The ideal Conservative Jew:

1. Supports a Conservative synagogue by participating in its activities.

2. Studies as a Conservative Jew a minimum of one hour per week.

3. Employs learned Jewish values to guide behavior even when it conflicts with personal feelings or inclinations.

4. Increases personal Jewish living out of commitment and as a result of thought, by adding a minimum of three new mitzvot a year.

5. Employs the values of tikun olam to help in the world’s continual repair.

6. Makes decisions about Jewish behavior only after considering the effect these decisions will have on Klal Yisrael.

7. Increases ties and connections to Israel.

8. Studies to increase his or her knowledge of Hebrew.

via The Ideal Conservative Jew : The United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (USCJ).

Rabbi Epstein unfortunately seems to be suggesting that Conservative Judaism really isn’t anymore about fealty to halakha within the framework of Tradition and Change and positive-historical scholarship. (And Jewish people-hood, etc., but that presumably is not a distinctively Conservative view).

Sure, he says

Conservative Judaism is unique in its approach to halakhah and mitzvot. For us, halakhah is both evolving and binding. Each of us must continue to grow in our commitment and observance.

But the idea that we must continue to grow implies that the “ideal” Conservative Jew isn’t already observant!

And what does it mean to “study as a Conservative Jew”?  Do we only use critical editions? Can a Conservative Jew use Mikraot Gedolot or Rashi?  I’m not sure what this means.

The author, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, was the United Synagogue’s executive vice president at the time.

Compare that to Dr. Cyrus Adler in 1923, “The Standpoint of the Seminary” in Mordechai Waxman’s “Tradition and Change” [Transcription my own -BF]

“It is true that in a section of Eastern Europe, in which the great bulk of the Jews lived, there had grown up a sort of abnormality– an abnormal attitude which, as it were, closed the Jewish mind in and limited it to its own literature, and even to a small section of that; always, of course, excepting a few of the greater minds, which can never be trammeled by any system.

It was these conditions which Doctor Schechter had to meet and, if possible, overcome. The Reform movement was showing a constantly increasing tendency to break away from Jewish history and tradition and base itself upon what it chose to call prophetic Judaism. The Orthodox party was growing more self-conscious and exhibiting the tendency to revert to the abnormal attitude of Eastern Europe…. p. 181

The Seminary, therefore, insisted in the first instance, that the students must be persons who lived in accordance with the Jewish law. From this tradition the Seminary itself has never varied. It has not modified the prayer book, it has not changed the calendar, it has not altered the dietary laws, it has not abolished the second day of the holidays, and although some of the founders and some of its graduates have, without protest from the Seminary, attempted changes in the ritual, the Seminary itself has never adopted any of these changes…. p. 182

The Seminary recognized that there are and always have been and always will be divisions in Jewry; that there are always people who call themselves conservatives; that there are legal minds and rationalistic minds, philosophers and mystics; that some Rabbis always favor the strict interpretation and others the mild interpretation. This is eternal and in the essence of human nature. If you take twins of the same family, give them the same attention, the same nurse, the same education, there is no guaranty that their minds will be alike. How much less can one hope to standardize the minds of a whole people.

But recognizing all these possibilities of divergence, the Seminary still aims to teach a form of Judaism to which all people could come, so far as fundamental values are concerned. A common language, the understanding of a common history and a common literature, are the strongest factors for keeping together the Synagogue– stronger in our opinion than any set of resolutions or platforms. Short of the very simple words of our charter, we have laid down no platform and adopted no creed, for we are of the opinion that religious platforms, like party platforms, are more often made to be disregarded than to be lived by, and that the surest guaranty for the steady maintenance of an enlightened Judaism based upon tradition was the teaching of the accumulated knowledge and information of the Jewish sages through all the ages. p. 184

Tfilat ha derek l’golshim ba reshet Blessing for the Internet.

Fun “blessing” for wayfarers of the intertubes

May Women Wear Tefillin?
David Golinkin

A recent discussion of our question concludes as follows:

In conclusion, women are not permitted under any circumstances to wear tefillin. In view of the fact that the Rema, the authoritative codifier of law for Ashkenazic Jewry and virtually all other authorities, forbid the wearing of tefillin by women, there is very little basis for a contemporary to permit the wearing of tefillin by women. The Rema . . . views the prohibition as rabbinic in origin. The optional wearing of tefillin is prohibited lest it lead to the desecration of their sanctity. This is a typical rabbinic enactment, and its purpose is the establishment of “a fence around the Torah”; i.e., to ensure the proper performance of Torah-based laws. As is the case with all such rabbinic enactments, the law is binding on everyone, whether or not he feels that he needs the fence.²

In the following paper we shall disprove every one of these assertions. We shall show that the Talmud and “virtually all other authorities” before the Rema permit women to wear tefillin, that there is ample halakhic basis to permit women to wear tefillin, and that no such “rabbinic enactment” was ever enacted by the sages. Rather, almost all opposition to women wearing tefillin stems from one thirteenth-century Ashkenazic rabbi.

