[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion dorshei halaqot
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (E. Habas)
if dorshei halaqot is a pun on
>(Pharisaic) halakot, then we should also consider why the writers of 4QMMT
>use the verb parash of themselves not their opponents? Personally, I don't
>lay much weight on either argument.
I think that HALACHA/OT - XALAQOT is simply not a very good pun, even if
the h/x and ch/q sounds were already as similar as they are in modern
Hebrew. What strength the "pun" would still have lies greatly with the term
DORSHEI, which in the rabbinic literature is *sometimes* associated with
halachot (which are nevertheless quite often laid down by other means, such
as precedents). Therefore, the onus probandi is not light, and has not yet,
IMO, been satisfied.
ilip R Davies wrote (in part):
>>My own comment on this topic is that if dorshei halaqot is a pun on
>>(Pharisaic) halakot, then we should also consider why the writers of 4QMMT
>>use the verb parash of themselves not their opponents? Personally, I don't
>>lay much weight on either argument.
Is there a substantial reason to believe that the root P.R.SH. did not
preserve its' former uses when the specific meaning of Perushim as
(nick?)name for a specific group of people was infiltrating? The evidence,
I think, is to the contrary ( for example: "a Perusha [=eesha prusha]", and
Jewish Sect* ) and C. Rabin (*Qumran Studies* ) were
>both superb scholars who, accepting the historical paradigms of their
>times, assumed an unproblematic continuity between Pharisaism and
>classical Rabbinic literature. Thus they used their considerable erudition
>to establish numerous suggestive linguistic and conceptual lines linking
>the language of CD to rabbinic traditions. They then fastened on the
>Pharisees as the hypothetical link. Ginzberg's argumenet depends on the
>piling up of numerous minute links many of which are in themselves
>debatable, yet which in aggregate become imposing. Yet no one, to my
The choice of terms does convey one's opinion (and perhaps state of mind),
which is fine. However, "piling up of numerous minute links" is not really
different from: "noticing and examining a substantial number of definite
similarities"... (-: , is it?
>knowledge, has systematically examined how many of these links remain
>plausible in light of later knowledge. Rabin's strongest argument for the
I believe many new "links" are now available. In the *texts*, though; not
in secondary, modern, scholarly "texts" and textbooks (-: ...
But the title dorshei
>halaqot isn't a pun on "halakhah" until someone turns up the word
>"halakhah" in a Sec Temp Jewish text (pharisaic or otherwise). Or so it
>seems to me.
I think there is an earlier stage; establish whether it is an acceptable
pun at all. I think: hardly.
>I thought about it earlier today, before logging on and finding a pretty
>good discussion going. It seems to me as well as some others--Marty and
>Al, at least--that <italics>halakha</> should be a term reserved for its
>usage in Rabbinic Judaism to describe a process derived from oral law by
>rabbinic modes of reasoning and judgment, in order to determine
>appropriate Jewish practice. It differs fundamentally from earlier
>approaches, particularly by the naming of particular individual rabbinic
Too many exceptions.
and by its international, intercultural spread throughout Jewish
>However, I would suggest using something like "standards of Jewish
>practice" for earlier literature such as Josephus or the sectarian
>materials from Qumran, in place of the technical word <italics>halakha</>.
Josephus was a contemporary of several much-quoted Sages, who laid down
many halachot. To a lesser degree, it can perhaps be suggested of some DSS
too. Using a different term for halacha in sources other the Talmudic
literature seems to me unnecessary, and perhaps confusing (it is certainly
a methodological statement which requires thorough substantiation!!).
Anyway, I sometimes use 'ruling'.
SHANA TOVA U-MEVORECHAT,