5 RABBINIC CONCEPTS H EO LOGY, FOR MOST of us, can mean tvvo different things. More formally it refers to a systemat ic and relat ively rigorous explana­ tion of the divine and the world. Like some types of philosophy, it begins with certain premises and logically builds upon them a coherent system of thought. In this sense the goal of theology is to tame and system­ atize potentially contradictory beliefs about the divine. It VJould be the job of theology, for example, to reconcile a belief in only one God, who is good, with the enduring presence of evil in the v.rorld. A second, more colloquial use of the term theology denotes simply the foundational beliefs or dogma of a religion with little regard to their system­ atization or coherence. As heirs of the Western Christian tradition, vve tend to privilege these religious beliefs as essential to true religiosity. A person's theology thus means one's personal beliefs, which are then seen as consti­ tuting the core of religious expression. W hen institutionalized, these beliefs often become a dogma, a set of assertions that one must believe to be con­ sidered "orthodox" ("right-thinking") by that religious t radition. By either of these definitions, the Ra b bis were poor theologians. For all their rigor and attention to detail, the Talmuds almost never systematically work out what we would call theological positions; their analyses focus on matters of lavJ and their justifications. W hen the Rabbis do discuss theolog­ ical matters, they usually do so in midrash and in an ad hoc manner. Given the rabbin ic emphasis on multivocality, it should also come as no surprise that the Rabbis make li ttle effort to enforce particular beliefs. While some Rabbis do draw a fev.r li nes in the sand when it comes to belief, these are relatively marginal to the entire thrust of rabbinic Judaism. Satlow, Michael L.. Creating Judaism : History, Tradition, Practice. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 6 January 2016. Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. RABBINIC CON CEPTS + 141 But the rabbinic inattention to th eology, as we understand the term, does not mean that the Rabbis were uninterested in theological matters. In fact, the Ra bbis were intrigued by the same questions that theologians have been struggling with for m illennia. W hat is the nature of Goel? Why did Goel cre­ ate the world and everything in it, including evil, this particular Vl'ay? What does it mean to be human, created in God's image? Why did God make a covenant with Abraham and his descenclents, and what is the meaning of that covenant, and the one on Sinai? What will happen at the encl of time? Rather than addressing these issues in any systematic or even explicit way, the Rabbis consider them organically, growing out of other discussions or biblical verses. Their theological reflections are sharp flashes or illumina­ tions that pass as surprisingly as they appear. When seen together, these flashes do not quite add up to a coherent theology, but they do create a kind of theological collage in \vhich different answers blend into others in a vari­ ety of different directions. 0 r, to use a different metaphor, they define a map in 'INhich the topography varies greatly depending o n the perspective. One distinctive characteristic of rabbinic theology is its ability to main­ tain creative tensio ns. As with their legal discussions, the Ra bbis like to toy with the boundaries. Instead of deciding, for example, whether they prefer to see God as distant and uninvolved in human affairs (transcendent) or as nurturing and deeply involved, they opt fo r both. This is why the answer to the question "What do the Rabbis think about x?" can routinely produce frustrat ion; the answer often includes its opposite- and most every shade in between. Yet despite the elasticity of rabb inic concepts, there are clear limits. Some answers, or even questions, never make it onto the map. The Rabbis might wonder about questions of divine plurali ty and the nature of divine beings other than God, but never would they find acceptable an an­ s>ver that posits the existence of a second god. This creative tension extends to the Rabbis' relationship to biblical theol­ ogy. The Ra bbis continually seek to li nk their concepts and beliefs to the Hebrew Bible. In many cases this is not a stretch; the contours of rabbinic thinki ng, on a very basic level, folloVI' the options fo und in the Hebrew Bible. Other t imes, though, the Rabbis creatively rework or even subvert biblical ideas while claiming to remain true to the text. This chapter, then, is an attempt to sketch out the terrain of the major rabbinic concepts and to sho>v the range of theological options they pro­ vide. The assortment of to pics that occupy the Ra bbis more or less follows the contours of the Tanak: God, covenant, Torah, sin, repentance, theocl­ icy, Israel, and redemption. The Rabbis do not have a single straightforward Satlow, Michael L.. Creating Judaism : History, Tradition, Practice. