Tanakh, manuscripts, scriptures, etc.

[Zenith]

GENERAL THINGS – ABOUT ME, VIEWS, ETC.

You are trying to bend and twist the law because you think you know better

Some people believe that whatever they say otherwise must surely be wrong, so they blindly trust someone other’s mind. Others have an opinion, different from what others think, and am one of them and want to talk about it. You think you know better as well, so I don't think I should I be blamed for that.

There are many aspects of the laws but I am sure that you will attempt to twist them in a way which will fit your twisted life view

Sorry, I’m just being myself. I have no evil intention and I don’t seek to twist anything. I can’t see things but from my point of view.

I do not believe you are asking for educational reasons because there is much information available on the reasons for the various applications of the laws to electricity

If you mean scientific arguments, if you insist, I won’t refuse, but only after we finish more important issues, and if then that will still be relevant.

By the dictionary, I am a heretic, because I have different opinions than you:
“anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.”
“a person who holds unorthodox opinions in any field”
“a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic)
And I see nothing bad in having different opinions than the majority, because it doesn’t matter whether you belong to the majority or to the minority.

I won’t talk about the “Laws of Primogeniture”. It's already too much to talk about.

By the way, in these reply series, maybe I prove myself not such an ignorant as you understood me.

[Zenith]

WORDS’ MEANINGS AND WORD TWISTING

Every word is defined in our Torah, by the Oral law, the parameters of what constitutes idol worship, who the firstborn is, etc... I don't see what you are trying to say other than making a failed attempt to discredit the Oral tradition. Reading the Mishnah itself reveals which Sage said what, and why, and what the consensus was...

You might have not read that all carefully, so here it is again:

About “I think it’s impossible to know which from the Talmud are and which are not from the laws given by G-d through Moses.”
Yeah, I have misunderstood your statement.

I referred to which aspects of the law are explicit in the Torah while which ones are actually not explicit but were preserved through explanation and practice and only later written down.

Well, I’ll give you a similar issue: orthodox/catholic christians say: “In the Gospels it is clearly said that Jesus had brothers, but how do we know what brother means?; Also, “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” Suggests that Jesus had brothers, but wait, how do you know what firstborn means? In the second commandment of the Ten it is written not to make images and stuff of anything and bow down to them and serve them, but what does “bow down to them” and “serve them” means?”. And so, they brought odd interpretations to clear commandments, which they use to “keep” the commandments, when they actually break them. So, how do you know what the author meant when he wrote “bow down”, “firstborn”, “serve”, etc.? Weren’t there also men of faith that kept the traditions and interpretations of these as well? Otherwise, how could have one known how to keep those commandments!? My answer to this is that a man can know how to keep those commandments without the need of a man of a superior wisdom or the need of a man inspired by G-d; G-d does not give us crutches or wheelchairs if we have healthy, functional legs – do you understand my point?

Now, there is a relation between the title, what Kahane-Was-Right BT said and what I said. If you were yet not that careful – or I talked about one thing and Kahane-Was-Right BT about other – the thing is that there are things that can be understood themselves “without the need of a man of a superior wisdom or the need of a man inspired by G-d”. Read the Tanakh verses about idol worshipping to an atheist and ask if bowing down to an icon or a sculpture is wrong. I’m sure he’ll say “it is against what is written”. The same with praying to others than God or about firstborn: ask common people who did not already received a teaching about “what actually means”, “how it should be actually interpreted” and they will tell you (99% chances) correctly what firstborn is and that praying to Saint X or Saint Y is against what is written. But a religious catholic or religious orthodox Christian would not. So there is no need for a very wise man or an inspiration by God when the verses can be understood by simply using the written Tanakh. The catholic and orthodox Christian people did not go astray from this commandment because they lacked previous good interpretation of what they mean, but because they didn’t like the commandments, so they sought interpretations and justifications. So there was no need for very wise minds or of a man inspired by God to explain something which they could have understood. And this is where the wheelchair issue goes: I don’t think God gives you something that you don’t need. But when people go astray they make for themselves a dictionary (not literally, but you understand my point) in which they twist the meanings of words, and as in a dictionary is, they start explaining and interpreting in their own way words for different reasons, not necessarily to find justifications in the break of commandments.

So maybe now you see better what I was trying to say.

