Halacha: Definition from Answers.com

(rabbinic jurisprudence). The branch of rabbinic literature which deals with the religious obligations of members of the Jewish faith, both in their interpersonal relationships ("between man and man") and in their ritual performances ("between man and his Maker"), all equally binding. It encompasses practically all aspects of human behavior: birth and marriage, joy and grief, agriculture and commerce, ethics and theology.

The term halakhah is derived from the Hebrew halakh, "to walk," for it is the legal system which points out the way of life for the Jewish people, following the statement, "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow" (Ex. 18:20). In a more restricted sense, as first employed by the tannaim, a halakhah (pl. halakhot) referred to an oral ruling handed down by the religious authorities. Later, halakhah came to mean the accepted or authorized opinion when a ruling was in dispute. The term is also used generically to denote the legal parts of Jewish tradition in contradistinction to Aggadah, the homilies of the sages, though they naturally influenced each other.

The Commandments Halakhah is rooted in the Bible, specifically the Five Books of Moses, and is almost synonymous with Torah. The Torah is said to contain 613 Commandments (Taryag Mitsvot), 248 positive and 365 negative prescriptions (Mak. 23b). Halakhah, in the first instance, is the formal declaration of the manner in which these commandments are to be performed and the penalty incurred for transgressing them.

The commandments are regarded by the halakhah as having been revealed by God to Moses at Sinai (Torah min ha-Shamayim; lit. Torah from heaven). (Later, the sages prescribed a few additional commandments, such as lighting Candles in honor of the Sabbath and festivals and the reading of the Scroll of Esther on Purim. These are recognized as mitsvot de-rabbanan, i.e., commandments of rabbinic origin).

The Oral Law The sages of the Talmud, who laid down the basic rulings of the halakhah, postulated the existence of two Laws, the Written Law as recorded in the Pentateuch (Torah she-bi-khetav), and the Oral Law (Torah she-be'al peh), which was to be transmitted by word of mouth from master to disciple. It was asserted as an article of faith that the Oral Law was communicated to Moses simultaneously with the Written Law. This was a logical necessity, for no written text can simply be passed on without the addition of some explanatory clarifications. For example, the Written Law prescribes: "You shall not do any work on the Sabbath"; the Oral Law defines exactly which acts of labor constitute a violation of this injunction (Shab. 73a).

The existence of the Oral Law has brought about two basic features of Jewish life: the chain of Tradition linking the generations and the extraordinary emphasis upon the study and teaching of Torah (Talmud Torah). According to the Mishnah, "Moses received the Torah from Sinai and handed it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly" (Avot 1:1). The Men of the Great Assembly were led by Ezra the Scribe (sofer; Ezra 7:6), and his colleagues are known as the soferim, so called---according to the Talmud---"because they would count [sofer also means "to count"] all the letters of the Torah." They flourished a half-century after the return to Judah from the Babylonian Exile (c. 450 BCE), and their major task was "to return the Torah to Israel" (cf. Ezra 7:10).

The sages interpreted Scripture by a method called Midrash. This took the form of Midrash Halakhah, the expounding of Scripture in order to substantiate halakhic rulings, and Midrash Aggadah, which records the homilies of the sages. (Ordinarily, the term Midrash by itself denotes Midrash Aggadah.) Many of the early halakhic rulings are therefore called divré soferim ("words of the scribes") and the sages attributed to them the force of biblical law, according them even greater importance. "More precious than the words of the Torah are the words of the scribes; the penalty for disregarding them is greater than that for disregarding the words of Torah" (TJ. Sanh. 11:4). Eventually, divré soferim referred to rulings of rabbinic, rather than Scriptural, origin. As time went on, the Midrashic method became more involved, allowing for the derivation of more and more halakhic rulings from Scriptural exegesis or Hermeneutics. Thus Hillel employed seven methods of Midrash, the best known being kaI va-ḥomer, an a fortiori inference from a less stringent to a more stringent case, and gezerah shavah, an inference from a similarity of phraseology. A generation or two later, two tannaim, Nehuniah ben ha-Kanah and Nahum Ish Gimzo, introduced two different methods of expounding passages that begin with a general statement (kelal) and continue with a series of particulars (perat). One of their disciples, Ishmael Ben Elisha, elaborated the hermeneutic principles to thirteen. His colleague Akiva reached a high point of Midrashic exposition by deriving additional rulings from the Torah's use of the word et, which has no intrinsic meaning, and in turn collated the halakhic midrashim, to wit: Mekhilta on Exodus, Sifra on Leviticus, Sifré on Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Much of this Midrash was not taught in order to create new halakhah but rather to substantiate halakhah which had been transmitted as part of the Oral Law. Many halakhot had little support from Scripture. Thus the Mishnah states, "The law which provides that a sage may absolve a person from his vow hovers in the air and has nothing (in Scripture) to support it" (Ḥag. 18a). Rabbinic exegesis invariably went beyond the simple meaning of the biblical text, and in several instances "detoured" around its meaning in order to lay down a law. Some halakhot were transmitted without any reference to Scripture and were designated Halakhah Le-Mosheh Mi-Sinai ("a ruling received by Moses on Mount Sinai"). (Later commentators point out that some rulings designated as such in the Talmud are not literally from Sinai, but were said to be so because of their widespread acceptance.)

