What religion does the rabbi belong to? Rav, Rabbi, Rebbe - who is he? Origin of the word "rabbi"

The topic "Who is the rabbi?" – is not easy, and for many of us who have not lived a Jewish life before, it is completely mysterious. If we dig deeper, we will notice that the concept Rav, rebbe first appeared in our consciousness either from fiction, or from Hasidic stories, or from baseless fantasies. To many, a rabbi sometimes seems like some kind of exceptional person who is somehow mystically able to solve all our personal problems, read minds and foresee events. Therefore, in order to more realistically understand your difficult questions, let’s first try to understand what the concept includes Rav.

Who is the Rav?

In all Jewish sources the rabbi is called talmid-hacham, translated as “wise student.” Already from the name itself there are several requirements.

· The first is wisdom. A Rav must have colossal knowledge, first of all, know all the components of the Written and Oral Torah. An indicator of this is whether he is able to immediately clearly answer any question regarding Halacha(Jewish Law), even one that is rarely asked.

· Secondly, we are talking about wisdom, which obliges us to always be in the status of a student. The test of a “wise student” is how much he loves, seeks and desires to acquire this wisdom, how much he wants to expand and deepen it.

But no matter how high the requirements for the wisdom of a rabbi, the demands for his moral purity are even more high.

It is said in the Talmud that a wise man who has a stain on his clothing is worthy of “death.” “Stain” - in the literal sense, because if he walks around in dirty clothes, he thereby lowers the value of the Torah in the eyes of people. And figuratively, the rabbi must be spotless in deeds, words and thoughts.

It is also said that a rabbi whose inner spiritual content does not correspond to his behavior is not called a “wise disciple.” An ethics professor is not required to behave ethically himself, but this is the first requirement for a professor.

The higher the rabbi, the more modest and simpler he is, the more his words do not diverge from his deeds, and what is in the heart does not diverge from what is on the lips. When they talk about rabbis, they do not mention their genius, this is already clearly revealed in their books, but their righteousness and piety in the smallest actions.

In addition, there is a long list of strict requirements for “wise disciples” that are not imposed on any other Jew. All this together constitutes the concept Rav.

Now to the essence of the questions.

Who can be called a rabbi?

Once upon a time, a rabbi was someone who possessed all of the above-mentioned qualities to varying degrees. These were the chapters yeshivas and communities, city rabbis, etc. Over time, a lot has changed. Generations are getting smaller, ideas are evolving. Nowadays, any religious man in a suit, with a hat and a beard is called a rav. Who without a hat - reb. In principle, it became a respectful form of address instead of adon- sir.

For beginners baalei teshuvah at first, everyone who even just with pile on the head, they look like rabbis. But, as was said, there are few real rabbis; among Russian-speaking ones there are only a few. It turns out that most Russian-speaking Jews have never seen or met rabbis. Therefore, it is quite possible that you were simply the victim of a semantic misunderstanding...

Well, still, who, besides real rabbis, can rightfully be called rabbi? For example, as a duty of respect, those who taught you the basics of Jewish life, taught you the Torah and the first steps in keeping the commandments.

Therefore, those who brought the initial knowledge of the Torah to your city are truly equals for you, and they should be called that way, even if...

A rabbi with no life experience?

A rabbi must have crazy- authority to answer questions regarding Halacha. And life experience to give everyday advice. As a rule, while the future rabbi receives crazy, he has gained vast life experience. But... we may again get confused in the terminology. What is it about?

When you ask about a rabbi, you most likely mean a young man who studied at yeshiva for some time and agreed to come to your city to develop Jewish life. He doesn't have smihi, no life experience and not much knowledge. But…

It is customary for us to treat the Torah teacher with respect. We are obliged to accept the authority of the teacher, to be “below him,” even if he is younger and knows a little more than you. Without the authority of a teacher, even the little he knows, he will not be able to convey to you. Therefore, he is your equal. But …

He is your equal only in the study of the Torah, and in everyday problems you should turn only to those Jewish sages who are imbued with the spirit of the Torah, have extensive knowledge and have accumulated rich life experience.

Subject "Who is the rabbi?"- is not easy, and for many of us who have not lived a Jewish life before, it is completely mysterious.

If we dig deeper, we will notice that the concept rabbi first appeared in our consciousness either from fiction, or from Hasidic stories, or from baseless fantasies. To many, a rabbi sometimes seems like some kind of exceptional person who is somehow mystically able to solve all our personal problems, read minds and foresee events. Therefore, in order to more realistically understand your difficult questions, let’s first try to understand what the concept includes Rav.

Who is the Rav?

A rabbi must have smicha - powers,
to answer questions on Jewish
laws Artist - Otto Eichinger

In all Jewish sources the rabbi is called talmid-hacham, translated as “wise student.” Already from the name itself there are several requirements.

· The first is wisdom. A Rav must have colossal knowledge, first of all, know all the components of the Written and Oral Torah. An indicator of this is whether he is able to immediately clearly answer any question on Halacha (Jewish Law), even those that are rarely asked.

· Secondly, we are talking about wisdom, which obliges us to always be in the status of a student. The test of a “wise student” is how much he loves, seeks and desires to acquire this wisdom, how much he wants to expand and deepen it.

But no matter how high the requirements for the wisdom of a rabbi, the demands for his moral purity are even more high.

It is said in the Talmud that a wise man who has a stain on his clothing is worthy of "death." “Stain” - in the literal sense, because if he walks around in dirty clothes, he thereby lowers the value of the Torah in the eyes of people. And figuratively, the rabbi must be spotless in deeds, words and thoughts.

It is also said that a rabbi whose inner spiritual content does not correspond to his behavior is not called a “wise disciple.” An ethics professor is not required to behave ethically himself, but this is the first requirement for a professor.

