2 Models for Rabbinic Authority (Avi Sagi)

A long time ago I did a post about Berger's book "Rabbinic Authority".  He described various models of rabbinic authority.  But I think that Avi Sagi in his book "The Open Cannon" has offered a better and more simplified understanding.  Borrowing terminology from Richard T. De George, Avi Sagi explains that the two approaches to Rabbinic Authority fall into two categories:  deontic and epistemic.  That's a fancy way of saying duty-based (deontic) and knowledge-based (epistemic).  Which basically means that someone is an authority because he's an expert (epistemic/knowledge) or because he belongs to an institution which society has imbued with authority (deontic).

I don't mind the model that gives expert authority to the Rabbis.  But I take exception with latter, deontic model which typically justifies Rabbinic Authority on the basis of either the Divine Command Theory (i.e. that HaShem commands unquestioned obedience to the Rabbis) or social contract theory.  There's a host of problems with the Divine Command Theory of Rabbinic Authority.  First, trying to ground such a view in Torah is like trying to suspend a mountain by a thread.  Second, I believe it violates a number of mitzvot De-Oraita (commands from the Written Torah).  

So now here's Avi Sagi on this subject:

pg. 192 "My contention is that Jewish tradition offers two main models of authority that, relying on the terminology coined by Richard T. De George, will be termed epistemic and deontic." 

pg. 192  "The epistemic model argues that authority derives its legitimation from the possession of knowledge in a specific and defined realm, which ensures the person in authority an advantage over all others who do not know.....Since [epistemic] authority rests on knowledge then, at least in principle, it is temporary and removable.  As soon as someone's attainments are on a par with those of persons in authority, the latter lose their power to teach or command.  De George has even argued that epistemic authority is not really authority in the strict sense of the term, since it cannot command performance.  It can suggest, advise, or recommend, but it cannot impose obligations.
     In the terms of this model then, it would be inaccurate to say that a command issued by an authority creates a duty of obedience.  In and of itself, the authority's command is not a sufficient condition for obedience, particularly when it challenges the knowledge shared by all community members."
   
pg. 200 "The deontic model adopts a different perception of the meaning of halakhic authority in Jewish tradition....The basic assumptions of this model state that an authority can validly order certain acts to be performed and compel community members to obey.  Rather than knowledge, deontic authority rests on the power invested in the person in authority to determine the binding norms.  Conceptually, deontic authority must always be obeyed, even when apparently wrong.  Whereas the epistemic model stresses that all members of the community are bound by knowledge, the deontic model emphasizes the special status of the authorities.....Support for deonitc authority is quite prevalent in the sources, and three basic justifications are usually adduced in hermeneutical and legislative contexts:  (1) God's command; (2) divine inspiration or charisma; (3) public consent."

The Governance of Cities According to Jewish Tradition

Menachem Elon on the Concept of Halachah

Shifting Rabbinic Opinions on Juridical Autonomy of Diaspora Communities

Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament

Has anyone read this book:

CLICK HERE FOR LINK

I was just wondering if it was any good...

Atonement Series #3: Are There Other Means of Atonement Than Blood Sacrifice?

Everyone can agree (or should anyway) that blood atonement in the Temple system atoned for all manner of sins:

"When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat.  He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their sins--and put them on the goat's head.  He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task.  The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert," (Lev. 16:20-22).

But is it possible that after the Temple was destroyed that G-d allowed alternative means of atonement?

That's the question.

To be fair, there's evidence for and against.

But I believe the greatest argument that there are NOT alternatives to blood sacrifice is found by combining Scripture with common sense:

If all that was needed for forgiveness was merely good works or repentance then...

• Why did Abel think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?

• Why did Noah think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?

• Why did Abraham think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?

• Why did Moses think that a blood sacrifice was necessary?

And if all these men were wrong then wouldn't G-d have corrected their mistake?  

Atonement Series #2: Did G-d Ever Require Blood Sacrifices?

Anti-Missionary:  The Prophets say that G-d rejected blood sacrifices.  Therefore, G-d does not desire or require blood sacrifices.

Messianic:  The Prophets say that G-d rejected the blood sacrifices of the unrepentant.  But G-d still desired and required blood sacrifices.

Issue #1:  Did G-d ever require blood sacrifices?


