
its original form. Toward this end, he transmitted oral interpretations
(derashot) grounded in authentic traditions that reported the original
version of the Biblical text. For example, according to Halivni, the
famous midrashic interpretation of the verse "eye for an eye" as meaning
inancial compensation, originates with Ezra and recovers the authentic
divine meaning of the verse before it was tainted by human neglect.27
Halivni identiies other instances in which the Oral Torah was part of
the revelation at Sinai. hese rabbinic traditions do not replace existing
verses but provide supplementary laws:
he irst may be termed interpretation and deinition, that is, additional
explanation and detail—more reined calendrical information, iner
25 Halivni, Introduction to "Sources and Traditions", Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2009,
pp. 91-104 [Hebrew].
26 Halivni's view on this issue has evolved. As he became more convinced of the
pervasiveness of forced interpretations, he pushed even further ahead the date of the
redaction of the Talmud. His current view is that the Babylonian Talmud was not
redacted until the eight century (Introduction to "Sources and Traditions", pp. 2-5).
27 Exodus 21:24; Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael, trans. J. Lauterbach, Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1935, volume three, Tractate Nezikin, pp. 67-88;
Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kama 83b-84a. He discusses this rabbinic interpretation in
Peshat and Derash, p. 130.
72
Dr. Ari Ackerman
particulars of practices such as divorce and Shabbat, and such crucial
qualiications as pikuach nefesh, or times when the religious law
can be abrogated to "save human life." … We may imagine that a
second kind of missing material concerned broad accounts of major
institutions—such as nisuch hamayim (the libation of water on the
holiday of Sukkot) and the aravah rite (striking the "willow branch"
on Hoshanah Rabbah).28
Halivni suggests that some of these rabbinic interpretations were
actually part of the Written Torah, which must have been more extensive
before the corruptions during the idolatrous state of the Israelites. He
also accepts that additional legal material was supplied in the form of
oral instructions delivered to Israel at the time of the revelation of the
Written Torah at Sinai. hus, since some of the early rabbinic traditions
were actually part of the Sinaitic revelation, Halivni views the dochok
of the Talmudic redactors as actually perverting the very word of God.
Halivni certainly does not equate the human catastrophe maliciously
engendered by the Nazis and the textual corruptions brought about by
the Israelites and by Talmudic sages. However, he claims that both result
from God's gradual contraction, beginning immediately after the original
revelation of the divine will and law and both problematize our ability to
experience God's presence and hear God's word. According to Halivni,
it is tragic, then, that the gradual cessation of revelation engenders
corruption of the Biblical and rabbinic corpus. he involvement of
human beings in the transmission, formation, and interpretation of
the canon has obstructed a proper understanding of it, and even has
damaged its textual foundation. It therefore challenges us—as does the
radical evil that occurred during the Holocaust—to attempt to connect
with God and the divine word and will in a post-Holocaust world. We
are compelled to ask: How can we counteract God's withdrawal and
return to the meta-historical moment of the Sinaitic revelation? How
can we rid ourselves of the corruptions and distortions and receive again
the pristine divine law?
IV. Faith, Revelation and Historical Criticism
Halivni argues that Torah study provides a means to achieve, at least
to a certain degree, the restoration of God's revelation. he restoration
is accomplished through reconstructing the original canonical text,
28 Breaking the Tablets, p. 90.
73
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
which represents the unspoiled and immaculate will of God. But
Halivni sharply distinguishes between the traditional mode of study
and the historical-critical approach. Only talmud Torah which employs
historical-critical methodology can arrive at the original meaning
of canonical texts. Halivni does carve out an important role for the
classical ahistorical approach to talmud Torah in adjudicating law. he
rabbis had received a Torah replete with deletions and contradictions
and encountered novel situations that were not addressed by the laws of
the original revelation. What is more, Halivni believes that the original
revelation was intentionally incomplete:
Man must rely upon himself and not God to fashion a halakhic system
that is conclusive and categorical from a revelation that was purposefully
inconclusive and indeterminate. … Man is thereby empowered and
commissioned by God to consummate the process of revelation, to make
tangible and exact what has been revealed only in outline.29
Consequently, Halivni argues that God has granted broad exegetical
latitude to the rabbis so that they can shape the halakhic tradition.