The higher the rabbi, the more modest and simpler he is, the more his words do not diverge from his deeds, and what is in the heart does not diverge from what is on the lips. When they talk about rabbis, they do not mention their genius, this is already clearly revealed in their books, but their righteousness and piety in the smallest actions.

In addition, there is a long list of strict requirements for “wise disciples” that are not imposed on any other Jew. All this together constitutes the concept of rav.

Now to the essence of the questions.

Who can be called a rabbi?

Rabbi gives recommendations and answers questions
according to the laws of the Torah. Artist Franz Xavier

Once upon a time, a rabbi was someone who possessed all of the above-mentioned qualities to varying degrees. These were the heads of yeshivas and communities, rabbis of cities, etc. Over time, a lot has changed. Generations are getting smaller, ideas are evolving. Nowadays, any religious man in a suit, with a hat and a beard is called a rav. Who without a hat - reb. In principle, it became a respectful form of address instead of adon- sir.

For beginners baalei teshuvah At first, everyone who even just wears a kippah on their head seems to be a rabbi. But, as was said, there are few real rabbis; among Russian-speaking ones there are only a few. It turns out that most Russian-speaking Jews have never seen or met rabbis. Therefore, it is quite possible that you were simply the victim of a semantic misunderstanding...

Well, still, who, besides real rabbis, can rightfully be called rabbi? For example, as a duty of respect, those who taught you the basics of Jewish life, taught you the Torah and the first steps in keeping the commandments.

Therefore, those who brought the initial knowledge of the Torah to your city are truly equals for you, and they should be called that way, even if...

A rabbi with no life experience?

A rabbi must have crazy- authority to answer questions regarding Halacha. And life experience to give everyday advice. As a rule, while the future rabbi receives crazy, he has gained vast life experience. But... we may again get confused in the terminology. What is it about?

When you ask about a rabbi, you most likely mean a young man who studied in a yeshiva for some time and agreed to come to your city to develop Jewish life. He doesn't have smihi, no life experience and not much knowledge. But…

It is customary for us to treat the Torah teacher with respect. We are obliged to accept the authority of the teacher, to be “below him,” even if he is younger and knows a little more than you. Without the authority of a teacher, even the little he knows, he will not be able to convey to you. Therefore, he is your equal. But…

He is your equal only in the study of the Torah, and in everyday problems you should turn only to those Jewish sages who are imbued with the spirit of the Torah, have extensive knowledge and have accumulated rich life experience.

RABBI(Hebrew “rabbi” - “my master” or “my teacher”; from “rab” - “great”, “lord” - and the pronominal suffix “-i” - “my”), a title awarded to Jewish scholars and spiritual leaders. The term came into use in the 1st century. AD In the New Testament, Jesus is called “Rabbi” many times, John the Baptist once (John 3:26). The title "rabban" (the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "rabbit") was considered especially honorable and was used exclusively in relation to the chairman of the Sanhedrin. The title "rabbani" appears twice in the New Testament (Mark 10:51, John 20:16), but is not found in other sources. "Rabbenu" ("our teacher") was used to refer to Judah ha-Nasi, the compiler Mishnah, and also added to the name of Moses. During the Talmudic period in Babylonia, the form “rab” was used. In the Jewish communities of Spain and Portugal, the spiritual leader was called "hakham" ("sage"). With the emergence of Hasidism in the 18th century. the leaders of the movement adopted the title "rebbe". In Hebrew, the word "rabbi" is used as an address; in other cases it corresponds to "rabbi".

In the era Talmud The title of rabbi was awarded by the Sanhedrin or Talmudic academies to those whose learning allowed them to make decisions in the field of Jewish legislation. The rabbis received no remuneration for their service and earned their livelihood by engaging in trade or craft. Only those who spent their time sitting in rabbinical courts or devoted themselves to teaching received payment from the community. The main function of a rabbi is to study, interpret and teach Jewish Law, and to be an expert and judge in any legal dispute that arises. The role of the preacher was secondary, and not all rabbis took it upon themselves. Rabbis were respected in the community and had certain privileges.

During the late Middle Ages, the sphere of activity of rabbis expanded. Communities elected their own rabbis and by the end of the 15th century. They usually began to pay them a regular salary. While remaining an authority and judge in matters relating to Jewish law and continuing to lead the life of a scholar, the rabbi assumed a number of other responsibilities, such as overseeing education, kashrut (regulated food consumption) and other community affairs. In small communities, the rabbi could also serve as a part-time cantor, mohel (performing the rite of circumcision), shochet (slaughterer, ritual slaughterer of livestock). Sometimes the rabbi acted as a representative of the Jewish community to the authorities, which included duties such as collecting taxes. Large communities employed several rabbis, and in some countries (including Great Britain and Israel) there is an institution of chief rabbi of a city, region or country.

Nowadays, the main emphasis is on the social and educational functions of the rabbi. The main role is given to preaching, working with parishioners and participating in community affairs. A new field of activity for rabbis was worship in military and civilian institutions.

This title was rabbi(attachment to morpheme Rav possessive suffix 1st person singular - literally `my master`).

The rabbi of Talmudic times was an interpreter of the Bible and Oral Law (see also Halacha) and a teacher, and almost always earned his living by doing some other work. The formation of the institution of rabbis took place in the Middle Ages and was associated with the decline of the Babylonian gaonate and exilarchate (see Gaon, Exilarchy), which were the central institutions of the Jewish diaspora and made the appointment of rabbis to local communities (the opinion of the community itself was usually also taken into account); scholars appointed by rabbis received official assignment to the position ( Pitka de-dayanuta) and performed the function of a local dayan, although in practice their role in the communities was much broader. From the end of the 10th century. local communities increasingly began to independently elect their spiritual leader, who received the title of rabbi (with the article - x a-rav), which indicated learning and authority independent of Babylonian institutions.

