Hashkafah

1. Hashkafah
2. The Hashkafah of the Prophets
3. Hashkafah informs Halachah
4. Jesus, the Sabbath, and the Hashkafah of Hillel
5. Hashkafah and doctrine
6. Hashkafah as an interface

Hashkafah

Hashkafa has the connotation of an outlook from a high position:

“Look down [Hashkifa] from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our ancestors, a land flowing with milk and honey.” – Deuteronomy 26:15

By the first century, the word was used to designate the high-altitude big picture view one can derive from the principles found in the Torah. Complex and challenging questions were therefore scrutinized not at the level they were generated, but the Sages would “look down” at it, as if from a precipice. They would stand at the edge of towering Torah principles, or the philosophical outlook that the Torah provides.

“Hashkafa” is constructed via Inductive reasoning, by collecting scripture that contain “Meta-principles” – these are principles that reveal the general intent of the Torah. The Sages found justification for this pursuit in Deuteronomy 6:18 and other commands like it, which obligate Israel to a general cause:

“Do what is right and good in the LORD’s sight”

What set of principles could we derive from the Torah to ensure we always do what is right and good in every situation? This is Hashkafah.

The Hashkafah of the Prophets

Hashkafic inquiry occupied the sages/rabbis of the second temple era. This was a common way of studying the Torah: by diving into the Torah in order to derive a common core principle. If such a core principle exists, what is it? If there are multiple principles, what are they and how many?

The Talmud lists 5 ways the Torah has been summarized in scripture (Tractate Makkot 24A).

David reduces the Torah to eleven principles in Psalm 15:

Lord, who shall sojourn in Your Tabernacle? Who shall dwell upon Your sacred mountain? He who walks wholeheartedly [1], and works righteousness [2] , and speaks truth in his heart [3]. Who has no slander upon his tongue [4] , nor does evil to his neighbor [5] , nor takes up reproach against his relative [6] . In whose eyes a vile person is despised [7] , and he honors those who fear the Lord [8] ; he takes an oath to his own detriment [9] , and changes not. He neither gives his money with interest [10] , nor takes a bribe against the innocent [11] . He who performs these shall never be moved”

Who shall “sojourn” in the Lord’s Tabernacle? In other words, who shall God welcome into his dwelling? One who:

1. Walks wholeheartedly
2. Works righteousness
3. Speaks truth in his heart
4. Has no slander
5. Does no evil to his neighbor
6. Does not take a reproach against his relative
7. Despises vile people
8. Honors those who fear the Lord
9. Takes an oath to his own detriment
10. Does not give money at interest
11. Does not take a bribe against the innocent

The Prophet Isaiah reduces the Torah to six principles:

“He who walks righteously [1], and speaks uprightly [2]; he who despises the gain of oppressions [3], who shakes his hands from holding of bribes [4], who stops his ears from hearing blood [5], and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil. [6]” – Isaiah 33:15

A Godly man, according to Isaiah lives out the Torah by exemplifying 6 principles. A Godly man:

1. Walks righteously
2. Speaks uprightly
3. Despises the gain of oppressions
4. Shakes his hands from holding of bribes
5. Stops his ears from hearing blood
6. Shuts his eyes from looking upon evil

The Prophet Micah reduces the Torah to three principles:

“It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly [1], and to love mercy [2], and to walk humbly with your God. [3]” – Micah 6:8

According to Micah, The Lord ultimately requires three things:

1. To do justly
2. To love mercy
3. To walk humbly with God

Isaiah summarizes the Torah a second time by distilling the wisdom of the Torah into two main principles:

“Observe justice [1] and perform righteousness [2]” – Isaiah 56:1

Lastly, the prophet Habakkuk summarized the Torah with just one principle:

“But the righteous person shall live by his faith” – Habakkuk 2:4.

In the gospel of Matthew chapter 22, Jesus joins David and the prophets by making his Hashkafic contribution: “All of the Law and the prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matthew 22:40). The two greatest commandments:

1. Love God
2. Love neighbor

A first-century Jew would consider it good sport to inquire: How does one love to the sufficient degree the Torah requires?

