Interested approach. I always felt that the midrash of Moshe Rabbeinu sitting in Rabbi Akiva’s classroom and not understanding what he was saying was indicative of this idea that Chazal stretched out Torah law far beyond what Moshe himself had received and given over to am yisrael. It would also make the disagreements between the Pharisees and Sadducees make more sense.
'in cases where there wouldn’t necessarily be any evidence of a phenomenon, the absence of it does not prove anything"
Coins and seeds are SO common in archeological sites that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Citrons were not in the Middle East at the time of Matan Torah and coins didn't exist anywhere yet.
I don't think there is good evidence of total absence of etrogs in the Middle East at the time (e.g. there are claims that etrogs are depicted in a few Egyptian inscriptions from that period). However in order for the original pri etz hadar to be the etrog specifically, presumably you need not just a few trees in royal or priestly ornamental gardens, but enough that they be readily accessible to the masses, and that is much harder to support.
"He even goes so far as to entertain the possibility that originally the phrase "an eye for an eye" could have been understood literally, and only later did the Sages insist on interpreting the Torah's words as referring to monetary compensation."
Note that this is not exactly "going far", it's rather obvious pshat due to the existence of "kofer" (blood-money) as an alternative to corporal punishment, both in comparable ancient societies, and as attested to in the Torah (which forbids taking kofer in a case of murder - implying that it is permitted to take kofer in cases of non-murder). Apparently at some point our leaders decreed that plaintiffs could *only* take kofer, and could no longer insist on corporal punishment. This is comparable to our practice of doing halitzah rather than yibum - it's not that we have changed the existing law, but rather added on a new law prohibiting one of the two options which the old law permitted.
I always thought the most commonly used fruit prior to using the etrog would have been the pomegranate. Undeniably beautiful in shape, color, and edible.
Apikorsoos!! I was at Moishe Rabvaynee’s shteibl (he would never, bc ever go to a shul) in Boro Park, just after mattan Toireh, he said that the aibishter insisted that it was an esroig, and anyone who doesn’t agree is Chaya’s meesah. 😄
Similarly regarding the death penalty. Chazal set very stringent requirements for when the death penalty could be applied, to the point that the death penalty becomes practically impossible.
But if we posit that these requirements developed gradually (due to the sages gradually sensing that death penalty was not appropriate in different situations) then suddenly everything makes sense! The mass executions described in the Torah after the golden calf (Ex. 32:27, Deut. 33:9) and at the episode with the daughters of Moab and Midian (Num. 25:5) were possible because at that time the conditions for death penalty were much looser.
I think the golden calf and Baal Peor cases were different in that no trial was carried out. These were exceptions to the Torah's standards for normal cases at the time, which required a rigorous trial with multiple witnesses and so on (as specified in Devarim).
It is true that Devarim does generally speaking encourage death penalty trials and convictions ("and all of Israel will hear and fear, and will sin no more") while the rabbis discouraged them to the point of eventually prohibiting them.
Interested approach. I always felt that the midrash of Moshe Rabbeinu sitting in Rabbi Akiva’s classroom and not understanding what he was saying was indicative of this idea that Chazal stretched out Torah law far beyond what Moshe himself had received and given over to am yisrael. It would also make the disagreements between the Pharisees and Sadducees make more sense.
Actually it’s indicative of the possibility of time travel both forwards and backwards for all you Back to the Future fans….!
'in cases where there wouldn’t necessarily be any evidence of a phenomenon, the absence of it does not prove anything"
Coins and seeds are SO common in archeological sites that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Citrons were not in the Middle East at the time of Matan Torah and coins didn't exist anywhere yet.
I don't think there is good evidence of total absence of etrogs in the Middle East at the time (e.g. there are claims that etrogs are depicted in a few Egyptian inscriptions from that period). However in order for the original pri etz hadar to be the etrog specifically, presumably you need not just a few trees in royal or priestly ornamental gardens, but enough that they be readily accessible to the masses, and that is much harder to support.
And a lot of trees would have resulted in lots of seeds in archeological sites.
"He even goes so far as to entertain the possibility that originally the phrase "an eye for an eye" could have been understood literally, and only later did the Sages insist on interpreting the Torah's words as referring to monetary compensation."
Note that this is not exactly "going far", it's rather obvious pshat due to the existence of "kofer" (blood-money) as an alternative to corporal punishment, both in comparable ancient societies, and as attested to in the Torah (which forbids taking kofer in a case of murder - implying that it is permitted to take kofer in cases of non-murder). Apparently at some point our leaders decreed that plaintiffs could *only* take kofer, and could no longer insist on corporal punishment. This is comparable to our practice of doing halitzah rather than yibum - it's not that we have changed the existing law, but rather added on a new law prohibiting one of the two options which the old law permitted.
I always thought the most commonly used fruit prior to using the etrog would have been the pomegranate. Undeniably beautiful in shape, color, and edible.
Chayav
Apikorsoos!! I was at Moishe Rabvaynee’s shteibl (he would never, bc ever go to a shul) in Boro Park, just after mattan Toireh, he said that the aibishter insisted that it was an esroig, and anyone who doesn’t agree is Chaya’s meesah. 😄
Chabadniks actually believe he traveled to Italy for a yaneve esroig
😄
Similarly regarding the death penalty. Chazal set very stringent requirements for when the death penalty could be applied, to the point that the death penalty becomes practically impossible.
But if we posit that these requirements developed gradually (due to the sages gradually sensing that death penalty was not appropriate in different situations) then suddenly everything makes sense! The mass executions described in the Torah after the golden calf (Ex. 32:27, Deut. 33:9) and at the episode with the daughters of Moab and Midian (Num. 25:5) were possible because at that time the conditions for death penalty were much looser.
I think the golden calf and Baal Peor cases were different in that no trial was carried out. These were exceptions to the Torah's standards for normal cases at the time, which required a rigorous trial with multiple witnesses and so on (as specified in Devarim).
It is true that Devarim does generally speaking encourage death penalty trials and convictions ("and all of Israel will hear and fear, and will sin no more") while the rabbis discouraged them to the point of eventually prohibiting them.
Numbers 25:5 mentions "judges", which seems to indicate that people were tried.
...and Pinchas skipped the trial, and he was commended by G-d for that.