Over time, the importance of local rabbis increased, and the ideal of rabbis as charismatic scholars emerged, the only hierarchical difference between them being their personal intellectual and moral qualities. Rabbis were required not only to be learned, but also to have judicial wisdom, the ability to lead the public affairs and spiritual life of the community, and to serve as a moral example for its members. The responsibilities of the rabbis did not include performing the functions of a clergyman: the rabbi was not supposed to lead the synagogue liturgy, bless the members of the congregation, etc. Only later did the responsibilities of the rabbis include marriage and divorce, since this, especially divorce, requires knowledge of religious law and compliance with judicial procedure, which is why dayan The rabbi's religious authority was based on the tradition of learning in the Gaonite yeshivas and on the memory of the smichah, which gave the Mishnaic rabbis the highest religious authority. This was expressed in appeals to rabbis with a request to make a decision on one or another halakhic issue (see Responses), although previously such appeals were sent exclusively to the geonim in office.

With the decline of the Babylonian centers and the growth of Jewish communities in those countries where there had never been a central direction of Jewish life, the role of local rabbis became more significant. At first, the rabbi did not receive any monetary compensation: it was believed that the Torah should not be taught for money. The first indisputable evidence of payment for the activities of rabbis dates back to the 14th century. Asher ben Yehiel, a rabbi in Toledo, received a salary from the community called tnay(literally `condition`). When Shim'on ben Tsemach Duran fled the Jewish pogroms in Spain and arrived in Algeria in 1391, the local community wanted to appoint him as their rabbi, but he refused, citing poverty and the need to earn a living; the local community offered to pay him a monetary reward, which, however, was not a salary, but shar battala(literally `payment for inactivity', that is, compensation for loss of working time due to the performance of rabbinic duties). This formulation was adopted by Jewish law as the legal basis for the payment of a rabbi's salary. In modern times, a rabbinical salary is usually viewed as a fee stipulated in a contract between the rabbi and the community.

Local authorities in both Muslim and Christian countries immediately noticed the establishment of the institution of local rabbis at the beginning of the medieval period. So, at the end of the 10th century. Avrah am Ibn Daoud writes that the local Spanish ruler was favorable to the existence in his country of a Jewish religious authority independent of the Baghdad geons. Job title slave de la corte in Spain, arrabi mor in Portugal, the appointment of a Jewish "Hochmeister" in a number of regions of Germany in the 13th century. and similar appointments in France indicate the desire of local authorities to create a centralized structure for the leadership of the Jewish community, which would formally streamline relations with it on a hierarchical basis, and not on the local authority and influence of a particular rabbi in a particular geographical area; the heads of communities also sought to do the same.

In the 14th century the process of gradually transforming the position of rabbi into a kind of service begins. Ashkenazi communities (see Ashkenazim) began to require candidates for the position to have a rabbinical diploma - a certificate of receipt of the so-called smicha; Among the Sephardim, the qualifications of a rabbi were confirmed in other ways. At the same time, the concept of one rabbi for one place arose (mara de-atra, literally 'lord of the place', 'local teacher'), all other scholars in that place had to submit to his authority. The spread of this principle was a very long process. In Poland and Lithuania in the 16th–17th centuries. the position of rabbi sometimes entailed leadership of yeshivas, a practice that continues to characterize mitnagdim communities to this day. With minor variations, the concept of the rabbi, developed in the Middle Ages, is preserved in communities mitnagdim, Hungarian and German Orthodox and neo-Orthodox communities (see Orthodox Judaism), the religious structure in Israel is based on it.

According to this concept, the rabbi is seen as a scholar and mentor, a spiritual leader who receives a set fee or reward for performing certain duties; rabbi gets Ktav Rabbanut- written appointment and written consent to accept the appointment (a custom dating back to the late Middle Ages), this document contains a list of the rights and responsibilities of the rabbi. This status of the rabbi naturally gives rise to centralist tendencies, which in modern times have found expression in the institution of the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and the Supreme Rabbinate of Eretz Israel, and then the State of Israel.

In large cities where the Jewish population is large (primarily in the USA), the centralist principle mara de atra has almost disappeared, and the rabbi primarily serves as the spiritual leader of the synagogue congregation. In Hasidic communities (see Hasidism), the status and functions of the rabbi are largely subordinate to the status and functions of the tzaddik. In the Reform movement (see Reformism in Judaism), the departure from Halakha was accompanied by a change in the position of the rabbi, who ceased to be a judge and for the first time became largely a clergyman, organizing and presiding over the synagogue liturgy, and also becoming the social leader of the synagogue congregation. Conservative Judaism, primarily in the United States, attempts to combine both traditional and Reform concepts of the rabbinate.

In Muslim countries. Little is known about the religious leadership of eastern Jewish communities in the early Middle Ages. The Gaons were the spiritual leaders of the communities of Babylonia and Eretz Israel, but their authority extended far beyond the Arab caliphate. In Eretz Israel, the academy (see Yeshiva) appointed the religious head of the community, who was called haver(`member of the academy`). The head of the academy gave authority to the chaver to preside over the bet din of his community. Graduates of yeshivas in Eretz Israel received the title of members of the Great Sanhedrin ( Haver be-Sankh edrin x ha-Gdola); in Babylonia the same title was alluf (literally 'head'), and in Egypt, North Africa and Spain - Rav. Apparently, with the decline of the gaonate and academy in Eretz Israel in the 11th century. there is no religious authority left with the right to give smicha; Thus, the tradition of ordination to rabbis and dayans was interrupted.

Maimonides objected to the establishment of the position of a professional (that is, salaried) rabbi, insisting that a Torah teacher should teach for free while earning a living through other means. In Spain dayan occupied a higher position than a rabbi, however, in the Sephardic communities that arose in the east after the expulsion from Spain, the position of dayan began to be inferior in prestige to the position of rabbi (haham, literally `sage`, `scholar`), although dayan and retained the right to appoint hakham.

