Custom part 4

We left off with the situation of sharp differences in the Jewish world between those who followed a strictly source-based approach to Judaism, with only minimal place for custom, and those who saw custom and contemporary rabbinic opinion as the overriding factors in halachah (Jewish Law). The division was very sharp in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, with, in some cases, actual book burnings. Happily, this did not continue for too long. Rabbis who were heirs to  the Tosafist schools began delving into RAMBAM, sometimes accepting the unique views he offered, sometimes finding a way of reconciling his words with what they accepted.
A major figure in forming  a more unified Judaism was Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575). In Sephardic circles, he is simply known as "Maran" (our master). He was both a lawyer, conversant in both Ashkenazi and Sepharadic approaches, as well as a mystic. He wrote extensively in halachah, but also left us a fascinating diary of his mystical experiences. Born in Spain, leaving as a child for Turkey, he eventually settled in Safed, becoming its Chief Rabbi. He wrote a masterful commentary on RAMBAM. He wrote an encyclopedic commentary on the Tur; a major halachic work, which reflects primarily Ashkenazic practice, especially as understood by ROSH (Rabbenu Asher), the author's father. In his commentary called Beit Yosef (The House of Joseph), he records all known halachic opinions, comparing, sometimes criticizing, and coming up with important conclusions and compromises between views and traditions.This work is generally acknowledged as his greatest, but he is even more famous for a simpler work, which has been the common denominator for Orthodox Jews for the last 450 years.
In some of his writings, he expresses the view that RAMBAis always right, and it is his view that should be followed. However, he was faced with the reality that the Jewish world was greatly divided between Maimonists, those who followed the rulings of the Tosafist school, and communities that had still other methods and traditions. He wrote, towards the end of his life, a simple restatement of Jewish law known as the "Sulchan Aruch" (the prepared table). Although the work favored the views of RAMBAM, other views were seen as valid, and would often trump RAMBAM. He takes both Ashkenazic and Sepharadic approaches into consideration, together with a wide variety of customs; provided that he saw them as consistent with sources. The work was concise; early editions were printed with daily divisions, so that it could be reviewed monthly! It didn't stay that way. A younger contemporary of Rabbi Karo was Rabbi Moshe Isserles, an Ashkenazic rabbi of great renown.He liked the work, but felt it was lacking in the full array of Ashkeanzic practice and custom. He wrote a commentary that, unlike most commentaries that are written in the margins, his went right into the text, with notations of where is additions begin and end. Today, although many Yemenite communities are still strict Maimonists, nearly all other communities follow the Shulchan Aruch to one degree or another. Among Sepharadim, the words of "Maran" are sacrosanct, with later rabbis only occasionally differing. Ashkenazim generally follow Rabbi Isserels, but centuries of subsequent writers wrote commentaries on both; making Ashkenazi practice more fluid and flexible. Some would argue that the later commentaries distort, rather than elucidate.This goes on to the present day. As I mentioned in a previous post, RAMBAM rules for a very limited place for custom, and regards earlier authorities as more binding. True to that, Sepharadic rabbis will rarely accept opinions that deviate from the Shulchan Aruch. Ashkenazim will, however, favor a later authority, no matter when he lived, if he is seen as being of great stature. Nevertheless, all discussions are around the same masterpiece; the Shulcahn Aruch. Although we may converse in different languages, halachic discussions have, since Rabbi Karo, been "on the same page". This brought a modicum of unity, into the halachic process.

Who, and What, Is a Rabbi?

Recently, someone called my attention to a piece written by a "rabbi", who had been outed as having a purchased ordination, as well as other shady financial and sexual connections,. He argued that "it doesn't matter. i have an ordination. No matter what I do or don't do, know or don't know, I'm as much a rabbi as anyone else". Really?!?!
In the Torah, Moses is commanded to ordain Elders as judges, and to ordain Joshua as the next leader of the people. This is the basis of the rabbinic court system, outlined in Deut. 17:8-13. This ordination, called smichah, was in practice from the time of Moses, until the 4th century, when brutally suppressed by the Byzantines. This ordination empowered the holder to be part of a court, administering all facets of Torah law, as well as ruling in all doubtful areas of application of the Torah. Although the title "Rabbi" ("teacher" or "master") didn't come in until the first century, the institution is Biblical. When it died out, or, more correctly, was snuffed out, the chain ended. RAMBAM spells out how it can be re-instituted, but all efforts in this direction have, so far, met with little or no success or acceptance.
Even when smichah was in force, there were many scholars, accepted universally, who did not have it. They were teachers, preachers, inspirational figures. They either had no title, or took one that indicated that they were no part of the chain of ordination. Without that formal smichah, many areas of the Torah could no longer be enforced, particularly in the judicial area. Nevertheless, unordained scholars were chosen by communities to give them guidance in accordance with Torah. Being a recognized scholar, having the character traits of one, and being accepted as such by a community made one a rabbi in the post-smichah era.
In 14th century Germany, a great scholar was troubled by the phenomenon of charlatans, passing themselves off as scholars, being accepted as rabbis in smaller communities, where there was no one knowledgeable enough to expose them. He instituted a program of "smichah", albeit not in the classical sense, which would have him, and other recognized scholars, certifying young, would be rabbis, as suitable for employing as such. This became universal in Ashkenazi communities, but generally not accepted in Sepharadic communities until the 20th century.
In the late 18th century, the custom became in East European communities, that a would-be rabbi would receive a "smichah" at his yeshiva upon completing an appropriate course of study. He still would not be considered qualified, until he then apprenticed under an accepted community rabbi, learning how to apply the vast sea of learning to practical, every-day community situations. After a few years, the scholar would give his personal letter of ordination to the young rabbi, thereby qualifying him to serve a community on his own. It is important to note that being a synagogue rabbi was really an American innovation, now followed in many other places. Historically, one was a rabbi of a community, overseeing the school, the mikveh, the kosher food facilities, and more. If there were ten synagogues in the city, he was in charge of all. This is still true in Israel and several other countries.
In the mid and late 20th century, the unfortunate situation arose where many rabbis despaired of the Jewishness of outlying, unknowledgeable communities. Many would ordain rabbis as a favor to help them have a job, avoid military conscription, and other non-Torah considerations.This was particularly true in America, where early twentieth century rabbis often felt that they were dealing with a lost cause. Mainstream organizations began to emphasize hiring only rabbis who had ordination from recognized yeshivot. Although all knew that a private smichah might be as good, or even better, than an institutional one, how would the average congregation know which was real, and which wasn't? As the gap between the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable continues to grow, especially outside major Jewish communities, the phenomenon of smichot given for two week seminars (!!) or even non Jewish institutions, is becoming more and more a problem. The Universal Life Church, founded in the 1960s more or less as a tax-evasion scheme (ordination free for life. Once it was mail order, now on line), now bestows the title "rabbi" as well! Are these people rabbis? Does this signify knowledge of, and commitment to, the Torah?
In non-orthodox circles, ordination is given on the basis of knowledge of history, psychology, philosophical and theological concepts, rather than halachah (law) which is only taught minimally.
So, as to the "rabbi" I began my story with, I won't consult him on areas of Judaism; I'll limit myself to "I'll have fries with that, please".

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.