 |
| Midrash Shocher Tov, the first section of Midrash Tehillim (on Psalms 1-118) produced between the third and eight centuries in Palestine. |
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor Dov Weiss[1]— examines the rise and decline of rabbinic protest theology. It looks at the audacious attempts by some Mishnaic rabbis to defy a general ethos of protest prohibition, particularly upheld by the schools of R. Akiva and R. Elazar. By tracing the gradual evolution of rabbinic protest theology through the Talmudic period to its peak in post-Talmudic times, Weiss maps a distinct theological arc that eventually waned and merged into modern times as a subdued tradition.
Rabbinic protest theology
Weiss, a pioneer in the study of rabbinic protest theology, commenced his study by examining all the classical rabbinic traditions surrounding protest—ranging from those that strictly prohibited challenging G-d to those that permitted, and even championed outspoken dissent. He then arranged these teachings chronologically to see if, over time, there was any evidence of an evolution in this protest theology. He noticed that as the rabbis became more anthropomorphic (by ascribing human attributes to G-d), so too did they become more open to theological protest. Weiss has produced groundbreaking research in the field of rabbinic protest:
“No one will be able to deal again with this material without confronting Weiss’ presentation and analysis” (Blumenthal 2017:620).[2]
Within these anthropomorphic frameworks, G-d is portrayed through human-like metaphors. Alternately, He is a figure in exile, longing for redemption; He is described as donning a Tallit and Tefillin, engaging in prayer, and possessing garments; He is cast as elderly, youthful, male, female, husband and wife. According to Weiss, this “humanization of G-d” was to underscore an intimacy, approachability—even a reciprocity— between Israel and G-d. By G-d becoming “disarmingly familiar,” it can be shown that even without a land and a Temple, Israel has not been abandoned. This familiarity proved to be an effective theological strategy for an exiled people, and it brought in its wake and perhaps as a ‘side effect,’ the legitimisation of protest against G-d. In this way, the increased incidence of anthropomorphism of G-d brought a corresponding increased incidence in protest literature against G-d. When G-d is portrayed as humanlike and freely interacting with humankind, then the “same rules of discourse” apply between both parties, and G-d is “held accountable to human standards.” Thus, the theology of anthropomorphism naturally led to a corresponding theology of protest against G-d (Weiss 2017:150-151).
Once protest theology had been established, it was just a
small step further to audaciously declare that, on occasion, G-d had broken
Torah law. G-d is then said to admit having done wrong and is described as
regretting His actions. This is borne out by some remarkable passages in
rabbinic literature where G-d is said to have acknowledged His mistakes:
לֹא
יָפֶה עָשִׂיתִי
“ I [G-d] did not act appropriately…” (b. Sanhedrin 108a).
וְהֵן חוֹבְלִים עָלַי דְּבָרִים וְאוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ דָּן כַּשּׁוּרָה. (איוב לד, לב): בִּלְעֲדֵי אֶחֱזֶה, בַּר מִנִּי זִיל פַּשְׁפֵּשׁ דִּינָא, וְאִם טָעִיתִי (איוב לד, לב): אַתָּה הֹרֵנִי, וְאִם אָוֶן פָּעַלְתִּי עִם הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, לֹא אֹסִיף עִם הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. (איוב מא, ד): לוֹ אַחֲרִישׁ בַּדָּיו,
The chronology of rabbinic protest literature
As his research progressed, Weiss noticed that rabbinic protest tradition was not evenly represented across the different periods of rabbinic literature, suggesting that their view changed over time. He discovered that there were two concurrent but distinct strata of both protest literature and anti-protest literature. R. Akiva and R. Elazar are key figures in rabbinic thought, opposing protest against G-d. According to them, not only was it forbidden to protest against G-d, but such acts were to be met with prescribed penalties. There were concerted attempts at reinterpreting biblical passages that contained protest, and these were generally construed more as ‘prayer’ than as ‘protest.’