When Spanish and Portuguese refugees settled in the Balkans and Turkey, conflict arose between them and the Ashkenazim over the issue of smiche. In response to the assertion of Sephardic scholars that after the disappearance of the Sanhedrin no one has the right to ordain rabbis, Ashkenazi authorities pointed out that their method of ordination serves as a guarantee that the ignorant do not make decisions in matters of Halacha. The dispute gave rise to the idea of ​​reviving smicha in the form in which it existed in ancient times. Ya'akov Berav's attempt to implement this idea in 1538 met with fierce resistance and new disputes that lasted a century.

The spiritual leaders of Sephardic communities in the Ottoman Empire were generally called haham(see above) or marbitz Tora(`Torah teacher`), in North Africa - sea ​​of ​​tzedek('true teacher' or 'teacher of righteousness'). These and other titles were awarded not only to the rabbis of congregations, which in almost all communities in the Middle East were called x ha-rav x ha-kolel(literally 'rabbi of the community'), but also an outstanding scientist. Haham, or marbitz Tora, was the highest religious authority in his area; to obtain this position, he was required to know all sections of Halakha. The rabbi spoke publicly on Saturdays and holidays, and often also controlled public donations and funds and organized the ransom of captives. In small communities he also served as a notary. He was a judge in cases relating to marriage, divorce and chalitza (see Levirate marriage and chalitza), as well as in money litigation. The rabbi decided issues related to religious ritual; he had to monitor the moral character of the community members. The position was highly honorable and generously paid.

From the end of the 15th century. in the eastern communities there was a need for a higher rabbinic authority who would assume religious and administrative leadership in areas beyond the authority of the local chakhams. At the end of the 15th century. - early 16th century among the Romaniots, these duties were performed by two chief rabbis - Moshe Kapsali (died 1498) and Eliyah among the Mizrachi, who were called Rav x a-kolel x ha-mankh ig(leading rabbi of the community) or x ha-rav x ha-gadol(literally `great rabbi`). These two rabbis were appointed by the authorities and tasked with collecting taxes from the Jewish community; For the right to have such a position, the community had to pay a special tax. After the death of Eliyah, no one took his place among Mizrachi, but rabbinical councils often met in different cities of Turkey to solve common pressing problems. In 1836, the Turkish authorities created the institution of hakham-bashi ('head of hakhams') in Istanbul, and then similar positions were introduced in the main cities of the provinces of the empire; local hakham-bashi, including Rishon Lezion in Eretz Israel, were subordinate to Istanbul hakham-bashi.

In Russia. According to the Statute on the Jews (1804), the Jews of the Russian Empire retained the right to choose rabbis, but the appointment to this position was approved by the provincial authorities. Rabbis were elected for three years and received a salary from the community, but they were prohibited from charging special fees for performing rituals. In an effort to spread general education among Jews, the authorities warned that from 1812 only someone who knew Russian, Polish or German could become a rabbi. The Regulations on the Jews of 1835 imposed on rabbis the obligation to maintain registries, and marriages, burials, circumcisions and naming of newborns were allowed to be carried out only by the rabbi or his assistant in the presence of the rabbi himself or with his written permission; For performing these rituals, rabbis were allowed to receive a special payment under an agreement with the community. In 1857, a law was passed requiring that only graduates of government-established rabbinical schools (see Rabbinical seminaries) or general educational institutions be elected to rabbinical positions. This law caused protests from the Jewish communities, and when they were forced to elect a graduate of the rabbinical school, the communities assigned such a rabbi a salary so meager that it was not enough to live on. Gradually, a situation arose when two rabbis acted in the community, one was the so-called official rabbi, the other was a spiritual rabbi who was not approved by the authorities. This provision was recognized by law, which allowed the election “at the request of the prayer society” of a special “scientist” who would “explain doubts related to worship or rites of faith”; however, this “scholar” was required to be under the supervision of a government rabbi and obey his administrative decisions.

IN State of Israel the rabbinate and rabbis perform functions that are different from those that rabbis traditionally perform in other Jewish communities around the world. For rabbinical courts and their jurisdiction in Israel, see State of Israel. Judicial system. There are two chief rabbis in Israel (see Supreme Rabbinate) - Ashkenazi and Sephardic, both are government officials; in large cities there are also two rabbis. The appointment of a local rabbi is approved by the chief rabbis and the Ministry of Religious Affairs. A synagogue in Israel is not a congregation of permanent members, but a place of prayer and Torah study.

The system of rabbinical positions forms a hierarchy, the highest level being the Ashkenazi and Sephardic chief rabbis; they are followed by judges ( we give) Supreme Court of Appeal, then - we give regional batey-din, numerous rabbis (overseeing kashrut, mikvahs, etc.), regional rabbis appointed by local religious councils, and finally synagogue rabbis.

KEE, volume: 7.
Col.: 27.
Published: 1994.

1 644

Material courtesy of Tablet

“Rabbi” John Selden loved to spend his evenings over a glass of sherry or a pint (or several pints) of ale at the Mermaid Tavern between Friday and Bread Streets. Drinking in the shadow of the bells of St. Paul, the good “rabbi” discussed jurisprudence with representatives of the intellectual elite of Jacobite England. Here the Temple lawyer argued over a glass of bitters with the playwright Ben Jonson (who called his friend the "King of Learning") or listened to William Strachey's tales of the terrible wreck of the Sea Fortune off the coast of Bermuda. When he was younger, he may well have had a drink at the Mermaid with its most famous regular, William Shakespeare, whose play The Tempest is based on Stracha's tale of a shipwreck in the Atlantic, which he may have heard in that very pub. . The traveler Walter Raleigh also often visited the tavern when he was not in prison, and the poet John Donne too. An informal gathering of writers and intellectuals who called themselves the “Mermaid Gentlemen” often met at Rusalka (as did another group that adopted the equally strange name of “The Damned Bunch”). In some ways it resembled a kind of synagogue.

