Sermon: Shabbat Re’eh (Rabbi Maurice Michaels)

Written by Writings & Sermons by others — 21 March 2015

You may have guessed from the selection read as the study passage what the theme of my sermon is for today.  Every so often, I feel the need to talk about us as reform Jews, not reformed as some would have it, but reforming, a continuing process.  Let me stress this is not going to be an anti-orthodox tirade – I don’t do those; nor is it specifically addressed at a particular piece of foolishness we sometimes come across.  Rather it is a reminder to us that although we may love and admire tradition, it has – as I once heard Rabbi Dr John Rayner  ז’לsay – it has a vote, but not a veto.

There is a midrash that Moses wanted to see how the Jewish people were getting along with all the commandments he had passed on to them.  So God whisked him down to the Bet Midrash, school of Rabbi Akiva and to his amazement he found that he didn’t understand what was being discussed.  Until Rabbi Akiva in response to a question from one of the students explained ‘this is derived from the Torah of Moses’.  Then Moses was happy that the people were still following God’s commands.

But what if Rabbi Akiva were to be miraculously transported to our day, would he be able to understand any better than Moses the Judaism which we practice today?  Clearly it would depend to some extent into which yeshiva or classroom he arrived, but rabbinic Judaism, as observed by Rabbi Akiva, has not changed out of recognition over the centuries, certainly not as much as it is different from biblical Judaism.  But changes there have been, in all branches of Judaism, obviously more so in the progressive movements.  We claim, just as rabbis have done through history, that circumstances and the environment have changed and so some of the biblical laws can no longer be held viable.  The difference, I suppose, is in the way changes are made and how they are justified.

A classic example of one such rabbinic change was made in response to  the commands we read in today’s Torah portion.  In Deuteronomy chapter 15 we are told “Every seventh year you shall practice remission of debts” and “Every creditor shall remit the due that he claims from his neighbour”; and “Do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy neighbour. Rather, you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs. Beware lest you harbour the base thought, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,’ so that you are mean to your needy neighbour and give him nothing.”

The problem was, however, in actuality that people did harbour base thoughts. They were mean. As the seventh year approached, loans couldn’t be obtained. The rabbis faced a choice: they could adhere to the letter of the Law, or they could ignore it.  In fact Hillel re-formed it.  He put the spirit of the Law above the letter of the Law.  The Mishnah explains what has become known as Hillel’s prosbul.  By having the debt essentially signed over to the court, the court, as a corporate body, was not bound by the same stipulations as an individual was. The debt could, therefore, still be collected. The individual in need received his loan and the creditor would be repaid.  Whether we call this a clever legal fiction or applaud the ingenuity of re-forming rather than changing the law – and that of course depends on your religious perspective – it still causes a problem.

Earlier in this sidrah of Re’eh, we have the verse, “Be careful to observe only that which I command you; neither add to it nor take away from it.”  Now surely, Hillel is adding to the command, by incorporating the onward sale of the debt to the courts.  And what of a host of other rabbinic laws made, they claim, so as to avoid the possible breaking of a law, known as building a fence around the Torah.  Maimonides similarly asks the question.  “If the Sanhedrin has the right to prohibit matters which are permitted by the Torah … and to suspend a Torah prohibition temporarily, how does this not conflict with the command ‘You shall not add to nor subtract from God’s laws’?”

Maimonides explanation is that these prohibitions refer to adding on to the laws of the Torah and insisting that these new laws are Torah laws.  “However,” he adds, “when the Rabbis make new laws they make it abundantly clear that these new laws are of Rabbinic origin and have been made to safeguard the laws of the Torah.”

Now, if this is the case – and who are we to argue with Maimonides? – then if we can clearly demonstrate that the laws of Torah do not require protection, those laws of Rabbinic origin – and therefore by definition not divine – are no longer valid and can be allowed to disappear.  An example of these is found later in this same sidrah.  The length of the festivals, Pesach, Shavuot and Succot are given here as well as elsewhere in Torah, yet because of the vagaries of setting the calendar, particularly the need for truthful witnesses that a new moon had been seen, the Rabbis added an extra day.  The calendar is now fixed long in advance, it has been calculated to within a nanosecond – possibly less but I don’t know a word with a shorter time-span – yet the addition to the laws, which we are expressly prohibited to make, still remains. Custom takes on the role of law, we are told; but surely not biblical law?

And how about rabbinic decrees which don’t have the protection of Torah laws as their base. About a thousand years ago, Rabbenu Gershom who lived in Germany, instituted a decree that polygamy among Jews was banned.  This was in direct contradiction to the Bible, in which many of our ancestors had several wives – although polyandry was always forbidden.  The reason for the decree was that as the Christians in Europe only had one wife, it didn’t look good for the Jews to have more than one.  But this decree didn’t apply to S’fardi Jews in the Middle East, where polygamy was common among the Arabs.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that we should rescind Rabbenu Gershom’s decree, although I understand that a decree can only technically last for a thousand years, but I suppose it can remain law under the custom rule.  What I am saying is, that in the past for valid reasons connected to environment and circumstances changes to Jewish law, biblical and rabbinic, have been made, despite the injunction against adding or subtracting.  Indeed Rashi is much more limited in his interpretation of it:  “‘You shall not add’, for example five instead of four sections in the t’filin, five species in the lulav or five fringes.  ‘Likewise, nor diminish from it’; three instead of four.”

We’ve chosen to be part of this congregation, members of the Reform Movement.  As such we have opted for a progressive interpretation of Judaism and Jewish law, an understanding that the environment and circumstances in which we live must play a part, along with tradition, in how we live our lives jewishly.  But it’s comforting to remember at times that in changing the way we interpret and therefore observe laws, we are following in a long, honoured tradition.  Amen.