|
|
A Cultural History of the Jews
Tzvi Howard Adelman, Jerusalem
adelman@macam98.ac.il
Week 9
Halakhic Texts and Cultural History
Introduction
A joke to put this week's subject into perspective:
A Jew wanted to build a sukkah so he went to the rabbi to ask how.
The rabbi said to read the relevant potions of the Torah, Rashi,
the Mishnah, and the Gemarah. So the Jew followed these instructions
but the Sukkah fell down. When confronted with the problem, the
rabbi responded, "Tosafot had the same problem."
In following up on last week's presentation in which I tried to
show that the Jewish experience, including halakhic discourse,
cannot be reduced to a common ethic, this week I would like to
provide a more systematic introduction to the dynamics of halakhic
development, meaning Jewish law. In this lecture I would like
to accentuate the view that there is no "Ha-halakhah," The Halakhah,
and that the tradition cannot be reduced to "Jewish law says,"
but rather it consists of a multiplicity of voices that reflect
varying trends among the Jews over the ages.
In other words, halakhah is a valuable source of Jewish social
history that reflects the development of Jewish culture. Halakhic
literature, therefore, should be seen as a branch of Jewish literature,
part of the cultural heritage of the Jewish people and not the
preserve of any self-appointed arbiters of Jewish law.
In fact, I believe that one of the goals of non-religious, secular,
or liberal Jews as well as members of other religions seriously
interested in Judaism should be the development of the skills
to read halakhic texts. Such skills are important for several
reasons: 1) They are necessary to have access to the primary documents
of Jewish development throughout the ages. 2) They provide a key
to understanding and contributing to contemporary issues such
as the agunah, moser, and rodef, (the chained wife, the informer,
and the deadly pursuer) concepts which still determine the course
of Jewish history. 3) They offer a common language for all Jews
and others to enter such discussions as full knowledgeable participants,
rather than abdicating their participation to those with traditional
rabbinic training and the often accompanying political preferences.
These texts are not easy even for those who know Hebrew : 1) They
are written in a complex style which includes elliptical snippets
of Hebrew and Aramaic quotations from a vast array of unidentified
texts with a heavy admixture of abbreviations. 2) These texts
are often published in what is called Rashi script, a rabbinic
type font actually designed by Christian typesetters. 3) They
assume that the meaning of concepts are fixed and that all agree
upon such usage.
Nevertheless, there are ways to get around these obstacles: 1)
There are translations and commentaries available for some texts.
2) There are articles and books which have surveyed various topics
with analytical precision and varying degrees of critical distance.
3) There are computer programs for scanning the literature, some
of it in translation.
Thus I am proposing a course for examining halakhic literature
that is not aimed at study of it for its own sake or to practice
an observant Jewish life-style, but to understand a literary genre
as a cultural process. I do think, however, that some of the methods
proposed here may be of interest to those in these other categories
as well but they are not the intended recipients.
In short, following the thought of the late Isadore Twersky of
Harvard and the Talne Hasidim, there are two forces at work in
halakhic literature: commentary and codification. What this means
is that as rabbis gather halakhic materials both in the act of
gathering itself as well as the fixed text that is created immediately
produces the object for further discussion and elaboration. Thus
it is safe to say that no view enters halakhic literature without
being subjected to a vast amount of scrutiny. Anybody, therefore,
who presents a view isolating it from this dynamic context is
misrepresenting the system. Ultimately, however, in order to practice
Judaism one has to do just that, remove pieces to create a meaningful
construct. However, as scholars of the system our purpose is not
to take these constructs as representing the entire system.
Indeed, both to confuse matters but also to highlight the basic
dynamic there are two simultaneous systems of codification and
commentary at work in Jewish literature which occasionally intersect,
but often do not. These are the systems built around the Bible
and around the Mishnah.
