Comments, improvements on the actual Jewish Law: ------------------------------------------------ Cleaning the table for Moshe Torah ---------------------------------- `Shulchan Aruch' Sjulchan Aruch is an in 5768 a widely accepted compendium of Jewish law. It has (my, a Kitsoer Sjulchan Aruch, copy has) 221 chapters, 1107 A4 pages, both in Hebrew and English, it has some black-white pictures, bundled in a high quality manner befitting a great law book. But is it ? Can it stand next to the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu ? A typical chapter has a set of paragraphs that explain a certain law or aspect of a law, referring to texts from the Torah or making a (presumed) rational claim. The Sjulchan Aruch is not a list of laws that appear in the books of Moshe/Mozes, it is a combination of Torah, traditions and innovations. A way to look at it is: the books of Moshe Rabbeinu are the Constitution, books like Sjulchan Aruch are the common laws that are not to conflict with the Constitution, providing more (practical) detail. The Torah does not usually list secular/scientific reasons for laws, the Sjulchan Aruch on occasion does (make an attempt.) -*- !Critical break with Torah law! Chapter 66, all -Oy Yisroel, what have you done ? -The Heter iska is a trick whereby the Torah law that forbids rent seeking loans is circumvented by calling various parts of the sum with various innovative names not appearing in the Torah literally, and by giving the person getting the loan some initial marginal money. It is then claimed that the Torah law against rent seeking does not apply. However this mechanism does not prevent the danger associated with rent-seeking money ( http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/democracy.html ,) it may even worsen it. This chapter is probably the worst rebellion of the Rabbis against the Torah. It clouds the Jewish Nation to such an extend that it is not a minimum light unto the nations. The devastating situation in the zionight rebellion (and the world) today (5768) is probably largely the result of breaking this Torah law. -Better: "Thou shall not lend on interest to your brother." -Also: http://www.jhwh.be/~joshb/soundinvestment.html http://www.jhwh.be/fund/een http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#8 (36 laws for finance.) -Further: A school that teaches the heter iska is a corrupt or incompetent law school, it is a high level danger against all Torah in the world. To be "kosher" at the very least the heter iska rebellion either is not mentioned, or listed under grave rebellions that the Jewish nation has perpetrated or is perpetrating. A Jewish law school today (5768) probably should teach that the heter iska - which is a widely known rebellion - is false and why it is false, as it may come to the attention of its students sooner or later. Law schools that teach heter iska should be ejected from the Klal Yisroel until they repent, since the Law always allows for repentance. -*- Chapter 75, #14 -Quote: If a women forgets once to light candles [for the Shabbos], she will light for the rest of her life an additional candle. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And thus for each time she forgets, she lights an additional candle. This has been decreed to draw her attention, so that she shall pay more attention to it. But when it happened because of things beyond her control, she does not have to light additional candles. -Better: "If ... she will light for one year at least one more candle." ^^^^^^^^^^^^ -Reasoning: Grossly excessive punishment for inadvertent innocent act without directly serious consequences; does not allow the person to correct her behavior and do better next time; degrades and saddens the festivities of the Shabbos; remembers Israel for decades that a candle hadn't been lit thus spreading the potential negative effects of this oversight far beyond the immediate; puts shame on the Torah in the eyes of the Nations because this law is so excessive and wrong yet gets associated with the Torah, turning the Nations away from the Torah law. -Further: My personal idea is that this candle lighting issue should have a status lighter then a law, so that people who wish to be perfectly observant Jews follow this as a rule for bonus points, but that it is not a binding law with punitive consequences. The candle lighting itself could also have a status lower then a law, so that there is no forced compliance (by police and Judges). -Shabbos: To contrast not working on the Shabbos can be a law of the land which is enforced to the degree it concerns significant economic activities that can be policed, or enforced to a degree where the pause of those who choose not to work is not disturbed. That rest can be disturbed, however, by the knowledge that competitors keep on working. Ideally the Shabbos is voluntarily followed by everyone, so that people who rest on that day are not put behind the economic speed of those that go on with working and are therefore able to produce 1/7th faster. Enforcing the Shabbos prevents constantly working businesses to cash in on this difference, because in the end it is not likely going to be a good thing for the whole of the People to constantly go on with the mad dash for cash, without stopping a moment to think and take perhaps a different view of a situation. Constantly racing on means no time to stop and think. In economic-political terms breaking the Shabbos by working is unacceptable because it is like breaking a strike for better conditions or fair wages. Breaking a strike for Justice is always not good. Breaking the Shabbos is like ignoring the voice of Moshe Rabbeinu who calls out the Jews from Egypt, and continuing to work as a slave, day in day out without stopping, without demanding life and justice. He/She who breaks the Shabbos is like as if he/she rejects the entire Torah, as if he/she has never gotten out of Egypt to begin with. The Shabbos is not just any strike, it is itself the continuing fulfillment of its demand for Justice, as it is a returning free day, even for slaves and animals. It is IMHO not a proper ruling to in principle deny a Jew what he/she would consider relaxation on the Shabbos, unless it is economic work breaking the Shabbos, as that is the consumption of Justice achieved by the Shabbos even ahead of any further demands for Justice are secured. Does it break a