Reflecting on Judaism

    There are two commandments in the Torah, which are often referred to when discussing Halachah, and they have for a long while given me food for thought. The first of these is to be found in Deut. 4:2 and also in Deut. 13:1 which says “All this word which I command you, that you shall observe to do, you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it”.

    Should a difficult or dangerous situation arise, when it is necessary not to obey the commandment, the situation requires that we may ‘add or diminish’ but only for the duration of the ‘situation’.  It was the early rabbis who introduced this caveat. But when we examine the additions and omissions that have been made to Torah Laws, we see that changes have remained in existence for many hundreds of years in direct contradiction to both the command of the Torah and the caveat of ‘only for the duration’.

    Let me give a few examples.

    Torah commands that on the 1st day of the seventh month we should sound the shofar and on the 15th day of the seventh month we should take the lulav. These Torah commands were fulfilled to the letter in Temple times and beyond. The rabbis then came along and said Oh no! if those specific days fall on a Shabbat then we must ignore the command because we may inadvertently carry the shofar or the lulav on the Shabbat. Are they saying that God did not realize that in some years those specific days would fall on a Shabbat? Carrying is only a rabbinic interpretation whilst the command is Torah. Which should take priority? The rabbis also tell us to sound the shofar on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, a day which did not exist in Israel in bible times, and to take the lulav on the remaining six days of Succot which the Torah does not require.

    In the early days it was sometimes difficult to decide exactly on which day the new moon appeared, so when in doubt they celebrated two days, the last day of the previous month and the first day of the coming month. Now that the day of the new moon is precisely known why retain the second day?    

     It has never been clear to me why, when they added a second day to Rosh Hashanah they chose, not the last day of the previous month in case there was uncertainty, but the second day of the new month.

    To chametz they have added kitniot; to meat they have added chicken; to kosher they have added glatt. When I was learning Chumash I asked my teacher what was meant by ‘adding”. He gave me the answer that Rashi gives. “Using five species instead of four for the lulav or putting five fringes on a tallit.” To my mind adding an extra day to the New Year unnecessarily and adding kitniot to the only five grains that the Torah says can become chametz, fall within the same category.  

    If asked why they have not reverted to the original commands the rabbis reply that such a reversion must await the decision of a more qualified body of rabbis, to which some add, ‘will never be’. The question then arises, is it not more important to revert to Torah Law as soon as possible rather than wait for circumstances that may never occur?   The reply also does not take into account the answer given to another question, ‘why does the Talmud give minority opinions together with the majority opinions?’ The answer given to this question is that one day we may find that the minority opinion is correct. But if, as the rabbis argue, there will never be a more qualified body of rabbis great enough to change it, why include the minority opinion? I suggest it shows that the early rabbis anticipated that their decision might be reversed if and when it was shown to be wrong and that later rabbis are being derelict in their duty by not restoring the Torah Law as soon as possible.

    I am currently attending a course of Jewish history, presented by a Tel Aviv college, and the lectures are given by its professor of Jewish history. The period we are covering is the 1,000 years following the destruction of the Second Temple. In one lecture the professor suggested that if we were able to travel back in time to the great rabbi Akiva, and if we were invited to his home for a meal, very likely we would have to say to him, sorry rabbi, your home is not kosher enough for us. This suggestion, coming from an unexpected source, supports my contention that the rabbis have broken the explicit law of ‘’not adding to Torah’.

    The second command is to be found in Deut. 17: sentences 8-11 which states that should we have a problem we should take the matter to the priests or judges and should strictly obey their decision. If you would care to read these four sentences you will see that they refer only to domestic problems. They define the nature of the problems quite clearly; whether an act of killing is manslaughter or murder; cases of disputed rights and claims regarding property; cases where bodily injuries have been inflicted and it is hard to assess the damages fairly; where the local judges are of divided opinion.  The rabbis have tried, and succeeded, in extending this command to include a range of problems far wider than only domestic ones. They have extended it to include thoughts and understandings which should and could be left to an individual’s discretion.

