"The Extent of Rabbinic Authority"

[mitzi]

Rabbi Buchwald's
Weekly Message

Updated 9/03/2005

SHOFTIM 5765-2005

"The Extent of Rabbinic Authority"

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Shoftim, 41 new Torah laws--14 positive and 27 negative mitzvot--are introduced. Among the laws that are included in this week's parasha is the regulation affirming the authority of the rabbis.

Known as the law of the Zakein Mamreh, the Rebellious Elder, this statute underscores the importance of heeding the authority of the sages. In fact, it was a capital crime for any judge, even an outstanding judge, to act against the decision of the Great Sanhedrin (the ancient Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem).

The Torah, in Deuteronomy 17:10, warns the people to do what the judges tell them to do, and to abide by everything that they teach. The very next verse, Deuteronomy 17:11, then states: "Ahl pee ha'Torah ah'sher yo'roo'chah, v'ahl ha'mish'paht ah'sher yom'roo l'chah, tah'ah'seh. Lo ta'soor min hah'da'var ah'sher yah'gee'doo l'chah ya'min oo's'mohl," according to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, you shall do. You shall not deviate from the word that they tell you, right or left. No matter what the status of the person who willfully rebels against the words of the judges, that person shall die. In this manner, the people of Israel are bidden to eradicate the evil from their midst, and serve as a lesson for all the people to hear and to fear.

Throughout the long and remarkable history of the Jewish people there were always rebellious groups of Jews who rejected the teachings and practices of the Torah. Even the famous rebellion of Korach (Numbers 16), which reputedly originated from a political dispute over authority, is couched in the Midrash as a theological debate over whether a room full of Torah scrolls requires a mezuzah on the doorpost, or whether a tallit entirely of blue threads requires an additional blue thread (t'chailet) on the fringes (tzitzit).

Toward the end of the second temple period, the priesthood became corrupt, and many priests adopted the beliefs of the Sadducees (Tzidukim), who followed the written code (the Scriptures) but rejected the oral code (the oral tradition that was later recorded in the Talmud). During the Gaonic period and in the time of the early Rishonim, the rabbis had to contend with the Karaites, another sect who rejected the oral tradition. Of course, at the turn of the Common Era, many Jews were attracted to a new religion--Christianity, first practicing as Hebrew-Christians, and then becoming full-fledged Christians. The Christians believed that the "Old Testament" had been abrogated, and that there was no longer any reason to follow the rituals of Judaism, such as kosher, Sabbath observance and circumcision.

The question of Jewish observance, of course, goes much further than only believing in the Bible and the Oral Code. In fact, an essential element of Jewish theology devolves about the acceptance or rejection of the authority of the sages. It is not only the authority of Moses that must be accepted by believers, but the authority of succeeding sages throughout the generations. For denying the rabbinic tradition is tantamount to abrogating the entire Jewish legal system. Consequently, the faithful traditional Jew today is expected to accept contemporary rabbinic authority to be as authoritative as that of Moses and the written law.

Among the medieval commentators there is the dispute concerning what a "Torah-true" Jew must accept as binding. Maimonides (the Rambam, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician, 1135-1204) deduces from the verse, Deuteronomy 17:11, you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you right or left, that every Jew must accept the following: 1. that the Masoretic (traditional) text of the Scriptures is the valid bible text; 2. that the laws deduced from the Torah utilizing the 13 Hermeneutic principles of Rabbi Ishmael are valid; and, 3. that all decrees (gezairot), ordinances (takanot) and customs (minhagim) instituted by the sages are similarly valid.

Nachmanides (Ramban, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) accepts the first two principles of Maimonides, but rejects the third, stating that laws of rabbinical origin are not enforceable, and hence are not a sine qua none for proper belief.

In contemporary times, a related question has arisen regarding the authority of the sages. A difference of opinion has manifested itself between the Modern Orthodox and the Chareidi Orthodox Jews with respect to what is known as "Daat Torah" or "Daas Torah." Daat Torah is loosely defined as "an ideology which teaches that the advice given by great Torah scholars must be followed by Jews committed to Torah observance" (Rabbi Alfred Cohen, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Spring 2003).