The Bible
The biblical system has its roots in the codification, or canonization,
of the Torah. The subsequent books of the Bible, collected, according
to the Jewish canon, in the prophetic and hagiographic sections
(the Writings), represent in part commentaries on the Torah. In
them the basic literary and legal themes are further developed,
whether it is Moses' role as a prophet serving as a template for
the life and teaching of later prophets or further developments
of the laws of the Sabbath or Passover. These works went through
a process of codification and the entire Bible then was subjected
to the ongoing commentary of the rabbis in the various midrashic
works during the first few centuries of the common era. Midrash,
often divided into halakhic and aggadic, legal and legendary,
develops around both legal and narrative aspects of the biblical
text. The various collections of midrash eventually were codified
as the text stabilized in the early middle ages, but then these
texts were subjected to commentary in the form of medieval Bible
commentary, which is as much an analysis of the biblical text
itself as it is a reexamination of the midrashim. Thus Rashi,
whom we have met several times in this course, provides us with
what appears to be a running commentary on the Bible, but is really
editing and translating the Targumim, the ancient Aramaic translations
and commentaries of the Bible, and the midrash, especially Midrash
Rabbah. Similarly, Ramban, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman of Spain provides
an extensive commentary of the Bible but also offers a running
critique of both Rashi and Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra of Spain. Thus
a page of Bible in the Jewish tradition contains all these commentators
and more, constituting a conversation across the generations.
At any point subsequent readers can join in and both select and
amplify comments that are of interest to them, continuing the
process of commentary and codification, often found in sermons
or divrei torah.
The Mishnah
Halakhic literature, which often has a biblical base, ultimately
is grounded in the Talmud, which is a complex collection of texts.
At its basic level the Talmud contains the Mishnah. The Mishnah,
one of the codifications of the earliest strata of rabbinic legal
teachings, those of the Tanaim, the authorities from the first
few centuries of the common era in Palestine, was edited there
in the third century by Judah Ha-Nasi. The Mishnah is important
not only for serving as the bedrock of the entire halakhic system,
but for setting the tone of its discourse. The Mishnah contains
conflicting traditions on most matters, attributed to the authority
of various sages by name or simply as the collective, "the sages
teach." Most of the Mishnah is not attributed to the authority
of biblical proof texts but to rabbinic sages. Hardly systematic,
in its six orders concepts are introduced with out being explained,
and much has to do with the cultic ritual of temple sacrifice,
long since destroyed or not yet reestablished.
***To illustrate many of the genres described here, in keeping
with our past practice, I will use examples from Leviant's Masterpieces
of Hebrew Literature because it constitutes a readily accessible
collection of translations.
Mishnah Rosh Hashana, chapters 1-4 (pp. 90-96):
The tractate begins with the concept that there is not one new
year's day but four, offering no biblical prooftexts, and the
rabbis cannot agree exactly when they fall. The second mishnah
deals not with the common matters of practice, but with reward
and punishment and includes a rare, explicit biblical quotation.
The Mishnah then describes the process by which the new month
is determined, mixing current practice with memories of what was
done while the Temple stood. The structure of the Mishnah here
then shifts by association to a discussion of who is qualified
to serve as a witness. At 1:7 there are blanket statements about
who is ineligible for which no proof is provided, except the analogy
to women being ineligible to witness without any reason being
offered, raising the question of whether this is a halakhic argument
or an extra-halakhic argument based on contemporary social conventions.
Chapter two contains a nice image of a chain of fires signaling
the new month originating in Jeruslam and culminating beyond Syria
on the way to Mesopotamia. While this image of bonfires is still
found each year on Lag Baomer (this week in fact), it is inconceivable
that the fire from the Mount of Olives could have been seen at
the next location, 27 miles away and from there to Caesaria on
the coast. The chapter ends with the famous story of Rabban Gamaliel,
the Patriarch, humiliating R. Joshua ben Chananiah forcing him
to violate the Day of Atonment that he had calculated differently
than the Patriarch, a classic tale showing how the rabbis asserted
their authority. Chapter four deals with the issue of blowing
the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that fell on the Sabbath. Although
most Jews take such a limitation for granted, the Mishnah offers
a range of rabbinic opinions and reasons.
The Talmuds
At the same time the Mishnah was codified, the teachings of the
Tanaim also were codified, sometimes with greater commentary,
sometimes with less, if not omitted altogether, in the Tosefta.
