The Torah in Modern Judaism .sx For centuries Jews have maintained that the Torah was revealed by God to Moses on Mt Sinai .sx Such belief 'guarantees' that the Five Books of Moses including history , theology , and legal precepts are of Divine origin and have absolute authority .sx In consequence Orthodoxy refuses to accept any modernist interpretation of the Pentateuch .sx As Zwi Werblowsky explains :sx " Jewish Orthodoxy has .sx .. always staunchly upheld the theory of verbal inspiration in its extremist form - at least so far as the Pentateuch is concerned .sx Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch is flatly rejected and is considered a major heresy .sx The underlying assumption is that the whole fabric of traditional Judaism would crumble if its foundation , the notion of Divine legislation to Moses , were to be exchanged for modernist ideas about historical growth and the composite nature of sacred texts " .sx This clash between the Orthodox understanding of scripture and the modern liberal perspective has been and continues to be the central theological stumbling block to inter-Jewish unity .sx Recently this irreconcilable conflict was highlighted in a notorious debate between Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks , the designate Chief Rabbi of the UK , and the distinguished scholar , Rabbi Dr Louis Jacobs .sx Their disagreement and the subsequent public reaction illustrate that the traditional and liberal conceptions of Torah inevitably preclude the possibility of religious reconciliation .sx NEO-ORTHODOX FUNDAMENTALISM .sx In 'The Origin of Torah' in the 2 November 1984 issue of the Jewish Chronicle Sacks presents his view of Torah in a lengthy review of a recent book by Jacobs - The Tree of Life .sx According to Jacobs , the Torah was not revealed in its totality at Mt Sinai ; it grew slowly as the accretion of documents and decisions .sx ( This view , Sacks notes , was originally propounded by Jacobs in We Have Reason To Believe published nearly 30 years ago .sx ) Jacobs' view is invalid , Sacks believes , since it contains several errors .sx First , Sacks attacks Jacobs' contention that the Torah is a collaboration between God and man .sx What sort of collaboration could this be ?sx Sacks asks .sx " He [Jacobs] has told us :sx men make up the words .sx What then did the Almighty contribute ?sx The theme ?sx The plot ?sx The rough idea ?sx How are we to tell ?sx The only evidence we have is the words themselves .sx And the words , says Jacobs , are human , all too human !sx " Thus Sacks concludes that throughout Jacobs' work there is a persistent confusion between the historical and the metaphysical .sx On the one hand , there is an acceptance of historical scholarship ; on the other hand , Jacobs argues that revelation is a matter of faith rather than historical scholarship .sx Sacks contends it is inconsistent for Jacobs to employ the criterion of historical scholarship in evaluating the veracity of the Orthodox claim that God revealed the Torah to Moses on Mt Sinai .sx Sacks' second criticism concerns Jacobs' use of the term 'fundamentalist' to describe the rabbinic approach to Torah and halachah .sx Fundamentalism , he points out , is an approach to the Bible which sets primacy on the literal reading of the text and sees the main function of the Torah as conveying information of a factual nature .sx But , Sacks continues , the rabbinic tradition gave supremacy to the Oral Law which frequently departed from the apparent plain meaning and saw the Torah's function as establishing communal obligations .sx Here there is a confusion between the Bible as a document and the Torah as the constitution of the covenant between God and His people .sx To ask of the Bible if it is true is to view the Torah as a document - this would be a fundamentalistic approach .sx But when the Torah is correctly seen as an halachic constitution , such a question is irrelevant .sx Sacks concludes that in arguing for a " non-fundamentalistic halachah " Jacobs has misunderstood this distinction and has thereby coined a phrase which is devoid of meaning .sx Related to this criticism is what Sacks sees as a further important error :sx Jacobs mistakenly believes in halachic change since Jewish law is man-made and occasionally wrong .sx However , Sacks argues that laws are not an individual's private code but rules which govern a community .sx No law can be changed by an individual will or a sub-group unless they have authority over the community .sx " A group of Jews " , he writes , " could constitute themselves as a beth din and issue rulings designed at a stroke to remedy every religious grievance , but they would not have changed the law ; rather they would have unilaterally declared independence from it .sx " Sacks contends that Jacobs fails to grapple with the question of halachic authority and his opinions therefore lack any communal basis .sx Jacobs asserts that halachic authorities have not addressed themselves to the issues of our time .sx Sacks disagrees - he thinks they have done so but have given answers which Jacobs simply does not like .sx These halachists who issued non-concessive rulings were not evading the present , but responding to it in a way that recognizes idealism as a more potent spring of action than compromise .sx They sensed the need to re-establish the fundamentals of faith after the Holocaust .sx The final criticism of Jacobs' position concerns the role of the modern halachists .sx Jacobs states that they should take account of the history of halachic change :sx Sacks argues that it would be a mistake for them to become historians .sx Why , Sacks asks , should halachists have a methodology that negates time ?sx The answer is that the Torah is an eternal covenant , a mutually binding constitution between God and Israel .sx Such a covenant does not change ; it resists time :sx " The eternity of the Torah is the eternity of the Jewish people , an island in the stream of time " .sx This conception has important consequences .sx When a rabbi decides an issue in Jewish law , he is bound by the decrees of previous rabbinic authorities .sx Even when the issue is topical he must bring to bear the halachah's cumulative verdicts .sx According to Sacks , Jacobs' analysis does not take into account this timeless quality of the tradition .sx Thus Sacks concludes :sx " in taking too rough a hold on the Tree of Life , he has pulled it , roots and all , from the soil