…

Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion is quoted in many places. He says:

And they may recite the blessings over a PTBC [Positive Time-Bound Commandment -BF] even though they are exempt from that mitzvah and they may occupy themselves with that mitzvah like Mikhal bat Cushi who [it can be assumed (mistama)], also recited the b’rakhah.³⁷

And the Rashba replies in one of his responsa:

You already know the disagreement of the rishonim and their proofs and I agree with he who says that if they desire they can perform all positive commandments and recite the blessings [which we learn] from Mikhal bat Shaul who used to wear tefillin and they did not protest; rather she did so with the approval of the sages (kirtzon hakhamim) and it is obvious (stama d’milta) that since she puts on tefillin, she blesses.³⁸

via The Rabbinical Assembly: CJ Mag.: Fa. ‘97 May Women Wear Tefillin?.

A fascinating find on the way back machine of an article I once read forcefully arguing that the majority opinion of Halakha should be that women may wear tefillin, only that some hold they bless the blessings and some hold that they do not.  R’ David Golinkin writes very convincingly.  Of interest, as well, is the tidbit that he finds no evidence that R’ Itshaki (Rashi)’s daughter wore tefillin beyond the legend.

The article PDF’d for posterity: May Women Wear Tefillin? by R' David Golinkin (5)

Related articles:

• Golinkin on Women as Rabbis, but women may not fulfil the obligation of another with Positive Time Bound Commandments. (english summary)
• Golinkin whether women may lead services. (english summary)

DANIEL ESTRIN

Signs of Conflict: A group has placed stickers with florid Arabic calligraphy on Israeli street signs that had been vandalized.

via Graffiti War Erupts Over Israel’s Road Signs – Forward.com.

The world would be a much better place if people would refrain from acts of anger and zealous hate.  The street sign infringes on no one’s rights nor damages anyone with neither English nor Arabic script.  Israeli signs have more of a national claim to Arabic than English, which is really just for tourists, not residents.

There is a place for righteous indignation in the world. I can see a situation where an oppressive regime has posted offensive posters or signs everywhere and the rebels deface them as part of their rebellion, but to me, this just smacks of vandalism with no positive purpose.  Israel has a sizable Arab population. Arabs read Arabic. Having signs with Arabic should not be a political issue.

The 17th day of the month of Tammuz is a fast day according to Jewish tradition. The Mishnah Taanith IV 6 states that there are five reasons for fasting on this day:

Five calamities befell our fathers on the 17th of Tamuz… On the 17th Tamuz the Tables of the Law were broke, the daily sacrifice ceased to be offered, the city of Jerusalem was broken into, Apostomos burnt the Torah and set up an idol in the sanctuary [see bellow that perhaps one should read: an idol was set up in the sanctuary]“.

…

The walls of Jerusalem were broken down by Nebuchadnezzar, before the destruction of the first Temple, on the 9th day of Tammuz (Jer. 39:2), and they were breached once again by Titus, before the destruction of the second Temple on the 17^th of Tammuz (see the quote above from Josephus and Babylonian Talmud Taanit 28b. The Jerusalem Talmud however says that the date in Jeremiah is mistaken – see Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 23a).

via - – 17^th of Tammuz – Jewish Thought Glossary – -.

Today is the fast of the fourth month, observed on the 17th of Tamuz.  Its primary association is with the beginning of the siege on the second Temple.

דף כג,א פרק ד הלכה ה גמרא

והובקעה העיר.  כתיב (ירמיהו לט) בתשעה לחדש הובקעה העיר ואת אמר הכין א”ר תנחום בר חנילאי קילקול חשבונות יש כאן

בין כמ”ד בתשעה לחדש בין כמ”ד בי”ז מה ביניהון.  כ”א יום מיום שהובקעה העיר ועד יום שחרב בהמ”ק.  א”ר אבונה סימנא (ירמיהו א) מקל שקד אני רואה מה הלוז הזה משהוא מוציא את ניצו ועד שהוא גומר את פירותיו כ”א יום כך מים שהובקעה העיר ועד יום שחרב הבית כ”א יום.  מ”ד בט’ לחדש בא’ באב חרב הבית מ”ד בי”ז בט”ב חרב הבית.  תני רשב”י ר”ע רבי היה דורש (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה’ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי וגו’.

