Can there be a successful alternative to Rabbinic Judaism?

Great Debates
1

This will be long.

(Disclaimer: All the below are the facts as I understand and believe them. If I am wrong in any of the below, please correct me.)

Throughout the history of Judaism, various sects and movements flourished. While the Second Temple stood, and some time before its destruction, there were a number of competing sects and movements, such as the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Nazerenes, Zadokites, Chasidim, Hellenizers, Hellenistic Jews, Karaites, Zealots, etc. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE (CE = Common Era = AD) by the Romans, only three sects survived to today: the Nazerenes (who became a religion of their own, Christianity), the Pharisees (which gave birth to Rabbinic Judaism), and the Karaites (who have hardly survived to this day).

Since 70 CE to today, Rabbinic Judaism developed and helped Judaism remain vibrant. Rabbinic Judaism helped Judaism survive the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the Sanhedrin.

Rabbinic Judaism, unlike most of the other sects and movements of Judaism during the Second Temple, believed in two Torot (plural of Torah): the Written Torah, preserved on scrolls, and the Oral Torah. Furthermore, Rabbinic Jews believe that both Torot are essential and important - one cannot exist without the other. Without the Oral Torah, the commandments and statements of the Written Torah would be irrelevant for the Jews, since there would be no way to comply with them. Examples: how do you affix mezuzot? what are tefillin? what does it mean not to eat a kid goat boiled in its mother’s milk? The Oral Torah answers all of these, and much more. On the other hand, without the Written Torah, the Oral Torah would have nothing enduring to refer to or to base itself on. It would be a collection of teachings, rules, rulings, and such, without any organization, explanation, or origin.

In addition, the Oral Torah, being oral, was passed to Moses/Mosheh, and from Moses/Mosheh to Joshua/Yehoshua, and from him to the elders, and from them to the prophets, and from them to the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Khenesset Ha-Gedolah) (see Pirqei Avot 1:1). The Men of the Great Assembly passed it down to their students, who eventually codified it in the midrashim and Talmud.

These Sages - the tannaim and amoraim - are revered as preserving and passing down the sacred Oral Torah, without which the Written Torah would be useless, which helped the survival of Judaism. These Sages, Rabbis, are the leaders and foundation of Rabbinic Judaism.

Rabbinic Judaism offers a concrete perspective on Judaism that has helped and continues to help Jews live and live with Judaism. Even though it still reveres details of ancient periods, such as the sacrifices at the Temple, it remains relevant with its ability to apply the principles of Judaism, as understood by them through the Oral Torah, to modern needs. Thus, the prohibition of riding in cars on the Sabbath, which both the Written and Oral Torah are silent on - cars were not invented then.

What characterizes Rabbinic Judaism is its emphasis on study.

Probably one of the biggest crises to hit Judaism with the destruction of the Temple was what was to be done about Temple sacrifices, which defined Judaism for centuries. Rabbinic Judaism came with an answer - the sacrifices would be replaced with prayer and study. Thus, praying and studying were equal to, if not superior, bringing sacrifices to the Temple.

This can be seen in the traditional layout of synagogues, which are patterned in a way after the Temple. The bimah is the altar; the ark wherein the scrolls of the (Written) Torah are kept is the Holy of Holies; the rabbi becomes a priest; the chazzan, as shaliach or representative, represents the people and, as such, may be said to be the high priest. As in the Temple, the kohanim bless the people in the traditional manner as at that time. So, Rabbinic Judaism allowed Judaism to survive by adapting, changing, and thus preserving what people saw as central principles and practices of the religion.

Now. This is all well and good, but Rabbinic Judaism has done more - it has changed Judaism itself. Technically and ideally, the Rabbis would base their interpretations and rulings and teachings on the Written and Oral Torot, but this is not what happens in reality. In reality, the Oral Torah is quite separate from the Written Torah. In some cases, the only role the Written Torah plays is to add legitimacy to something in the Oral Torah. And rather than being organized, as the Written Torah is to some extent, the Oral Torah is very varied, contradictory, and unorganized. It seems that the Oral Torah is simply a catch-all phrase for all rulings, practices, etc., that do not have their origin in the Written Torah. But even those that do, such as detailing the mitzvah of mezuzot or tefillin, the Oral Torah still goes way beyond the Written Torah and adds embellishments that change and complicate what the Written Torah meant.