he historian must, then, accept the normative conclusions of the
rabbinic scholars who use the traditional tools of probing the canonical
texts. But normative and historical truth is not equivalent. According to
Halivni, rabbinic legislation and exegesis are generally additions to the
Written Torah and not accurate interpretations thereof. Unassisted by
critical historical methodology, Torah scholars were unable to restore the
Written Torah to its original version and even to understand it properly.
he critical scholar must therefore employ an alternative methodology,
which can ascertain the historical genesis of the canonical texts. hus,
according to Halivni, there are two types of truth and two corresponding
forms of talmud Torah: normative truth arrived at through talmud Torah
as practiced by rabbinic scholars and historical truth arrived at through
talmud Torah as practiced by critical scholars. What is more, Halivni
views the latter as the higher form of Torah study. It has profound
religious signiicance due its ability to recover the proper meaning and
text of the Bible and Talmud. Halivni thus appropriates tikkun (repair),
the highly charged theological concept from Lurainic Kabbalah, in
regard to the impact of talmud Torah-cum-historical criticism, which is
involved in "repairing what was broken in the beginning."30
29 Peshat and Derash, p. 97.
30 Breaking the Tablets, p. 59. On Halivni's understanding of tikkun see below p. 19.
74
Dr. Ari Ackerman
Additionally, he views the historical investigation of canonical texts
as the telos of the strivings of a person of faith. As he avers, "the task of
a religious person—one who believes in the Sinaitic revelation—is to
restore the maculated text, the text that was corrupted through the 'Sins
of Israel.'"31 Halivni thus claims that the practice of Biblical criticism—if
accompanied with the proper motivation—can actually embody a belief
in the revelation at Sinai. Deconstruction of the lawed Masoretic text
to recover the urtext transmitted at Sinai expresses a deep commitment
to Sinaitic revelation. Halivni expresses a similar attitude to Talmudic
criticism. Like Biblical criticism, scholarly analysis of the Talmudic text
and its redaction history fulills a religious duty when it is a spiritually
motivated act of restoration, recovering earlier authentic traditions.
V. David Weiss Halivni's Scholarly Agenda
Halivni's understanding of the need to recover the pristine form
of the canonical text shapes his own scholarly agenda. He attempts to
formulate a methodology for interpreting the Talmud that will allow
for the reconstruction of the meaning—and at times the proper text—
of the Tannaitic and Amoraic apodictic statements. As he underscores,
"the primary objective of our work, Sources and Traditions, is to ind
an alternative to the prevalent forced interpretations in the Talmud …,
replacing them with interpretations closer to the intended meaning
(peshat)."32 For our purposes, it is not necessary to provide a detailed
description of his methodology. It is suicient to note that his
methodology regarding Talmudic scholarship parallels his theology in
its emphasis on restoring the original text rather than understanding
the features of the humanly constructed Talmudic sugyah. His theology
also parallels his Talmudic scholarship in its belief that historical
investigation can allow for the separation between corrupted traditions
and the authentic sources (as indicated by the title of his magnum opus,
Sources and Traditions).
Halivni's understanding of the raison d'être of history, then,
diverges from the conventional approach of historical studies. History is
generally viewed as the study of human action—whether in the political,
social, economic, cultural, or religious realm—over time. Marc Bloch's
characterization of history as the "study of men in time"33 is typical in this
31 Breaking the Tablets, p. 54.
32 Introduction to "Sources and Traditions", p. 10, n. 30.
33 Marc Bloch, he Historian's Craft, tran. J. Strayer, New York: Vintage Books,
75
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
regard Halivni ofers a contrasting approach to historical investigation:
he employs history to get at God's word rather than at the human deed.
