Halachic Authority

[simchat_torah]

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.

[simchat_torah]

I have since come to some conclusions on the matter, but I wanted to see where you guys take this.

Shalom Mishpochah,
Yafet.

[Talmid HaYarok]

Well Akiba teaches that Halachic authority was exclusively passed down to the Sanhedrin and through them to the Rabbinic sect that he founded (Orthodox Judaism).

Messianics keep court in the congregation by submitting to the Kehilot.

Either way both groups are composed of humans, and sometimes the majority opposes HaShem's will. If you really believe the group to be opposed to the Lord's will then you have an obligation to follow the Lord first. Something I take issue with Rabbinics on....

Even Rabbi Akiba was cast out of the Sanhedrin originally because his views went against the Beit Din at the time. However, times have a way of changing and later he became head of that same Sanhedrin and instituted his views.

Matthew 10:17

Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their sunagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.

Matthew 15:1-6

Then the Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." he answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, honor your father and your mother, and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God."

I would not say that the Nazarenes accepted the Pharisaic halacha at all, rather they followed the Torah commandments and kept court with each other.

We can not follow the Rabbis for we have one teacher only, who is HaShem.

Shalom

[simchat_torah]

Actually, every sect of Judaism (Ortho, ultra, Chassid, conserv., etc) teaches that their own beit din is exclusive... that's not unique to Akiba. ;-)


Messianics keep court in the congregation by submitting to the Kehilot.


That does not replace the need for a Beit Din, nor does it satisfy Y'shua's establishment there of. Y'shua established a Beit Din and we can see this through the idioms used (shown in the original post, please review).... and we can see it first exercised in Acts 15. In fact, there is historical evidence that the Netzarim held their own Beit Din and were even accepted within Judaism up until the 13th Century.
We know this mostly of writings about them. Very few texts remained from their own hands, though what did remain is mostly from the 2cnd - 5th centuries.


I would not say that the Nazarenes accepted the Pharisaic halacha at all, rather they followed the Torah commandments and kept court with each other.


Actually, the pharisaic halacha and Netzarim halacha only had slight variations. However, the aspects that differed are what defined the two groups from each other.

Shalom achi,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

I nearly forgot to mention....

Later I'll bring to the discussion various pharisaic halacha that Y'shua discussed, taught, upheld and rejected. It is quite an interesting study to see Y'shua's stance on the Halachic decisions of his day.

Blessings,
-Yafet.

[Talmid HaYarok]

Akiba was the one who first made the Rabbinic Beit Din exclusive. Before then it didn't matter what sect you belonged to or what they taught. The Natzerim, P'rushim, Essenes, Sadducees, even the Hellenics were accepted as Jews (even if sometimes heretics).

A Mesith is the charge that was brought against Yeshua by the Sanhedrin. We have in the book of Acts though where Yeshua's followers were declared Mesith and under this Stephen was stoned. 

Under Akiba Natzerim were declared Minim or Minuth.

Of which it is said in Avodah Zarah "No man should have any dealings with Minim, nor is it allowed to be healed by them even  an hour's life. It once happened to Ben Dama the son of R. Ishmael's sister that he was bitten by a serpent and Jacob, a native of Kefar Sekaniah, came to heal him but R. Ishmael did not let him; whereupon Ben Dama said, 'My brother R. Ishmael, let him, so that I may be healed by him: I will even cite a verse from the Torah that he is to be permitted'; but he did not manage to complete his saying, when his soul departed and he died. Whereupon R. Ishmael exclaimed, 'Happy art thou Ben Dama for thou wert pure in body and thy soul likewise left thee in purity; nor hast thou transgressed the words of thy colleagues, who said, he who breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.' - It is different with the teachings of Minim, for it draws, and one may be drawn after them.

The Master said: 'Nor hast thou transgressed the words of thy colelagues who have said, He who breaketh through a fence, a serpent shall bite him.; But a serpent did indeed sting him! - The bite of the serpent of the Rabbis is such as can never be cured."

There is also the traditional curse called the Birkat ha-Minim which states among other things: "May the apostates have no hope, unless they return to Thy Torah, and may the Nazarenes and the Minim disappear in a moment."

Its not the Torah they're really talking about either since historic congregations of Nazarenes in the middle ages and classical period used and kept Torah scrolls. In fact, R. Nahman said: We have it on tradition that a scroll of the Law which has been written by a Min should be burnt, and one written by a heathen should be stored away."

Even today many Orthodox Rabbis never name Yeshua, but call him Yeshu as a derogatory.

There are numerous problems with the Beit Din. First of all there is never an instance in the Torah where it is appliedto religious life rather than civil. Moses had a Beit Din to help settle arbitrations and civil disputes. When it came to religious decrees though it was taken straight to the Lord.

Not only do the Brit Hadash and Talmud make mutually exclusive claims about authority over interpreting the Torah. The Beit Din of the P'rushim and the Akibas Beit Din strongly disagreed with each other. Finally there is never authority given to the Beit Din to supercede a part of the Tanakh. Which is how it is often applied in the Talmud.

