Many years ago I read Adin Steinsaltz’s The Essential Talmud. Steinsaltz was a Charedi (Chasidic more specifically) rabbi who spoke about the text and work from the perspective of an insider. One of the major insights I recalled is that to obtain esteem, eminence and status, rabbinical scholars would engage in deep exegesis of Jewish law, and work to extend the purview of Halakah. Steinsaltz was very precise that the process always involved extension, not retraction. The law grew more ornate and restrictive over time, explaining why there is a pre-modern basis for the recent vogue for veganism among very pious Jews, as a plant-based diet is by definition kosher. Some observant Jews are skeptical that any contemporary form of animal slaughter can adhere to the letter of God’s law.
From the perspective of a devout Jew, as Steinsaltz was, there is nothing more important than the law handed down from God. He was quite dismissive of secular philosophical inquiry, reiterating that the most learned rabbis imbibed such wisdom only so long as it furthered their understanding of scripture and the commentaries of their predecessors. The quest for learning undertaken by religious scholars was the most important task in the whole world for Steinsaltz, with everyone else taking on a supportive role in supporting the scholars. The production of a more unwieldy Halakah was the price one paid for getting closer to the intent behind God’s law.
But from the outside one can observe other dynamics. Arguably Jewish law was essential for maintaining the cohesion of the Jewish people for thousands of years. With the exception of schismatics, after the rise of Christianity Jews all across the world were united by their adherence to the written and oral Torah, and the rules and regulations of Halakah kept them distinct from their gentile neighbors, more, or less. In this way, religious commentary served a functional role on the scale of the community. But competition between scholars occurred in the context of a zero-sum game. There could only be one most eminent rabbi in a city. Over time individual rabbis produced more and more ornate interpretations of the law that rendered Rabbinical Judaism somewhat an odd fit in early modern Europe. There was no way that a pious Jew could integrate into the social and professional world of the gentile, so there emerged Reform Judaism (which did involve retraction of Jewish law from the lives of Jews).
The moral of this lesson is that a functional characteristic that has a group-level utility, furthering cohesion and forwarding some collective aim, can produce perverse incentives when individuals compete among each other to be the more clever and devout of all and then impose their new norms on the whole population.
I did read The Essential Talmud. But my point isn’t about Orthodox Jews, it’s about American academics. As the high priests of the hall monitor caste like to opine, “this too is problematic.”
Razib, how do you get time to read so many books from so many different disciplines? Do you have a deep interest in Jewish law or you able to read books on topics that you don’t particularly care. I can never do that, so rely on people like you to give me the 100 words summary lol.
Also, in the pre-smart phone age, I used to read a lot(on topics I was very interested in) and quite fast too. But with phone and internet, I have found my attention span has gotten smaller and smaller. I started reading one of the books you recommended(Imperial China 800-1800) a year ago, but still haven’t finished it. Its very hard for me to focus. Would love to know if the other readers of this blog have the same issue too.
Hi Harry, I put it down to getting old. I just can’t hit it like I used to. Cheers,
Guy
Razib, we are lucky to have you
Make a habit of reading a book to sleep and you can chip away at dry tomes. Two birds, one stone.
“the hall monitor caste”
Oh, I like that. It really captures their essence.
So contra Shakespeare, we should first kill all the overly “clever” people.
“Many such cases” as the phrase goes.
Although some may be more or less brittle than others. The Ashkenazi Jewish community was highly committed, formed these prescriptions under fairly tight ethnic pressure (negative and positive incentives to remain in the group), and was willing to accept significant restrictions in life to maintain group membership and status.
Compare another maladaptive and irrational (or so I think) group shibboleth that developed recently during one-upmanship and signalling by the overly clever and lacking in common sense: “Putin is OK actually because Iraq War and I read some Chomsky and hate ‘Imperialism’ now”. Completely brittle under pressure, and many embarassing reversals are seen.
We should want that if these beliefs and maladaptive behaviours are brittle like this, and having more of them develop is maybe not such a problem if they are so weak to challenge. We should be more scared about such beliefs that develop among functioning, self-sustaining and loyal comminities, possibly.
“Make a habit of reading a book to sleep…”
Bad sleep hygiene. Not a good habit if you’re trying to fight insomnia.
At least for me. When I get sucked into a book, I end up staying up all night to “read just a little more.”
Finding the “right” place to hang my hat concerning some of these ingroup competition and cooperation issues/the outgroup dynamic is almost above my paygrade. In the mentioned case, I think that hard orthodoxy that creates splinters like the Reformed, and I assume the secular, are good for “me.” I am certain that I would much prefer that a Reform or secular Jew carry the Israeli football instead of a hard Orthodox. Isn’t this where we get the outgroups picking sides in other groups fratricides based on what is good for one’s own group?