So let's examine what several well-respected Jewish scholars have to say (Rainey, Hertz, and Heschel):

Anson Rainey (Tel Aviv University):

"The prophets of the First Temple period often spoke out against sacrificial ritual (Amos 5:21-27; Hos. 6:6; Micah 6:6-8; Isa. 1:11-17; Jer. 6:20; 7:21-22).  Righteous and just behavior along with obedience to the Lord are contrasted with the conduct of rituals unaccompanied by proper ethical and moral attitudes (Amos 5:24; Micah 6:8; Isa. 1:16-17; Jer. 7:23).  It has thus been assumed by many scholars that the prophets condemned all sacrificial rituals.  ...De Vaux has shown the absurdity of such a conclusion since Isaiah 1:15 also condemns prayer.  No one holds that the prophets rejected prayer; it was prayer offered without the proper moral commitment that was being denounced; the same holds true for the oracles against formal rituals.  Similar allusions in the Psalms which might be taken as a complete rejection of sacrifice (e.g., 40:7-8; 50:8-15) actually express the same concern for inner attitude as the prophets.  The wisdom literature sometimes reflects the same concern for moral and ethical values over empty sacerdotal acts (Prov. 15:8; 21:3, 27).
     Certain other statements by Amos (5:25) and Jeremiah (7:22) have been taken to mean that the prophets knew nothing of a ritual practice followed in the wilderness experience of Israel.  De Vaux has noted that Jeremiah clearly knew Deuteronomy 12:6-14 and regarded it as the Law of Moses.  The prophetic oracles against sacrifice in the desert are really saying that the original Israelite sacrificial system was not meant to be the empty, hypocritical formalism practiced by their contemporaries.  The demand by Hosea for 'mercy and not sacrifice...knowledge of God more than burnt offerings' (Hos. 6:6; cf. Matt. 9:13; 12:7) is surely to be taken as relative, a statement of priorities (cf. also I Sam. 15:22).  The inner attitude was prerequisite to any valid ritual expression (Isa. 29:13).  Foreign elements that had penetrated the Israelite sacrificial system were, of course, roundly condemned by the prophets.  Such was especially the case with Israel (Amos 4:5; Hos. 2:13-15; 4:11-13; 13:2) but also in Judah (Jer. 7:17-18; Ezek. 8; et al.)," (pg. 84 of Michael Brown's "Answering Jewish Objections")

Dr. J.H. Hertz:

"The Prophets do not seek to alter or abolish the externals of religion as such.  They are not so unreasonable as to demand that men should worship without aid of any outward symbolism.  What they protested against was the fatal tendency to make these outward symbols the whole of religion; the superstitious over-estimate of sacrifice as compared with justice, pity and purity; and especially the monstrous wickedness with which the offering of sacrifices was accompanied," (ibid, pg. 86).

Abraham Joshua Heschel:

"Sacrifice, the strength and the measure of piety, acts wherein God and man meet--all this should be called obnoxious?
     Of course, the prophets did not condemn the practice of sacrifice in itself; otherwise, we should have to conclude that Isaiah intended to discourage the practice of prayer (Isa. 1:14-15).  They did, however, claim that deeds of injustice vitiate both sacrifice and prayer.  Men may not drown out the cries of the oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the Lord with increased offerings.  The prophets disparaged the cult when it became a substitute for righteousness....
...The sacrificial act was a form of personal association with God, a way of entering into communion with him.  In offering an animal, a person was offering himself vicariously.  It had the power of atonement....
     It is hard for us to imagine what entering a sanctuary or offering a sacrifice meant to ancient man.  The sanctuary was holiness in perpetuity, a miracle in continuity; the divine was mirrored in the air, sowing blessing, closing gaps between the here and beyond.  In offering a sacrifice, man mingled with mystery, reached the summit of significance:  sin was consumed, self was abandoned, satisfaction was bestowed upon divinity.  Is it possible for us today to conceive of the solemn joy of those whose offering was placed on the altar?
Then will I go to the altar of God,
to God my exceeding joy.
I will praise Thee with the lyre,
O God, my God
(Ps. 43:4; cf. Deut. 12:18-19; 31:11; Exod. 34:23-24; Isa. 1:12)," (ibid, pgs. 86-87). 

In the next post we will look at issue #2 "Does the Torah really offer other means of atonement than blood sacrifice?"

Atonement Series #1: By What Means Did the Repentant Nations of Jonah's Day Receive Atonement For Their Sins?

"In b. Sukkah 55b...we read that the seventy bulls that were offered every year during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot; see Num. 29:12-34) 'were for the seventy nations,' which Rashi explains to mean, 'to make atonement for them, so that rain will fall throughout the world.'  In this context--and in light of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 c.e.--the Talmud records the words of Rabbi Yohannan:  'Woe to the nations who destroyed without knowing what they were destroying.  For when the Temple was standing, the altar made atonement for them.  But now, who will make atonement for them?" (pgs. 152-153 of Michael Brown's "Answering Jewish Objections").