The Natzerim and even the Gentile Christians often did old a form of Beit Din in their Kehilot with the appointment of elders. however, I'd have to see some kind of evidence that there was any acceptance of Natzerim in Rabbinic synagogues at any time through the centuries. I simply do not see the violation of Torah Beit Din that you indicate.

I'm enjoying the discussion. Shalom

[Pray4Isrel]

I am learning so much... I am greatly enjoying reading this discussion.
Carry on, carry on :)

[simchat_torah]

"There are numerous problems with the Beit Din. First of all there is never an instance in the Torah where it is appliedto religious life rather than civil."

I will address this more fully, as there are instances where the Beit Din addressed spirituality, however, what I will say is that in a Jew's life thier civil living is seen as a spiritual matter. There is no seperation between, "ok, now it's a spiritual matter" and "ok, now it's a civil matter".

"Finally there is never authority given to the Beit Din to supercede a part of the Tanakh. Which is how it is often applied in the Talmud."

yes, it is unfortunate that in some cases the Talmud took upon itself that authority. However, I would have to agree that the Beit Din is not to supercede the Tenach, it's original foundation should BE the Tenach.

I would like to close this short response with a question... (I've got more coming later)
What would you do in the case where Y'shua gave halachic authority to the Beit Din expressed in the Brit Chadasha?
Would you dismiss this act by Y'shua?
And how about the Beit Din that exercised it's authority in Acts?

shalom,
Yafet.

[Talmid HaYarok]

Actually I do agree that a Beit Din should be established wherever possible. I just don't give them the authority that Rabbinic Jews do to supercede the Tanakh. I believe we should establish courts as arbitrators of disputes within the body of the faithful.

Its not the Beit Din itself I disagree with, but rather the status and usurptive power given to it in Rabbinic Judaism.

[simchat_torah]

"I just don't give them the authority that Rabbinic Jews do to supercede the Tanakh..... the status and usurptive power given to it in Rabbinic Judaism."

I believe that if you study Rabbinic Judaism more closely you will find that they do not accept that they are nullifying the Tenach, but upholding it. It is an outsider's perspective that they are in contradiction to the Tenach... interpretation have you.

[Ruhama]

sooooo Jewish. LOL.

Anyway. Well, I'll take the cynic's place and say "of course they'd say that. Anyone would when doing the same thing in any circumstance."

Seriously though. I think of the passage where the rabbis outsmart God, and God dances around happy that his children have one-upped him. Then I think about how often in the Tanakh God says that mankind is like a drop in a bucket to him, how people need to come to him for wisdom and how his people are forever going their own way and all their sages are blind.

The irony of it all seems to completely miss the rabbis. And of course I accept that they believed they were doing the right thing, but so does everyone.

[Talmid HaYarok]

I believe you'll also find that Messianics don't believe they're nullifying Torah either, but rather fulfilling it.

I just find the Messianic explanations much better.

If you like, I've got a long list of rabbinic decisions that completely contradict the Tanakh. When I'm done moving I can find and post those for you. They include contradicting divorce laws, dietary laws, clothing laws, and laws regarding loans to name a few.

[Hoonbaba]

This is a question based on the very first post:  Are there any books that explain halachic authority in greater detail?  I'm particularly interested in historical sources that refer to this particular authority.  Basically, with nearly everything that was said (even the two semitic idioms used in rabbinical literature), are there any books that expand on the authority, history etc?

Thanks in advance!

-Jason

[simchat_torah]

There are numerous problems with the Beit Din. First of all there is never an instance in the Torah where it is appliedto religious life rather than civil.

Without even tracing ourselves back to the Torah, just look at Acts 15. Here we can clearly see the Netzarim Beit Din ruling on spiritual matters, not civil.



Akiba was the one who first made the Rabbinic Beit Din exclusive.

Acutally, it seemingly was made so after the Romans established their own chosen rabbinical and Cohanim leadership. From this came the official split of Pharisees and Saducees.... as well, the Essenes created their own Beit Din which ruled outside of Jerusalem because they felt Jerusalem was now tainted. IN fact, the Essenes desired to create a seperate officiating establishment rather than the temple... that is what Sha'ul addresses in Hebrews.


Not only do the Brit Hadash and Talmud make mutually exclusive claims about authority over interpreting the Torah. The Beit Din of the P'rushim and the Akibas Beit Din strongly disagreed with each other.

Disagreements between two Beit Din would not nullify the necessity of a Beit Din.

just a thought.

Finally there is never authority given to the Beit Din to supercede a part of the Tanakh. Which is how it is often applied in the Talmud.

First, it is only from a perspective that disagrees with the Talmud that the Beit Din was surpassing the Torah. Any Jew would tell you that the Talmud does not surpass the Torah, but instead uphold it. However, I would not point to the Talmud as a Biet Din. It is a compilation of Rabbinical writings and discussions. A Beit Din is actively involved in a community.

The Talmud is an historical analysis of Rabbinical discussion. It may be used as the Basis for a Beit Din, but it in itself is not Halacha.

