05-04-2008, 02:41 AM
Shlama Akhi Dawid,
Yes, I think you apprehend my position quite well. I would add though for clarity's sake that it is not the individual's authority on Torah alone, but the collective wisdom of all the elders of Israel ruling on the WRITTEN TORAH of Moshe. There are many things that the previous Sanhedrin added before being dissolved in the fourth century that were not helpful. The whole idea of minhagim, "a custom in Israel is law" just doesn't sit right by me. It seems to arbitrary and randomized. The ideas of Eruvin 21b and Rambam's introduction to the Mishmah about the 1001 rabbis trumping the judgment of the 1000 prophets of Eliyahu's status saying contrary, I have major issues with too. These things continued in smaller but un-unified councils of the middle ages and into the new Sanhedrim we have now.
There are many who rightly point out that the new Sanhedrin was never authorized from an un broken chain from Moshe to the elders and through Y'shua's time as the old one was (at least in legend). I suppose the new Sanhedrin believes it has simply carried on the prevous one's commands and rulings through the preservation of the Talmud and other sources, and I think a decent--but not overwhilemingly compelling--argument can be made that they knew what the previous version did and they carried it over intact in spite of a 16 century gap.
Now, Y'shua clearly taught in Matti 15 that the traditions of men should not overpower plain understanding of Scripture, or overturn clear Scriptural practice. Y'shua though claims many times that the Pharisees do just that "and then you make a son of gehenna twice as bad as yourselves". The reason is those disciples are not wedded to writtern Torah but to TAKANOT and mitzvot d'chakhanim. As if the Torah (and I include Brit Chadasha here) needed REPAIRING??? What an arrogant claim! That is why, again, Y'shua said that no one drinking the old wine needed the new, because when the new doctrines of men invade the wineskin of Torah, it bursts open, runing the lot that was perfectly sweetened over the long count of years from Sinai to now. (And since Tanakh contains prophecies of Messiah Y'shua, his teachings are part of that perfect wine, but not man made stuff during and after).
So, with that said, let me answer your other question:
I know you are pressed for time, but I would like to ask about current situations. Your feelings on the Sanhedrin. If it gains recognition, what will be your reaction, based on this? Should we keep the Hillel calendar, and the Orthodox reckoning of the Omer, even if we believe, as I do, that it is inaccurate because they have misplaced Bikkurim?
Well, this is a toughie isn't it? This is one of the things that divide or small numbers into infnnititely smaller separated sects, and we don't need that. But on the other hand, we don't need to follow the Sanhedrin that, even at this very hour, considers Y'shua's Gospel a lie. But we can learn one thing from them: If they can re-form their halachic body that was broken in the fourth century, we Netzarim can and should do the same thing. I have written extensively about how this should be done, and much of what I am doing with Mari/PEACE is meant to address one issue of great importance--namely an NT Masorah/liturgy--but it goes much deeper than that. We also have to set up Netzarim yeshivas and standardized ordinations for Rabbis. Then, it is only from these folks, that we can set up the Sanhedrin and have them rule on these matters.
In the meantime, we need to establish some kind of "moedic toleration treaty" with all Netzarim worldwide. We can express our beliefs as being derived from Scripture as we best understand it, but not to go to war on matters of timing. I am personally mostly pro-Rabbinic in my practice but I do admit places where the Karaites have some valid points as well that may clarify things, but not overturn majority practice.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for worshipping in unity with the vast majority of Yehuda even as we reject their theology elsewhere. I would personally like to see some kind of language that basically says: "We follow this Rabinic system even though we know it is flawed and incomplete, and we extend no malice to the few who do otherwise so long as they keep the heart of the Torah requirement in general time, space, message and intention. We do this, expecting in return that those who are under minority systems like the Karaites will not accuse us of base motives and power mongering, but realize that this is the starting point of future halachic discussion."
Now, of course I also know that even if those discussions conclude successfully there will always be a group of folks who will disagree forever with its findings. For them, I would extend similar toleration language and even issue joint calendars and build up infrastructure so that any pious Netzari who wants to keep moedim can do so in whatever system he desires under the auspices of unified practice.
It should be pointed out again that Y'shua never disagreed with Pharisaic timing, even though he knew other religious minorities he talked to did. Still, he kept their calendar even while knowing it might not be 100% accurate. I submit then that for now, we can follow his example, but wait eagerly for all questions to be answered upon his Second Coming. But to embrace Hillel II's calendar (or perhaps it should be called Maimonides' calendar given some inconvenient facts) uncritically and give it a veneer of perfection is simply NOT kosher, but it may be the best we can do prior to Y'shua's return.
