• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

‘ ‘ ~ /) ' i5‘ ‘333 3% i . ‘\i‘ D‘E I‘S V E L O P I.N G A P R O G R E S S I V_E _J E W H H A L A C H A H f John D. Rayner HALACHAH is that aspect of Judaism which seeks to answer the question, V'ATTAH YISRAEL, MAH HA—SHEM ELOHEYCHA SHO-EL ME-IMMACH, "And now, 0 Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you?" (Deut. 10:12). It.is an enterprise which presupposes five affirmations: that HA-SHEM exists, that he is SHO-EL, a God who makes demands, that these fiemands are addressed to YISRAEL, the Jewish people, that they are knowable, and that they are doable. Each of these propositions TZARICH IYYUN, requires consideration. God exists. But what do we mean by 'God' and how sure can we be that He exists? Would He have to be a personal God in order to make demands? If so, what kind of a HALACHAH, if /“ any, is possible on‘tge basis of a naturalistic theology? What, for example, is the status of the MITZVOT in Reconstructionism? God makes demands. But what kind of demands? Moral or ritual, and what is their inter— relationship and relative importance? Do they cover all aspects of life or are there 'neutral' areas in which it is a matter of indifference to God which of a plurality of options we take? ! God's demands are addressed, in the first instance, to Israel as the People of the Cévenant. But where does that leave the rest of mankind? Is it satisfactory to regard them as subject only to SHEVA MITZVOT B‘NEY NOACH, the Seven Noachide Laws?_ If there are other good things in Judaism, should we not wish to share them with non—Jews? God's demands are knowable, for the question of the Deuteronomist, what does the Lord require of you, is not meant to invite the answer, "Who knows?" But how are they know— ablg? Through what channel of divine revelation or human discdvery or some combination of Ehe two?v And how knowable are they? With certainty or only with more 6r less prob— ability? . ‘ N God's demands are Aoable. That, too, is implied, and in another Deuteronomic passage it is explicitly stated: KI HA-MITZVAH‘HALZOT ASHER ANOCHI M'TZAVV'CHA HA—YOM LO NIFLET HI MIMM‘CHA, "This commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you..." (30:11). The view occasionally expressed by Paul that the Torah was given only to im— press on us our inability to perform it theréfore stands contradicted by the Torah it— self. But though it is not impossible for human beings to do God's will, it is often far'from easy. Just how difficult is it, then? How far does it 'stretch' human nature? And do the same requirgménts apply to all or is there a higher standard — MISHNAT CHASIDUT — expected of some? All these questions deserve to be explored, and different individuals will answer them differently. Nevertheless, with whatever qualifications, the five<§§fidéfiégfiél“ ’_%;§ affirmations I have stated would surely be endorsed by all who consider themselves re- ligioué Jews. Therefore, having noted the complications, I hope I can safely assume that we are on common ground, and proceed. LEO BAEC'K COLLEGE wj\‘ LIBRARY ‘ -2- THe common ground is what makes possible, and indeed necessary, the halachic enter- prise. But the enterprise itself could, in theory, take various forms. In practice, however, one particular form has dominated Jewish life for so many centuries that we tend to use the word HALACHAH as being synonymous with it, and to forget that there are other possibilities. What shall we call the hitherto dominant form? None of the usual terms is wholly satisfactory. If we call.it the Traditional HALACHAH we imply that Progressive Judaism is untraditional. If we call it the Rabbinic HALACHAH we imply that Progressive rabbis are not rabbis. If we call it the Talmudic HALACHAH we imply that it did not develop after the talmudic age. If we call it the Orthodox HALACHAH we identify it with a modern phenomenon — for there is an important sense in which Orthodox Judaism began in the age of Emancipation - and beg the question whether it is the only legitimate inter- pretation of the antecedent tradition. Perhaps the term least liable to misunderstand— ing would be the Pharisaic HALACHAH, since it was the Pharisees who established the ground—rules of the system. What that system is, and how it works, we all more or less know, and I have described on other occasions my understanding of it, but so that we may not imfiose on it a definit- ion, as it were, 'from the outside', let me quote from the writings of Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs whose phenomenal and sympathetic 'inside knowledge' of the system no reasonable person would question. In