His historical analysis uncovers the humanly constructed components of
the Bible and Talmud, which developed over time. However, he brings
the human contribution to the canonical text to the surface only in order
to cast it aside. Having removed the human corruptions, history can
arrive at the original, authentic divine core.
Halivni's recasting of the objective of historical scholarship weaves
together masterfully humanistic and anti-humanistic strands. On the
one hand, his conception of history represents a radical empowerment of
human investigation and contraction of the scope of divine revelation.
In a humanistic vein, Halivni airms that God carves out a broad
sphere for the growth of human intellectual autonomy. What is more,
he believes that the human being, by employing historical reasoning,
can arrive at the divine truth. Hence, Halivni's approach follows the
humanistic tradition in viewing human reason as a powerful and accurate
tool and in charging human beings to employ it to determine God's
word. On the other hand, Halivni opposes the humanistic shift in focus
from transcendent divinity to immanent human activity. Implicit in the
emphasis on human action in historical studies, which is an outgrowth
of Renaissance humanism, is a valorization of the human being and a
secularization of human history.34 In contrast, Halivni views history
as a tool to get at the divine revelation, which underwent corruption
through its descent into human hands. He views history as sweeping
away the impact of human action, which is viewed as distortive and
destructive, and focuses on the earliest and most authoritative elements
of the tradition that most closely approximate the divine revelation.
Paradoxically, then, it is historical studies that allow us to return to a
metahistorical point of Jewish history.
In sum, David Weiss Halivni ofers a modern (or more precisely
post-Holocaust) conception of talmud Torah. He appropriates the
methodology of nineteenth-century Wissenschaft scholarship, but he
reframes its purpose. Historical study attempts to recover the original
text before the onset of human corruptions and can be viewed as a
longing for a restoration of Sinai. Consequently, Talmudic scholarship
should not be viewed as an antiquarian practice of exclusively historical
1953, pp. 27-29.
34 On the secularizing tendency of Jewish historical studies see Yosef Yerushalmi,
Zakhor, New York: Schocken Books, 1989, pp. 81-103.
76
Dr. Ari Ackerman
interest. Rather, according to Halivni, the scientiic study of the Talmud
is grounded in a deeply religious, quasi-mystical yearning for God
that can be satisied by encountering God's word rather than God's
presence. It as an act of faith and prayer, a cri de coeur, which represents
the existential response of a person of faith to God's absence in a postHolocaust world.35
In this regard, it is helpful to briely relate to Halivni's employment
of theological conceptions from Lurianic Kabbalah, particularly his
appropriation of the notion of tikkun. Halivni is certainly aware of
Gershom Scholem's well-known reconstruction of Lurainic Kabbalah.
Scholem viewed Luranainic kabbalah as emerging in the wake of the
trauma of the expulsion from Spain in 1492.36 In response, Jewish mystics
conceived of God as having undergone a rupture (shevirat ha-kelim)
and being dependent on human beings for repair. hese mystics saw
themselves as the adepts who could bring about this tikkun. Likewise, in
response to the horrors of the Holocaust, David Weiss Halivni, a rabbinic
scholar who experiences God in the give and take of the Talmudic daf,
conceives of the Talmud as having endured a deep issure. he Talmudic
text, like the God of Luria, depends on human scholars for its repair and
Halivni works assiduously to restore its harmony, which he views as the
telos of Torah study.
VI. A Critical Discussion of Halivni's heological Approach
David Halivni's theological works and the unique position he
espouses on a number of crucial theological challenges merit careful and
extensive evaluations. In the context of this expository essay, I am unable
to provide such a treatment. Nevertheless, I would like to briely raise a
number of issues that require further clariication.