strike of a metal mill if the striking workers play a game of football ? Not at all. In fact it may be beneficial: advertising the strike in progress, consuming an amount of denied spare time ahead of any concessions from the slave owners, signifying that one is more then merely a productive machine. To make a strike powerful, it needs to be supported by all, against all odds, and strike breakers (aka scabs) have to be resisted. The Shabbos being a long standing and particularly powerful and successful strike, it is particularly bad to break that one. I fail to see how punishing a women for the length of her life for not lighting a Shabbos candle once by mistake does help any of this at all. It does not even help in making the candles be lit better, since resentment against the harsh and unfair punishment will sooner or later come up (as it should). This SA74#14 falls IMHO under the category of making the law heavier then it should be, thereby undermining rather then helping, even if observance of SA74#14 is prosecuted with enthusiasm by a few people, (causing meaningless schisms and confusion in the klal Yisroel.) (Apologies for this heavy handed manner in which I'm trying to deal with a part of this SA74#14 paragraph, causing yet more potential schisms. But those few words apparently carelessly and thoughtlessly thrown in at SA74#14 "to draw some attention," (is that all?!) put a tremendous additional pressure on someone's life. Where is someone to look on how to observe the Torah law ? Are these bad laws a signal that much else is wrong with the Sjulchan Aruch ? Like HaShem told jews who had forsaken the law to sacrifice their children for their fake idols, so that they would understand their mistakes to come back to the law quickly ? The TaNaCH relates precedent for this possibility.) -*- Chapter 87 This chapter describes care for animals on Shabbat. Chapter 87 #4 This paragraph says one should remove bells from cattle on Shabbat, but it is allowed to leave a wrapped bell on cattle inside. -Comment: If the animals are also to rest on Shabbat, which definitely seems a nice rule, then the bell should be removed, particularly inside where it should be relatively easy to remove the bells. If cattle is high in the mountains and it takes many hours of additional work to remove the bells, then maybe those bells could be left on the cattle, and the cattle could for instance be compensated for that loss somehow. (The KSA does not indicate a reason for leaving the bells on the animals inside FWICS, isn't it easier to take them off then ?) Maybe some bonus food every week, or when inside taking off the bells until the time without bells equals the lost time. Compensation is what a human would also find acceptable, presumably it also works this way with animals. Chapter 87 #14 This paragraph forbids hanging a bucket from an animal its neck from which it can eat, because that is doing an effort to please an animal which the KSA claims is forbidden. The paragraph allows it for young animals inside, because they have trouble eating from the ground, but not outside because it is a burden. -Comments: I agree with the rule that a bucket should ideally not be hung from an animal its neck to eat from it, because it is probably displeasing to an animal. How would a human like it to have a bucket in front of its face with food, probably not very much. It should also ideally not be done with young animals inside or out, because they probably don't like it either, and it is part of being that animal that it may need to learn how to reach the ground for food. -*- !Important break with Torah law! Chapter 180 Prosbul, pretends that Jews are allowed to make loans that run for longer then 7 years. It works by having a Jewish court sign a loan contract, and then claim that because a Jewish court its decision is not voided in the 7th year, that the loan is therefore protected from being voided in the 7th year, even though the Torah clearly states the loan will have to default in the 7th year. This corruption does therefore require active cooperation from the Jewish courts themselves. It breaks the law of the Torah that loans should be relatively short term and default in the 7th year. This law is also a rebellion against Torah. -Better: "In the 7th year a loan defaults." (This is the Torah law.) "In the 7th year a loan defaults and collateral is exchanged, after the 7th year exchange of collateral ownership, the item can again be sold immediately to the same user on a new loan reflecting collateral value." (This seems to conform to literal Torah law.) -Also: "After the 7th year running, a loan defaults to the remaining collateral." http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#loan.default.no.collateral (This is a non Jewish - all Nations - law proposal; it is different from literal Torah law, but has similar effect, see link for reasons. This allows for non-collateral loans to run for a maximum of 7 years, which crosses the Torah law (!). I think that the reason for the collective 7th year Torah rule was made because it is much easier to police, while I propose the non-collateralized part to collapse 7 year after the loan was agreed, because I think that this could be: more predictable for individuals, and less disruptive for the economy as a whole, hoping that law enforcement on this issue will not prove much of a challange. If these assumptions are false I propose to try a collective 7th year default instead, according the Torah law system.) -Reasoning: Long running loans are a pressing yoke on a person its life, where they are allowed creditors abuse people in desperate positions by extending them credit rather then charity. Long running loans prevent people to start over in life, and do better. Where long running loans are useful, for instance with mortgages, a loan can be cancelled while handing over (part of) the remaining collateral value to the creditor. To short-circuit this effect it would suffice to void only the part of the loan for which no collateral exists (anymore.) -Further: A useful thing about the prosbul is that it gives an easy way to determine which Jewish court has become corrupt: those that sign a prosbul are rebellious Judges, either corrupt or incompetent. -Note: The prosbul can make legal a heter iska speculative business investment contract (also identified as a "for profit business loan" to someone