Paul offers 16 Hashkafic “Meta-Principles” of love derived from the Torah to answer that very question:

Love is patient [1], love is kind [2]. It does not envy [3], it does not boast [4], it is not proud [5]. It does not dishonor others [6], it is not self-seeking [7], it is not easily angered [8], it keeps no record of wrongs [9]. Love does not delight in evil [10] but rejoices with the truth [11]. It always protects [12], always trusts [13], always hopes [14], always perseveres [15]. Love never fails [16]. – 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

If we violate or fail to uphold just one of these 16 principles in our relationship with others, or in our relationship with God, according to Paul we are failing in our mandate to Love.

Hashkafah informs Halachah

Rabbi Manning, a member of the RCA (Rabbinic Counsel of America) defines Hashkafa as:

“…an understanding of the overarching principles of Torah which informs and gives context to our mitzvah observance. Given the details of daily life and the halachic norms which apply to them, hashkafa is the methodology by which those details and norms are weighed against each other to produce a psak, which is not only halachically correct, but which also resonates with the spirit of the Torah.”

Hashkafa “informs” observance. Meaning that when a legal problem is confronted, Hashkafa is used to arrive at a ruling that is, in Rabbi manning’s words: “Halachically correct, but…also resonates with the spirit of the Torah.”

This is important to understand. Rulings can vary, depending on the Hashkafic principles used. For every commandment, there is a range of possible interpretations. There are 613 laws total, and the variety of unique situations to consider are endless. This gives ample opportunity for the total number of disagreements between Sages, or members of the court to snowball.

During the 1^st Century, the Pharisees were divided into two “houses.” Each “house” had its corresponding Hashkafa, as established by the founder specific to each house. The “house of Shammai” enforced strict Halachic rulings based on a “letter of the law” approach, placing emphasis on Justice. The “house of Hillel” advocated for lenient Halachic rulings based on a “Spirit of the law” approach, placing emphasis on mercy. Tradition states that the following period of disagreement led to the Torah becoming like “two Torahs”:

“From the time that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, and they were disciples who did not attend to their masters to the requisite degree, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs.” – Sanhedrin 88b

Jesus, the Sabbath, and the Hashkafah of Hillel

As president of the Sanhedrin, Hillel was superior in rank over Shammai who presided as second in command. Shammai often advocated for the harshest application of the law. His zeal would have undermined Hillel’s lenient approach if it were not for the fact that Hillel was president. As Hillel and Shammai gathered disciples, their disciples would in time, take on the nature of their founders. The disciples of Hillel were humble and open-minded, and the disciples of Shammai were aggressive and refused compromise.

Hillel and his interpretations would set the precedent for the lightest, most lenient approach to the Torah and its various obligations. However, during the time of Jesus, Shammai and his disciples took on the majority. They were the politically dominant party and leveraged their power aggressively.

The many times that Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees over the Sabbath, it’s clear that they were disciples of Shammai.

Had Jesus truly broken the Sabbath in a defiant manner, the disciples of Shammai would have most definitely seized Jesus for trial by the Sanhedrin. But Jesus did not unlawfully break the Sabbath.

What he did, was in accord with the Halakah of Hillel. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for the sake of life, and for the sake of Mercy. Hillel permitted the Sabbath to be broken for circumcision. It was recognized that the priests would break the Sabbath for the sake of service in the Temple and they did so “blamelessly.” In the same way, service to God could be performed in other ways without blame. Jesus was taking the lenient approach to the Sabbath, as set by Hillel.

The Shammaites were powerless to stop Jesus from doing so. They couldn’t because, in the end, Hillel outranked Shammai. This meant that Hillel’s Hashkafah/Halachah would forever remain viable and superior to Shammai’s rulings.

Jesus leveraged legal precedent to demonstrate the true intent behind the Sabbath. Since he did so according to the Hashkafah of Hillel, he was able to make his point with impunity.

