INTRODUCTION:
How does one define and describe a Talmudic sage?
It’s not so easy because the Talmudic Period spanned about
500 years, two geographical regions (Palestine and Babylonia) and incorporated
about one thousand Tanaim (sages from the Mishnaic Period, 10 -220
CE) and Amoraim (Sages from the Gemara Period, 220 - 500 CE).
However, from various Talmudic works dealing specifically
with expected codes of ethical behaviour for rabbis, we can certainly get some
idea of what the Talmudic man was supposed to be.
In this article, I have again
drawn from Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber, a Talmud professor at Bar Ilan
University who has researched the neglected topic of the development and evolution of rabbinical ethics.
ETHICAL CODES:
Alongside the ubiquitous Talmudic discussion, a secondary
literature emerged which detailed the required social and ethical behaviour for
rabbis.
Certain external signs were required to distinguish the
rabbi from the ordinary population.
Sperber writes:
“His headgear was different;
so were his robes, his cleanliness and general comportment, his manner of
speech and dress, and so on.”
FORMALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL CODES:
This information is scattered in a typically haphazard
fashion throughout Talmudic literature, particularly in Braitot
(parallel texts from the Mishnaic Period which were not considered as
authoritative as those which were to form part of the official canon of the Mishna).
In the post-Talmudic Period, some ‘mini tractates’ known as ‘Perakim’ or
chapters began to emerge. At first these Perakim, such as Perek
Talmidei Chachamim, simply collated some of these earlier Braitot - and
later, by the time of the Rishonim (1038-1500), these had developed into
more comprehensive works and were well incorporated into Halachot Gedolot
(from the earlier Gaonic period) and Machzor Vitry by a student
of Rashi.
EVOLUTION AND TRANSFORMATION OF ETHICAL CODES:
Sperber describes the evolutionary nature of this, now a well-established, genre of
rabbinical ethical writings:
“[E]ach passage evolved, was modified, at
time even underwent radical transformation, as it was fitted into its new
context. Such analyses are studies not merely in literary history, but also in
the ever-changing history of Jewish etiquette and manners, a subject that has
elicited scant scholarly attention...”
Sperber discusses the intricate editorial process some of
these ethical writings were to undergo:
“The editorial process to
which the original [Talmudic]
sources were subjected in the course of their transitions, first being
incorporated into ‘mini tractates’ (peraqim) and then to the more standard-size
tractates (massekhtot), and subsequently being assimilated into the medieval
genre of ethical literature, is both complex and enlightening.”
EXAMPLE 1:
DERECH ERETZ ZEIRA:
What follows is an example of a reworked text found in an
ethical manual entitled Derech Eretz Zeira:
“Five are [the rules concerning
invitation to a gathering or a meeting]: A person should always know with whom
he is standing, with whom he is sitting, with whom he is dining, with whom he
is conversing, and with whom he is signing his documents.”
This text is based on an early Tannaic source from
Second Temple times (i.e., before 70 CE) entitled Mechilta deKaspa,
which deals with (two) customs of the Jerusalem aristocracy:
“Such was the conduct of the
pure-minded (Neqiyyei ha-da’at) [i.e., the scholarly elite]...in
Jerusalem: none of them would go to...a banquet unless he knew who would be
there with him, and none of them would sign [a] document...unless he knew who
would sign with him.”
One can see how this original and shorter text (with two customs) was later
reworked and expanded upon in Derech Eretz Zeira (to five customs).
Then, in a slightly later text than Mechilta deKaspa,
this time from the Talmud
we see another version (with three customs):
“Such was the conduct of the
pure-minded people in Jerusalem: they would not sign a document unless they
knew who would sign with them, neither would they sit in judgement unless they
knew who would sit with them, nor would they go in to a banquet unless they
knew who would be dining with them.”
INVITATIONS AND BANQUETS:
Sperber cites a source that explains that these
‘pure-minded’ scholars of Jerusalem would not attend a banquet unless the invitation
was extended again on the very day the function was to occur. This was based on
an Egyptian custom. After being ‘re-invited’ on the day itself, they would show
that they were ‘booked’ for the occasion by dressing up. This way they would
not disappoint anyone else who wanted to invite them for another function at
the same time. Also, the host would write out the menu on embroidered napkins
hanging on his gate so as to ensure the food was acceptable to the guests. The
guests could arrive and enter anytime that the napkins were still hanging on
the gate.
