Post Rabbinic Post

OK, so you graduated college and you think you'll never be bothered by another boring lecture. But there I go and shatter your illusions. You may kick my post-erior later. My-bad (I can't believe I just wrote that). I wrote a clearly dry and academic post chock full of important historical facts presented in a manner that will rival your best insomniac-curing professor. He knows his stuff but No-Doz, Red Bull, and an IV caffeine drip can't help you focus. And still you complain?!? I long for the days of that foggy glazed-look daze.

When I write a post like that I really am taking notes for myself, summarizing the major points of concern so that one day I can look back and get the whole gestalt without the fluff. Now I'm tempted to summarize that post so that your ADHD minds can get the point and move on.

So here goes. Torah ain't what you think. It's not a unified work and it has undergone major evolutionary/revisional changes over time. Judaism of first temple monarchy had different theology and concerns than second temple priestly rule. And varying and competing schools of thought merged or were rejected in a long process that leads us to what we practice today- a Judaism guided by the 'wise' interpretation of our ruling Rabbis (not priest and certainly not king).

The point was that evolution of religion was based on who was in power. Power as much as theology has determined the direction of our religion. And the winners get to tell their story.

So what do we do with this knowledge? Should this change anything we do? Well that's up to you. Some will reject religion as propaganda and a means of population control while others will accept that we are part of a long chain of good people searching for, but not always finding, the perfect unquestionable truth. And in what direction do we wish to see our religion heading? We were to be a light unto nations so should we move away from our insular nature and aim for more universal ideals? In the end we each have to find the best balance for ourselves.

For all you seekers out there, "Pilgrim, in your journey you may travel far, for pilgrim it's a long way to find out who you are..."- Enya.

Now I'm quoting Enya, kill me now!

Road to Rabbinic Rule

Two years ago the now defunct Recovering Orthodox Jew blogger recommended I read The Roots of Rabbinic Judaism by Gabriele Boccaccini. It was well worth the time and gave me a greater understanding of the political, social, and especially the religious dynamics in play during the Second temple period (up to Daniel) that eventually evolved into Rabbinic Judaism. I'm leaving out the fascinating historical events and intrigue. Read the book.

A very interesting thing happened when the exiles of Babylonia returned to build the second temple. Members of the Davidic dynasty came along but soon disappeared. Essentially, the main priestly families (House of Zadok) became the spiritual AND political leaders (in place of the king). History was reworked to show how the covenant of kingship between God and David was really only contingent on their faithfulness and could really be abrogated (and thus they no longer have a right to rule). They re-imagined David's role as the one who paved the way for the (new) legitimate rulers, Zadokite priests, to rule via the temple his son built. They traced their divine right to rule back to Sinai, considering Moses role as one who would establish Aaron's line as the legitimate rulers. And they traced their lines specifically to Phinehas, giving him a special covenant to rule as high priest which they then used to exclude from service all the priests who had remained in the land while they were in exile. Thus, they consolidated their power through exclusion and political/historical propaganda.

Ezekiel was the earliest document that disqualified most Levites accusing then of sinfulness while focusing on the faithfulness of the Zadokites who were the PROPER sons of Levi to serve as legitimate priests. Ezekiel also restricted and altered the cultic position of the king. Originally king offered sacrifices, blessed the people, wore priestly ephod, nominated priests (who were, at that time, considered his officials). Now the king was relegated to the status of a patron of the cult.
Chronicle's rewriting emphasizes the providential role Davidic monarchy played in establishment of Zadokite rule.

It was during the second temple period and for centuries after, that the Zadokites achieved leadership role as both priests and political power.The Zadokite/priestly theology based itself on the covenantal relationship between God and man. The stability of divine order as they imagined it was in jeopardy if the covenant was not upheld. They imagined a divine order of creation establishing boundaries of time (sacred & holy days), space (sacred geography centered at Jerusalem temple), and society (hierarchy of Zadokite high priests, then Aaronite, then Levites, male Jews, women/slaves, gentiles, clean, and unclean animals). If Jews followed God's law, God agreed to constrain Himself according to the parameters of the covenant.

If man followed the Mosaic law as interpreted by them, reward follows. If a person sinned, punishment follows. However everyday experience doesn't bare out this equation. Good suffer, innocent die, a charitable person's life is cut short contrary to the teachings of the sages. Concurrently there was another competing theological ideology which we now call Sapiential Judaism. They were the skeptics like Jonah, Job, & Qoheleth who recognized the faulty equation of the Zadokites. In their view, God could not be limited by covenantal constraints and that experience teaches us about a very different reality.

Not everyone agreed with the priestly view. But these Sapiential/wisdom theologians did eventually attempt to find a way to reconcile experience with the dominant religious power, the priests. Zadokite, Enochic and Sapiential were distinct until early Hellenistic period until the balance was broken between religious and secular with the Ptolemaic tax-farming that gave actual political power to those able to find economic advantage. In 3rd cent. BCE, the economically and politically powerful Tobiad family forced compromise and the Zadokites accepted basics of Sapiential Judaism. Tobit and Ben Sira paved the path to rapprochement between Sapiential/Wisdom and Torah. Over time, Sapiential philosophy gave up some of its cosmopolitan, universal ideas to find rapprochement with the Zadokites while the Zadokites allowed room for morality, ethics, and charity to be criteria for faithfulness and worship (aside from their own agenda of priestly power).

