Rationalizing The Rabbis

Who can know the “mind” of Hashem?

Who can understand His “wishes?”

We were given a bare-bones Torah which needed explication; a written law in need of the oral law. But the oral law, passed on for centuries from person to person, was, as we observe in the game of “Telephone,” sometimes different at the end from the beginning.

When it comes to the understanding of specific halakhot we frequently come across differing opinions, often with conclusions that are diametrically opposed. [For examples of some of the problems, see the ENDNOTE.] Although we may be taught to follow the majority opinion, it may be unclear how that opinion was reached. And that opinion may reflect different lines of reasoning. They may come to the same conclusions but by distinct paths which may leave us with important questions left unanswered regarding situations which revolve around the route rather than the destination. We are still in need of our rabbis to guide us along these routes. But with all the disagreements that already exist, perhaps they are subject to similar variations in their opinions.

According to our tradition and practices, an individual follows all the views of a particular rabbi irrespective of his leniency or strictness. In practice, however, one checks with the rabbi most likely to give the opinion being sought. In fact, though it is not proper to do so, some people will even “shop” for opinions, choosing, after speaking with several different rabbis, to accept the opinion that they sought initially.

How have we arrived at this state? Why are there different opinions if rabbinic law reflects the teachings of Moshe at Sinai, and what Moshe was taught and what he taught were the words of Hashem? Are different rabbis conveying different words in Hashem’s name (sorry about the redundancy)? Can contradictory rulings all represent the “views” of Hashem? And what should we do when faced with our own uncertainty and with judgments which make no sense to us?

It is important to recognize at the outset that our quandary is not new. The rabbis have always been cognizant of discrepancies between opinions. Various rules have been set out to help guide us when we must make choices. For example, we follow Hillel rather than Shamai, “the rabbis” rather than an individual. That kind of bottom-line help is certainly appreciated, but it begs the question of why there are disagreements in the first place. Here, too, the rabbis attempt to deal with the problem rather than ignore it. Their solution, however, is not always one with which we are comfortable. What is often their approach is to solve the problem by denying its existence. Rather than admit that one teacher disagrees with another, an attempt is made to show that the two opinions are identical, but apply to situations which differ. Thus they cannot be compared, and the two rabbis would agree if all the circumstances were the same.

It doesn’t always work, though. Sometimes one rabbi will state that he disagrees with another, and it is difficult to explain away what was acknowledged by one of the principals to be a different opinion. It is still possible to state that one did not fully understand the position of the other or the situation about which he spoke -- that if he had known all the facts he would have decided similarly -- but it is more difficult. To do so is to cast doubt upon the new “authority,” to suggest that we are smarter or know more than he. If so, what is the standing of other rulings of his when we disagree with them? Should we follow our own views having already determined that he is subject to error?

There is no answer except to accept the fact that there is no answer, and to follow the Biblical dictum that we abide by the rabbis of our times. It's not always satisfying but, at least for the present, it's all we have. And it's the tradition.

========================================

ENDNOTE

The usual solution to the problem is to eliminate any conflicts. For example:

Situations are different and the two Rabbis who apparently disagreed were discussing different cases. “The two opinions are really the same. The circumstances were different. In one case …”

“The Vilna Gaon” says to delete ...” -- There appear to be times when the Rabbis, faced with something that makes no sense to them or is a contradiction, simply delete what they consider in error or say that it means something else -- occasionally the opposite of what it says.

         “Here you’re talking about ...” -- There are times when the Rabbis explain something not obvious by describing a situation which is not even suggested in the text but can be made to fit and solve a problem not otherwise soluble.

         “It means the opposite.”

         “He must have meant ...”

         “He should have said ...”

         Switch the views of Sages to be consistent with other statements

September 29, 2016

M M & M, M M And More

                                                                     

No, it's not silly season yet. It's just that there's a little more I wanted to say on the subject of Jewish Law that didn't fit conveniently into the two previous essays, and rather than simply ignore it, I thought I'd throw it in in an addendum. Admittedly, some of it may be viewed as off the mark, but I'll take that risk.

I mentioned that Jewish Law, given us by Hashem, had many “co-authors.” Some was as a result of a straightforward attempt to make the understanding of G-d's words easier. To achieve this worthy goal, many interpreted and expounded on them. Unfortunately the interpretations were not always the same when more than one rabbi explained the meaning of a particular word or phrase. And, as is the case in the game of “Telephone,” the result after many transmissions often differed from the original. So if there was a party line and two or more different people started the process, the results in different communities might be markedly divergent, leading to different traditions. But, as we have discussed, if all were reached in an attempt to transmit G-d's words faithfully, they were all valid. Intent played a large part in the process.