Authority of the Sages It was held that in certain areas the Torah did not prescribe any specific legislation but left the matter to the sages to lay down the rules. Thus, concerning work on the intermediate days of festivals (ḥol Ha-Mo'Ed), it is said, "Scripture gave it over to the sages to decide which type of work is forbidden and which is permitted" (Ḥag. 18a)" In fact, the decision in all questions of Jewish law was given over to the sages. "'The Torah is not in heaven' (Deut. 30:12); it has already been given over from Sinai, and in the Torah it is written, 'Bend the law after the majority' [interpreted as 'of the sages'; Ex. 23:2]" (BM 59b). Their decisions constitute the halakhah, the norm and practice in Jewish life.

The authority of the sages was practically unlimited. They did not hesitate to assert their right to abrogate a law of the Torah if they deemed it necessary for the general upholding of the law. It was their conviction that their interpretation of Scripture was part of the Divine revelation even when opinions were divided, saying, "Both opinions are words of the living God" (Er. 13a).

Nevertheless, the sages were anxious that the distinction between the Written Law and the Oral Law be scrupulously maintained. They ruled, "Teachings which were given orally may not be committed to writing; teachings given in writing [i.e., Scripture] may not be transmitted orally" (Git. 60b). It was only later, owing to the exigencies of Jewish life and the tremendous volume of halakhot that had accumulated during the period of the tannaim, that Judah Ha-Nasi (c. 138-217) decided to collect the halakhot, organize them according to subject matter, and create a second text for the study of Torah: the Mishnah.

The rationale behind this ruling was twofold: no commentary, exegetical or otherwise, can ever be added to the sacred text, for the text is Divine and all commentary is human. Secondly, it is essential to preserve the original text and the fluidity of all commentary; for Revelation of the Torah is the dialogue between God who is eternal and Man who is subject to the accidents of time. From the very beginning, there is imbedded in the words of the Torah an "eternal contemporaneity," a relevance to contemporary life in every circumstance. "The Torah," say the sages, "speaks in contemporary language, in the language of man" (BK 5:7, Ket. 67b). It is this feature of the halakhah that enabled it to serve in the past, and to continue to serve in a radically changed world, as the guideline for traditional Jewry.

Ordination The "judge of the time" is the biblical shofet (judge), the rabbinic ḥakham (sage) or dayyan (judge). The original source of his authority is Moses, who laid the foundation for the vesting of authority to decide questions of Jewish law when he "handed over the Torah to Joshua" by the laying on of hands (semikhah; Num. 27:18). This Ordination also empowered the recipient to transfer authority to another, usually as teacher to disciple, thus creating a chain of halakhic tradition that was passed on from generation to generation. By the time of the Talmud, ordination was not conveyed by the physical laying on of hands but by conferring the title "ḥakham" or "Rabbi." Candidates for ordination had to possess, besides knowledge of the law, certain moral qualities summed up by Maimonides as follows: "Each judge must possess seven qualities: wisdom, humility, awe (of God), indifference to wealth, love of truth, love from the people, and a good reputation; all these are specified in the Torah" (Yad, Sanh. 2:7).