First, it is not entirely clear to what extent Talmudic criticism
should be considered as recovering the original and authentic word of
God. Halivni's argument that Biblical criticism restores revelation is
relatively straightforward. It emerges from the following premises: he
Hebrew Bible was revealed at Mount Sinai; it subsequently underwent a
process of corruption and Biblical criticism possesses the ability to arrive
at the original text. he second and third premise can equally be applied
35 On the relationship between scholarship and prayer see Halivni's statement and
Och's analysis (Breaking the Tablets, pp. xix, 62).
36 Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York: Schocken Books,
1941, pp. 244-247.
77
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
to Talmudic criticism. (hat is, the Talmud also became damaged and
Talmudic criticism can recover the original text of the Tannaim and
Amoraim.) However, Talmudic criticism can be considered as recovering
God's revealed word only by positing that the source of the statements
of the Tannaim and Amoraim is divine revelation. Certain Orthodox
scholars indeed adopt such a position regarding the revealed nature of
the Oral Torah as a whole. However, Halivni vociferously rejects the
notion that the oral revelation provides a comprehensive and detailed
system of halakhah.37 He does airm, however, that some of the Tanaitic
traditions can be traced back to Ezra and perhaps were even part of
the laws transmitted to Moses at Mount Sinai.38 But he also argues
for a minimalistic theory of revelation, which limits the scope of the
Sinaitic revelation in order to allow for a wide arena for human halakhic
activity.39 As a result, one must ask to what extent can Talmudic criticism
be considered "revelation restored"? At the least, Halivni should give
priority to Biblical criticism over Talmudic criticism, a hierarchy that I
would assume that Halivni would be unwilling to accept.
Second, we should consider more closely the efectiveness of
Halivni's employment of the notion of tsimtsum. As noted above,
Halivni suggests that God's inaction during the Holocaust is related to
an attempt to enhance human freedom. He further explains that the
cause of God's silence at this juncture—unlike previous instances of
God's intercession—is necessary to "readjust the tsimtsum":
his readjustment was necessary because, as God contracts into Himself,
He leaves a vacuum in His wake (challal rek); and, since a vacuum
is not self-maintaining, the divine must continually regenerate it. his
means, however, that the divine continually reenters the vacuum,
reintroducing divine being into its emptiness and thus, efectively,
"gnawing away" at the vacuum itself. God's intervention in history,
in particular the history of Israel, is among the most important sources
of this "gnawing away." Lest the divine presence devour the tsimtsum
altogether and vitiate free will, the Holy One periodically regenerates
the tsimtsum: restoring it to its original course and thus enabling free
will to function as before.40
Halivni thus adopts a form of the free-will argument, which sufers
37
38
39
40
78
Breaking the Tablets, pp. 73-101.
See above n. 27.
Peshat and Derash, pp. 112-125.
Breaking the Tablets, p. 33.
Dr. Ari Ackerman
from the problems associated with this traditional attempt to provide
a solution to the problem of theodicy, particularly the problem of the
radical evil of the Holocaust.41 Halivni's notion of tsimtsum grapples
with one of these problems, namely the reason that God displays greater
self-restrain during the Holocaust in comparison with previous episodes
of divine intervention. But Halivni's version of the free will argument
generates other diiculties. Most importantly, Halivni does not explain
the reason for God needing this mechanism to enhance human freedom.
Does this not imply a certain imperfection within God? More generally,
one can argue that tsimtsum is part of a mythical cosmogony and does
not it well within the framework of a philosophic solution. It is perhaps
for this reason that Halivni avers that he is ofering tsimtsum merely as
a metaphor. His presentation of it, however, resembles more closely an
attempt to solve a theological quandary.
hird, note should be made of the positivistic orientation of
Halivni's approach. Halivni's scholarship as justiied by the accompanying
theology is an attempt to recover the urtext of the statements of the
Tannaim and Amoraim which are extensions of God's word. his
positivistic approach to historical investigation runs counter to current
conceptions of the limitations of historical understanding. Obviously
it is Halivni's prerogative to reject this historiographic approach. But
addressing and justifying his assumptions regarding the objectivity of
historical knowledge is in order. I would add, however, that Halivni's
scholarly and theological approach also possesses subjectivistic and
existentialistic elements (particularly his understanding of Talmudic
criticism as an act of faith) which is more congenial to contemporary
conceptions of the epistemological constrains of historical knowledge
and the emphasis on the narrative dimensions of historical writing.
