Reflecting on Judaism

In October 2002, the Labour Party’s Minister of Defence in the Unity Government of Israel instructed the army to remove illegal settlements from the territories in the ‘West Bank’ of Israel. The Unity Government includes a number of political parties, stretching from the centre left to somewhat to the right of the centre right on the political scale. The Government accepts collective responsibility for its decisions.
 
On the 25th October, the Jerusalem Post reported that Rabbi Zalman Melamed, head of the Rabbinical Council of Judea and Sameria, an unelected body which lacks official standing, imposed a sweeping prohibition on the evacuation of any Jewishly held patch of Land of Israel, thereby inciting soldiers to disobey orders. His son, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed explained that a command of God supersedes a human government’s policy. Fortunately the ‘Post’ was able to quote, not only leading contemporary rabbis but also rulings of rabbinic giants of the past ‘that territorial issues are for experts, not rabbis, to decide’. Rabbi Melamed’s prohibition is therefore probably invalid. It does however raise the general question about ‘The role and authority of Rabbis.
 
The question is easier to ask than to answer. Not only is the status of today’s rabbi different from his original status but there are differences between rabbi and rabbi.
 
The original title ‘Rabbi’ and the ordination of rabbis (Semichah, the laying on of hands) dates back to the early Rabbinic period, circa 150 BCE. Tradition relates that the chain of ordination dates back to Joshua and ended on the completion of the Talmud, circa 5th Cent CE. Since then the title ’Rabbi’ is honorific although in 1538 Rabbi Jacob Berav of Safed sought to reintroduce full Semichah but Rabbi Levi Ibn Habib of Jerusalem successfully opposed him. Their controversy centred on whether the reintroduction of the original ordination would bring nearer the coming of the Messiah.          
 
Today, ordination is a convention by which a scholar does not render decisions in Jewish Law (Halachah) unless he is has been authorised so to do by a competent Halachic authority who has himself been ordained. Because there is no objective standard of ‘competence’, standards of Semichah differ from rabbi to rabbi. The difference can be as stark as the difference between a First Class Honours Degree from Oxford University and a Third Class Degree from some dubious Authority. This is something which should be taken into account when, for example, a synagogue wishes to appoint a communal rabbi. 
 
We have seen above that great rabbis have ruled that territorial issues (they have also ruled that medical issues) should be left to the experts. Are there not other issues which are outside the rabbi’s competence? I mention below examples of four major episodes in our history when the rabbis, believing that the matter was within their competence to judge, as did Rabbi Melamed mentioned above, cause us serious problems.
 
The first episode concerns the famous and influential 1st/2nd Century Rabbi Akiva, a mystic. He, believing that Bar Kochba was the Messiah, encouraged Jews to support and follow Bar Kochba, who led the Jewish revolt against the Romans, thereby causing the death of hundreds of thousands of Jews, to no avail.
 
The second episode concerns Shabbatai Zvi a 17th Century charlatan and mystic who believed, and was encouraged to believe, that he was the Messiah and who influenced not only masses of Jews but also a great swathe of rabbis across Europe to believe likewise. Worse, some believed him to be God incarnate although he later apostatised. Part of his doctrine, and that of some of his followers including rabbis, was the abrogation of Torah prohibitions which led in many cases to extreme corruption and decadence. According to Gershom Sholem, a leading 20th Century expert on Shabbatai Zvi, when the rabbis realised that they had been duped they destroyed much of their communal records in order to obliterate the fact of their involvement.
 
The third episode concerns many Orthodox Rabbis in central Europe before the Second World War, particularly but not solely, among Hassidic sects, who forbade their followers to try to emigrate to Palestine. They believed that the establishment of a Jewish state was the prerogative of God alone and would come at the time of the Messiah. It is possible that, had their followers been encouraged to emigrate to Israel they might not have received permission from the British Authorities to enter, but how wrong were the rabbis not to encourage them even to try? Who knows how many lives might have been saved? There are some rabbis of similar ilk, whilst living in Israel today under the protection of the State still think that the State should not exist for the same reason.
 
The fourth episode is the most recent and concerns a discussion between Rabbi Ovadia and the late Rabbi Goren. It occurred during the height of the internal discussion as to whether it was halachically permissible to exchange land for peace. The two rabbis discussed the matter in the columns of the Jerusalem Post. Quoting the same Authorities, The Torah, Talmud, Rambam, Ramban and others, Rabbi Goren ruled that it was not permissible whilst Rabbi Ovadia ruled that it was.
 
So where does this leave us? A religious community usually needs a religious leader, a rabbi. Are we to follow his lead loyally with regards to halachic minutiae in order to conform, together with the majority of the community, in circumstances where there can be no major adverse affect even if the rabbi is wrong in specific instances? Or are we to follow him in all matters, including political aspects of Jewish life such as those illustrated above, when he rules that halachah is involved, knowing how extremely wrong rabbis have been in the past. Where does one draw the line? How does one refuse his advice and perhaps the advice of a majority of rabbinate, as the community should have done at the time of Shabbatai Zvi, without wanting to hurt, belittle or embarrass him or create a split in the community?  How should the Community define the limits of their rabbi’s actual remit and expertise?
 

November 2002
 
PS. On rereading this essay I was struck by the number of times the belief in the ‘Messiah’ was the cause of disasters to the Jewish people. In the first three of the above examples (and not only in the above examples) this belief in the Messiah was the direct cause of the disasters, whilst it also entered into the rabbis discussion mentioned in the fourth example. The understanding of ‘Messiah’ has changed radically since biblical days. The modern understanding, that he will be sent by God to redeem Israel was, by many accounts, introduced by the rabbis when they acquired religious authority circa. 150 BCE.  It seems incredible that a belief that was intended to do us good and uplift us has done us so much harm.  Would it be preferable if ‘Messiah’ was understood in one of the original, biblical, more general ways namely, the person who would usher in a new era in which all mankind will worship the true God and banish trouble from the earth?  W.A.