The Mishnah however could be argued that it was compiled by a Beit Din, and thus would be binding upon a community. The Talmud is merely commentary on the Mishnah.

As well, in changing times, the way a mitzvah is observed may change from generation to generation. The Talmud and Mishnah are not Torah... they are not the Mitzvot themselves.

In otherwords, a Beit Din today could over rule the Mishnah/Talmud. So... if you feel they are innacurate, and you held a position on a Beit Din, you would be entitled to change the established halacha.


I simply do not see the violation of Torah Beit Din that you indicate.


I'm not sure what you meant by that sentance, but Here's a compilation of some of the Mitzvot from the Torah that deal with forming a Beit Din and how one should act accordingly:

The Court and Judicial Procedure
To appoint judges and officers in every community of Israel (Deut. 16:18) (affirmative).
Not to appoint as a judge, a person who is not well versed in the laws of the Torah, even if he is expert in other branches of knowledge (Deut. 1:17) (CCN64).
To adjudicate cases of purchase and sale (Lev. 25:14) (CCA67).
To judge cases of liability of a paid depositary (Ex. 22:9) (affirmative).
To adjudicate cases of loss for which a gratuitous borrower is liable (Ex. 22:13-14) (affirmative).
To adjudicate cases of inheritances (Num. 27:8-11) (CCA73).
To judge cases of damage caused by an uncovered pit (Ex. 21:33-34) (affirmative).
To judge cases of injuries caused by beasts (Ex. 21:35-36) (affirmative).
To adjudicate cases of damage caused by trespass of cattle (Ex. 22:4) (affirmative).
To adjudicate cases of damage caused by fire (Ex. 22:5) (affirmative).
To adjudicate cases of damage caused by a gratuitous depositary (Ex. 22:6-7) (affirmative).
To adjudicate other cases between a plaintiff and a defendant (Ex. 22:8) (affirmative).
Not to curse a judge (Ex. 22:27) (CCN63).
That one who possesses evidence shall testify in Court (Lev. 5:1) (affirmative).
Not to testify falsely (Ex. 20:13) (CCN39).
That a witness, who has testified in a capital case, shall not lay down the law in that particular case (Num. 35:30) (negative).
That a transgressor shall not testify (Ex. 23:1) (CCN75).
That the court shall not accept the testimony of a close relative of the defendant in matters of capital punishment (Deut. 24:16) (CCN74).
Not to hear one of the parties to a suit in the absence of the other party (Ex. 23:1) (CCN65).
To examine witnesses thoroughly (Deut. 13:15) (affirmative).
Not to decide a case on the evidence of a single witness (Deut. 19:15) (CCN73).
To give the decision according to the majority, when there is a difference of opinion among the members of the Sanhedrin as to matters of law (Ex. 23:2) (affirmative).
Not to decide, in capital cases, according to the view of the majority, when those who are for condemnation exceed by one only, those who are for acquittal (Ex. 23:2) (negative).
That, in capital cases, one who had argued for acquittal, shall not later on argue for condemnation (Ex. 23:2) (negative).
To treat parties in a litigation with equal impartiality (Lev. 19:15) (affirmative).
Not to render iniquitous decisions (Lev. 19:15) (CCN69).
Not to favor a great man when trying a case (Lev. 19:15) (CCN70).
Not to take a bribe (Ex. 23:8) (CCN71).
Not to be afraid of a bad man, when trying a case (Deut. 1:17) (CCN72).
Not to be moved in trying a case, by the poverty of one of the parties (Ex. 23:3; Lev. 19:15) (CCN66).
Not to pervert the judgment of strangers or orphans (Deut. 24:17) (CCN68).
Not to pervert the judgment of a sinner (a person poor in fulfillment of commandments) (Ex. 23:6) (CCN67).
Not to render a decision on one's personal opinion, but only on the evidence of two witnesses, who saw what actually occurred (Ex. 23:7) (negative).
Not to execute one guilty of a capital offense, before he has stood his trial (Num. 35:12) (negative).
To accept the rulings of every Supreme Court in Israel (Deut. 17:11) (affirmative).
Not to rebel against the orders of the Court (Deut. 17:11) (CCN158).


(the above list was taken from www.jewfaq.org)

Finally...


Its not the Beit Din itself I disagree with, but rather the status and usurptive power given to it in Rabbinic Judaism


I agree. However, I think that this is the perceived power by outsiders of Judaism. Any Rabbi would tell you that a Beit Din is not to supercede any Mitzvah in the Torah. Instead, a halacha BY DEFINITION is to tell you HOW TO observe that mitzvah. Not destroy it, change it... but enact it upon your life in a living way.

Shalom!
Yafet.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat_Torah questioned:

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 would suggest reading the links below. You might reconsider James Trimm's "authority"....

