Do you want a commentary on the Mishniyyah or a chapter from the Bible? You just need to enter the text. And of course, you have to choose your commentator. From Isaiah Leibovitch to Rabbi Kook, the historian and moral researcher Mahana Arendt, to Donald Trump, who focuses mainly on himself from an almost entirely materialistic worldview. And of course Machiavelli
One of the more interesting phenomena in Judaism (and religion in general) is that of "interpretation". Every rabbi and every person can provide his own interpretation of texts in the Bible and Talmud. Sometimes this interpretation is well reasoned and supported, based on dozens of rulings and verses from the past thousands of years. Sometimes it is much less reasoned, but formulated in a particularly convincing way, which makes it even more interesting to read.
Either way, the interpretation will almost always reflect the writer's worldview. Talmud researcher Dr. Rochama Weiss provides interpretations of texts in the Mishnah from a humanist-feminist-liberal perspective. If we could ask Baruch Goldstein - who murdered 29 Muslim worshipers - he would probably provide less favorable interpretations of the exact same verses.
One of my religious friends, when I asked him recently how he decides to act in moral dilemmas, replied that he "goes online and looks for interpretations on relevant topics, reads several different interpretations - and then decides what to do."
I can respect this approach, but it seems to me that it could be enriched. Many wise people were born, learned and formulated complex opinions throughout history: Socrates and Dawkins, Carl Sagan and Yuval Noah-Harari. Only a very few of them managed to go through the Jewish scriptures and express their opinion on each and every topic. Those who managed to do so, published their interpretations in ancient writings that are hidden deep in the depths of libraries.
So why not help them?
And so the commentator-tron was born.
Do you want a commentary on the Mishniyyah or a chapter from the Bible? You just need to enter the text. And of course, you have to choose your commentator. From Isaiah Leibovitch to Rabbi Kook, from Elisha Ben-Avoya (the "other" apostate) to Margaret Atwood, the feminist from the camp of Arendt, the historian and moral researcher, to Donald Trump, who focuses mainly on himself from an almost entirely materialistic worldview. And of course Machiavelli, oh Machiavelli, who longs to explain to you how every rabbinic directive translates into a way to control the masses.
Each of these commentators comes with their own character and way of phrasing, even though they were all asked to answer you in clear Hebrew. And everyone will be happy to tell about the chosen text from their unique point of view.
And everyone, of course, will try to mislead you.
It is important to be clear: to call what the Tron Fellowship gives you "commentary" is a bit of a mockery of Resh. This is mainly an interpretation of the way in which the thinkers you have chosen see the world. They do not make direct references to other quotations in the Bible or to the Oral Torah in their interpretation (at least not at this stage), but instead explain what the "simplification" of the text means, and then try to bend and twist it to fit their worldview, or clarify why they are not Agree with him.
And if there was any doubt: there is no real "understanding" here on the part of artificial intelligence. Today's major language models are a means of intelligently connecting words to each other in a way that can produce new and interesting meanings. But there is no "logic" behind the connection, or real "understanding" on the part of the artificial intelligence. This is why there are those who call them - a little disdainfully, a little rightly - "stochastic parrots": parrots that connect words semi-randomly to each other.
Still, the results can be fascinating and important. Those "stochastic parrots" produce content that helps students better understand the study material, reveal unique points to engineers and even serve as intelligence officers in analyzing the positions of the 'other side'. And parrots have 'symptomatic understanding'. That is, they are able to adapt their answers to different questions, in a way that looks like there is logic and real thinking behind it.
There are already thinkers who are beginning to ask whether it is possible that we also think in a similar way. And to tell the truth, even reading certain human commentators makes you feel as if they themselves are "stochastic parrots": repeating themselves and their doctrine over and over in dozens of different variations. You can learn more about the commentator from his interpretation than you can about the true meaning of the text he claims to interpret.
So Interpreter-Tron may fit into this particular environment perfectly.
Let's examine, for example, how he answers from different perspectives.
Interpretations of all kinds
Let's take Tractate Avot, chapter 1, section 1, as follows:
Moses received the Torah from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the people of the Great Synod. They said three things: be moderate in the law, and make many disciples, and make a reservation for the Torah.
Let's start with Rabbi Kook. How does he see the episode?