And the proof that what you are taught now is not the same with what Moses taught is that you break the Sabbath by keeping the what you call “Melachot” because Moses taught that you are forbidden to work in the Sabbath day, but in the “Melachot” you are being given the ‘right’ to brake the Sabbath, that is, to work in the Sabbath day, because you pervert the meaning of the words “work”, “rest”, and, of course, you get to other meanings, that allow you to break the Sabbath. Give the verses in the bible about the Sabbath day to any non-jew, or man that does not already believe the Melachot and that would tell you what he believes, not what you want to hear, and ask him if moving the couch in the house breaks that commandment. The same is with catholics and orthodoxes that read the Ten Commandments but pervert the meanings of “pray” and maybe other words so that they can find justification to praying to others than G-d, and everybody – except themselves, because they are already indoctrinated – sees that they are breaking the commandment, while the orthodox & catholic people find a different meaning (interpretation) of what “praying” means. That is, they pervert the word, and say that one cannot himself understand what the word means, but needs an elaborated explanation by their ‘divinely’ inspired minds, or the ‘orally preserved interpretation’ of that commandment. If that was logic, one would be able to believe that anybody is right, although everybody contradicts the others, because no one can ever know what each word means, because everybody gives a totally different meaning to each word (i.e. praying = not praying; virgin = not virgin; bow down = not bow down; work = not work). If you haven’t realized so far, everybody  has a different ‘dictionary’ to the written words.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.

You do acknowledge that the Torah was written in Hebrew, not English, right?

Although I am not sure whether Hebrew (the language those Jews spoke) existed as a written language in Moses’ time or not, I don’t believe that the meanings of the words of the Torah (i.e. a few centuries BCE) was different than what Moses taught, so this particular thing – that is, in what language it was written - shouldn’t be an issue to our discussion.

I’ll try to explain myself so that my statement will sound more rational rather than ignorant. If you’ll also try not to see it as “ignorant”, maybe that will help too.
I understand you say about them (Christians) “oh, these ignorant people don’t know what the words mean, but they always twist them so they would get their way. And they say “in Hebrew this means…” while they don’t even ask us, Hebrews, what it means!” However, I think there’s much to it, not only that - for instance, even in English they contradict their English bibles by forcing different interpretations - and I also believe that it is the same possible for jews to interpret differently a verse in the Tanakh so it would not get the same as what Christians say (i.e. if in a particular case of all the Tanakh, the translation into English and thus interpretation in Hebrew is X, but X – be it one single case of all cases – goes right with the Christian prophecies of Jesus, it’s very possible that the Jewish authority would rather find a different interpretation and translate that particular verse otherwise in English than it should have been, rather than saying “it’s the same as Christians translate it when they claim that it is a fulfilled prophecy by Jesus; anyway, it should not be forgotten that the other Christian interpretations and translations that claim Jesus is the fulfilled prophecy are wrong, so there’s no reason to believe them.”

Let’s get to other example: In the period of time when I talked to muslims about the Qur’an and its interpretation, something then interesting happened: although it might be agreed by everybody that the original Qur’an was indeed written in the Arabic language, that language being much the same or almost the same as modern Arabic, one would say that the arabs know what the qur’an really says because it is in Arabic, which is their own language and has been before Muhammud. But, if you trust them (arab muslims) for what they say the words actually mean, you get to the big bang and all kinds of scientific miracles from verses that don’t say such things at all. So excuse me for not believing that the Jewish authority is actually immune to such tendencies – that is, tendencies to give other meanings to the Hebrew words, in order to prove their point, although “science” is not the objective.
I hope that now, my statement, quoted by you, sounds more rational, rather than ignorant.

