Stale Books are as Sweet as Honey

 

Book culture salvaging Jewish decline 

By: Jonathan Seidel

The emergence of book culture in Judaism dates to the qumranic scrolls in antiquity. The greeks pushed statuary law moving away from the common law model of the earlier empires. Writing down their laws as statutes impacted Jewish survivalist response. Their book culture evolved from the revival of torah learning during the Hasmonean reign. Their engagement with Torah and attempt to salvage halakhic negligence compelled them to cite biblical verses to legitimise the law. The pharisaic customised transmission was flawed by erroneous execution. If the law had no source it was problematic. Their survivalist reaction was laced with platonic hermeneutics. Their interpretative model was hellenised to protect tradition. Ironically, they borrowed a framework from their enemies to ensure the future of Judaism. Reviving commitment was emblematic to their perpetuity. This was the sole example where the textual revolution failed ceasing to exist. The failure of this was most probably due to their infertility, isolationism and war casualties. This was the biggest failure as the entire sect ceased and we only know more about them after recovering their testimony in the caves. Only through archaeology are they real. 

A much lesser powerful textual revolution was entertained during Josiah’s reign. This revolution is tied with speculation due to its dating and evidence surrounding it but archeology as well as textual proof point to such an event. Josiah began the religious revival. The discovery of the Torah scroll and its resurgence as the slogan of Jewish life empowered traditional commitment away from fervent idolatry. This revolution was contained to Torah learning and strengthening the religiosity of the individuals. Unfortunately, his early death in battle undid everything he fought so hard to change. Idolatry and corruption reemerged and spiralled the country into a deeper hole culminating in the destruction of the Temple and exile. 

Ezra followed this trend upon returning to Israel from Babylon in hopes to rebuild Jewish life and the Temple. Ezra’s legal innovations were stricter in coercing off-the-beaten-path Jews back on track. His stringencies of intermarriage and carrying on Shabbat demonstrated exegetical interpretations to salvage those “lost Jews”. Along with Nehemiah they placed Torah centerstage requiring reading the scroll triweekly. This textual revival led to the rebuilding of the Temple and the continuation of religious life in Israel. Ezra’s model warped back into custom style along with the innovations as a part of daily life. 

The sages followed the Qumran ideology in a hermeneutical approach to salvage tradition following the revolt. Their citations and footnoting led to compilations in the form of the midrash aggada and halakha. The mishnah was the first rabbinic “codification”. It acted as the statuary legal feed in response to low halakhic commitment. Rebbe was anxious of the decline and sought necessary to approve a book to salvage it. Whether or not the public utilised the book is irrelevant as the later sages used it as the bedrock of their talmudic exchange. The book became the foundation of further Jewish thought. The Mishnaic book culture was a sole model of bookish style. Yet is was still an anthology not a codex. Similar to the Talmud was the discourse recording diversity over positing rule of law. The rabbinic age can be still regarded as mimetic culture. Despite the literary anthologies their lack of statuary codified imposition lacked the book framework. Orality retained its strength as its ancestors wished it to be. 

Maimonides echoing Rebbe demonstrated his affinity via codified texts. His book was to replace the old. Though the Rif preceded him it was Maimonides’ text that was to replace the old. The Rif removed the narratives and provided the bottom line law. It was a sourcebook. Maimonides organised the law chronologically by his metric like a library and fuelled it with his personality. Maimonides was the first maverick to break with the traditional mould. His codex was a new view of canonisation. It did refer to the old texts and would cite them verbatim but it was in his own systematic way. His reasoning was to make it simpler for people given the decreased commitment and chaotic transition. The Tur reacted to a similar situation in Spain and wished to standardise sephardi practice. He omitted the impractical material Maimonides placed in his codex. 

Having analysed the history of book culture and codification till the Middle Ages. There is a reoccurring rationale behind the transition to codification but it is also important to emphasise its positives. The recent haredi surge in stringent behaviour bothered me in its application of Judaism to a centralised format. The isolationism and rejection of external stimuli marked it as alien to the tradition. After delving through the history of Jewish textualisation it is part of a long lasted pattern through the ages. The rabbinic oscillation from the pharisaic, geonic, Tosafists and North African rabbis to the amoriam, Spanish and Lithuanian rabbis. The former stand on the side of tradition and the latter on text. It is not a one size fits all. Each side pursued religiosity in their own realm. Seeing my own age of religious expression—it’s extremism and conservatism—seemingly overly rigid. It was not only a stringent legality but also philosophically. Looking at past codifications it dawned on me the changes throughout Jewish history. Reading Profs. Soloveitchik and Schremer later challenged the notion that this was a two time occurrence and more or less was a consistent happening and even an inevitability. 

