Custom part 3

As was discussed in my last post, the Spanish (Sephardic) community was the cultural and spiritual heir to the great Babylonian Jewish tradition. Rabbi Moses Maimonides (RAMBAM) (1135-1204) had received the traditions and interpretations of the Babylonian academies. He had not only collected and codified them, but had dealt with them selectively; which were authentic and which not; what was fact and what may have been influenced by the cultural context. He wrote, among many other things, a great work on Jewish law and tradition, called "Yad Hachazakah" (the Strong Hand) which is studied to this day. In fact, this work comprises a large part of my daily Torah study. He limits greatly the status of custom. He rules that only customs that originated before about 350 ce were universally binding, as they had been promulgated with the approval of the Sanhedrin, which became defunct at that time. He ruled that rabbis after that time had authority only in their own communities, and were powerless to make enactments beyond that. Although there is a Talmudic principle that the law follows the later authorities, as they would have seen all earlier opinions, and, if they  rejected an earlier opinion, we must assume that they had good reasons to do so, in his view that applied only to about 350. After that, scholars must examine all opinions, and accept those that seemed the most logical. He would rule between opinions from after 350 until his time, often rejecting views of his own teachers. He would examine customs that had arisen, deciding which were to be accepted, and which were based on error. Although RAMBAM lived and worked in Egypt, he became the central force not only for the Spanish, but also for North African and most of the Middle Eastern communities. We often use the term "Sepharadic" when discussing these communities, although this is not really accurate, as they were not actually Spanish, but shared a cultural spiritual world view. The method of Torah and Talmudic study in these countries centered on determining the actual intended meaning of these sources, and endeavoring to apply them in a way that was rationally valid, scrutinizing customs that had come in later, rejecting those that seemed baseless, especial;y if contradicted by sources and concepts which were seen as central to Judaism.
Meanwhile, in the Ashkenazic community, a very different approach existed. Whatever appeared in ancient sources, or even ancient customs, were to be observed and venerated.Apparent contradictions must be reconciled. Especially when the Jerusalem Talmud became largely replaced by the Babylonian, they nevertheless felt that the traditions, if not laws, that were enshrined in the ancient ways of the Holy Land needed to be maintained. Often, contradictory customs and interpretations were apparent. Great rabbinical scholars became more and more central to their observance, often enacting new procedures that would encompass a great array of opinions. The opinions and interpretations of recognized scholars became sources in and of themselves.As study of the Jerusalem Talmud waned (only revived in about 1700), it was not always known if a particular custom was ancient; perhaps even going back to Moses, or if it was recent. Individual towns and cities of France and Germany had their own system of customs, which were enforced as law.It must be remembered that the Jerusalem Talmud had put a far greater emphasis on custom than had the Babylonian. This became more and more crucial for Ashkenazic Jewry as it melded the ways of the Holy Land, Babylon, and their own communal ways.A great movement of scholars, called the Tosafists, wrote extensively to reconcile different opinions and customs. This went on for several centuries.Word by word analysis of the Talmud was undertaken.The writings, known as the Tosafot, is  the central work studied in Ashkenazic yeshivot (academies) along with the Talmud. It is essentially a Talmud on the Talmud! It applies keen analysis, interpretation and compromise between communities, on every topic.Many were horrified at RAMBAM's approach in rejecting that which seemed illogical. Everything must be analysed and reconciled. From this point on, Ashkenazi learning became more and more analytical. It was less about what Jewish tradition SAID, but about what were the practical and theological  implications of what was said. Indeed, learning was not only about getting information, but about constructing new models for new situations, without compromising what had gone before. While the independence of these two approaches continues largely to this day, influences on each other's thinking became inevitable, enriching each. That will be the topic of my next posting.