The sages ruled that ordination could be conferred only in the Land of Israel. This did not mean that communities in the Diaspora were to be deprived of recognized halakhic authorities. To ensure the proper administration of Jewish law with officially authorized sages---and for centuries most communities in the Diaspora were autonomous in this respect---a corresponding form of ordination was instituted, although it did not confer the major prerogatives of the original ordination. It was the recognition by a superior authority that the conferee "higi'a le-hora'ah," i.e., that his knowledge of talmudic law was sufficient to allow him to render halakhic decisions.

The Sanhedrin With the exception of Moses, no individual, regardless of his erudition, could make decisions binding upon all Israel. For such comprehensive authority a duly constituted body comprising individuals who had received ordination was necessary. Such a body was first constituted when Moses gathered 70 Elders to share with him the burden of leading the Children of Israel (Num. 11:16-17). In the days of Ezra the supreme governing body is said to have been the 120-member Great Assembly. Subsequently, as the body was reconstituted in the days of the Hasmoneans (2nd cent. BCE), it consisted of 70 members and was known as "the Great Sanhedrin," a term of Greek origin meaning "Council." It is also referred to in rabbinic literature as Bet ha-Din ha-Gadol, the "Great Court of Law."

The Sanhedrin was much more than a court of law. Its chief function in fact was to expound and interpret the Torah's teachings for all Israel. Maimonides called it the root of the Oral Law (Yad, Mam. 1:1). Once it proclaimed the law, any scholar who defied its ruling was liable to punishment by death (Deut. 17:12; in talmudic parlance, Zaken Mamreh).

Anti-Halakhah Movements In the early days of the Sanhedrin, some questioned the validity of the whole concept of the Oral Law, viz. halakhic rulings based upon hermeneutic interpretation. These opponents of the sages were the Sadducees, who questioned the principle of Reward and Punishment and denied the Olam ha-Ba (Afterlife) as formulated by the rabbis. The latter, troubled by the contradiction in real life of the former principle, postulated that the ultimate reward and punishment for man's deeds upon earth is rendered in the Olam ha-Ba ("world to come"), the abode of the soul after death.

After the destruction of the Temple (70 CE), the Sadducees ceased to exist as a force in Jewish life. In the eighth century, during the period of the ge'onim, there emerged a new group opposed to rabbinic Judaism, the Karaites, so called because they asserted that Jewish law is inferred only from a literal interpretation of Scripture (Mikra). Indeed, they repudiated the whole concept of the Oral Law. The rabbis, Saadiah Gaon in particular, waged a fierce polemic against them, and by the 12th century, with the exception of a few communities, they ceased to attract Jews to their ideology. A moot question among the halakhists was the status of the Karaites; whether they were to be regarded as Jews despite their heresy, or not.

The heirs of the anti-halakhists in modern times were the founders of Reform Judaism in the early 19th century. Again controversy raged as rabbinic leaders warned against any deviation from the halakhic tradition. The reaction against Reform led to a rigidity in halakhic interpretation, manifested today in the reinforcement of many stringencies in religious observance among the Orthodox.

Gezerot The Men of the Great Assembly laid down another principle for the sages to implement: "Make a hedge around the Torah" (Avot 1:1), i.e., institute new restrictions in addition to those of the Torah in order to ensure against violation of the commandments. Thus, to the halakhah were added in successive generations various rulings of rabbinic origin which have become integrated into the corpus of Jewish law.

These added restrictions are called gezerot (sing. Gezerah). They are considered so important as even to override a positive commandment of the Torah. For example, if the only available Shofar (ram's horn) on Rosh Ha-Shanah is on a tree, the tree may not be climbed to obtain the shofar even though it means not being able to perform the commandment of sounding the shofar (RH 4:8). Furthermore, once a gezerah is decreed by the competent authorities and has been accepted by Jewry at large, it cannot be rescinded by later authorities.

Hierarchy of Authority The assumption of the halakhah is that every later group of scholars is inferior to an earlier one and is therefore bound by the decrees of its predecessors. Nevertheless, the rule is that where the earlier authorities differ, the halakhah (the accepted ruling) is according to the later authority. The latter has no doubt examined the opinions of the former, and "like a dwarf upon the shoulders of a giant" sees further and reasons more correctly. Since the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud was later than that of the Jerusalem Talmud, the halakhah invariably follows the former whenever the two differ. (As a consequence, halakhic studies were largely confined to the Babylonian Talmud.)