The parameters of this dispute extend from those who fervently believe that the sages of old and of contemporary times not only possess a wisdom and a breath of knowledge that helps them be more insightful than normal people in their decisions regarding Torah and even mundane issues of the day, but also believe that they actually have ruach hakodesh, an inherent power of prophecy, (even though there are no longer any official prophets in Israel). On the other hand, there are those who argue, particularly Professor Lawrence Kaplan of McGill University, that there is absolutely no basis for Daat Torah in classical Judaism, and accuses those who promote the notion of Daat Torah of trying to "close and suppress discussion" of viewpoints that the Chareidi community rejects.

In his studious and comprehensive examination of the notion and efficacy of Daat Torah, Rabbi Alfred Cohen raises some questions concerning Daat Torah, including perhaps the gravest question of all, how was it possible for the great rabbinic leaders to advise Jews not to leave Europe before the Holocaust, and in certain instances prohibiting them from leaving. In response, he cites in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner (1907-1980 Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta R' Chaim Berlin in New York), an intriguing parable of two people who are standing on the roof about to jump off. The crowd below is begging them not to jump. One of the would-be leapers is persuaded by the crowd not to jump, and begins to make his way down a staircase, only to fall and break his neck. The other person leaps from the roof just as a truck carrying mattresses passes by, and he lands unharmed among the mattresses.

Rabbi Hutner asks if the advice given to the would-be leapers incorrect. Obviously not! The advice was indeed correct for most circumstances. The would-be leaper who listened to them made the right decision to walk down the stairs, but the circumstances changed. "The guidance of our Torah leaders," Rabbi Hutner concludes "is just that--Torah inspired wisdom, but it is not prophecy, and it is not failsafe. Our rabbis are wise men, not prophets." (ibid page 30)

Rabbi Cohen musters additional arguments in support of Daat Torah, positing that acceptance of Rabbinic authority is crucial in order to insure strong leadership in the Jewish community, otherwise chaos will prevail. "The Torah has established the principle of majority rule, to promote the unity of Torah observance and preserve the community. Leaders may err," Rabbi Cohen argues, "but individual Jews who follow their instructions have done no wrong, that is why only the leaders bring the sin offering in the instance of error, and not the community." (page 34)

Can one disagree with the great sages? Rabbi Cohen responds affirmatively to this questions by citing the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, 1530-1572) who rules in the Code of Jewish Law, "It is permitted for him [the student] to disagree with some ruling or teaching of his [the teacher], if he can sustain his position and prove that the law is as he sees it." (Yoreh Deah 242-3)

Obviously, the concept of the authority of the sages is a statute of very ancient origin. However, the extent to which the authority exists and applies today is a matter of dispute that is far beyond the scope of this analysis. I suggest that those who wish to pursue the question further, consult their local rabbis, and argue vigorously with them!

May you be blessed.

[Menachem]

Rabbi Buchwald's
Weekly Message

Updated 9/03/2005

SHOFTIM 5765-2005

"The Extent of Rabbinic Authority"

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Shoftim, 41 new Torah laws--14 positive and 27 negative mitzvot--are introduced. Among the laws that are included in this week's parasha is the regulation affirming the authority of the rabbis.

Known as the law of the Zakein Mamreh, the Rebellious Elder, this statute underscores the importance of heeding the authority of the sages. In fact, it was a capital crime for any judge, even an outstanding judge, to act against the decision of the Great Sanhedrin (the ancient Supreme Court of Israel in Jerusalem).

