Origins of Halacha

[Hix]

What do you view are the origins of Halacha? Do you believe it was given along with the Torah at Mount Sinai? Or do you believe it was later created under authority from G-d by the Rabbis? Also do you believe that it is open to change and evolution, as the conservative Jews would and must be applied only in the context of its times?

[Henaynei]

What do you view are the origins of Halacha? Do you believe it was given along with the Torah at Mount Sinai? yes, I do (hidden or embedded, if you will)

Or do you believe it was later created under authority from G-d by the Rabbis? Are you suggesting these rwo are mutually exclusive?

Also do you believe that it is open to change and evolution, as the conservative Jews would and must be applied only in the context of its times? The Orthodox rabbis do, also. They are still making halakah in these times: about computer use (Shabbat, LaShon HaRa), about cars (driving on Shabbat) and others - the OU even says that gelatin from pigs feet is kosher because one can no longer *tell* it is from a pig. LOL

[simchat_torah]

What do you view are the origins of Halacha? Do you believe it was given along with the Torah at Mount Sinai?
I believe the authority to give halacha was given at Sinai. Some halacha was made then, the rest over time. It is a living and breathing entity that evolves as time does. This does not change the mitzvot, but rather how we 'fulfill' them. For example, once the automobile was invented, new halacha was necessary to discuss travel on Shabbat.
Or do you believe it was later created under authority from G-d by the Rabbis?
It was definately given as an authority at Sinai. However, with every generation there is a new Beit Din.
Also do you believe that it is open to change and evolution, as the conservative Jews would and must be applied only in the context of its times?
To an extent, yes. This does not mean that the basis for previous halacha changes, merely that as new technologies evolve, and lifestyles change that additional halacha is necessary. For exmaple, if teleportation were invented (think Star Trek) would one be allowed to travel infinite ammounts of space on Shabbat? ;)
just an example.

hehe...



shalom,
yafet

[JewishHeart]

According to Deuteronomy there is no room for Oral Torah because Deuteronomy says that Moses wrote down every word God told him and it was finished. In the Hebrew the word finished is very strong in this verse. God did provide a Beit Din according to the Torah, but like every judge and court make mistakes, so do the rabis and the Beit Din of old. After Yeshua came He provided the Holy Spirit as the Beit Din of our hearts to interpret scripture. By the way, after Yeshua ( I can proove this) much of written Halacha is anti-Yeshua.

[simchat_torah]

According to Deuteronomy there is no room for Oral Torah because Deuteronomy says that Moses wrote down every word God told him and it was finished. In the Hebrew the word finished is very strong in this verse.
My position (I can't speak for Hix and Henaynei) is that at Mt. Sinai G-d gave the instruction to create a Beit Din. This Beit Din would then make halacha. Though the Torah does record a bit of halacha being made by this Beit Din, much of it came later. G-d gave the authority to the Beit Din to continue making Halacha.

The Torah was not given to record all of Halacha (though it does contain a small portion of halacha). The Torah was given to set out the Mitzvot, and to lay down instructions that the Beit Din must follow in order to make good and right halacha. The torah is clear that the halacha spoken by the Beit Din is binding upon the community.

God did provide a Beit Din according to the Torah, but like every judge and court make mistakes, so do the rabis and the Beit Din of old.
True, however, the Beit Din is drastically different than your typical court of law.
1) The Beit Din was created by G-d himself. no other court can claim this
2) The words of the Beit Din were ordained as binding upon the people by G-d. no other court can say this
3) G-d promised his Spirit would rest upon the Beit Din throughout all time. no other court can say this

So, as you can see, there are some pretty major differences between your typical secular court and the Biet Din.

After Yeshua came He provided the Holy Spirit as the Beit Din of our hearts to interpret scripture.
1) The intention of "giving of the holy spirit" was not to replace the Beit Din.
2) The believers of Acts continued following their own Beit Din. They did not do away with the Beit Din.
In other words, even after the death and ressurection of Yeshua, they followed the Beit Din (see Acts 15).

By the way, after Yeshua ( I can proove this) much of written Halacha is anti-Yeshua.
Well, good luck proving it.

That's right, I call you on it.

shalom,
yafet

[Henaynei]

<MOD HAT ON>
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_3_14.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001)
Please note:
The premise of this sub-forum is for those who do favor Halakah to have a place to discuss this topic without having to debate or defend the validity of the use of and adherence to halakah.

