By Rabbi Rachel Esserman

Jewish historical works often make it sound as if rabbinic Judaism rose like a phoenix from the flames of the Second Temple. They rarely discuss the change in leadership – from the priestly family to the proto-rabbis – that occurred during that period. The priests were the original religious experts, making certain that sacrifices were done correctly and offering advice on other ritual matters. There were also loosely-knit groups of proto-rabbis who were already focusing on prayer and study, and practicing a stricter version of kashrut. But the question of how the mantle of religious leadership passed from the priests to the rabbis is usually ignored. That is the issue addressed in Krista N. Dalton’s fascinating “How Rabbis Became Experts: Social Circle and Donor Networks in Jewish Late Antiquity” (Princeton University Press). Dalton not only looks at the way rabbinic expertise becomes generally accepted, but how the rabbis sought to limit the influence of those who supported them financially. 
Even those familiar with Jewish history after the destruction of the Second Temple might not realize how marginal a group the ancient rabbis were. Dalton notes that “evidence suggests that for some time, few Jews were compelled to arrange their lives according to rabbinic guidance. Rabbinic texts express repeated discontent with persons they describe as amei haartez, or ordinary Jews who did not heed their advice... Archeological evidence in addition to critical reading of rabbinic sources reveals that rabbis did not run synagogues, nor did they hold automatic standing as teachers or judges in their local communities. Once thought to be universal, rabbinic influence in this period is now understood to be primarily aspirational.” 
The author discusses in great detail how someone comes to be considered an expert since being knowledgeable about a particular topic is not enough to make one an expert. There is a social aspect to expertise. By that the author means that other members of society must agree that a person is an expert. Using examples from modern times, she talks about scientists who are normally considered experts until those they are advising refuse to accept their determinations. This social aspect was very important in rabbinic times: the rabbis could cite the reasons for their ritual decisions, but, if the public did not accept their expertise, then their rulings were relevant only in rabbinic circles, rather than the general culture.
Dalton notes that some of the early rabbis came from priestly families. That would have made it easier for them to make ritual decisions because people would have already looked to their families for religious decision making. The question became how those who were not part of priestly families could claim expertise and what exactly constituted that expertise. In her discussion of what makes someone an expert, the author notes that “an expert internalizes the tacit knowledge and intuition that informs how they contribute expertise. They learn the jargon, the mannerisms, etiquette, and bodily demeanor that signified their legibility as experts.” In terms of the rabbis, that meant being able to read and interpret biblical verses and having an in-depth knowledge of Jewish rituals, holidays and dietary practices. The author also notes that, during this period, the Romans controlled all civil aspects of the government, which left religious authorities needing to know not only what to do ritually, but how their decisions would affect the populations’ relationship with the Roman empire.
According to the author, the rabbinic tasks were aided by the fact that the Roman era was “a period of intense pietistic affiliation.” The different groups of pietists created an common culture of piety, which made people receptive to rabbinic culture, especially after the trauma of the destruction of the Second Temple. Although there were many pietists’ paths, a group known as the Pharisees wanted to include everyone – not just the priests – in keeping the laws of purity. 
When discussing rabbinic expertise, Dalton looks at how that occurred within social settings. First, though, the rabbis had to attain a certain level of not only knowledge of Torah and rabbinic discussions, but be able to generate rulings – laws and ritual behavior – based on that knowledge. It was not enough to know what one thought others should do: if they did not belief you were an expert or that your advice was relevant to their lives, they would ignore your expertise. Dalton notes the general population had to believe that rabbinic experts had “access to a citational repertoire that by definition that non-experts do not. The challenge for the rabbis, like any specialist group, was persuading those without the skills in their domain that their knowledge was valuable.”
The rise and acceptance of rabbinic culture was not inevitable. The author notes that “ancient Jews were not rabbinic. By prioritizing rabbinic sources, other ancient Jewish practices, beliefs, and experiences have been marginalized.” How were the rabbis able to convince others? Much of this occurred during meals. The rabbis would speak words of Torah and offer explanations of how Jews should follow the laws of Judaism. Whether or not those listening accepted those laws enough to follow them, many did respect the rabbis’ learning. Those rabbis were also able to convince some present that rabbinic knowledge and discussions were worthy of their financial support. One example is the rabbinic explanations about why one should pray before and after a meal. Even if those dining with them only did this when a rabbinic figure was present, that action helped legitimize the need for prayer during meals. The rabbis would also talk about appropriate food preparation, including how food should be cooked. Those wanting to host rabbis at their table would follow their advice. Others attending might note what occurred and perhaps mention it when they dined with others. Even if they didn’t follow those ruling, this was a way of acknowledging rabbinic expertise.
As rabbinic expertise began to be accepted, another difficulty arose: how was their study to be funded? While many rabbis of this period are said to have worked for a living, it’s clear in the sources from which Dalton quotes that the rabbis felt their work deserved community support. However, a problem arose: some patrons might believe that rabbis would rule in their favor if they had a question. As religious experts, the rabbis were expected to rule impartially since not doing so would undermine their claim to expertise. Dalton notes that “the fact that rabbinic judges lacked imperial institutional power made the matter of their credibility more significant while at the same time highlighting their very need for funding. They were not imperially salaried judges who could count on institutional support for their labor. The only authority rabbis wielded came from the trust of other Jews who sought their advice and offered gifts and payment in return. Accusations that rabbinic judgments could be influenced by gifts threatened this trust, particularly as there was no institutional enforcement of fairness.” However, the author also offers stories from the Talmud that portray particular rabbis bending rules so that their patron should not be negatively affected. 
However, rabbinic expertise was not only funded by patrons. Since there was no Temple to support, the rabbis suggested that the tithe should go to supporting the priesthood and the sacrifices should come to them since they were now performing the religious work needed to fulfil the laws of the Torah. The author writes, “If those who labor in Torah have always been supported, and the priests, like the poor, warranted communal support, why shouldn’t a rabbi also benefit? By funding rabbinic expertise, donors were fulfilling the divine commands of the Torah, and therefore partnering in the work of elevating its status to that of immeasurable value.”
As the end of her work, Dalton summarizes her ideas, noting while the priesthood lost its mooring after the destruction of the Second Temple, the general culture contained “a flourishing of Jewish holiness projects,” which included an interest in Torah that allowed the rabbis to become one type of expert. The rabbis were challenged by those who did not accept rabbinic methods of interpretation and the resulting rulings. That left the rabbis continually needing to prove their expertise. The author notes that these claims were a sort of “bluff,” a way of convincing others that they should be considered experts. However, rabbinic expertise was often tested, something that continues through to contemporary times. 
“How Rabbis Became Experts” is a scholarly work that demands a great deal of close attention. However, Dalton does an excellent job explaining the changes that occurred during this time period and how the ancient rabbis were able to successfully attain the position of expert, even when their rulings were not universally accepted by Jews. Anyone interested in the development of rabbinic Judaism will want to read this work.