Reflections on Issues in Judaic Law and Lore

By Dr. Martin Sicker

The fundamental basis of Judaism, as is well known, is the Torah, the teachings contained in the Pentateuch, the five biblical books the composition of which is traditionally attributed to Moses. These teachings may be grouped in two basic categories, matters between man and man, individually as well as societally, and matters between man and God. The basic guidelines that apply in matters between man and man are referred to as mishpatim or ‘ordinances,’ whereas those applying to matters between man and God are referred to as ‘statutes.’ The fundamental distinction between the two categories is that the ‘ordinances’ are subject to human judgment, whereas the ‘statutes’ are not; the divine reason for them a mystery, about which people may speculate but cannot know for certain.
The present work is primarily concerned with four ‘statutes’ that have direct and significant impact on the lives of those committed to compliance with them. Since simply rejecting any of them is not an acceptable option, over the millennia since their codification in the Torah efforts have been made to deal with them under conditions that are significantly different from those that prevailed at the beginning of their revelation. Given that the ‘statutes’ as set forth in the Torah cannot be tampered with, issues have been raised regarding how they are to be applied in the contemporary Jewish world. These reflections are not intended to propose answers to those issues, but only to clarify their significance and their present treatment in the various schools of Judaic thought.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Feb 22, 2023
• ISBN: 9781669868309

Dr. Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle Eastern geopolitical and cultural history, with a special focus on Jewish history and religion. He is the author of 62 previous books on these subjects as well as on geopolitics, political theory, and political economy.

Book preview

Copyright © 2023 by Dr. Martin Sicker.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Rev. date: 02/22/2023

Xlibris

844-714-8691

www.Xlibris.com

848004

CONTENTS

The Question of Dogma in Judaism

The Dietary Laws

Sex, Marriage, and Forbidden Carnal Relations

Remembering and Observing Shabbat

References

Notes

The Question of Dogma in Judaism

A perennial issue among students of Judaism is whether the Jewish faith is predicated on a set of dogmas that constitute its creed. As defined by Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1979), ‘Dogma’ is (1) a doctrine; tenet, belief. (2) a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion; dogmatic utterance. (3) In theology, a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and authoritatively affirmed. With regard to the applicability of these definitions to Judaism, the first appears to be generally acceptable. However, the applicability of the second definition is contentious, and the third is fundamentally inapplicable because the necessary empowered authoritative body did not and does not exist in Judaism.

It has been pointed out that every religious system has developed certain fundamental principles regarding God, His attributes and His relation to man, which are known as dogmas, and a certain order of ceremonies which serve as aids toward the fuller realization of these dogmas or doctrines. Judaism also has its dogmas and observances, but the position of dogma in Judaism is quite different from that which it occupies in other religions. The number of the Jewish articles of faith has never been definitely settled, nor has even their exact significance been firmly established. Attempts have been made time and again to formulate a Jewish creed, and some of these received general recognition, but none enjoyed authoritative sanction.¹

Accordingly, "if we understand dogma to mean selected beliefs or teachings set down by competent authority as the sine qua non of Jewish faith and thereby distinguished from and valued as more important than other beliefs and teachings of Judaism, it is reasonable to conclude that classical Judaism, as reflected in Scripture and rabbinic literature, is devoid of dogmas. The absence of dogma in traditional Judaism ought not to be surprising. There is nothing in the nature of monotheistic faith that necessitates its being presented in creedal form. Judaism, as expressed in biblical and rabbinic texts, does not specify some beliefs as dogmas."² Elaborating on this point, it has been argued,

Taking the word ‘dogma’ in a somewhat restricted sense, it might be said that Judaism has no dogmas, and therefore no regular orthodoxy. It is obvious that in a positive religion classical phrases would pass from generation to generation as the ancient and holy message of religious truth. Wherever there exists a treasury of faith, a depositum fidei, it is expressed in sacred words in which sounds the ringing, swinging song of revelation and of history. But it does not constitute a dogma in the most precise sense of the word. It becomes one only when definite formulas have been worked out in clear cut conceptions, and have been declared binding by an established and competent authority, as signifying the religious deposit, in the acceptance of which lie orthodoxy and salvation.