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdoc.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/rabbiyosef.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdiploma.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/yeshiva.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/saintjohn.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/critictrimm.htm

[Shamash Of Yeshua]

I am at a point that I am not believing just anyone. For one Yeshua said that he would send the Ruach which would instructed us and comfort us. Yet I see one verse which someone pointed out in that it says you won't get the Ruach unless you are living a righteous life. I have to say that YHWH knows everyones heart and therefore will give the Ruach to those who are doing all they can to obey Him.
In the writings it also says to Test the Spirits. It also says you will know them by their fruits in terms of the people around you. Well people can hide the way they live to a certain point and live that way for years without anyone knowing. So how do you tell who the Liars and Truth bearers are in that case. Well I would have to say if you are giving all things in your life in YHWH's hands through Yeshua then I would have to conclude He will give you the Ruach to know the Truth and it will set you free from the Worldly ones who would try to steer you from the ways of YHWH. That would include those who are trying to bind you in all the Traditions of the Pharisees as well.
So I would say we have a mission that would take up our lives. We must live in YHWH daily and die as well to the World. I would have to say it is very hard. For one I could have had a job by now if I didn't say I don't work on Shabbat. As well as other things in my personal life that I have held onto. So if we hold onto things and don't give ALL to YHWH then we are hindering what the Ruach can do through us and also in teaching us Truth according to YHWH.
Are we confused yet ;)

May the peace that transcends all understanding be with you,

Tag

[simchat_torah]

Shalom Higher Truth,


Did Y'shua denounce the authority of the beit din of his time because of unrighteousness, or because of non-belief in the Messiah?


I would like to begin by stating that I feel the Beit Din of Y'shua's day was rejected by HaShem not due to the rejection of the messiah, but because of the general lack of care towards Torah observance.... aka: unrighteousness.

Because of the specific statements form Y'shua (especially centered around the cursing of the fig tree) I don't think the Beit Din was rejected on the basis of acceptance of the messiah.

That is my personal opinion, and obviously it is up to debate. I am not making that statement as a 'end all be all', but instead I am opening up the discussion to all of you!


What about the authority Y'shua passed to Kepha? Does it currently exist?


I don't know.
That's what I want to discuss. Let's get to the bottom of it.


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.


That is what I am leaning towards.

On an intersting note... The expectancy of the messiah in the first century was that he would correct misguided halacha.


With the Netzarim beit din under James Trimm?


excellent question.

quick diversion here:
I have studied the sites you posted at great length. The majority of the claims are completely unfounded.

They attack Saint John Chrysotom Theological Seminary on the basis it is non-accredited. Merely because a theological institute does not offer accredited courses does not invalidate a degree earned there. The author goes on to state that Texas does not endorse educational credits from Saint John Chrysotom Theological Seminary, but that is meaningless whe speaking of spiritual learning centers... as they only need to be recognized within the ranks of their denominational ties.
The author's haggling on this issue would reside with SJCTS, not with Trimm. SJCTS has stated publically that they did in fact bestow an 'earned' doctorates to James Trimm. The author's beef would then fall upon the seminary, not Trimm himself.

They attack James Trimm on the timing of his degree... stating that the time he claimed to have studied for, taken classes, and received his degree is too short to be real. They cite that it takes 3 years to earn a Masters. I am currently applying to the University of Illinois' MBA Program. The specific MBA, known as one of the most repsected in the world, is an MBA in IT management. The courses for this degree last two years. It is one of the most rugged MBA certifications in the country, and yet I am able, on the University's own schedule, to receive a Masters in two years. The claim made by the author of the sites you posted is simply unfounded and not any reason to attack Dr. Trimm.

The author goes further to attack James Trimm on the basis of his messianic beliefs. There are numerous links on that site that attack a multitude of messianic theologies.

They also attempt to state James Trimm does not have a doctorates because of spelling errors found within e-mail documents he has sent. First, since when does one's own personal email validate their doctoral status? Second, how does the ability to spell perfectly affect one's doctoral status? Third, and most ironic of all, is that the site itself contains spelling errors!

Irony is such a cruel mistress...

They make false claims that Trimm rejects the messiah... when blatantly on his website he affirms the Messiahship of Y'shua (among many many many other false claims).

The author claims that Kabbalah is evil and of the occult, and since Trimm teaches Kabbalah, he obviosly is not of G-d. Several other such 'measuring sticks' are used.
These 'measuring sticks' would fall under the category of:
1) opinion
2) as well as misunderstanding

It's clear that the author has no true understanding of Kabbalah, but that is all aside the fact when evaluating Trimm for his credentials.

I could go on and on...
The cited websites are ridiculous and unfounded in their claims. period.

on a personal note:
I have spoken with Trimm on the phone, via email, and in discussion forums. In fact, I was involved in a few of the classes offered online via the Netzarim Yeshiva.

I can say that Trimm is greatly misunderstood, very often misrepresented, despised by christians because of his Jewish influence, and despised by Jews for his belief in the messiah.

I can also say that he is a man with unfathomable wisdom.

Does his beit din hold the halachic authority bestowed by HaShem? I doubt it, for many reasons I would rather not share... but yet the Netzarim Beit Din was at one point a contendor for that title in my mind.


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.