DRINKING ETIQUETTE:
This group of scholarly elite had some interesting drinking
habits as well. They would not drink from the portion of the cup opposite the
handle, as most people do, but they drank from close to the handle.
TAKING OUT THE TORAH:
They had another custom too:
“This was the custom of the
pure-minded of Jerusalem: when they took the Torah out and returned it, they
would walk after it to honor it.”
KNOW YOUR BOOK COMPANION:
Since manuscripts were rare and expensive, the scholars
would often have to share from the same book. Hence a need was created to
ensure that the elite also ‘knew’ the suitability of ‘their book
companions’.
REACTION TO SCHOLARLY ELITISM:
Not everyone was happy with this culture of rabbinic elitism
that was beginning to emerge. The Talmud
records the following statement in the name of Rav:
“The people of Jerusalem were
obscene...A man would say to his neighbour; ‘On what did you dine today? On
what sort of bread...on what sort of wine...? On a wide couch or a narrow
couch. In good company or bad?”
However, this type of criticism was rare and the elitist
scholarly culture was allowed to foster. We even see that R. Yehudah haNasi
would not open his storehouses to non-scholars during periods of famine. [See Historic
Rabbinic Responses to Pestilence.]
EXAMPLE 2:
ANOTHER TEXT FROM DERECH ERETZ ZEIRA:
Here is another text from Derech Eretz Zeira:
“Four things are not befitting
to a scholar: he should not stay out on the road at night; he should not go to
the market [while he is]
reeking of fragrance; he should not be the last to enter the synagogue; and he
should not keep company with the ignorant.”
STAYING OUT ON THE ROAD AT NIGHT:
Focusing on the first ethical teaching suggesting that
scholars do not stay out on the road at night, we notice that this is dealt
with in a number of places in Talmudic literature:
DEMONS:
A Beraita teaches that the reason has to do with what
it refers to as ‘demons’:
“We should not go out alone at
night, not on a Wednesday night nor on Shabbat night, because [the demon] Aggerat
daughter of Machlat is aboard with her eighteen [MS Munich, twelve] myriad
malevolent angels. And each one of them is permitted to cause harm...
At first they used to roam
about every day. However, once upon a time, R. Chanina ben Dosa [fl. ca. 40-80]
met up with her, and she said to him: Were it not for the fact that in heaven
they proclaim, ‘Beware of Chanina and his Torah [= learning],’ I would surely
endanger your life.’
To which R. Chanina ben Dosa
replied: ‘If indeed I be well regarded in heaven, I decree that never again may
you pass through inhabited areas.’
She said: ‘Please [I beseech
you – absent from in MS Munich], leave me some slight freedom [to indulge in my
practices].’
So he left her Shabbat night
and Wednesday nights.’”
In a similar vein we read in another Talmudic text:
“’[And Jacob was left alone]
and there wrestled a man with him until the break of day.’(Gen. 32:24). Said R.
Yitzchak [fl. ca. 250-300]: ‘From here [it is that we learn] that a scholar
should not go out alone at night.’...
R.Abahu said: From here. ‘And
Avraham rose up early in the morning’. (Gen 22:3). [Rashi: ‘And not before
morning, and even though he was not alone – how much more so, one who is
alone.]”
WILD ANIMALS AND HIGHWAY ROBBERS:
Sperber shows that the reason for a person not being out
alone at night may have some more natural dangers which had to be avoided, such
as wild animals. Additionally, there was also the danger of being attacked by
highway robbers.
In certain areas in Babylonia, synagogues were built outside
‘in the field’, and people made sure not to return home alone at night (hence
certain additions were added to the evening service to accommodate those
arriving a little late).
This begs the question as to why - in the face of such well
known and common natural dangers of the night - was it necessary to stress that
a rabbinic scholar must beware of the demons? The answer is that while all
people are equally susceptible to natural dangers it is specifically the
rabbinic sage, due to his Torah knowledge, who is most liable to being
confronted and attacked by demons.
As Sperber put it:
“[T]he dangers of night on the
open road for the scholar were, most probably, those that emanate from
malevolent powers, and not merely the natural perils of the dark.”