Hidden in every argument regarding the Sabbath, is an implicit appeal to lenient Hashkafah originating with Hillel:

Hashkafic principle: “Pikuach Nefesh”

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ⁴ He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests.” – Matthew 12:3-4, Mark 2:24-26

This principle is derived from Leviticus 18:5

“You shall keep my laws, and my rules, by the pursuit of which man may live.”

It was understood, that since the pursuit of the law should lead a man to “live” – It should be permissible to break the Sabbath, or any Torah law, for the sake of preserving life.

Jesus references the event of David deliberately disregarding the sanctity of bread reserved exclusively for the priests. While on the surface, the event would seem to preserve an act of defiance committed by David, it was understood that the rule was temporarily suspended by the circumstances. The need to restore “life” by satiating their hunger, allowed for a one-time concession. They, therefore, ate while knowing that such an act would have normally been unlawful.

Hashkafic principle: Acts of Mercy can override the Sabbath

Jesus makes an appeal to the Torah itself. While the Torah with great emphasis demands Israel to rest from labor on Sabbath, it seemingly contradicts its own rule by requiring the priests to present two burnt offerings (Numbers 28:9-10).

“…Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent?” – Matthew 12:5

As the reader may already know (assuming the sections of Halachah, and Semichah have been read) the Torah is not as simple as many Christians assume. The written commandments, preserved in the Torah do remain unchanged. Yet, the written only represents a general rule, and in many cases, it is far too vague to properly enforce without a license to “fill in the blanks”. The Torah, therefore, authorizes the Priests and the Judges to establish uniform “Halachah.” Halachah is determined by using principles/logic derived from the Torah itself (Hashkafah). In this case, the Torah is not presenting a “contradiction.” Rather, it is hinting of a Hashkafic rule providing an exception – or an order of priority.

The Sabbath demands rest from all forms of work, except the work of sacrifice. Sacrifice as the Torah indicates, holds greater priority, even over the need to rest on the Sabbath. After pointing out this Hashkafic principle, Jesus references the prophet Hosea:

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” – Matthew 12:7

The Prophet Hosea presents a second Hashkafic principle: Mercy is greater than sacrifice. Since we lack the background, it is difficult for the average Christian to discern. Truthfully, a lot is happening here – and unfortunately, it passes by unnoticed to most. Jesus is brilliantly weaving a complex legal argument in a matter of seconds.

The argument: Sacrifice is greater than the Sabbath. Mercy is greater than sacrifice (Hosea 6:6), therefore Mercy is greater than Sabbath.

Since mercy is greater than the Sabbath, any act that demonstrates mercy can lawfully be done even if it breaks the Sabbath. Mercy overrides the Sabbath. According to Jesus, allowing the Apostles to pick heads of grain to eat so that they wouldn’t remain hungry was an act of Mercy.

Hashkafic principle: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath:

It was a Hashkafic principle to allow a positive commandment to override a negative commandment if ever a situation resulted in a conflict between the two:

“…He relied on the principle that a positive mitzvah comes and overrides a negative mitzvah.” – Talmud, Shabbat 132 B.

As a result of the principle, the Sages agreed that Circumcision takes precedence over Shabbat:

“…however, with regard to circumcision itself, everyone agrees that it overrides Shabbat.” – Shabbat 132A.

Circumcision is required of a male child on the 8^th day following its birth. According to this principle, if the 8^th day fell on a Sabbath, the imperative to circumcise the boy would override the command to rest. The Sages would therefore permit the procedure, although circumcision involved a number of actions they would normally consider violations against the command to rest.

In turn, if Circumcision overrides Shabbat, how much more should the concern to save a life override Shabbat?

“Just as circumcision, which pertains to only one of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat, all the more so it is an a fortiori inference that saving a life, which is a mitzvah that pertains to the entire person, overrides Shabbat.” – Shabbat 132A.

