Checks and Balances

By: Jonathan Seidel

Exilarch/nasi and the Sages: proto-anti-maimonideanism? Hasmoneanism?

During the first exile with the kingship ruined, the Israelites at that time, the Judahites, needed a leader. As the divine anointed was from the Davidic line, a descendent of that family would be chosen to lead the people. Zerubabel is the most prominent of the bunch. While the kingship ended, Davidic leaders remained yet for how long?

With the exception of Sefer Zuta Olam, there is no record of the exilarchate. If the book is reliable, it does provide a glowing tradition of Davidic leaders from the exiled king in Babylon down to the returnees. The Maccabean revolt kindled a new dynasty but after their loss to Rome, Rome installed their own puppet ruler. This subordination basically continued through the destruction of the temple and Rome’s sovereignty. Yet under Roman sovereignty, somebody needed to be in charge of the logistical political matters. In Judea, it was the Nasi and in Babylon it was the exilarch. The prince (Nasi) while considered on the same level of the exilarch, had a different function. The prince was the head of the court while the exilarch strictly dealt with political affairs. 

The exilarch lasted well into the geonic years but battled against the Sages a few times. Some got along others clashed frequently. The Yerushalmi is more hostile to the exilarch than the Bavli. Whether due to experiences, ideals or location the differences are emblematic of a trend. The prince while the political point man was also a head judge. He was a Davidic descendent but his role was mirrored into the judicial framework. The exilarch had judicial powers but was more a presidential candidate than a judge. He appointed judges instead of ruling cases. In many cases his political expertise added economic and even military agency. He wasn’t a mere spokesman but a leader to assist the community. He was well respected by the community and local government. His ties favorably elevated his constituents.  

The exilarch was predominantly an exilic position. A placement for the king. Davidic descendants upheld their right to rule outside regal authority. Interestingly, it was internally that bound the prince as a rabbinic leader. To be the prince was to be the political and legal authority. While under Rome there was a Nasi and av beit din, it seems further into the post-destruction age the two became intertwined. The role of the prince morphed into a legal political role. Rabban Gamliel had immense power as the head of the high court. Rebbe as well instilled such vigor. Ironically, in Israel proper the biblical separation of powers was synthesized into a rabbinic hegemony. Without a king priest or prophet, the judge in his Davidic heritage took centerstage. While an argument could be made for a new leader without the monarchy it remained futile.

The focus on Rebbe as the quintessential prince from the Davidic fate is a little misleading. The Nasi seems to actually divert from the Davidic centrality. Instead the prince was a Hillelite. The position prior to the temple’s destruction carried much weight absent a king priest or prophet. With the fraudulent monarchy, corrupt priesthood and no prophecy, only the scholar remained. It was up to him and his fellow scholars to ensure Judaic continuity. The zugot represent a shift in scholarly focus for survival. Yosi Ben Yoezer and Yose Ben Yochanon. The av bet din was always there but the people needed a novel institution for stability. This Nasi represented the people’s leader. Having a second scholar to balance the first ensured a separation of powers of sort on the religious realm. For the locality, both supervised the covenantal project. A necessary purpose during a political horror show.

As Yose Ben Yoezer was the first with other seemingly not from the Davidic line. Without kingship the new leadership was akin to pre-monarchy Israel. With none anointed, a Nasi like a judge during Israel’s early years oversaw the people. Yet these princes were not slums. Unlike their Babylonian counterparts they were well versed in Torah. The first few are the seminal members of preserving halakhic Judaism as we know it today. These princes were highly professional and insightful. They were politically active but at times more legally active. This did not necessary warrant unparalleled power. Rabban Gamliel who may be the most powerful prince was ousted by his colleagues for his crude behavior toward R Joshua and R Simeon ben Gamliel added a third role called the hakham to R Meir. When the former went a little rogue for ambition the latter ridiculed him. 