Mentioned in addition were the ability of the Rabbis to cancel laws which were beyond the ability of the people to follow. Because the laws they canceled were laws that they, themselves, enunciated, they weren't really rescinding Hashem's words, only their own understanding of them – but that tells us that some of their initial interpretations may have been erroneous.

Also discussed was the “formation” of Jewish law by non-Jews, through mechanisms that we would view from our perspective as illegitimate – the destruction and alteration of texts and the persecution of believers – and legitimate (indeed the adherence of Noachide Law) – the establishment of legal systems in the nations in which Jews lived. Since we are taught that it is a requirement that (when they don't contradict Jewish law, and occasionally when they do) we are obliged to follow the laws of the land. It was our understanding that in order to follow G-d's words it was incumbent on us to follow laws crafted by non-Jews.

What I didn't mention in the prior essays is that in a way we can all add to the body of Hashem 's law. While the making of vows is discouraged, once made, a vow carries the weight of law – we are required to fulfill it. In a sense we are creating a 614^th mitzvah for ourselves – more than the 613 given in the Torah, G-d's law.

We can also impose requirements on ourselves by our actions whereby those that we've repeated may become obligatory, requiring a Bet Din (court) to relieve us of the responsibility as would be the case with an oath. In both those cases, however, the “law” is self imposed and is only incumbent on the individual himself. Nonetheless, it has the power of G-d's word because he has commanded us to keep our obligations.

I finished yesterday by saying that everything depended on intent. Included in that view are both the laws imposed on us by Hashem and by humans – Jewish or non-Jewish – and the same is true of those we impose on ourselves. I don't mean to suggest that it's all right to make up the laws as we go along, or to follow any teachings that do so or are otherwise outside of Halakhah, however good our intent, but to do our best in following the Halakhic laws – whatever their origin.

And if that's not the criterion, at least we tried.

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.

Mixed Messengers

    
                                                                                 

“... the law is a [sic] ass ...”ⁱ That was Mr. Bumble's assessmentⁱⁱ in a particular case involving marital law, but, according to many observers, it is an accepted principle with far wider application. Nonetheless, it's binding on us, even if we are ignorant of it. Even the legal text we laymen see is usually in small print or too long and complex (by design) for us to understand.

Far be it from me to cast the first stone.ⁱⁱⁱ I won't judge, lest I be judged.^iv But the observance of the law can be very difficult for a number of reasons. Most important is that there are so many types of laws^v that we have to observe. We have local, state, and national laws of course, and even international laws.^vi And in addition there are religious laws (which I'll discuss shortly) and “Natural Law,” which was cited in the Declaration of Independence as one of the bases on which our society was founded,^vii since it was required for our “separate and equal station,” and had been denied us.

But I'd like to discuss religious law today. Specifically Jewish law, with which I'm most familiar.^viii First of all, it's important to establish its nature. According to the Christian Bible, “In the Beginning was the Word.”^ix Conceptually that may be similar to Jewish teaching in the meaning familiar to the Christian reader,^x but it is very different in terms of the meaning of the text itself. According to the Jewish understanding, the first being in human form (Adam) wasn't created until long after the first word, or more accurately words, existed. That was the Torah, which preceded the formation of the earth. The Torah, and some additional teachings (the “Oral Law”), were given to Moses and the Jewish People at Mount Sinai, and together what was given then are Hashem's^xi words and the basis of Jewish law.

Every time we read the Torah we say: “Not in any man do I trust.  Not on any angel do I rely,  only on the G-d of heaven Who is the G-d of truth, Whose Torah is truth and Whose prophets are true, in Him do I trust.” Clearly our obligation is to follow G-d's words and His Law.

