Innovating Tradition

The Progressive Nature of Judaism - Abraham Kohn

Among the supporters of Reform, Bohemian-born Abraham Kohn (1807-1848) paid the highest price for his opinions, for fanatics poisoned him to bring a promising career to an early and tragic end.

This rigid immobility, this forced self-isolation of teachers from the influences and demands of the time, while their congregations progress intelectually–this it is which undermines the foundations of a positive Judaism and prevents its wholesome effectiveness. I do not know how many have proceeded by themselves because of this, and have cast off the yoke and even as far as deism or atheism. There have been efforts to eliminate the abuses which have crept in during the past centuries to restore the worship service its dignity and edifying atmosphere, and wherever possible to bring teaching and life into accord (something that the status-quo people love to decry as "the urge for innovation"). Wherever this has been done under the direction of theologians who proceeded with care and expertness, it has proven itself most salutary and has nowhere led to sectarian enterprises. And neither do I know whether and by whom, through word or deed, the elimination of tradition has been attempted, and certainly I do not have the intention to defend such an attempt. Nonetheless, I feel moved to remark (because this seems to be the characteristic spirit of the Exposition) that, by their rejection of tradition, the Karaite Jews* never came close to deism or even atheism, and that in Russia and Austria they were not only tolerated but even treated better than their rabbinic brethren, and that they had the reputation of exemplary honesty and truthfulness.

To be sure, the ceremonial laws are essential in Judaism, though its creed has never been hardened into binding formulae. Rather, these laws are always of a practical nature, and for this reason, there are some who ask for more in this respect than conscientious theologians could agree to. But just because of this, does it not become even more dangerous to oppose stubbornly the justified demands of time and life? The whole history of the Jewish religion proves that certain changes in the customs and ordinances of rabbinic Judaism were not only permissible but indeed were undertaken at all times.

It must be admitted that post-Talmudic teachers rarely dared to assume for themselves the right of change. Generally, they let life itself take the lead, and they followed after with excuses, admissions of exception, and considerations of special circumstances. In this manner, however, some of the most important instances of legal relief were approved (but, of course, even more so was this the case for the minutiae of added commands). It is probably that a history of religious ordinances would show that now a single command has remained unchanged in content and extent since the compilation of the Mishnah, to say nothing of former times. The influences which brought forth such changes never arose as suddenly as in the last sixty years, for they never entered into Jewish life with such force and in such mass. In these latter years, barriers have come down. The civil and social position of the Jew has changed. The education of our youth has been improved through good schools, etc. And all of these brought forth new circumstances, needs and points of view; yet unfortunately, our Talmud scholars are walled off from the whole world and are, therefore, the least capable of judging and appreciating them.

To be sure, arbitrary changes are never permissible. But is it arbitrariness when we try to sift the chaff from the wheat and attempt to drive out the superstitious observances which, encouraged through the darkness of past centuries, have nested illegally in the halls of the synagogue? Is it arbitrariness if we, in order to restore to religion its and its salutary influence upon life, desire to eliminate from the house of God all that which proves a stumbling block and gives offense to refined taste, and if we want to restore to the forms of religious worship more sanctity and more of the freshness of life? Is it arbitrariness when in our time, as far as is legally possible, we declare as inapplicable those added strictures of former teachers which are not in accord with our present conditions of life and which, because they are always disregarded, only lead to guilt feelings and then to further transgressions? Is it arbitrariness when we approach the Talmud with a scientific attitude in order to separate the results of pure divine teaching (Mosaic tradition) from edicts of a Sanhedrin*, from subjective exegesis, and finally, from the opinion of individuals and even from the conclusions based on false premises (as for instance those which resulted from earlier views of the natural sciences)?

Well, then, truth and peace are dear and sacred to us; and therefore we must in no wise allow the right of free investigation and of progress along with our times to be abbreviated or stultified. We are truly in accord with the nature of rabbinic Judaism, and because of this, Sadduceeism* died and was buried, for it held fast to the dead letter and only looked backwards. In the Talmud, the opinions and interpretations of older teachers were set aside and nullified by their successors; in fact, the Talmud is nothing but a constant development of a clash of opposing opinions. To be sure, in the course of time one notes an increased tendency toward peace and uniformity, so that, after the Talmud was completed, one did not easily date to contradict it directly (and one must keep in mind that the Talmud was not concluded because of such uniformity of opinion, but only because of the forcible closing of the academy). But even this could not do away with the multitude of changes.

Even less did Judaism ever oppose free exegesis. Our most highly renowned exegetes differ completely from the Talmud in their interpretations of legal commands, even though they set the latter up as guides for life (which in fact was inconsistent and contradictory). The scientific study of the Talmud, with its procedure, with its method of interpretation, its principles–all this is supposed to be a mortal sin and should exclude a man from the rabbinate? The spirit of our time must revolt against such insinuation!

Terms

Karaism: A small, medieval sect of Judaism that believes the Tanakh is the sole religious authority and disregards Rabbinic Judaism.

Sanhedrin: The ancient Jewish court system was called the Sanhedrin. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme religious body in the Land of Israel during the time of the Holy Temple. After the Temple was destroyed, so was the Great Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin in Yavneh took over many of its functions, under the authority of Rabban Gamliel. The rabbis in the Sanhedrin served as judges and attracted students who came to learn their oral traditions and scriptural interpretations. From Yavneh, the Sanhedrin moved to different cities in the Galilee, eventually ending up in Tiberias.

Saduceeism: Belief in and support of the cosmopolitan, aristocratic priesthood that fervently and righteously carried out the sacrificial services during The Second Temple period. They represented the nobility, power, and wealth and centered their interests in political life. They believed in the Written Tradition only, and did not accept the Oral Tradition of the Pharisees.