Having said that I believe it is impossible to argue with someone if they are going to twist words... For example 'Zenith' here is implying that everyone has a different definition of words such as 'Prayer' or 'Work'. The Jewish faith goes to great length to define these terms and someone who wants to ignore the definition of words is not going to understand anything because he will say that the words are open to interpretation

Sorry, you have misunderstood me;

That is, they pervert the word, and say that one cannot himself understand what the word means, but needs an elaborated explanation by their ‘divinely’ inspired minds, or the ‘orally preserved interpretation’ of that commandment. If that was logic, one would be able to believe that anybody is right, although everybody contradicts the others, because no one can ever know what each word means, because everybody gives a totally different meaning to each word

If I suggested that words are opened for interpretation, why would I blame people for perverting words? Maybe you didn’t read my statements carefully.
I’ll explain:
1.   people that pervert words ( = “bad” people, like catholics who twist words) say  “one cannot himself understand what the word means, but needs an elaborated explanation by our ‘divinely’ inspired minds (i.e. priests), or the ‘orally preserved interpretation’ of that commandment (i.e. Church Fathers)”. Again, I consider them to be wrong.
2.   The following sentence is wrong (and results from (1) which is also wrong): “one would be able to believe that anybody is right, although everybody contradicts the others, because no one can ever know what each word means, because everybody gives a totally different meaning to each word” – that is, orthodox people twist X and say something, catholic people twist X and say something else, and so on. I used “everybody”, “no one [of them]”, “anybody” to refer to the very great majority of people who believe the idea (1), not necessarily Christians. I used parentheses and gave Christian elements as examples.

Conclusion: In case anybody understood anything else, the views explained by me and quoted in the “Quote” above are wrong. Moreover, I blamed you for twisting words like catholic people and orthodox people do. I showed a relation between their view (that the Tanakh is crypted) and your view (that the Tanakh is crypted). As catholic and orthodox people have Church Fathers and Saints, so you have Sages. As catholic and orthodox people have their priests and their hierarchy (bishops, archbishops, etc.) which are highly regarded and trusted that what they say is true, as they would have divinely inspired minds, so jews have their rabbis which are highly regarded and trusted that what they say is true, as they would have divinely inspired minds. And both you and them seem to be afraid to say to doubt them (clerics/teachers) and say to them “you are wrong”, because of a feeling like “I’m a floor sweeper, and he’s the biologist”, “he’s the authority, and I’m nobody”.

[Zenith]

ORAL LAWS OF MOSES

Some things are cited as "Halacha leMoshe miSinai" - Jewish law of Moshe from Sinai - meaning everyone agrees on it that that stems from the Bible.  Can't get much clearer than that.   

You mean, all laws that are stated to have been from Moses are stated like that or only some of them? Anyway, maybe if you categorize that Oral Law to me and say a few words about each it would be better. Do these oral laws of Moses explain the written laws of Moses (like the Sabbath, I don’t talk about rituals and objects to be made) and do they give other different laws? (I’m not curios about rituals and objects to be made). How much text are these oral laws of Moses?

[Zenith]

ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT

It is not very difficult to see that closing a switch finishes a circuit, thus violating one of the 39 prohibited forms of labor.

In my reply I implied that you cannot finish something you did not do yourself.
e.g. in a car race, the man with the flags that marks the beginning of the race (the cars can go) cannot finish the race although he allowed cars to start the circuit. Also the organizer of the race did not finish the circuit although he allowed those cars to race. The only ones who have finished the circuit are the race cars. So with electrons and pressing a button: the electrons finish the circuit (finish passing through), not yourself. Anyway, I think it sounds odd “finish the electrical circuit”. Except ye, I only heard about it, as “finishing setting it up” (i.e. connecting things with wires so it can be functional). If I have a skewed view, maybe you can give me a non-jewish use of it as such (link to a page) – that is, “one finishes the circuit by the fact that electrons finish passing through the circuit” - in physics, scientific, or official (not to be a non-jew guy expressing himself weird because he doesn’t know how else to say it). Give me a link to a non-jewish site that uses it in such a way, it should help. Otherwise our conversation may be like “Some argue that by taking the cap of the bottle one is rendering the bottle as usable to store soda in. This may be considered an act of completion. Others argue that the bottle with the cap on it is also a complete functioning vessel, so removing the cap may not be considered creating a new vessel.”, that is, everyone understands it his way.

