https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/12/biblical-theology-of-rabbi-emanuel-rackman/
But one writer raised a significant issue and I share his question and my answer to it with the readership of Hirhurim around Rabbi Rackman’s yartzeit. He asked me a question about Rabbi Rackman’s biblical theology and raised the possibility that Rabbi Rackman was a technical heretic in that he did not believe in the Torah being revealed by God at Sinai to Moses (Torah miSinai).
Rabbi Rackman contemplates the possibility that the Torah has in it texts that were written by humans in a different form prior to God taking these text, incorporating them into Torah and then giving that Torah to Moshe in its fully revealed form, word by word to Moshe. This belief violates none of the Rambam’s ikarim. Anyone who claims that this idea by Rabbi Rackman is heretical can only do so by adding dogma to the ikarim that we have accepted as binding through the historical mesorah accepted by the halachic community. I think that just like the contraction of the thirteen ikarim into 12 or 8 or 3 is to be resisted as a violation of that historical mesorah (even as I am well aware that Albo advocates such), so too the expansion of the ikarim into 15, 19 or 613 principles is to be resisted as a violation of that same mesorah (even as I am well aware that Chatam Sofer advocates such).
AI writes
Whether Rabbi Emanuel Rackman (1910–2008) was a heretic is a subject of intense debate within Orthodox Judaism, depending on whether one adheres to strict dogmatic interpretations or a more flexible, modern, and intellectual approach to Jewish law.Viewpoint of Accusation: Critics, particularly from the right-wing Orthodox community, viewed some of his views—such as his approach to Biblical criticism and flexibility in Jewish law—as heretical.Viewpoint of Defense: Supporters argue that Rackman’s ideas did not violate traditional ikarim (principles of faith) and that calling him a heretic stems from an unnecessary expansion of dogma.His Perspective: Rackman himself argued that "concern for a positive Jewish image is no heresy" and that and that throughout history, scholars have re-examined tradition, often leading to unfair accusations from those of a more conservative temperament.
There was Jewish history before Sinai. The question is, did Noah know about Adam? Did Abraham know about the flood?
ReplyDeleteDid yosef know about the akeidah?
If so, was it oral tradition or had anything been written down?
Even if you maintain it was purely oral tradition, it's not heretical to claim it had been written down.
That's the first step.
The second step, it seems to me that he's trying to present an alternative to the academic Bible criticism which isn't apikorsis.
In any case, the Torah has a narrative, and bereishit was already known before shemot.
ReplyDeleteGittin 60a
תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה – כֵּיוָן דִּמְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה, כּוֹתְבִין; אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִידְּבַק – אִידְּבַק.
The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls.
https://www.sefaria.org/Gittin.60a.8?lang=bi&with=Talmud&lang2=en