The Torah, in Deuteronomy 17:10, warns the people to do what the judges tell them to do, and to abide by everything that they teach. The very next verse, Deuteronomy 17:11, then states: "Ahl pee ha'Torah ah'sher yo'roo'chah, v'ahl ha'mish'paht ah'sher yom'roo l'chah, tah'ah'seh. Lo ta'soor min hah'da'var ah'sher yah'gee'doo l'chah ya'min oo's'mohl," according to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, you shall do. You shall not deviate from the word that they tell you, right or left. No matter what the status of the person who willfully rebels against the words of the judges, that person shall die. In this manner, the people of Israel are bidden to eradicate the evil from their midst, and serve as a lesson for all the people to hear and to fear.

Throughout the long and remarkable history of the Jewish people there were always rebellious groups of Jews who rejected the teachings and practices of the Torah. Even the famous rebellion of Korach (Numbers 16), which reputedly originated from a political dispute over authority, is couched in the Midrash as a theological debate over whether a room full of Torah scrolls requires a mezuzah on the doorpost, or whether a tallit entirely of blue threads requires an additional blue thread (t'chailet) on the fringes (tzitzit).

Toward the end of the second temple period, the priesthood became corrupt, and many priests adopted the beliefs of the Sadducees (Tzidukim), who followed the written code (the Scriptures) but rejected the oral code (the oral tradition that was later recorded in the Talmud). During the Gaonic period and in the time of the early Rishonim, the rabbis had to contend with the Karaites, another sect who rejected the oral tradition. Of course, at the turn of the Common Era, many Jews were attracted to a new religion--Christianity, first practicing as Hebrew-Christians, and then becoming full-fledged Christians. The Christians believed that the "Old Testament" had been abrogated, and that there was no longer any reason to follow the rituals of Judaism, such as kosher, Sabbath observance and circumcision.

The question of Jewish observance, of course, goes much further than only believing in the Bible and the Oral Code. In fact, an essential element of Jewish theology devolves about the acceptance or rejection of the authority of the sages. It is not only the authority of Moses that must be accepted by believers, but the authority of succeeding sages throughout the generations. For denying the rabbinic tradition is tantamount to abrogating the entire Jewish legal system. Consequently, the faithful traditional Jew today is expected to accept contemporary rabbinic authority to be as authoritative as that of Moses and the written law.

Among the medieval commentators there is the dispute concerning what a "Torah-true" Jew must accept as binding. Maimonides (the Rambam, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician, 1135-1204) deduces from the verse, Deuteronomy 17:11, you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you right or left, that every Jew must accept the following: 1. that the Masoretic (traditional) text of the Scriptures is the valid bible text; 2. that the laws deduced from the Torah utilizing the 13 Hermeneutic principles of Rabbi Ishmael are valid; and, 3. that all decrees (gezairot), ordinances (takanot) and customs (minhagim) instituted by the sages are similarly valid.

Nachmanides (Ramban, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) accepts the first two principles of Maimonides, but rejects the third, stating that laws of rabbinical origin are not enforceable, and hence are not a sine qua none for proper belief.

In contemporary times, a related question has arisen regarding the authority of the sages. A difference of opinion has manifested itself between the Modern Orthodox and the Chareidi Orthodox Jews with respect to what is known as "Daat Torah" or "Daas Torah." Daat Torah is loosely defined as "an ideology which teaches that the advice given by great Torah scholars must be followed by Jews committed to Torah observance" (Rabbi Alfred Cohen, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Spring 2003).

The parameters of this dispute extend from those who fervently believe that the sages of old and of contemporary times not only possess a wisdom and a breath of knowledge that helps them be more insightful than normal people in their decisions regarding Torah and even mundane issues of the day, but also believe that they actually have ruach hakodesh, an inherent power of prophecy, (even though there are no longer any official prophets in Israel). On the other hand, there are those who argue, particularly Professor Lawrence Kaplan of McGill University, that there is absolutely no basis for Daat Torah in classical Judaism, and accuses those who promote the notion of Daat Torah of trying to "close and suppress discussion" of viewpoints that the Chareidi community rejects.