who is not actively and knowingly trying to undermine the Torah law) for any duration. If the heter iska contract were written and then also signed by a (corrupt) Jewish court, the `prosbulled heter iska' would also become an (illegal under Torah law) `undefined term for profit business loan on interest,' which is the most dangerous kind of finance (because companies that abuse workers are most profitable, hence these get stimulated, eventually destroying that Nation and eventually the world.) -Oy Israel. Israel: listen no longer to your Rabbis, they are lying to you. If they can not find the lies that they teach you, what good are they as teachers ? If they know the lies that they teach you, what good are they as teachers ? Can't you read yourself and find these lies ? Don't you have the spare time to find out about these lies ? Why didn't you figure this out before ? Why didn't you find out how an economy should work ? -*- Chapter Land distribution: there is no laws in the KSA that describe land distribution, however land distribution is a vital part of a stable fair economy. It was not needed when Israel hand no sovereign power, but now that Israel is back in one land and has sovereign power it has to divide the land, therefore it needs laws for this. So far (5768) Israel has not divided the land between its inhabitants. -Better: "Divide the land by lottery." (This is described in the Neviim.) "Do not sell the land in perpetuity." (The Torah law.) -Also: http://www.jhwh.be/law.html#9 (13 laws for land distribution.) General Comments: It is a sad thing that the Sjulchan Aruch lists bad law, rebelliously claiming it is conforming law to the Torah of Moshe, as this will raise justified doubt about laws in it that might potentially not be bad. For example the laws forbidding rent seeking on investments/loans, chapter 65: both conforming to Moshe Torah, a vital law for any nation. Bizarrely this vital law is outmoded by the immediately following heter iska rebellion chapter 66, almost as if the SA is crying out to correct the mistake. Clean the table from which Torah is being taken, or suffer the suffering, slavery, death & destruction associated with rent seeking. Think the law is frivolous fun and games without consequences ? You would be thinking wrong. Repentance is always the option that is open: correct, forgive, forget. It is not that other people did much better, and presumably most people who followed this rebellion did not even know what they were doing. I am already forgetting it even happened. Who has time to remember all the crumbs that ever sat on his kitchen table. Heter iska, what is that ? Oh wait, wasn't that something we rejected a while back ... Jechezkeel 34:7 "Therefore, sheppards, listen to the words of the ETERNAL: As true as I live - says the ETERNAL God - my sheep had no sheppard, were robbed away and eaten by wild animals; and you, sheppards, did not watch out for my sheep, you have only looked after your selves but not my sheep ! Therefore, sheppard, listen to the words of the ETERNAL: this says the ETERNAL God: I will punish the sheppards and demand my sheep; they will no longer be allowed to lead them." Are you those "sheppards," heter iska Rabbis ? Have you only thought about yourself and not your sheep, and forgot the law of the Torah ? Did you realize what you were doing ? Making laws ----------- I get the idea from reading the SA, that the Rabbis do not know what a law is, and how to make one up. What is a law: there are several types of law or law like things. At the essence a law is a general rule applicable in many situations that if it will not be done you will actually get punished and be unable to escape that punishment. One relevant aspect of law making is that if you make a law, and are then physically unable to punish those who break it, then you are actually running a great risk that the law you make will end up defunct. It is said to be a law, but nobody does it because there is no punishment. If people already followed the law sufficiently without punishment, it was not necessary to make a law for that situation. When you have made defunct laws, laws that are broken constantly, the next time you make a law you risk it not being taken seriously either. Defunct laws therefore undermine the status of all the other laws, and you risk eventually to destroy the entire system of law, because it loses its status as enforced rules. At least in modern law systems there are 2 types of laws: Constitutional laws and the non-constitutional laws (I tend to call it common laws, but that may be a fantasy term). The Constitutional laws typically at least describe the method by which the common laws are to be manufactured. They also tend to describe rules that the common law rules have to obey, the Constitution is like a rule system for the rules themselves. Usually the Constitution is much harder to change then the common laws, and therefore offer the People protection against abuses by the law maker. A Constitution has therefore a special higher status, far above the common law. In a way while the common law disciplines society in general, the Constitution disciplines those who do the disciplining of society. Therefore the common law flows from Government to the People, while the Constitution often flows from the People to the Government, and hence a Constitution requires a public ratification: a public vote. Less far reaching then common law are Government decisions on isolated issues. Such decisions are not necessarily rules, although one might try to extrapolate rules from them. A step even less powerful are the decisions made by non Government entities and individuals, such as the trivial decisions within the confines of a previous Government decision, and the habits and activities of individual people. When making a rule one should obviously know what one wants to achieve, or what problem one wants to solve. It is usually better if the laws are reactive rather then pro-active, because pro-active laws that do not directly solve problems will be felt as a heavy unnecessary yoke. Example of a pro-active law: one might order every person to go walking 15 kilometers every Saturday, because that is "good for discipline," and keeps people occupied. Although that is true and makes life predictable and disciplined, there are presumably countless people who will cause no problem in society if they were not forced to walk 15 kilometers on a free day. A reactive law is for example to first identify who are the hooligans, and when they are convicted include in their punishment that they must walk 15 kilometers every Saturday for 5 year. That will be perhaps solve an existing problem. When making the Constitutional law, one should think about things like: if law was not there, what is the risk that bad things happen. If bad things happen will they spiral out of control or will they reduce themselves automatically, that is will the Government already have an automatic interest in reducing the problem by making common laws or will the Government disintegrate further and further. When making the constitution one is trying to predict human behavior and the interaction of power and power corruption that the Constitution is going to create once the Constitution has the minimum public popularity to get enacted (majority support.) A constitution can also contain those laws in an as vague as possible way, that will have to be the law anyway. When the Constitution describes something that will have to be described anyway, that leaves potential Government corruption less room to maneuver. The Constitution typically describes varies groups of people or institutions and individuals. These individuals/groups will have certain activities they can do that are positive, and they can do other activities that are corrupt and damaging. The Constitution is like a system of carrots and sticks: the carrots are rewards meant to attract the institutions and individuals to doing the useful part of the job, and the sticks are meant to hurt them when they choose to do the negative part they can do. The trick of a good Constitution is that the system is set up in such a way that it is highly likely that the good acts will be done and the bad ones will not get done. The difficulty of a Constitution is that one can not simply say: `the Judge is honest, or he will get prosecuted,' or `the Government makes a good decision in the interest of the people, or the Government will step in,' because the very mechanisms that normally discipline crime and such are not yet available but being designed themselves. The Constitution therefore ends up being an attempt to cancel varies created powers against each other by making them have opposite interests and have them have power over specific aspects of each others behavior. The democratic election system is an example of this: the chosen captain looks at the people and says what must be done, and he punishes crime that threatens overall smoothness of society; the public looks at the results that the captain achieves eventually and if it does not like it they choose a different captain; which in turn makes the captain responsive to the wish of the public if at least he wants to remain the captain; which can be inferred from the fact that he wanted to be captain and/or by giving the captain an income for the effort. That is like a power system where the various interests cross over in such a way that a useful mechanism results. For a complete country this system does however not function anymore because a country is too complex for one single person to make any and all decisions. If one would try, as history records, one often ends up with incompetence, power abuses and personality cults. However the mechanism functions on a smaller scale, and can potentially be used in a modified way to balance power between Government and people. If one person can not rule all, then maybe 100 or 10.000 can. If one person can not rule all, then maybe 1 person can rule 1 square kilometer, or 10 square kilometers, and so on. Until a system is manufactured in which each person has a task it can reasonably achieve, where it is actually almost certainly adequately punished for doing bad things one way or the other, and is stimulated to do the necessary good things. Therefore making Constitutional law is not as easy as making common laws. (Actually it is quite difficult if you ask me.) One of the important things with Constitutional law is to imagine that every single person in Government is an accomplished liar and ruthless criminal, how would the Constitution function then ? How would it function with respect if only one group were completely corrupt while the others are only moderately corrupt ? If the Constitution requires a special group of "good people," the Constitution is almost certainly a boat with a gap. Sooner or later you are going to end up with someone corrupt in that position, and if the system can't handle it, all may be lost from then on. Typically the only group one can rely on not to be corrupt, are the victims of the corruption, which may be anyone, even the Government itself in the case a part of the public is corrupt. This mechanism does not function if the majority of the people is too corrupt, at which point the whole mechanism of democracy becomes defunct itself. At that point one would need to find different mechanism to establish some kind of useful law system. The more corrupt the public is the more difficult it is to make a functioning Constitution. Common law assumes there already are Judges and a law making system. Common laws have to be asked: is this law really necessary, can it actually be enforced one way or the other, is the enforcement worth the benefit that the law will give when it is being enforced and followed to the expected realistic levels. One can also ask: is the law as simple as possible, is there a different and easier to enforce mechanism somewhere, what is the cost to people who do not create a problem and how will that cost affect their agreement of the overall law system. The easy point about common laws is that if they go wrong they can be changed quickly and usually with little or no consequences. Therefore there can be lots of trial and error without affecting the whole society. `Shulchan Aruch' When the `Kitsoer Shulchan Aruch' presents laws, it does not seem to make any distinction between a Constitutional law or a common law, and it does not seem to pay the slightest of interest to the usual mechanisms for making up proper laws, such as whether a law can actually be enforced, what is its purpose and what is its cost. The Shulchan Aruch does make a distinction between what is supposedly "law" about which one does not have choice, and what is supposedly a "habit" or