So what did “Rabbi” Selden talk to his parishioners about? Did he discuss his proposal that the Parliament (of which he would become a member) should be organized on the model of the Hebrew Sanhedrin? Or the idea that Turkish Karaites resemble “Jewish Protestants”? Or did he read to them a letter received from another scientist, Johann Rittangel, who sent it from the notorious “yeshiva” called Cambridge University?

"Rabbi" Selden, of course, was not Jewish. He was a faithful son of the Church of England, baptized at St Andrew's Parish Church in West Sussex, and a true Protestant, drawn to the rituals of the High Church. But without being a rabbi or even a Jew, Selden became the first Englishman to write a book on the Talmud, was fluent in Hebrew and Aramaic (among many others), and composed a thousand-page Midrash. And he was one of England's greatest historians and perhaps its finest legal theorist.

Selden studied Judaism, although he did not personally know any religious Jews (although he corresponded with a number of learned rabbis), because King Edward I expelled Jews from England in the 13th century. At the beginning of the 17th century in London there was a small community of crypto-Jews, mainly of Sephardic origin, but, according to Jason Rosenblatt, author of the book “The Chief Rabbi of Renaissance England”, it was Selden who understood Judaism better than anyone in the British Isles, and indeed, perhaps, was "the most educated man in seventeenth-century England." In his seminal study of Selden's Hebraism and its relationship to English Renaissance literature, Rosenblatt writes that "England, unlike some other European countries of comparable size, never produced a single great rabbi in either the Middle Ages or the early modern period." . England did not have its Maimonides, it did not have Rashi; but she had Selden.

Christian Hebraism was born during the Renaissance, when Judaism began to be studied from a Christian or secular point of view. This is how a field of knowledge appeared that, looking ahead, can be called “Judaic studies.” Selden was probably the most prominent representative of this trend in England, but in Europe and perhaps even in the Western world in general he was, of course, not the first. Communication between Jews and non-Jews gave rise to mutual interest in each other’s cultural characteristics even in antiquity and the Middle Ages, to say nothing of the Renaissance. It is believed that the ruler of Hellenistic Egypt, Ptolemy II, commissioned 72 Jewish translators to prepare the Greek text of the Septuagint three centuries before our era - and this is just one of the early examples of non-Jewish intellectual curiosity about Judaism.

Greco-Roman interest in Judaism was deep and thorough. Four or six hundred years after the appearance of the Septuagint, at the beginning of the new era, the Roman literary critic Pseudo-Longinus, in his treatise On the Sublime, presented the Jewish God as a convincing example of the philosophical and aesthetic concept to which he devoted his work. He wrote: “The Jewish legislator, an unusual person, was imbued to the depths of his soul with the consciousness of the power of the deity..., writing at the beginning of his book about the laws: “God said.” - What did he say? - “Let there be light!” And it arose. “Let there be earth!” And it arose" Rus. lane N. Chistyakova: About the sublime.& nbsp; M.‑L.: “Science”, 1966. P. 20. Note the erroneous quotation from memory - even if Pseudo-Longinus was a Hellenized Jew (like the Egyptian philosopher Philo and the Roman historian Josephus), his example serves as evidence of the interest of gentiles and their study of Jewish themes and texts.

The Tanakh itself contains traces of Jewish-Greek syncretism. Ecclesiastes has clear similarities to the philosophy of Epicurus (although the Hebrew word apikoires has come to mean apostate), and the book of Job clearly follows the dramatic structure of classical tragedy. During the Roman rule of Judea during the Second Temple period, there is evidence of large communities of yirei Hashem, or “those who fear God,” made up of non-Jews throughout the Mediterranean world. These gentiles did not accept Judaism, but recognized the religious authority of the commandments of the sons of Noah (like Selden) and adapted their ritual and morality to these commandments. According to the Acts of the Apostles, they were glad that the covenant did not require them to be circumcised.

In the classical world, Jewish practice and Jewish thought represented only one intellectual movement, along with Epicureanism, Stoicism, various mystery cults, and ultimately Christianity (to which, presumably, many of this early group converted). In many ways, these “God-fearers” revealed a long history of groups who were disparagingly called “Judaizers”—non-Jews whose religious practices were considered too Jewish-like by their fellow believers. The most striking thing about the “fearers of God” is that they were clearly not Jews by nationality, language, or culture, but gravitated toward Jewish tradition and theology. Groups such as the Ebionite Christians, who believed that the Mosaic Law should be kept in its entirety even by baptized Christians, were composed almost exclusively of ethnic Jews. The “fearers of God,” who came from a completely different cultural environment, were distinguished by a different, clearly non-Jewish attraction and respect for Judaism.

In discussing the emergence of Jewish studies as an academic discipline, it is necessary to distinguish intellectual curiosity from doctrinal piety - not an easy task in a world where secularism was impossible. Academic disciplines and divisions, like many other phenomena of our modern secular world, arose from religious sources. Christianity as a dominant ideological system emerged in late antiquity, and during this period discussions of Jews and Judaism could not be theologically neutral. Therefore, learned texts always looked like Christian apologetics, whether it was the standard anti-Judaism of church fathers like Augustine or the loud, teeth-grinding fanaticism of Marcion (who, it should be noted, was eventually recognized as a heretic, although he played a significant role in the development of the New Testament canon). Any evidence of non-Jewish intellectual interest in Judaism must be seen in the context of the conflict between Jews and non-Jews.

