Jewish Folklore 1

Every group has its folklore. Jews are no exception. However, we are presented with a difficulty in discussing this, as Ashkenazic tradition has placed a huge value on all aspects of tradition, especially if the traditional story has been mentioned in a book, or quoted by a great rabbi. The concept of the infallibility of rabbis, and the sanctity of stories handed down through the generations, has become a basic feature of many Jewish groups, especially Ashkenazic communities. While it is true that Judaism has a concept of Emunat Hachamim (variously translated as "faith IN the Sages" or "faith OF the Sages"; a huge difference), it was classically understood to be speaking of the Oral Torah, as transmitted by the rabbis of all times, and especially the rabbis of the Talmud. Think of the American story of the Pilgrim Mothers and Fathers. We learned from our childhood how great they were. Only much later did the true stories surface of betrayal, murder, and intolerance.. I have seen writers question these true stories as anti-American, facts be damned. Rabbi Nachman warned against taking Hasidic stories too seriously, as "they were told at gatherings where alcohol was consumed, between the third and fourth cup. The teller was drunk, and the listener was half asleep". Stories were often told in order to bolster or demolish a certain group or ideology. There is also the issue of "maaseh bichelech" (story books, usually intended for the consumption of the unlearned), which usually embellished, or even invented stories of great men. These stories became part of the common consciousness. People readily accept stories as fact. We recently had the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo, celebrating Mexico's independence from French rule. A comedian on TV told a joke that the actual origin was the "fact" that the Titanic was carrying a huge shipment of mayonnaise, intending to bring it to Mexico after letting the passengers off in New York. When the Titanic sank, the Mexicans declared a day of mourning for their lost, beloved mayonnaise. They called it "Sinko de Mayo". Despite numerous publications giving the truth of the origins of the day, studies have shown that millions of Americans believe the joke to be factual. People love a good story. I became acutely aware of this when, in 1975, I changed my affiliation from Chabad to Breslov. First, I saw that the two groups had a completely different narrative of the history of the Baal Shem Tov. Customs attributed to the Baal Shem Tov by Chabad (and others), were often denied by Rabbi Nachman, a direct descendant of the Baal Shem Tov. Even more striking was the Hagiographa of individual figures. One popular Hasidic leader, adored by Chabad (and others) is depicted in the Breslov literature as a cruel, jealous and vindictive man, who was a tool of the Evil Forces. Similarly, a figure who is depicted in Chabad as a bit eccentric, and guilty of distorting Hasidism, was highly esteemed by Rabbi Nachman, who said "I have seen many Tzaddikim, but perfection (sheleimut) I only saw in him".With the fall of the Iron Curtain in the early 1990s, scholars were able to find contemporary documents, dealing with the origins of Hasidism. There had even been some historians who had considered the Baal Shem Tov as a fictional figure. The historical documents show that on the contrary, he was very real, a scholar, beloved by Jew and Gentile alike. He apparently had no opposition; the persecution of Hasidism beginning only after his death. Historians concluded that a later generation read back their own suffering into the Baal Shem Tov's time. There were persistent rumors that a son of a major Hasidic leader had converted to Christianity.(Please don't ask me who). A sixth-generation descended of the great figure, wrote a lengthy denial of this story. He "explained" that it was a false accusation, and how the accused took upon himself terrible sufferings to atone for being the cause of desecration of G-d's Name. In the documents discovered in the '90s, two are significant in this story. One was the original Baptismal certificate of this man, the second was a record of his having been committed to a mental hospital one year after his Baptism. Was the Hasidc group merely trying to protect the family reputation? Are there factors here of which we are unaware? With our modern understanding of mental health, do the documents undermine the honor of the Hasidic figure? For your consideration.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 6