Not necessarily. For example, before Trimm's Beit Din there was no 'messianic beit din'. Does that necessarily mean that because Trimm established one that the authority was suddenly bestowed upon them after having been non-existent for nearly a thousand millenia? (I say this because the Netzarim themselves existed until the 13th century)

It would have to be proven that merely because a Beit Din is messianic they automatically have halachic authority approved by Ruach HaKodesh for us to believe that Trimm's beit din automatically is the only candidate for 'halachic authority'.

I have much more to say, but I'm afraid I'm going on too much as it is.

Shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

I will also point out that the site presented concerning James Trimm also attacks him on the basis that he teaches "we are under the law"...

*gasp!*

[Higher Truth]

Simchat_Torah said:
The majority of the claims are completely unfounded.

HT response:
All articles that I read were footnoted.

Simchat_Torah:
SJCTS has stated publically that they did in fact bestow an 'earned' doctorates to James Trimm.

HT:
You should check that website again. It has been shut down.

http://saintjohnchrysostomtheological.netfirms.com/

Simchat_Torah:
The cited websites are ridiculous and unfounded in their claims. period.

HT:
Once again, check the footnotes.

Simchat_Torah:
I can say that Trimm is greatly misunderstood, very often misrepresented, despised by christians because of his Jewish influence, and despised by Jews for his belief in the messiah.

HT:
If the Christians have a problem with him, it is probably because of writings like these, not his "Jewish" influence:

http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/get_ready.htm



Shalom

[simchat_torah]

Simchat_Torah said:
The majority of the claims are completely unfounded.

HT response:
All articles that I read were footnoted.


I have pointed out many erroneous claims... such as, "James Trimm rejects Yeshua as the messiah."

Numerous such claims exist scattered throughout the documented website... and no footnotes are provided for these claims. They are unfounded, biased, and come completely unprovoked.


Simchat_Torah:
I can say that Trimm is greatly misunderstood, very often misrepresented, despised by christians because of his Jewish influence, and despised by Jews for his belief in the messiah.

HT:
If the Christians have a problem with him, it is probably because of writings like these, not his "Jewish" influence:

http://www.teshuvah.com/articles/get_ready.htm


Granted, it's a short article... but it's packed full with blatant truths. It's an excellent read.

What's the problem?

Shalom,
Yafet.

[simchat_torah]

Still... defending trimm was not the intent when I started this thread. In fact, in my post above, I showed why we don't necessarily have to turn to trimm and the netzarim if one concludes that a beit din must be 'messianic'.

Even more so, I conceded that a beit din does not have to be messianic, but the first century beit din was rejected because of unrighteousness.

Later I will show why I believe this to be true.

-Yafet.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat_Torah stated:
I have pointed out many erroneous claims...such as, "James Trimm rejects Yeshua as the messiah".

HT:
I would say to check the "fruit" according to Galatians 5. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is erroneous to many.


simchat_Torah said:
Granted, it's a short article... but it's packed full with blatant truths. It's an excellent read.

What's the problem?

HT:
The problem is simply that people with no Jewish Heritage should not be claiming that they are Jewish, then making antagonistic statements towards the Christians which in turn makes the Christians angry at Jews. Also, they should not be offering "conversions" to Judaism when they have no authority.Mr. Trimm is trying to sell off a heritage that he clearly does not have any rights to. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 are very clear about these actions.

I would suggest that you re-read the following:

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdoc.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdiploma.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdiploma2.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmletters.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/rabbiyosef.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/yeshiva.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/saintjohn.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/critictrimm.htm

[simchat_torah]

He never claimed to be Jewish in that article.

I'm a bit confused. Are you trying the same tactics as that website?

[simchat_torah]

one more quick note... but please, let's return to the topic, ok?


Simchat_Torah stated:
I have pointed out many erroneous claims...such as, "James Trimm rejects Yeshua as the messiah".

HT:
I would say to check the "fruit" according to Galatians 5. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that it is erroneous to many.


From Jame's Trimm's website (www.nazarene.net):

Statement of Faith

III. MESSIAH

We believe that Y'shua (Yahushua) HaMashiach has come and with great joy we anticipate his return, and even though he may delay, nevertheless we think about his return every day.

We believe he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life in accordance with the Torah, performed miracles, was crucified for the atonement of his people in accordance with the Scriptures, was bodily resurrected on the third day. ascended to heaven and currently sits at the right hand of YHWH. He will return at the end of this age to usher in the Kingdom of ELOHIM on earth and will rule the world from Jerusalem with his people Israel for one thousand years.




I don't really need to evaluate the 'fruit of the spirit' to see if he teaches a belief in the messiah... I only need to open my eyes and read.


What the heck, here's the rest of the 'statement of faith' on Trimm's website. I'm only posting it directly so that the gossip stops, and everyone can see for their own eyes what he believes/teaches:


Statement of Faith


I. YHWH

We believe that YHWH is one (ECHAD).

We believe that YHWH reveals Himself in many ways, characteristics and sefirot, including those of Father, Word (Memra), and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit).

II. BIBLE

We believe that the Bible, which includes both the Tanakh [Old Testament] and the "New Testament" is the divinely inspired, infallible Word of ELOHIM in its original texts and manuscripts.

