I will have to check that out sometime. I have come to respect the Oral Law although I still have disagreements with some things in current halakhah. I am doing my best to submit to this leadership of Israel and their interpretation of the Torah. I used to fight this very hard and was learning from only Karaite sources and I mocked the idea of an Oral Law. It wasn't till after I really tried to apply Torah in everyday life today that I realized how important Oral Law is and how necessary the system is for a nation that is run by a legal system.

The philosophy in Karaism just doesn't work and history proves that they too need an oral law (which they adopted much from rabbinic teachings anyway). They have judges who make decisions today based on their understandings of Torah as it is written and based on understandings that have been passed down to them by other Karaite leaders in history, who got many of their ideas from Misnah/Talmud.

Andrew

Toby - Great post! I think we can go a lot further with this. It really confirms a lot of some ideas I've been developing over the last several months. I think this is a key to help us understand a basic principle regarding the work of Yeshua.

In regard to the spiritual leadership of Israel during the first century, Yeshua did not come to negate the Oral Torah (as many of us already know, but we would do well to emphasize this point here). He came to 1) expose, rebuke & correct hypocrisy and 2) make the Torah accessible to the "am ha'aretz," the common person - the "average Joe" (so to speak).

At this point in history, Torah study and mitzvot had almost completely been relegated to the aristocracy. There was a great chasm between the "learned" and the am ha'aretz. Yeshua's rebuke is often quoted ending with the first portion, "They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders." However, the heart of the matter is found in the latter part in which he said, "but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger."

This is huge! Yeshua's rebuke worked! The word of Hashem that he spoke did not return void. They did not fall on deaf ears. The difference between the "burdens" the common man faced during the time of Yeshua and the Oral Torah of today is this very principle. We cannot equate the Oral Torah with the "burdens" that the hypocrits, during the time of Yeshua, had placed on the general populous.

Although I do not believe we should follow the Oral Torah blindly, nor in its entirety (for various reasons associated with our Master), we have to recognize that these are two different animals, and speak out against the slanderous accusations from those who are ignorant (not "dumb," merely uneducated in this particular area) of the differences.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject.

shalom,
-dh

***Toby's Comments*** Darren I think these are great points. This is such a sensative topic it much be approached carefully and slowly. That's why I appreciated this book because it gives great background for whatever one's position is.

So what would do the heavy burdens refer to? Would you know some examples?

***Toby's Response*** This is a good question and somewhat tough to answer. I would say I am still working this all out in my own life. To give an explicit answer when Yeshua Himslef doen't is tricky. Probably expect to see more on thsi in the future.

B"H

Another thing we should remember is the Master's rebuke of the hypocrites. What is a hypocrite? A hypocrite is someone who knows better; one who knows the proper standard, but refuses to follow it. Hypocrisy is claiming to have moral standards to which one's own behavior does not conform.

By the Master calling the Pharisees of his day "hypocrites," he wasn't denouncing their system of belief or practice. Rather, he did this because they weren't consistently practicing what they claimed to practice. More than that, they were conspiring to kill him.

Everyone has an oral torah, because everyone has an interpretation. Either you can have an interpretation that aligns with the historical practice of Judaism, or you can have an interpretation based upon your individual whim.

T. Janicki said: "It was very important that whenever the Sages were interpreting and applying Torah Law that they always made sure that the people were not overburdened. "

My opinion and thoughts: I think the above statement is the problem. What one person thinks is a burden or not a burden is an individual choice. The sages were making that decision for the masses. I'm not saying Torah is open to interpretation but we all have various perspectives and we are not all at the same level. What this means...I don't know. I just know that when any individual starts dictating to others, problems arise. One person thinks something is too strict...another thinks it is too relaxed. Perhaps some issues were meant to be gray and not black and white. But Yeshua obviously thought the pharisees were burdening the people. But Yeshua also said those that love Him were those that kept the commandments. Striving to live in a community where there are differences is what builds character in us. (iron sharpens iron). Some things would be much easier if we had detailed instructions but we don't.

One additional point about interpretation and having our own ideas: It sounds to me like the L-rd rebukes us for exalting our ideals over ourselves and others in Isaiah 2. We will fling our idols far from us in that day.....but every knee will bow to the Holy One of Israel...

***Toby's Response:*** To spring board off something you said, when Yeshua says in Matthew 11:30, Matthew 11:30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" although he says His burden is light He nevertheless calls it a burden.

I think this can be healthy discussion and I'm enjoying it. Let's keep it positive. This is a hot button topic.

The problem that we often tend to see in the Messianic community regarding the relevancy of the Oral Torah--and whether or not we should consult works like the Mishnah or Talmud--is that many come from backgrounds where the Protestant montra of [I]Sola Scriptura[/I] or Scripture Only was hammered so strongly that only the Bible was allowed to be consulted for formulating doctrine.