The Tosefta, however, was not the final act of codification or
commentary of tanaitic materials. Other tanaitic teachers were
preserved and presented in the Gemara, the subsequent rabbinic
commentary on the Mishnah. Here these teachings are called beraitot
and one of the main tasks of the Amoraim, the later generations
of rabbinic authorities both in Palestine and Babylonia, was to
reconcile beraitot with Mishnaic teachings, serving both as the
basis of a further codification of these materials as well as
the core of a new level of commentary. Two Gemaras were ultimately
produced, one in about the fifth century in Palestine, usually
called the Jerusalem Talmud, but, given that after the Bar Kokhba
revolt of 132-135 Jews did not live in Jerusalem but the Galilee,
such an epithet is hardly accurate. The other was produced in
about the sixth century in the rabbinic academies of Babylonia
and called the Babylonian Talmud.
The two talmuds are both vast and hardly organized in a systematic
manner. Discrete discussions, called sugyot, often follow identifiable
patterns of logic and organization, but the works themselves are
repetitions, contradictory as the discussion moves from legal
to legendary matters based on free association. Written in a combination
of Hebrew and Aramaic with no punctuation the study of Talmud
was not one that could be entered freely or casually. This created
the situation where study of the Talmud was the province of those
initiated into it and the meaning of the texts became what they
attributed to them, what modern literary critics would call a
hermeneutical circle, a situation where the borders of the text
and its explanation became totally blurred.
In recent years several advances have been made to liberate Talmud
study. Fundamental to such a change in perspective has been the
attempt by non-traditional Jews to study Talmud, not only at liberal
rabbinic schools but also in the university setting which has
also attracted non-Jewish scholars not necessarily committed to
the traditional meaning attributed to the text. In addition, dictionaries
and grammars of Aramaic have been developed to enable free inquiry
into the texts. Other aids include dictionaries of abbreviations
and talmudic concepts and modern translations and computer programs
which enable the text to be searched freely by those without years
of training. So there is now the Soncino Talmud providing an English
translation both in paper and on CD-ROM and the Steinsaltz translation
into modern Hebrew and English. Of particular interest are places
where the two provide different readings and punctuation, often
a question mark instead of an exclamation mark. A pioneer in the
attempt to provide modern readers with direct access to rabbinic
texts in their own terms is Jacob Neusner. His voluminous writings
include translations and explications of midrashic texts as well
as the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. He and his students
represent major advances in the introduction of the study of the
Talmud into the canons of western academic discourse.
***Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 30b-31a (Chapter 5) (Leviant, pp.
97-107) This extract from the Soncino Talmud is unfortunately
missing the notes at the bottom of each page which make it much
easier to follow the argument. Nevertheless, the text, a discussion
of prayer, begins with the Mishnah about establishing a proper
spiritual framework for prayer. The Gemara then launches into
a discussion where the attempt is made to root the mishnaic teachings
to biblical texts. As part of the discussion about establishing
the proper mental framework for prayer, an incident is mentioned
in which rabbis were getting too merry at a wedding so one of
them smashed a valuable cup to instill a more serious mood, perhaps
the talmudic basis for the continued custom of smashing a glass
at a wedding (now often a lightbulb). After further discussions
about the proper mood for prayer drawn from both beraitot and
amoraic teachings, the discussion turns to the story in 1 Samuel
about Hannah's appearance in the sanctuary to pray for a son.
For the rabbis of the Talmud, Hannah serves as a model for prayer,
a paradoxical position given that usually the rabbis do not even
require that a woman prays or allow a married woman to be alone
with another man.
Geonic Responsa
The codification of the Talmud provided a platform for further
commentators. This process began in Babylonia with an institution
known as Sheelot uteshuvot, Respona, Questions and Answers, or
pesakim, decisions. Jews, usually rabbis, from around the world
wrote to the rabbis of the academies to clarify various points
of explanation about the newly codified text. This vehicle of
commentary has preserved as a way for rabbis to provide both commentary
on matters of Jewish law as well as to codify various texts which
apply to a particular issue.
