Messianic Judaism Quest

Classical Judaism holds that there is a dual Torah, consisting of the Torah Sh’b’ktav (the Written Torah) and the Torah Sh’Ba’al Peh (the Oral Torah). Commandments derived from the written Torah are called “d’Oraita” from the Aramaic word meaning “from the Torah.”

For classical Judaism, the Oral Torah consists of Oral Torah revealed simultaneously at Sinai as well as enactments or laws instituted by later rabbis (d’Rabbanan). The basis or authority for the laws classified as “d’Rabbanan” and for the implementation of the observance of the commandments is derived from Deuteronomy 17:8-11.

Hence, the rabbis claim that the authority to interpret the commandments and subsequently define (i.e. the way in which the commandments are observed) is found in the written Torah itself, where Moses states that any case or question too difficult for the Jewish people in future days should be brought before the priests and judges in office at that time. To this day, the rabbis serve as judges and legislators akin to a court and a legislature. Rabbis are in fact dayanim (i.e. Judges).

In this sense, the Torah serves as the constitution for Israel. Like the Constitution of the United States, the actual implementation of its statutes, and future needed statutes are left to the Congress and the validity of those laws is left to the courts. I am not sure whether most believers are familiar with the concept of a constitutional model for Torah law that “evolves” or is “pliable” to remain relevant and applicable.

A Torah model that does not include this eventually find themselves in position where many biblical commandments cannot be observed, applied, or understood. Hence a community like the Karaites who argue that they follow only the Biblical text have almost reached the point of extinction, have isolated and in fact excluded themselves from the Jewish community by adopting a different calendar and different laws. In the end they have nevertheless created a body of their own “halachah”out of necessity in attempting to follow the written text.

The case or argument for the Oral Torah exists on two levels. On a very basic level, the very necessity of Oral Torah can be established by looking at the text of the written Torah itself.

The texts of the written Torah is written only in consonants, without vocalization. Hence one word written in Hebrew can have multiple meanings. Hence, where the Hebrew text says “BNYCH,” one might render this as “Bonayich” “your Builders” or as “B’nayich” “your Children.” This occurs quite often. Vocalization (vowels) were only added much later. So even our very ability to read and understand the text is based upon an oral tradition which provides us with both the ability to pronounce the alphabet, to read, and most importantly understand the text.

The famous Hillel was approached by a non-Jew who desired to learn the Torah on the condition he would learn the written Torah only. He started teaching him the alef-bet and the next day changed the names of the letters and their pronunciation and the student was confused. He did this to prove a point! The text is foundational but it is informed and understood only with the aid of the oral tradition.

On a different level, argument for the Oral Torah can be derived from the Biblical text itself. The book of Exodus, for example, states very clearly that we shall “labor six days and do no work on the seventh…” and that we should Shamor v’Zachor (remember and observe) the Shabbat to keep it holy.

The problem is that we do not know what this means. What is classified as work? The Torah shb’ktav (written Torah) does not tell us specifically what work and only provides one example (a man picking up sticks) and yet is presupposes some understanding of this.

Hundreds of years later, during the time of the prophet Jeremiah, he chastises the people for, among other things, “carrying burdens (things) out from among their houses or into the city of Jerusalem on Shabbat.”

Another example can be demonstrated in the following. The Torah states, “You shall not wholly reap the corners of your field…you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.” How big is a corner? Is it enough to leave four stalks of corn? Who are the poor? Who is the stranger? Is a city dweller excused from caring for the poor and for strangers because he has no fields? We can find many similar arguments stemming from the Temple service itself, the laws related to the slaughter of Kosher animals, the laws of Kashrut , to circumcision, tzitzit, tefillin, and the list goes on. One of the most important is the intercalation of the calendar since unlike Islam, Judaism follows a lunar based calendar which takes into account solar cycle thus requiring leap years, etc. Islam adopts a strictly lunar model that produces a holiday schedule that changes from year to year.

Regarding Kashrut, many of the fowl rendered unclean are untranslatable from the Hebrew. We rely solely on the oral tradition to define what these terms mean today. Even such basic things as what constitutes marriage and divorce (a get is mentioned, but not what constitutes it), what constitutes marriage legallyand many other issues are not clear.

Some of the commandments that are from the Written Torah are explicit commands in the text of the Torah such as the prohibitions on murder and mezuzot; others are implicit such as the commandment to recite grace after meals, and others can only be ascertained by deductive reasoning (that a man shall not commit incest with his daughter, which is deduced from the commandment not to commit incest with his daughter’s daughter).

So in general, I believe the rabbis do reflect “a” valid source of authority to decide and enact laws. The emphasis is on “a.” That is generally speaking, rabbinically derived laws should not be dismissed as merely the “laws of man” as opposed to the laws of G-d, since the authority to legislate is found in the Torah itself and is even found in later texts, such as the book of Esther and the enactment of Purim. The rabbis would argue that rabbinic laws are in fact biblical! That does not however mean I believe they are always right, nor that their authority is unlimited. They are one legimate source of authority. The rise of the progressive movements in Judaism such as Reconstructionist and Conservative movements hold that halachah should be considered in light of modernity, the needs of the community, and the inherent aspect of the halachic process that allows for innovation and creativity. This is largely in relation to “d’rabbanan.”

For believers in Yeshua, the New Testament should certainly be added to the previous sentence I believe, though Yeshua’s endorsement of the Pharisees as sitting the seat of Moses (Matthew 23:23, I believe) and Acts 21:21 where James relates the accusations against Paul that he instructed Jews “not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” establishes I believe the general basis from the New Covenant that laws and customs do have authoritative weight. Furthermore only the rabbis are concerned with the continuation and preservation of the Jewish people. While deviating from classical halachah does not have an immediate huge impact on the welfare of the Jewish people if messianic congregations do not adhere to it, were the Jewish community to adopt the same perspectives, the results would be catostrophic within a generation.

So I am not advocating Orthodoxy as the solution, nor condemning someone who does not adhere to it. However I do believe that messianic synagogues should hold to halachic standards that are in sync with normative halachah and then allow people to observe (outside the shul) in accordance with their own conviction. That is,for example, the separation of dairy and meat should be observed within a shul; all meat should hecshered, etc. This raises the standard to the highest level and raises the level of kedushah to the highest level as well.

What people individually observe personally outside in their homes can be different. That allows the shul to hold the highest standard; the other way, it lowers the standard and diminishes the level of kedushah. I advocate an understanding and ideally a gradual adoption of standardized halachah. For some that happens incrementally and that is fine. Its quality over quantity. The view that some laws are “biblical” I believe largely draws its source from the concept of Sola Scriptura (Bible only) which is largely a Protestant innovation created in reaction to its break with Catholicism.

With regards to believers who are drawn to Torah, I believe the Oral tradition serves as a much needed sounding board. It keeps people from doing “what is right in their own eyes” and from anarchy. Many of the Torah groups I see are largely creating Torah in their own image. I know there is genuine sincerity and love for Hashem but believe there are many long term problems and potential dangers including the potential rise of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism.

Share This