Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Common Sense
  • Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 09:59:14 -0500

Shoshanna Walker wrote:
No, chukim does not refer to the plural form of statutes, ordinances AND decrees.

HH: Yes, it does refer to that word, and your definition below is only a later understanding of the import of the word. You can't prove that the meaning of these biblical details has not been lost. This entire point of view is arbitrary.

The Torah distinguishes between three types of Mitzvot (Deut. 4:45) - 1. Edot = testimonies, they are the mitzvot that testify to G-d's miracles, such as Shabbat, which testifies to Creation, or Matzah, which testifies to the Exodus. 2. Mishpatim = ordinances, most of the mitzvot fall into this category. They are laws that make sense, human intelligence even can know how necessary they are for the benefit of society; they represent laws that are valid even had they not been written in the Torah, such as the prohibitions against robbery, murder, and incest. Mishpatim are generally accepted laws which are found in the legal systems of most human cultures and civilizations. 3. Chukim = decrees, they are the mitzvot which cannot be understood by ordinary human intellect, such as not mixing milk and meat, not wearing wool and linen together, they are decrees of G-d, and it is not for anyone to question it, and they set Israel apart from the rest of the nations.

HH: The written law of Moses does not make this distinction, and it is simply arbitrary to assign such a meaning to the word. Many times the "chukim" can be understood.


The Red Heifer "purified the impure and made impure the pure." How does something that has the ability to purify one person cause impurity in another - this is not subject to human understanding.

HH: This is no more mysterious than animal sacrifice itself. God condescends to credit people with an atonement for sin that their actions can in no way really earn. The blood of goats cannot take away human sin. It was merely God's grace to grant forgiveness on this basis.

And no, we did not "forget" anything - thanks to the Oral Torah, and the mesorah which was accurately transmitted through people, all the names of whom we know, through the generations. We "even" know that Parah Adumah is in response to the sin of the golden calf.

HH: This is more arbitrariness, the assumption that you have not forgotten anything. The Jewish people have doubtless forgotten plenty of things.

This whole conversation is a result of someone saying that Judaism, or Torah, is simply a way of life that makes sense. That is not at all true, that is just trivializing it, robbing it of its depth and complexities, and relationship with G-d.

HH: Are you complaining that someone says the way of life in the Bible makes sense? Or are you complaining because someone says it doesn't make sense? And which are you? You seem to be the one saying that it doesn't make sense. I don't see how that gives more glory to God than saying it does make sense but we have lost the details of some of the meaning. And this assertion in no way removes the mystery from the Bible or assumes that all things are understandable without a divine explanation.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page