Sincere Scientific Sages?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Talmudic mythical science?

We reach an impasse. The sages of Andalusia and even the geonim before them orally commit to Aristotle. Science and rationality re-emerged in the islamic world. The geonim were indebted to this openness to study themselves. This islamic influence may not have been scholarly but it was conceptually. The rational motivation became a hallmark of demythologisation and reading science into scripture. Yet, simply note, applying Vilna Gaon’s critique from Maimonides to geonic-Andalusia as a whole: they were all brainwashed by Aristotle. Kadushin went as far as to lament the medieval philosophical deviation from true rabbinic philosophy. 

Yet, it is truly plausible that Ibn Tibbon was not incorrect. He traced his thought all the way back to King David’s psalms. This was a bit of a long shot and he was merely reading into his words instead of dictating a line of succession as Maimonides does for semicha. Alternatively, just as Maimonides presented the historical corruption of divine servitude to idolatry so too Halevi discusses the corruption of Solomonic wisdom as it was taught to other cultures due to the language barrier (a translation error like we see with Jews’ horns). These medieval tropes do no justice to Talmudic sages’ enterprise and their literary expertise. The Talmud itself will be put under a microscope.

The dialectical model of law and allegory is profound in the Talmud, presenting a complimentary thesis found in earlier books. Though they are reliant, tempering each other, there is a deeper layer to the allegories themselves. In this vein, there is more than one type of allegory. There are allegories adjacent to law and allegories of their own storytelling. To give but one example, the law stipulating that one may leave his family to learn is narrativised against. The few stories tell of scholars who died for not returning from study to see their wives. This is very different than the narrative of God building and destroying worlds. One is to teach the realistic consequences of the law, while the other is to teach a secret of the universe. The latter is where we will spend the remainder of this essay. 

The Talmud is quite platonic in nature. Unique in its own way hailing from a tradition linking legal and philosophical ideals. To borrow for symmetry especially to later scholars, Plato is the best course for dialogical analysis. Thus it is Ibn Gabirol and Halevi who pose the best traditional model over Saadia and Maimonides’ systematic format. The presentation of theology in narration is critical to comprehending religious tradition. The dialogical visualises the presentation of ideas. Though in contrast to the former two scholars, this dialogue couches philosophy. The dialogue is the front for a philosophical discourse that is presented as a mythical or even normative routine underlying core theological value. 

The goal is not to insert neoplatonic thought into the Talmudic text. The range of Greco-Roman influence is apparent but to argue in any capacity that they directly pulled from those sources is disingenuous without explicit mentioning. It can only be assumed. There is a great deal of influential thinking instead of original thinking. It is not impossible for them to posit similar ideas or structures. Hellenism affected the Jews but the move to science and rationality took on a new image instead of an entirely new paradigm. The Greco-Roman influence was a varied way of speculation instead of the mythical stories. A divergent methodology but to the same truths. Their insertion of writing was original but it need not be mimicked. 

Beyond looking at various quotations in the Talmudic record, there are two distinct schools which highlight the dialectical approach to theological identity. Yet it is the rivalry between Rabbis Akiva and Ishmael that illuminates the beauty of metaphysical articulation. Akivian depth exegesis is derashic in nature but is also indirectly linked. R Ishmael alternatively read the text in the “language of humans” which is different than medieval peshat. Yet their legal differences need not impinge the theological diversity. Their traditions are sourced in textual validation but are more orally transmitted than literarily adduced. R Akiva focused on the letters and R Ishmael rebuked him. The Torah’s wording is not so specific to be so significant. This in turn bolsters the oral word as superior. Midrash was the quality of exegetical behaviour even if there are scant plain readings. Yet the variety amongst the schools is wholly legal which is understandable and has been divergent since Hillel and Shammai. Law is different than theology. Law responds to social order while theology is imprinted in the communal database. 

Many scholars have ignored or downplayed the extent of rabbinic theology. Many deny the account of systemisation, others resist the academic temptation and holdfast to Maimonides principles as Sinaitic. The allegorical manifestation may be more philosophical than theological though ancient societies were more concerned with metaphysical speculation as an intertwined exercise. The Talmud is filled with both rational and mythical art. The Talmud stands as the transition from biblical myth to geonic rationalism. Both teach the core tenants of Judaism albeit in different ways. Rationalism is not opposed to myth-making if myths are a symbolic science; a metaphysical articulation of scientific phenomena. The same is to be true of rationalism that seeks to explain the natural work through experimentation. The Talmud applies logic to legal issues and symbolism to allegorical stories. 