It was therefore determined that the Sabbath was made for man, meaning that the imperative to preserve a human life holds greater priority than the command to rest on the Sabbath:

“Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that it is stated: “But keep my Shabbatot” (Exodus 31:13). One might have thought that this applies to everyone in all circumstances; therefore, the verse states “but,” a term that restricts and qualifies. It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says that it is stated: “For it is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat is given into your hands [the Sabbath is made for man], and you are not given to it [not man for the Sabbath] to die on account of Shabbat.” – Talmud, Yoma 85b.

In Mark 2, verse 27, Jesus paraphrased the above principle:

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

If the Sabbath was made for man, how much more so should it submit to the Authority of the “Son of Man” – the Messiah:

“Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” – Mark 2:28

Hashkafah and doctrine

In addition to the formation of meta-principles that summarize and encapsulate the intent of the legal content within the Torah, Hashkafic analysis of scripture should also yield conclusions of substantial theological importance. For example, what sort of themes could summarize the general intent, narrative, and purpose of all scripture? And what sort of rules could we employ (if such rules exist) to best understand the Bible and draw from it, the conclusions that we assume God intends for us to draw?

In matters of doctrine, Haskafah can be arranged in two different ways:

1. Hashkafah type 1: As a set of core principles/themes that summarize the general narrative and message of scripture.
2. Hashkafah type 2: Theological efforts to organize and understand scripture according to a particular system, or approach.

Medieval Torah Scholar Moses Ben Maimon (Also known as the Rambam) is known for establishing 13 foundations of Jewish belief, defining in each point, what he considered was of cardinal importance for every Jew to uniformly know and uphold. The substance of the 13 principles are first found in his legal text, the “Mishneh Torah”- which is still heralded as a monumental achievement and referenced daily by observant Jews. The ideas were then organized into a concise list in his commentary of the Mishnah (the introduction to chapter 10 of Mishnah Sanhedrin):

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
2. The belief in G‑d’s absolute and singular unity.
3. The belief in G‑d’s non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
4. The belief in G‑d’s eternity.
5. The imperative to worship G‑d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
6. The belief that G‑d communicates with man through prophecy.
7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
10. The belief in G‑d’s omniscience and providence.
11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.

When evaluating the majority of the principles listed, agreement without hesitation can be made. However, principles 2 and 3 seem articulated to specifically combat the Christian belief in the trinity, and the sentiment that a member of that trinity could take on corporeality. A Christian could easily modify these two principles while retaining their belief that such changes remain consistent and compatible with scripture:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
2. The belief in G‑d’s unity of three in one. Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The belief that G-d the Son temporarily took on corporeal form by becoming born through a virgin.

Notice how subjective this process is. When comparing the original list presented with the Christian modification, the two are absolute opposites. Yet, both the Jew and the Christian would insist that their version is true to scripture.

This is reminiscent of the conflict between French Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) and his theological opponent Dutch Reformer James Arminius (1559-1609). One year after James’ death, his students would list five doctrines in the form of a “Remonstrance” (a protest) against the Churches of Holland. The Arminian party demanded that the Churches addressed would conform to the content outlined in their protest. The five doctrines contained in the Remonstrance contended against the formerly held positions relating to divine sovereignty, human ability, election/predestination, redemption, grace and the perseverance of the Saints:

1. Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel.
2. God elects or reproves on the basis of foreseen faith or unbelief.
3. Christ died for all men and for every man, although only believers are saved.
4. his grace may be resisted.
5. Whether all who are truly regenerate will certainly persevere in the faith is a point that needs further investigation.

The Churches of Holland would respond with 5 points of their own. Five points that would assert the exact opposite of the five points found in the Remonstrance:

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistible Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Their response would set the precedent for the acronym TULIP, a commonly used method of summarizing Calvinist doctrine.

Due to the subjective nature of Hashkafah and its potential for generating polemic standoffs, ancient Israel would develop a safeguard. This safeguard was heavily enforced.