***A responsum by Sherira Gaon (906-1006), called Iggeret Rav Sherira
Gaon, provides a version of the history of rabbinic Judaism, tracing
developments through Midrash, Mishnah, Tosefta, beraitot, and
Talmud, addressed to Jacob ben Nissim ben Shahin of Kairouan in
987 (Leviant, pp. 274-278). The fundamental problem in the question
is that most of the rabbis named in the Mishnah are relatively
late, what is the basis for its antiquity. The answer is quite
fantastic: earlier rabbis are not mentioned by name in rabbinic
texts because they did not disagree with one another. This answer
solves not only the basic problem of the antiquity of the rabbinic
corpus, but asserts a unified, monolithic quality. Indeed, following
the answer further, Sherira asserts that the entire Talmud was
already known at the time of the destruction of the Temple in
the year 70, when Yohanan be Zakkai established his school at
Yavneh. Such a notion of a pre-existent corpus of rabbinic knowledge
undermines the notion of historical development based on controversy.
Talmudic Commentary
Also the process of commentary on the talmudic text continued during
the middle ages. The foremost commentator was the French Rashi,
whose exposition of the text fills one side of the margins of
the printed Talmud. The other side of the margins of the printed
Talmud are filled by Rashi's descendents the tosafists, or baalei
tosafot. Their commentaries, some of the most difficult texts
in Jewish literature, are devoted to reconciling differences between
Rashi and the text of the Talmud and the text of the Talmud and
contemporary Jewish practice. Thus the paradox is created that
the tosafists have gotten a bad reputation because of their exercises
in pilpul, causistry, literally meaning pepper, but in order to
understand subsequent developments in the discussion of Jewish
law it is necessary to understand the tosafists. In fact, when
later rabbis discuss the Talmud it is not the Talmud itself that
they are referring to but as it was understood by the tosafists.
This phenomenon in which subsequent levels of understanding replaced
the meaning of the text itself is found regularly in studies of
the Mishnah and the Talmud. For example, in the Soncino English
translation, the notes on the bottom of the page which look like
the literal glosses by the translators are in fact usually summaries
of Rashi and tosafists. Similarly in subsequent Jewish commentaries
on the Mishnah such as Ovadia Bartinoro, whose travel accounts
we have read, and the Blackman translation of the Mishnah regularly
base their explanations on the traditional understanding and not
the texts themselves. The hermeneutical circle reached its fullest
and most frozen stage of development in the Art Scroll series,
see the article by B. Barry Levy in Tradition 19 (1981) and the
subsequent waves of letters.
Early Codes of Jewish Law
Commentary on the Gemara became the object for subsequent codifications
of Jewish law. This process began early in Babylonia under the
leadership of the geonim, literally geniuses, the heads of the
rabbinic academies, with the production of early codes of Jewish
law such as the Sheiltot of Aha of Shabha (680-752), which significantly
maintains the word for questions, sheelot, in its title. This
work is the first post-talmudic rabbinic text attributed to a
specific named author. This Aramaic work, preserved in many editions
in the Cairo Geniza, contains material that antedates and contradicts
the Talmud, showing the richness of rabbinic material as illuminated
by the gaps between the codifcatory and the commentary processes.
The principle of organization of this code was to connect the
rabbinic material to verses in the Bible, often emphasizing an
ethical component, presenting what seems to have been a collection
of sermons delivered by Amoraim or Geonim. Saadia Gaon (882-942)
also produced a code of Jewish law. As the center of Jewish life
shifted from Babylonia westward, early code of Jewish law was
the precis of the Talmud, Sefer Hahalakhot or Halakhot Rabbati,
made by Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, the Rif (1013-1103) of Fez in northern
Africa, sometimes identified as the last gaon.. In this work Alfasi
prepared a code of Talmudic law still practiced and commentary
from various geonim. Subsequently some of the leading rabbis wrote
commentaries on it, creating a work central to all future codes
and commentaries of Jewish law produced in both the Islamic and
Christian worlds. Another early code of Jewish law was produced
by Samuel Halevi ibn Nagrela, Shmuel Hanagid (982/993-1056), a
Jewish politician, soldier, and Hebrew poet from Islamic Spain,
Sefer Hilkheta Gavrata.
