Topics that Remain Unaddressed

The intent of this site is to present the written Torah as a correct basis to determine one’s obligations for an observant life. The preference is to make that case on positive statements from the text itself.

Often though, these positive statements also serve as defense to the assertion that rabbinic tradition, or halakha, provides the correct and exclusive way to understand proper observance. Rabbinic tradition already occupies a position perceived as correct with about 24% of Jews observing its requirements, and 75% choosing to not observe either halakha or written Torah to varying degrees even while assuming their authority. 

This site challenges that assumption through written Torah itself, and distinguishes halakha mainly as to the claim it provides exclusive access to written Torah. It is not the intent of this site to argue against halakhic interpretation, only its binding authority.

What About Ambiguities?

Some Torah portions present ambiguity requiring interpretation. That ambiguity invites our deeper analysis, not deferral to authority outside the written word. We are each called upon to apply the whole of written Torah as we live our lives, and that necessarily requires that we interpret its meaning according to circumstance. A direct reading relies on each of us to make our own honest interpretation, for which we will be judged.

Although I cannot know, I can certainly make a good-faith case that God should prefer our own flawed interpretation but which shows an honest effort, over adopting someone else’s possibly correct interpretation but without directly engaging with written Torah.

If you get stuck, you can and should consult a rabbi or anyone else you trust. They may be able to provide helpful context or a better translation of the Hebrew. The rabbinic tradition could also prove helpful. The author of this site is not a rabbi, nor is he willing to answer questions of proper interpretation. While some essays present his understanding, he specifically disclaims them as binding or correct for anyone but himself. The author often consults with Israel Horowitz and would recommend him without hesitation.

An Example

An example of ambiguity is the prohibition against boiling a kid it its mother’s milk (Exod. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21). You may find a direct reading to clearly apply only to lamb, to apply to all meat but the specific act of boiling, to apply only when the milk is from the specific mother, or to require an elaborate set of dietary practices to keep all milk and meat separate in all cases. Halakha requires these elaborate dietary practices. You might stop at the direct textual reading and conclude that less is required. Or you might not see it as clear, decide to research it further, and adopt a refined interpretation including even the rabbinic practices.