tradition that can be followed or not. Example: Can it be enforced that a women who forgets to light the Shabbos candle once, is to light two for the rest of her life ? How will evidence be gathered here ? How can the police even check whether two candles are burning at the start of Shabbos ? Clearly there is no way to enforce this realisticly: on this point this "law" is one of the worst imaginable failures. That law proposal would be in the waste basket quickly on that count. But can it still be a habit of the public ? Of course it can, because that does not require policing and is something done out of free will. Does the Shulchan Aruch list the `two candles punishment' as a law or as a proposed habit ? It lists it as if it is a law: a forced punishment for breaking another law (to light a candle at the beginning of the Shabbos.) The other questions to ask are for instance: what is the cost of this law ? Is it worth the obedience and enforcement of it ? Who can answer yes to those questions ? Do these Rabbis have given it a thought that once they were back in the land of Israel, that their "laws" were going to be enforced by police and justice ? Do the regular jews realize that they would be actually standing in a physical court on Earth for the "crime" of not lighting two Shabbos candles because it was accidentally forgotten once, and that witnesses would be called up to testify about there not being lit two candles once, and that the Judge would carefully weigh the evidence and if it turned out to be true that the punishment was not adequately followed that the Judge will then make up increasingly bad punishments until the law gets followed ? Do you really see that happening ? No ? Then it is not a useful law. It should not have been made I think, it is over the top and impractical. Laws have to be practical. In general there seems to be no attention to the problem of Constitutional law, or to put it differently: to the legal capacity of a Rabbinate to make up law and to sit in judgement. If true the Shulchan Aruch book would simply be a book with letters in it that have no actual legal consequence, because the Rabbinate does not have the legal power to make law. Is it true according to the Jewish law that the Rabbinate has no power to make law ? Obviously the Rabbinate itself would disagree, it claims it has the power to make law, in this case a G.d given power. However no jew disputes that the Torah, books of Moshe, are the highest law, the Rabbinate does sometimes dispute that but it will not be accepted by jews. Therefore the Rabbinate typically has no choice but to accept the Torah as law, or it would simply lose support and be just another club of people without any legal power. The Torah acts as if it is the Constitution, whereas the Rabbinate acts as if it makes common laws flowing from a granted power from the Torah, the books of Moshe. The/a Rabbinate may also claim legal power flowing from the old Jewish Court system, the highest court of it called the Sanhedrin, composed of 70 (?) highly respected law scholars and justices. The Sanhedrin would choose its own Judges based on their (perceived) competence in the law and debate about the law. If one Judge was deemed more competent then another, that Judge would make it into the Sanhedrin while another would be forced to leave it. It is the Torah law that the Jews will live in the land of Israel if they behave as their G.d told them, if they worked Justice, especially for widows and orphans, and allowed for foreigners to live in the land. Then their G.d would bless their land and protect it. Then they would also be a light for the Nations. Therefore it is the Torah law that from the moment Israel is not living securely and happily in the "holy land," that G.d has judged Israel to be corrupt. Since the Temple in Jeroesjalajim is the essential focus point of the Jewish legal system, one might infer that if the land is corrupt but the Temple keeps operating legally, then G.d may have judged the Israeli people to be corrupt, however the legal system apparently holds out on the side of Justice. If the Temple itself gets destroyed then the legal system is judged to be corrupt. Currently there is no Jewish Temple where Justice is done, and the Jews in the "holy land" live in a corrupt (5768 / 2008) country with misery and violence everywhere. Clearly the situation is not a situation of Justice under the Torah law that says that Israel will live peacefully and happily if it does the Torah law. If Israel therefore is in a state of corruption and injustice, evidenced by the blood being spilled in the "holy land," then there is at least a question about the legal power of any law giving body in Israel, be that studied Rabbis or people who carry an hereditary priest title. At the very least that breaks apart the Torah law on the one hand, and the rest of the "law" made up during the times of chaos and injustice (which last up to today.) These two sets of laws can not just be thrown together as if they were one. The law innovations from the time of injustice are potentially invalid under Torah law. That does not say they are necessarily bad innovations, only that they are presumably not flowing from the Torah "constitution." They may be very good and useful laws. However they do not have an authority based directly on the Torah. In that sense everyone can make up law. The rulings and laws made by the Sanhedrin during time of peace and happiness inside the "holy land," while a Temple was standing and no accepted prophets complained about legal corruption, are also not necessarily applicable to today, because it concerns common laws. Those common laws may well have been changed had the Sanhedrin survived until today. The Torah does not specify a law that says additional detail of law, presumably interpretations of Torah law, is supposed to remain valid exactly like it once was interpreted. But rulings of the legal system made during non-corrupt times are presumably the best type of rulings and laws that exist. Since currently the legal state of Israel is "corruption" (it is not secure in the holy land), presumably it should try to use the laws of the ancient legal system, if at least they do not conflict with the constitutional Torah law. 1. Torah: Constitution. 