Messianic Judaism Quest

The question of “legitimate” circumstances leading to divorce was recently posed to me by a friend. While the reasons for asking this are not important, the question arose from three seeming contradictory passages. The first passage regards the Torah’s perspective on divorce. The second and third stem from Yeshua’s comments and from Paul’s.

My main goal here is to focus very briefly on the challenge of thinking halakhically in such unfortunate circumstances or any other for that matter.

Recently, I came across the concept of “monological” versus “dialogical” views on the nature of Jewish law and how conflicting or seemingly conflicting halakhic decisions might or might not be reconciled.

The monological view theoretically accepts only one decision on a particular legal issue. In the case of the Shulchan Aruch for example, R”Joseph Caro decided the “normative” halakhah” by seeking agreement on decisions by the Rambam, the Rif, and the Rosh.

If all three agreed on a particular issue, then he saw this as the authoritative perspective. For the monological view, there is only one halakhic possibility.This approach would seem to reflect the perspectives of those who demand or expect one answer to any question, regardless of the circumstances that it might entail. This approach is theoretically easier in the sense that there are clear “yes” and “no ” and “black” and “white” answers. To borrow from a popular bumper sticker some time ago, ” The Bible says it, I believe it, that does it.”

The dialogical view sees the act of living Torah as a duel part process: “Matan Torah” (the giving of the Torah by G-d) and “Kabbalat Torah” (the receiving of the Torah by the people of Israel). There is a partnership that occurs which must include the circumstances, experiences, customs, etc. of the people of any given generation. Hence the Torah stipulates, one is to go the Levite or Judge in “their” day.

This approach sees the  existence of competing halakhic decisions (in the Talmud for example) as valid possibilities; each focusing on a specific scenario or founded upon a particular view of truth. While this may seem to be a free for all to many, the underlying principle is not the invalidation of those things the Torah prohibits. This approach seeks to incorporate all facets (Biblical precedent, existing rulings, custom, etc.) in halakhic making process.

In the case of divorce, it seems we have competing halakhic rulings as reflected in the Tanach and in the writings of the apostles. One given by the Torah; a stricter ruling given by Yeshua (restricting divorce to cases of marital infidelity); and then Paul’s view which appears to create a sanctition for “divorce” in cases of abandonment by an unbelieving partner.
That being the case, my thoughts had been focused on Paul’s words in Corinthians as  a  “halakhic” possibility given what appears to be Yeshua’s limited approbation of divorce, which must also be weighed against the Torah’s own view on the subject.

Yeshua’s views are further complicated because the gospels give two versions of his statement. The differences are subtle but are perplexing. The perplexing aspect of Yeshua’s comments lie in the fact that in one of the gospels, a man who divorces his wife (except in the case of adultery) and remarries, commits adultery.

The problem here is two fold. The first issue is the fact that polygamy is permitted by the Torah. The second issue  is that adultery is typically defined in the context of a women and the paramour who are adulterous and not of the husband of course.

This is a discussion for another time. The point I am trying to make is that to secure a viable and authentic  halakhic process, is to understand the two philosophic options we have before us in matters of Jewish law. I believe the dialogical view is the only viable option; I leave this to further discussion and comments from the readers.

Share This