The authority of the Talmud is supreme. Maimonides states emphatically, "All Israel is obliged to follow all the statements in the Babylonian Talmud. Every city and every province is compelled to conduct itself in accordance with the customs, decrees and regulations instituted by the sages of the Gemara, since all Israel agreed to accept them" (Introduction to Mishneh Torah). As a result, many of the "liberties" taken by the sages of the Talmud in applying the halakhah were deemed by post-talmudic authorities as beyond the latter's competence. (A prime example is the power to annul marriages ab initio.) However, significant restrictions were added by later authorities by proclaiming a ḥerem (Excommunication) against those who would defy them. Thus, Rabbenu Gershom Me'or ha-Golah (10th cent.) banned, inter alia, the practice of polygamy. This ban was accepted by Ashkenazi, but not by Sephardi, Jewry.

Takkanot. The sages understood that no basic code of law can anticipate all social and economic situations that may arise and therefore there has to be included in the basic code a provision for the ongoing issuance of regulations to insure law and order in society. In the halakhah these regulations are called takkanot (sing. Takkanah). The areas covered by them varied according to the scope of the authority proclaiming them. Many attributed by the Talmud to Moses, Joshua, and King Solomon, and others instituted by the sages themselves, devolved upon all Jews. Thus the liturgy of the daily prayers and benedictions (berakhot) are ascribed to the Men of the Great Assembly (Meg. 17b). Hillel introduced the Prosbul, a document preventing the cancelation of debts and extending loans beyond the Sabbatical Year (Git. 4:3). Johanan Ben Zakkai instituted many takkanot after the destruction of the Temple in order to insure the continuity of religious practice despite the absence of the Temple (RH 4. 1-4). His successor Rabban Gamaliel II instituted an additional benediction in the daily Amidah to invoke the wrath of God against heretics (Minim, probably the early Christians). Other important takkanot included the regulation of marriage contracts (Ketubbot) and the distribution of inherited estates.

The halakhah also empowered municipalities and economic groups to regulate the affairs of their respective constituents. In 18th-century Poland the Jewish representative body, the Council of the Four Lands, adopted many takkanot for the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe. About the same time, R. Jacob ben Tsur edited a Sefer ha-Takkanot ("Book of Ordinances") listing the many regulations adopted by the communities in Muslim lands. With the establishment of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, R. Abraham Isaac Kook and his successor, R. Isaac Halevi Herzog, called for the adoption of takkanot in domestic affairs, but other rabbis refused to cooperate.

Minhag Another division of rabbinic law incorporated in the halakhah is minhag (Custom), practices that came about not from a specific ruling or takkanah but as a result of the spontaneous desire of a community to adopt a certain ritual that received the sanction of the local sage. Thus minhag invariably refers to a local custom, though many such customs spread from their original locale to a much wider region. The sages laid great stress upon the obligation to conform to local custom so as to avoid divisiveness and conflict. A traveler is obliged to follow both the strictures of his home town and those of the community he is visiting (Pes. 4:1). Local custom also became the norm in fixing employer-employee relations. From talmudic times differences in prayer rite (Nusaḥ) between Jews in Erets Israel and Babylonia led to many more differences between Ashkenazi-European Jews and Sephardi Jews of Muslim lands.

According to many halakhists the practices of rabbinic origin, gezerot, takkanot, and minhagim, once incorporated in the halakhah, remain obligatory, even if the original rationale for their adoption no longer exists. Thus, even after the Calendar was fixed and the Jews outside Erets Israel were no longer in doubt as to which day the festival occurs, they were advised "Keep the custom of your fathers and continue to observe two days of festivals" (Béts. 4b). Nevertheless, post-talmudic authorities recognized that many practices in force by talmudic law were not meant to apply to a changed situation. Many restrictions imposed by the Talmud against dealing with non-Jews are no longer considered applicable; they were designed against idol worshipers and not the Christian or Muslim of today.