While anti-protest literature persisted consistently across all rabbinic periods (and continues to endure today), there was a distinct historical window during which protest literature flourished. Protest literature emerges softly during the Tannaic (or Mishnaic) period (10-210 CE), develops more fully during the subsequent Amoraic (or Gemara) period, but reaches its peak in post-Amoraic times up to around the eighth century, when it begins to decline.
In many of the pro-protest sources, the rabbis adopt a safe strategy whereby it is not them who utter the protest, but rather, words are placed in the mouths of others, often biblical characters. This is what Weiss (2017:119) terms “acts of ventriloquism,” where the rabbis are seen to speak through more authoritative figures than themselves. This is often done:
“to express their own struggles, ambivalences, and discomforts with morally troubling divine acts” (Weiss 2017:125).
We now turn to the work Midrash Tehillim, which serves as a valuable test case for examining these theological developments.
Midrash Tehillim as protest literature
Midrash Tehillim is comprised of two sections: The original collection (on Psalms 1-118), known also as Midrash Shocher Tov was edited in Palestine and dates from between the third and eighth centuries. The later collection (on Psalms 119-150) dates from the thirteenth century. The two compositions differ distinctly in their language and style of interpretation, and in their relationship to protest literature.
Confrontation and protest run as a recurring theme or leitmotif throughout Midrash Tehillim, but far more predominantly in the original collection. In the complete collection, there are altogether 1,030 Midrashim, 108 (or 10.5%) of which contain some form of theological protest. However, theological protest is found in 92 instances (or 85.2%) in the older collection, and only 16 times (or 14.8%) in the later collection (Brumbach 2024:101). This seems to reflect a reality where—although the early (Mishnaic) rabbinic sources were reluctant to express protest—protest became more acceptable in the Talmudic (or Amoraic) and post-Talmudic periods.
The early rabbis conceived of G-d as “morally perfect and just” (Brumbach 2024:2).[3] This position was then challenged by the rabbis of the Talmudic and post-Talmudic period, reaching its fullest expression of pious resistance in the post-Talmudic period (Brumbach 2024:137; Weiss 2017:10-11). But it seems that there was a subsequent reversal back to earlier attitudes—as is evident by the fewer references to protest in the later collection of Midrash Tehillim—when protest became relatively unacceptable between the eighth and thirteenth century, thus closing the circle and reverting to the original views of R. Akiva and R Elazar. Nevertheless, as A.J. Berkovitz (2023:3)[4] notes,” the rabbis cite from [Psalms] more often than from other biblical books,” which may indicate an underlying rabbinic preoccupation with lament, protest and criticism of injustice, despite undergoing periods when protest was largely prohibited.
Providing protest where no protest exists
For purposes of this study, it is significant that rabbinic protest in Midrash Tehillim is often to be found even where there is no overt biblical protest, indicating a rabbinic propensity for protest theology. The rabbis go so far as to insert protests into their Midrashim on the psalms—in 43 instances—where the psalms do not originally contain any ostensible protest material. The protests in Midrash Tehillim generally adopt a dialogical form in that they express imagined conversations with G-d, and they either amplify biblical protests (e.g., Psalms 13.1, 22.6, 22.16, 22.17, 22.18) or create new protest narratives (e.g., Psalms 6.3, 38.1, 120.7). These insertions often occur where the source Psalm is a lament or contains verses of lament (Brumbach 2024:110).
In Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 22, for example, Esther is imagined to have accused G-d of not responding to her cries:
קֵלִי קֵלִי לָמָ֣ה עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי רָח֥וֹק מִֽ֝ישׁוּעָתִ֗י דִּבְרֵ֥י שַׁאֲגָתִֽי
"My God, my God, why have You abandoned me;why so far from delivering me and from my anguished roaring?" (Psalm 22:1).
In the words of Midrash Tehillim, Esther is said to protest:
“You answered our ancestors in Egypt, but not us. When they cried out, You heard them…But we have been fasting for three days, praying, crying, and calling, but You do not answer us” (Midrash Tehillim 22.6).