I find this reconciliation between skeptics and fundamentalists to be very fascinating and perhaps instructive, especially considering what happened to other groups who could not reconcile with the mainstream. Unfortunately an opportunity was lost with this reconciliation. During the 3rd cent BCE, there was a high level of integration with the Hellinistic culture. Gods were demythologized and considered hero so that attending a festival would not be considered to have worshipped idolatry. There was actually a chance for Judaism to become inclusive monotheism.

It was during this period that Qoheleth was written. It denied that humans have the power to influence the times decided by God (thereby limiting his omnipotence). In the same way we can't comprehend the plans of a king because we are not privy to the whole picture so to with God's plan. Qoheleth's answer is submission to the covenant without expecting the wisdom to understand the ways of the Lord.

Other competing groups like the Samaritans were successfully cast out from the fold and are no longer recognized by the Jews as Jews. The same is true of the Enochic Judaism group. They also had pondered the problem of the existence of evil in this world. God is truly good so evil could not have emanated from Him. Instead, they created a theology based on a rebellion in heaven, fallen angels who corrupted and contaminated humanity. Only in the end of days when this creation is destroyed and a totally new creation occur, will true order be restored to the world. The Enochians could not reconcile their theology with the Zadokites, eventually they became Essenes and finally split altogether with the abandonment of ritual (loss of ethnicity) and became Christians.

The Maccabbean revolt was another stage in the evolution of Rabbinic Judaism. Daniel incorporated SOME of the Enochic theology. Suffering was now explained as originating from God but the innovation here was describing collective vs. individual punishment. The Jewish people had free will and sinned. In his view, sin requires many generation to achieve atonement for the groups unfaithfulness but the individual still can experience his personal justice when he is judged for his own faithfulness to the covenant in the afterlife. But during his life he will experience collective punishment and testing of his will. After the required period, if people are righteous and repent, God's forgiveness will follow, ushering in a glorious time with a restoration of the original Divine order.

Daniel's ideas of resurrection, end of times, and final judgment were allowed to merge with Zadokites once they downplayed the apocalyptic part and denied him status as a prophet. Daniel's innovation of collective vs individual punishment allowed for the creative reinterpretation of Zadokite texts. The creativity was on an intellectual and literary level that eventually led to the Mishnah and idea of an oral law!

The Rabbis of the Mishnah later came along and took over the role as the legitimate leaders. They created a hereditary line that avoided Aaron and his priestly descendants (tracing back toMoshe and Joshua) and showed that the leadership role would not be an inherited one like the priests had. So Davidic dynastic rule was trumped by Zadokite priestly rule in the second temple which was later assumed by the rabbis. Kings to Priests to Rabbis, oh my! Each one re-imagining or reworking or rewriting the texts to justify their legitimacy, advocate their theological perspective, and find meaning in the political, religious, and social order.

Check out Holy Hyrax for a nice post on suffering.

In Golf We Trust?

As I trudged through The Brother’s Karamazov, I began to contemplate God. God is infinite and so it seems are the words in this novel. Yet it made me pause for some self-reflection.

People are swept along with the trends of the time. Things that are fashionable achieve not only legitimacy but achieve a foothold in the mind. They become sought after; they become the focus of a person’s desires. In fact, the individual is so influenced by these cultural trends that such a person convinces himself that this is truly what he wants and what would make him happy. Take for example golf. As a child, I had no interest in putting such a ball around and neither did any of my friends. But sure enough when country-club-awareness manifested suddenly everybody loved golf. The doctors and lawyers loved it so much they couldn’t get enough. I suppose after a while anything can grow on you but my point is that these people in all likelihood convinced themselves that they liked golf and so they ultimately did. I am not the type that specifically rejects the popular culture whether to make a bold statement of individuality or to play the rebel. If I like what is trendy I follow and if not I don’t let societal trends hold sway over me.

I bring this up as a self-check with respects to my choice of literature. I have read some very intriguing ideas from Richard Elliot Friedman where he incorporated concepts from Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. Those ideas led me to read The Brother’s Karamazov. I have already mentioned how insufferably long the book is yet I began convincing myself that I must like it because those I respect like it and because the literati consider it a masterpiece. There are certainly grand ideas I do appreciate but it’s too damn long. If you can’t get your point across in 5 minutes, you have lost your audience (or at least me).

So why did these authors write soooo much? 100 years ago before TV or the Internet, people must have had way too much time on their hand. To eliminate the rampant ennui, Dostoyevsky and Dickens and whole cadre of others generated works of fiction grossly disproportional to what was necessary to expound plot and idea. Perhaps, people read the books over weeks at a time, chapter after chapter acting in much the same manner as we watch the long-running mini-series we now so look forward to. This drawn out process allowed for reflection on ideas and discussion with peers. Oh, how the reader must have eagerly anticipated another super-sized novel with their yet to be super-sized fries.