Codification The Talmud is discursive, it deals with many theoretical questions and many of its discussions are inconclusive. It therefore could not serve as a practical guide for the layman. To fill this need, digests of the halakhah, concise and arranged systematically, were composed, beginning with the period of the ge'onim (see Codification). Among them are the She'iltot of Aḥai of Shabḥa (a series of sermons outlining pertinent commandments), Halakhot Pesukot of Yehudai Gaon, and Halakhot Gedolot of Simeon Kayyara (8th cent.). Saadiah Gaon (882-942) composed a whole series of halakhic digests, the most popular being his Siddur (prayer book), containing not only the text of the prayers but also the relevant laws. Even before him, Amram Gaon wrote a prayer book in response to a request from the Barcelona community. The last of the ge'onim, Hai (939-1038), also composed a series of halakhic treatises for specific subjects.

The first of the RISHONIM, Isaac Alfasi (1013-1103), employed another method. His major work, Hilkhot ha-Rif, is an abridgment of those sections of the Talmud that have practical significance and a statement of the halakhah. This method was later followed by Asher Ben Jehiel (the Rosh; 1250-1327), whose halakhot appear in many editions of the Talmud. The most comprehensive and systematic code of Jewish law, including laws rendered obsolete by history but which hopefully will be restored in the Messianic era, is the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides (1135-1204). Most authoritative in modern times is the Shulḥan Arukh of Joseph Caro (1488-1575), a Sephardi, with the glosses of Moses Isserles (1525-1572) for Ashkenazi practice. All these codes are embellished by commentators who brought the rulings up to date. For Ashkenazi Jewry, most authoritative today is the Mishnah Berurah of Israel Meir Kagan, the ḥafets ḥayyim (1838-1933). Sephardim generally follow Sefer Ben Ish Ḥai of Joseph Ḥayyim of Baghdad and Kaf ha-Ḥayyim of Ḥayyim Palaggi of Izmir.

Responsa Another branch of rabbinic literature which serves as a halakhic guide comprises the many thousands of Responsa (teshuvot) spanning the centuries from the talmudic period to this very day. These are responses by halakhic authorities to practical questions addressed to them by laymen or by colleagues, though some responsa in latter days expatiate on talmudic statements. Their halakhic authority is largely measured by the reputation of the author, as well as by his persuasive reasoning.

The voluminous material amassed through the ages has led to the production in recent times of several talmudic encyclopedias, with subjects arranged alphabetically. The Encyclopedia Talmudit now being published in Jerusalem is most comprehensive. In contrast to the codes mentioned above, the encyclopedias do not render decisive halakhic judgments; their purpose is to provide the scholar with all the available material from which he can draw his own conclusions. It is a principle of the halakhah that "a judge can decide only upon the basis of his own judgment."

Contemporary Issues The application of this principle can be seen in the host of questions being answered by today's halakhist. Modern technology and its devices, undreamed of in previous generations, pose problems for which there is little precedent in traditional halakhah (see Halakhah and Technology). What is the nature of electricity; is it the ésh (fire) which Scripture prohibits on the Sabbath, or not? What about telecommunications; does one fulfil the commandment of listening to the shofar on Rosh ha-Shanah by hearing it broadcast? The halakhist is faced with more crucial problems by advances in medical practice. At what point can we say that death has occurred and a vital organ may be removed for transplantation? What about artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization? (see Medical Ethics).

Current events also call for the halakhist to exercise ingenuity in judgment. What is the relation of halakhah to the State of Israel? How does it react to the feminist demand for greater participation of women in ritual?

Thanks to the continuous vitality of the halakhah, rabbis today are responding to these questions, arguing not only by analogy with traditional sources, but---more importantly---moved by the basic nature of the halakhah. Though a legal system, it is by no means the harsh legalism which its denigrators depict. "The ways of the entire Torah," say the sages, "are ways of pleasantness" (Git. 59b). Justice is to be tempered with mercy, truth with kindness, the law with compassion. The halakhah advises that a man should act lifnim mi-shurat ha-din ("beyond the strict letter of the law") and yield in favor of the needy (BM 30b). Because of the halakhah, tsedakah (righteousness) is construed to mean charity. Since "all its paths are peace" it urges good-neighborly relations with all, including the non-Jew.

The Conservative Approach While recognizing the central importance of halakhah, Conservative Judaism insists that it is a developing concept which permits ordered change. Throughout history many factors have influenced such changes, including the forces of sociology, ethics, intercommunal relations, politics, and above all in modern times, technological, scientific, and economic realities.