in which it grows " .sx A NON-PROPOSITIONAL VIEW OF REVELATION .sx In the 16 November issue of the Jewish Chronicle , Jacobs presents his defence .sx In 'The Origin of the Torah :sx A Response' he attempts to answer Sacks' claim that there is a contradiction between accepting Divine revelation and the conclusions of historical scholarship .sx Jacobs asserts that this is in no way inconsistent :sx revelation is an event or series of events in which there is a meeting between God and man - a matter of faith .sx Biblical criticism examines the accounts of such encounters .sx It asks how they came about , who wrote them down , and when and whether our present texts are completely accurate in all their details .sx Jacobs grants that if revelation is understood as verbal inspiration , Biblical scholarship is impossible .sx But it is Jacobs' view that such scholarship renders the notion of verbal inspiration untenable .sx Here he invokes the example of Abraham Ibn Ezra's contention that the final section of Deuteronomy describing Moses' ascent on the mountain to die could not have been written by Moses .sx If , Jacobs asks , the claim is made on the grounds of faith that Moses did write it , on what is such faith based ?sx The issue , Jacobs believes , can be settled by human investigation .sx Invoking faith is unnecessary .sx Thus Jacobs believes that both faith and historical criticism have separate roles and can harmoniously combine in a true understanding of God's relation to man .sx Concerning Sacks' criticism of his use of the term 'fundamentalist' to describe the rabbinic approach to Torah and halachah , Jacobs disputes Sacks' understanding of the concept .sx Fundamentalism is concerned primarily with inerrancy rather than the literal reading of the text .sx " Non-fundamentalist halachah " is therefore not a confusion but a legitimate notion of halachah based on tenable premises .sx Jacobs continues by examining Sacks' claim that he ( Jacobs ) believes that the law can be changed by an individual or sub-group .sx " I have never argued for such a position " , Jacobs writes .sx " Where a change in the law is required it must be brought about by the acknowledged authorities of the whole observant community .sx " Jacobs points out that in the past halachists conceived of the law as dynamic in character ; this should provide the basis for a creative interpretive approach .sx Yet such a change is inhibited by the present climate of Orthodox opinion .sx The obstacle to such a dynamic perspective is the Orthodox adherence to a rigid fundamentalist understanding of the origin of Torah .sx Such fundamentalism , Jacobs believes , cannot be sustained in the face of critical research .sx Let us ask Sacks , he writes , " whether he believes that the Masoretic text is always accurate and all the versions always wrong ; whether he rejects any suggestion that the Pentateuch is a composite work ; whether the massive researches of Krochmal , Ginzberg , Finkelstein , Buchler , I.H. Weiss , Lieberman and many other historians of the Talmudic period , into the way the doctrine of the Oral Torah has developed , are so much hot air " .sx Jacobs notes that Sacks gives the appearance of accepting the results of modern scholarship - even where they are at variance with traditional views .sx But if so , it would have been helpful to have a clear exposition of his position .sx In response to Sacks' final criticism concerning his views about halachah and history , Jacobs emphasises that he does not wish that halachists become historians .sx What he urges is that they should have a better knowledge of the past , and not think Judaism is beyond space and time .sx " If new knowledge in medicine , science , and technology is allowed a voice in the halachic process , where is the logic in denying increased historical knowledge a voice ?sx " What Jacobs seeks to show is that the Law is not unyielding and lifeless ; it can grow as it has in the past .sx IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES .sx In this debate there is clearly no possibility of agreement ; in the letters to the editor printed in subsequent issues of the Jewish Chronicle similarly irreconcilable views were expressed .sx Supporting Rabbi Sacks , the Rev. Chaim Ingram declared :sx " the vast majority , ever growing legions of yeshiva-oriented Jewish young men and women .sx .. espouse the very so-called 'fundamentalist' approach to Torah which Rabbi Sacks defends .sx They have realised that the middle-of-the-road is an indecisive and potentially dangerous place to be " .sx Again , Rabbi Alain Kimche writes :sx " It is common knowledge that from father to son for over 3,000 years the Jewish people have lived with God by total acceptance of the historical and textual authenticity of the Torah .sx Those who left this position rarely lasted to the third generation within the Jewish nation .sx By subjecting the Torah and Sinai to historical and textual criticism , Jacobs has placed himself fair and square outside the national Talmudic heritage " .sx In praise of Sacks , Dr Tali Lowental asserts that the Torah is supra-rational in the life of the Jewish people .sx Is this supra-rational force relevant to the rational man of today's world ?sx he asks .sx " Rabbi Sacks in his commendable article is clearly saying 'yes' .sx Halachah takes note of reality - continuously - and at the same time gives guidance which ultimately is Divine .sx " .sx Supporters of Jacobs , however , contend that Sacks is mistaken in his criticism .sx Michael Milston , for example , writes :sx " It is unfortunate that Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has joined the mountainous ranks of Anglo-Jewish thinkers who have failed to understand the point which Rabbi Jacobs is making .sx It is agreed amongst all Jewish thinkers that God is infinite but it is also agreed amongst everyone that language is finite .sx Therefore , language must , ipso facto , contain only part of God's revelation .sx In that sense language is finite man's attempt to understand the infinity of God " .sx Isaac Newman emphasizes the importance of historical criticism :sx " As one who studied under the illustrious teachers of Jew's College " , he writes , " I cannot today dispense with the tools of their historical and critical methodology in the study of Judaism - with the hopeful possibility of applying its findings to the contemporary world of thought and practice where it is so badly needed .sx