III. MESSIAH

We believe that Y'shua (Yahushua) HaMashiach has come and with great joy we anticipate his return, and even though he may delay, nevertheless we think about his return every day.

We believe he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life in accordance with the Torah, performed miracles, was crucified for the atonement of his people in accordance with the Scriptures, was bodily resurrected on the third day. ascended to heaven and currently sits at the right hand of YHWH. He will return at the end of this age to usher in the Kingdom of ELOHIM on earth and will rule the world from Jerusalem with his people Israel for one thousand years.

IV. SALVATION

We believe that through the death of Messiah, because of his blood covenant with us, we receive salvation by way of inheritance. This salvation comes by faith through grace alone and is not earned by Torah observance.

V. TORAH

The Torah of Truth the Almighty gave to His people, Israel, through Moshe. He will not exchange it nor discard it for another until heaven and earth pass away. We believe that Torah observance is mans moral obligation and expression of love to YHWH.




Now, Higher Truth, had the website you're quoting from actually investigated what Trimm teaches, they would not have made so many false claims. It's called Lashon Hara.

see here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=860918#post860918

Shalom,
Yafet.

[SonWorshipper]

Even more so, I conceded that a beit din does not have to be messianic, but the first century beit din was rejected because of unrighteousness.

So would this mean that the Pope and all the Bishops, Cardinals would fit the mold?

:)

[Talmid HaYarok]

The Church council might, it wouldn't be possible for any individual to be a "Beit Din" unto themself.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat_Torah stated:
He never claimed to be Jewish in that article.

HT:
That is probably one of the few times that he hasn't, although it was alluded to.

Simchat_Torah said:

I'm a bit confused. Are you trying the same tactics as that website?

HT:
Spoken like a true James Trimm follower. If you do not like the message, roll out the accusations. [slander, Lashon Hara, etc.]


Simchat_Torah stated:
I don't really need to evaluate the 'fruit of the spirit' to see if he teaches a belief in the messiah... I only need to open my eyes and read.

The Messiah said:

Mat 7
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mar 7
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

Simchat_Torah said:
What the heck, here's the rest of the 'statement of faith' on Trimm's website. I'm only posting it directly so that the gossip stops, and everyone can see for their own eyes what he believes/teaches:

The Messiah said:

Mat 7
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.


Simchat_Torah stated:
Now, Higher Truth, had the website you're quoting from actually investigated what Trimm teaches, they would not have made so many false claims. It's called Lashon Hara.

HT:
Lashon Hara [evil tongue] is a "shield" that many of todays non-Jews who claim to be Jewish hide behind when their activities are questioned publicly. The other one that is abused is the cry of anti-Semitism, which is ironic, because many of them [Mr Trimm included] aren't really Jewish.If you frequent the Messianic Jewish forums, there are many accusations being leveled currently against Mr Trimm and his organization. These include having a false doctorate, plagarism [HRV], false Jewish claims and a host of others.I would suggest that you research how the Messianic Jewish Movement, as well as many of todays Orthodox Jews feel about these false claims, especially the claim of being born Jewish. If people do not pass the "hitler test" [one Jewish grandparent] then they should not be claiming a Jewish heritage, or trying to "merchandise" a heritage that does not belong to them.[see Revelation 2:9 and 3:9]


something just released:

http://www.seekgod.ca/hargisnewsflash.htm

also,you may have missed this:

http://www.seekgod.ca/critictrimm.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmdiploma2.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/trimmletters.htm

http://www.seekgod.ca/arnnemail.htm

Shalom

[SonWorshipper]

OK, guys, I have got to step in here. The title of the post is Halachic Authority, and what that entails. It is not about James Trimm. If you would like to debate over this man I would suggest our new debate forum in IDD. You can both present your evidence and hopefully settle it there.

But this is not the place. If you don't choose to debate in public then you may continue this through PM's.

Thanks!

[Ruhama]

heh, nevermind then http://luvjc.net/emoticons/signs/0086.gif

[simchat_torah]

I'm not continuing the debate... I'm merely defending myself...

I am not a trimmite... fyi.

I am not going to take on any specifics of this debate, but rather just state my standing on the whole issue:

I choose to look at it without bias, that is all. I do not worship him and think he's infallible... but I do not slander him either. I see the value in what he teaches, yet I do not consider him or SANJ to be the valid beit din of today.


Now, I do not want to continue this debate... because it's an old horse that does not need beating over and over again...

however, I will continue to publically defend myself and against L'shon Hara if need be. It's not some card hidden up my sleeve... it's called "open eyes".

Shalom,
Yafet.