None of these presuppositions are to be found in Judaism. There was no necessity for secure, inviolable formulas; for these are only necessary when there lies at the heart of a religion a mystical, consecrating act of faith, which alone can open the door to salvation, and which therefore demands a definite form of conceptual presentation which can be handed down from age to age. Such actions procuring salvation and such gifts of grace are unknown to Judaism; it possesses no such effective actions to bring heaven down to earth. . . . Thus there was no necessity to create and hand down any decisive formulas or creeds to guarantee stability and security.³

Moreover, it has been argued, "In speaking of dogmas it must be understood that Judaism does not ascribe to them any saving power. The belief in a dogma or a doctrine without abiding by its real or supposed consequences (e.g. the belief in creatio ex nihilo without keeping the Sabbath) is of no value. And the question about certain doctrines is not whether they possess or do not possess the desired charm against certain diseases of the soul, but whether they ought to be considered as characteristic of Judaism or not."⁴

In response to a question regarding conversion to Judaism, it has been pointed out that "in other religions it suffices to adhere to a credo and thereby become, ipso facto, a member of a new faith. . . . Not so with Judaism. Not only does Judaism refrain from seeking converts . . . it even places difficulties in the path of conversion. This is because Jewish law does not limit itself to dogmas; it aims, above all, for a distinct way of life down to its minutest details. For the Jew the act has more value than the affirmation; acts alone give meaning to faith."⁵

With regard to the concept of a ‘Jewish faith,’ it has been suggested that faith is the implicit and absolute belief in the truth of the communication made to us and in the trustworthiness of him, who makes it to us. . . . Time, investigation, and extended observation and knowledge may either confirm the contents of our faith or may convince us that we have been in error. . . . Whatever can be known by means of scientific research and thorough investigation we need not accept on faith . . . [Jewish religion] does not only not forbid such examination, but even encourages it. Thus we read in the Book of Proverbs, ‘A fool believeth every word, but the prudent man looketh well to his going’ (xiv. 15). For this purpose God has given us intellectual faculties that we should employ them in our search for truth.⁶ Considered from a traditionalist perspective, it might be asked:

Does Judaism provide us with an accepted uniform ‘Weltanschauung’? By ‘Judaism’, we do not mean any Judaism—conservative, liberal or reform—but the Judaism, the traditional Judaism, that derives from the Written and Oral Law. This definition is not given arbitrarily, but is justified by two self-sufficient reasons. Firstly, we are convinced that our Law is God-given and that men are thus not at liberty to alter it. Secondly, like any other culture, Judaism is not immune from foreign influences. The Jews, who for two thousand years have lived among strange peoples, are more subject to the dangers of assimilation than other people. That is why the more we have recourse to the more recent sources, the less can we feel certain that we are receiving the real view of Judaism rather than a view based on an admixture of cultures. On the other hand, if we turn to the most ancient source of all, the Book of Books, we can rest assured that we have the opinions of Judaism, and those alone.⁷

Nevertheless, over the past millennia students of the Torah have interpreted the biblical texts in a variety of ways that complicate the notion of a consistent body of principles that Jews are bidden to internalize and to reflect in practice. The Torah itself does not posit a set of principles, but does allow for such principles to be inferred from what is revealed. As Moses put it: The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut. 29:28). This verse "affirms that the Torah is for all the members of the Congregation of Jacob and not only for philosophers and thinkers. It is therefore not surprising that ‘the Torah spoke in the language of mortals,’ that is, in a language intelligible to all audiences and readers and left it to thinkers to draw conclusions from the things said, and to speculate on that which is unsaid."⁸

In the latter regard it has been suggested that "Although traditional Judaism has very few dogmas, at least three can be discerned, especially when seen in the light of their modern denials. One, the written Torah (minimally the Pentateuch), is the direct revelation of God (torah min ha-shamayim), even though there is much that can be said about the human transmission of the revealed text. Two, the Jewish legal tradition (halakhah), often called the Oral Torah, is the normative interpretation, application, and supplement of the precepts of the Written Torah, even though there is much flexibility in that interpretation, application, and supplementation. Three, the destiny of the Jewish people (and most likely all humankind with them) will not be fulfilled until the final redemption, including the bodily resurrection of the dead by God, even though that can hardly be described by any human mind short of it actually happening."⁹

It is noteworthy that "the Bible itself hardly contains a command bidding us to believe. We are hardly ordered, e.g., to believe in the existence of God. I say hardly, but I do not altogether deny the existence of such a command. It is true that we do not find in the Scripture such words as: ‘You are commanded to believe in the existence of God.’ Nor is any punishment assigned as awaiting him who denies it. Notwithstanding these facts, many Jewish authorities . . . perceive, in the first words of the Ten Commandments, ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ the command to believe in His existence."¹⁰

Philo of Alexandria

It is noteworthy that the question of the existence of Judaic dogma was pursued in ancient Egypt by the Judaeo-Alexandrian school of thinkers, especially by Philo of Alexandria, who clearly attempted to articulate a set of fundamental beliefs as being dogmatic in character:

In his account of the creation of the world, Moses teaches us also many other things, and especially five most beautiful lessons which are superior to all others.

In the first place, for the sake of convicting the atheists, he teaches us that the Deity has a real being and existence. . . .

In the second place he teaches us that God is one; having reference here to the assertors of the polytheistic doctrine; men who do not blush to transfer that worst of evil constitutions, ochlocracy, from earth to heaven.