Example: according to the Written Torah, Jews are obligated to post mezuzot on their doorposts and entrances of their gates. The Oral Torah goes on in detail on how to write a mezuzah, how to attach it, etc. It even include irrelevant details - such as making sure the “shin” of “Shaddai” at on the opposite can be seen, often complied with today with a decorated shin on the mezuzah case. Another example is regarding tefilling. Now, to the Oral Torah’s credit, the Oral Torah does a good job of describing what a tefillin is, what to put in it, etc. But nowhere in the Written Torah is there anything about winding long leather straps, a shin with four teeth on the tefillin shel rosh, having four compartments in the tefillin, or even the importance of the order of the parchments - which makes some Jews wear two pairs of tefillin at once to comply with two opposing rulings.

Another famous example is the whole deal with kashrut. The Written Torah does not say not to eat milk and meat at the same time. This whole justification came about because Rabbinic leaders believed that every mitzvah in the Torah has to have an application today, and since that one did not, they modified it to suit their purposes. And so we have long, detailed instructions in the Oral Torah about the laws of kashrut related to milk- and meat-related issues that the Written Torah did not intend.

Secondly, the entire corpus of the Oral Torah is characterized by mental gymnastics. Instead of using the Oral Torah to explain the Written Torah, the Written Torah is used to justify and legitimize the Oral Torah, and Rabbinic leaders will go to any lengths to find some proof, justification, or legitimization from the Written Torah, regardless how far-fetched it may be. Reading through some of the reasoning of the Sages seems almost to be an insult to the intelligence of others. The legalistic aspect of Judaism changed from adhering to the Laws of H’ to an exercise in reasoning and mental gymnastics.

An example: One time, Moses/Mosheh was in a dream, wherein he was in a class. He was sitting in the very back. At the front was a man, who was expounding on the Torah, but what he was saying made no sense to Mosheh. Nothing he said seemed to have any connection with the Torah. And yet, throughout it all, the man confirmed what he was teaching was the Torah. Puzzled, he asked H’ about this man and what he was teaching, especially since H’ gave the Torah to him, Mosheh, and H’ told him that this was R. Akiva, who in the future would create hundreds of laws from the crown of a single letter. (For those who may not know, in the scrolls, many letters have “crowns” or tagin, which are like lollipops, attached to the heads of the letters.) I don’t think any comment is needed.

Unlike what one may read in the other parts of the Tanakh - the Prophets (Neviim) and Writings (Ketuvim) - there seems to be no breath of the Divine in Rabbinic Judaism, past or present.

Allow me to explain with an example from the Oral Torah itself: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrqanos and other Rabbis were arguing about the kashrut of a certain oven. R. Eliezer argued that the oven is kosher, while the rest were saying it was not. R. Eliezer, frustrated, said that if his ruling is right, that tree will jump and replant itself over there. Lo, and behold, the tree uproots itself and replants itself where R. Eliezer said it would. The Rabbis argue that they do not base their decisions on leaping trees. Then R. Eliezer said that if he is correct, the walls of their room would begin to close in. Lo, and behold, the walls begin to close in. The Rabbis were afraid, and begged R. Eliezer to stop. The walls returned back to their original position, and the Rabbis said that they do not base their decisions on moving walls. Then R. Eliezer points to the sky and says that if he is correct, H’ Himself will say so. Lo, and behold, a Voice comes from the heavens affirming R. Eliezer is correct. The Rabbis look up and say that the Torah is theirs, and is not for H’ to determine. H’ laughs, saying, “My children have beaten me!”

Now, whether H’ found this funny or not, I find it disturbing. R. Eliezer was eventually excommunicated for his departure from the majority’s consensus (although there may have been other issues involved). The point here is that the Rabbis are supreme and the sole authorities: even H’ has no say.