[Higher Truth]

Simchat_Torah,

Thanks for presentiing your opinion

Shalom

[SonWorshipper]

This might be of interest to you Yafet

This is a Link-------> Due Process:
A Plea for Biblical Justice Among God's People (http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/DueProcess.htm)

Kingdom Authority Has Been Transferred The parable in Matthew 21:33-46 (which is found in the other synoptic Gospels as well) brings out the truth that the authority of the Kingdom of God on earth has been transferred to the apostles. This truth is also implied in Matthew 16 and 18. However, the authority transfer is explicit in this passage. The parable of the landowner is one of the few allegories in the New Testament. We are presented with a landowner who put his vineyard under a group of vinedresser stewards. When the landowner sought to collect the fruit of the vineyard, the vinedresser stewards beat his servants and killed one. Other servants were sent and treated the same way. Finally the son of the landowner was sent, but they even killed the son. A question is then asked: What will the owner of the vineyard do to these unfaithful stewards when he comes? The points of reference are clear. Israel, the people of God, is the vineyard of God. The religious leaders are the stewards. They have a historic heritage of mistreating and even killing the prophets of God. Finally, they seek to destroy the Son of the Owner of the vineyard. The Son of God the Father is Jesus. The people rightly answer the question, that the owner will destroy those wicked men and give his vineyard to other vinedressers. For our purposes, verse 43 Is Important. Jesus said: Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. This verse is sometimes wrongly understood to be a prophecy of the Church replacing Israel. However, the vineyard is Israel and all who are grafted into the olive tree. It is not a replacement of Israel that is in view, but a replacement of the ruling elite. The word "nation" in Greek can have broad meanings, referring to a tribe or societal group as well as to a concept related more to our modern nation?states. Obviously Jesus is speaking here of an authority transfer.

The Appointing of Elders The original apostles appointed elders to carry on the functions of teaching the Word, of ordering the congregation in spreading the gospel and in maintaining discipline in the life of the congregation. The Book of Acts shows Paul leaving his congregations in the hands of a plurality of elders in city after city (Acts 14:23). They were given the authority to rule and by implication to judge and to bind and loose. Timothy was given the authority under Paul to appoint elders. The instructions given to him are crucial in understanding the role of elders and the standards for choosing them. Titus was given similar instructions in the letter written to him (chapter 1). We shall emphasize the instructions in First Timothy 3. I believe the terms "elder" and "bishop" (overseer) describe the same function. However, this book was not written to settle the question of God's type of government structure. Most of what we say can be applied to different structures of government. (The booklet, Models of Accountability, addresses this question of government structure.)

[simchat_torah]

wow, interesting. I'll have to read that more after a night's sleeeeeeepppppppppp....

*snore zzzzz snore zzzz*

[simchat_torah]

So, SW, according to the parable you are referencing, who has this 'authority' today?

shalom,
Yafet.

[SonWorshipper]

Well that depends on who you ask ;)

[koilias]

According to the Jerusalem School's research on the parable of the Vineyard in Matthew's gospel, Matthew (who is a Notzar) meant his word "ethnos" to mean not "nation" but "people"; this word should not be understood as a translation for "goy" but as a translation for 'am (ayin-mem). Matthew means specifically the transfer of the priesthood (the tower, migdal, represents the temple, and the tenants are the priests) to another people within Judaism, not to another "nation". If the "gentiles" were intended he would have used the word "ethnoi" in the plural (standing for "goyim")!

It is an inner Jewish debate! Otherwise, Matthew is no Jew, for no Jew would claim that God was to reject His people!

[simchat_torah]

Well that depends on who you ask


hehe.... I was asking you

;)

[Henaynei]

On following codified Rabbinic dinim:

We believe that Talmud should be followed unless it can be proven that it conflicts or countermands Torah.

We believe that HaShem has allowed and used the Rabbinic Halakah over the last 2000+ years to secure and preserve Judaism, the Jewish people and His word.

On current Halakic authority:

We believe that Yeshua did ordain a Beit Din among His followers, however their existance ceased less than 100 years later. The only remaining body of Halakah from that Beit Din is the Ketuvim Natzrim (a.k.a. Brit Chadasha).

We believe that while greatly needed and scripturally supported, there is no body in MJ at this time that is qualified to sit as a Beit Din.

To qualify three Jewish Orthodox Messianic men must be both deeply learned in Torah, T'NaKh, Ketuvim Natzrim and Talmud AND must have an historically Orthodox observant lifestyle for themselves and their family. There is nowhere in MJ today where such men can be found. G-d willing, one day, but it is not today. In addition, these men must be accepted by the majority of the MJ community as honorable, worthy and of sufficient authority to compose a Beit Din.

It would be the root of confusion, derision and apostasy to have every small MJ community doing "that which seemeth right" in their own eyes with their own Beit Din.

Shalom,
Henaynei

[simchat_torah]

Ketuvim Natzrim

I have always preferred this term but have refrained from using it because most messianics are unfamiliar with it.


To qualify three Jewish Orthodox Messianic men must be both deeply learned in Torah, T'NaKh, Ketuvim Natzrim and Talmud AND must have an historically Orthodox observant lifestyle for themselves and their family.

Could you give your reasons why these men must necessarily be Messianic?

That's really what I wanted to get to the bottom of in this thread.

Thanks, and Shalom
Yafet.

[Henaynei]

I have always preferred this term but have refrained from using it because most Messianics are unfamiliar with it.
(K’tuvim Natzrim = Nazarene Writings - a.k.a. Brit Chadasha)
No one will become familiar unless we use it :0)

Could you give your reasons why these men must necessarily be Messianic?

