Home (Netzarim Logo)

Historically (i.e., Biblically), were the litigated, case law, product of in a Beit-Din, who adjudicated questions and disputes (in contrast with legislating khuq•im) in the implementation of Tor•âh in real life disputes, applications and cases.

In modern parlance, as a byproduct of the split between Ultra-Orthodox "halakhic" or "religious" courts (having wrested control from moderate Orthodox) versus an Israeli state, "secular," court, the term was narrowed to include only Israeli "secular" state courts; i.e., a court trial or hearing, litigation in a court that is not Ultra-Orthodox ("religious"). Ultra-Orthodox ("religious") courts then distinguished themselves as a Beit Din, judging according to din Tor•âh rather than state () law, to differentiate it from a "secular" (Israeli state) beit mi•shᵊpât.

Res Judicata & Stare Decisis

According to legal principles still revered in courtrooms today, these constituted a First-Order res judicata in a system of law based on the principle of stare decisis. When based on solid (i.e. Ta•na"kh) foundation, stare decisis is vital to ensuring consistency (equality) under the law. Failing to base stare decisis solidly on on Ta•na"kh, however, logically transforms stare decisis into an ex falso quodlibet assumption – a mindless assimilation back into previous idolatry. Disastrously, stare decisis then invites everlasting mindless magnification of the earlier assimilation – amplifying idolatry – without ever reconsidering whether the original precedent was logically well-founded and that it remains logically well-founded despite mundas mutatis.

The deliberations of these cases, along with their , were transmitted orally (except for the Pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im, who codified their version, Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν, by the first century C.E.) until the 5th century C.E. when Tal•mud was compiled. Much Ha•jâd•âh and rabbinic "fences" legislation found in Tal•mud, though sometimes assumed to be Ha•lâkh•âh, exceed the definition of .

Tor•âh shë-bᵊ•al pëh (Oral Instruction) vs Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv (Written Instruction)

While Tor•âh shë-bᵊ•al pëh will always be continually adapting to new technology, conditions and situations, Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv is complete (Tᵊhil•im 91:8). Contrary to some rabbinic assertions, their attempts to alter Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv are prohibited by Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv (e.g., Dᵊvâr•im 27:3,8; 31:24; 4:1-2; 13:1; Shᵊm•ot 24:4; Yᵊsha•yâhu 29:13 & Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlomoh 30:5-6).

Legitimate is either 1) "Ha•lâkh•âh dᵊ-Or•âi•tâ," which always stands on direct logical authority of Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv, or 2) "Ha•lâkh•âh dᵊ-Rab•ân•ân," which is of lesser authority.

Rulings that cannot be defended directly from Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv through logical implication, relying solely on rabbinic authority, are recognized as binding by the Nᵊtzâr•im only when it can be conclusively demonstrated that

  1. the is in no way incompatible with Tor•âh shë-bi•khᵊtâv and

  2. the cannot be avoided through the exercise of reasonable accommodation and tolerance from both sides or parties of an issue.

The accumulated corpus of comprises Ha•lâkh•âh.

Συνέδριον, a Greek word (then used only in Hellenist circles) was known in the Jewish community as the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol. The corpus of Oral Law— and khuq•im of the Beit-Din—over the millennia, preserved for us by the Pᵊrush•im, is called Ha•lâkh•âh. The Qum•rân-Essene Tzᵊdoq•im called their interpretations Ma•as•ëh. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzᵊdoq•im Ko•han•ei hâ-Rësha of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i codified their Oral Law into their Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν.

For more details, see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC).

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher
Google+ Nᵊtzâr•im page

Int'l flags


Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic