joseph agassi
Abstract
A B S T R A C T The traditional hermeneutic ruling not to use reports and legends for questioning edicts and rules signifies the tacit recognition, contrary to explicit statement, of the part of the Rabbinical leadership, of the inevitability of change in diverse aspects if Jewish life. This may invite criticism of the conduct of the ancient leadership, which, as always, is questionable and useless. Rather, an open discussion should be instituted on the proposal to make future changes openly, not surreptitiously; particularly the change from surreptitious changes to open changes is better done openly. 1. Jewish Studies and Rabbinic Studies The modern field of Jewish Studies was inaugurated by Leopold Zunz early in the nineteenth century, as a historical survey of Jewish literature in the broadest sense, including Jewish Law, commentaries, liturgy, philosophy, etc. He left his stamp on the field to date, both in the breadth and scope of the subject and in its character. As to the breadth and scope, even his own work, relatively slender and sketchy as it was, is simply unbelievably huge. These days the requirements from a scholar in this field are staggering; to be taken seriously in it one needs a few qualifications, each of which requires a lifetime of devotion to scholarship. First, the major required competence is in Jewish Law-to the degree attainable only by constant exposure to it from early childhood (see Lieberman, 1974, p. 92; Lieberman takes relish, it seems, in showing that even the leading Jewish historian Fritz Baer was not up to this). Second, one must be a philologist at home in the classics, able to compare Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts, translations, common expressions, legal terminologies, inscriptions, amulets, and more. Third, one must be proficient in a few ancient Semitic languages and dialects. Fourth, one must be familiar with the swelling secondary literatures in diverse modern languages from the writings of Zunz onward. Fifth, one has to be familiar with Church history, the works of the Church Fathers, Canon Law and Church rites. Sixth and finally, one has to exhibit sufficient command of world history, political, social and cultural, as well as of snippets of archeology, art history and whatever else may turn up as relevant to one or another item under scrutiny. It is clear that only few individuals qualify, and they form an elite club like the world's greatest artistic virtuosi. The disadvantage of such elitism is that the elite can play with ideas beyond the comprehension, let alone the critical appraisal, of ignorant outsider like the writer of these lines. Yet as their labors signify for us ignoramuses, we must do our miserable best to comprehend the methods, general criteria and underlying principles involved in their awesome researches, as well as their major conclusions. Remarkably, Zunz has laid the ground rules in this respect without ever specifying them and that with some minor corrections and extensions his rulings still stand, no matter how much the image of the different historical items that he had studied was altered as the field has progressed. (See * Encyclopedia Judaica*, Art. Zunz; see preface to Hebrew translation of his work for a more detailed, accurate and sympathetic presentation.) As noted, the field of Jewish Studies embraces Rabbinical Studies with the exception that, as such, its practitioners do not qualify as rabbinical authorities, and it is not clear what impact they do have on Jewish public life. However much admiration was accorded Zunz and his followers (he had no disciples), the impact they had on Jewish tradition, on Jewish practices, etc. are probably minor. (Even the Jewish communities of the conservative and reform persuasions evolved more under the pressure of circumstances than following Jewish Studies, simply because systematically ignored as much as possible.) Zunz himself was active in Jewish affairs, and his