2. Legal system during non-corrupt (ancient) time: common law, not to conflict with the Torah. Best type of common law available, but not "absolutely necessarily" binding laws. 3. Rabbinical innovations when Temple was lost: laws made by common people and therefore without serious legal consequences. Anyone can make up these laws, although not anyone may be able to get people to follow their made up laws ... The Torah mentions several times the clause "you will keep this law for all time," and "you will keep this law for all generations as an eternal covenant between you and me." The Shabbos is such a rule. This begs the interpretations that the rules mentioned in the Torah that are not sealed with the `eternal clause,' are therefore not to be taken as eternal laws but are subject to future creativity. They may be good ideas, they may be temporarily good ideas, the Torah may not specify that. The Torah mentions once that it is illegal both to add to the Torah laws and to remove from the Torah laws [quote?]. Clearly the Torah makes it illegal to make up infinitely more additions of law, and rejects the idea that more law is always better. It (also) suggests that other laws that might be made will not have the same status as Torah law, since that would be to add or take away from Torah law. Conclusion: * Rabbinical authority is not based on Torah law, but based on popularity with the Jewish people, because G.d has judged Israel to be corrupt and has destroyed its Temple. With that all legal power to make law was removed. (This is probably the mainstream opinion already - I have no idea exactly - I'm not suggesting this is anything new.) * The quality of law exhibited in the Shulchan Aruch is bad. * The quality of Torah law does not seem to be a problem, especially when considering that at the time the democratic protocol might not have ended up functional (too much corruption.) The Torah itself relates to this problem by lamenting the hopelessness of the situation several times. It may simply not have been possible to make it work because total corruption was simply too much for a legal system to fix. Law can do a lot, but it depends on people doing things. * The law exhibited in the Shulchan Aruch breaks with the Torah (and Neviim/prophets) law against rent-seeking, which shows to be a great mistake when understanding the effects of rent-seeking secularly. In this it becomes clear that, while Torah gets it right, there is no "divine inspiration," in the Rabbinical innovations. Indeed it seems there is negative inspiration, noticing the deviousness of the rules where contracts are made to evade Torah law and cleverly conceals those crimes from the Jewish people with adequate smoke and mirrors (witnesses, autographs, formulas, courts participating, etc). * The SA appears to be part of why the Jewish people are judged as being corrupt (which does not say that other peoples are not also or even worse corrupted.) The Rabbis who promoted the SA are wolves in sheep clothing, who eat the flesh of their people, but do not take care of them. That is their legal status if you ask me. No doubt there are honorable scholars and Rabbis as well, who simply don't know better (according to Torah each person judged according its capacity to do good, a Rabbi supporting heter iska but with no ability to change that is not guilty for not changing it.) Solution: Go back to Torah. Interpret it not too heavily and not too lightly, and optionally use the Neviim/prophets and the work of confirmed non-corrupt periods of Jewish legal history during a time there as both a Temple and peace in the land as a guide. Example: the Torah mentions the Shabbos, it is to be kept for all time. Then that is a law definitely functional today. What is the Shabbos ? It is the 7th day. What is the "7th day," I suppose one could argue a little about whether it is "each 7th day that comes around," or whether it has to be the same Saturday (this may leave room for Islam to select Friday as its 7th day, since Friday happens every 7 days; and room for christianity [[give up your jesus-idolatry if you want to conform to Torah law and benefit from it]] to select Sunday as its 7th day). Keeping Shabbos means "resting," or "not working." Whatever that means may again be open for some debate, however it most definitely does not mean working hard for your boss on the Shabbos to earn money. Does "do not light a fire," mean "that was work during those times and therefore an example of prohibited labor," or is it a hard demand that refers to creating the chemical fire reaction ? There may be some debate over that, I personally favor the first option (because I see Shabbos primarily as a strike law, against worker exploitation, which makes some sense if you consider Torah was given when going out of the slave camps of Egypt.) The 7th day as a "7th day after six" is equally viable on the Saturday, as the Friday or the Sunday, however the mixing will negatively affect the ability to enforce it. That is the extend of Torah law I presume, which does not necessarily include the candle lighting procedure at all. Does that mean that candle lighting should be stopped then: of course not, it only means that it isn't part of Torah Constitutional law, but it can still be a good common law (doubtful though, impossible to enforce), or a good practice (I think so, definitely a good practice to signal end of work.) Hopefully the logic above captures the rest of the problems with the SA all at once, because it is too much work for me to go through the SA point by point. ... As a general rule the mistakes of the Shulchan Aruch can be illustrated by the rule about removal of Chameetz with Passover (removal of yeast during Pesach.) It is the rule that at some point the Jews have to remove the Chameetz, and none ought to be found. One of the simplest ways to follow this rule is: remove the Chameetz, what you find you give away, throw away, burn away, or even sell away. Presumably after having done so the law has been met. Then this law can also be implemented in a heavy variation: not only must the Chameetz that could be used for bread be removed, but you should also clean all the kitchen utensils that normally come into contact with Chameetz so that even nearly invisible amounts are removed, and you should also not eat with non Jewish people during a certain time as you are not certain there might not be some Chameetz or Chameetz-dust either been used in the food or accidentally entered it, and one