The patriarchate began on merit. The deserved scholar became the lead and passed down in pairs. Yet after Hillel and in his honor it became dynastic. Just like the monarchic model so too the patriarchate. Similar to its Babylonian fellow, it was a fated position. Yet it was also challenged. The other scholars acted like the prophet or in more contemporary terms like congress. The prince screws up he can be ousted and he can be shamed. He was a powerful legal and political leader in contrast to the exilarch who remained in his secular sphere. The Sages were both their foils but one was charged with religious liberties while the other was strictly a political leader. The patriarchate is an innovative status to deal with the crumbling leadership but in line with its scholarly endowment fails to appreciate the monarchical enterprise.

The hope here is not to jab at the patriarchate. To ridicule them for consolidating power in scholarship. To some extent, the dynastic aspect of patriarchate not only revived monarchical fate but it also differentiated the aspiring destiny driven Sages with the dynastic patriarchate. It didn’t matter that the prince was generally a prestigious scholar himself unlike the exilarch. The latter in some instances was a learned man. It doesn’t seem to be a requirement but unlike the prince he was not quoted for his opinions regularly. Mar Ukva was a student of Samuel, Rav Huna was an amora and the prime student of Rav, a second R Huna who was the student of R Papa and Mar Zutra who headed the academy in Tiberius. Both Natronai Gaon and Hezekiah Gaon were exilarchs. There was an interconnection between the two. Though these latter are incredible Sages, the rest were either educated or knowledgeable. It is is evidently critical that a Jewish leader be knowledgeable in Jewish law though he not be a judge nor a decisor.

The exilarch ought not be an ignoramus. As a leader of Israel he must demonstrate his knowledge. Just as the king carried around a Torah scroll and read the Torah scroll so too his exilarch descendent ought to do the same. The exilarch must not play politics. For an exilarch to be a Torah giant is to be induced by the divine word. To be a defender of Israel and a guide. The exilarch represented the secular component but was highly spiritual in many instances. Studying under the greatest Sages to bolster their own leadership capability. It is one thing to lead the people through economic turmoil and it is another to praise the divine law at the same time. The rabbinic world may have been scholarly but the common man was a farmer. His political logistical leader was the exilarch. Greatly respected and admired. 

The exilarch did clash with Sages but both looked after one another. Especially the exilarchs who were students of great Sages. Their reforms and leadership were revered. They were prepared and respected. It was this separation that allowed the two to coexist. For the Sages to teach Torah and the exilarch to inform political reforms. The exilarch was the antiquity king and the Sage the antiquity prophet. It was the Sages who looked after the leadership. Judging them for their errors and wrongdoings. For their paranoia and selfishness. Sometimes the exilarch was forced to act against the Sage. The Sage was no prophet and as a man was fallible. Yet it was the keepers of the Torah who looked after the leadership as Samuel, Nathan and Jeremiah had done prior. 

In the early Middle Ages, Samuel ben Ali Gaon decided to become the head of the community. Consorting power in the academy rather in the exilarch. Maimonides responded rather harshly to this endeavor. A forgotten but seminal aspect of the Maimonidean controversy. Maimonides praised the exilarch. He believed the exilarch was the proper authority from the Davidic line to ordain judges. He rejected the pompous superiority of the academy rhetoric that people ought to pay the scholars for them to learn all day. He saw them corrupt and arrogant deriding the entire program on strictly halakhic grounds. The exilarch was a halakhically permissible position. Minimizing their authority for their own elevation stood against the Torah. The exilarch like the king is a divinely enjoyable position as a political confidant and check on the Sages and prophet. 