Maimonides' Mishneh Torah
One of the major codes of Jewish law was produced by Maimonides,
Rambam (1135-1204), born in Islamic Spain, passed through the
land of Israel, and spent most of his life in Egypt, the Mishneh
Torah, an allusion to Deuteronomy 34:12, or the Yad Hazakah, the
Mighty Hand, based on the fact that the numerical value for hand,
14, is the number of books in his code. He began this Hebrew work
in 1168 and completed it in about 1178. Isidore Twersky, the world's
leading scholar on Maimonides' code identified five aspects of
the Mishneh Torah: 1) Maimonides used a clear mishnaic Hebrew
style; 2) Maimonides attempted his own system of classification
of Jewish law; 3) Although the format is codificatory, the contents
at times includes commentary, interpretation, exegesis, explanations,
and, contrary to conventional wisdom, even references to his sources;
4) Maimonides codified all laws from rabbinic Judaism, whether
they could be practiced in his day or not, including laws based
on the Temple, the Holy Land, and the Messiah; 5) Maimonides fused
Jewish law with discussions of Jewish philosophy, theology, and
ethics. The books of the MT include: Sefer Hamada, on belief;
Sefer Ahavah, on prayer and ritual; Sefer Zemanim, on holidays;
Sever Nashim, on women; Sefer Kedushah on forbidden unions, foods,
and proselytes; Sefer Haflaah, on vows and oaths; Sefer Zeraim,
on agriculture, including tithes, offerings, sabbatical years;
Sefer Avodah, on Temple sacrifice; Sefer Taharah, on the uncleanliness
of corpses, leprosy, food, and women; Sefer Nezikim, on civil
damages and murder; Sefer Kinyan, on commercial law and slavery;
Sefer Mishpatim, on employers, debtors, and inheritance; Sefer
Shoftim, on the Sanhedrin, testimony, mourning, and Jewish kings,
and wars.
Maimonides' code was opposed, especially in Babylonia, partially
because the codification process in various diasporan centers
represented a diminution of their authority and partially because
it omitted the back and forth of the talmudic argumentation without
even mentioning most talmudic sources, further removing Babylonian
influence from diasporan Jewish life. In addition, Rabbi Abraham
ben David of Posquieres, the Rabad (1125-1198), wrote strident
attacks on many of Maimonides' positions.
Subsequent generations of rabbinic scholars devoted their energies
to identifying Maimonides's sources and commenting on his conclusions,
including works such as Moses of Coucy's Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (Semag,
1250), Isaac of Corbeil, Sefer Mitzvot Katan (Samak, 1277), and
Aaron Halevi or Barcelona, Sefer Ha-Hinnukh (1302-1308). The published
editions of the MT now have an elaborate exegetical apparatus
that reflects these labors, and include the Rabad's critical comments
as well. Maimonides' code was crucial for the development of subsequent
codes of Jewish law, a phenomenon which prevented his code from
becoming the authoritative work he had hoped. The simplicity and
beauty of Maimonides' Hebrew makes his work an enduring masterpiece
for every student of Hebrew, especially since many editions are
printed in large clear text with vowels. However, the entire MT
has been translated into English and published in the Yale Judaica
Series, with a thorough, but unmarked, critical apparatus in the
back of each volume. Twersky's Introduction to the code of Maimonides
was also published in this series.
***Mishneh Torah, Book of Knowledge, Laws Concerning the Study
of the Torah, chapters 1-2 (Leviant, pp. 293-296)
Matters of gender where not introduced to the study of Jewish texts
by feminists, but were of central concern from their inception.
Here Maimonides, following talmudic discussions, dismisses the
obligation of women, slaves, and minors to study Torah. The biblical
proof text offered (Deut. 11:19), especially as translated here,
refers to teaching children and not specifically to teaching sons.
The position against teaching the young seems bizarre because
it is traditionally children who are educated. Indeed, commentaries
on this passage often omit the word minors for this reason. Maimonides
himself elaborates on the need to teach young children. His educational
system is based upon physical chastisement (2:2), a feature that
modern Jews don't often assimilate when bewailing the deterioration
of education, not often realizing that the voluntary and less
coercive aspects may affect the outcomes.
***Book of Knowledge, Laws Relating to Moral Dispositions and
to Ethical Conduct (Leviant, pp. 296-305, NB Leviant's order of
the tractates does not follow the order of most editions of Sefer
Hamada in the Mishneh Torah.)