    The Israelites at Mount Sinai had no trouble understanding the Torah Commandments given there. They were able to make their own assessment of them. In Exodus Chap. 24 v 7 it says “And he (Moses) took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people and they said ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do and obey’.”  This sentence raises an important issue. If Moses did receive an Oral Law, not included in the Book of the Covenant, it means that the people were not aware of it and did not hear it. How can we then argue that they are nevertheless bound by it? They were made aware only of the written Book of the Covenant which they heard and accepted.

     It has been acknowledged by many orthodox rabbis over the centuries, certainly not all of them, that errors of one sort or another have crept into the written Torah during the course of its long history. How much more likely is it that even more serious errors have crept into an unwritten Oral Law, initially remaining unwritten for at least the first 1000 years after Sinai, if such Oral Law was given there. We all know how unreliable a long chain of oral command can be, particularly bearing in mind that from the time of Joshua until the destruction of the Second Temple there were numerous occasions of civil strife, many wars with our neighbours and several occupations by foreign powers.

    And I now tell what amazes me. I have corresponded with, and have read books by, orthodox rabbis and orthodox academics who accept that errors have crept into, not only the transmission of the history of halachah but also into both the written and oral laws. They argue that this does not matter. All that matters, they say, is that Judaism is what the rabbis rule it to be, even if their rulings differ from Torah Law and could be based on errors.  If one takes this argument to its logical conclusion, what they are saying is that there is Torah Law and there is Halachah and they are not necessarily the same. Can they be correct?

    But I am in a bit of a dilemma. There are some Torah Laws which the rabbis have changed which I would like to retain, such as the one which makes it easier for a widow to establish her status as a widow in order to remarry.

    I refer those who consider some of the above statements to be outrageous, to the writings of a prominent rabbi which were brought to my attention by a rabbi friend.

    Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi (1531-1586), disciple of both Rabbi Josef Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, and Rabbi Moshe Alshich (1508-1600), famous Torah commentator, writes in a most unusual text (Parashath Balak):

    “Concerning the faith in the (contemporary) human being, it is said in Parashath Nezavim (Devarim 29:13) ‘And not with you alone did I establish a covenant …but with those who are here with us and with those who are not here today….’  Therefore each and every one of us, our children and grandchildren until the conclusion of all the generations who have entered the covenant, are duty bound to examine the secrets of the Torah and to straighten out our faith concerning it by accepting the truth from whoever says it…. Neither ought we be concerned about the logic of others – even if they preceded us – preventing our own individual investigation. Much to the contrary …. Just as (our forebears) did not wish to indiscriminately accept the truth from those who preceded them, and that which they did not choose (to accept) they rejected, so it is fitting for us to do….. Only on the basis of the gathering of many different opinions will the truth be tested. Thus it is valuable to us to complete the views (of our predecessors) and to investigate (the meaning of the Torah) in accordance with our own mind’s understanding.     And even if in the course of investigation into the secrets of the Torah through our love for it, we err, it will not be accounted for us even as an unwitting thing because our intent was for the sake of Heaven. But we shall be guilty if we desist from investigating the secrets of our Torah by declaring: The lions have already established supremacy, so let us accept their words as they are….. Rather, it is proper for us to investigate and analyze according to our understanding and to write our interpretations for the good of those who come after us, whether they will agree or not …..

    You must struggle to scale the heights and to understand our Torah …… and do not be dismayed by the names of the great personalities when you find them in disagreement  with your belief; you must investigate and choose, because for this purpose were you created, and wisdom was granted you from Above, and this will benefit you…..”

    Indeed, this great wisdom is often forgotten in certain religious circles, says my rabbi friend.

    In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi’s text, would it not be very educational if a study group, similar to the Daf Yomi, was started in synagogues so that members could discuss matters they don’t understand or where their understanding differs from the official line? Or is the concept too daunting?