The stories of the political and religious struggles of Rabban Gamliel's reign as Nasi, both made and broke several precedents, which resulted in controversy and compromise. We have been the richer for them, and they have almost always served as guidelines in future disputes.Where these guidelines were ignored, disaster was never far behind. In the dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, a central Torah principle was at stake; the authority of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Eliezer was, and remains, a most beloved figure in Jewish tradition. But he put his own convictions (NOT ambitions!) ahead of the halachic process. Rabban Gamliel was faced with the unenviable choice of honor for an esteemed colleague and a most basic principles of Torah law. He did his duty as head of the Sanhedrin; preserving Torah. The Talmud is full of Rabbi Eliezer's statements and stories, but the halachah is rarely fixed according to his opinion. To what degree we consider an individual opinion when it differs with the majority is still a controversial matter. The fact that we have no valid Sanhedrin greatly lessens the obligation of majority rule, yet consensus remains a strong value in the halachic process. All sides in any disputer must bear in mind the story of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer. Another issue at stake was hereditary leadership. Kings were hereditary. But the Tanach is full of criticisms of bad Kings. There were those who risked their lives opposing some of the Kings, and publicly heaping criticism on them. Even today, the halachah remains (at least theoretically) that any halachic position of authority is to be passed down from father to son, providing the son is worthy, even if another candidate is more worthy than he. I said "theoretically", as this is not practiced in many situations. An explanation of this is provided by some twentieth-century rabbis. The one Biblical position NOT passed down from father to son is the position of Mashuach Milchamah; the Priest who would exhort the people before going into battle. The Torah considers his ability to encourage and strengthen the faith of the people, as overriding issues of pedigree. The modern-day rabbi, in most cases, is less of a halachic authority, than one who teaches and brings near to Torah. He is more like the Mashuach Milchamah than the classical rabbi. He will defer on halachic issues to the more erudite. Nevertheless, when choosing a halachic authority, the heads of Yeshivot, and Hasidic Rebbes, heredity is a very major consideration. The memory of the struggle between Rabban Gamliel's hard-line on hereditary authority, versus considerations of Rabbi Joshua's apparently superior knowledge and abilities, are still very much alive. Compromise has been reached. Another issue in these events is wealth. It is a basic foible of humanity to agree with Tevya; "when you're rich, they think you really know". People love to see pomp in leadership. But often, wealth does not mean either wisdom or integrity. Rabban Gamliel's remarks about Rabbi Joshua's poverty, which was apparently a common situation among the scholars that Rabban Gamliel was not even aware of, seems to reflect badly on him. But when he is made aware, he acknowledges the error in his ways, and makes full apology. But Rabbi Joshua is not quick to forgive Rabban Gamliel. A false peace is often worse than war. Only when Rabban Gamliel pleads for forgiveness in honor of his forebears, does Rabbi Joshua accept the apology. We must honor those in positions of leadership, but not grant them powers and authority beyond what they have earned. It must be remembered that these events took place shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and before the Bar Kochba revolt. I find it remarkable that the great rabbis of that era were able to face the struggles of the place and meaning of Torah law in Jewish life, considering what was happening around them. We have struggles as well. We also have, thanks to those rabbis, a paradigm to base ourselves upon.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 5

The day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah became the Nasi was a most special one. The meeting chamber was filled with scholars, and questions of every kind were raised. None went unanswered. We often find the expression in Talmudic discussions; "It was decided on THAT day..." This always refers to the day of Rabbi Elazar's leadership. The Tractate "Eduyot" was formulated on that day, a unique tractate with no unanswered questions. Rabban Gamliel was also present. An Ammonite convert presented himself with the question if he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman. The question seemed superfluous. The Torah specifically disallows an Ammonite or Moabite to "enter the Congregation" (i.e., marry a Jew). (Deut. 23:4) Rabbi Joshua said that he may. Rabban Gamliel, shocked, protested this seemingly heretical ruling. Rabbi Joshua quoted Biblical verses that showed that the Assyrians had mingled populations sufficiently that tribal purity no longer existed, and therefore the prohibition is no longer in place. Rabban Gamliel was overwhelmed with Rabbi Joshua's superior wisdom and skill. At the end of the day, he went to Rabbi Joshua's home to apologize. He was shocked to see the hovel in which Rabbi Joshua lived, with walls blackened from soot. "Are you a blacksmith?" queried Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Joshua responded "Woe to the generation of which you are the leader! You are from a wealthy family, and have no concept of how other rabbis live!" Rabban Gamliel was taken aback. "I apologize. Forgive me!" Rabbi Joshua remained silent. "If not for my sake, please forgive me in honor of my father". (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the previous Nasi). Rabbi Joshua then agreed to forgive him. A message was sent to the rabbis "let he who is accustomed to wear the robe wear it." (I.e., restore Rabban Gamliel as Nasi) A question arose, however. We have a principle "We elevate in sanctity, but do not lower it." Would it be justified to depose Rabbi Elazar, who had done no wrong? A compromise was reached, in which Rabban Gamliel would reign as Nasi three weeks out of four,. with Rabbi Elazar serving the fourth week. (Another view is that they were given parallel positions.) This seemingly minor incident set several important precedents. I will analyze these in my next post.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 4

One year after the incident involving the calendar, another event took place that was to change the course of Jewish history. Rabban Gamliel was anxious to put prayer in a more central place, especially as the Temple and sacrifice no longer existed. He assigned Rabbi Shimon HaPakuli to edit the central amidah prayer in order to reflect the new situation. He instituted that it be said by all, three times a day. There was dissent regarding the latter issue. There had been two daily sacrifices at the Temple. The morning and afternoon prayers corresponded to these. But there never was an evening sacrifice, only the burning on the altar of certain remnants of the sacrifices. Therefore, many reasoned, the evening prayer must be seen as optional. Rabbi Joshua not only held that opinion but, when asked, would give that as a ruling. A very young Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai approached Rabbi Joshua on this point and was told that the evening prayer was optional. He then asked Rabban Gamliel the same question, and was told that it was obligatory. "But Rabbi Joshua told me the opposite" said Rabbi Shimon. "Wait until the rabbis of the Sanhedrin gather, and we will see about this". When the Sanhedrin assembled, Rabbi Shimon again asked his question. "Obligatory!" pronounced Rabban Gamliel. "Does anyone disagree?" There was no response. "Joshua, I have been told that your opinion differs. "I can't deny it" said Rabbi Joshua. "Stand on your feet for the rest of today's session!" He was being punished like a child told to stand in the corner. The other rabbis balked at this affront. They deposed Rabban Gamliel. Nothing remotely like this had ever happened. "Whom shall we appoint in his stead?" They thought of appointing Rabbi Joshua, but that would appear to be a political move, as he had been involved in the dispute. Rabbi Akiva? He had no ancestral merit, and might succumb to a curse from Rabban Gamliel. Their eyes turned to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, already a great scholar at age eighteen (some say sixteen), with a pedigree going back five hundred years to Ezra. "I must consult my wife!" His wife protested that he, too, might eventually be deposed. He responded "Should I not drink of a precious cup because it may break tomorrow?" "But you are not old!" Immediately, eighteen rows of gray hair appeared in his beard. This is the reason for his statement, reported in the Haggadah "Behold, I am like one seventy years old!". He accepted the honor. Rabban Gamliel had maintained a strict policy of only allowing the brightest and the best to attend the deliberations of the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Elazar's first move was to remove the bouncer from the gates of the meeting place. Four hundred scholars who had been previously excluded were now welcomed in. It was a move to democratization.  Rabban Gamliel had been seeking excellence rather than inclusiveness. A resolution of the problem was to come, with significant compromises from both sides. These compromises would affect rabbinic leadership for all times. That will be my next post.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 3

The incident of Rabbi Eliezer's rejection of a decision of the Sanhedrin, resulted in essentially ending the career of one of the best and brightest Talmudic figures, but the Sanhedrin's authority was certainly enhanced. There were to be two further challenges that would soon change the entire system, for the betterment of Judaism. Both of these challenges came from the same man, Rabbi Joshua. (You will note that the protagonists in this drama are the very rabbis who feature prominently in the Haggadah of Passover). One of the most central responsibilities of the Sanhedrin was fixing the calendar. The first of every Hebrew month occurs at the sighting of the first sliver of the New Moon. This occurs in some months after twenty-nine days of the old month, in others after the thirtieth. Witnesses must come before the Sanhedrin, and testify to its sighting, with the Sanhedrin then declaring it sanctified. There were, however, various heretical groups that would send false witnesses, in order to undermine Jewish observance. The Sanhedrin would need to examine the witnesses, to see if they were reliable and if their sighting of the Moon fit known astronomical facts. (When Byzantine Christian persecution became very strong in the fourth century, resulting in the disbanding of the Sanhedrin, and the death of most of the rabbis, one of their last acts was to make a fixed, mathematical calendar, sanctifying all New Moons until a new Sanhedrin could arise). Once, witnesses came to report the sighting of the New Moon and were examined by Rabban Gamliel. He declared them valid, and the New Moon was sanctified. Several members of the