One could add to this the well known mystical notion that
the ‘forces of evil’ are wont to attack the ‘forces of good’.
A MORE NATURAL DANGER:
There is another reason why a scholar should not venture out
at night and that has to do with an even more natural form of peril and is more
directly related to ethics.
The Talmud states:
“And he [specifically the
scholar] should not go out alone at night lest he come under suspicion of
improper conduct (mishum chashada).”
Rashi explains that this refers to zenut or
unsuitable moral behaviour.
The Talmudic text thus continues to provide one exception to
this rule:
“And when do we say this [that
a scholar may not go out alone at night]? If he does not have a fixed time [for
study], but if his time is fixed, he will be known to go to his appointment [
and not indulge in questionable nightlife].”
- Hence we have a wide array of reasons which were developed
according to varying circumstances, as to why scholars should not go out on the
road at night.
ANOTHER SUSPICION:
Sperber does not bring this case but there is another text
which is also of interest:
“[Quoting the Beraita]: He may
not go out perfumed to the marketplace...R. Yochanan said: [This prohibition
only applies] in a place where they are suspected of homosexuality.
Rav Sheshet said: We only said
this with regard to [perfume on] his clothing, but with regard to [perfume on]
his body [it is permitted]...”
ANALYSIS - THEN AND NOW:
At first the scholarly Talmudic class adopted many of the ethics
of pre-destruction Jerusalem aristocracy. Then they adopted some of the
exclusive ethics of Egyptian culture and simultaneously appropriated a number
of Babylonian societal norms and even beliefs.
As Sperber puts it:
“[W]e clearly have here an
example of exclusivist ‘high-society’ etiquette becoming the hallmark of the
almost certainly nonaristocratic scholar-rabbi.”
A new form of scholarly aristocracy had now replaced the
historically elitist class.
And even within Babylonia itself, different regions had
different customs as well as ethical guidelines (as we saw in the examples of preventing
suspicions varying from zenut to homosexuality depending on localized
trends). All these very different influences, etiquettes and societal systems merged
over time into what was to become known as ‘rabbinical ethics’.
What is interesting is that these rabbinical ethics,
pertaining to a relatively small scholarly elite, were later to become the
standard - almost across the board - for the religious but less scholarly
masses who were later to mimic practices and even dress like ‘scholars’.
Thus, fascinatingly, all the particularistic customs of the
elitist rabbinical and scholarly class were - in principle and over time - to
become the hallmarks for much of the mainstream religious community of the
future.
Sperber writes that when these scholarly ethics and
practices became ‘democratized’ and more widespread, a new problem had been
created:
“Backgrounds are rejected, contexts
altered, and the text itself modified accordingly...
Apparently later writers felt it legitimate to
draw upon the stock of ethical maxims, working them into their own
particularized context.”
In other words, in an attempt at conformity,
standards were eventually adopted which did not take into consideration the local needs
and customs (as they had been when they were first innovated).
We have also seen how the original ethical texts developed
according to the various beliefs and social tendencies of different cultures
and how they were reworked and altered as those influences changed.
Then, it
seems, that at some point all further ethical development froze and henceforth
an approach of ‘one size fits all forever’ was universally adopted.
However, the original style of adaptation and transformation
of ethical norms was a good thing - as by definition - ethics should always be
relevant to specific times and cultures for them to be meaningful (unless of
course, they are harmful or against Torah values).
The problem is that today, anyone who wears clothing or
appendaged items that visibly show he or
she is a religious Jew or Jewess must remember that they are deemed by the
public to be of the ‘scholarly religious class.’ Hence a de facto set of
ethics is expected of them whether they are aware of it or not.
All Jews who are ‘scholars’ - or at least perceived by the
general public to be so because they stand out by their dress and behaviour -
automatically and immediately represent the religious community.
They need to be aware that in essence, ethics are relative not
just to them but also to the culture in which they find themselves. And when it
comes to ethics, that outside culture - as we have seen - is in many ways is
the final arbiter of what constitutes ethical behaviour.
For Torah ethics to be effective, all people who are seen to
represent Judaism need to remember that they are not the only ones defining the
societal parameters of acceptable ethical behaviour.
In the final analysis, ethical behaviour or Kidush haShem
- whether we agree or not - is not only defined by us; but is the unwritten language, common denominator, partnership
and contract between all human beings.
