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