The Targumim

The Targumim are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament books. The Targumim are remarkable because they aren’t translated literally. Instead, they paraphrase the scripture according to the prevalent interpretations of the time period. The Talmud documents an account of a Rabbi reading a written Targum of the book of Job:

Said R. Jose: It once happened that my father Halafta visited R. Gamaliel Berabbi at Tiberias and found him sitting at the table of Johanan b. Nizuf with the Targum of the Book of Job in his hand which he was reading. Said he to him, I remember that R. Gamaliel, your grandfather, was sitting on the stairs of the Temple when the Book of Job in a Targumic version was brought before him, whereupon he said to the builder, “Bury it under the bricks.” – Talmud, Shabbat 115a.

When a written Targum was presented to Rabbi Gamaliel, his response was “Bury it under the bricks.” Why was he so hostile?

The Targumim are interpretations of scripture. Normally, they were taught and preserved in Aramaic through Oral tradition. The Targum of Job in written form was tantamount to the idea of solidifying the interpretation and making it as real and concrete as the written Torah.

The Oral Torah and the Written Torah

“The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.” – Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

The term “Oral Torah” in Hebrew, literally means: “The Torah of the mouth” (Torah Sheb al Peh) this is in contrast to the term “Written Torah” which in Hebrew means: “The Torah which is in writing” (Torah Shebichtav). The two terms serve to differentiate teaching and Oral tradition derived from the text, from the literal text of the Torah.

This separation was maintained through a rule against putting down into writing anything derived from Oral tradition:

“You shall not transmit in writing that which is oral.” – Talmud, 60b.

Tradition, teaching, and Halakah were therefore memorized and transmitted Orally.

They did so, in order to prevent possible confusion between the text, and the interpretations of the text.

We are inclined to invest ourselves soo emotionally in our interpretations, that the temptation is to elevate them to the level of the written Torah itself.

If we are to learn this lesson, we must begin to emphasize the distinction between scripture, and the Hashkafic systems we have come to adopt. When referencing an idea we assume to be “Biblical” – we must ask ourselves if our convictions/beliefs fall under “Written Torah” or “Oral Torah.”

This elucidates the main distinction between the two types of Hashkafah presented earlier:

• Hashkafah type 1: A set of core principles/themes that summarize the general narrative and message of scripture.

These core principles or themes would be derived from the literal text of the Torah, as it says, in its plain language and original context. In other words, Hashkafah type 1 must faithfully depict the text in a “written Torah” manner.

• Hashkafah type 2: Theological efforts to organize and understand scripture according to a particular system, or approach.

When the text is understood through the lens of some type of Biblical training, background, or preconceived notion (a sense of what the text should say or mean) – all such content falls under the “Oral Torah” category.

The New Testament is Torah

In the gospel of John, Jesus equates a Psalm with the Torah itself:

“But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ – John 15:25

English translators have cross-referenced this statement with Psalm 35:19, Psalm 69:4, and Psalm 109:3.

Similarly, Paul equates a prophecy found in Isaiah with the Torah:

“In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” – 1 Corinthians 14:21

An important concept is being intimated. The Torah (the five books of Moses) is the foundation of God’s word. All the books of the canon, serve to either affirm or elaborate on what was already established in the Torah. In this way, the Writings and the Prophets can be regarded as an extension of the Torah. In turn, the New Testament likewise is an extension of the Torah.

Since the New Testament is our Torah, our “Sheb al Peh” (Written Torah) we as Christians, have the privilege of an update of revelation. The New Testament solidifies much of what was considered “Oral Torah” – making many concepts that the Israelites could have not known for sure, complete and definitive. When taking the New Testament into account, the following concepts are now “Written Torah”:

• The Trinity
• The Divinity of the Messiah
• The Messiah as a suffering servant (Isaiah 53)
• The Temple and the sacrifices are symbols that pointed to the work of the Messiah
• There are two comings of the Messiah: the first as a suffering servant, the second as a divine warrior King.
• Our salvation by grace through Faith

Here is a list of concepts that are not explicitly addressed, or affirmed literally and unquestionably in the written text of the New Testament, and are therefore still “Oral Torah”:

• Concepts coming from Theological systems developed after the New Testament: Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Molinism, etc.
  • Prevenient Grace
  • Pre-Trib Rapture
  • The doctrine of Divine Simplicity

Hashkafa as an interface

While the written commandments of the Torah remain fixed and therefore most applicable to a specific geographic territory/time period, Hashkafah can act as an interface mediating the immutability of the Torah to the ever-changing circumstances of the modern world.