In his studious and comprehensive examination of the notion and efficacy of Daat Torah, Rabbi Alfred Cohen raises some questions concerning Daat Torah, including perhaps the gravest question of all, how was it possible for the great rabbinic leaders to advise Jews not to leave Europe before the Holocaust, and in certain instances prohibiting them from leaving. In response, he cites in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner (1907-1980 Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta R' Chaim Berlin in New York), an intriguing parable of two people who are standing on the roof about to jump off. The crowd below is begging them not to jump. One of the would-be leapers is persuaded by the crowd not to jump, and begins to make his way down a staircase, only to fall and break his neck. The other person leaps from the roof just as a truck carrying mattresses passes by, and he lands unharmed among the mattresses.

Rabbi Hutner asks if the advice given to the would-be leapers incorrect. Obviously not! The advice was indeed correct for most circumstances. The would-be leaper who listened to them made the right decision to walk down the stairs, but the circumstances changed. "The guidance of our Torah leaders," Rabbi Hutner concludes "is just that--Torah inspired wisdom, but it is not prophecy, and it is not failsafe. Our rabbis are wise men, not prophets." (ibid page 30)

Rabbi Cohen musters additional arguments in support of Daat Torah, positing that acceptance of Rabbinic authority is crucial in order to insure strong leadership in the Jewish community, otherwise chaos will prevail. "The Torah has established the principle of majority rule, to promote the unity of Torah observance and preserve the community. Leaders may err," Rabbi Cohen argues, "but individual Jews who follow their instructions have done no wrong, that is why only the leaders bring the sin offering in the instance of error, and not the community." (page 34)

Can one disagree with the great sages? Rabbi Cohen responds affirmatively to this questions by citing the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, 1530-1572) who rules in the Code of Jewish Law, "It is permitted for him [the student] to disagree with some ruling or teaching of his [the teacher], if he can sustain his position and prove that the law is as he sees it." (Yoreh Deah 242-3)

Obviously, the concept of the authority of the sages is a statute of very ancient origin. However, the extent to which the authority exists and applies today is a matter of dispute that is far beyond the scope of this analysis. I suggest that those who wish to pursue the question further, consult their local rabbis, and argue vigorously with them!

May you be blessed.

Interesting article Mitzi. I have always been one to question and argue with the Rabbi's over some of the interpretations of the Torah. One really big one that I argue against all of the time is the interpretation of "You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother." It is ok to argue and to question the interpretation of things in Judaism. Contrasted to the way much of Christianity likes to suppress(sp.) questioning and argumentation from layperson to church leaders. I am not saying all christian churches do that but the vast majority do from what I know of.

[Conductor42]

Interesting article Mitzi. I have always been one to question and argue with the Rabbi's over some of the interpretations of the Torah. One really big one that I argue against all of the time is the interpretation of "You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother." It is ok to argue and to question the interpretation of things in Judaism. Contrasted to the way much of Christianity likes to suppress(sp.) questioning and argumentation from layperson to church leaders. I am not saying all christian churches do that but the vast majority do from what I know of.

Eli,

Did you become Masorti? Last time I heard of an Orthodox Jew even remotely suggestion something like that, he was immediately labeled as an apikorus.

[Menachem]

Eli,

Did you become Masorti? Last time I heard of an Orthodox Jew even remotely suggestion something like that, he was immediately labeled as an apikorus.

No I did not become masorti. Besides the Rabbi enjoys my arguments. I argue a point, I never said I practice otherwise.

[mitzi]

Interesting article Mitzi. I have always been one to question and argue with the Rabbi's over some of the interpretations of the Torah. One really big one that I argue against all of the time is the interpretation of "You shall not cook a kid in the milk of its mother." It is ok to argue and to question the interpretation of things in Judaism. Contrasted to the way much of Christianity likes to suppress(sp.) questioning and argumentation from layperson to church leaders. I am not saying all christian churches do that but the vast majority do from what I know of.