Discussions questioning the validity can well happen on the main MJ forum and I am sure most "players" will be sure to get involved in the exchange.

Again, this is NOT a debate forum on the validity of Halakah for Messianic believers and such will not be allowed.

Todah.

b'Shalom
Henaynei
Moderator
<MOD HAT OFF>
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_3_14.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001)

[JewishHeart]

Heynanei,

I thought this was an open discussion for all messianics, I misunderstood. I am sorry.

[Henaynei]

Heynanei,

I thought this was an open discussion for all messianics, I misunderstood. I am sorry.
Shalom JewishHeart,

This sub-forum is open to all Messianics. But it is not a debate forum on the validity of Halakic observance. You are welcome to discuss the numerous issues about halakic observance, but the validity of that observance is not a topic in this sub-forum. You are welcome to discuss that topic in the main forum.

b'Shalom
Henaynei
Moderator

[simchat_torah]

I appologize for arguing pro-halacha... I did not realize the purpose of this subforum was soley for halachic discussions and how to apply them.

I thought this subforum was for all discussions relating to halacha.

Well, thanks for letting me know otherwise Henaynei ;)

shalom,
yafet

[iitb]

I appologize for arguing pro-halacha... I did not realize the purpose of this subforum was soley for halachic discussions and how to apply them.

I thought this subforum was for all discussions relating to halacha.

Well, thanks for letting me know otherwise Henaynei ;)

shalom,
yafet
Now that he knows he can't argue, I doubt we'll ever see Yafet in here! ;)

[simchat_torah]

nah, I'll just have to argue over halacha now... not whether its right or wrong to have halacha ;)


oh, and can I argue about IDE vs. SATA and the effects of bandwidth upon data integrity here? Or shall I do that elsewhere?

[schwartmrs]

Yafet,

Could you please elaborate on this?


[/font]
My position (I can't speak for Hix and Henaynei) is that at Mt. Sinai G-d gave the instruction to create a Beit Din. This Beit Din would then make halacha. Though the Torah does record a bit of halacha being made by this Beit Din, much of it came later. G-d gave the authority to the Beit Din to continue making Halacha.

The Torah was not given to record all of Halacha (though it does contain a small portion of halacha). The Torah was given to set out the Mitzvot, and to lay down instructions that the Beit Din must follow in order to make good and right halacha. The torah is clear that the halacha spoken by the Beit Din is binding upon the community.





I have seen you mention this before, and I'm curious. NOT trying to debate....I'd just like some references so I can study it for myself, that's all.

Blessings,

Shade

[simchat_torah]

you betcha....

In fact, I'll simply copy/paste a post I previously made here at CF:

Halachic Authority has really got me questioning in circles. There are so many facets, and I see such importance for the subject, that I don't take it lightly.

Before I begin I will make a few brief comments for those who are unfamiliar with Halacha.

Halachic authority is the authority to make decisions interpreting the Torah forbidding and permitting activities based on these interpretations, and resolving matters between fellow believers. The word "halacha" means "the way to walk." Torah observance requires halachic authority for three reasons. First there are matters about which the Torah is ambiguous and must be clarified. For example the matter of what a "bill of divorcement" must actually say is not clarified. Or for that matter, what is work, or what is it specifically we are to abstain from during Shabbat observance? Secondly is the matter of conflicting Torah commands. For example the Torah requires the priests to circumcise on the eight day after a birth, but also requires rest from work on the Sabbath. Which commandment holds priority? Finally the Torah requires us to establish courts (see Deut. 16:18).

The Halachic authority was originally given to Moshe (ex. 8:13). But this was too great a task for Moshe to handle by himself, as there were millions of Isrealites in the land at that time. So G-d gave the same authroity to a council of elders (Ex. 18:13-26; Dt. 1:9-18) This is what became known as the "seat of Moshe". Their judgements were regarded as the judgement of G-d himself (Dt. 1:17) and were even called "Torah" (Dt. 17:11) This council became known as the seventy elders whom G-d put His Ruach upon (Num. 11:16-17; 24-25).

Halachic Authority was also held by kings. This became termed as "The key David"(Is. 22:21-22). These kings were seen as sitting on the "throne of G-d".

In the time of Yeshua (and some time previous to that) Judaism was made up of variuos sects. The Sadducees held control of the council for some time, but then by Yeshua's time the Halachic authority was divided. After the destruction of the Temple halachic authority primarily rested upon the Pharisees, yet there were pockets of communities that continued to established their own beit din (i.e. the Essences). Each of the various sects had their own Halachic councils with their own Halachic authority.