There are certain movements today that do not like the monopoly of Rabbinic Judaism. As a response to the supposedly backwards common Jews, Reform Judaism came about. Orthodox Judaism came as a response to the wayward Reform Jews, and Conservative Judaism came about as a movement in between. Also present today are Humanistic Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism, among others. Despite what these movements believe about Rabbinic Judaism, each is firmly in the larger movement of Rabbinic Judaism. They all have leaders that are rabbis, and they all believe in and accept, if not practice, the “traditional” festivals as instituted by the Rabbis. (Remember, Chanukkah is a festival instituted by the Rabbis, not the Torah.) Even Reform Judaism’s position of the past has a vote, not a veto, shows that they cannot move out of Rabbinic Judaism.

What alternative remains for a Jew who does not accept Rabbinic Judaism? What about those who disagree, emphatically, with Rabbinic Judaism’s claim to authority from H’ giving the Torah to Mosheh on Sinai, being passed down in an unbroken chain from him to today (by teachers and books)? Are there others Jews out there who believe Judaism is more than one movement?

And the central question - seeing Rabbinic Judaism’s role in preserving, changing, and defining Judaism, can there be any successful alternative to Rabbinic Judaism?

WRS (hoping, B"H, someone will respond.)

2

Just about all branches of Judaism today rely on Rabbinic Judaism to some extent or other. Go to the Central Conference of American Rabbis responsa page (the CCAR being an arm of Reform Judaism) and you’ll find that in their teshuvos (responsa) they bring down classic Rabbinic sources (incorrectly, IMHO, but that’s another argument altogether). I couldn’t answer for some of the more fringe movements (Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc.) but my guess is that they too will claim some legitimacy and descent from classic Rabbinic Judaism.

In any event, considering that Rabbinic Judaism has really was the only Judaism from the time of the Destruction of the Temple until the mid 1800s, any “non-Rabbinic” movement would have to go back pretty far to claim some form of legitimacy.

Zev Steinhardt

3

Well, Christianity has been pretty successful as an alternative to rabbinic Judaism. At least, so far. < evil grin >

4

CK, I’ve read lots of Messianic/C’tian literature & even they refer a LOT to Rabbinic authorities (esp to those who regard Isaiah’s Suffering Servant passages as Messianic).

5

I am surprised there is no tradition yet in Judaism like the back-to-the-source fundamentalists (in the exact definition of the word) as in Christianity and Islam. I guess even if such a tradition did begin, it would be difficult to never rely on certain teachings of the Oral Torah, such as laws regarding marriage, divorce, and rituals, since the Written Torah is silent on these - and then it would be difficult to say where to draw the line in accepting and rejecting Rabbinic Judaism’s traditions.

Weird as it may seem, I am sure one may make the case that Christianity, or at least during its Jewish phase, is part of Rabbinic Judaism - relying on rabbis (Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, etc.) and using their pronouncements. The devotion Christians show to their rabbi’s writings is not too far off the reverence Chabad Lubavitchers show to Rabbi Mendel Schneerson’s writings. (To the point, even, of some people declaring the Rabbi to be the Messiah who will return from the dead.)

WRS

6

You’re talking here about beginning a new tradition, and that’s where the problem would lie, IMO. What source other than the Rabbinic literature are you going to base the new tradition on? The Mishna certainly doesn’t reflect the views of 100% of Jews of its era, but it’s all we’ve got, as Zev pointed out.

That said, there are “back-to-the-source” fundamentalists in Judaism – the Karaites, who reject the Talmud. There must be a few communities of them left here and there around the world, although there were a lot more in the Middle Ages. From what I have read, they would basically spend Shabbat sitting inside their houses in the dark.

7

So, lessee, we go back to the Torah and discard the commentaries? Like, don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk means exactly that, and cheeseburgers are OK as long as the cheese isn’t from the mother of the meat? So, like a cheeseburger would be OK if you used goat cheese on beef? And cream of chicken soup is OK because a chicken’s mother has no milk? and…

I don’t see much prospect.

8

Sorry for the hijack, but thanks to the OP for mentionning the Karaites. I was unaware of their existence, and I googled for infos. It’s pretty interesting.

