ADS 336x280 Here...
PBS had an excellent series ‘On Faith and Reason with Bill Moyers,’ which can be viewed on pbs.org. He interviewed Margaret Atwood who made an interesting observation. She asked, “why didn't Jesus write down the Book of Jesus?” Jesus didn’t write anything. Now aside from the fact that like most people of the time he was probably illiterate, there is something deeper here. Margaret Atwood states that “once you write something down it becomes a permanent fixture and it becomes dogma.”He intended his word as oral tradition, which would “have to be transmitted by one person to another person or group of people. So it is the breath, which is the spirit, the spirit moving from one person to another. And … every time the spirit moves it takes a different shape… He wanted to keep it fluid rather than causing it to be fixed and permanent and therefore unchanging.”
It made me consider the fact that the original idea of the Jewish oral law was meant specifically NOT to be written down. In that way, concerns regarding the evolution of Jewish society and religion could be addressed in a more dynamic manner. Once things are written, they tend to become dogma and as such become the primary source for evaluating whatever issue has arisen. This may limit the scope of solution because new challenges had not originally been accounted for. It may also require ingenious or even incredulous solutions because of the limitation of working within the framework of the written word.
I’ve wondered how much we saved by writing the oral law. Its preservation has allowed us a greater insight into the issues and ideas of the time. Yet, in a sense, it also seemed to freeze the evolution of our religion to a time long past. Rabbis are now afraid to challenge old (and possibly outdated ideas or practices) lest they be excommunicated. Their simple response being that they have no SOURCE for alternative action.
Yet even so I have witnessed first hand an unnamed great rabbi preach mainstream stringent law to the congregation while at the same time finding anyway possible (still within the bounds of halachah) to address the sensitivities and unique requirements of the individual. I don’t believe this is normative but I guess the greater you are, the greater your confidence in approaching really challenging issues. In The Challenge of Creation, Rabbi Slikin shows how religious thought has evolved with change in science. There is a precedent for progressive thinking. It is unfortunate that the masses in general are not prepared for such bold moves or even aware that such precedents do exist. Some fear the slippery slope and the danger to Judaism while others just live in a world without shades. To them, it is all black or white. It must all be factually true or else everything they know falls apart.
In any event, Margaret Atwood correctly concludes that most people “much prefer the letter” of the law rather than the spirit. Humans seek concrete sources and an authoritative, ‘unchallengeable’, definitive basis for their actions. Unfortunately, people get bogged down in the literal meaning without grasping deeper concepts or applications. In doing so, they become trapped in a literal mode that in turn justifies their agenda at the expense of the spirit of the law as well as the inhibition of that spirit.
I say, "It’s time for our spirit to evolve." Literally!