49 Ki Tetze (Part A) - When you go out - Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19 Deuteronomy (Messianic) Vol. II - The Harvest
-
- Religión y espiritualidad
For some, this notion of practical application of Scripture is unsettling. Perhaps it stems from the overwhelming traditional application and misuse of Scripture prevalent in much of Rabbinic Judaism today (in essence, tradition is given more weight than Scripture). Because of such notions, I will briefly address this issue again before going into our teaching this week. Borrowing notes from last week’s portion, I shall summarize halakhah and the concept of “oral tradition”: “Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy talks about the details surrounding official and legal matters. Of particular interest is the subject dealt with in verses 8-13. To be sure, the sages of old understood this to be talking about the matter of halakhah and the authority of what is known in rabbinical circles as Oral Torah. From a cursory reading, it appears to be a valid teaching about establishing a governing body of legal authority based on the spoken opinion of the judge of the day. This is where the halakhah gains its strength and application. This term is roughly translated the way in which to walk. The rabbis see in this passage an opportunity to establish the tradition of the Oral Torah. As they see it, this passage instructs its readers “In accordance with the Torah they teach you, you are to carry out the judgment they render, not turning aside to the right or the left from the verdict they declare to you (v.11).” Taking the verse in its most natural and literal sense, it does seem to validate the right for the rabbis to impose their judgments on all succeeding generations. And to strengthen the suggested interpretation, a first century Rabbi by the name of Yeshua had this to say to his crowd, “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!” What Yeshua is addressing here is the issue of hypocrisy when it comes to correctly interpreting the Torah, yet failing to implement it into our lives. But our LORD does not condone the Oral Tradition as binding.” Back to our Torah portion. Marriage and Divorce Of great concern to the community living during this time period (as well as for any time period for that matter) was the area of sexual relations. To be sure, a great deal of time is spent addressing possible situations that might arise during the course of everyday dealings with each other. Moreover, in all of the five books that Moshe authored, only here in D’varim chapter 24 is marriage and divorce specifically addressed head on, and then only in a scant four verses. The matter became a major source of disagreement by the time Yeshua entered the communal scene. During his time period, two major schools of thought existed and vied for the majority opinion. The conservative School of Rabbi Shammai (Beit Shammai) and the liberal School of Rabbi Hillel (Beit Hillel) both supplied their interpretation of Moshe’s words here in our Torah portion. The Talmud gives us our most complete look into the minds of the early Judaisms of Yeshua’s day, thus the Talmud states concerning this passage in D’varim: “The School of Shammai say a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’ But the School of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she burns his food, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’” Rabbi El’azar, a member of Beit Hillel has been noted in the Gemara as saying, “When a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears” (Gittin 90b), his source for such logic stemming from D’varim 24:13-14. Modern translator and commentator David H. Stern has noted in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that there is a Jewish tradition that in Messianic times the stricter rulings of Beit Shammai will become the standard (JNTC, p. 59).
For some, this notion of practical application of Scripture is unsettling. Perhaps it stems from the overwhelming traditional application and misuse of Scripture prevalent in much of Rabbinic Judaism today (in essence, tradition is given more weight than Scripture). Because of such notions, I will briefly address this issue again before going into our teaching this week. Borrowing notes from last week’s portion, I shall summarize halakhah and the concept of “oral tradition”: “Chapter 17 of Deuteronomy talks about the details surrounding official and legal matters. Of particular interest is the subject dealt with in verses 8-13. To be sure, the sages of old understood this to be talking about the matter of halakhah and the authority of what is known in rabbinical circles as Oral Torah. From a cursory reading, it appears to be a valid teaching about establishing a governing body of legal authority based on the spoken opinion of the judge of the day. This is where the halakhah gains its strength and application. This term is roughly translated the way in which to walk. The rabbis see in this passage an opportunity to establish the tradition of the Oral Torah. As they see it, this passage instructs its readers “In accordance with the Torah they teach you, you are to carry out the judgment they render, not turning aside to the right or the left from the verdict they declare to you (v.11).” Taking the verse in its most natural and literal sense, it does seem to validate the right for the rabbis to impose their judgments on all succeeding generations. And to strengthen the suggested interpretation, a first century Rabbi by the name of Yeshua had this to say to his crowd, “The Torah-teachers and the P’rushim,” he said, “sit in the seat of Moshe. So whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don’t do what they do, because they talk but don’t act!” What Yeshua is addressing here is the issue of hypocrisy when it comes to correctly interpreting the Torah, yet failing to implement it into our lives. But our LORD does not condone the Oral Tradition as binding.” Back to our Torah portion. Marriage and Divorce Of great concern to the community living during this time period (as well as for any time period for that matter) was the area of sexual relations. To be sure, a great deal of time is spent addressing possible situations that might arise during the course of everyday dealings with each other. Moreover, in all of the five books that Moshe authored, only here in D’varim chapter 24 is marriage and divorce specifically addressed head on, and then only in a scant four verses. The matter became a major source of disagreement by the time Yeshua entered the communal scene. During his time period, two major schools of thought existed and vied for the majority opinion. The conservative School of Rabbi Shammai (Beit Shammai) and the liberal School of Rabbi Hillel (Beit Hillel) both supplied their interpretation of Moshe’s words here in our Torah portion. The Talmud gives us our most complete look into the minds of the early Judaisms of Yeshua’s day, thus the Talmud states concerning this passage in D’varim: “The School of Shammai say a man may not divorce his wife unless he has found unchastity in her, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’ But the School of Hillel say he may divorce her even if she burns his food, as it is said, ‘…because he has found in her indecency in a matter.’” Rabbi El’azar, a member of Beit Hillel has been noted in the Gemara as saying, “When a man divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears” (Gittin 90b), his source for such logic stemming from D’varim 24:13-14. Modern translator and commentator David H. Stern has noted in his Jewish New Testament Commentary that there is a Jewish tradition that in Messianic times the stricter rulings of Beit Shammai will become the standard (JNTC, p. 59).