Why we need another way

Recently I received two pieces of writing on the topic of which foods are permissible for Jews to eat. One author, calling himself a Messianic Jew, argued that we can eat "anything" and that it would be wrong to make any restrictive rules, since this is what "Paul's writings" say. The other, an Orthodox Jew, discussed the intricacies of different (contradictory) rulings concerning whether one is allowed to eat a certain kind of vegetable if there is a possibility that a Gentile might have touched it at some point. He concluded that in some cases it is ok.

Right now I don't want to get into all the reasons why each of these "authoritative" and widely accepted opinions is (in my own humble opinion, of course) wrong, unbiblical, illogical, and offensive. I hear these two kinds of opinions over and over and over from these two camps, and I simply don't have the energy to keep responding to them every time. I just want to point out that we desperately need a different way. A true way. A way that is based on what Torah actually says -- about food and everything else in life.

Rabbinic Judaism vs. Torah: Who Will Win?

Recently I have been struck more and more by the extent to which rabbinic Judaism, while loudly claiming to uphold and promote Torah, actually denies and violates Torah.

A good example is the practice of kosher hotels in Jerusalem providing holiday meals to thousands of observant Jews every Pesakh, Shavuot, Rosh haShana, etc. To do so they must press into service an army of employees, both Jewish and Gentile. This is absolutely and unequivocally forbidden by Torah, which makes it clear that both the Israeli and the foreigner in the land are to rest and not work on shabbat (Exodus 23:12; Deuteronomy 5:14). Yet the practice is not only condoned by rabbinic Judaism, but actually nurtured and encouraged.

In talking with orthodox rabbinic Jews, it often becomes clear that the reason they do not follow Torah (despite claiming to) is because they do not believe Torah (despite claiming to). Over the centuries, rabbinic Judaism has invented all sorts of ways to make the text seem to mean just about anything except what it actually says! This applies to the shmita, the seventh-year rest of the land from agriculture; it applies to the claim that Re'uven did not really sleep with Bilhah, his father's concubine, though Genesis 35:22 says explicitly that he did; and it applies of course to numerous other scriptures.

Rabbinic Judaism does follow an observance that is in some way derived from or based on Torah. But there is always a twist, which usually distorts the actual mitzvot. One non-Jew who came to live in Jerusalem for a while noted that rabbinic Judaism seems to consist mainly of making up lots and lots of new rules that God never commanded, and then finding ways to get around the ones He did command! That's not a bad summary, sadly.

This system creates not only an entirely different view of Torah (than what results from simply reading the text), but also, therefore, a very different view of God, of life, of one's self, of one's community, of one's obligations and goals, and so forth. Despite all claims to the contrary, the lifestyle and mindset of rabbinic Judaism are often very far removed from those of Torah. It makes a difference whether one believes that the fathers sinned -- seriously and frequently -- or whether one instead insists, in blatant denial of what is recorded, that they were completely righteous and flawless. It makes a difference whether one believes that the foreigner in Israel should rest on shabbat or that we should set aside this clear commandment for the sake of our own convenience and pleasure.

The list of examples could go on and on. One topic that is often mentioned is the ridiculous and discriminatory insistence on matrilineal descent in defining Jewishness, despite universal acknowledgment that Torah operates primarily (if not exclusively) according to patrilineal descent. Or the intentional avoidance of work and army service by many ultra-orthodox Jews. There is ample evidence to prove that rabbinic Judaism -- while chanting Torah! Torah! Torah! -- has actually been fighting against the plain sense of the Torah for about 2,000 years. And this destruction of Torah is usually supported by the most nonsensical reasoning, which a child could see through but adults refuse to question. (I know that "nonsensical reasoning" is an oxymoron; but how else is one to describe the convoluted rationalizations?)

