Is There a Type of Post-Modernism In The Talmud?

I came across a page of aggadata in Talmud Eruvin that made me think of postmodern philosophy. The way I understand the concept of postmodernism is the assumption that our reality is a product of subjective thought, it is a construct humans create, and that we can't truly know objective reality. And so, postmodernism is skeptical of claims that something or concept can apply for all time, or for all places, because everyone's experience is different in different cultures and places. But it also is a humbling experience, because the belief is that we can't truly know anything. (I started to wear glasses again after wearing contacts for a long time for this reason - to remind myself that without these artificial glasses, I can't see anything. I hope it humbles me.)

Anyhow, this would contradict the main claims of many religions, that God truly exists, or that a lawbook can apply for eternity. But there were a select few religious Jewish thinkers who took to the idea, yet maintained an Orthodox outlook.

Rav Kook writes in one of his notebooks that this kind of concept can be seen in the Bible itself, when Moses asks God to "Show me your ways..." and God says, "You cannot see me and live." Instead, God shows him His back, that we can only use subjective knowledge to arrive at God. Meaning, if God is true reality, then we can never know Him truly, but only through our own subjective experience of Him. This subjective truth, in turn, is informed by the most basic of emotions and feelings that guide us to the truth, before guile and cruel calculations. This is why Rav Kook thinks ethics are most felt among the non-intellectuals, and he relates this to the Adam and Eve story. Perhaps I will write more about this concept in Rav Kook's thought in a later post.

But I have also seen this kind of thing in the Talmud, and I'd like to show that in an aggadat in Eruvin 13b, translation from here:

א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים

 R. Aha b. Hanina said: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into existence, that in the generation of R. Meir there was none equal to him. Then why was not the halachah fixed in agreement with his views? Because his colleagues could not fathom the depths of his mind, for he would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof, and the ritually clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof.

תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה

 One taught: His name was not R. Meir but R. Nehorai. Then why was he called ‘R. Meir’? Because he "enlightened" - "me-ir" the Sages in the halachah. His name in fact was not even Nehorai but R. Nehemiah or, as others say: His name was R. Eleazar b. Arak. Then why was he called ‘Nehorai’? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah.

אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך

Rabbi declared: The only reason why I am keener than my colleagues is that I saw the back of R. Meir, but had I had a front view of him I would have been keener still, for it is written in Scripture: But thine eyes shall see thy teacher.

א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה

R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan: R. Meir had a disciple of the name of Sumchus who, for every rule concerning ritual uncleanness, supplied forty-eight reasons in support of its uncleanness, and for every rule concerning ritual cleanness, forty-eight reasons in support of its cleanness.

תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד

One taught: There was an assiduous student at Yavneh who by a hundred and fifty reasons proved that a [dead] creeping thing was pure. Said Rabina: I also could by logical argument prove it to be clean. If a snake that kills [man and beast] and thus causes much uncleanness, is itself ritually clean, how much more should a creeping thing, which does not kill [either man or beast] and consequently causes no uncleanness, be ritually clean. This, however, is no argument, since [the snake] is merely acting like a thorn.

א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו א] יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו

R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’. Then a heavenly voice issued announcing, ‘Both are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel’. Once both are the 'words of the living God’ why did Beth Hillel merit to have the halachah side with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai, and were even so as to mention the postion of Beth Shammai before theirs. This may be seen from what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah but his table in the house, Beth Shammai ruled [that the booth was] invalid but Beth Hillel ruled that it was valid. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai, ‘Did it not so happen that the elders of Beth Shammai and the elders of Beth Hillel went on a visit to R. Johanan b. Hahoranith and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body within the sukkah while his table was in the house?’ Beth Shammai replied: We indeed prove [our postion from that] because they indeed told him, ‘If you have always acted in this manner you have never fulfilled the commandment of sukkah’). This teaches you that him who humbles himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, raises up, and him who exalts himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, humbles; from him who seeks greatness, greatness flees, but him who flees from greatness, greatness follows; he who forces time is forced back by time but he who yields to time finds time standing at his side.

Notice the progression here - from various statements of why Rabbi Meir was so great, to why others were great through him, to other rabbinical students who had similar abilities, to why we often hold like Bet Hillel - because they recognized that there is truth to both sides.

For Rabbi Meir, it deterred the rabbis from establishing his views as the law, because they never knew how he actually felt about an issue. He never truly held one way or another, but entertained all kinds of possibilities. Yet, he was considered the greatest in his generation for  it.

For Rabbi Yehuda, it sharpened his abilities, even if he concluded one way or another. It is interesting that  Rabbi Yehuda believes this knowledge was gained from looking at Rabbi Meir's back, perhaps a reference to Moses asking to see God, and only getting to see His back, as explained by Rav Kook.

Rabbi Meir was so good at seeing both sides, that he had a student who was able to give 48 reasons why for every rule of impurity, it is actually considered pure.

The next story is about a rabbinical student in Yavneh who was able to up the ante to 150 reasons why the most paradigm example of an animal that gives off impurity, a sheretz, is actually pure. Tosafot cannot understand how this could be done with a biblically mandated assertion of impurity, and proceeds to explain how the Talmud is referring to some rabbinical-level states of impurity. But we know that one can reinterpret any verse in the Torah to mean what we want - whether it is doresh taamah d'krah, or gezeira shava, or any other exegetical device. When we have a Sanhedrin, maybe that theory would be put to action, but any good rabbinical student can flip a law to mean its exact opposite meaning, and that's what this student did.

Now we come to a story about Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel that seems to have nothing to do with what preceded it. Yet there is something very familiar with Bet Hillel's approach - seeing the other side, something that Rabbi Meir was able to do as well. It wasn't just humility that allowed them to do that, but genuine understanding of the issues, and how there are multiple truths at play, that both sides have their own truth to them. What is different is that the rabbis were never really sure what Rabbi Meir held, while Bet Hillel truly picked a side and held to it. What made Bet Hillel great was their ability to see both, yet hold by their own opinion.

This is why we have a strange adage at the end. I can understand that one who humbles himself will be great, and if understood my way, means that greatness comes from being a master at both sides, being humble in the pursuit of truth, and picking one to go with. But what does it mean, "one who yields to time finds time at his side"? I believe it means, in a postmodern spin, that the more we recognize that truth changes through time, and we yeild to that conclusion, we will find that time is our friend, standing at our side.

I had a close rebbe who I learned postmodernism and Judaism with, mostly focusing on Rav Shagar's Kelim Shevurim. This rebbe believed that postmodernism is the key to Jewish continuity. It answers all questions with, "This is how I see things", and isn't bothered with how others see things.

If we can recognize that people change, our relationship to the world of ideas and society changes, we can be the most progressive people on the planet. As Jews, we recognize that our philosophy and goals must change with how we, the masses, see things as important. Halacha, hopefully, will get us to a place where we can finally reform it, with the establishment of the central court of the Sanhedrin, bimheira biyameinu. We can be great. We need to realize that.

: