Reflecting on Judaism

I wish to revert to previous essays on the above subject for reasons set out below. I wrote these essays following one published in the Jewish Chronicle by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, based on the conventional belief that ‘The Pharisees believed in the Oral Law and the Sadducees did not.’

  This statement did not tally with my understanding of Jewish history and I presented précis extracts of seven books, written by Jewish historians, six of whom, I believe, were Orthodox Jews; I do not know the religious orientation of the seventh, Professor Joseph Dan. They all either said or implied that the Oral law was handed down through the Priests, who later also became known as Sadducces, and that the Pharisees, i.e. the rabbis, subsequently usurped their authority. Some of these historians suggested that the rabbis not only introduced new Oral laws when they thought it necessary, searching the Torah for precedent, but introduced foreign religious concepts which had been learned in Babylon.

  The Rabbis set out their authority in verse 1, Chapter 1 of Pirkei Avot. In previous essays I tried to explain why the teachings of this verse are in direct contradiction to the written words of the Torah and so far no one, to my knowledge, has tried to reconcile them. I cannot believe that I am the first person to notice this apparent contradiction. Our rabbis have studied the Torah and Talmud for some two thousand years so it is reasonable to expect that at least one of them would have noticed, commented or tried to reconcile the apparent contradiction.

  The difficulty I have in reconciling the Chief Rabbi Sacks’ History with the history of the seven Jewish historians; the difficulty of reconciling the 1st verse of Pirkei Avot with the clear words of the Torah has been troubling me for a long while and no rabbi with whom I communicated offered to discuss them.  

 However, I recently enjoyed a rare, if not unique, experience. I attended a lecture given by an Orthodox Rabbi, a Ph.D., a Professor at one of our leading Jewish universities. His presentation was clear and his lecture very interesting. I phoned him the next morning and mentioned the problem and asked whether he would consider and comment on them. This he agreed to do.  This is a unique rabbi, one who is not only prepared to listen to a difficult question but also to put pen to paper and give a considered reply. This is what he wrote.

“Dear Mr. Abrahams,

Thank you for sharing your three short essays with me regarding Ancient Israel and the Sadducee/Pharisee conflict. I have now read all three carefully, I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

While the material is familiar to me, however, I am sorry to disappoint you. I really do not think that I have much to add. Suffice it to say that modern historiography views the development of rabbinic law rather differently than the way it is presented in traditional religious sources. If one feels compelled to substantiate Jewish tradition using modern scientific method, then the evidence that you cite is quite disturbing.

Alternatively, one can look at the Sages and modern historians as two groups who speak very different languages. As such, efforts at creating a fluid discourse between them are likely to fail.

You may respond that I am skirting the issue. By the same token, the approach that I am suggesting may actually be closer to the truth than either of the two languages, viewed independently."

  The Rabbi does not define his terms but it is reasonable to assume that by: -

Modern Scientific Method, he means using all available material including the Talmud.

Traditional Religious Sources, he means the Talmud and other ancient books written by the rabbis during that period.

I submit that using ‘all available material’ must be more persuasive than using one source only and if one cannot create a ‘fluid discourse between them’ then, so long as the Modern Scientific Sources are reliable, the problems under discussion have not been resolved.  The Rabbi also appears to acknowledge that the results of my research are valid and he finds them ‘quite disturbing’. What might be the basis of his concern, a concern which I share?

1.      If the Torah and the Pirkei Avot can’t be reconciled, then the Authority on which Rabbis rely does not exist. The Chief rabbi in his Jewish Chronicle article wrote  ‘They (the Sadducees) had made their wager and lost.’ He might have added ‘And the victor wrote the history.’

2.      Chief Rabbi Sacks also wrote ‘Had it not been for the Pharisees, ………..,there would be no Jewish People today’. This is a statement which I believe to be correct but, based on Jewish History researched by the Modern Scientific Method, our rabbis can no longer claim, as many do, that each and every Oral Law is Torah from Sinai; some may well be whilst others are not. I understand that this is something that they are probably reluctant to admit, but in avoiding so doing are they being intellectually honest?

  What is the reason for my reverting to this subject? It is because, during the last half-century or so, Western Orthodox Jewish Communities have been overwhelmed by thoughts, concepts and practices either unknown 50 years ago or if then known, were considered marginal to the religion. New thoughts, concepts and practices have ccontinually entered our religion for some two thousand years. As a Midrash illustrates, Moses, in a vision, could not reconcile his teachings with the future teachings of R. Akiva even though R. Akiva attributed them to him.

It was during the process of trying to sort the wheat from the chaff and researching which of these new elements constituted intrinsic Judaism that led me to question the Talmud’s version of history and the basis for the rabbis’ authority.

Against the explicit instructions of the Torah the rabbis have added to, or altered, its Laws claiming ‘necessity of the hour’, subsequently claiming that they had no authority to revert once the ‘necessity’ passed.

The Kohanim are no longer capable of being our teachers and although the rabbis usurped their authority, they have acted, de facto, as our teachers for the past two millenniam. It is difficult to envisage an alternative source of teacher.

With better-educated Laymen who have a deeper insight and knowledge of how our religion developed, things are beginning to change slowly. See, for example, the changing status of women within the Community. It would be intriguing if one could foresee the future and watch how it continues to develop. Hopefully, some of the chaff will be gradually removed.

January 2005.