Fourth, Halivni's theological and scholarly project addresses the
challenge of Biblical criticism to a theistic understanding of revelation by
grappling with the possible existence of "maculations" in the Masoretic
text. Halivni is willing to concede to the theories posited by advocates
of lower criticism that the Hebrew Bible contains corruptions. However,
the challenge of Biblical criticism goes beyond positing corruptions in
the Biblical text. It views the Bible as composed of multiple strands,
each espousing diferent theological outlooks, historical accounts and
ritualistic orientation. his understanding of the genesis of the books of
41 See the penetrating discussion of Steven Katz in Wrestling With God, eds. Steven
Katz, Shlomo Biderman and Gershon Greenberg, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2007, pp. 603-608.
79
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
the Hebrew Bible obviously denies the existence of an original, divinely
revealed text. In reckoning with this aspect of critical methodology,
Halivni's approach has little to ofer.42
VII. Implications for Jewish Education
In attempting to explore the educational implications of David
Weiss Halivni's theology, I will not examine the manner that Halivni's
understanding of the religious value of historical critical study can be
translated into a concrete educational setting. hat is, without dismissing
the value of such an exercise, I will not examine the features of an
educational framework devoted to implementing Halivni's conception
of Talmud study: what suggyot would a teacher following the approach of
Halivni teach? How would it train its teachers? What is the pedagogical
method that such a teacher should employ? Instead I will locate the
educational implications of David Weiss Halivni's theology in the realm
of educational vision.
It has been argued that the articulation of a vision that accompanies
new educational goals, practices and methods in modern Jewish education
is crucial for their acceptance and vitality.43 his vision provides a rationale
and justiication for a particular educational approach, supplying it with
coherence, a guiding purpose, and "a directive guide to the future."44 I
would add that a vision in Jewish education is most eicacious when it
is formulated in the language of a philosophy of Judaism and grounds
Jewish educational practices in a particular conception of Judaism. In
such a case, educators and students will be inspired and energized by
the educational vision that links Jewish education to ideals and ideas to
which they are committed.
Indeed, modern Jewish educational innovations are often justiied
and grounded in a particular philosophical or theological conception
of Judaism. Martin Buber's dialogical philosophy of Judaism provided
a foundation for a dialogical approach to the study of Jewish texts—a
pedagogical method that was implemented in Franz Rosenzweig's Freis
42 I would like to thank one of the anonymous referees who encouraged me to pursue this last line of criticism.
43 On the importance of educational visions see Visions of Jewish Education, eds.
Seymour Fox, Israel Scheler and Daniel Marom, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
44 Ibid, p. 8.
80
Dr. Ari Ackerman
Judisches Lerhaus in which Buber was an important igure. 45 In his
philosophic work, Halakhic Man, Rabbi J. D. Soloveitchik's argument
that creativity is a central Jewish ideal provided a defense for the
conceptual approach to Talmud developed in the nineteenth-century
Lithuanian yeshivah.46 And David Hartman provided an educational
vision for an alternative bet midrash in his conception of Judaism as a
text-centered interpretative community.47
However, one important modern Jewish educational innovation
lacks suicient philosophic and theological grounding: the criticalhistorical study of Talmud in general and the redactional approach which
attempts to isolate the various strata of the Talmud by identifying the
role of the anonymous Talmud editors (stam). As Michael Chernick has
noted, "among the most signiicant developments in twentieth-century
academic scholarship has been the recognition of the anonymous
strata of the Talmud that creates the characteristic Talmudic argument
out of individual units of tannaitic and amoraic traditions."48 his
new approach to Talmud study was championed by scholars such as
Abraham Weiss, Shamma Freidman, and Halivni.49 It was implemented
in various educational settings, particularly in rabbinical education of
the Conservative movement.50 However, the scholars involved in this
exegetical-educational practice failed to provide an educational vision
that would ground it in a particular understanding of Judaism and
45 Judah Levine, "Talmud Torah in Modern Jewish hought: Martin Buber and
the Renewal of Text-Centered Judaism," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago,
2010.
