Mixed Messengers And Messages

                                                                         

It was stated in the review of Jewish Law begun last week that although its primary source was the Torah, there were sometimes disagreements over what the words meant and what the law was in particular cases. Complicating this was the fact that there were different communities whose practices often did not coincide. These resulted from different opinions and rulings that occurred in communities cut off from each other. The experience didn't always parallel that of the translation of the Torah into Greek.ⁱ

And that's fine, because the control over the meaning of the Law was given by G-d to man.ⁱⁱ Man's word is law and to be accepted even if it seems to conflict with G-d's.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, diametrically opposite conclusions are necessary for our understanding as long as the intent of the disputants is virtuous and meant to glorify the Law.^iv The same principle applies when a definitive ruling hasn't been made.^v

Yet not all those who fashioned themselves Jews accepted these interpretations. Several groups, including the Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, and Karaites rejected interpretations by the Rabbis. They were, to different degrees, literalists or, to use current terminology, “fundamentalists,” for whom only strict observance of the words of the Torah was acceptable – not the ideas of interpreters. But there also were groups completely unaware of the oral law, having separated from Israel before it was fully formulated. They could never have rejected Rabbinic teachings because they never learned them. If they have not followed the Law as we know it, the cause is ignorance not arrogance, and they cannot violate what they never learned. (There is a somewhat similar situation in regard to those who were never taught Judaism's laws. Those raised without Jewish training – even if they are adults – are viewed as uneducated children rather than as sinners.)

Even those who accepted both the written and the oral law were sometimes forced to alter their view or practices. Anti-Semitic groups pressured the Jews to change portions of the Talmud that were viewed as heretical or insulting. Scrolls, books, and the wisdom and interpretations in them, were often destroyed, or sections deleted, with that portion of G-d's word often irretrievably lost. And forced conversions played a major role in leading Jews to accept teachings foreign to them, or at least to mouth, and sometimes eventually accept them, even if they tried to remain observant in secret. In those situations (and even moreso with voluntary assimilation) both G-d's words and man's interpretations of those words, were changed forever.

But for the most part, and for the majority, the word of the Rabbis was (the) law. The commonly held view was that everyone should study the Law, but the final word belonged to a select group. That wasn't always the case however. The Rabbis were cautioned not to enact ordinances that would not be followed. They had the right to do so because the prerogative of interpretation was theirs, but even though they “spoke” “the word of G-d,” they were careful not to decree what wouldn't be observed, for by doing so they would turn their fellow Jews into sinners. (From time to time it was necessary to rescind a Rabbinic ordinance^vi when it became clear that there were many who were not able to follow it.)

The current expression of this problem is the dispute between those who favor chumras^vii and those who favor kulas.^viii The latter fear that a strict interpretation will not be followed and the Law permits leniency, while the former are more concerned about, in addition to the specific law, the “slippery slope” which will lead to a lack of observance of the Law in general. In fact, they are convinced that a large number of Jews – indeed, the majority – have already lapsed into apostasy.^ix Certainly there are different streams in Judaism – even among the minority who consider themselves observant – and they are quick to question each other's opinions and practices. And they always view those who are less strict than themselves as moving away from the religion into which they were born.^x

But that's not all. There's also hero worship. Not literal worship – certainly not among observant Jews – but in terms of following the examples of those whom you admire. Often the goal is just to be in style or to be “in,”^xi but not always. Those who do so are usually seeking to improve their position vis-a-vis the others around them. They want to conform, even if it's to “the lowest common denominator.” It's not a practice to be followed.

A more “Torah true” version of this phenomenon, however, is based on the goal of improving themselves rather than their position. And it does not always require speech. According to some rabbinic legends, a talmid (student) can learn the will of Hashem merely by imitating his Rebbe. He is learning G-d's words and wishes by imitating the acts of the pious. It's a silent form of interpretation and teaching, but it's as valid an act of interpretation as one spoken or written. Even if “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” though, flattery is not the goal, and the imitation is seen as pursuit of the holy. Whether or not the legends have any substantial basis, they attest to the view that the one who is wise “learns from all men.”^xii In the words of Rabbi Hirsch, “it is primarily the knowledge of the Torah that stamps a person as wise.” And from whom is it better to learn Torah than your Rebbe? Whether by his words or his deeds.

Finally there is the anomaly that, as strange as it may seem, “Jewish Law” may be written by non-Jews. Certainly that is the case in terms of forced changes in the Jewish holy books, but it doesn't always require pressure. Dina d'malchuta dina – “the law of the land is the law” – has long been the doctrine we follow.^xiii And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes even supersede what the Rabbis have taught – they can be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem.^xiv

It's clear that the law, if not an ass, is certainly convoluted. And Jewish Law, believed to be the word of G-d – a law that has been interpreted by our predecessors, altered by the pressure of those who ruled us, and, on occasion, written by non-Jews – is especially complicated. At least the law we follow: the law decreed by our Rabbis. The Torah tells us that these rulings should govern our practice and, at least in part, it results from the principle that we honor conflicting opinions and consider them all the words of G-d. So that's what we do. Yet it makes many people uncomfortable and is for them an argument for rejection of the law or for fundamentalism. But those choices are even more asinine.

For that's the beauty of the Talmud. It preserves minority views, and considers all perspectives that have the goal of honoring  Hashem to be in conformity with His words and with His Law. So if your intent is righteous, your actions will be as well.

Next episode: “Silly Season” – This, too, will pass.

i      See endnote number xii in last week's essay.

ii     There are several statements of this principle, for example the Torah, in D'varim (Deuteronomy) 17.9, teaches us that we should obey the authorities of our own times and Bava Metzia 59b makes it clear that a majority of authorities is more important in deciding the law than a voice from heaven or miracles.

iii     That's not to say that anyone is free to make up the rules as he goes along. But when recognized authorities on Halakhah accept an interpretation or tradition at variance with prior teachings, the new ruling has to be taken very seriously.

iv     See Avot 5.20 (Babylonian Talmud). Only one side of the argument, of course, is correct but, as Rabbi Samson Hirsch pointed out: “ ... both views will have permanent value because ... both parties will have served to shed new light on the issue under debate ...” The actual decision, moreover, will result from the views of a majority of mortals, not on any divine perspective.

v      For example, in Berakhot 27a (Babylonian Talmud).

vi     In view of the idea that Hashem's laws are eternal, it does not seem in keeping with them that the Rabbis, who had the right, by their interpretations and rulings, to decide G-d's laws, could change or withdraw those rulings. Nonetheless, it is sometimes necessary.

vii    Stringencies

viii    Lenient interpretations.

ix     One of the problems with this approach is that it means that previous generations, those who preceded the new strict ruling and, thus, didn't observe it, violated was now considered to be “the word of G-d.”

x      And those who are stricter as fanatics, more interested in the letter of the law than its spirit.

xi     Some wear the sneakers of a sports hero, some mimic the political views of a favorite move star, some use the slang of their gang leader.

xii     Avot 4.1

xiii    According to Graff in Dina de-Malkhuta Dina in Jewish Law, the principle was first stated in the third century (CE) by Samuel, although it is likely that earlier statements by Jeremiah (29.7) and Nehemiah (9.37) played a part in it, as did Rabbi Hanina's declaration in Avot 3.2, “Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would swallow each other alive.” Although these statements were supportive of the government in general – and we still offer a prayer for the government as part of our Shabbat service – this support probably eventuated in a doctrine supporting individual laws of that government.

xiv    See, for example, Bava Batra 54b-55a (Babylonian Talmud) in which the validity of Persian law is affirmed even if in is in disagreement with Jewish law.