Rabbi

Some time ago, I called zev “rabbi” out of respect for his Talmudic knowledge. Now, I knew that back in the days of the Herods, “rabbi” was a term of respect, used for teachers, especially those learned in the Law. They called Jesus “Rabbi-that is to say ‘Master’”, but “teacher” or “professor” seems to be a more modern translation. Of course, Jewish priests are called Rabbi, too. However, I recently thought that a lot has changed in 2000 years, and it may be totally wrong to call anyone who is not a priest “rabbi”. So, is it wrong? Or would it be like me calling someone learned- “professor”, even if they don’t have tenure?

And how about “reb”, is that just a short version like "fra. for Father, or is it more informal, like “padre”?

And finally, leaving apart about JC being considered the Messiah, which very few Jews agree to, would He be (and is He) considered by the Jews to be a “rabbi”. I know that some very charismatic Rabbis have been thought to be the Messiah, and even tho the great majority of Jewish people do not agree, they still venerate their teachings.

I’ll leave the intricacies to our Jewish brethren, but I will note, here, that there is no direct connection between a Jewish priest and a rabbi.

The priest (kohen or several other variants in Yiddish) is a member of the Levite tribe who has the authority to offer sacrifices in the Temple. In the absence of a Temple these 1,930 years, there has not been a priest acting in an official capacity for a while, although the hereditary title continues to be passed down in many families.

There are certain obligations and proscriptions that are imposed on priests and devout members follow them. There are, I believe, some liturgical functions that are still overseen by the priest, but they are not connected to the daily or weekly litugy of the synagogue.

Are Buddhists priests? No…they’re monks.

That’s the same as calling a Rabbi a priest, or father, or padre.

and JC was NOT the messiah according to OUR bible.

-Sam

P.S.-- come to think of it, what was your point?

I think the original question was etymology.

In the far past, the term “rabbi” was used as an honorific, an expression of respect for a learned scholar or the spiritual leader of a Jewish congregation. Over time, the term came to be a title indicating ordination from rabbinical school – kind of like calling someone with a Ph.D. “doctor”. In modern day America, the title is a credential, generally reserved for someone who has completed study at a rabbinical school, yeshiva, or theological seminary. It’s a credential, like MBA. Thus, it would be inappropriate to apply the term “rabbi” to Zev (unless Zev has training he hasn’t mentioned).

Generally, the spiritual leader of a congregation is a rabbi. However, not all rabbis become congregational leaders; many remain in academia, many get… um… normal jobs.

The word “rabbi” is best translated “my teacher” in the sense of “my spiritual advisor.” The word “reb” drops the adjective “my” and would be equivalent (roughly) to “Teacher”.

As tom points out, the title “priest” (Hebrew: kohan) is an hereditary title, indicating descent from Aaron (Moses’ brother) and the priestly clan in the days of the Temple (before 70 AD.) The priest has no particular religious function today, although there are special honours, privileges, and restrictions (Some quick examples, a kohan is the first of the seven called up for the Shabbat morning reading from the Torah. In some synagogues, the priests pronounce the ancient priestly blessing over the congregation.) The Jewish priest is very different from the Catholic priest, and we tend to stick to the Hebrew term kohan.

That help, Daniel?

I was honored by Daniel’s words, but, in reality, I’m not a rabbi.

Zev Steinhardt

A little more background…

The Hebrew etymology of the word “Rabbi” comes from “Rav”, which is an adjective meaning “great” (when the subject is singular, or “many” when it is plural…obviously, when applied to a man, it’s the former). As a noun, it therefore has the connotation of “great one,” or “master.” “Teacher” comes into play because one’s teacher is one’s master in the realm of learning.

“Reb” or “Rav” is indeed a diminutive for “Rabbi,” or for “Rebbe”, which actually means my master/teacher.

Of course, it is even today a term of respect.

While the Rabbi of a synagogue performs many functions analagous to the functions of a minister in a church, he is called “rabbi” for the same reason the “professor” types are called “rabbi.” They earned the title, having completed a course of study that got them certified by someone who already had the title, usually within the context of a seminary.

As others have responded, “priest” has a different meaning in Judaism. There’s not much for me to add to what others have already said on that subject.

As to your question of whether or not JC was considered a Rabbi by his contemporaries, I’d say probably not. He was obviously no friend of the Pharisees, and Rabbinic ordination was, as far as I know, only conferred by Pharisaic schools of study.

And, CKDextHavn: To the best of my understanding, no matter how far in the past you go, no one was called by the title “Rabbi” unless he was so ordained by an existing Rabbi. Granted, there was more individual tutelage rather than school-study way back when, but I don’t think that historically it was ever a title of respect conferred by commoners on their leaders.