No codification was the same. Even if the reaction was similar. The medieval sephardim experienced multiple codifications. Responding to similar issues but varied in their own way. Rif stipulated applied law due to geonic decline, Maimonides  empowered religious commitment due to Spanish pogroms while Tur standardised Spanish jewry after conservative decay. The codexes were also quite different: Rif presented the talmudic text with bottom line halakha, excluding the dialogue and allegories, Maimonides organised the entirety of Jewish law adding his own poetic philosophical spin and Tur constructed a pluralistically manifested codex excluding unapplied law. The response to judaic suffering promoted a book at centerstage to ensure religious unity.

Codification salvages communities. French jewry disappeared due to its customised ideology. It failed to produce lasting responsa literature. To this day we do have the Tosafist commentaries but not their legal works. There is a lack of halakhic material. The custom outlook fell apart and within generations the Tosafist community moved to Germany and then to Italy. They continued elsewhere but their roots were contaminated with an indistinguishable spark from their neighbours. The same can  be said of the the pre-golden age of Spanish jewry. Their lack of literature also almost led to their downfall. It was the emergence of conversos and Rosh’s school that revitalised the community due to massacres in the east. Tur eventually wrote his codex inspiring a renewal of halakhic commitment. The custom based model was insufficient in the long run. For the former group a new home was necessary to vary from their surroundings as well as the Rema’s Darchei Moshe to be the code for ashkenazim. For the latter, they remained in place bringing in new life from abroad. It was the insurgence of survivors that invigorated the Spanish community. 

In the modern period the tables turned and sefardim hinged on responsa literature and the ashkenazim wrote codexes. The printing press enabled the responsa literature to maintain a grasp and even a halakhic foothold but was not systematised like their ashkenazi counterparts. In the ashkenazi world we have the Chayei Adam, Aruch Hashulchan and Mishnah Berura. Despite the great scholars of the Chida, Kaf Chaim and the Ben Ish Chai, their works were not codified even though they were regarded in the highest regard as applied law. The Lithuanian scholars responded harshly to the enlightenment. This movement denounced the haskalah as a dangerous mode and chose tradition over secularism. Codexes were to save those struggling with their Yiddishkeit in age of rampant abandonment. The sephardi scholars compromised the two by demonstrating empathy toward foreign congregants. The sephardi leniency has led to the ‘traditional’ Jew who quasi-observes halakha. While the Lithuanians though in the long run split into ultra and modern orthodox, the halakhic acceptance is higher and rigid. 

There is something to be said of passionate less committed to the higher committed robotic executers. Yet, the former lack order and standardisation. The spontaneity misses the habituation of proper conduct. Only through thorough repetition does it become internalised as ontological. Passion is brief and fleeting, it does not account for the hardworking at times nauseating load. It is the process that enriches the journey. Doing it even when you don’t want to, even when you’re tired. I was exhausted Sunday mornings but my mother pushed my brother and I to attend minyan every week. Once realigning this message with a divine ordeal, it was my voluntary commitment to rise early to arrive on time. A habituated process that affected my outlook on priorities. Due to the prohibitions, there is a temptation to override. To do something you can’t. To text your friend or play video games on Shabbat. One must harden his heart and exclaim no! It emboldens character to resist urges and to live by your principles even in tough times. 

The codification merely makes access easier and simple. It provides a synchronic equality amongst people. In the past, it was a top-down authoritarian model. A person knew the law by virtue of his teacher’s explanation. Yet, the codification erased such inequality. It stole rabbinic discretion to a point of recognising the law remains. There is still an importance to rabbinic jurisdiction. Still, similar to how the Torah obligated the king, so to the codification displayed a public slogan for everyone to follow. Everyone knew the law, everyone was their own sage. Knowledge is power and knowledge enabled further growth amongst the people. 

Codification binds the people to the law. It is the constitutional declaration of obedience. It is the text to ascribe. It is the hallmark of religious execution. It is revered and comprehended by the people. It is an authoritative style of parenting. The sages still represent the glowing knowledge and hermeneutical prowess similar to an elected official but the people know their duty and cannot be overpowered with authoritarian compulsion. 

Codified constitution internalises the book as one’s own. It is not a foreign substance but a precious gem. It becomes a part of the person’s being in their livelihood. The book is reviewed to ensure proper conduct. The codex links traditionally to the former sources. Maimonides may not have cited a single source but he did quote them. He firmly legislated via the taanaitic texts. There is verbatim copying from the Mishnah to his Mishneh Torah. Maimonides work followed after the geonim unlike the ashkenazi counterparts who usurped the geonic works for talmudic supremacy. It is a clear line from earlier sources till now. Codexes do not deal in interpretive gymnastics but in black letter bottom line line. It continues the past into the present. 

Codexes perpetuated Jewry. The law was cemented in a book printed and acknowledged as the highest law of the land. It was a reminder to the forgetful and the abandoned. It was a call for renewal, to return and revive tradition. It recalled the legacy of our forefathers and demanded compliance. It is inescapable. It is the primary source of information, the instruction book to serve God correctly. The code is for the laymen to signal his competence in servitude.