Thirdly, he teaches, as has been already related, that the world was created; by this lesson refuting those who think that it is uncreated and eternal, and who thus attribute no glory to God.

In the fourth place we learn that the world also which was thus created is one, since also the Creator is one, and he, making his creation to resemble himself in its singleness, employed all existing essence in the creation of the universe. . . .

The fifth lesson that Moses teaches us is, that God exerts his providence for the benefit of the world. For it follows of necessity that the Creator must always care for that which he has created, just as parents do also care for their children. . . . ¹¹

Considering that Philo was probably the first Jew to attempt to formulate articles of faith in writing, it has been pointed out that It is worthy of note that Philo’s five principles have been formulated in response to views current in his day which he felt to be against the spirit of the Jewish faith. In other words, his statement of what a Jew should believe is conditioned by the special denials of his age, which required to be combated.¹² However, the teachings of the Judaeo-Alexandrian school had little influence on the evolution of Judaism and their doctrines were never treated as authoritative.

The Karaites

Many centuries later, an offshoot from rabbinic Judaism known as Karaites, adopted the position of the ancient Sadducees that rejected the Pharisee teachings of traditional Judaism, and sought to base their belief system exclusively on the written Torah.

The Karaites appear to have been "the first to formulate Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a systematic order. . . . According to Judah Hadasi (1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their dogmas include the following articles: 1. Creatio ex nihilo; 2. The existence of a Creator, God; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as incorporeal; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God; 5. God has given us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not wanting the addition of the so-called Oral Law; 6. The Torah must be studied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language; 7. The Holy Temple was a place selected by God for His manifestation; 8. Resurrection of the dead; 9. Punishment and reward after death; 10. The Coming of the Messiah, the son of David."¹³

Rabbinic Judaism

Turning to mainstream Rabbinic Judaism, a critical source text is found in the Mishnah, which asserts¹⁴:

All Israelites have a share in the world to come, for it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever; the branch of my planting, the work of my hands that I may be glorified [Isa. 60:21].¹⁵

And these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law, and [he that says] that the Law is not from Heaven, and an Epicurian [Apikoros].¹⁶ R. Akiba says: Also he that reads the heretical [uncanonical] books, or that utters charms over a wound and says, I will put none of the diseases upon thee which I have put upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee [Ex. 15:26]. Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its proper letters [that is fully articulating the Tetragrammaton YHVH].

It has been noted that this Mishnah is the only explicit instance in rabbinic literature of a systematic attempt to spell out those beliefs which a Jew must hold in order to merit salvation. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this text served as the springboard for attempts to define the principles of Judaism.¹⁷ Accordingly, "This passage was considered by the Rabbis of the Middle Ages, as well as by modern scholars, the locus classicus for the dogma question. . . . The Mishnah in Sanhedrin, however, has, if only by its position in a legal tractate, a certain Halachic (obligatory) character. And the fact that so early an authority as R. Akiba made additions to it guarantees its high antiquity. The first two sentences of this Mishnah are clear enough. In modern language, and positively speaking, they would represent articles of belief in Resurrection and Revelation."¹⁸

The belief in the ultimate resurrection of the dead appears to have been generally accepted by the sages of the Talmud, but not necessarily by the broader educated Jewish public, there being no clearly stated biblical stipulation concerning such a belief. This raised the question of why the sages posited a denial of resurrection for those who questioned the basis for the belief. In response it was taught, Since he denied the resurrection of the dead, therefore he shall not share in that resurrection, for in all the measures [of punishment or reward] taken by the Holy One, blessed be He, the Divine act befits the [human] deed.¹⁹ That is, the divine reaction is ‘measure for measure.’ This led to an intensive study by the sages of biblical texts that might be read as implying belief in resurrection of the dead.²⁰ With regard to one who maintains that the Torah was not divinely revealed, "Our Rabbis taught: Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and had broken his commandment, that soul shall be cut off [Num. 15:31]: this refers to him who maintains that the Torah is not from Heaven."²¹

In his major study of the teachings of the sages (the Mishneh Torah) as recorded in the Talmud, Maimonides elaborated on the issue of those that have no share in the world to come:

These are they who have no share in the world to come, who are cut off and destroyed and are judged on account of great wickedness and sins forever and ever. Heretics, atheists and those who reject the Torah and deny the resurrection and the coming of a Messiah and the apostate. . . .[In the following commentary Maimonides addresses heretics, atheists, and apostates, the matters of resurrection and the coming of a Messiah are discussed in other writings].

There are five categories of heretics: (1) he who says there is no God and the universe has no leader, (2) he who says there is a leader but there are two or more, (3) he who says there is a Master but that he has a body and form, (4) he who says there is a Master but he is not the first cause and basis of everything, and (5) he who worships a star or planet and the like and holds such to be intermediaries between himself and the Lord