Any cites? Curious as to when Rabbinical Judaism developed. According to what you’ve written, “Rabbi” was always a term that denoted ordination. I’m not sure if I buy that, as the term, as has already been pointed out, means teacher or master. Seems to be too common of a word to have been limited to ordination in its original usage.

V

I’ve heard that the wife of a rabbi has her own title, rebbetzin (sp?) Does that mean that there are no women rabbis? Is it possible for a woman to become a rabbi?

Second question, brought to mind by the discussion of the role of the kohan: why doesn’t the state of Israel (or a group of religous jews) rebuild the temple in Jerusalem?

cmkeller writes “To the best of my understanding, no matter how far in the past you go, no one was called by the title “Rabbi” unless he was so ordained by an existing Rabbi. Granted, there was more individual tutelage rather than school-study way back when, but I don’t think that historically it was ever a title of respect conferred by commoners on their leaders”.

Actually it is important to understand the history of rabbinical ordination, to fully understand this issue. In Talmudic times there was unbroken chain of ordained rabbis receiving ordination from other ordained rabbis going back to Moses. This ordination has bearing in Jewish law - only ordained rabbis may judge capital cases and impose certain types of fines. In that era the titles used did indeed conform to the ordination, with Rebbe being the title of those scholars who were ordained and Rav being that of those who weren’t. (The ordination was only given in Israel, which acounts for a difference in titles between Israeli and Babylonian rabbis in the Talmud). But in any event, the title goes back only as far as the later Mishnaic period. The early sages of the Mishna were not known by that (or any other) title. e.g. Hillel, Shamai etc.

Due to persecutions the chain of ordination was eventually broken, and was never revived. (About 500 years ago a prominent Israeli rabbi attempted to revive it, based on an opinion written by Maimonedes that allowed it without the chain back to Moses in certain circumstances, but was ultimately unsuccessful).

What is called ordination in our times is merely an application of an ancient term to a similar practice. This ordination has no bearing in Jewish law, and there is no distinction between a Rabbi who has been ordained and one who has not. (In general, it is useful to bear in mind that there are no jewish ceremonies or procedures which require the participation or officiation of a “rabbi”.) The current ordination is simply a way of letting people know that such and such person has (at one time) studied the relevent subject matter.

So there’s no reason that someone could not be called rabbi, or even serve as a rabbi, without having ever been ordained. In fact, one of the greatest rabbinnic leaders of this century Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan (aka “the Chofetz Chaim”) was the leader of most of Orthodox Jewry for many years without having ever been ordained. (He finally got himself ordained while in his 70s or 80s in order to qualify for a visa).

In our times, the use of the title Rabbi is generally used by those who lead a congregation or perform some other religious role. However (to the distress of some) there has also been of late a tendency for lay people who have some degree of scholarship to be referred to as Rabbi.

Arnold:

Correct about the “Rebbetzin” title. In the Orthodox world, there are indeed no female Rabbis, and it is not possible for a woman to become one. There are a number of reasons for this, both historical and practical. The other denominations of Judaism do indeed confer ordination on women, though, seeing egalitarianism as a more important value to uphold than the values that lead the Orthodox to not do so.

The main reason is that in the absence of a red heifer to perform the purification ritual described in Numbers 19. Without that purification, all people in modern times are considered unclean because the likelihood is that they have come in contact with or walked over a dead body at some point in their lives.

It is because of this practical restriction that the Orthodox community in Israel has, for the most part, been content to let the Muslims control the Temple Mount itself (because it is forbidden to even walk on that mountain while impure), as long as the Jews have the Western Wall.

There is a small group that call themselves the “Temple Mount Faithful,” who believe that the Muslims should be driven from the Temple Mount and that Messianic-type occurrences will not happen without our active involvement. However, this group os very small, and is not taken seriously by anyone who is not a member of it (except the Israeli police, who take them seriously as a threat to peacekeeping).

IzzyR:

I know that this is true of genuine semicha (the Hebrew word that is usually translated as “ordination”), but it had been my impression that Babylonian Rabbis did receive some form of approbation/ordination before being called “Rabbi,” similar to the imitation semicha of today.

…to the satisfaction of one who is already trusted as being knowledgeable in that subject matter.

Now this I must admit I did not know. For some reason it had been my impression that he had received semicha from Rabbi Yisroel Salanter, but I’ll certainly defer to your knowledge of the subject matter.

Chaim Mattis Keller

IzzyR, cmkeller, for the quick and thorough answer to my questions. Why can’t I get this kind of service from the cable guy?

V.

Well, my (catholic) bible says (Numbers 19:2)
… Tell the Israelites, they are to bring you a red heifer without fault or blemish that has never borne the yoke.
Where I grew up (in Switzerland) I saw plenty of red and white cows. What’s wrong with those? I imagine that if the cow has to have mostly red hair, that could be accomplished through careful breeding.