Shalom Eliyosef;

I thought the article had touched on alot comments made on the board. But for someone to question or to argue interpretations....how is anyone to learn. Not everything,when first read, will 'one' understand the meaning of the laws, plus I think the Rabbi's would expect questions. Even when you attend school 'not' everything you learn (regarding a certain area of study) will be understood at first unless you don't investigate the information and begin to question it. I've learn "much" this week on the board...and I thank a certain member of the board for that. This is the month of Elul..... time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. What a wonderful time of the year!!!!!

And when your children ask you, "What do you mean by this rite?'" you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, because He passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but saved our houses." (Exodus 12:26-27).

[mitzi]

Shalom Eliyosef;

I thought the article had touched on alot comments made on the board. But for someone to question or to argue interpretations....how is anyone to learn. Not everything,when first read, will 'one' understand the meaning of the laws, plus I think the Rabbi's would expect questions. Even when you attend school 'not' everything you learn (regarding a certain area of study) will be understood at first unless you don't investigate the information and begin to question it. I've learn "much" this week on the board...and I thank a certain member of the board for that. This is the month of Elul..... time to review one's deeds and spiritual progress over the past year and prepare for the upcoming "Days of Awe" of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. What a wonderful time of the year!!!!!

And when your children ask you, "What do you mean by this rite?'" you shall say, "It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, because He passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but saved our houses." (Exodus 12:26-27).

P.S.

Giving the answer is not as crucial as asking the question. Why? Because slaves are not permitted to ask questions. Freedom is distinguished by one's ability to question. Without questions, what is called freedom would be meaningless. So, at the seder, we live our freedom by doing what free people must do - ask questions.

Indeed, the Jewish sense of the centrality of questioning to a free people extends far beyond its symbolic presence at the seder. The Talmud, the greatest of all classical rabbinic works, is distinguished, above all, by its commitment to questions and challenges. The Mishnah gives the law; the Talmud asks, "Why?" "For what reason?" "Maybe there is an alternative?" These questions challenge even God and God's law (the Torah). We are a people of questions. By continuing to ask questions, we guarantee our freedom.

[mitzi]

P.S.

Giving the answer is not as crucial as asking the question. Why? Because slaves are not permitted to ask questions. Freedom is distinguished by one's ability to question. Without questions, what is called freedom would be meaningless. So, at the seder, we live our freedom by doing what free people must do - ask questions.

Indeed, the Jewish sense of the centrality of questioning to a free people extends far beyond its symbolic presence at the seder. The Talmud, the greatest of all classical rabbinic works, is distinguished, above all, by its commitment to questions and challenges. The Mishnah gives the law; the Talmud asks, "Why?" "For what reason?" "Maybe there is an alternative?" These questions challenge even God and God's law (the Torah). We are a people of questions. By continuing to ask questions, we guarantee our freedom.

One good sites to read for the upcoming Jewish holidays:

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/Jewis...e.asp?AID=4685
Point of reference in my post: http://www.clal.org/par26.html

[John D. Brey]

Hi eliyosef,

It is ok to argue and to question the interpretation of things in Judaism. Contrasted to the way much of Christianity likes to suppress(sp.) questioning and argumentation from layperson to church leaders. I am not saying all christian churches do that but the vast majority do from what I know of.

I read the article to be saying that according to the most ancient and thus seminal opinions of Judaism the authorities should not be questioned??

In the Torah, whenever Moses was questioned bad things happened. The Korah revolution is a case study in questioning God's mediating authority. In the Torah the community is constantly being told to shut up and listen to God's mouthpiece; and when they don't bad things inevitably happen.



Dan

[mitzi]

Hi eliyosef,



I read the article to be saying that according to the most ancient and thus seminal opinions of Judaism the authorities should not be questioned??

In the Torah, whenever Moses was questioned bad things happened. The Korah revolution is a case study in questioning God's mediating authority. In the Torah the community is constantly being told to shut up and listen to God's mouthpiece; and when they don't bad things inevitably happen.



Dan

Hi Dan;

The article did note:


The way I took the questions on the board is can you argue or ask questions regarding Torah law? and the answer would be yes....however, to argue about changing it or to deviate from the law....is something totally different.
If you feel a law is unjust or is wrong because of a circumstance and can "not" be fully followed then I think a Rabbi would have to be consulted.

Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, 1530-1572) who rules in the Code of Jewish Law, "It is permitted for him [the student] to disagree with some ruling or teaching of his [the teacher], if he can sustain his position and prove that the law is as he sees it." (Yoreh Deah 242-3)

*******************

Hi EliYosef:

By the way I worked as a Dietary Aide (in the adult living section) at the Jewish Community Center here in town...along time ago. The kitchen was Kosher and everything had to be seperated. Well......one afternoon at lunchtime the cook prepare a dessert that looked like "whipped" cream and told one of residence that lived there "Hey, Ab! The cook is serving a dessert with whip cream on it! Every resident that "sat" within a perimeter of my voice turned around and shouted......There is "to" be no dairy products at this meal!!!!! I could see Ab from the corner of my eye waving at me to come over so he could explain the reasons "why". Yes I know this lesson by heart...the women explained it "very" nicely to me one day.

"As a safeguard, the Rabbis extended this prohibition to disallow the eating of meat and dairy products at the same meal or preparing them on the same utensils. Furthermore, milk products cannot be consumed after eating meat, for a period of time. There are different traditions for how long to wait between meat and dairy, but the most prevalent custom is to wait six hours."

[mitzi]

According to the teaching that they teach you and the judgment that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left. (Devarim 17:9-11)


Isn't Pikuach Nefesh an exception to following Jewish law since it evolves ones life. Life endangerment in Jewish law is a overriding principle which insists that one violate any law....please correct me on this. Isn't this the only except?

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Mitsi,

Hi Dan;


"As a safeguard, the Rabbis extended this prohibition to disallow the eating of meat and dairy products at the same meal or preparing them on the same utensils. Furthermore, milk products cannot be consumed after eating meat, for a period of time. There are different traditions for how long to wait between meat and dairy, but the most prevalent custom is to wait six hours."

I read somewhere it is possible for the Jews to mix poultry with dairly products, or certain sea food with dairy. Is that correct? Ofcourse Cheeseburgers are out of the question. Come to think of it , it is a humane law since -- a cow(beef patty) and it's mothers milk(cheese)-- should not be cooked together. Am I getting the gist of it?

On another note , I've observed among the Muslims their own brand of Kosher laws called Halal, which differ somewhat from Jewish dietary laws.Do you know much about the muslim laws?. I know for certain the Muslim method contrasts sharply with the Sikh dietary laws, for instance. In my travels through the northern Indian state of Punjab, I noticed among them that it was forbidden to kill any animal (most often a chicken) in a "cruel fashion". They consider the "Muslim way" (Halal) to be unusual punishment to the creature since it's blood is slowly drained from it's neck. The Sikhs chop off the chicken's head with one swift blow,thereby limiting it's punishment and bringing instant death to it. Ofcourse the blood is not fully drained from it, but their dietary laws say nothing about consuming blood. Infact they relish it. Like many tribes, the Sikhs have no dietary regulations. Every conceievable food is allowed them, including beef which is taboo to the Hindu. The Orthodox Hindu is a whole different animal altogether, and their dietary laws are elaborate, even more so than those of the Jews, if you can believe it!

God bless,

[mitzi]

[QUOTE=Pythagoras]Greetings Mitsi,

Hi! Pythagoras



I read somewhere it is possible for the Jews to mix poultry with dairly products, or certain sea food with dairy. Is that correct? Ofcourse Cheeseburgers are out of the question. Come to think of it , it is a humane law since -- a cow(beef patty) and it's mothers milk(cheese)-- should not be cooked together. Am I getting the gist of it?

From Mitzi: You got the "gist" of it better than I did.....