That's really what I wanted to get to the bottom of in this thread.I now have to admit to a bit of cowardice. I am being enough of a nudge in other postings - I figured to not stir up an hornet's nest by leaving out Messianic, preferring to diffuse digression from the topic - only to find out that IS the topic!!! LOL "best laid plans of mice and men...."

I guess the best answer would be that G-dly Torah observant men (preferably rabbis) who at least recognize that Yeshua was a good and G-dly Jewish Rabbi, taught a legitimate school of Judaism and who's Jewish followers remain Jewish, would adequately surfice until G-d raises up an appropriately trained Messianic Beit Din.

However, it does seem like there will be various instances where the point in question might be specifically based on the K'tuvim Natzrim and non-Messianics are not likely to give the KN adequate weight in thrie determinations. For instance, Sh'aul's teachings "are hard" to comprehend and normative Judaism, indeed much of normative Christianity AND Messianic Judaism, believes he taught either against Torah or at the very least taught a new religion. Those that so believe could not be counted on to make good halakic decisions that bore on any of the Pauline writings.

Humbly,
Henaynei

[koilias]

[QUOTE=Henaynei For instance, Sh'aul's teachings "are hard" to comprehend and normative Judaism, indeed much of normative Christianity AND Messianic Judaism, believes he taught either against Torah or at the very least taught a new religion. Those that so believe could not be counted on to make good halakic decisions that bore on any of the Pauline writings.

Humbly,
Henaynei[/QUOTE]
Not too hard to comprehend. We gentiles are already getting there. Not all of us, but a sizable few. All that needs explaining is the Notzri/Hasid doctrine of " מעשי חסד ואמת" (Gen. 24:27).

I look forward to the decisions of your beit-din.

Blessings...

[Henaynei]

For instance, Sh'aul's teachings "are hard" to comprehend
Not too hard to comprehend. We gentiles are already getting there. Not all of us, but a sizable few. All that needs explaining is the Notzri/Hasid doctrine of " מעשי חסד ואמת" (Gen. 24:27).
Kefa seems to say differently. Even the learned rabbis of his day had trouble with Sha'ul's meanings at times. How much more so as we get further and further from an understanding of rabbinic logic methods and of historical Judaism? As you may recall, misunderstandings of what he was teaching was getting him in some very hot water and eventually got him killed.

Kefa Bet (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=2pe+3&version=str&showtools=0)



3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our L-rd is salvation; even as our beloved brother [Sha'ul] also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And if rabbis of his day, having the same teaching as he, misunderstood, how much more rabbis of today who have an historical understanding of the KN that it is anti-Jewish. This is one of the reasons a Beit Din to which the MJ movement could submit would have to also be Messianic.

G'mar Khasima Tovah
May your fast be easy

[simchat_torah]

Henaynei,

I'm curious... what is your stance on Halachic authority in today's times?

Should we submit ourselves to a Beit Din? If so, does one exist that we should place ourselves under?

shalom,
yafet.

[simchat_torah]

how much more rabbis of today who have an historical understanding of the KN that it is anti-Jewish.


Actually, today those undertones are being torn down.

[simchat_torah]

for an explanation of what I said in the previous post... see here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t36714

[Henaynei]

Henaynei,

I'm curious... what is your stance on Halachic authority in today's times?

Should we submit ourselves to a Beit Din? If so, does one exist that we should place ourselves under?

shalom,
yafet.
I would LOVE it *if* there was an halakic authority within MJ that was truly authoritative - "but there ain't." :( I state this based on my evaluation as stated in posts above.

I do believe we NEED one but just don't see one arising for quite a number of years. In fact it may not happen before the great persecution arrives.

Until then I am caught in a catch 22 - I need an authority to which I can submit but the local rabbis (chabad) won't even let me do tevilah in their mikvah. So I try to study and read as much about Torah and the traditions as possible and apply what I learn.

The positive side of this is that I tend to take the more strict interpretation.

What is your answer to your question??

[simchat_torah]

Henaynei (or anyone for that matter):

Would you be opposed to submitting yourself to an Orthodox (non-messianic) Beit Din?

[Henaynei]

Henaynei (or anyone for that matter):

Would you be opposed to submitting yourself to an Orthodox (non-messianic) Beit Din?In principle, no - my only reservations are these:
A - will they honor my submission to and acceptance of Yeshua's halakah
B - various schools of orthodoxy lean heavily on Jewish mystic theology that are contrary to Torah.

[simchat_torah]

I have been studying the implications of the cursing of the fig tree. I'm preparing to share more about this very soon... I think it relates very closely to cursing the beit din at the time for lack of Torah fruit.

more later.
shalom,
yafet.

[Henaynei]

I have been studying the implications of the cursing of the fig tree. I'm preparing to share more about this very soon... I think it relates very closely to cursing the beit din at the time for lack of Torah fruit.

more later.
shalom,
yafet.
Hmmmmm.......

sits quietly and waits.......