Both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity were engaged in understanding the relationship between God and man in the world after the destruction of the Temple. Apparently, starting with the Council of Jerusalem in the 1st century, both groups began to define themselves independently of each other. For Jews, the new Temple was embodied in the Torah itself, and for Christians - in the figure of Christ. This distinction is important for understanding what Jewish studies will become because it determines who is Jewish and who is not.

Beginning in late antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism was at the center of Christian thinking about Jewry. Outside the relatively tolerant Islamic world, any scientific study of Jews was polemical. It often amounted to criticism of the truth and morality of the Talmud, and in the Middle Ages the centers of Jewish Talmudic thought were often attacked intellectually and physically, and the Talmud itself was put on trial. It was not easy for Christian theologians of that period to determine the relationship of their own religion to Judaism and to the very existence of the Jews, who continued to practice their religion despite the presence of Christianity. Since the core of the Christian faith is a variation of the Hebrew Scriptures, it was easier to criticize the Talmud, which was compiled by rabbis in the post-biblical era.

Part of what made the Talmud such a convenient target for controversy was its incredible length and complexity, which ensured that even the most learned scholastics and monks were not very familiar with its contents. Therefore, accusations of immorality and “anti-Christian” nature could easily be spread among a population that had no way of testing the validity of such allegations. Rosenblatt writes that the first printed edition of the Babylonian Talmud, published with papal permission at the printing house of Daniel Bomberg in the liberal environs of Venice in 1520, consisted of “forty-four tractates containing about two and a half million words on 5894 pages without vowels or punctuation.” Three years later Bomberg published the complete text of the Jerusalem Talmud; eventually, many copies of this publication were burned in Rome's Campo dei Fiori square.

A full hundred years passed after this publication until Christians like Selden began to become acquainted with the Talmud; in the Christian imagination it appeared as a dangerous book that caused Jews to persist. Attacks against the Talmud have been made periodically since the era of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 5th century for a whole millennium. In Spain of the 13th century he was defended by Nachmanides, in France in the same century he was publicly burned, in Aragon of the 15th century he was condemned - however, not only then and not only there. In Christian apologetics of the time, the Talmud was associated only with Jews, and the Bible was believed to have been handed over to Christian hands by those who wrote it.

One of the first great Christian defenders of the Talmud (there were others occasionally in the past) was Selden's predecessor, the German scholar Johann Reuchlin. A devout Catholic, Reuchlin defended the Talmud against the offensive accusations made by the baptized Jew Johann Pfefferkorn. The Pfefferkorn Affair was a turning point in Renaissance history, because the most brilliant minds of the time, including Erasmus of Rotterdam, opposed the demands of a Christian convert to destroy all copies of the Talmud. In 1509, on the threshold of the Reformation, Pfefferkorn, a man of dubious biography (he was in prison for robbery and was generally an obvious adventurer), declared: “The reasons that prevent Jews from becoming Christians ... is that they revere the Talmud.” The Cologne Dominicans agreed with him. As a result, the authorities confiscated Jewish books and sentenced them to burning. The Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian was unsure of the justice of the verdict and brought in Reuchlin, a talented philologist and renowned humanist, to study the issue and verify the truth of Pfefferkorn's statements. Reuchlin was a representative of Renaissance humanism, which originated in Italy and spread throughout Europe. He was one of the first generation of citizens of the “Republic of Scientists”, who can be considered the forerunners of all Western science.

Half a century of historiography has shown that the Renaissance marked the great transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age; the reality, however, was both simpler and more interesting. Fundamentally, humanism was a pedagogical approach and scientific method that distinguished itself from the Aristotelian scholasticism of previous centuries. Humanists of the 15th–16th centuries can be called scientists who were guided, if not by modern, then by almost modern methods and approaches. This period was marked by the flourishing of the great European universities - Oxford, Bologna, Salamanca, Paris, Valladolid, Basel - in the field of liberal arts. And it was during this period that academic degrees appeared, the predecessors of modern masters and doctors. Scholars like Lorenzo Valle, who demonstrated linguistically in the 15th century why the Donation of Constantine was a forgery, or Erasmus, who showed that the John Interpolation was an interpolation in the New Testament, exemplified a free and fearless approach to texts . This approach was largely based on a sober and rational study of linguistics and philology of ancient languages ​​- first Greek and Latin, and then Hebrew. It is no coincidence that it was in this era that Judaic studies appeared, and Reuchlin was perhaps the founder of this scientific discipline. Therefore, he was the ideal candidate to defend the Talmud against Pfefferkorn's accusations.

Reuchlin, under the guidance of the occultist philosopher Pico della Mirandola, studied the so-called Christian Kabbalah at his Neoplatonic Academy in Florence. Christian Kabbalah became one of the main metaphysical systems of the Renaissance, an inexhaustible source of interest in Jews. Thanks to Mirandola, the German scientist became acquainted with Jewish texts - not only the Tanakh, but also the Talmud and even the book of Zohar. His work De rudimentis hebaicis is an outstanding example of Renaissance Jewish exegesis, although it came from the pen of a non-Jew. No Christian Hebraist before Selden surpassed Reuchlin in knowledge of Judaism; there is no doubt that although Pfefferkorn was brought up as a Jew, Reuchlin had a much better understanding of this religion and much more sympathy for it. Fierce pamphlet wars, a far cry from today's Internet battles, marked the intellectual life of the era (as evidenced, for example, by the correspondence between Thomas More and William Tyndale). Reuchlin and Pfefferkorn fought not for fear, but for conscience, and the latter even accused the enemy of being bribed by the Jews.