Allegories are presented as rabbinic statements or biblical exploitations. The former may point to individualised theological opinions while the latter are uniformly accepted interpretations. This is debatable. Still, we will offer a few examples. R Eleazer states that only God is bound by his word. This theological point is to separate God from as an ultimate being. Yet, the biblical source is intentional not only in validating God’s integrity but also his commitment to Israel. R Abin bar Ada says God put on phylacteries and associates an outstretched arm with it. God fulfils his side of the bargain. This is a sign of faith.  A text unaccompanied by an authority: God bestows the Torah to Israel over the angel’s complaints sourcing in his own text. Each of these makes a the valuational point concerning a metaphysical link between God and man. 

What is more entertaining is the celestial remarks and their mythical layer. One such farfetched presentation is the list of pre-circumcised individuals. Another is the dialogue between the philosopher and Ramban Gamliel. Other supernatural phenomena are mentioned throughout. The curiosity is further in the formulation of supernal ideals. Some argue that the sages had no acceptance of myth while others see the mythic vibe as a foundation for later cosmological orientation. The difficulty is if the rabbis themselves believed in these myths or were they a front for a deeper rationality. The semantic phrasing states one possibility while the other is merely conjecture. Though it is also pertinent to recognise the scattered traditions. In demonstrating a difference between earlier and later exegesis. The earlier remnants are short homilies rather than broader narratives: they are sermons more than stories. The lack of homogeneity or creedal listing need not emphasise the unsystematic theology. 

The mythic orientation is biblical exegesis. It is sermonic in rabbinic interpretation. Concerning the creation of the world, these theological teachings are relayed by rabbinic tradition. The sages interpreted the text to explain the oral semiology. It is not one sage who purports the tradition but different ones from different verses. This in essence challenges the uniform matrix and instead conceives of divergent traditions. This exegesis is still far from the plain interpretation and does hint to a heritage of opinions. There is a controversy over which day the angels were created either the third of the fifth day. Both sages base their opinions in the written text but this is obviously less a grammatical problem and more a transmission one. 

On the other hand exegetical texts are presented in dialectical fashion. Concerning the war with the Amorites, in Deuteronomy Rabbah states that Moses deviated from the divine command and sought peace sourcing his position and in Numbers Rabbah, the same story has additional material where God praises Moses’ objection. Though the conclusion is the same, there are explicit differences: one Moses objects based on the Torah and the other on his own rationality. The angels is another example. A divergence remains between the law and allegory concerning primeval Adam. Either he stretched to the end of the world and then shrunk while an individual reflects an entire universe. Abraham learned Torah from his kidneys versus learning Torah from an angel. The diversity of opinions is critical to the anthological enterprise but also to conceal the truth in symbolic form, quotations used to procure a telos. There is clearly a mythological or even metaphorical manner but both of these present valuational more than functional roles. 

Though many midrashim were translated into cosmological formulations, their narration need not be a metaphysical layout but a merited core. Contemporary scholars note the complexity of rabbinic myths. The monotheistic version of the pagan mythos. Yet, the rabbinic vision expands the myth-making to a more personalised God one who exiled with his people. Beyond the biblical drama, there are poetic narratives of sages and fantastical events: R Ishmael ascended heaven, R Joshua ben Levi tricked the angel of death and entered paradise alive, Rabba bar Hannah met the dead of the desert, R Chanina ben Dosa used vinegar to kindle fire and of course the consequences of Pardes. Though ironically for the latter three, stories are propagated about them throughout shas. Joshua ben Levi has a three part series with Elijah: Following Elijah’s adventures, his incident to which Elijah refused him, Elijah answering his query about the arrival of the messiah. For Rabba bar Channa’s adventures including seeing a raven swallow a snake that swallowed a frog the size of 60 houses and another occasion a divine voice tells them not cool off in the river because the carpenter's ax from seven years back fell in but hadn’t reached the bottom creating the turbulence in the water. Chanina ben Dosa has some other miracles happen to him on that day including to his wife as well. 

There are countless more wacky stories concerning Moses’ encounter with the angel of death, the strange story of the sage Peleimu and Satan and the pious individual who heard the souls talking in the cemetery. Rabbinic Judaism is replete with examples. These narrations seem to posit less actual history and more educational purpose. The interwoven material seeks more than present history. It is not that these are not accurate but their function is more metaphorical than factual. Many of these stories mentioned have been since demythologised to more metaphorical lessons. This is a fine line by many. Willing to metaphorically interpret rabbinic outlandish stories but not those that sound natural nor the biblical ones. There is an extent of picking and choosing. This is not an attempt to characterise all as farcical but more to opine a nuanced reading. 