For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 commands the Israelites to build a “parapet” on the roof of every house. A “parapet” is a reference to a rail or barrier. The Torah enforces the practice of building a rail since, at the time, it was normal for people to spend time on the roof of their house. The parapet was a safety measure to ensure that a potentially fatal accident by falling off the edge could be avoided. While such a concern does not exist today (people no longer leisurely hang out on top of their roofs) the general imperative to keep conditions safe does, and will always exist.

Therefore, while this commandment as it is literally stated carries no practical value today, the Hashkafic principle behind it, the principle of the importance of safety is still valid and applicable in our day.

Exodus chapter 34, verse 27 in the English translation reads:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

In Hebrew, the words “In accord” literally say: “al pi” or “by the mouth.” When reflecting on the prohibitions regarding the “Oral Law” (It could not be preserved in writing) one can assume that in ancient Israel, the Oral Law took on a humble status relative to the written. However, the passage of Exodus 34:27 set the precedent for elevating the Oral law so that it became a subject of reverence in its own right.

“Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘God only created a covenant with the Jewish people for the sake of oral matters, as it says, ‘For in accord (… ‘by mouth’) with these things I formed a covenant with you and with Israel.’ – Talmud Gittin 60b

The interpretation: it is by the Oral law (“by the mouth”) that the covenant between God and Israel can remain lasting, and relevant, throughout time:

“Sinai was a one-time experience of God’s revelation to the Jewish people, and thus, the Written Torah, the product of that experience, is also ‘one-time’ in the sense that it must always remain precisely as it was when given…The Oral Torah, on the other hand, lives and breathes, and is renewed daily with new innovations…Halakhah allows for the continuation of the revelation at Sinai, creating a daily encounter with a God who is interested in every detail of man’s behavior…The framework of Halakhah allows for an ongoing encounter that accompanies on throughout life.” – The Narrow Halakhic Bridge, page 27

In other words, the Oral Torah contains the wisdom (theological innovations such as Halakhah and Hashkafah) for extracting the principles found in the written so that one can apply those principles as a guide for living in a Godly manner, in the here and now. Therefore, task of the modern-day religious Jew (and I would argue, for any God-fearing individual) is to always determine the best course of action for any situation, by reflecting on God’s standard and the principles contained therein:

“The encounter with God through the Halakhah occurs not only by fulfilling the Halakhah, but also by studying it; by the daily challenge of applying halakhic principles to reality and by the new halakhic rulings required by every different generation.” – The Narrow Halakhic Bridge, page 28

The practice is known as “Da’as Torah” (the knowledge of the Torah). In the Hebrew understanding, knowledge is more than the intellectual recognition of an idea. Knowledge is information applied. It is only when we practice what we preach, that we begin to engage with “knowledge.” Da’as Torah, is therefore the act of applying the Torah principles to everyday life circumstances. When a Jew is in doubt, they lean on the advice of a Torah expert, most often their local, or assigned Rabbi.

Da’as Torah

Throughout the day, whatever you are doing, ask yourself: “am I violating a Biblical principle?” Resolve to confine your actions within the behavior you know to be right, good, and Godly. However, do not rely on your own understanding. Instead, seek certainty by first confirming with scripture. Study the Torah to gain a sense of the “Spirit of the Torah” so that you may establish your own set of Hashkafic principles.

Think on the wisdom of the Torah daily.

When Joshua faced the task of leading Israel to the Promised land, God gave Joshua this word of advice:

“Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Keep this book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.” – Joshua 1:7-8

The word translated as meditate is the Hebrew word Hagadah, meaning to rehearse in speech: “to speak, talk, utter or mutter.” God was instructing Joshua to keep the law always on his lips, meditating/speaking, saying it day and night in order to know it fully enough to prevent from breaking it. It was this practice, this unrelenting focus on the Torah that God tells Joshua would make him “prosperous and successful.”