"This chapter illuminates the divine providence that guides the spiritual journey of our nation. The unbroken chain of transmission represents the eternal nature of the Torah, transcending time and space. It reflects the harmonious combination of the written and oral traditions, embodying the unity of the physical and spiritual worlds.
When we look at this Mishna, we see the deep connection between all of creation. The handing down of the Torah is not just a historical fact, but a cosmic process of divine light penetrating reality. Each link in this chain represents a unique facet of the infinite divine wisdom, which adapts to the needs of each generation. The three principles taught by members of the Great Knesset are not just practical advice, but spiritual compasses for raising our consciousness and getting closer to God. They teach us to approach life with careful consideration, to spread knowledge generously, and to protect the sanctity of our traditions. This Mishna thus embodies the essence of our mission: to be a light to the Gentiles, while constantly refining ourselves and the world around us in preparation for complete redemption."
We see here a repetition of Rabbi Kook's original style, with an emphasis on the spiritual worlds, of the "spiritual journey of the nation" and an attempt to get closer to the "divine". It is interesting to note that "Rabbi Kook" does not explicitly refer to the requirement to make a "reservation to the Torah" - a requirement that some interpret as a way to moderate and hedge certain extreme mitzvot.
And what does Machiavelli think about that subtext? Machiavelli is known today as one of the most cynical thinkers in human history - the type that would today be defined as a "communications consultant" to rulers. Here is what he had to say about the Mishnah -
“From my perspective, this episode brilliantly demonstrates the mechanics of power and control. By creating a clear line of succession, it legitimizes the authority of current leaders and creates a sense of historical continuity. This is a master strategy for maintaining power and influence over the population. The three instructions at the end are especially clever: being moderate in law allows for calculated decision-making, having many students ensures a loyal audience, and creating a proviso to the Torah allows for a flexible interpretation of laws to suit the needs of those in power. This chapter actually provides a master plan for effective governance and the preservation of authority, and aligns perfectly with my philosophy on the nature of power and government.”
Well, which one is right? Machiavelli or Rabbi Kook? And perhaps it is Hannah Arendt, historian and theorist of morality, who states that -
"As a political thinker, I find this chapter fascinating in its description of power structures and the transfer of authority. The emphasis on education and critical thinking aligns with my belief in the importance of public discourse and active citizenship. The idea of creating safeguards around core principles resonates with my views on the need for strong institutions to protect democracy and human rights. This text illustrates the Jewish tradition of asking questions and interpretation, which I see as essential for maintaining a vibrant political sphere and resistance to totalitarian trends."
And the answer, of course, is that everyone is wrong.
The only way to know who interprets the Mishnah correctly is to ask the original writers. But what? Since they too were only human, and since the mishna itself describes disputes among the sages, they too probably would not have been able to clarify exactly what their intention was and how it fits with each dispute. All we can do is try to understand their words and interpret them from different perspectives, trying to reach a more informed and wiser decision.
The commentator-tron is a modest attempt to do this with the help of artificial intelligence.
He is not perfect. He does not understand Hebrew or Aramaic perfectly, so he occasionally has spelling mistakes or mistakes of understanding. it's ok Two years ago, he was not at all able to compose a coherent sentence in Hebrew. In two years, he will write Hebrew better than any of us. And already most of his answers are understandable and logical even in Hebrew.
He is not able (yet) to produce a clear line between previous verses and verses from the Bible, in order to provide an "argument" that supports his interpretation. And that's okay too. He will get better at it later. But already his simplistic answers can bring value because they reveal to us additional perspectives, which we can reject or accept. He helps us expand our thinking.
How is it said in the 19 Psalms? "Of all my teaching I have been educated." There is something to learn from the Tron commentator as well. Smart teachers will use it to present their students with different viewpoints about the Bible and the Oral Torah, and to stimulate discussion regarding the logic behind each such viewpoint. At least, I hope they do, and I would be happy to attend such a class and see for myself how it is used in real time.
In the end, Commentary-Tron is currently a tool for promoting learning, understanding and thinking around the Oral Torah. I would like to think that in this way he joins the same tradition that is described in the Mishnah. And as one of the interesting commentators says - "Mechanic from Netanya" - about the same Tractate of the Fathers, chapter 1, part 1 -
"So, this whole thing is about how the Torah was passed down from generation to generation... it's all about tradition and keeping the knowledge alive, you see?"
You are welcome to try Commentator-Tron In this link.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
