One of the most disturbing things to me is that most people think that a rabbi is a rabbi is a rabbi. How does one become a rabbi? What, if anything, are his power and authority? Do they all study the same things? Is there a central organization that "keeps them honest"? In previous posts I have written, I have expounded on the roots of the problem. I have not, however, gone into the implications for us today. I now wish to do that.
A brief recap of the issue is as follows. Strictly speaking, there has been no such thing as a rabbi since the fourth century. A line of ordination was begun by Moses. It established Torah authority as commanded in Deuteronomy 17:8-13.One receiving this ordination was empowered to rule authoritatively in all areas of Torah law. He was qualified to be on a Beit Din (Court), although not everyone who was ordained was necessarily on a court. The Byzantines were opposed to the Jews having courts, or any leadership for that matter,as they sought to impose their own civil laws, as well as their new found Christian religion. They saw the continued existence of Judaism as an affront to Christianity.They murdered numerous rabbis, until the chain of ordination was broken. We can see that in the Talmud, some of the Sages are designated as Rabbi, some as Rav. The former had received smichah (ordination) the latter had not. All recognized scholars could teach, but acceptance of their rulings of the non ordained, was dependent on the willingness of the community to adhere to what they were saying. Those with smichah had the full force of Torah behind them. I have discussed in previous posts the attempts throughout the centuries to restart the chain , and even whether or not such a thing is possible. But, the fact remains, that no one commands universally recognized authority in the last 1600 years. But communities needed leadership. Scholars were chosen to lead and to instruct. Some scholars had reputations, and were highly regarded beyond their own communities. Some communities, however, accepted people with little training (or even integrity) as their spiritual leaders. In the fourteenth century, a prominent German rabbi who sought to standardize the level of knowledge of the rabbis in the various communities, introduced a symbolic ordination. It carried no halachic weight, but required every candidate for a rabbinic position to undergo scrutiny and testing by this recognized authority.In this way, it was hoped, the unqualified would be weeded out. From then on, Ashkenazi rabbis were required to get this symbolic smichah from one who had it. Essentially, it was a letter of recommendation that the candidate was worthy. The smichah carried no power beyond any that is inherent in any other Jew, but it went a long way to keeping charlatans out of the rabbinate. The rabbi who instituted the new smichah later attempted to extend his authority over the Jews of France, but a huge international outcry arose. The accepted approach became to require a candidate to have this smichah, but his authority would only extend to the community that chose him, with other rabbis in other communities free to accept or reject his rulings. Sepharadic communities largely rejected this arrangement until the twentieth century. They understood that although there was a danger of charlatanism, there was an equal danger of one rabbi, or a group of rabbis, imposing their will on communities that had different ideas and different approaches. Sepharadic rabbis generally avoided the title "rabbi", and preferred "hacham" (sage), so as to avoid the appearance of power that was not theirs. Some even mocked the new smichah as a "doctorate". However, it is now common in Sepharadic communities as well. But who can give this smicha? On what basis is it given" What would the candidate need to know? Could a recognized rabbi impose another rabbi on a community? Are there levels of smichah? Is politics involved?These will be the topics in this series.