The reasons for not rebuilding the Temple are many. The lack of a red heifer, mentioned by CMKeller, is a technical restriction (and, Arnold, the “red and white” cows ain’t red heifers, they’re red-n-white heifers.) In fact, a year or so ago, there was a big commotion because someone claimed to have a red heifer… which caused quite a stir in the Orthodox community, as it would be the first pre-requisite for rebuilding the Temple.

The heifer turned out to be blemished, and I venture to say that most modern Orthodox breathed a sigh of relief.

And here’s the why, and I’ll offer two reasons, a theoretic and a practical.

First, the theoretic. Legend/prophecy associates the Third Temple with the Messianic Age. Therefore, a large number of Jews feel that humans should NOT rebuild the Temple, it will be God-directed or Messiah-directed. (BTW, there were also a small number of Jews who felt that Israel should not have become a state, for the same reason – they should wait for the Messiah to do it.)

Furthermore, IF the Temple were rebuilt, there would be no excuse for the Orthodox not to reinstitute sacrifices, and 99.9% of all Jews (regardless of denomination) think that we have evolved past the point of needing sacrifices again. (There is that tiny minority that study how to do sacrifice, for when the Temple IS rebuilt, but those are what you call nuts.)

Second, the practical. The Temple Mount is held by Muslims, and the Dome of the Rock (second most holy site in Islam) is there. Building a Jewish Temple would mean destroying the mosque, and that would mean full fledged, bloody war to the death with our brethren the Muslim Arabs. No one wants to see that happen, and so there is no effort towards rebuilding the Temple. Indeed, about every six months there is some archaeological hooplah because the archaeologists want to dig somewhere and the Muslims fear that it will undermine the Mosque. Herod’s tunnels were the last such example, which caused riots in Jerusalem because the protesting Moslems were fearful that Israel was trying to tunnel under the Mosque and subvert it.

So, most Jews shrug their shoulders and say, this is a problem that the Messiah will resolve.

cmkeller writes “The main reason is that in the absence of a red heifer to perform the purification ritual described in Numbers 19. Without that purification, all people in modern times are considered unclean because the likelihood is that they have come in contact with or walked over a dead body at some point in their lives.”

Public sacrifices (that is sacrifices brought for or by the public, as opposed to those of an individual) may be brought if most or all the populace is impure, a situation which prevails today. Actually, there were respectable people who advocated making certain sacrifices in our times on the site of the temple, even without rebuilding it. (Generally the focus has been on the Passover sacrifice). However, there are outstanding questions aboput the exact locations of the temple and other disputes concerning ritual law which arose many years ago and which most contemporary rabbinical authorities do not feel themselves empowered to rule on. Thus the attitude has been to wait for the Messiah who will rule on all these issues.

The objection to people walking on the site of the temple applies to Moslems as well as Jews. The Orthodox community in Israel “accepts” this because there is no practical way to do anything about it, political realities being what they are, and we have long since come to “accept” great indignities over the course of our long exile. The “Temple Mount Faithful” are motivated primarily by nationalism, as opposed to religion.

(Note to Arnold Winkelried: the red heifer must be pure red, without even two black hairs.)

CKDextHavn writes “IF the Temple were rebuilt, there would be no excuse for the Orthodox not to reinstitute sacrifices, and 99.9% of all Jews (regardless of denomination) think that we have evolved past the point of needing sacrifices again. (There is that tiny minority that study how to do sacrifice, for when the Temple IS rebuilt, but those are what you call nuts.)”

There are undoubtedly many who would consider all Orthodox Jews nuts. However it should be clear that the fundamental principle of Judaism, as understood by orthodox, is that the bible is the word of God, and that all the commandments are eternally binding. Anyone who believes otherwise is not an Orthodox Jew. In light of this it is incomprehensible that any Orthodox Jew could “think that we have evolved past the point of needing” anything contained in the bible. I have never heard any Orthodox Jew express such a sentiment.

One of the big boosters of studying the laws of sacrifices in preparation for the coming of the Messiah was the Rabbi Kagan that I mentioned in my earlier posting. But there is another reason for studying these laws as well. It has been traditionally accepted that in the absence of the Temple and it’s sacrifices, God will accept studying about the sacrifices in place of the actual sacrifices themselves, and atone for people’s sins.

Arnold:

As others have mentioned, the heifer must be purely red…not even two hairs of another color. And as for breeding, well, there are some groups in Israel that want to take it a step further and do it through genetic engineering! Modern technology in service of ancient religion.

