You may have been exposed to the documentary hypothesis, or at least the pervasive claims about why the Torah is human-written, rather than God-given. Ever since Wellhausen first presented his ideas in the 19th century (though beginning earlier with Spinoza in the 16th), scholars (Torah and non) have tried to find ways to reject or undermine this approach. I personally liked Dr. Joshua Berman’s books, especially Ani Maamin.
Rav Breuer, a generation ago, tried a different approach. He looked at the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Torah and said not only were they by design (Chazal already said this much earlier), but that when analyzed properly, they reveal different bechinot, or aspects, of the stories being told. The Torah, as one would expect from a Divine document, doesn’t contain one simple storyline, even within one narrative, but is layered, and it takes work to discover those layers. Through this discovery, Rav Breuer showed that the contradictions and inconsistencies often fell away when new storylines were uncovered.
Many people have become quite enamoured by this approach, and I don’t know enough to take a position one way or another. A new approach has recently arisen from Yeshivat Ma’aleh HaGilboa, formerly the Yeshiva in Ein Tzurim, with many of the same people. It’s called Gishat HaTemurot – the Approach of Exchanges. First, some background on the terminology, which is important. Those who engage with Gishat HaTemurot are quick to note that it is not a systemic way of reading Chumash, but an approach that can be useful for resolving certain kinds of contradictions, but it’s not a system that claims to solve all problems. In fact, they mostly focus on halachik sugiyot, rather than agadah, which is usually the focus of meforshim who are treading new ground (Rav Breuer is an example of this). The second is the word temurot, exchanges, is quite intentional, based on the halacha that the hold status of an object can be “exchanged” to a new object, but the original object retains some of its kedusha. The implied metaphor is that when later halachic sugiot override earlier ones, the earlier ones still retain their truth and Torah-status. This is a way of suggesting that while Hashem may have overridden His original halacha with a new one, the original, being Divine, retains its holy status. It is not a rejection of any earlier Torah, which would be a claim disturbingly close to other religions’ positions about the Torah.
The book is divided into two parts. The first three chapters explain the approach itself, and provide a lot of sources to support why it is theologically justified. This is a big lift, though well argued. The second group of chapters give examples of their approach in action, looking at sugiot where there are clear contradictions, like amah ivriyah, or the korban Pesach. In each, it claims some sort of development over the period of the Jews in the desert that, while necessary when it was given, demanded a change in halacha at a later date. The final set of articles seems more Rav-Breuer like, taking apart texts and reading them as interlayered, which I found less compelling.
Overall I really enjoyed the book, and found its approach, and arguments, thoughtful, honest and often compelling. That said, the core problem that the book comes from bothers me less than it does the authors, which makes the whole project less necessary, even if interesting, for a reader like me.
Just Because I Liked it:
- I’m a huge fan of R’ Dovid Lichtenstein and his Halacha Headlines podcast. What I did not know was his personal story – which is fascinating – and told here on the Kosher Money podcast.