yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (09/24/84)
Modern Judaism seems to have become selectively blinded to its roots. The Pharisees and 5th century sages have become equivalent to the entireity of historical Judaism. Well, that simply isn't factual. The Torah has NOT always been synonymous with the oral law. In fact, in second temple times, the Pharisees were the only one of perhaps a couple of hundred sects to advocate the oral law. Certainly there was no basis to claim that "Jews" believed in the oral law. In terms of numbers, Jews did NOT believe in oral law prior to the destruction of the second temple. Most of these sects were heavily dependent upon the temple for their doctrines, interpretations, worship style, etc. When the temple was destroyed, these (almost all) sects were dealt a truly crippling blow. The Pharisees however, had for some time been emphasizing the decentralization of Judaism from the aristo- cracy of the Sadducees (primarily) to the ordinary Jew; to the home and local synagogue levels. Primarily for this reason, the Pharisees best survived the destruction of the temple and thereafter became the dominant force in Judaism. (They are the patriarchs of modern rabbinic Judaism.) Prior to this domination by the Pharisees, how- ever, a number of things were different. The view towards the oral law is, perhaps, the most contrasting point. The Pharisees were the only sect believing that oral law was handed down by Moses. The other sects did NOT believe this. To declare such today dictates that a Jew has no right to go back and search his heritage for adopting a more scholarly and knowledgeable orientation to his concept of Judaism. By today's standards, the historical Jews of the Bible would not be accepted as Jews! Were they wrong or are there errors today? I will continue to maintain that every Jew has the right - and responsibility - to be scholarly as well as faithful... else much of it may be in vain? I just cannot sub- scribe to the notion that Judaism started and ended in the 5th century CE and we should not look anywhere else; that all of the answers and all of the authority is there. I assert that it is not! Regarding the matrix which was suggested, please note that if one is observant s/he has no knowledge of the law? And Einstein, who declared himself to be "Mosaic" must either fit into non-Jewish or other. The point to be made here is not to pigeon-hole. That is a part of being tolerant. Hopefully we can discuss and disagree, even frequently and with feeling, and still keep in mind that we are all really on the same side. None of us has all of the answers. We are all either learning or stagnating. And we all care about Judaism or we wouldn't be in this dialogue? Certainly scholars can disagree and still have affection for one another? Then all the more especially Jewish scholars should be able to disagree and have affection for one another? Shalom ul'shana tova