Instead Maimonides' warning went unheeded. The ideas of the Babylonian rabbinical leadership pressed against Maimonides. Joining were the French rabbis who themselves had pinned themselves as the scions of tradition. This also passed on to the Spanish community of Nahmanides and his school. The supremacy of the Sage provided all sorts of political, legal and theological capabilities. All sorts of powers. The anti-Maimonidean rhetoric sought to paint Maimonides as a prideful fool while they put forward their own bids. The age of the scholar was the center of Jewry. The theme of rabbinic leadership persisted through the expulsion. The legacy of Andalusian duality was lost to history. Rejected for supreme scholarship. For the Sage with immense unparalleled power.

The anti-Maimonideans committed the same error as the Hasmoneans. Consolidating unearthed and unfitting power to a single scholar. The early modern world provided a new challenge and novel dynamic. Traditional models were speculative and groups emerged to care for countrymen. All sorts of organizations joined to concern for the ailing Jews spread out. Rabbinic leadership declined and common leadership grew. A difficult obstacle in opposition to the past millennia. In many areas the local rabbi was able to retain control but with the fervent maskilim and aspiring opportunities many left tradition. The yeshiva remodeled itself outside the city. Parents would send their children away to learn. To be safe from the external dangers. The yeshiva was a safe space to protect the gentile minds of intellectual youth.

The yeshiva was the neo-geonic supremacy. The yeshiva rabbis flooded pupil minds with their views and halakhic opinions. Whether intentionally deriding the local rabbis or not, the influence of yeshiva scholars overloaded the locality. Yeshiva rabbis minimized the efforts and prestige of the local rabbis. A great example is the Mishnah Berurah versus the Aruch Hashulchan. The popularity of the former exceeds the latter tremendously. The yeshiva rabbi whose students escaped and handed out his work as the true heir overshadowed the local rabbi’s compendium from the olden days. The yeshiva rabbi only focused on specific everyday matters while the local rabbi covered all halakha. Applicable to the layman or not, halakha is halakha. It is the yeshiva that gains the following rather than the hometown hero. 

The haredi world props up their rabbis as the authentic mystical lore. Rabbis with powers. It isn’t even authoritarian rule but magical abilities. Endless power and influence. Rejecting the secular political leader. The prime minister is the Jewish political leader and yet he is rejected. Though it would be nice if he were a little more observant. The political leader is absent. In the French-quasi-geonic worldview, the Sage stands a top everyone. The elected official to represent the people is derided. Even if he were a Davidic descendent they would presumably refute him. It is a monolithic perspective dating back to the early Middle Ages. A view of rabbinic elitism. In the isolated haredi hubs the political and spiritual are intertwined. There is no room for separation of powers only tyranny. The rabbi is the king, prophet and judge all wrapped into one.

Maimonides aspired for a check on authority. For each leader to play his role. Just like Moses and Aaron, David and Nathan. Each has a job and it is imperative they work together. Each confides in the other and learns from the other. Judaism does not need an emperor, it needs a government. It needs the roles to be assumed and executed by the respective minds. Just as the prime minister and the general side by side, so too the prime minister, chief rabbi and the court. Maybe it’s time Davidic descendent be chosen if proper lineage can truly be attested. The next prime minister will be the contemporary exilarch a learned fellow of Davidic descendent. Combining anti-modern lineage fate and modern electoral candidacy. That would be Judaic.

The fall of the monarchy and the configuration of a miniature version of the exilarchate maintained the divine anointment. A small flame of continuity remained intact. As the rabbinic world become more powerful they began breaching out to be the sole leadership. An interim leader until the messianic age. Until God sends his anointed. This gradual succession power has morphed from its economical benefits to legislative authority to political gurus. The contemporary sage is an idol of his pure educational role. The humility of the scholar as a medium has been corrupted. The Sage is the holder of all wisdom. A link to God through his magical efforts. His profound mystical abilities dazzling the audience. A theatrical display of overt passion and immense paranoia.

The Sage has reached the point of no return. The once humble scholar is now a prideful Sage. The democratic pitfalls and rising religiosity may spot new gurus to shield from the impending dangers. A revival of the state with widespread acceptance further illuminates the duality of the political and spiritual authorities.