Sanhedrin felt that he was not correct in accepting their testimony, as the astronomical facts did not bear out what they had said. Although these rabbis disagreed, they went along with the ruling. Rabbi Joshua accepted the view of the dissidents and ruled in accordance with this dissenting view. This was no minor issue, as the month was the holiday-laden month of Tishri. The proper observance of Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot were at stake. Rabban Gamliel saw great danger in Rabbi Joshua's stand, A great schism was about to occur, with some Jews observing the holidays on one day, and others observing them the next day. Rabban Gamliel, with all the powers of the Nasi, ordered Rabbi Joshua to appear before him on the Yom Kippur according to the calculation of Rabbi Joshua, carrying his walking stick and money bag, thereby desecrating the holiest day of the year in Rabbi Joshua's calculation. Rabbi Joshua became despondent. Rabbi Akiva had a talk with him. Unlike Shabbat, which occurs every seven days regardless of what humans do or don't do, the New Moons are fixed and sanctified by the Sanhedrin, whether rightly or wrongly. Therefore, even if Rabban Gamliel is mistaken in this case, his declaration is what fixes the New Moon, not the astronomy. After all, the Torah states "these are the holidays you shall proclaim". YOU shall proclaim, whether right or wrong. (This is why in the amidah and kiddush of Shabbat, we say "Blessed are you, who sanctifies the Shabbat", but on holidays, we say "...who sanctifies Israel and the festivals". Shabbat is not dependent on Israel, holidays are.) Rabbi Joshua felt better about the situation and made the appearance before Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel kissed him on his head and said "Come in peace, my teacher and my disciple; my teacher in wisdom, but my disciple in accepting my words." A schism was avoided...for now. The unity of the Sanhedrin was maintained. But grumblings were heard at the public shaming of a great man. This was not yet over.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 2

The Sanhedrin was probably the primary religious institution in Ancient Israel, second only to the Temple. The Torah (Deut.17:8-13) gives the Sanhedrin full authority not only over judicial matters, but to interpret the text authoritatively, and make new legislation intended to enhance the observance of Judaism ("Fences"). Once the Temple was destroyed, Sadduceean Judaism, based as it was primarily around the Temple, ceased to exist. But those Pharisees who reestablished the Sanhedrin in Yavne (and later other places) had, in essence, created a portable Judaism. As Roman persecution increased greatly with the rise of Christianity, the Sanhedrin's role as judiciary waned, until it became known simply as "the Vaad" (The Committee), where the Torah could be debated, and laws enacted, but without "teeth" to enforced their decisions. This is believed to be the origin of the Yeshiva. The Torah prescribes a death penalty to those who oppose the rulings of the Sanhedrin (Deut. 17:12), so great was the importance of that institution. With the constraints of Roman law limiting the actions of the Sanhedrin, capital punishment was very seldom imposed.Nevertheless, a theoretical death penalty put the importance of a law into proper perspective. In most cases, the "herem" (ban of excommunication) served in lieu of court penalties. Challenges to Rabban Gamliel's authority, and the authority of the Sanhedrin, did come. The first case was Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, also known as "Rabbi Eliezer the Great." He is one of the central figures in the Mishnah, and he was Rabban Gamliel's brother-in-law. The point of dispute was a rather curious one. The Torah stipulates methods of making utensils clean if they became impure (usually through immersion). However, an earthenware utensil could not be purified and had to be destroyed. The question came up, what if we have an earthenware oven that is made out of small pieces, none of which was in any sense of the word a "utensil." If it became unclean, could it simply be taken apart, and reassembled? Rabban Gamliel's Sanhedrin voted that this would not be efficacious. Rabbi Eliezer was totally convinced of the opposite opinion. "If I am right, let the stream outside run backwards" It did. "No proof can be brought from a stream!". "If I am right, let the tree outside become uprooted, and reroot itself!". That happened. "No proof can be brought from a tree!" "may the walls testify!". The walls became bent. "No proof from a wall"! "May G-d testify!" A voice was heard "the halachah is as is being said like my son Eliezer!" The rabbis jumped up and said "The Torah is not in Heaven! (Deut.30:12). The Sanhedrin's ruling is what must be followed". (One of the rabbis is said to have met Elijah after this, and asked him what G-d's reaction was. G-d laughed, and said "my children have vanquished me!"' Rabbi Eliezer, so certain of his ruling, did not accept the decision of his colleagues, and was excommunicated by Rabban Gamliel. He spent the rest of his life in relative obscurity. We have here a classical example of the conflict between conscience and a system of law. Rabban Gamliel won this round, but it was not to be the last.