should not buy food in stores that sell products that have Chameetz in them or have such products in the home after the Chameetz should have been removed, and so on and so forth. One could go to a really far extreme in this, that is a law interpreted in a heavier way then is also possible. On the other hand one could say that it is merely necessary to remove that Chameetz which is chemically the same as was used in ancient times, and if none of that is being used nothing has to be removed; that would be an easy level of doing that law, especially when old style yeast isn't normally used. The strange thing with the Shulchan Aruhc is that it does both give laws that make observance harder and even extremely hard, and then offers loopholes for how to avoid observance or significant parts of it using legalistic protocols and/or loopholes. It both lists how you have to go to quite extreme lengths to get rid of the Chameetz, for instance one should not even throw dirty water that could contain Chameetz (from cleaning a closet that contained Chameetz for instance, presumably ?) on a horizontally tiled surface, because the Chameetz rich water might pool and that would be Chameetz in possession. So that is an interpretation on the far extreme of heavy. Almost certainly such pooled water can not be used anymore to leaven bread with, although chemically it would indeed contain some Chameetz. The Shulchan Aruch says the dirty water should be thrown on open soil or a sloped tiled surface. Now this appears to be promoting a very impressive level of observance of the Chameetz rule. People who follow the Shulchan Aruch to the letter must take things very seriously, you would think. But that is only appearance, because a few centimeters away you find how to avoid the methods by which the Shulchan Aruch tells you how to sell the closets with Chameetz in them on paper to someone else, and it says to pretend for yourself that it is a serious legal transition. How does this work together ?! On the one hand a very impressive set of heavy laws are presented, and then all of a sudden you find the totally opposite methods of how to foil the entire Chameetz rule with some pretence "I have it in my possession, it is in my home, I used it, I will use it again, but for a few days I've sold it knowing full well that it will be sold back to me while it stays where it is all the time." This method of super heavy law interpretation coupled with a super light law evasion method happens a lot in the Shulchan Aruch. Perhaps this is not a surprise. When one makes up super light law evasion methods, one might feel that something is wrong, and then go in search of ways in which one might manufacture the appearance that one in fact is very strict or supports a strict interpretation. Then one might be able to silence a nagging conscience by pointing out for instance that `if I am unable to sell the Chameetz, then I will have to thoroughly remove all Chameetz, look how observant of the law I really am.' From the end of super heavy law interpretations it also works to create the super light evasion methods: when a law is interpreted in such a heavy way as to make observance a great burden, then a pressure occurs to find - or rather manufacture - loopholes. Such as the pretence-selling of Chameetz. Once the loopholes are manufactured, more and more people start using them, since the other option is the super heavy observance. Lost in all this shuffling back and forth between the extremes of heavy and light is the simple face value observance of the Torah laws as an innocent person might observe that law, unaware of all the intricate details of both the methods of evasion and the methods of greater strictness. I'd say particularly the methods of evasion are the problem, rather then the making it more heavy, but the methods of evasion are drawn into existence by a certain excessive strictness that is maintained through generations by force (social pressure), to which not everyone is likely to agree. Therefore a solution could be something like: all observance of the law from the point of the honest mid-level innocent observance are legal, and whatever a person chooses to do above that is (potentially) bonus points, but it ought not to be forced on others with the force of a law (that is with the force of punishment). This means that throwing the dirty water on open soil is potentially bonus points (if this rule has a function in preventing disease, which is possible though I don't know, then that would really function as benefit), while the simple - thorough - removal from the homes of the Chameetz is the legal Torah minimum, and the devious contracts of selling Chameetz but leaving it in the home is illegal evasion of the law. A second example of this is the law on rent seeking money and heter iska: sheer mountains of law on the tiniest scraps of potential rent-gaining that is illegal, and then a page on you find a devious contract scheme that totally and utterly undermines the purpose of that law. Extremely heavy and detailed law on the one hand, and a page on you find the manufactured devious loop hole. Note how these loopholes themselves are again clothed in protocols that give the appearance of heaviness again: so and so many witnesses, so and so must it be written, and so on. Another example is the practice of studying a Talmud tractate and then "oh what a coincidence !" just on the day that the first born must fast before Passover they just happen to finish that tractate, and are then exempted from doing the fast because they ought to have a party and there exists some ruling that the party goes before the fast. How about scheduling the tractate to not be finished on the day of the fast, so that both the fast, and the tractace party can be observed ? How about not reading the last word of the tractate, so that HaShem can be honored by the fast ? Loopholes are not closed up, they are manufactured and sought out. How about this loophole: it is illegal in most countries to commit murder of people. Then for instance I take a picture of the person I want to murder, and write on the back "this is a flower to his people," and show it to the person I want to kill whether that is him. Then I kill the person and claim: ``but he said he was a flower, and it is not illegal to kill flowers.'' Will that work in court ? I think it will not, even though there might be an