Why was Yohannan getting so worked up?  After all, we don't really need the Temple according to Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai:

"It once happened that Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem and R. Joshua was walking behind him, when the latter saw the Temple in ruins.  Said R. Joshua:  'Woe to us that this is in ruins--the place where the sins of Israel were expiated!'  Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai replied:  'My son, be not grieved, we have a means of atonement that is commensurate with it.  Which is this?  It is the performance of lovingkindness, as it is said, 'For I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice'" (ibid, pgs. 111-112).

And this latter view is now official halachah in Orthodox Judaism.  According to Orthodox Judaism, the whole Temple system was just a big miscommunication.  G-d never really commanded blood sacrifices (but even if He did we have some really good back-up options that make the Temple irrelevant).  So it doesn't really matter that the Temple was destroyed.  In Zakkai's words, "be not grieved."  Don't sweat it.

Is that really the truth?

In the next post I'm going to breakdown this subject and talk about what the Torah really says about the necessity of blood sacrifice to effectuate forgiveness of sins.

STAY TUNED....

Answering Jewish Objections to [Yeshua] by Michael L. Brown

I wanted to do a post today on the issue addressed in Michael Brown's book "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 2, Theological Objections" about whether we really need a blood sacrifice or whether there are alternative means of atonement (e.g. Maimonides says, "At this time, when the Temple is not standing and we do not have the altar of atonement, there is nothing but repentance; repentance atones for all transgressions").  But I'll get to it tomorrow and we'll have a good discussion.

This is very important.  In light of recent apostasies, I think it's important that we get back to some basic Messianic Apologetics.  

Until then...

--Peter

I Love This Midrash...

"Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun ; for this is your reward in life..." (Ecclesiastes 9:9)

To the single men out there...

If I were a secularist, I would encourage you to get married by telling you that if you do not get married then nature will unapologetically weed your genes out of existence.  But since I am a man of faith (and as an Italian), I will encourage you to get married because there is nothing more fulfilling in life than family!  And, if you have the good fortune to have a daughter, there is nothing better in this life than hearing a little angel from HaShem say "Daddy!" and rest her little head against your arm.  Oh, and hearing her say "Shabbat Shawom!"

Anyway, here's a classic rabbinic midrash.  Yes, it contains hyperbole but you gotta love how the rabbis support everything they say with Scripture:

"The Midrash says:  'And the Lord God said:  It is not good for Man to be alone....R. Jacob taught:  every man who has no wife lives without good, without help, without happiness and without forgiveness... 

...without good, as it is written, 'it is not good for man to be alone.' [Genesis 2:18]
...without help, as it is written, 'I shall make him a helpmate for him.' [Genesis 2:18]
...without happiness, as it is written, 'And you shall rejoice, you and your household.' [Deut. 14:26]
...without blessing, as it is written, 'To bring blessing to your household.' [Eze. 44:30]
...without forgiveness, as it is written, 'And I shall forgive you and your household.' [Lev. 17:11] 

R. Simon said in the name of R. Joshua Ben Levi:  Even without peace, as it is written, 'And peace will be with you and peace will be with your household.' [Isaiah 25:6] 

R. Joshua of Sichnin said in the name of R. Levi:  Even without life, as it is written, 'See life with the wife that you love' [Ecc. 9:9] 

R. Hiyya bar Gamda said:  He is not even a complete person, as it is written, 'And He blessed them and He called their name Adam.' [Gen. 5:2] 

And some say:  He even diminishes the Divine Image, as it is written, 'For man was created in God's image,' [Genesis 9:6] and immediately afterwards it is written, 'And multiply.' [Genesis 9:7]"

Shidduch Dating: Gila Manolson on the Traditional Jewish Approach to Dating

I had Shabbat dinner one time at an Orthodox rabbi's home.  As I was leaving, the Rebbetzin said something like "You should bring your daughter next time.  You never know, maybe she and our grandson will make a good shidduch!"  I was struck by how welcoming they were toward a non-Jew like myself (and by how welcomed I felt, something I hadn't experienced at a UMJC synagogue) but, most of all, I was struck by how determined Jewish mothers must be to make a match for their children and grandchildren!  I mean, we were talking about four-year-olds for crying out loud!  : )

