Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Fence around the Torah Message-ID: <786@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 22:43:28 EST Article-I.D.: ulysses.786 Posted: Mon Feb 27 22:43:28 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Feb-84 14:29:02 EST References: <198@masscomp.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 34 Andy, I think you're deliberately misusing John's phrase "a fence around the Torah". Surely you know what the rabbis mean by that! (And I assume that John does, since he used quotation marks.) For those who don't know, the phrase refers to the philosphical principle the rabbis followed when compiling the detailed rules of behavior. Their attitude was that it is absolutely essential to prevent any of the explicit commandments in the Torah from being broken; thus, they promulgated rules that went considerably further, to guard against ambiguity, accident, etc. If you followed their rules, you were *safe*. The best example I can give of this is the origin of the prohibition against eating milk with meat. The Biblical verse cited says (approximately) "thou shalt not cook a kid in its mother's milk". Well, OK, clear enough -- but how are you to know? Ah, but if you don't eat *any* milk product with *any* meat product you're sure to avoid an inadvertent violation. Well, what about chicken? No milk to worry about there.... (When I related this to Byron Howes (unc!bch) once, he replied "what about eating eggs with chicken?" I don't have an answer to that one.) Although this was the subject of much debate in Talmudic times, the decision finally reached was that chicken was "too close" to meat, and that permitting chicken to be eaten with milk might confuse people. Given this, the fence might be "too high" (or, more accurately, too far out) if the rabbinic laws are far too strict. According to Orthodox traditions, the "right" interpretation is covered in the Oral Law, which was handed down to Moses at the same time as the Torah, and passed down through the generations. This seems unlikely, especially given the recorded debates on many of these topics presented in the Talmud. Surely Rabbis Hillel and Shammai couldn't have heard *that* different versions of the Oral Law..... (Hillel was what one might call a liberal; Shammai was a strict constructionist.) --Steve Bellovin