Reuchlin's campaign in defense of the Talmud was difficult; he appeared before the Inquisition several times and was severely criticized by other scholars. But in the end he triumphed - and one of the results of his victory was the order of Emperor Maximilian that every German university should have at least two professors of Hebrew, which gave birth to modern academic Judaic studies. There was also a bitter irony in his victory: Pfefferkorn's accusations against the Talmud were found unfounded, not least because of his Jewish origin and suspicions of related duplicity. It is noteworthy that Erasmus called him “a wicked Jew who became a wicked Christian.”

While professors in Germany were arguing about the Talmud, while the Talmud was being printed in Venice, there was not a single copy of this book in England, since there were no Jews. The situation changed in 1529, when the Reformation began in Germany shortly after the end of the Pfefferkorn affair. None other than Henry VIII himself requested a copy of the Talmud in Bomberg's edition for his personal library. For what? To study, it was necessary to find a rabbinic justification for the annulment of the marriage to Catherine of Aragon and the marriage to Anne Boleyn.

A hundred years later, Selden, imprisoned for his participation in the rights protests in the House of Commons, mentions another copy of the Talmud. He wrote without any embarrassment to his compatriot Sir Robert Cotton: “I have a lot of time here, and in the Westminster Library there is the Babylonian Talmud in several huge volumes. If it could be obtained, I would ask you to take it for me.” Although by that time Selden was already a recognized scientist, it was his reading of the Talmud during the period of imprisonment that turned him into the greatest Christian Hebraist of his time. Even earlier, he wrote the treatise De diis Syriis (“On the Syrian Gods,” 1617); and after his conclusion, the list of his works was supplemented by six works, including very lengthy ones, which enriched science with remarkable considerations about the Babylonian-Aramaic texts of the Talmud: De successionibus ad leges Ebraeorum in bona defunctorum (1631), covering all phases of the development of the Jewish law on priests; De jure naturali et gentilium juxta disciplinam ebraeorum (1640), setting forth the provisions of natural law as reflecting the rabbinic commandments of the sons of Noah, or praecepta Noachidarum, the divine universal laws of eternal duty; De anno civili (1644), a clear and methodical account of the Jewish calendar and its principles, and a treatise on the beliefs and practices of the Karaite sect; Uxor ebraica seu De nuptiis et Divortiis Vetrum Ebraeorum (1646), a thorough study of Jewish laws on marriage and divorce and the status of married women in Jewish law, and the massive treatise De Syedriis in three books (1650, 1653, 1655, last volume unfinished and published posthumously) is a study of Jewish collections, including the Sanhedrin, with parallels from Roman and canon law.

Rosenblatt's 2006 work, published by Oxford University Press (Selden's alma mater), is an in-depth study of the enormous impact that this Hebraist had on 17th-century England, as well as the traces of this impact visible in such writers as Jonson and Andrew Marvell. and John Milton. The latter, one of the most learned men of his age, relied on Selden's knowledge of Hebrew, and it was from this Hebraist that Milton obtained the impressive list of names of the demons who inhabit Pandemonium in the first and second books of Paradise Lost.

The most interesting correspondence between Selden and his drinking companion Johnson has been preserved, which testifies to the intellectual sophistication of this scientist, to his keen, analytical, rabbinic mind, which was an example of the style of pilpul, that is, “reasoning of a keen mind.” In 1614, seven years before Selden encountered the Talmud, Jonson wrote to a friend about cross-dressing in the theater. Secular theater had emerged only a generation before the era in question, and religious authorities, especially Puritan ones, condemned the practice of boys playing female roles as immoral and undignified. Writings similar to Puritan William Prynne's Histriomastix of 1633 often appeared. This author declared that all actresses were “famous whores,” for which he paid with his ears (one of the few actresses on the stage at that time was Queen Henrietta Maria).

Johnson, who despite his popularity had some problems with the church and constantly wavered between the Anglican and Catholic faiths, consulted Selden about what the Bible actually said about cross-dressing. The playwright, who made his living in the theater, was criticized for his "monstrous androgyny and scantily clad boys who worship Venus with bears" and needed the expert opinion of a rabbi who could reconcile cross-dressing with the Bible. He asked Selden to interpret the 5th verse of the 22nd chapter of Deuteronomy, which was usually referred to by the Puritans who stigmatized the theater. The poet was interested in “the literal and historical meaning of the sacred text, which is usually cited by opponents of feigned confusion of the sexes.” On the continent, Jews often sent requests to learned rabbis to explain to them certain halachic rules, which gave rise to the genre of responsa, of which hundreds of thousands of examples have survived. Rosenblat and his colleague Winifred Schlainer convincingly demonstrate that Selden's response to Johnson is a classic responsa in which Selden invokes the authority of Maimonides to assure Johnson that the Bible permits theatrical cross-dressing.

Selden's lively and rigorous logic is based on understanding the Bible in historical context, and he avoids too literal interpretations by theater critics by drawing on the opinion of Maimonides. The verse in question reads, “A woman should not wear men’s clothing, and a man should not put on women’s clothing.” Selden explains to Johnson that the superficial interpretation is incorrect. Based on his knowledge of the Hebrew language, he writes that Deut. 22:5 is not about women donning men's clothing, but about specific armor, and therefore the Bible verse is not against cross-dressing, but against specific ancient pagan rituals involving the worship of Venus and Mars, and theatrical cross-dressing is quite kosher.

Johnson quite agreed with this explanation and later that year, in an experimental play called Bartholomew's Fair, he satirized the theater-banning Puritans by introducing Busy's comic character, Zealot, who loses an argument to the puppet Dionysius. At the end of the dispute, the puppet takes off his puppet pants and demonstrates the absence of genitals, declaring that he cannot be guilty of cross-dressing. Although the scene with Dionysius was performed for the amusement of the public, it shows how ridiculous religious fanaticism is. Johnson was inspired to write it by the tolerant and liberal vision that Selden inherited from the Rambam. According to Rosenblatt, "Selden's letter on theatrical cross-dressing provides a rare and important example of quiet tolerance." It is worth remembering that 400 years ago Selden recognized the naturalness and permissibility of gender transitions, based on the correct biblical etymology, and exposed the error of the literalists. Moreover, he did this while championing the greatest cultural achievement of Renaissance England - the performing arts.