On another note , I've observed among the Muslims their own brand of Kosher laws called Halal, which differ somewhat from Jewish dietary laws.Do you know much about the muslim laws?. I know for certain the Muslim method contrasts sharply with the Sikh dietary laws, for instance. In my travels through the northern Indian state of Punjab, I noticed among them that it was forbidden to kill any animal (most often a chicken) in a "cruel fashion". They consider the "Muslim way" (Halal) to be unusual punishment to the creature since it's blood is slowly drained from it's neck. The Sikhs chop off the chicken's head with one swift blow,thereby limiting it's punishment and bringing instant death to it. Ofcourse the blood is not fully drained from it, but their dietary laws say nothing about consuming blood. Infact they relish it. Like many tribes, the Sikhs have no dietary regulations. Every conceievable food is allowed them, including beef which is taboo to the Hindu. The Orthodox Hindu is a whole different animal altogether, and their dietary laws are elaborate, even more so than those of the Jews, if you can believe it!

From Mitzi: I envy your traveling....No, I'm not "too" familiar with Halal laws. However, I use to work within the hotel industries, groups department division, booking convention space, meeting rooms, groups rooms and weddings. There have been times that Religious Jewish and Muslim groups booked convention space that needed a kitchen facility for either catered food that was brought into the facility or cook within the hotel kitchen. But when (either) religious group cooked on hotel property they 'always' used their own staff....No hotel staff members where permitted into the back kitchen at the time....because of Kosher/or Halal regulations.

Many blessings and good to hear from you
Baruch Hashem
Mitzi

[Goose]

Isn't Pikuach Nefesh an exception to following Jewish law since it evolves ones life. Life endangerment in Jewish law is a overriding principle which insists that one violate any law....please correct me on this. Isn't this the only except?

I think rape is one exception too. I heard a Rabbi say this, but I don't know the resource he used. It sounds right, though.

[mitzi]

I think rape is one exception too. I heard a Rabbi say this, but I don't know the resource he used. It sounds right, though.

Shalom Goose;

Found the some articles...not sure? take a look at the second article below.

Jews are required to do whatever is possible to protect their health and their lives, whether it is in the regular sphere of medicine, or whether it means taking precautions to avoid accidents and/or sources of danger.

2nd article:http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/ch_stealsavelife.html

A. Saving one’s own life

God, through the words of the Torah, places utmost importance on the value of life. In Vayikra, the verse states: "ushmartem et chukotay ve’et mishpatai asher ya’ase otam ha’adam, vechai bahem, ani hashem." You shall observe my decrees and my laws that each man shall carry out and by which he shall live, I am God. This verse teaches us that the commandments were not meant to take precedence over human life. If the observance or the performance of a Torah law would create a risk to a human life, then preservation of that life should take precedence over the observance of that Torah law.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin rules on the basis of this verse that if someone is offered the ultimatum to violate one of the prohibitions in the Torah or be killed, that person has the duty to violate that law and save his life. This rule applies to all the prohibitions in the Torah with three exceptions. The three exceptions are the prohibitions of idol worship, illicit sexual relations and murder. Although the Torah specifically says "vechai bahem," if a person would be given the ultimatum to violate one of these three transgressions or be killed, he must refuse to violate the prohibition and sacrifice his own life.

The same Gemara in Sanhedrin,5 describes a case where a person being pursued destroys the property of another in effort to save his own life. Rava rules that if the property belongs to the pursuer, then the pursued is exempt from compensating the damage. However, if the person being pursued destroys the property belonging to a third party, he is liable for the damage. We see from this Gemara that it is permissible to destroy another’s property to save your own life, provided that you compensate the owner of the property.

It seems from the pasuk "vechai bahem" and from the Gemara in Sanhedrin that only the three major transgressions take precedence over saving one’s life; all other laws may be violated for pikuach nefesh. Since stealing or destroying property is not one of the three exceptions to the rule of "vechai bahem," it would seem obvious that one should steal and destroy property rather than die. The Raavad in fact rules this way.6

[mitzi]

Ops!.....It's too early in the morning. (Found the some articles??? ) Well anyway, I found some information on the subject of rape and it's listed within the 2nd article.

Have a nice morning
Mitzi