The Hebrew title of this tractate also in the Book of Knowledge,
Sefer Hamada, is Hilkhot Deot, literally something like the laws
of attitudes, discernment in one translation, but the modern translator
felt the urge to modify this simple Hebrew not once but twice
with adjectives that would heighten the ethical and moral nature
of the tractate. This tractate deals with matters beyond simple
halakhic practice such as ethical, philosophical, and even medical
approaches to good, moderate living. Here is the famous Fustat
Diet in which Maimonides guided medieval Jews through the ways
to eat right and keep fit. 6:3 raises some serious ethical concerns.
On the one hand Maimonides reads Leviticus 19:18, "You shall love
your neighbor as yourself," to mean only other Jews. In 6:4, contrary
to the conventional wisdom, including a recent bout in one of
my classes, Maimonides encourages welcome of proselytes to Judaism,
who then can also be loved. But the avoidance of proselytes is
a modern construction of apologetic Jews.
Medieval Responsa
During the Middle Ages in both Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Eastern
Jewish communities rabbis continued to write responsa. Often dealing
with new situations, they provided the author with an opportunity
to examine the various materials available in Jewish law. The
names in the published version are usually changed to anonymous
names of the tribes, especially Reuven and Shimon, to hide the
actual circumstances and to preserve on the halakhic development.
***Responsa, Leviant, pp. 278-290, 305-308, 540-543
Rabbenu Gershom ben Judah (960-1040) thus asserted that rabbis
deserved special economic advantages in their communities.
Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, in discussing a contractual matter between
a teacher and a client, invoked Zephania 3:12, "The remnant of
Israel will not do wrong nor speak falsehood . . ." an appeal
to conscience and decency.
Rabbi Jacob Tam (1100-1171) issued a famous responsum according
to which divorces granted could not then be revoked on trivial
grounds, a major boon to women who were often tied to apostate
and recalcitrant husbands. In the course of his responsum he mentions
the rate of divorces from apostates.
Maimonides discusses a proselyte to Judaism and the question of
whether he can refer to the people of Israel as his ancestors.
Further demonstration of the arrival of proselytes at the gates
of Israel during the middle ages.
Leon Modena offers a tour de force to permit Jews to engage in
music, something that he himself did with regularity.
The Tur
Jacob ben Asher (1280-1340), a German rabbi, the son of the Rosh,
Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (d. 1328), author of Piskei Ha-Rosh, a
code that still followed the order of the Talmud, who had migrated
to Spain, prepared a major code of Jewish law, the Arba'ah Turim,
the four rows (of the high priests ephod), the Tur, which exhaustively
covered all areas of law which were currently operative in his
day, but which did not give fully the relevant talmudic sources
or the names of the later authorities upon whom he relied. Often
in connection with a law he quoted many conflicting authorities
without establishing which one was to be followed. First published
in 1475, the Tur was the second Hebrew book to be printed. It
is divided into four parts, established the basic categories of
Jewish law till today:
-
Orakh Hayyim-"the way of life," dealing with day to day
conduct, prayer, blessings, Sabbath, festivals, fasts,
and holidays.
-
Yoreh De'ah-"the teacher of knowledge," treating diet,
ritual purity, circumcision, visiting the sick, mourning,
interest, agriculture, tithes, and charity.
-
Even ha-Ezer-"the stone of help," concerned with family,
marriage, and divorce.
-
Hoshen Mishpat-"the shield of judgment," covering civil
law, criminal law, courts, judges, evidence, loans, partnerships,
property, theft, and robbery.
Beit Yosef
The Tur served as the basis of many commentaries, the most famous
of which was the Beit Yosef of Joseph Caro (1488-1575), a leading
rabbinic authority and kabbalist. Sephardic in origin, after living
part of his life in the post-expulsion Iberian peninsular, perhaps
as a Christian, Caro spend part of his life in Turkey before moving
to Safed in 1536. It was in Turkey where he devoted much of his
early study to the Mishnah which, after a long period of neglect,
was becoming increasingly important for Jews. In Turkey he began
his magnum opus, Beit Yosef, a commentary on the Tur. Caro's commentary
took twenty years to complete and another twelve to edit. It was
finally published between 1550 and 1558. The purpose of Beit Yosef
was to investigate thoroughly the sources of every practical law,
beginning with its talmudic origins, proceeding through every
stage of its development, mentioning every divergent view, and
finally, trying to establish what the practice should be. Caro
often reached these decisions by following two out of the three
major figures in the codification of Jewish law: Alfasi, Mamonides,
on whose work he wrote his own commentary, Kesef Mishneh, and
the Rosh. However, he also regularly consulted later authorities
as well as local customs and the Zohar, the central text of Jewish
mysticism.