Principles 9: the Jewish Faith he writes: "Despite the qualifications we have noted, the older View is, on the whole, that of a more or less static body of laws, embracing the whole of life and every aspect of human conduct, dictated by God to Moses on Sinai and handed down from generation to generation. These laws are recorded in the Pentateuch, the 'Written Law', and have their elaboration in the ‘Oral Law', the latter being re- corded in the Talmudic literature. New enactments and fresh interpretations were, to be sure, introduced by the great Rabbinic teachers in each generation, but the core of the teaching found in the later codes of Jewish law, such as the Shulhan 'Arukh, reaches back to a direct communication by God to Moées at a given date in human history" (p. 290). And in his latest book, The ~Tree 93 Life, Dr. Jacobs writes: "None of the traditional Halakhists ever dared, or, judging by their writings, ever thought, to take issue with, for them, the basic doctrine upon which the Halakhic structure is reared, namely, the infallibility of Scripture in its rabbinic interpretation and the infallibility of the Talmudic rabbis as the sole and final arbiters of the Halakhah" (p. 237) Accepting that as a correct characterisation of the Pharisaic HALAKHAH, we must note that it still dominates the life of large numbers of Jews. But that statement requires one or two qualifications. First, it holds true mainly among the genuinely Orthodox, who are only a minority, though a numerically and qualitatively large and impressive one, of the Jewish people. Secondly, it holds true, even among them, only to the ex— tent to which the HALAKHAH is still operative. It must not, therefore, be thought that 3} -3- fihey observe all of the TARYAG MITZVOT._ Of the 613, as listed and classified in the : Encyclopaedia Judaica on the basis of Maimonides' enumeration (Vol. 5, pp. 763—782), 197 rélate to Temple, Sacrifices and Priests, 18 relate to ritual purity, 20 relate to agriculture, 4 to monarchy, 8 to Nazirites, 14 to slaves. That makes 261 command— ments practically all of which are nowadays inapplicable to practically all Jews. Nor is that all, since it does not include the civil and criminal law, which might account ' for up to another 100 commandments, because in these areas most Jews are subject to the jurisdiction of Gentile law. In other words, only about a half of the TARYAG MITZVOT are operative. But with that qualification,_the Pharisaic HALAKHAH does govern the‘ life of a substantial minority of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, it is a minority. For the majority of Jews the Pharisaic HALAKHAH is no longer decisive, and to many of them it means little or nothing. Why is that? So far as I know, a scientific historical study of the decline of subservience to Rabbinic Law since the Emancipation has yet to be written. But the main causes are obvious enough. One is the change in the social position of Jews, which has both attenuated their group cohesion and taken away from rabbinic courts such powers of law enforcement as they had previously possessed. Another is the general decline in religious faith. Without a strong belief in a Divine Lawgiver there is little motivation to submit one- self to the legislation supposed to emanate from Him. A third factor is the rise of modern Bible scholarship which, for those aware of it and inclined to accept it, has rendered untenable the Fundamentalist premise of the Pharisaic HALACHAH. On that subject let me recommend the splendid summary in Dr. Louis Jacobs' discussion of Maimonides' Eighth Principle in his Principles 9£_the Jewish Faith. In The Tree 2: Eigg Dr. Jacobs writes: "The real difference...between the traditional Halakhists and modernists...is on the question of how the Halakhah came to be and how it developed. The basic question is the historical one, from which the practical consequences all stem. Indeed, the very nbtion that there is a history of the Halakhah and that it developed is anathema to the traditional Halakhist who operates on the massive assumption that the Torah, both in its written form, the Pentateuch, and in its oral form, as found in the Talmgdic literature, was directly conveyed by God to Moses éither at Sinai or during the forty years of wandering through the wilderness" (p. 238). But there is more to be said. As Dr. Jacobs goes on to remark, "Revelation is a matter of faith rather than historical scholarship. Scholarly investigation into the authorship of the biblical books cannot by its nature make any pronouncement on whether the authbr or authors of a biblical book were inspired.

Load more

  12

Copy Link