The clear problem with this is that the Reformers themselves [B]never[/B] followed [I]Sola Scriptura[/I] in this way; they consulted the historical and traditional information that was available to them in the Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries. We just happen to have access to substantially [B]more[/B] information, and are the beneficiaries of renewed contact with the lands of the Bible.

The role of traditions as seen in the Mishnah, Talmud, or even the Church Fathers, is to weigh opinions on matters which the Bible may not directly or indirectly address. While tradition should not overrule Scripture, it should neither be discarded as unimportant, either. The challenge that we will undeniably have as the Twenty-First Century plows ahead is what we will do with issues that are not only not addressed in the Bible, but are not seen in secondary or tertiary sources, either.

In my young and possibly pre-mature view of things, it seems that these very questions regarding the oral law are the things that test the heart and actions. Although I cannot remember where, someplace justification is given for not wearing Techelet on one's Tzitziot because the natural resources that make the dye possible are no longer available. As many of us know, the majority of mainstream Judaism does not wear Techelet. I have also seen some Messianic men not wear Techelet as well, but we all know that this a commandment from Torah that many of us recite twice daily. We have certain identity markers that differentiate us from both the Church and maninsteam Judaism, and HaShem in His infinite wisdom knew that these things would test our hearts. To use the analogy, the Techelet of our Messianic faith is visible to all who see us. Those who do not wear Techelet may become offended or even ignore us altogether. We may become despised and rejected just as the Master was, but we have to be prepared for that. The matter of Techelet on Tzitzit, is just a question that I have been asking myself lately, but it is bigger than just a simple (and even a bit more expensive from some Judaica stores) mitzvah. It is a matter of identity. I have barely begun to open any of the Oral Writings, but I definitely see use for them in enhancing and helping with a Torah life. I pray that we can remember who we are, and why we follow Yeshua, and what that means for us in how commandments are carried out. If G-d allowed these tings to be written, then let's use them with caution and understanding. After all, we have alot of Torah to learn.

Humble Thanks,
Wade

***Toby's Response*** Excellent thoughts, Wade.

Responding to J.K.McKee;
You bring out some very good points. I want to add that I very much appreciate the sages writings even though I may not understand a lot of them (not that I've read them all either). I believe it's because of their whole-hearted devotion and work that we owe the preservation of the Torah. The constant seeking for the L-rd helps shed this western mindset I've inherited but it is a constant battle. I guess the whole process is good though - as it serves to keep me humble.

Nice comments, it's almost like we're creating our own commentary on the Mishna/Talmud! I just read Lancaster's chapter on the Oral Torah last night - perfect timing! I like how he stated Yeshua following and kept much of the Oral Law - but when it strayed from the written Torah He rebuked it.

I think it is great you are taking on this subject. And that Toby has considered it openmindedly. I will take on now, obtaining this book to openmindedly consider it coming from the opposite end. But I have to be aware at all times that if men who knew Yeshua have erred so in their commentaries since he rose back to his Abba, then any commentaries written by men, who no only did not know the Living Torah but adamantly denied him, have to taken also with a grain of salt. Maimonides errs in several places at least in adding to Scripture on just his plain listing the 600 plus. And that is the problem. To say that amounts to heresy in some peoples minds. He was not Hashem. Nor was he Y'shua. He was fallible. Wise certainly, but not infalible. When we begin with a premise a man like him who certainly knew Scripute more than I will ever know, but who make a list with errs that we take as if it is God's Word, the results have errors in them too. That is the problem with the Oral Law. It was compiled by men who'd rejected the Messiah. And how are we to figure out which parts they messed up on? Certainly not all of it. But obvously right there in Maimonides list, assumptions are made that are contrary to Scripture. But I will get the book and study this more closely out, over proper time, in prayer. Because I have found every Protestant theologian also have made great, great, error.

***Toby's Response:*** Let em knwo what you think of the book. Remember it is highly technical and may seem dry to some . Just a warning.

Let us examine institutionalism vs relationships. In our society today most if not all are institutionalized. Even in Messianic gatherings this institutionalism prevails. Christ's main battle of the time was with the institutions not with individuals. Institutions seek a profit.

Relationships on the other hand require more time and Love as in I Corinthians 13. A relationship takes alot of time and is not profitable in most cases. G-d proves this in numerous situations throughout the Bible. Expense is not an issue. Time in the relationship is the issue and as a true believer should we be more relationship oriented?

***Toby's Comments*** Good point! I think though that relationship can be found in the context of halachah. Sort of like the protocols of that relationship. Something to think about for sure.