A true heir to Renaissance humanism and a devoted student of foreign cultures, Selden was one of the first English cosmopolitans to draw wisdom from everywhere. His worldview was broad and generous. He wrote: “In our time, it is generally accepted that people should not please themselves; on the contrary, they should deny themselves everything that gives them pleasure; not to admire beauty, not to wear elegant clothes, not to eat good meat, and so on. And this is the greatest insult that can be inflicted on the Creator of all things. If you don’t use it, then why did the Lord create it?” This humanistic perspective and the spirit of religious tolerance and flexibility characterize the political writings of Selden, who, along with the Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius, created a philosophy of international law.

Selden was especially interested in the commandments of the sons of Noah; the same covenant that 15 centuries ago “those who fear God” considered to govern the behavior of Jews and non-Jews. Based on these seven laws, which were given to Noah and which the Talmud considers obligatory for all mankind, Selden built a theory of the universal nature of law. Based on the exegesis of the book of Genesis, the Talmud argues that all humanity entered into a universal covenant that prohibited murder, robbery, and bestial cruelty and required that all peoples establish courts appropriate to their culture. Selden, drawing on the Talmud, argued that the legal systems of each country (say, those existing in England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, etc.) may differ from each other in customs and traditions, but in principle all courts are guided by certain universal principles. According to Selden, the law cannot be despotic and crimes that are contrary to the universal covenant cannot be justified.

Selden's ethical and legal worldview in many ways became a herald of the Enlightenment, which began a hundred years later. Although "natural rights" is an 18th-century concept, Selden's discussion of fundamental, universal ethical precepts that recognize no national, linguistic, or religious boundaries anticipates the political and moral theories of rationalism to come. There is a certain logic in the fact that the progressive political movements of the coming revolutionary age, through which the gates of the ghetto were opened and Jews were recognized for the first time as citizens of their own countries, were partly preceded by the ideas of Christians inspired by rabbinic thought. John Selden offers a surprisingly respectful, if not deferential, original reading of Judaism. Given all the problems of cultural appropriation, one can only marvel at the unprecedented ecumenism with which Selden spoke about Jews. According to Rosenblatt, “It can be argued that Selden’s value lies precisely in his singularity, like those few brave men who at various points in history refused to submit to the crowd.”

In 1655, the London crowds were presented with a spectacle that might have interested them because of its astonishment and unprecedented nature. The English public has long been familiar with idea Jews, Shylocks or Barabbas, who appeared on stage with false noses and bright red wigs, as well as with Christ-sellers from the sermons of Holy Week. But now, for the first time in 365 years, a real, open and proud Jew walked through the crowded and cosmopolitan English capital. The Dutch rabbi Menashe ben Israel, who arrived in the capital one autumn day, probably passed by the Mermaid Tavern or through the East End, where many Jewish emigrants would later settle. Maybe he looked into the bookstores near St. Paul, whose massive dome was erected several decades later. But if anyone had paid attention to the man in the crowd, he would not have seen either the false nose or the red wig. On the contrary, he was a respectable and unnoticeable man. Ben Israel, with his long dark Van Dyck beard, crisp white collar and wide-brimmed Dutch hat, looked more like a character from a Rembrandt painting (who actually painted him) than the stereotypical Jew as the British imagined him. Most of all, the rabbi, in a simple black cloak, resembled a reserved, conservative Protestant minister.

Ten years earlier, the rabbi had met a Portuguese Jew who had returned from the Brazilian colonies with the conviction that the Indians were the remnants of the lost ten tribes. Among Jews and Christians, the 17th century was an era of messianic sentiments, and the messages of this Jew convinced the Dutch rabbi that the Jewish people were indeed scattered to all corners of the globe, and therefore the coming of the Moshiach was not far off. But America was very far away, and England was on the other side of the North Sea. And Menashe ben Israel decided to begin negotiations with the British government to allow Jews to settle on their island.

During the interregnum, England was governed by the government of Oliver Cromwell, and Ben Israel's initiative may have interested the Puritans, who sometimes called themselves New Jews and theoretically could have responded favorably to the rabbi's request. The Lord Protector himself hoped to live to see the second coming of Christ, and Ben Israel’s arguments might have seemed convincing to him. The far-sighted politician Cromwell might also have been interested in the possibility that Jewish traders would move the center of their activities from Holland to England. So the rabbi went to Westminster to speak to the English Pharaoh on behalf of the Children of Israel.

It is unlikely that the idea of ​​​​the return of the Jews could not be unanimously supported. None other than William Prynne, the same one who criticized theatrical cross-dressing, loudly opposed the admission of Jews into the English Republic. Ben Israel resorted to numerous quotations from Scripture to argue for the need to lift the ban on Jews from living on the island (ironically, the Amsterdam community took advantage of his absence to excommunicate his student, an overly curious apikoires named Baruch Spinoza). But in the end the council decided that there was no legitimate reason to prevent Jews from settling in England. And as one writer simply wrote in his diary: “And the Jews were allowed in.” Cromwell hoped to see the coming of Christ - this did not happen; Ben Israel hoped to see the coming of Moshiach - this also did not happen. But the Jews came, and this was to the benefit of England.

Selden did not have to communicate in the flesh with Ben Israel or with any other Jew, he did not see the results of his labors. The scientist died a year earlier. But the council, on which sat the political and religious leaders of the English Republic, was presided over by the spirit of Selden, whose theories and defense of religious freedoms, including for the Jews, made Ben Israel's arrival possible.