With regard to the source of halakhah, Conservative scholars generally reject the belief that the Written Law is the literal work of God and that the Oral Law is an extension of Divine revelation. In Conservative teaching the Written Law contains a revealed Divine teaching but the actual words were written down and transmitted by man. It is still authoritative revelation, but not in its literal form. The Oral Law is an authoritative source for halakhah because it represents the ongoing search to discover the meaning and relevance of the Written Law with its Divinely inspired message. That process of search is continuous so that each generation is challenged to find the contemporary relevance of the halakhah. It is bound to involve some development and even change from age to age, as is the case, for example, with the Conservative approach to the status of women in Jewish law. This is so because halakhah is the law which guides every aspect of life. Since life itself is dynamic, each age will call for new interpretation and application of the received laws. Conservative Judaism bases its thesis on the conviction that this approach has been recognized by the rabbis throughout history and that accordingly the halakhah has in fact been subject to change. It also emphasizes that the Torah itself requires such judicial activity.

This does not mean that the law may be arbitrarily changed or that every rabbi has the mandate to bring about such changes. Conservative theologians recognize the importance of the past and the authority of earlier rabbinic legislators. They differ from some Orthodox schools of thought in also giving due weight to the present. Against this tension between the past and the present, the Conservative scholar seeks the balance which respects that past with its decisions and the need to bring modern relevance to the halakhah.

Such changes as are found necessary are decided only after extensive scholarly debate and then by final decision of the Law Committee of the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly.

The Reform Approach Reform Judaism, which is pluralistic by nature, has given rise to many different theoretical and practical views on halakhah. In the early stages, in Germany, the two major positions were represented by Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim. The former put the emphasis on reforming halakhah and invoking tradition, in a scientific and critical way, to justify changes. This was done through gradual and organic development while accepting the concept of halakhah as vital and holding that both biblical and post-biblical Judaism are necessary to guide the contemporary Jew. The latter accepted the authority of biblical law, though in an eclectic way, but attributed very little weight to later formulations of the Jewish tradition, seeing the need to release progress from the "rigid hand of the Talmud."

In the United States a similar diversity exists. Isaac Mayer Wise and David Einhorn represented the different approaches, the moderate and the radical, in the early days of Reform in the U.S. The development that Reform has undergone as a movement can best be seen in the nature of its platforms. The Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 stated: "We accept as binding only the moral laws and maintain only such ceremonies as elevate and sanctify our lives, but reject all such as are not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas altogether foreign to our present mental and spiritual state." The Columbus Platform of 1937 spoke of the continuous process of revelation and declared that both Written and Oral Law "preserve the historical precedents, patterns of goodness and holiness ... Torah remains the dynamic source of the life of Israel ... Judaism as a way of life requires, in addition to its moral and spiritual demands, the preservation of the Sabbath, festivals, and holy days, the retention and development of such customs, symbols and ceremonies as possess inspirational value." In the 1976 Centenary Perspective, the Reform position was stated as follows: "Judaism emphasizes action rather than creed as the primary expression of a religious life, the means by which we strive to achieve universal justice and peace. Reform Judaism shares this emphasis on duty and obligation ... the past century has taught us that the claims made upon us may begin with our ethical obligations but they extend to many other aspects of Jewish living ... Within each area of Jewish observance Reform Jews are called upon to confront the claims of Jewish tradition, however differently perceived, and to exercise their individual autonomy, choosing and creating on the basis of commitment and knowledge."

This trend has been influenced by the growing notion of peoplehood in Reform ideology, large influxes of East European Jews into the ranks of Reform, the rise of Zionism, and the establishment of the State of Israel. With the growing calls to set norms for present-day Jewish life, a series of guides have been published by the Central Conference of American Rabbis for home and communal observance, the festivals, Sabbath and daily use.

In Israel, the Movement for Progressive Judaism has developed a set of criteria for the application and acceptance of the mitsvot (commandments): 1) the purpose of a mitsvah and its historical development; 2) the possibility of sanctifying life with its observance; 3) the feasibility of fulfilling it in contemporary conditions; 4) the impact of the mitsvah on Kelal Yisrael (all the Jewish people); and 5) the absence of conflict between the mitsvah and the dictates of conscience.

		Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more
		Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more
		Encyclopedia of Judaism. The New Encyclopedia of Judaism. Copyright © 1989, 2002 by G.G. The Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more
		Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/. Read more
		Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Copyright © 2004 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more