argument in there, somewhere, to those willing to see it. Israel, the last thing I want to do is insult you, but please just do the law and do Justice, please. You are not doing enough, particularly not when it comes to rent-seeking which has proven long lasting and far reaching negative effects. If you want to remove Chameetz then actually do so and don't pretend to do so. If you want to observe the law against rent seeking money, then do so and don't pretend you do so. If you want to observe the law then do so, and don't pretend to do so. If you want to observe the law in a heavy way, then do so and don't pretend. If you want to observe the law in a light way then do that, and don't pretend to do it heavy using all kinds of loop holes. If you want to observe it medium strength and/or according to the wording of the Torah, then do that. Being honest about the level of observance should be better then pretending to be doing more. Orthodox marriage law knot -------------------------- I have read there is a problem with Orthodox marriage law, the system of gets and when someone does not get a get. One should first think about what one wants to achieve with law. My idea would be: happy and healthy children, the rest is not relevant comparatively. The parents only have the children about for 20 years, they are to do what they can and they are perfectly capable of doing a good job with comparatively little effort. A secondary goal may be to produce enough Jewish children to maintain the existence of the Torah. Children like their parents together and happy, that makes them happy and healthy. A Torah law about the "get," if it is to be binding, would have to be clearly and not speciously argumentatively be based on the books of Moshe itself, and I'd suggest it helps promote above mentioned goals. There are several different conditions possible: - without children - with young children that can not take care of themselves - with older children that can and do live on their own - conditions of strong disagreement between parents (childish squabbles) - where children are normally still possible for the women - where children are no longer normally possible for the women Then one would have to take account of the ability that the law gets enforced, which will probably not be that much of an issue because marital status does not change so quickly and witnesses and victims are likely to talk. I don't dare make up a law one way or the other, because I haven't looked into the problem, but somewhere there is presumably a solution for the problem. There is no special above normal Rabbinical legal authority, and that means room to make up good laws. One idea is for example: if there are no children the women will get a get, either immediately or after a period of X days/years. A waiting period could act as a punishment, making a marriage decision more difficult because harder to undo, which could make making informed/good choices more likely and give punishment for risking bringing up unhappy children through a bad marriage. Such punishment obviously depends on the existence of activity of the one being punished, and the punishment would fall on the person doing the activity (making a marriage) that caused the negative effects. A waiting period might take into account whether the women can still get children later. If there are children it will be more difficult to make a good law (because there are more interested parties, more variability of situations the law must apply to), because the children may be better off if there is no second marriage and more children. Note that children may not be able to tell what they really want, as they are easily pressured and their true interest forgotten. Hence perhaps it is an idea that no get is forced to be given when there are already children. To make the law softer one could say something like: the women will be allowed to marry once getting children becomes normally impossible. A legalistic solution is obviously (maybe already taken?): once there are 10 years past and a marriage without children is normally ended (apparently this is the orthodox law), then there is no more reason to wait for a get-document one way or the other. That may not be the best law because if there are no children who is hurt by a new marriage that may produce more Jewish children ? I have no idea if that makes sense or even conforms to Torah law itself. I have only heard there is a problem when a former husband does not allow his former wife to marry again by refusing to give her a certain document, and that this is some kind of knot in orthodox Jewish law. In my opinion the Rabbis have no G.d given (Torah) authority to make laws, therefore they are obligated as normal human beings to make laws that promote a healthy and happy life for everyone together and each individual separately. Note that the Torah punishment for breaking marriage is being stoned to death, which I think is a reasonable punishment because in many ways the parents have produced the result of murdering the children. Perhaps worse in some cases, less bad in others, still very bad and childish behavior of the parents. A strict law against breaking marriage will promote many more secure marriages, therefore the negative fallout of these death penalties may end up weighing positively against the negative fallout if marriage break up (with children) were allowed without consequences. Whether such harsh a penalty is relevant today I don't dare to say, but perhaps it is. My Constitution proposal does not allow the death penalty for marriage break up with children (or any other crime). I'm pretty much regretting that for this problem, however the death penalty is extremely disgusting, and it will presumably not do the children any good whatsoever, but only add to the problem. Perhaps an alternative punishment is that both parents have their status as adults taken away, so that they again are legally 0 years of age, legally counting upwards from then until they eventually become adults again - maybe. (Marriage break up behavior is part of the ancient now problematic instincts of humanity, presumably these instincts are going to die out one day, and parents will live together like doves do; in the mean time there is a problem.) ------------------------------------------------ This file is updated occasionally, last update: Tue Apr 22 19:42:24 UTC 2008