There were two main Sanhedrins, a great asssembly, at this time. The first was more a political functioning that was more or less an instrument of Rome. Josephus wrote much about this Sanhedrin. This one was made up of both Pharisees and Sadducees. Then the other, by contrast, was made up soley of Pharisees and these Pharisees were strictly scholars. Hillel and Gameliel were both the Nasi (a president of sorts) of this Sanhedrin.

The Qumran community, who were essenes, also had their own coucil to determine halacha. They saw themselves as the "sons of light" and were not to mingle with the "sons of darkness" (Man. of Disc. I,9; II, 24). Thus they created their own Sanhedrin.

So as we can see Halachic authority was very fragmented at this time.

There are still two main issues before I move onward.
The sect that was established by Shaul, Ya'cov, and Kefa became known as the Nazarenes. This can be seen in the book of acts in various places. Acts 15, Here we are shown a Halachic court which has worldwide authority and which seems to be led by Ya'akov HaTzadik (James the Just) as Nasi and Kefa (Peter) as Av Beit Din.
There is no question that they had their own beit din (house of elders), but the second issue is this: Where did they get their authority to make Halachic decisons?

I think that many passages of the Moshiach have been twisted, and through this twisting they have lost the deeper meaning.

Mt. 23:2-3 Yeshua makes a surprising statement, he says:

"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, That observe and keep. but do not according to their works; for they say, and do not."

This seems to enforce the disciples to follow the authority of the Pharisees. But then there is the newly discovered Hebrew text of Matthew that predates all other Brit Chadasha texts by 100 years. This is what it has to say:

"Upon the seat of Moses the Pharisees and sages sit. Now all which he says to you keep and do; but their ordinances and deeds do not do because they say, and do not."

There are some that argue that however it reads, Yeshua was not imploiring them to follow blindly all Pharisiac Halacha, because in vs. 16-22 he clearly opposed a point of Pharisiac Halacha.

Then in Luke 11:52 he rebukes the Pharisees for taking away the "key". This "key" is probably in reference to Is. 22:22:

"The key of the House of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut and no one shall open."

This key is then made clear to be Halachic authority.

Then In Mt. 16:18-19 Yeshua says he would give "the keys of the Kingdom" to Kefa and his students:

"And I also say to you that you are Kefa, And upon this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Sheol shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

We can also see this in Matthew 18:15-20

"18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. 18:16 But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Goy or a tax collector. 18:18 Amayn I tell you, whatever things you will bind on eretz will be bound in heaven, and whatever things you will loose on eretz will be loosed in heaven. 18:19 Again, amayn I tell you, that if two of you will agree on eretz concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Here Yeshua refers to an assembly that has the power to bind and loose. These are two Semitic idioms used in Rabbinic literature as technical terms referring to Halachic authority. To "bind" means to "forbid" an activity and to "loose" means to permit an activity.

Another issue also comes out of this following verse:

"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock
of offence to both the houses of Israel…"

The ancient Nazarene texts explain the two houses as the two houses of Shammai and Hillel, and these two houses did not accept the moshiach.

The final quote I bring to you comes from the Nazarene commentary on Isaiah 8:20-21:

"The Scribes and the Pharisees tell you to listen to them… answer them like this:
"It is not strange if you follow your traditions since every tribe consults its own
idols. We must not, therefore, consult your dead [sages] about the living ones…."

So it is clear that the original Nazarenes were not "following Pharisaic Rabbinical Halakhah."

Yet, Y'shua and the Netzarim obviously accepted the Pharisetical halacha in most areas, so where does the standared lay today?

The Torah proclaims that Halacha is to be regarded as the Torah itself. How do we know which halacha to follow? What authority is [i]any[/] beit din established upon today?

What about the authority Y'shua passed to Kepha? Does it currently exist? With the Netzarim beit din under James Trimm? With another beit din? Under no beit din? Has that authority reverted back to a "non" messianic sect?

And finally, if not most importantly...
Did Y'shua denounce the authority of the beit din of his time because of unrighteousness, or because of non-belief in the Messiah?

The answer to the final question would guide us entirely. If Y'shua denounced the beit din of his day because of unrighteousness, then we can gladly accept any beit din established today upon the principle of the beit din living a righteous lifestyle.
However, if he denounced it on the basis of their unbelief in his claim to be HaMoshiach, then we are to seek a messianic beit din. That would leave us with James Trimm's international beit din.

