Matt. 23

[Dawid]

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.

Thank you. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying, and it helps me to restate things, so that they're clearer in my mind.
I certainly agree with your thoughts on the Minhagim and on the rabbis overruling the prophets. Especially when it is stated that they do not even listen to voices from Heaven.

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.

The new Sanhedrin was established by an interesting method that is recorded in the Talmud as being the proper method for establishing a new Sanhedrin. It's fairly complicated, and I don't remember exactly how it worked, but I think it's fairly easy to find online.
I noticed yesterday that the term in Acts when they were bringing the issue of new converts to the "Apostles and Elders" the term for elders is the same as is used in the Gospels when Yeshu'a was brought before the priests and elders. It was elders that made up the Sanhedrin...I know that it's often thought that the Apostles formed a Beyt Din (which makes sense) but do you think that the Elders formed a N'tzari Sanhedrin?

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, ruining 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).

Exactly. But if you point this out then you are accused of being arrogant, because you are saying that three thousand years of tradition are wrong. Thus leaving one in a bit of a quandary.
Also, we know that Yeshu'a is living Torah, so he is part of the old wine. The Torah is simply his autobiography, and the Gospel is simply its explanation.

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.

It is tough. That's why I asked you. <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: --> The calendar is such a frustrating issue. Dark of the moon, or sliver? Hillel or Karaite? weekly Sabbath or high Sabbath? First month or seventh month?
Yes, yes, yes! We need to establish a Beyth Din, at least. We need Yeshivot. We need a Siddur and various festival Haggadot. This is one reason that I am anxiously awaiting PEACE, and why I am working on the Siddur project.
Are you familiar with the Jerusalem Council organization?

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.

I think that would be a very important step. If we could just make peace amongst ourselves and agree to disagree it would be a huge step in the right direction.
I am somewhat the same. I am Karaite in theory (i.e. I reject the idea and authority of Torah SheBa'al Peh) but largely rabbinic in practice (sometimes Conservative, sometimes Orthodox, sometimes even Chassidic).
There are some issues, though, where I think we can disagree as individuals and not have to follow majority practice. There are other issues, community issues and such, where it is better to follow majority practice, because it effects others. In my community, though, if I were to follow the Hillel calendar, that would put me in just about the smallest minority. So here it is actually best to follow the Karaite calendar, as it has one of the largest followings. (a small N'tzari community, but the people follow at least three and possibly four different calendrical methods. For cryin' out loud. <!-- s:dontgetit: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/dontgetit.gif" alt=":dontgetit:" title="Dont Get It" /><!-- s:dontgetit: --> )

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."

I agree with this. However, what do we do when, in the N'tzari community, probably close to half follow the Karaite reckoning?
We also have a lot of Americans. That means that they're rugged individualists. They insist on doing it their own way no matter what. Trying to make everyone happy on issues like the Sacred Name is next to impossible.

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.

But in the first century there was less disagreement as far as the calendar goes. The P'rushim also followed a system based on the moon and the seasons. As far as determining the new month and the new year there would be no real difference between them and the Zadokim. I've heard that the Sanhedrin wants to go back to the ancient calendar, but I don't really know.
So we should follow the Hillel calendar with the clear statement that it is a tradition, not a mitswah?

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

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions and all, Akhi. I am very much in agreement with you on most of these points.

Shavua tov,
Dawid