If it makes you feel a little better though I believe it far more likely that Y'shua will return long before these steps I have outlined will be completed.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Yes, I think you apprehend my position quite well. I would add though for clarity's sake that it is not the individual's authority on Torah alone, but the collective wisdom of all the elders of Israel ruling on the WRITTEN TORAH of Moshe. There are many things that the previous Sanhedrin added before being dissolved in the fourth century that were not helpful. The whole idea of minhagim, "a custom in Israel is law" just doesn't sit right by me. It seems to arbitrary and randomized. The ideas of Eruvin 21b and Rambam's introduction to the Mishmah about the 1001 rabbis trumping the judgment of the 1000 prophets of Eliyahu's status saying contrary, I have major issues with too. These things continued in smaller but un-unified councils of the middle ages and into the new Sanhedrim we have now.
There are many who rightly point out that the new Sanhedrin was never authorized from an un broken chain from Moshe to the elders and through Y'shua's time as the old one was (at least in legend). I suppose the new Sanhedrin believes it has simply carried on the prevous one's commands and rulings through the preservation of the Talmud and other sources, and I think a decent--but not overwhilemingly compelling--argument can be made that they knew what the previous version did and they carried it over intact in spite of a 16 century gap.
Now, Y'shua clearly taught in Matti 15 that the traditions of men should not overpower plain understanding of Scripture, or overturn clear Scriptural practice. Y'shua though claims many times that the Pharisees do just that "and then you make a son of gehenna twice as bad as yourselves". The reason is those disciples are not wedded to writtern Torah but to TAKANOT and mitzvot d'chakhanim. As if the Torah (and I include Brit Chadasha here) needed REPAIRING??? What an arrogant claim! That is why, again, Y'shua said that no one drinking the old wine needed the new, because when the new doctrines of men invade the wineskin of Torah, it bursts open, runing the lot that was perfectly sweetened over the long count of years from Sinai to now. (And since Tanakh contains prophecies of Messiah Y'shua, his teachings are part of that perfect wine, but not man made stuff during and after).
So, with that said, let me answer your other question:
I know you are pressed for time, but I would like to ask about current situations. Your feelings on the Sanhedrin. If it gains recognition, what will be your reaction, based on this? Should we keep the Hillel calendar, and the Orthodox reckoning of the Omer, even if we believe, as I do, that it is inaccurate because they have misplaced Bikkurim?
Well, this is a toughie isn't it? This is one of the things that divide or small numbers into infnnititely smaller separated sects, and we don't need that. But on the other hand, we don't need to follow the Sanhedrin that, even at this very hour, considers Y'shua's Gospel a lie. But we can learn one thing from them: If they can re-form their halachic body that was broken in the fourth century, we Netzarim can and should do the same thing. I have written extensively about how this should be done, and much of what I am doing with Mari/PEACE is meant to address one issue of great importance--namely an NT Masorah/liturgy--but it goes much deeper than that. We also have to set up Netzarim yeshivas and standardized ordinations for Rabbis. Then, it is only from these folks, that we can set up the Sanhedrin and have them rule on these matters.
In the meantime, we need to establish some kind of "moedic toleration treaty" with all Netzarim worldwide. We can express our beliefs as being derived from Scripture as we best understand it, but not to go to war on matters of timing. I am personally mostly pro-Rabbinic in my practice but I do admit places where the Karaites have some valid points as well that may clarify things, but not overturn majority practice.
On the other hand, there is something to be said for worshipping in unity with the vast majority of Yehuda even as we reject their theology elsewhere. I would personally like to see some kind of language that basically says: "We follow this Rabinic system even though we know it is flawed and incomplete, and we extend no malice to the few who do otherwise so long as they keep the heart of the Torah requirement in general time, space, message and intention. We do this, expecting in return that those who are under minority systems like the Karaites will not accuse us of base motives and power mongering, but realize that this is the starting point of future halachic discussion."
Now, of course I also know that even if those discussions conclude successfully there will always be a group of folks who will disagree forever with its findings. For them, I would extend similar toleration language and even issue joint calendars and build up infrastructure so that any pious Netzari who wants to keep moedim can do so in whatever system he desires under the auspices of unified practice.
It should be pointed out again that Y'shua never disagreed with Pharisaic timing, even though he knew other religious minorities he talked to did. Still, he kept their calendar even while knowing it might not be 100% accurate. I submit then that for now, we can follow his example, but wait eagerly for all questions to be answered upon his Second Coming. But to embrace Hillel II's calendar (or perhaps it should be called Maimonides' calendar given some inconvenient facts) uncritically and give it a veneer of perfection is simply NOT kosher, but it may be the best we can do prior to Y'shua's return.
If it makes you feel a little better though I believe it far more likely that Y'shua will return long before these steps I have outlined will be completed.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth