Coralie Camilli Interview | Alex Gilbert #264.3

Coralie Camilli, substitute philosophy professor at the Military Health School (ESA) and French boxing champion, published L’art du combat (Puf) in 2020, Jours de grâce et de violence (Vérone éditions), and Insulaires (Puf) in 2023.

Brotherhood in judaism (Part3)

II. The Vertical Mastery Model

This transition from a fraternal model to a “professorial” model is expressed in the Talmud through the prayer recited before study: “Yehi ratson mi lefanekha, Hashem Elohai, shelo yehei davar takala al yadi, ve lo ekashel bedavar halakha, ve ismechu bi haverai”—“and let my study companions (not my brothers) rejoice over me, and let them not stumble on a point of the Law, that I might not mock them”, « ve lo omar al taméi ‘’tahor’’, ve lo al ‘’tahor ‘’taméi’’, ve lo ikachelo raveri bidvar halarha ve essmar bahem. Ki Ad. Yiten horhma, mipiv daat outevouna. Gal éïnaï, ve abita niflaot mi toratéra. »

This prayer highlights a vertical and asymmetrical conception of the transmission of spiritual knowledge in rabbinic Judaism during the Talmudic period. The famous Mishnah that opens the Tractate of the Fathers—describing the “chain of transmission”—could attest to the existence of the same hierarchical mechanism in rabbinic Judaism. According to this text, which traces the Torah’s journey from its revelation to Moses to the beginnings of the rabbinic movement, divine knowledge passes from a master to a disciple, or at least from one religious authority to the next, without shortcuts and in a strictly “unidirectional” manner.

Similarly, rabbinic literature contains numerous references to charismatic masters as well as teachings comparing the master to God. Nevertheless, many Talmudic passages also describe scenes where disciples challenge, monitor, critique, and even teach their master. The hierarchy seems almost reversed in these cases, showing the flexibility of the rabbinic master-disciple model.

However, often in Talmudic writings, the term “Rav” (master) has a dual meaning: it refers both to a “master” in the context of study and to a “master” in the social sense, such as the master of a house, property, or slaves. The Latin equivalent “magister” has retained both meanings (teacher and master of slaves). Moreover, to emphasize the vertical nature of transmission, we find in rabbinic literature texts that explicitly compare the master-slave relationship to the master-disciple relationship. This comparison appears particularly in passages dealing with the principle of “the service of the disciples of the sages,” meaning the obligation for disciples not to limit their service to their master to the context of their studies. In one of the anecdotes of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on his deathbed, he predicts the martyrdom of the disciples of his generation. Why? “Because they did not come to me to serve me,” he answers!

In a teaching from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketubot 96a, the comparison between the disciple (talmid) and the slave (eved) becomes explicit and concrete: “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All the services that the slave renders to his master, the disciple renders to his master as well, except for removing his shoes. Raba says: This is the case in a place where the disciple is not known, but in a place where he is known, and it is known that he is not a slave, there is no reason to forbid him from removing his master’s shoes.”

The discussion continues, but only the act of removing shoes distinguishes the disciple from the slave. At the same time, while the rabbis develop the analogy between the two social types (instruction and slavery), they feel the need to specify that, although the disciple should serve his master as if he were his slave, the community must be able to distinguish the disciple from the slave. Because despite their similarities, the slave occupies a lower position in the social hierarchy, whereas the disciple of the sage is considered the ideal type of the rabbinic movement.

Why then this insistence on the inferiority of the disciple, which is manifest in several Talmudic passages calling for blind and humble adherence to the behavior of the master? Precisely to maintain the hierarchy that was lacking in fraternal relationships and which led to mimetic violence, to borrow the words of R. Girard. In these passages, the master is seen as the one whose mere presence can contribute to the disciple’s edification. Likewise, several anecdotes describe disciples following their master into the most intimate places, such as the restroom or the conjugal bed, in order to acquire the rules of virtuous conduct.

III) Conclusion
Finally, as a conclusion, we can say that the ideal relational model in rabbinic Judaism is not the brother-to-brother relationship, but the master-to-disciple relationship, modeled, among other things, on the master-slave, father-son, or righteous man-God relationship— a vertical relationship, where authority and hierarchy are privileged. The disciple must obey the master in the same way a son obeys his father, a slave obeys his master, or a righteous man obeys God. All of these analogies primarily evoke the personal authority that the master holds over the disciple. Each analogy emphasizes a different aspect: the analogy between the master and the father highlights the transmission of responsibility from the father to the master: it is the master, not the father, who serves as the disciple’s principal and sole model of ethical and intellectual truth. Similarly, the analogy between the disciple and the slave emphasizes the principle of the “service of the disciples of the sages.” Finally, the analogy between the master and God, despite rabbinic ambivalence toward it, serves as an ideological seal indicating the disciple’s inferiority in relation to the master.

Finally, it is important to note that although the master-disciple relationship constitutes the privileged social relational model at the expense of the fraternal relationship, it should not be reduced to automatic mimicry. Indeed, the disciple is meant to become a master one day, meaning an independent agent of the Law who maintains a personal and direct relationship with the divine authority, without having to go through the mediation of a rigid and unchanging hierarchy. He will be able to interpret the Law without the authorization of a higher authority and set autonomously the ethical conduct rules for his disciples and himself. This servility of the disciple makes the role of the master in the formation process more complex: how can an independent agent of the rabbinic discourse emerge from these binding relationships, which at first glance, at least, seem to be subjected to an authoritarian hierarchy? This is both the question and the challenge posed and proposed by rabbinic thought in light of the failure marked by fraternal relationships in Jewish history.