Shulhan Arukh
Caro is most remembered for his Shulhan Arukh, a Set Table, a code
based on his own commentary, Beit Yosef, thus the dialectical
movement of codification and commentary are manifested in one
and the same person. Like the Mishnah, the Shulhan Arukh was compiled
in the Galilee. Caro intended his work to be an aid for established
scholars as well as for young students. Originally it was published
without the voluminous commentaries that surround it today, the
SA was a brief work published in what could be called pocket editions.
It was originally divided into thirty sections so that it could
be studied on a daily basis for a month. In the SA Caro eliminated
much of the midrashic, ethical, theoretical, ideological, theological,
philosophical, and kabbalistic aspects of the Tur and Beit Yosef.
The SA is an integrated creation which is written in a clear and
beautiful Hebrew style The work was first published in Venice
in 1567. Most editions of the SA contain not only voluminous commentary
but embedded within the text itself are the additions of Moses
Isserles (1525-1572), the Remah, who adjusted the SA to Ashkenazic
practice.
The Shulhan Arukh, seen by many Jews in the modern period as the
sole legitimate representative of The Halakhah, has become a lightening
rod for reactions towards Jewish law. Among traditional Jews the
SA is seen as the embodiment of all Jewish law and the divine
presence itself. Among Conservative Jews, such as Solomon Schechter,
it is "still consulted with profit," although, returning to last
weeks concerns about Jewish ethics, it is "disfigured by a few
paragraphs expressing views incompatible with our present notions
of tolerance." Schecter then introduces an individualistic notion
of meta-halakhic ethics which seems to undermine the whole rational
for a code of Jewish law about which he is so enthusiastic: "But
there the discretion of the Rabbi comes in. By tacit consent these
are considered obsolete by all Jewish students." It was among
Reform rabbis that the SA was subjected to the most abuse. They
described it as "petrified," associating "shulhan-arukhism" with
the era of "ghettoism" and and declared it of no significance
to them.
The Shulhan Arukh, however, cannot be read out of the context of
the development of halakhic literature and if I may be so bold
as to suggest that those Jews who like it the least may need it
the most. In other words, the attempt to find a Jewish values
cannot be based entirely on halakhic texts but nor can it be divorced
from them.
***Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, The Law of Honoring Parents/Charity,
no. 240- 252(Leviant, pp. 523-534)
The text here, offering extreme expressions of parental honor,
certainly moves beyond behavioristic goals into trying to shape
the attitude of the participants. The detailed laws provide almost
a philosophical and ethical treatise on the relations between
parents and children. In line with earlier medieval enactments,
rabbis are endowed with all sorts of communal perks and benefits.
As we saw in Maimonides, learning and discipline at school were
enhanced by means of corporeal punishment.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one of the features of the halakhic system is that
there are no consistent rules for creating and testing various
applications, although many are partially and sometimes invoked.
Occasionally the principle hilkhata kebatra, the law follows the
latest authority, is found; but at other times there is the assumption
that the earlier authorities carried greater weight and that the
later ones are simply gnats on the shoulders of giants. Other
times generalizations such as time-bound commandments will be
invoked, especially in matters related to women in Jewish law,
which will require a separate lecture to develop all the nuances,
but such a principle is betrayed by examples and critiqued by
other authorities. Thus both the practicing Jew and the social
historian are confronted by a lack of binding authority and an
inexhaustible ability of rabbis to produce sources which support
their views and to omit those which do not.
One of the best descriptions I have found of halakha comes from
a new book , Pesah Dorot by Yosef Tabori. On p. 28 he writes:
"It is possible to liken it [halakha] to a river that its waters
are constantly flowing but which nevertheless remains the same
river; but more correctly it is like an individual whose cells
are constantly changing but he remains the same person."
[Week 1] [Week
2] [Week3] [Week
4] [Week 5] [Week
6]
[Week 7] [Week
8] [Week 9] [Week
10] [Week 11] [Week
12]
[Juice Index] [Homepage]
|
|