Jewish Leadership Struggle in the Roman Era part 1

The Davidic Kingdom came to an end with the destruction of Jerusalem, and the exile of her people in the Sixth Century BCE. The belief in the eventual restoration of that Kingdom persisted, and persists to this day. Families with known connection to the House of David are careful to maintain their records, and the faithful await one of them to arise and deliver us at the time when it will please the Creator. In Babylon, from the earliest days of Jewish life in that country, until the Eleventh Century, the Jews were governed by an Exilarch (Resh Galuta). The Exilarch was of the Royal line. At some periods, the title was merely honorific. At other times, the Exilarch governed as King in an autonomous Jewish state under Persian rule. Some of the Exilarchs were righteous, scholarly men. Others were anything but. Babylonian Jews, for 1500 years, saw the Exilarchs as Kings in Exile, awaiting the time when they would rule in Zion. In the Holy Land, Jewish life was very tenuous. The tiny community of returnees from Babylon were governed at first by Jews who had been prominent in Babylon, and later Persia. Some had close connections with the Persian Kings. Among these leaders were the last of the Prophets; Zacharia, Haggai and Malachi. Enemies surrounded them, particularly the wicked Samaritans, who attacked them physically, and used their connections with Persia to thwart the Jews at every turn. Persia fell to Greece, which made matters yet worse for the Jews, as they demanded Jewish assimilation into Hellenistic culture. The Maccabean revolt brought about a period of independence, but the Maccabean leaders quickly fell into arrogance; assuming both the Priesthood (to which they were entitled) and the Kingdom, which they usurped. Soon, they became identified with the Sadducees, and began persecuting and killing Torah sages. Through this whole time, there existed the Sanhedrin; the Biblically mandated Supreme Court. But they lived in fear of destruction by the Maccabean Kings. The Maccabees, in turn, were killed off by Herod, an Edumean who had been forcibly converted to Judaism together with his people. His line ruled for several generations, and were little more than Roman vassals. Most of them were enemies of the Sages. A sort of "shadow governemnt" grew up among the Jews, with a Nasi (Patriarch, Prince) being appointed as President of the Sanhedrin in the Second Century BCE. The Romans recognized the Nasi as head of the Jewish community, alongside their pretend Kings, until they disbanded the Patriarchate in 425ce, as part of a huge wave of intolerance brought about when Rome became Christian. From the turn of the Common Era, the Nasi was usually of the family of the beloved Hillel the Elder, who was of the Davidic line. The Jewish world was now divided in its loyalties between two Davidic dynasties. After the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was reconstituted in the sleepy backwater of Yavne. Rabban Gamliel (a title higher than "rabbi", which was used when referring to a Nasi) was faced with the unenviable task of keeping Judaism alive without a Temple. (It must be remembered that fully two-thirds of the laws of the Torah relate to the Temple). He was chosen as Nasi shortly after the establishment of Yavne as the central Jewish seat of authority. But how was he to be viewed? As a King, who, in order to solidify his authority, must govern with a heavy hand? Or more like his ancestor Hillel, always meek and modest? He chose the former. The result was revolt by scholars who would not allow themselves to be silenced. More next time.