This Midrash Tehillim is all the more remarkable because the Book of Esther itself does not contain protest literature. This amplification is, thus, the creative work of the rabbis in Midrash Tehillim.
Protest against G-d may appear to be religiously belligerent, but when viewed against the conceptualisation of a covenantal contract or agreement (Brit), it becomes a profound act of faith:
“Theological protest is fundamentally rooted within a covenantal relationship between G-d and the Jewish people. This covenantal relationship is precisely what allows for protest to be possible, and possibly even mandates it” (Brumbach 2024:139).
Astoundingly, these protests are rarely portrayed as meeting with objections from G-d. All this creates a safe space for legitimate dissent and protest. But it goes a theological step further because sanctioned protest may allow for the possibility of the perception of a G-d who is not always morally perfect. This is in contrast to later mediaeval Jewish philosophy, where—as mentioned earlier—the circle was closed, and protest again became relatively unacceptable, mimicking the way it started with the earliest rabbis conceiving of G-d as morally just and perfect. The rabbinic word, thus, experienced a window of increased protest activity from around Mishnaic times (second and third centuries) to around the eighth century. This is why, by the thirteenth century—when the second collection of Midrash Tehillim was produced—there were far fewer references to protest in keeping with the anti-protest ethos of the later times.
Rabbinic authority
Protest material in rabbinic literature, besides having a psychological and cathartic effect on a community in exile, may also have served a sociological function to lend authority to the rabbinic class of sages, as they were formally formulating Jewish law in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods. In other words, the rabbis of that period possessed the theological authority to engage with—and even challenge—G-d directly, enabling them to legislate with divine legitimacy (Weiss 2017:124).
Analysis
While Midrash Tehillim served here as a focal case study, it is only one expression within a wider landscape of theological protest found throughout the rabbinic canon during this window period (Weiss n.d.:6–7).[5] In this island in time, the spirit of sacred dissent was not isolated, but emblematic of a broader rabbinic ethos. As reflected in the formative period surrounding the compilation of Midrash Shocher Tov—roughly spanning the third to eighth centuries—this culture permeated rabbinic literature as a whole. This appears to have a been a period where, in questioning G-d, the rabbis were not heretical, but heir to a tradition of spiritual audacity. This may also help explain why this era stands out as the most innovative and productive phase of rabbinic legislative development—marking the critical shift from Oral Tradition to Written Tradition.
[1]
Weiss, D., 2017, Pious Irreverence: Confronting
God in Rabbinic Judaism, University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
[2] Blumenthal, D.R., 2017, ‘What are the Limits of Protest Theology? A Review Essay’, Reviews in Religion & Theology, vol. 24, no.4, 620-625.
[3]
Brumbach, J., 2024, Theological Protest in Midrash Tehillim, Spertus
Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership, (Doctoral Thesis).
[4] Berkovitz, A.J., 2023, A Life of Psalms in Jewish Late Antiquity, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
[5]
See Weiss, “Confrontation with God in Late Rabbinic Literature.”
I thank Dr Avi Harel for these sources:
יאיר זקוביץ, אביגדור שנאן, לא כך כתוב בתנ"ך, תל אביב, ידיעות אחרונות, 2006, עמ' 272.
יצחק בן שמשון, הכהן, -1624, מדרש תהלים שוחר טוב, מבוא, עמ' 4, באתר היברובוקסרז מוסטיגמן, "מהר המשחה ועד אימר, למשמעותו ההיסטורית של קובץ מסורות החורבן בתוך סוגיית ”ונלכדה ביתר" בתלמוד הירושלמי", חיבור לשם קבלת התואר ”דוקטור לפילוסופיה", הוגש לסנט של אוניברסיטת תל אביב, אפריל 2006, עמ' 233.
יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית, נערך והושלם על ידי חנוך אלבק, מוסד ביאליק, ירושלים, 1974, עמ' 131–132.
Jacob Elbaum, Midrash Tehillim, Encyclopaedia Judaica, encyclopedia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment