From the examples we have seen in this course, are the rabbis concerned with the “plain” meaning of the scriptural text? Should it matter that the sages have not been faithful to what we would call the “original meaning” of the Hebrew Bible? Does the rabbinic example challenge your own understanding as to what it means to follow or obey a scriptural text?
As Professor Cohen has noted, "Judaism is not a single, stable thing, nor has it ever been a single, stable thing. It is a complicated thing. It is a living thing with arguments and passionate convictions being brought to the interpretation of it and of its central scriptures." Professor Lawrence H. Schiffman concurs when he writes, "When we study the development of Judaism from the late books of the Hebrew Bible, through the texts of the second Temple period, into rabbinic literature, to what extent do we observe continuity and to what extent do we see change? This question is made more complex by the variegated nature of second Temple Judaism, to the extent that some would prefer to use the designation 'Judaisms'.”
Judaism, or Judaisms as the case may be, as we have only just begun to look at in this course, is vastly complex. We are not only people of "The" Book, but people of "the books." We have the legacy passed on to us which we know as the Hebrew Bible, and that it remains a permanent and formative ingredient in all subsequent Jewish development. We also have multitudes of texts which have developed since Second Temple times, not to mention those that might have been informative during the transitional time between First and Second Temple, such as Ben Sira, the Qumran literature, and other non-canonical works.
Despite all the changes between second Temple and rabbinic Judaism, and basic to its continuity in all the aspects of Judaism––legal, theological, eschatological––there is still the realm of biblical exegesis. After all, biblical interpretation stands as the basis for Judaism throughout its history. However, the issues of its exegesis are quite complex. In addition, context and language inform all of it.
Throughout time, we simply cannot apply only a literally meaning to the Torah. If we had done so, we would have lost Judaism entirely. The rabbis had to find a way to transition Judaism from a temple-centric sacrificial system of worship and relationship with G!d into a way that would function in a different world and society.
In the seventy years following the destruction of the first Temple and the ensuing exile into Babylon, the priests had no authority because there was no Temple. Our spiritual spark was sustained by the Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Their charisma resulted in Ezra and Nehemiah restoring the Temple. Little changed between these periods, other than the writing of the Torah and a few other events. Religious authority continued to be in the priests, and our pool of prophets broadened from a few major prophets to a school of minor prophets.
In the last centuries of this Second Temple period, the priesthood became corrupt, and people deserted the Temple and developed a proto-rabbinate, with a proto-synagogue and proto-prayer. So when the Second Temple was destroyed, the foundations of the rabbinate, synagogue, and prayer as sacrifice were already established.
This was a major paradigm shift especially in terms of religious authority within Judaism. By the time of Rabbi Akiva, the concept of two (written and oral) Torahs was well-established, and prayer had replaced animal offerings. Spiritual authority had broadened again to large academies of tanna’im in Yavneh and amora’im in Babylon and Jerusalem. Religious authority was transferred to the Rabbis, and we moved into what we know as Rabbinic Judaism.
This structure of Talmud as Torah, prayer as divine service, and rabbi as religious authority remained in place for a thousand years, mostly unchallenged. In the twelfth century, Maimonides clearly saw an adjustment was needed, as presented in his fourteen volume work, Mishneh Torah. His intention was to broaden the base of authority from those who had mastered the entire Talmud to those who mastered his abbreviated fourteen volumes. His effort did not succeed. It wasn’t a failure on the part of Maimonides or his Mishneh Torah, but rather a failure of the Jewish world to be ready for such a change. Paradigm shifts of this level occur only after major trauma, and the trauma needed for this paradigm shift did not come until three hundred years later with the Spanish expulsion. Maimonides was simply a man ahead of his time.
After the expulsion from Spain, the Lurianic community codified the Talmud into four volumes, the Shulchan Aruch, which soon became the worldwide authoritative volume on Jewish observance. Religious service shifted from the rote recitation of words to intense kavannah, and Shabbat was elevated to a mystical union with the divine. Religious authority, still invested in the rabbi, was broadened yet again from one who had mastered the 63 Tractates of Talmud to one who had mastered the four volumes of the Shulchan Aruch. It is this system of the Shulchan Aruch, prayer with kavannah, and the expanded rabbinate, which has sustained Judaism into modern times.
Personally, I believe we are on the cusp of yet another profound shift in the 21st Century paradigm, and that this, too, is a very good thing, just as moving from the literal-only meaning of Torah into expanded consciousness of biblical exegesis which has been afforded to us by way of the destruction of the Second Temple and transition into various rabbinic Judaisms. Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment