Reflecting on Judaism

1)  Background.
Example a). There is controversy as to whether it is permissible, within the terms of Halachah, to exchange Land for Peace even if one thinks/believes that it will/may save lives. Some years ago Rabbi Goren and Rabbi Ovadia debated the subject in the Jerusalem Post. They both quoted from the Torah, the Nach, RambaM & RambaN. Rabbi Goren concluded, ‘No! You may not’ whilst Rabbi Ovadia concluded ‘Yes! You may’.
Example b) Three respected American Rabbis, whose learning and orthodoxy have not been questioned, have proposed and applied a formula to ease the plight of some Agunot. I understand that within the Halachah such a group constitutes a legitimate Quorum. Other learned Rabbis have summarily dismissed their proposals.
 
1st Question. Do these contradictions indicate that so long as you know your sources you can, in many cases, find the answer you seek and want?
 
2)  Background.
In Devarim, Chapter 31 v9 it states, ‘And Moses wrote this Law and delivered it to the Priests, the sons of Levi, to be the teachers of the Law, and also unto the Elders of Israel’. The Priests fulfilled this function, continuously, through to the period of Esra the Scribe, a Priest and a Sadducee, and beyond unto the 2nd century BCE. At this point of time some corrupt High Priests were appointed and by way of reaction, the Teaching and interpretative duties of the Priests were ‘taken over’ by the Pharisees (the Rabbis). Most Jewish historians agree that the Pharisees entered our history, and separated themselves from the Saduccees, during this period (mid 2nd century BCE). Prior to this, the Halachah was that transmitted by the Sadducees; it had to be for there was no other Halachah in existence. 
 
2nd Question. Does it indicate that the Pharisees, in spite of Chapter 31 v9, usurped the authority which Moses had vested in the Priests, and that they then introduced many new Halachot, some contrary to those taught by the Priests and Saducees?
 
3)  Background.
The Oral Law was written down, because the Rabbis were afraid that, after the destruction of the Second Temple, it might be forgotten. The decision was taken in spite of Halachah which expressed the opinion that in order to remain flexible the Oral Law should not be written down. Doing so was considered to be the better of two bad options. One of the basic Halachot is that of Klal Yisroel; Am Echod v’Goy Echod i.e. the preservation of the unity of the people as one nation. The Rabbis, in many of their rulings appear to encourage divisiveness.
Example a) The recent emphasis on a custom virtually unknown in the UK to my generation even twenty years ago i.e. ‘ For seven Days Ashkenazim should not eat Kitniot’ which has been added to the Torah law ‘For seven days you should not eat Chometz’. This additional prohibition runs contrary to the explicit Torah instruction that we should neither add to, nor subtract from, its laws. I have retained the official London Bet Din Pesach list of some twenty years ago and it includes many items, then permitted to us, which now are marked ‘for those who eat Kitniot only’.
The Kashrut Division now tells me, without knowing my family’s customs, that I am one of those whose custom it is that I should not eat such Kitniot. They are wrong, for our family custom, and that of many, if not most, of central European Jewry was not to eat only rice and peas and this on practical grounds. This ‘Kitniot’ ruling can discourage Observant Jews from visiting other Observant Jews’ houses to eat and socialise together.
Example b) The Second Days of Yom- Tov are now observed, in the breach, by many observant Jews when they visit Israel.
 
3rd Question. Now that the State of Israel has been re-established, should we not revert to the original intention of the Oral Law, i.e. that of being flexible and applicable to current circumstances, within the Law?
4th Question. Should not the Rabbis actively encourage inclusiveness, Klal Yisroel, rather than prolong and introduce unnecessary divisiveness?
5th Question. When the Oral Law, the Talmud, was compiled, both the majority opinion and the minority opinion were included. The explanation for including both opinions is that one day it might turn out that the minority opinion was the correct one. Can anyone think of any Oral Law which the rabbis have changed since the Talmud was finalised (circa. 500 CE) because they now consider that original minority ruling to be the correct one. The one I can think of is that of women’s emancipation into the active religious life of the community, a change which was brought about only by pressure from women. It was not rabbi led.  
 
March 2002