Reflecting on Judaism

In the twelve months or so which have elapsed since I wrote on this subject I received feedback which has prompted me to clarify one or two of its aspects. I quoted from the writings of Orthodox Jewish Historians who described how our tradition came down to us through the Sadducees and where the tradition of the Pharisees (The Rabbinate) differs from that of the Sadducees it is probably the tradition of the latter which was originally intended. They gave examples, of which there are many more, to show that where the Written Law (The Torah) proved unsuitable for the circumstance of the time, the Pharisees took upon themselves the authority to alter, abrogate or add to it. The feedback showed that some had assumed that I was suggesting a return to the authority of the Sadducees. Nothing could be further from my thoughts and it is this aspect that I wish to clarify. 

 In both of my previous essays on the subject, I agreed with the Chief Rabbi’s Statement that without the Talmud, the teachings of the Pharisees, there might well be no Jewish people in existence today.  One of the benefits of having committed the Historians collective thoughts to paper clearly shows that the Pharisees were in fact an early, audacious reform movement intent on preserving Judaism, introducing changes, and making it applicable to the circumstances current some two thousand years ago.

 One of the negative results of the Pharisees actions was, again according to the Historians, their introduction of foreign, and sometimes, superstitious concepts of ‘Reward and Punishment after Death’ and the ‘Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead’. These concepts, which have only insignificant and illusive references, can be found in the Torah. Indeed, in his Commentary on the Torah (page 397) the late Chief Rabbi Hertz wrote, ‘’There is not a word (in the Torah) concerning immortality, or concerning reward and punishment in the Hereafter’. ‘On the other hand, there is proscription of all magic and sorcery, of sacrificing to the dead, as well as every form of alleged intercourse with the world of spirits’’  

 I recently attended a lecture, on this and allied subjects, by an eminent Rabbi whose roots and reputation are firmly planted in the Orthodox camp. During a subsequent private discussion concerning current differences of opinion between Rabbis on current, and differing, interpretations of ‘Halachah’, he agreed that in some instances the Rabbis of today could show more flexibility as did Rabbis of yesteryear. However, he made the point that for the last twenty centuries or so, with the exception of approximately the last two centuries, Jewish communal living modes and structure had hardly changed.  Rules, which governed the community at the beginning of the period, were still being applied, or at least were not challenged, until the end of the eighteenth century.  He partially blamed the Codes such as the ‘Shulchan Aruch’ for this lack of development, for they had canonised the Oral Law. He believed that in time the flexibility, of which the Oral Law is capable, would once again come to the fore but, given the nature of Rabbis and of the Halachah, this will take time. 
 December 2000