צום הרביעי זה י”ז בתמוז שנשתברו הלוחות ובטל התמיד והובקעה העיר ושרף אפוסטומוס את התורה והעמיד צלם בהיכל

Another article: seliger

Fasting Half Days:

• • צום עד לאחר תפילת מנחה בתשעה באב – הרב טוביה פרידמן ־ דעת הרוב

  • צום עד לאחר תפילת מנחה בתשעה באב – הרב דוד גולינקין

  • English

  
  

But what gives these women any hope that their claim could be accepted? Hasn’t the law already been established by God at Sinai? Sure, the law seems unfair. But what’s fair got to do with it? Why should anyone think that his or her own sense of fairness is relevant when the Torah has already been revealed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai?

This question is the impetus for a remarkable early midrash found in Sifre BeMidbar (133):

The daughters of Zelophehad approached. When the daughters of Zelophehad heard that the Land was to be divided among the tribes, to males and not to females, they gathered together to take counsel in each other. They said, “Not like the mercies of people are the mercies of God. People have more mercy [i.e., preference] for males than females, but the One Who spoke and the World came to Be is not like this; rather, [God's] mercies are for both males and for females, and for all, as it says, “The Lord is good to all; His mercies are over all his creations.” (Psalms 145:9)

This early rabbinic text imagines the women citing the book of Psalms to vindicate their trust that God is egalitarian: “His mercies are over all his creations.” Preferential treatment for males is not, according to their interpretation, a policy established by God, but rather a bias established by men. The nineteenth-century commentator Barukh HaLevi Epstein asks what makes these women think that people (i.e., rabbis) favor men? He answers his own question with three Talmudic texts that give preferential treatment to men and concludes that “men tend to worry about their own reality more than that of women” (Torah Temimah to Numbers 27:1, number 1).

via The Jewish Theological Seminary – Parashat Pinhas.

A stunning midrash that admits that God is more egalitarian in nature than some of the laws promulgated in his name.  I’ve often thought that the story of the daughters of Tzelofehad challenges many contemporary beliefs about the nature of Torah, but I particularlly appreciate the approach of this midrash.   Not only can the law be challenged, but the law might not even be in line with God’s attributes. And this is in the Torah with Moses!

I would like to add another point.  There must have been other families that had no sons, but it was the daughters of Tzelofehad that spoke up and enacted change.

And, most significantly, sometimes the Talmud bases laws on the spelling of particular words (e.g., the number of compartments required in the head tefillin),17 yet the spelling differs from that found in the MT. In such cases, the Talmudic rabbis were obviously confident of the accuracy of the reading they relied on, and none of their colleagues challenged it.

17. The precept of tefillin is based on Exodus 13:9 and 16 and Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. The word totafot, “frontlets, headbands,” referring to the tefillin worn on the head, appears in three of these verses. According to Rabbi Ishmael in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 4b and parallels), the suffix -OT is spelled defectively (that is, without the vowel letter VAV) in the first two occurrences and fully (with the VAV) the third time. This allows the first two to be read “as if” they were singulars, implying one compartment each, and requires the third to be read as a plural, hence requiring two compartments, and thus indicating that the head tefillin must have a total of four compartments. However, in all known copies of the Bible, both ancient (with one exception, in Exodus 13:16) and Masoretic, the suffix is spelled defectively all three times, and this is how Maimonides rules that they must be written (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillin 2:7, presumably following the Aleppo Codex). For the ancient manuscripts see J. Tigay, “On the Meaning of totafot,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):321. For other such examples see Leiman, cited in the next note.

18. Sid Z. Leiman, “Masorah and Halakhah: A Study in Conflict,” in Tehilla le-Moshe. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cogan, B.L. Eichler, and J.H. Tigay (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbraun’s, 1997), pp. 291-306.

Can you really say empirically that “this is the Torah that Moshe gave before Israel on God’s word?”

In Parshas Chukas, God behaves almost like a blogger. Rather than authoring his own material, our Lord and Creator twice references the published work of other people.

The first occurrence is a cite from the the Book of the Wars of the Lord a book that was lost, and excluded from the canon.

The second occurrence … a snippet of poetry. Yes, poetry. The lines are attributed, vaguely, to “moshlim”…

via DovBear: God as a blogger?.

My comment:

These two bits of poetry are my favorite reasons to cite that God didn’t write the whole Torah. These sections are explicit that they come from elsewhere.