So what is a shidduch anyway?  It denotes a match made between a man and a woman (though if I'm not mistaken it connotes peacefulness).  But really it refers to a whole system of dating based on traditional Jewish values (which really used to be universal values up until the last century).  Here's a quick overview:  

"Shidduch dating has four characteristics.
    First, it assumes you're ready to get married.  That means you're reasonably mature, know who you are, and have some idea of where you're heading and the kind of person you want.  You also know what's negotiable and what isn't.  This concept of being thought out, even to the point of having a mental 'shopping list' of qualities you're seeking, may offend some.  (Funny how rationalism in relationships bothers us, as if using your head means you have no heart.)....
     Second, a shidduch is arranged through a third party.  He or she must understand you, be fairly wise and perceptive, and be able to introduce you to someone fundamentally compatible....
    Finally, shidduch dating includes no touching--being shomer negiah.  While ridiculously difficult if you intend to hang out together for a few years, this self-control is definitely feasible in a shorter-term, marriage-oriented relationship.  Many insist, of course, that 'trying things out' helps determine compatibility in marriage.  All the evidence indicates they're dead wrong, for theirs is a pitifully shallow conception of sexuality.  True sexuality expresses not only who you are, but your feelings for your partner and the quality of your relationship....Strange as it may sound, postponing physical contact is actually the best way to assess compatibility.  It promotes objectivity, letting you see the other without the illusions frequently created by physical closeness.  It fosters a genuine, person-to-person (rather than body-to-body) connection.  It helps you discover if you can appreciate the other not for how good he or she makes you feel but for who he or she actually is.  Being shomer negiah is therefore essential in acquiring perspective on the big question:  'Is this the person I want to spend the rest of my life with?'....
     Dating for marriage, using an intermediary, doing research, and being shomer negiah all help you put your head before your heart, and constitute 'religious dating,'....The purpose of religious dating is to reach the point of knowing, 'This is the person with whom I want to, and can, make a relationship work,'" (from "Head to Heart" by Gila Manolson).

The Eishet Chayil (Woman of Valor): Why is She Compared to a Candle?

"...Her lamp does not go out at night," (Prov. 31:18)

Question:  Why is woman compared to a candle?

"Woman is compared to a candle and man to the flame [Rashi].  Although the flame is what gives the light, it is the candle which holds the flame and gives it the material it needs to burn.  The candle of the Eshes Chayil does not stop feeding the light of her husband's Torah and his shining deeds even at 'night,' when times are dark.  She does not lose her ability to be a source of illumination for others..."  from Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller's "More Precious Than Pearls".

.

Questions From a Christian Teacher (Continued)

I'm having the best on-going discussion with a Christian teacher about the Torah.  He just keeps agreeing with everything!  He could at least have the decency to disagree once in a while!  : )

Recently, he asked about the purpose of the commandments.  Here's that brief response in case anyone might find it helpful:

"This is called "ta'amei hamitzvot" (the reasons for the commandments) and is a very deep subject.   

At a most basic level, the two purposes of the Law are to help turn man from idolatry and help him reorient to the G-d of Israel (and integrate into this family). 

Of course, this reorientation process involves many different Biblical commands, each with its own specific rationale (which is in addition to the aforementioned general rationales). 

There are two types of commandments, the mishpatim and the chukim.  The mishpatim have rationales which are very easily discerned as they contain basic principles of righteous living.  The chukim (e.g. kashrut, blood atonement, moedim, etc) also have rationales but we don't always understand them fully.  However, we do understand most of them:  kashrut law (Lev. 11) is about eating those things designed for human consumption; the laws of Temple purification have a symbolic and inherent significance; the laws of the moedim (appointed times) help us to identify with Israel (e.g. when we taste the bitter herbs of the Passover seder, how can we not identify with the ancient Israelites?) and to learn more about Yeshua and what He accomplished.  

In summary, each mitzvah has, in addition to its general rationale, a specific rationale."

Personal Update

I didn't blog any this past week because I started a new job.  Had to learn some new things (an understatement).  But now I'm up to speed and ready to resume blogging!

The next post is going to cover a section of a Dr. Michael Brown book dealing with atonement, specifically the question:  "Do we really need a blood atonement?" [NOTE:  it's amazing how G-d works because I got online just now and saw that Rob Roy had suggested we cover Dr. Brown's books!]

After that, there's some obscure Jewish books on marriage that I read a long time ago using inter-library loans.  I'll try to share some of the highlights from those.  Such wonderful insights into the mysteries of love!

Blessings to all who dwell in the House of the Father,

Peter

Important Post at Kineti L'Tziyon

CLICK HERE FOR LINK