I am here to say that there are some of us Jews who actually want to follow Torah! Because the Torah, the teaching, of God gives life. It is what will give true life to our nation, and to the foreigners in our midst, and to the world. (See Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11, 20:13; Nehemiah 9:29; etc.) It is what can give the dati (religious) and the khiloni (secular) fruitful and peaceful life. But the latter needs to set aside his aversion to God's ways. And the former needs to set aside his aversion to God's ways.

Currently rabbinic Judaism is far ahead of Torah in the minds and hearts of Israel. Can we change that? Please?

L'chaim!

Shabbat, fire, and modernity

לֹא־תְבַעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּי֖וֹם הַשַּׁבָּֽת׃

שמות לה, ג

Do not burn fire in all your dwellings on the Sabbath day.

Exodus 35:3

What does this commandment mean?

One of the problems we face in trying to keep the commandments of Torah is that most people (anywhere in the world) are not interested in doing so. That makes things harder, since society is not set up to enable observance of the commandments. Rather, we have to struggle against the stream.

Another problem is that even within the minority that does claim to follow Torah, most people do not follow Torah itself but rather an accumulation of centuries of tradition and rabbinic (or other) rulings. These traditions frequently modify, transform, distort, or set aside the actual commandments of Torah. So even those who say they are following Torah are usually not following what it actually says, but something else altogether.

So what about those of us who want to keep Torah in accordance with the actual meaning of the commandments and within our modern life setting? We have to consider each commandment afresh and seek to discern its applicability today. This same question is faced in every age.

With regard to (not) burning a fire on shabbat, the commandment itself sounds pretty clear. However, a number of questions do arise. Here are some of them:

- Does this mean not to start a fire on shabbat, or not to have a fire burning at all?

- What about those who live in cold climates? (One possible answer to this question is that Torah was given as national law for Eretz Yisrael.)

- By saying "in all your dwellings" (בכל משבתיכם), does the mitzvah leave open the possibility of burning a shabbat fire "outside" one's dwelling? E.g., a bonfire in the park? a barbecue in the back yard? (Note that the fire on the altar had to be kept burning by the priests even on shabbat. See Lev. 6:8-13 / ויקרא ו‫,‬ א‫-‬ו . Cf. Maty. 12:5.)

- What is 'fire', beyond the obvious? Is an internal combustion engine (such as in an automobile) an example of fire? The words we use to describe it suggest that it is. But should we adopt a modern scientific definition of 'burning' or 'combustion' -- "the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species," according to Wikipedia -- when seeking to apply ancient Torah to our lives? Or should we try to think only in terms of what 'fire' (i.e., אש) would have meant to Israelis 3,000 years ago?

- By considering such questions and (hopefully) settling on a general approach, are we creating "our own halacha" just like the rabbis have done? Does it make a difference if one says, "This is my opinion, but you may have a different understanding -- or your time/place may require a different observance"? One crucial aspect of rabbinic halacha is that it is considered to be authoritative. In other words, you and I are supposedly obligated to follow what the council of rabbis has decided. But if one does not adopt this attitude, instead according freedom and discretion to all, is that a better solution?

I found a couple places on the web arguing that Exod. 35:3 was only talking about an "industrial fire" -- and thus fires for cooking, warmth, etc. would be ok on shabbat. However, I personally can't see how that interpretation stems from the text.

I know there are various opinions on the shabbat & fire commandment even among the contributors to this blog! I'd be interested to hear your views.

Biblical Sukkot and Rabbinic Sukkot

וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הָרִאשׁ֗וֹן פְּרִ֨י עֵ֤ץ הָדָר֙ כַּפֹּ֣ת תְּמָרִ֔ים וַעֲנַ֥ף עֵץ־עָבֹ֖ת וְעַרְבֵי־נָ֑חַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵ֛י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֖ם שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃ -- ויקרא כ"ג, 40

And take to yourselves on the first day [of Sukkoth] fruit of a majestic tree [or: majestic fruit of a tree], hands [i.e., fronds] of palms, and a branch of a leafy tree and of brook willows, and rejoice before HaShem your God seven days. -- Leviticus 23:40

When I read this commandment, I imagine a joyful folk festival: men, women, and children going down to the brook in a cheerful throng, gathering up different kinds of plants, and waving them happily before the Lord. It's spontaneous, free, colorful, and pretty devoid of ritual. Could be a nice time for a picnic; and certainly there are lots of children running around, laughing, shouting.

The rabbanim interpret this verse differently. An entire tractate of the Talmud forms the basis for their notions regarding the proper laws of Sukkot: the permitted size, shape, and materials of a sukkah; how many meals to eat during the week; the right size for the palm fronds; which kind of fruit-tree is "majestic" (hadar); what kind of points the lulav and etrog have to have to be 'kosher'; etc., etc. Since Mishnaic times many volumes of additional commentary and pronouncements have further defined the rabbinic interpretation of Sukkot. With regard to the verse cited above, the rabbinic regulations specify when the four species (arba'at ha-minim) may be waved; what prayers must be said before, during, and after waving; the precise manner in which they must be waved; the proper technique for taking all four together; and on and on. In other words, the rabbinic observance of this commandment is as ritualized as can be.

I believe in a much, much freer observance of God's commands, based on the spirit of the Torah itself. The rabbis insist on a standardized, controlled, sanctioned, ritualized observance of their massively expanded interpretation of Torah. Which of us is correct?

עשרת הדברים

Yesterday I decided to read about לוחות הברית (the tablets of the covenants) to see how one might come to the interpretation that מלאך יהוה (the Angel of the LORD) wrote them. As a side note, there are some that claim that the Angel of the LORD is a pre-incarnated Yeshua, which is another topic altogether.

This brief investigation brought me to some interesting thoughts, not necessarily related to the Angel of the LORD.

First of all, the account of giving the tablets appears in Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10. In both places the same phrase is used that they were written באצבע אלהים (the finger of God). This seems to be the primary basis for this argument. To be fair I've never heard the argument developed fully, only references as if it is widely understood and accepted. Why are believers so uncomfortable with anthropomorphisms? Why does every reference, for example, to God's right hand have to be Yeshua?

As I looked at the passages I noticed some other things. The "Ten Commandments" are listed in Exodus 20, but the description of giving the tablets, referred to as לוחות הברית או לוחות העדות (the tablets of the covenant or of the testimony), isn't until chapter 31. In Deuteronomy the "Ten Commandments" are in chapter 5, but the tablets are given in chapter 9. What's interesting is that there are other commandments given in the chapters in between, in both books. My first thought was why then are the "Ten Commandments" thought of being the ones written on the tablets. Then as I read more I realized that it is indeed explicit in the text.
ויגד לכם את בריתו אשר צוה אתכם לעשות עשרת הדברים ויכתבם על שני לחות אבנים (Deut. 4:13; cf. Ex. 34:28, Deut 10:4)

Clearly it is significant that God commanded to write these particular ten utterances on tablets of stone. But did He intend such a huge separation of understanding between these ten things (note that they are not all commandments) and the rest of His commandments? What I mean by this is the way some state that the Ten Commandments are what we must all keep for all time, but the rest of the Torah has passed away.

Maybe we get this division from Yeshua?
The only reference Yeshua makes to the Ten Commandments, that I am aware of, is the well-known story of the "rich young man" (Matt 19; Mark 10).
When asked what one must do to inherit eternal life Yeshua responded, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself". (Matt. 19:18)
I only count 5 out of the ten, and he adds this thing about loving your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). Was his memory that bad?

When asked what is the greatest commandment, he forgot the "Ten Commandments" completely . He responded with love God (Duet 6:5) and love your neighbor (Lev. 19:18). All of the Torah and the Prophets hang on these two.