The only Torah True responses that I can imagine are to either ignore it, or that these foreign sections were a divinely inspired text taken from an otherwise not inspired text.

I, personally, find the Torah and tradition much more accessible when I view it as my people’s ancient documentation and mythology. This makes the narrative easier to explain, e.g. how were the two sections on the daughters of Tzelofehad given at Sinai if the sections say that Moses didn’t know the answer and had to ask God. It makes the text too circular. And this view doesn’t stop me from setting aside time each week to learn.

And then a followup

Claiming that the entire Torah was given in scroll form to Moses at Sinai seems to be the prevalent Torah True view today, regardless of other views in the tradition.

On another note, much of the tanakh is about a prophet or god-chosen person telling the majority of the people that they’re not doing things quite right. That is, either most Hebrew/Israelites/Jews were ’secular’ up until Ezra or they didn’t have the Torah or its teachings as we have it now.

I mean, what does this mean? That they weren’t keeping Passover?
II Chronicles 35:18-19

יח וְלֹא-נַעֲשָׂה פֶסַח כָּמֹהוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מִימֵי שְׁמוּאֵל הַנָּבִיא; וְכָל-מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא-עָשׂוּ כַּפֶּסַח אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְכָל-יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הַנִּמְצָא, וְיוֹשְׁבֵי, יְרוּשָׁלִָם. {ס} 18 And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. {S}
יט בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לְמַלְכוּת יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ–נַעֲשָׂה, הַפֶּסַח הַזֶּה. 19 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept.

Or I Kings 11 where Solomon marries many foreign women, has many horses, goes back to Egypt, and offers avodah zara.

א וְהַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה, אָהַב נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת רַבּוֹת–וְאֶת-בַּת-פַּרְעֹה: מוֹאֲבִיּוֹת עַמֳּנִיּוֹת אֲדֹמִיֹּת, צֵדְנִיֹּת חִתִּיֹּת. 1 Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

Or I Kings 12 where Jeroboam of the Northern Kingdom puts Sukkot in the eigth month

לב וַיַּעַשׂ יָרָבְעָם חָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי בַחֲמִשָּׁה-עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ כֶּחָג אֲשֶׁר בִּיהוּדָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ–כֵּן עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, לְזַבֵּחַ לָעֲגָלִים אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה; וְהֶעֱמִיד בְּבֵית אֵל, אֶת-כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה. 32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Beth-el, to sacrifice unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places that he had made.
לג וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי–בַּחֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּדָא מלבד (מִלִּבּוֹ); וַיַּעַשׂ חָג לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְהַקְטִיר. {פ} 33 And he went up unto the altar which he had made in Beth-el on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up unto the altar, to offer. {P}

Or Nehemiah 8:14-15 where they didn’t know about Sukkot at all and celebrated it differently than we do today? And that this may be the first time the Torah is first publicly read.

יד וַיִּמְצְאוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי. 14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;
טו וַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ, וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר–צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי-זַיִת וַעֲלֵי-עֵץ שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲלֵי הֲדַס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת: לַעֲשֹׂת סֻכֹּת, כַּכָּתוּב. {פ} 15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: ‘Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.’ {P}

Or my favorite, I Kings 18

כא וַיִּגַּשׁ אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם, וַיֹּאמֶר עַד-מָתַי אַתֶּם פֹּסְחִים עַל-שְׁתֵּי הַסְּעִפִּים–אִם-יְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו, וְאִם-הַבַּעַל לְכוּ אַחֲרָיו; וְלֹא-עָנוּ הָעָם אֹתוֹ, דָּבָר. 21 And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said: ‘How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.’ And the people answered him not a word.
כב וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ, אֶל-הָעָם, אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַיהוָה, לְבַדִּי; וּנְבִיאֵי הַבַּעַל, אַרְבַּע-מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים אִישׁ. 22 Then said Elijah unto the people: ‘I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

And many more.

and

Or how about the opening of Devarim 1
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0…pt/ pt0501.htm#1

א אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן: בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף בֵּין-פָּארָן וּבֵין-תֹּפֶל, וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת–וְדִי זָהָב. 1 These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.

I mean, it says the Moses spoke ‘beEver haYarden’/On the OTHER side of the Jordan. That is, the author of that verse is living in Israel, not standing in the Aravah, so that Moses is on the other side from the author.

(This verse doesn’t seem to get as much play as the famous Avraham Ibn Ezra on ‘vehaKenani AZ baAretz’.)