CKDextHavn:

I must disagree with you regarding the attitude of most Orthodox Jews regarding the re-institution of sacrificial service. Last time I looked, the seventeenth blessing of the Amidah service said three times every weekday and the fifth blessing of that service said four times on Sabbaths, first-of-the-months, holidays and five times on Yom Kippur (for the sake of completeness: the seventh blessing in the Rosh Hashanna mussaf service) asks G-d to re-institute the sacrificial service. The Amidah service ends, every time, with a wish to see the temple restored and services returned to what they were “in the earlier days.” The fourth blessing of the mussaf service on Sabbath, holidays and first-of-the-months begs G-d to return the temple so we will be able to offer the appropriate mussaf sacrifice of that day. While it’s certainly more than possible that many Orthodox Jews recite the prayers by rote without thinking of what they mean, I’m quite certain that if and when they look at a translation of them, they’re not particularly shocked or horrified.

Granted, this is true. However, if not for the technical issue of the red heifer, I suspect that there would be more Rabbis insisting that it would be considered a righteous war and that the Temple Mount should be taken by force. No doubt the Israeli government wouldn’t go along with this, but I think a sizable portion of the Orthodox community would agitate for it.

Again, I think you misread the Orthodox attitude toward this. Granted, most people don’t study those laws for the purpose of expecting to practically apply it in their lifetimes, but certainly most Orthodox don’t see studying those parts of the Torah as nutty.

And, if I recall correctly (IzzyR could probably correct me on this if I’m wrong), it was the Chofetz Chaim himself (a very highly-respected Rabbi who lived from 1838-1933) who suggested the creation of an institution in which the sacrificial laws and purity laws are studied on a regular basis.

IzzyR:

True, but that doesn’t mean that a new Temple and/or Altar can be built and dedicated while unclean, merely that the sacrifices be brought on an existing altar when such circumstances prevail.

Really? It was my understanding that according to Halacha, ritual uncleanliness does not attach itself to non-Jews.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Quotes from Chaim Matis Keller

“but that doesn’t mean that a new Temple and/or Altar can be built and dedicated while unclean”

I am not aware of this distinction

“according to Halacha, ritual uncleanliness does not attach itself to non-Jews.”

True. But even people who are pure cannot walk on the site of the temple, unless for the purpose af participation in the rituals.

I apologize, I certainly did not mean to speak for the Orthodox… I was only citing my rebbe, who is modern Orthodox, and who commented that, although the prayers ask for return of sacrifice, most people would be appalled if it actually were to happen. We have “evolved” to the point that prayer (and study of the ancient rules of sacrifice) have replaced sacrifice.

I mean, seriously, CM, suppose that suddenly you didn’t have to pray anymore because Sacrifice had been re-instituted by levites at the Temple… Would you be happy with such a development?

And, no, I did not mean to imply that study of the laws of sacrifice was nuts. To the contrary. That tiny group of people who study because they think that the Messiah will come tomorrow and they have to be ready to go off and slaughter goats, those guys are nuts. To study the ancient rituals as ancient rituals is one thing; to study them as living law is something quiet else. So my apologies if I was unclear.

I shouldn’t do these entries at work, I get distracted and ain’t payin’ full attention.

CMKeller; re no one being called “rabbi” unless he obtained ordination, I quote John 1:38 “They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,)…” and John 1:49 “Nathanael…saith unto him(Jesus), Rabbi, thou art…”.

Now I understand & accept that Jews (for the very large part) do not accept JC as the Messiah, but they do (mostly) agree he was an historical person. It is possible, perhaps, (as we know little of JC’s early life other than He did study with the Teachers, and “amazed” them), that He did have some sort of “backwoods” (JC was a “hick” to those in Jerusalem) “ordination”. And are there not influential Rabbis who have been declared the Messiah, by their zealous followers? Would that make their teachings less valid, or their “Rabbi” status any less valid?

However, in any case this would indicate a non “regular” rabbi, but a recognized “holy man”, being called “rabbi”, back in the last days of the Temple…

And yes, I knew the Levites were the “priests” by their ancestry, but in actual practice, Rabbis are “priests” in all but name. However I would not call a “Rabbi” a “Kohan”.
Does the name, “Cohen” also indicate priestly ancestry? And could a “Kohan” by ancestry become a “Rabbi” by ordination?

No, rabbis are not priests. Period. Any Jew may lead a service. Any Jew may read from the Torah.

In modern day American, rabbis tend to take on a sort of pastor-role (God help us), playing sociologist and psychologist and therapist, but there is no religious significance for a rabbi compared to anyone else.

That’s different for a priest (kohan) who MAY play special roles in rituals, as noted above.

The name Kohan or Cohen is not necessarily indicative of priestly descent. George Cohan was Irish Catholic, after all.

And yes, a kohan (priest) can become a rabbi the same as anyone else, by being ordained from a seminary.