1. On an academic note, the following quote from Jacob Neusner's article "Scripture and Tradition": "If we regard the Mishnah as independent revelation, "oral Torah" in teh strict sense, then we must deem tradition to be a kind of Torah. If we regard the Mishnah as contingent, then tradition stands in a very close and comfortable bond with Scripture: Scripture's companion, complement, necessary consequence. So the Mishnah may be deemed (to invoke the appropriate metaphor) depending upon the position you take, to be the daughter of Scripture or the wife."
Very little probably needs to be said about why this particular set of sentences riles me up. But I have to say, it really, really irks me.
Very little probably needs to be said about why this particular set of sentences riles me up. But I have to say, it really, really irks me.
From:
no subject
Although now I am trying to work out whether that means Torah has an obligation to marry the Mishnah off before age 12 or merely an obligation to feed it, clothe it, periodically delight it, and pay through the nose in the event of divorce. (Note to self: stop thinking about Nashim.)
From:
no subject
And I agree—offensive, and superfluous to boot. Reading that, I felt he'd already made his point.
From:
no subject
Someone should make a poster of that ;-)