I think I've asked MORE than enough questions to get the ball rolling.

Shalom and blessings to all,
Yafet.
That post was actually one I had made over 3 years ago on another forum, before I had a lot of personal questions answered.

Anywho... have at it ;)

shalom,
yafet

[schwartmrs]

okay, I'm gonna get myself hung for sure here, but..........

I was always taught that Peter was the first pope....if that is true, and Yeshua DID establish a Biet Din with Peter, does that mean that the rest of the denominations are in rebellion against the established, Messianic Biet Din??

Please say no.....

Shade

[Henaynei]

I was always taught that Peter was the first pope....
Nope, Kefa was not the "first pope."

Yeshua DID establish a Biet Din [snip]? ......does that mean that the rest of the denominations are in rebellion against the established, Messianic Biet Din??
Yeshua did establish a beit din - Ya'acov the elder was the head of the Beit Din in Jerusalem (see Acts 15 & 21). The Beit din died out with the "death" of the *Jewish* messianic community. What messianic halakah was preserved, as far as we know, is in the Ketuvim Natzrim (NT). But few, if any, non-Messianic religious teachers would recognize it as such ;)

[schwartmrs]

Okay...that makes some sense....but who is James Trimm?? I've never heard of him.

[Henaynei]

you will get many answers----

mine:
He is a messianic gentile claiming to be a Jewish rabbi who states he has a doctorate but doesn't, who states he is an expert in ancient languages but isn't, who has put out his own version of the bible which doesn't really pass muster, but whose premise and arguments are intriguing enough that many folks never dig any further.

He is a brother in the L-rd who is greviously mis-led. He has set up a beit din of persons who are frequently not Jewish, largely do not live an Orthodox lifestyle and have no knowledge of Talmud and historical halakha, and some of whom have been women - all these factors negate the validity of his beit din, sadly. I was so excited when I first found his website, until I read and studied further, then I was deeply disappointed.

others see him differently

[rooster]

Something to stir this discussion again.

The Ethiopian Jewry never heard of the Oral Torah.
Suppose their jewery is not in doubt(tribe of Dan), how come they are fully conversant with the Torah but are ignorant of the the Oral traditions and oral laws when the tenets states that the Oral law of the talmud goes back to Moses.
Anybody has anything on this matter, please enlighten us.

[Henaynei]

There is also a group of people from India called benai Manasha who have recently been accepted by Israel as Jews. These have kept a form of Judaism through out some 2000 years in India. They are a small group, true and their practice is not something we would totally recognize, but they are Jews non-the-less accorcding to the rabbis in Israel.

The vast majority of Jewry keeps only portions of the Torah, much less Talmud. The fact that some do not keep the oral traditions is by no means proof that they are invalid. The very reason that the Oral Traditions were codified (written down) is because Judah HaNassi, an exceptionally brilliant and insightful rabbi, saw that Judaism in the Diaspora was in danger of loosing this great body of knowledge and instruction.

You will find that both the Ethiopians and the Indians, and any other practitioners of Judaism will have developed a group of halakic decisions that is used by their community as a whole to implement Torah in their lives. You *may* also be suprised to find how close these are to Talmudic Judaism in many ways, perhaps more than one might expect.

[rooster]

hmmmmmm....... ok thanks......
Thomas was suppose to have visited jewish communities in india (Goa i think)perhaps these are the same Indian jews you have spoken about.
Seems like something that would be interesting to read up on

Thanks again

[muffler dragon]

In a thread in the General Theology, the Thadman made the following statement (I did not get permission, but I hope it will not cause discord):

Paul in Hebrews preached against forcing -anyone- to follow the Oral Torah, the kind that Jesus fought against with the Pharisees. The traditions of their fathers, or Gemara of the Avot, were adhered to instead of God's Torah, and in effect took them away from it.

I thought I would ask a couple of questions in this thread:

1) How is someone able to determine the parts of the Oral Torah to follow without compulsion?
2) What led to the perversion that Paul and Christ fought against?
3) Is there a human element that oversees the 'correctness' of the Oral Torah?
4) I ask this with much fear and trembling, but does this give any amount of credence to the validity with which Catholics hold to their 'Tradition'? or is there where they are trying to gain validity? They will mention Paul's documentation regarding the following verse:

1 Corinthians 11

2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[1] just as I passed them on to you.


teachings is sometimes translated as traditions.

Thank you for your patience with me and my questions.

Nathan