Title Author Date

Seems we're in the same boat Zeligman, Naftali Dec 05, 2004

> Your problems with the canonization of the Holy Writ perplex me. The
> canonization of TN"Kh is not intended solely as a system of organizing all
> divinely inspired literature. In Prophets, canonization is primarily
> intended as a way to organize all prophecies that would be relevant to all
> following generations until the Final Redemption (as the Talmud states
> explicitly). This includes presenting historical context.

What do you mean? There are scores of prophecies in the Prophets part of the
canon, which pertained to specific historical situations now long gone
(whether the prophecies materialized or not).

> Moreover, all
> text therein, even aside from explicit prophecy, was ostensibly
> transcribed with prophetic inspiration (as the Talmud indicates).

How could the sages of the Talmud tell, centuries after the books were
composed, whether everything therein was divinely inspired or not?

> The bases for canonization of Writings are relevancy and complete
> philosophical conjunction with Torah (Pent.) and Prophets. Even though,
> the Talmud states, Esther (as well as other Books of Writings) was
> compliled with some degree of Divine inspiration (yet not direct
> prophecy), such inspiration does not appear to be a necessary factor for
> canonization.

Relevance to what? And what fundamental difference is there, say, between
the books of Chronicles and Daniel (Writings) and Kings and Isaiah
(Prophets)? Do you mean that the former two were not divinely inspired?

> One reason why Ben Sirah and others were excluded from
> canonization is lack of the aforementioned complete philosophical
> conjunction.

What reasons do you have to suppose that Ben Sira lacks "the aforementioned
complete philosophical conjunction" (with the Pentateuch and the Prophets)
any more than Qoheleth?

> He is nevertheless quoted by the Sages on occasions where his
> insights are relevant, incisive, and in line with Torah philosophy. (In a
> similar vein do the Sages quote popular axioms preceded by the
> introductory phrase "k'd'amrei inshei").

That's not the point. The point is they cite it as "Ketuvim" after citing
"Torah" and "Nevi'im" -- i.e., at least some of them perceived Ben Sira to
be a part of the canon.

> Canonization of Koheleth is the
> subject of a Talmudic debate since it lends itself quite readily to
> misinterpretation. Additionally, it gives many opportunities for those who
> would wish to classify it as flawed to do so. This is partially since it
> consists of many grave (and yet absurdly obvious) apparent contradictions
> (many of which are explicitly reconciled by the Sages).

Do you consider all the Sages' explanations in this regard to be reasonable?

[continued]

Related Articles: Letter to My Rabbi

Title Author Date

Seems we're in the same boat Zeligman, Naftali Dec 05, 2004

[continued]

> That Solomon's Writings should be used as a source for deriving laws seems
> entirely appropriate given his tremendous wisdom and knowledge of Torah.
> Why shouldn't his Halakhic authority be a source for derivation of laws by
> later sages?

The point is not wisdom or knowledge of Torah. The point is legal validity.
If the source of law is a God-given teaching, then for a pronouncement to be
legally binding it has to be incorporated in that teaching or to be issued
by a person or a body whom that teaching provides with authority to make
legally binding pronouncements. Similarly, the US supreme court may issue a
legal verdict based on the authority vested into it by the Constitution, and
it is this authority which makes such verdict legally binding -- not the
judges' wisdom or knowledge of American law.

Related Articles: Letter to My Rabbi