Anyhow, the point is, that it’s perfectly consistent with the Torah itself to read the Torah as a human document rather one that was used to create the world.

and

Yoni, Biblical Scholars seek to understand the Tanakh on its own terms using philology, comparative literature, archeology, etc. It is an academic discipline, for the most part, like an other. In academia, God doesn’t exist, since that is the realm of religion. Their goals are no different than Avraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi, Moshe ben Maimon, or other rationalist interpreters in our tradtion, but they are approaching it from an academic rather than religious point of view.

and

BTW, I’ve noticed that a lot of midrashim are based on textual conflicts, lacunae, etc. that are later analyzed by academics. To some extent, it’s a matter of approach.

What’s interesting about treating the Torah as a contextual document (rather than one used to create the world in which every letter is sacrosanct) is that the text becomes more understandable, and for me, more holy.

I am disgusted that a ben sorer and more could be killed. However, in comparison with Ancient Near Eastern law, it becomes clear that the Torah is more progressive in that it requires the parents to take the kid to the court first.

Similarly, in Ancient Near Eastern law, if someone kills your daughter, you get to kill his daughter, eye for an eye. Or the murderer could ransom the price of the daughter to avoid punishment. Torah law says all human life is sacred. He who spills blood, his blood shall be shed. Torah law forbids the ransom. Did you ever notice that in parashat mishpatim the laws of the slave precede the laws of murder and goring oxen? Is the Torah implying that slavery is bad? It seems to be.

and

Yoni, you have faith in your views, and that’s great, but there’s lots of evidence from external sources. What there’s not a lot of is evidence from the Israelites themselves, especially for the early stuff.

For example, the http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cl…/ sennprism.html
Sennacherib prism details his campaign against Hezekia. And they differ in certain ways. How would you approach that?

Persian records mention no Ahasveros. How would you aproach that?

There is no external evidence that David was king. How would you approach that?

Texts from Ugarit, Mari, Sumer, Egypt, etc have creation stories that seem to be referenced and polemicized against by Genesis 1. Does that interest you?

Regarding the documentary hypothesis, there is a lot of evidence for it if you’re willing to see it. See the flood for example. Here’s an article on the Bible Codes.

and

Yoni (couldn’t stay away) Let me ask you a very simple question

Judges 12
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0…pt/ pt0712.htm#6

ו וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אֱמָר-נָא שִׁבֹּלֶת וַיֹּאמֶר סִבֹּלֶת, וְלֹא יָכִין לְדַבֵּר כֵּן, וַיֹּאחֲזוּ אוֹתוֹ, וַיִּשְׁחָטוּהוּ אֶל-מַעְבְּרוֹת הַיַּרְדֵּן; וַיִּפֹּל בָּעֵת הַהִיא, מֵאֶפְרַיִם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנַיִם, אָלֶף. 6 then said they unto him: ‘Say now Shibboleth’; and he said ‘Sibboleth’; for he could not frame to pronounce it right; then they laid hold on him, and slew him at the fords of the Jordan; and there fell at that time of Ephraim forty and two thousand.

Do you accept that there were different dialects of Hebrew? There is ample other evidence, but this one is so straightforward that I don’t see how you can deny it. If you accept that there were different dialects of Hebrew, then why can’t you accept that different “sources” are identifiable by different language patterns (not to mention topical and content differences among the language patterns).

The rabbis were aware of these differences in language and said that YHWH is the attribute of mercy and elokim is the attribute of strict justice. Feel free to accept that different parts of the Torah use different language, and still believe that they are from the same source, but you cannot deny the different “voices”.

However, it is not just vocabulary. It is also facts on some occasions. Another simple example.
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0…t/ pt0137.htm#25
Genesis 37

27 Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.’ And his brethren hearkened unto him. 28 ..and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. And they brought Joseph into Egypt. 39:1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither.

but also

28 And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, 36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard. {P}

So was he sold to Ishmaelites or drawn out of the pit by Midianites? Yes, the rabbis were aware of the problem and dealt with it. But they acknowledged the problem.

and

• An article by Dr. Tigay: Tigay-Empircal Basis for Documentary Hypothesis (7)
• Emanuel Tov’s Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible
• Feel free to read Cassuto. You should like him.

In response the two sages quote to them the well known verse from Isaiah:

via Eretz-Israel 007.

Very interesting series of posts on the power struggle between the sages of the Land of Israel and those of Babylon.  This particular quote is regarding an attempt to determine the calendar in Babylon independent of decisions in the Land of Israel.  That spirit of discourse seems alive and well among the modern movements.