Sage Art

\

By: Jonathan Seidel

Rabbinic theology: twentieth and twenty-first century manifestations

Levinson’s comment thirty years ago that many Jews were not interested in biblical theology has skyrocketed but has been eclipsed by rabbinic theology. Rabbinic theology began with Schechter and has evolved into various strands in academic realms in midrashic and aggadic literature. 

For much of the last millennium, exegetical literature was avoided for legal primacy. Maimonideans wrote rational commentaries on aggadic literature and the anti-maimonideans mystical commentaries. Those who wished to bypass the literal message to allegory either denied the literalism for metaphorical messages or accepted the literalism with a deeper metaphysical layer. Aggadah bloomed in modern ashkenaz from Maharsha to Hirsch to Kook. Though marginalised in the yeshivot throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it has reemerged in due to Kook’s influence in Israel. This inspection however differs heavily from the conservative movement’s position. 

Schechter’s predecessor Zechariah Frankel and Wissenschaft des Judentums (Science of Judaism). While there were strict academics, many were religious devout rabbis. While universities were studying other cultures, these scholars saw it important to locate their histories with the same tools. Not beholden to traditional interpretations gave them historical and linguistic expanses. Zunz pioneering his work on rabbinic literature was a christian polemic. Ironically despite Zunz’s “negative” attitude toward religion, his biography of Rashi and history of the Jewish sermon were Jewishly empowered and demonstrated the continuity of Judaism. They saw themselves as following the traditions of Rashi and Ibn Ezra. Their philological aspirations pointed to rabbinic literature as the differing mechanism from Christianity. 

Schechter was following in the footsteps in re-establishing a coherent rabbinic theology. He did not attempt to explain phrases but understood their ideological outlook. In the first decade of the Jewish Quarterly Review’s publishing he wrote a four part series on rabbinic theology. Schechter bemoans the systematic failure of the rabbis thus dubbing his essay “aspects”. Kadushin years later painted rabbinic theology further. Kadushin quotes Schechter’s work as a precursor to his own. He also rejects the systemic theology even to a point of refuting the term “theology”. Yet he finds a coherent unity amongst the organismic nature of the sages’ remarks. 

Levinas is the next thinker. Levinas was the philosopher who read the Talmud. Unlike, the former scholars their pulpit coincided with academia. For Levinas it was the opposite. He read his philosophy into the text. Levinas remains a traditionalist but with a nuanced perspective of rabbinic thinking. His reading insinuates novelties and philosophical ideas. Though Levinas’ readings differ from his poststructuralist successors who moved more to midrash and modern literary theory. He read the talmud as a a philosopher giving a sermon, his successors opted for scholarly analysis. 

Susan Handelman, Jose Faur, Suzanne Stone and others utilised modern literary criticism to back rabbinic thinking. Like Levinas, this does not constitute a rabbinic theology of the maimonidean dogmatic kind nor of Schechter but it finds relevance in Kadushin’s organic system. Much of Handelman’s thesis is contrasting rabbinic in greek thinking. The rabbis were pluralistic, indeterminate, divinised and searching for the multiple truths. In contrast to the prevailing theory of a rabbinic sanctification of hellenistic attitudes for their own purposes, she presents a dichotomous approach. Handelman’s approach was one of the many articles printed throughout the 80s trying to bridge midrash and the critical method.

The academic interest prevailed through the 90s and picked up by Kepnes, Ochs and Gibbs. Their textual reasoning also turns to postmodern strategies to analyse the text. In a recent journal, Kepnes proposed a positive theology negating Maimonides negative theology so pronounced throughout history. Even Levinas mentioned before is a beacon of absolute negative theology. The champion philosopher for Maimonides was Aristotle for Soloveitchik it was Kant and for Ochs it is Pierce. The pragmatist philosopher provides the ‘thirdness’ the point beyond the paradox. Scripture has its own logic independent of medieval rationalism. The interpretative texts provides the groundwork to construct more meaning. 

My own rabbinic theology derives from the talmudic textual transition. The scholarship of Rubinstein and Wimpfheimer has shed much light on the relationship between halakha and aggadah. Rabbinic theology is twofold: the aggadah on its own and its relation to the law. Aggadah on its own is commentary on scripture or a rabbinic legend. This format designates the values and lessons derived from the text. It is not merely filling in the blanks but adding substance to them. The second in relation to law is similarly important for substance but it is the visualisation of the law not an isolated story. It is imparts the practicality  of the ideal law, the parameters necessary. Rabbinic theology is thus the underpinnings of these narratives. There are no syllogisms no rationality. It is organised, blending into the the anthological character of the talmud. The dialogical method narrates the critical foundation of Judaism.     

The return to classical literature as a pretext for religious thinking is tremendous. While some orthodox thinkers sought the bible as the bedrock of their theologies, these academics brought rabbinic thinking to the forefront of Jewish philosophy. The talmud is the core text of Jewish life and its theology is as important as its law. Aggadah has gained much merit but the primacy of rabbinic texts as the ground to Jewish theology is uniquely special.