9

I suggest there is an unofficial “essentialist” Judaism, which is held by many in Reform, Conservative & perhaps even Orthodox communities. Maybe the best term for such Jews is “observant”. (Yes, I realize the big debate that can erupt over how observant one must be to qualify as “observant” L)

10

[QUOTE=WeRSauron

Another famous example is the whole deal with kashrut. The Written Torah does not say not to eat milk and meat at the same time. This whole justification came about because Rabbinic leaders believed that every mitzvah in the Torah has to have an application today, and since that one did not, they modified it to suit their purposes. And so we have long, detailed instructions in the Oral Torah about the laws of kashrut related to milk- and meat-related issues that the Written Torah did not intend.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Unless you can cite exactly where the Torah states ‘Do not boil a kid goat in the milk of its mother applies to that act only and you shall draw no other meaning or prohibition from this.’ you’re only offering your interpretation.

If you wish simply to discard oral tradition, you’re not establising anything new.

The Karaites, and you mention them so I’m very confused, did just that.

‘We can eat as many cheesburgers as we want. Just as long as we don’t literally boil a kid in its mom’s milk, we aren’t disobeying the commandment.’

11

Karaites might just do what I’m seeking - this I admit. However, the reaction to the Karaites is not very positive. Rabbinic Jews do not consider them as Jews, really. If I remember correctly, if a Karaite Jew and a Rabbinic Jew wanted to get married, Rabbinic Judaism would not consider the marriage Jewish unless the Karaite converted, basically, to Judaism (brit hatafat dam, immersion in mikvah, pronouncing the Shema) under the auspices of a Rabbinic Jewish Rabbi. So, even though some Jews may consider Karaites to be Jews or, at least, a part of Judaism, ritually and by halacha (the latter being of great importance) they are not Jews. Not even a Reform Jew would need to go through a conversion ceremony to marry an Orthodox Jew.

Even more ominous, Karaites were not considered Jews by Nazi Germany. Some Karaites helped the Nazis eradicate (Rabbinic) Jews. In some places, they helped Rabbinic Jews.

I remembered another point that in all fairness I should include. Indeed, to me Rabbinic authorities may seem to be engaging in mental gymnastics, but even that is not necessary. The justification for something not found in the Written Torah may be simply: “Halachah leMosheh miSinai,” or “Law of Moses from Sinai.” I remember now going into an AskMoses.com chatroom to ask some questions. The answer was the same.

Why are tefillin straps black? Halacha leMosheh miSinai.
Why four prongs on the shin of the tefillin shel rosh? Halacha leMosheh miSinai.
How does one know how to wind the straps? Halacha leMosheh miSinai.
And so on.

It got a bit annoying after a while.

However, all this said and done, it seems that a non-Rabbinic form of Judaism, unless Karaism experiences an explosion of growth, will never come about.

It has nothing to do with cheeseburgers and the such, but rather with the very halachic definition of a Jew. Academically, defining a Jew is easy. But from the perspective of the adherents, it is very difficult. This very question, “Who is a Jew?” is the bone of contention among the various Jewish denominations in Israel.

As people have said here, more than defining Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism as been Judaism for centuries. For many, creating a non-Rabbinic form of Judaism would be akin to creating a non-Jewish form of Judaism - no such movement would ever be recognized as Jewish by the vast majority of Jews. Even atheist Jews are accepted as Jews, but treading a path that opposes or attempts to replace Rabbinic Judaism might be considered an act of heresy or apostasy. This is understandable considering how Jews view Judaism. Ripping out this precious foundation might cause Judaism to collapse - without the doctrines of Rabbinic Judaism, how can Jews justify their long history? How would they be able to create a Judaism that is relevant and yet practical? (Anyone attempting to go back to the Torah would find an obstacle in that sacrifices cannot be performed these days. Indeed, there have been Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem (even discounting the Samaritans), but to establish a Jewish temple along Biblical instructions today would be to invite the wrath of Judaism.)

Through its centuries of history, change, coping, persecution, and trials, Rabbinic Judaism is fit for Jews today and tomorrow. I doubt, like others, anything can be as good as Rabbinic Judaism.

WRS