שמירת מצוות התורה - ציציות

Much has been said in our circles on the question of 'observing Torah' - most of it in the abstract. Instead of theory, let's talk specifics! What does it mean for us today when Adonai says:

דַּבֵּ֞ר אֶל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֔ם וְעָשׂ֨וּ לָהֶ֥ם צִיצִ֛ת עַל־כַּנְפֵ֥י בִגְדֵיהֶ֖ם לְדֹרֹתָ֑ם וְנָ֥תְנ֛וּ עַל־צִיצִ֥ת הַכָּנָ֖ף פְּתִ֥יל תְּכֵֽלֶת׃ וְהָיָ֣ה לָכֶם֮ לְצִיצִת֒ וּרְאִיתֶ֣ם אֹת֗וֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם֙ אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֹ֣ת יְהוָ֔ה וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־תָתֻ֜רוּ אַחֲרֵ֤י לְבַבְכֶם֙ וְאַחֲרֵ֣י עֵֽינֵיכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֥ם זֹנִ֖ים אַחֲרֵיהֶֽם׃

[Num. 15:38-39]

He says בגדיהם in the plural - does this mean we have to 'make tassels' on every single piece of clothing? Not only, say, a shirt or tunic; but also pants, jackets, socks, pajamas, hats, kipot? But wait; ציצית is singular! Was God's intention that we make one huge tassel for all the garments of Israel? Or that we each have only one tassel? Or one tassel per garment? It's confusing!

The more I think about it, the more questions arise! Does תכלת just mean 'blue', or does it refer to the color of a special dye manufactured from a certain species of sea creature? Do the non-blue tassels have to be the same color as the garment, to show they are part of it? Or maybe they should be a different color, to highlight their special function?

What about current rabbinic practice: instead of adding tassels to regular garments, 'Orthodox' Jews simply make a separate, special piece of clothing with tassels to wear every day (טלית קטן). Does that satisfy the commandment of Torah? Or how about Reform-style practice, wearing no טלית קטן but a טלית גדול once a week (or a year)? Incidentally, do the tassels have to show on the outside, or can I tuck them into my other garments? Should women also have ציציות, or is this commandment just for men?

In just a few minutes, I've come up with several questions related to how to keep this commandment. And I could go on and on. The words of the מצוה do not themselves answer my questions. So what do I do? The response of rabbinic and rabbinic-like Judaisms has been to try to standardize every single detail, to answer every single possible question with an "authoritative" prescription. A council of rabbis (or other 'clerics') decides what "must" be done - and that becomes the "doctrine" or teaching of the religion or denomination.

My view is the opposite. If God left it unsaid, where do these councils get the hubris to impose conformity on a free people? To put themselves in the place of God and issue additional מצוות to כל עם ישראל? To forbid what is not forbidden by Torah itself? Why do they even want to control every aspect of everyone's behavior? Is this not totalitarianism?

The wording of this commandment, as well as many others, leaves open the possibility of a wide variety of forms or styles in observance. In my opinion, each of us should make an effort to keep this commandment. Personally, I see no problem with one person wearing טלית קטן every day, another wearing טלית גדול only on shabbat, a third attaching green (and blue) fringes to his yellow football shirt, and a fourth wearing a brown poncho with brown and blue fringes. What in the world is the problem with this?? Only fascists want to eliminate all variety from life and force everyone to think and act identically.

God said for us to have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments; i.e., of how He wants us to live. We should therefore have ציציות on our clothes as a visual reminder of His commandments. What we should not do is to ignore this instruction completely. We should also not ignore it in part, (e.g.) by explaining away the need for a blue cord. Yet neither should we obsess over what isn't clear. Not all details have been given, leaving many questions open to a multiplicity of interpretations. The possible existence of a variety of practices (ways of keeping this commandment) should be viewed as a positive phenomena and deeply enriching to Jewish life. Most importantly, none of us should attempt to impose one particular interpretation of these unprescribed details on everyone else. That does violence to God's commandments and also to the creativity and freedom He has implanted in every human spirit.