Then again, maybe the authors were paid by the word or perhaps possessed verbal diarrhea. And now, we are all made to suffer the results.

Kabbalah After Forty

When I was somewhat younger, I took affront to the stipulation that Kabbalah should only be studied after the age of forty. I should be able to grasp these grand and deep concepts as surely as I had grasped philosophy or physics in university. Truth be told, this was more an exhibition of arrogance than a real desire to learn Kabbalah.

Now, although, I am not yet forty but rapidly approaching, I have found occasion to reconsider the dictate regarding age requirements for study of Kabbalah. At first glance it is easy to equate age-appropriateness to learning. I see this on every assignment that my children receive; I make a mental note whether it is really within the realm of their capabilities as such. But consider the fine minds that roam the halls of Columbia University or some other great college. Surely those inclined to seek a greater depth of knowledge possess the skills necessary to acquire it. Yet, I have come to believe this is not entirely so; for age and life experience are not only the greatest teachers but they provide the template with which to evaluate the validity of all acquired knowledge.

The impetus for these thoughts stem from reading The Brother’s Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Had I been forced to read this during college, I would have suffocated on the length of the book and many of the amazing insights into life, relationships and the human mind would have been entirely lost on me. Or perhaps, they would be entirely abstract and make less of an impression upon me. Having weathered many a storm in my personal life and profession, I found many of Dostoyevsky’s ideas more than just words on a page or belonging to some abstract piece of fiction but rather an echo of many of my own feelings never before articulated. Here and there, a stray sentence would catch my attention and my eyes widen and my head slowly nods in enlightened recognition.

Then again my approach to reading has changed as well. I look for insight beyond the simple text or plot. Centuries ago scientists used to think the eyes sent out ‘feelers’ or rays to analyze the world around. But we have since come to learn NOT that the eyes tell the brain what to see but the brain tells the eyes what to look for (and that’s why we are fooled by optical illusions). Perhaps we see what we want to see.

So perhaps the impetuosity of youth stems from a lack of perspective attained only through life’s lessons. Through the myopic lens of inexperience, the deeper lessons of Kabbalah or any greater work of literature and the powerful messages expressed in allegory or in fable would become distorted, missed entirely, taken literally, or just plain misinterpreted. It was that very fear that the sages cautioned against early study of Kabbalah.

Why Oral?

PBS had an excellent series ‘On Faith and Reason with Bill Moyers,’ which can be viewed on pbs.org. He interviewed Margaret Atwood who made an interesting observation. She asked, “why didn't Jesus write down the Book of Jesus?” Jesus didn’t write anything. Now aside from the fact that like most people of the time he was probably illiterate, there is something deeper here. Margaret Atwood states that “once you write something down it becomes a permanent fixture and it becomes dogma.”

He intended his word as oral tradition, which would “have to be transmitted by one person to another person or group of people. So it is the breath, which is the spirit, the spirit moving from one person to another. And … every time the spirit moves it takes a different shape… He wanted to keep it fluid rather than causing it to be fixed and permanent and therefore unchanging.”

It made me consider the fact that the original idea of the Jewish oral law was meant specifically NOT to be written down. In that way, concerns regarding the evolution of Jewish society and religion could be addressed in a more dynamic manner. Once things are written, they tend to become dogma and as such become the primary source for evaluating whatever issue has arisen. This may limit the scope of solution because new challenges had not originally been accounted for. It may also require ingenious or even incredulous solutions because of the limitation of working within the framework of the written word.

I’ve wondered how much we saved by writing the oral law. Its preservation has allowed us a greater insight into the issues and ideas of the time. Yet, in a sense, it also seemed to freeze the evolution of our religion to a time long past. Rabbis are now afraid to challenge old (and possibly outdated ideas or practices) lest they be excommunicated. Their simple response being that they have no SOURCE for alternative action.

Yet even so I have witnessed first hand an unnamed great rabbi preach mainstream stringent law to the congregation while at the same time finding anyway possible (still within the bounds of halachah) to address the sensitivities and unique requirements of the individual. I don’t believe this is normative but I guess the greater you are, the greater your confidence in approaching really challenging issues. In The Challenge of Creation, Rabbi Slikin shows how religious thought has evolved with change in science. There is a precedent for progressive thinking. It is unfortunate that the masses in general are not prepared for such bold moves or even aware that such precedents do exist. Some fear the slippery slope and the danger to Judaism while others just live in a world without shades. To them, it is all black or white. It must all be factually true or else everything they know falls apart.

In any event, Margaret Atwood correctly concludes that most people “much prefer the letter” of the law rather than the spirit. Humans seek concrete sources and an authoritative, ‘unchallengeable’, definitive basis for their actions. Unfortunately, people get bogged down in the literal meaning without grasping deeper concepts or applications. In doing so, they become trapped in a literal mode that in turn justifies their agenda at the expense of the spirit of the law as well as the inhibition of that spirit.

I say, "It’s time for our spirit to evolve." Literally!