Dear Herb,

You make a good point!  Perhaps I did push things a bit too far in order to make
the distinction between the way in which one arrives at a particular
interpretation and the interpretation itself.  Having said that, please allow
me to provide three short quotations which may help to facilitate our
discussion:

The first quote is from the glossary in H. Harrington, _The Impurity Systems of
Qumran and the Rabbis_ (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 312:

"Halakha  -  A majority ruling of the Sages; the traditional interpretation of
Jewish law."

In my opinion the second clause is not as concise as it could be.  If she had
said "the traditional rulings or opinions on Jewish law" rather than "the
traditional interpretation of Jewish law" I would agree with you, but there is
more than enough ambiguity in this sentence to suggest that she is describing a
method of interpretation rather than the rulings themselves.  Perhaps this is
splitting hairs, but aren't we already doing that? 

The second quote is from R. N. Soulen and R. K. Soulen, _Handbook of Biblical
Criticism_ (3ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 71

"Halakah - ... As a descriptive term referring to the legal interpretive methods
of rabbinic literature, 'halakah' stands in contrast to 'haggadah'."

This quote speaks for itself, but I should note that this is one of several
definitions listed.  The other definitions do lend support to your position
Herb, but, as you noted yourself ... 'halakha' is not a term that is used with
absolute consistency by the rabbis.

And finally a quote from L. Schiffman, _The Halakhah at Qumran_ (Leiden: Brill,
1975), 2:

"To identify the Qumran sect, scholars have considered the 'halakhot' and the
peculiar contemporizing exegesis found in these texts.  'Halakhah' and exegesis
are necessarily interrelated, since in Judaism the 'halakhah' is primarily
derived through or anchored to Scriptural interpretation or hermeneutics."  

Although Schiffman does not go so far as to say that 'halakha' is an exegetical
method, he is careful to note that 'halakha' and exegesis are "necessarily
interrelated" and "anchored" to one another.  This is slightly different than
saying that 'halakha' never refers to scriptural exegesis or to the process
from which it is derived.  Schiffman's definition appears to occupy the middle
ground between our two positions Herb, and, I must say, it is quite convincing.
 As noted earlier in this discussion, Schiffman wrote his dissertation in the
early days of DSS research and was no doubt aware of the potential problems
associated with calling his book _The Halakhah at Qumran_.  Perhaps this is why
his definition is slightly more liberal than the traditional definitions you
have cited.  Whatever the reasons, it appears as if the semantic range of
'halakha' has evolved to a point where it is frequently used in the field to
describe both the legal rulings and ways in which those rulings were derived. 
If anyone has a copy of Schiffman's _Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls_, I
believe he has a glossary in the back with a definition of the word 'halakha'. 
If so ... it might be interesting to see if his understanding the of the word
has changed over the years.

Best,
Ian  

-- 
Ian Werrett
PhD Candidate
St Mary's College
University of St Andrews


-----------------------------------------------------------------
University of St Andrews Webmail: http://webmail.st-andrews.ac.uk
_______________________________________________
g-Megillot mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/g-megillot

Reply via email to