46 Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1984.
47 Hartman, A Heart of Many Rooms, Woodstock, Vermont: Jewish Lights
Publishing, 1999, pp. 93-114; Ari Ackerman, "'Creating a Shared Spiritual
Language': David Hartman's Philosophy of Jewish Education" in Modes of
Educational Translation, eds. Jonathan Cohen and Eli Holzer, Jerusalem: Magnes
Press, 2008, pp. 51-74.
48 Michael Chernick, Neusner, Brisk and the Stam: Signiicant Methodologies for
Meaningful Talmudic Teaching and Study (he Initiative on Bridging Scholarship and
Pedagogy in Jewish Studies: Working Paper 19), Waltham, MA: Mandel Center for
Jewish Education of Brandeis University, 2010, pp. 3-4.
49 On the origins of this strand of Talmudic criticism see the important comments of Shamma Friedman ("A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological
Introduction" in Text and Studies, Analecta Judaica I, ed. Haim Dimitrovsky, New
York: he Jewish heological Seminary, 1977, pp. 287-288.
50 David Ellenson, "A Seminary of Sacred Learning: he JTS Rabbinical
Curriculum in Historical Perspective," in Tradition Renewed, volume 2, ed. Jack
Wertheimer, New York: he Jewish heological Seminary, 1997, pp. 527-591.
81
Reconceiving Talmud Torah
defend its value and utility.
Until 1983, as a professor in the Talmud department of the
Jewish heological Seminary, Halivni also focused almost exclusively
on Talmudic commentary. With his move to the religion department
of Columbia University, his writings began to touch upon theological
questions as well. hese theological works which articulate his conception
of talmud Torah adumbrate an educational vision for those interested
in integrating higher Talmudic criticism in the Jewish educational
curriculum. It is particularly important for those whose interest in
Talmudic criticism is religiously motivated, students who are navigating
between the conlicting demands of the yeshivah and the academy.51
Halivni's educational vision can resonate especially for those who accept
the methods of the academic study of the Talmud, but are perplexed by
its secularizing tendency which gloriies human autonomy and views
these texts as merely human constructs.
Halivni teaches these students that the goals of Jewish education
must begin with the centrality of the study of canonical texts, particularly
the study of the Talmud. he probing of the Talmudic text is one of
the most signiicant religious activities. As Halivni explains, in a postrevelatory age, only studying the Bible and Talmud allows the access to
God's will and word. Jewish education must therefore immerse students
in the Jewish interpretive tradition and inculcate among them the value of
talmud Torah. According to his understanding of talmud Torah, students
must seek out textual truth. hat is, they must realize that the purpose of
their study of the Bible and Talmud is to arrive at their original meaning
and not to creatively engage the texts and supply hidushim which lack
historical plausibility. Students must be equipped, then, with philological
and historical tools which allow them to understand the canonical texts
and their development properly and accurately. However, they must
purify historical analysis of its secularizing tendencies and reframe it as a
revelatory act and a faithful search for God. hey must understand that
the source before them is damaged and meticulous historical analysis is
required to overcome the obstacle of improper historical transmission.
As a result, students will come to realize the cardinal importance of this
approach to Talmud study and will be willing to take part therein.
51 On these attempts see Assaf Yedidya, Criticism of the Criticism: Orthodox
Alternatives to 'Wissenschaft des Judentam'1873-1956, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2013
[Hebrew]; Modern Scholarship in the Study of the Torah, ed. Shalom Carmy, Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littleield Publishers, 1996.
82