M M & M, M M And More

                                                                     

No, it's not silly season yet. It's just that there's a little more I wanted to say on the subject of Jewish Law that didn't fit conveniently into the two previous essays, and rather than simply ignore it, I thought I'd throw it in in an addendum. Admittedly, some of it may be viewed as off the mark, but I'll take that risk.

I mentioned that Jewish Law, given us by Hashem, had many “co-authors.” Some was as a result of a straightforward attempt to make the understanding of G-d's words easier. To achieve this worthy goal, many interpreted and expounded on them. Unfortunately the interpretations were not always the same when more than one rabbi explained the meaning of a particular word or phrase. And, as is the case in the game of “Telephone,” the result after many transmissions often differed from the original. So if there was a party line and two or more different people started the process, the results in different communities might be markedly divergent, leading to different traditions. But, as we have discussed, if all were reached in an attempt to transmit G-d's words faithfully, they were all valid. Intent played a large part in the process.

Mentioned in addition were the ability of the Rabbis to cancel laws which were beyond the ability of the people to follow. Because the laws they canceled were laws that they, themselves, enunciated, they weren't really rescinding Hashem's words, only their own understanding of them – but that tells us that some of their initial interpretations may have been erroneous.

Also discussed was the “formation” of Jewish law by non-Jews, through mechanisms that we would view from our perspective as illegitimate – the destruction and alteration of texts and the persecution of believers – and legitimate (indeed the adherence of Noachide Law) – the establishment of legal systems in the nations in which Jews lived. Since we are taught that it is a requirement that (when they don't contradict Jewish law, and occasionally when they do) we are obliged to follow the laws of the land. It was our understanding that in order to follow G-d's words it was incumbent on us to follow laws crafted by non-Jews.

What I didn't mention in the prior essays is that in a way we can all add to the body of Hashem 's law. While the making of vows is discouraged, once made, a vow carries the weight of law – we are required to fulfill it. In a sense we are creating a 614^th mitzvah for ourselves – more than the 613 given in the Torah, G-d's law.

We can also impose requirements on ourselves by our actions whereby those that we've repeated may become obligatory, requiring a Bet Din (court) to relieve us of the responsibility as would be the case with an oath. In both those cases, however, the “law” is self imposed and is only incumbent on the individual himself. Nonetheless, it has the power of G-d's word because he has commanded us to keep our obligations.

I finished yesterday by saying that everything depended on intent. Included in that view are both the laws imposed on us by Hashem and by humans – Jewish or non-Jewish – and the same is true of those we impose on ourselves. I don't mean to suggest that it's all right to make up the laws as we go along, or to follow any teachings that do so or are otherwise outside of Halakhah, however good our intent, but to do our best in following the Halakhic laws – whatever their origin.

And if that's not the criterion, at least we tried.