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 6 January 2016. Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. 142 • RABBINIC CONCEPTS position fo r any of these topics, and my goal is to highlight the creative ten­ sions that they form and the relationships between theological concepts rather than to insist o n any single "dominant" understanding. The very fact of theological multivocality is critically important. By creating a range of theological options rather than dogmatically insisting o n one, rabbinic li t­ erature provides a collection of theological possibilities upon which later Jews will draw. One Jewish community might find an immanent God more to its liking than another, but both communit ies can find authority for their positions in this diverse literature. Is God near or far? Is the "real" God the transcendent one of the first cre­ ation account or the immanent, caring, and excitable o ne of the second? The Torah's juxtaposition of the two radically different ideas of God in the firs t chapters of Genesis was to some extent a historical accident, the v.rork of a redactor unable to exclude either of these two sacred stories. For the Rabbis, though, these seemingly different ideas represent two different as­ pects of the one God. Even God's tv.ro names (the J and E names), in this reading, indicate the poles of God's nature. From Genesis I the Rabbis dre\v the idea of God's utter transcendence. Whereas the Second Temple authors of the apocalyptic works reconciled the idea of majestic and transcendent God with a permeable heaven into which human beings could pass for quick guided tours, the Ra bbis draw a sharper separation between God and creation. This is a God so a\vesome that humans cannot abide anywhere near God's presence. In one midrash God (accidentally?) kills all the Israelites at :N!ount Sinai when uttering the firs t letter of the Ten Commandments-the silent aleph! (In His mercy, He then resurrects them.) Noting the consistent use of God's name as elohim throughout Genesis i, the Rabbis identify it with God's attrib ute of justice. The transcendent God is also the ultimate infallible judge, unswayecl by "mitigating circumstances;' \Nho metes out precise penalties and rewards to human beings. Yet whereas Genesis I portrays God as majestically aloof and alone, the rabbinic reading of this account tends to soften God's t ranscendence. One very clever midrash that echoes throughout other rabbinic traditions plays off the first Hebrew word of the Torah, b'reshit, normally translated "In the beginning, Goel created the heavens and the earth:' The term reshit, they note, occurs also at Proverbs 8 :22, in which W isdom says, "The Lord made Satlow, Michael L.. Creating Judaism : History, Tradition, Practice. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 6 January 2016. Copyright © 2006. Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. RABBINIC CON CEPTS + 143 me the beginning (reshit) of his "vork, the first of his acts of old:' Reading the Hebrew preposition b' as "with" rather than "in" (a justified construal of this prefix), they transform the first sentence of the Torah to read: "With the Torah, elohim created the heavens and the earth:' The repercussions of this reading are profound, for they now suggest that the Torah is the pri­ mordial blueprint fo r creation. God now has a partner (albeit one of a very different nature). God's \-Vord, the agent of creation throughout Genesis i, is no longer a fleeting sound but the Torah itself. The "vord, which occupies the space bet"veen the unapproachable Goel and creation, becomes acces­ sible. By \vay of comparison, the Gospel of John has a different reading of Genesis i : "In the beginning the Word already was .... He was "vith Goel at the beginning, and through hi m all things came to be" (John 1:1- 3). Jo hn interprets God's word (the logos) as His incarnation; Jesus, not Torah, is the accessible intermediary between God and His creation. Actually, the rabbinic reading of Genesis l populates the heavens. Gene­ sis 1:26, "Let us make man;' t roubles the Ra bbis: To whom is God speaking? Immediately ruling out the possibility of another god (and, on the principle of the divine nature of the language of the Torah, rejecting the "us" as a figure of speech), the Rabbis suggest that He was speaking to the angels.