The inferiority of allegory to law is not solely a conventional priority but a principled mantra. Still, the sermonic wisdom embedded in the allegorical sections was to inspire the masses and educate their values.  Judaism is more than a religion of law but law is central for order and expression. The allegories are stained with rationalism and humour. They are not entirely mythic. The allegorical rationalism is a middle ground to the scientific consensus, also presenting values that science itself cannot teach. Narratives are more than equations and formulas. Cosmologies expanded to hide further secrets but the geonic successors diminished the cosmological front. Hiding the truth is an honourable task. Just as Plato hid his ideas in his dialogues but was blunt in his oral discourse so were the rabbis. We only have theological works in geonic era from Isaac Israeli and Saadia. The others were either lost or were regulated solely to orality. This was the hope of the rabbinic word. Allegories were stored for people empowerment. The true ideas were discussed orally unveiled. The hint of allegorical rationality and fantastical humour is indicative of a more educational insight. Scientific discourse was minute and needed a few more centuries to become the truth to be revealed against.

The stories mentioned above are abstract in nature but applying real-life figures who are consistently part of the Talmudic frame whether in connection with other sages or legal issues testifying to their relevance and influence in the rabbinic world. A perfect example that is well known to most Jews, is Rashbi's cave. Rashbi is hailed as a prime student of R Akiva and the author of the Zohar. Rashbi’s miraculous story of hiding in the cave with his son from Romans harkens back to Plato’s cave story. They have similarities but obvious divergencies. Caves are symbolic of redemption and revolution. Plato designates the cave as an enlightenment for an idealistic utopian world. It was a politically focused model. Rashbi’s story pronounces a potential political order but also an intellectual one. Rashbi’s story is a perfect example of the esoteric nature so far examined. Many observe Rashbi’s miraculous powers and deep study a measure of mystical knowledge. Though he gained a metaphysical certainty of sorts this need not be the Zoharic enterprise many attribute to him. What is most revealing is his shooting lasers burning everything as he departs from the cave. He is forced back to the cave only to reemerge more adjusted to society. On the one hand it the esoteric model here hiding the theology from the masses but it is less the incapacity to understand and more the needs of the people. His issue is not with their knowledge but their actions. Maimonides makes the same argument that law is the most important aspect to Judaism and philosophical study comes second.  

Rashbi’s story is not theo-political in nature but oral. On the face of it, study was the centralising motif of religiosity only to be upended by everyday labour. The realisation of mundane identity is the practical expression of Torah over the theoretical indulgence. The allegory highlights the equality amongst men. Unlike Plato, the Talmud has no use for a rabbinic hierarchy that puts sage over civilian. In Maimonidean theology and even political theory, the Torah is the constitutional element binding all of Israel. Jews must commit themselves to working the land. Though reminiscent of Rashbi’s belief the Torah will miraculously supply  sustenance seems a little out there. Before Rashbi entered the cave people were working and plowing fields. There is something specific about his departure which may be beyond the semantic frame, possibly the sages were engaging in this labour. It is one thing for people to work but for those designated to learn to engage in such mundane matters is a problem. Semiotically it must be a deeper rationale because there is more than acute difference between building bathhouses and plowing a field. Alternatively, his isolation went too far and affected him tremendously. He was so attuned to only learning that he grew weary of even average mundane labor. He removed himself from the sensus comminus of society. He wished to propose his theory of the world that did not jive with society’s beliefs. His miraculous powers do not validate his approach, instead, indicate an adversarial position that needed cessation. The context of the story is necessary to fully understand the situation. 

Allegories that even seem naturalised to an extent with a hint of supernally oriented ideals are to be understood by their underlying character and not their semantic literary style. The philosophical quest for truth and medieval credibility argumentation motioned away from the personally valued culture. The Talmud as a pre-truth reality articulates lore as a narration of values. It is not about truth but value and empowerment. Mystical frames literally translated and furthered the cosmological formulation deviating from the original understanding. It was not expose this truth but it also was not to conceal it further. The stories are allegories but are also a proper illustration of Jewish theology. It is a culmination in the corpus of religious expression. Scientific rationality was an inevitable transition but it did not need not to usurp valuational expression in its truthful quest. Allegories were a means of imparting wisdom and inspiration not metaphysical literalism.