That's straightforward enough, but there are many layers of the law that complicate the issue. One layer is based on the fact that following the Torah and related teachings wasn't always possible because some of the words needed definition, and some of the ideas required explanation.^xii For centuries there was an oral tradition that was used to clarify these points, but eventually it was reduced to writing – the Mishna – which was an interpretation^xiii of the original teachings. The Mishna itself, however, was opaque to many of the people and there developed an interpretation (the Gemora, and together they constitute the Talmud, which is usually printed with additional commentaries) for which a given was that all of it was the word of G-d. Thus the Rabbis whose thoughts appear in the Gemora focused on providing scenarios and explanations that justified all that had come before. And since the Talmud contained many apparent contradictions, some of the “explanations,” including the ideas that many of the words were missing or miscopied or inadvertently misattributed, were recorded along with the description^xiv of imaginative scenarios and distinctions that justified^xv what had been written before. Indeed, new interpretations continue to this day, all the while meant to be understood as clarifications of G-d's words.

Unfortunately, there are problems with this approach. The interpretations weren't always uniform. Some of the text and its application can be understood in different ways. For example, there is a story in the Talmud that illustrates this situation: A voice from Heaven declares, in response to an argument between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, “These and these are the words of the living God, and the law is according to the House of Hillel.”^xvi But having read that the House of Hillel was “right” and the House of Shammai “wrong,” we learn that that decision had nothing to do with their arguments but only their personal attributes.^xvii Thus, we learn, that the words of both sides were equally true and Hashem's words, themselves, can be understood in a multiplicity of ways, and different understandings may be acceptable even now, with varying opinions and rulings about the law issued by different authorities.^xviii

Even more confusing, with dispersion of the Jews all over the world, the different interpretations and approaches have led to the development of different traditions, customs, and practices – even different prayers and prayer books. This may be the case on a “macro” level,^xix or in a small community or synagogue, or somewhere in between. They may all be different, but that doesn't mean that they aren't all valid.

But there are more problems – some which might be more confusing than the ones raised already. For example, a rabbi can teach the law without saying a word. If he does, though, Man's word may take precedence over G-d's. But although G-d's laws are eternal, a ruling made by a man can be withdrawn or changed. And the laws of non-Jews can, according to Halakhah, sometimes supersede what the Rabbis have taught – be dispositive over Jewish Law, which is understood to be the teaching of Hashem. Fundamentalism and literalism are easy, but they don't represent the views of a majority of those who consider themselves Jews.

But I'll deal with those issues, and maybe some others, next week.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i     There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii     In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii    John 8.7

iv    Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v    I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x     Since most Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii   It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv   Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.  In fact, we're not even told what the dispute was about.  It seems the views of the two sides were irrelevant.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix    For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers And Messages” – Don't believe everything you read.

i       There are those who see the problem as one caused by those who write, interpret, and enforce the law. And especially by the misuse created by those who glory in its distortion for their own benefit: the lawyers – those who practice the law. As Shakespeare put it in Henry VI, Part II, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers.”

ii       In Charles Dickens's “Oliver Twist.”

iii     John 8.7

iv     Matthew 7.1– sort of.

v      I'm not referring to physical laws like gravity, nor economic laws like the law of diminishing returns. They're not laws that we can violate very easily.

vi    Even though such regulations are usually reserved for nations, an individual may be held accountable for, among other things, crimes against humanity.

vii    The Declaration uses the term “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G-d” when referring to Natural Law. It refers to some form of universal law that governs our morality. In theory we all know what it is and what rights it guarantees us. In theory.

viii   Though I'm hardly an expert in the field and, no doubt, there are many who will disagree with my take.

ix     It's all Greek to me, but the “Word” John used was Logos (λόγος), which seems to have indicated that it actually represents Jesus. At least that's the way some of the Church Fathers understood it. See John 1.1.

x      Since Christians understand G-d and Jesus to be identical.

xi     G-d's

xii    There is a tradition that seventy learned Rabbis in Greece were instructed to translate the Hebrew text into Greek. They were put in separate rooms, yet the translations were identical. The idea, in addition to a miracle having occurred, was that there was a single agreed and universal understanding of what the Torah – the word and the law of G-d – said, an understanding common to all.

xiii    It was considered to be merely a literal statement rather than an interpretation, and accurately reflected G-d's words and intent.

xiv    Creation?

xv    And some of what they considered wrong but could not explain away they simply declared erroneous.

xvi    Eruvin 13b in the Babylonian Talmud.

xvii   We're told that members of the House of Hillel were gentle and humble – not that their interpretation was any more correct and in keeping with the words of G-d than that of the House of Shammai.

xviii   This has led to “shopping” for a rabbi who will make the ruling which the questioner had decided he want, and will allow him to ignore other rulings which he may not want. It is not an acceptable practice.

xix     For example Israeli vs. Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs Oriental.