Sorry for getting back to it… I don’t remember you to have said it, so I ask it: you mean the melachot of finishing (used for the issue of finishing an electrical circuit) is this one:
“38. Makeh B'Patish - "The Final Hammer Blow" Striking the final blow (Finishing an object)”? If so – sorry for having another issue – then what object is finished (ready for use, as you quoted the explanations) and how is it finished? Taking the cap of the bottle off can be considered to render it usable to store liquids in (a new functional vessel). But with the cap on can be considered a complete functional vessel. Anyway I take it, the circuit – in our debate - is always a functional system, no matter if electric current passes through it or not. So the circuit (already a functional system) with its electrons is like the bottle with the soda: as to whether there is soda or not, the bottle is a functional object (can be used for different purposes); so with the electric circuit: whether the electrons pass through it or not, it is a functional system (object), whether it is a closed circuit or an opened circuit (when you turn the switch on or off), it is a functional system, because nothing is broken. So if this is the melachot and you still have the patience, maybe you can explain how and what “finishing an object” occurs.

[Zenith]

HEATING THING

Also regarding heating, it is possible to light the fire before the Shabbat starts and thus heat the house, also it is possible to use electric timers in order to turn the electric heater on and off, so long as a Jew doesnt need to complete the circuit. But Im sure all of this makes not sense to you.

Actually, it does make sense.  However, that “electrical heat is not fire” issue remains. There are also some chemical reactions, you know, put 2 substances, like liquids, together,  that cause heating, without even using electricity. Although that is not used for heating a house, I’m sure you don’t consider it a “fiery” thing, and maybe not forbidden in the Sabbath because it’s heating. So, if you have the patience, maybe you can tell me what makes an electrical lamp have fire (as heating is not necessarily caused by fire).

Second, as much as you may wish it, that heating is not accompanied by flames (fire).

Flame or no flame, heating a metal coil is forbidden activity.

Forbidden? Ok. By what law? I don’t know. I don’t think it fits even in the 39 melachot. And if this is just forbidden because of some rabbi’s interpretations that got accepted as “true” and God did not forbid, it is … somehow to kill a jew because he did something God didn’t forbid (which is being guilty to God of killing somebody).
And by the way, good you said “forbidden activity”: The 39 melachot are not quite forbidding “creative work” but “creative activities”.

Third, if eating and fire were synonymous, then it would mean that a jew must freeze to death in the Sabbath day if he lived in a cold region in winter, because he could not turn on any heating machine.

Wrong because he can turn on the heating machine BEFORE the Shabbath, just like he can make a fire before the Shabbath that will burn into the night (just like Jews light Shabbath candles right before Shabbath begins, and they burn into the Shabbath night).   Because G-d's "resting" from creation does not mean that all that was created beforehand ceases to be.   It was created beforehand and still exists.  So the fire can be created before Shabbath begins.  So can other forms of work.

You’re right.

[Zenith]

CREATIVE/UNCREATIVE WORK/ACTIVITY
Thinking of the explanations you have given me about the 39 melachot and the fact that you say that melacha means “creative work”, I wonder what can be “uncreative work”. Really. Only this came into my mind: if a crazy man, in the day of the Sabbath, because he is crazy, grabs his spade and starts digging in the backyard of his house with no reason at all, that must not be creative work, because he is not doing anything with the hole he makes. In this case, somebody might even appreciate him for keeping the Sabbath. Ok, if turning on the electric lamp is creative activity, if turning off the electric lamp is creative activity, if heating the metal coil is creative activity, then maybe somebody can tell me what creative activity is and what is not! So, I used the dictionary:
Creative =
1.   having the quality or power of creating.
2.   resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing.
3.   originative; productive (usually fol. by of).
4.   Facetious. using or creating exaggerated or skewed data, information, etc.: creative bookkeeping.
5.   having the ability to create
6.   characterized by originality of thought; having or showing imagination: a creative mind
7.   designed to or tending to stimulate the imagination: creative toys
8.   characterized by sophisticated bending of the rules or conventions: creative accounting
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creative)

So, let’s take the turning on of the electric lamp:
I don’t create anything (1); I did not use my imagination for it (2); it’s not productive, not an invention (3); it’s not facetious (4); can’t be (5); no imagination here (6); cannot stimulate the imagination (7); doesn’t bend any rules (8). So, turning on the lamp is not creative by these definitions. So what is creative?

If you understand “creative” from how you used it as “having a reason why you do it”, then almost everything one does has a reason – as long as he is not brain damaged or something. If I pick up a glass – activity, or as you call it, work – put water in it and drink water, then put the glass back I can call it creative because I had a reason why I picked up the glass. And this would be similar with these verses:

Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day [which is the] Sabbath on it there will be none It came about that on the seventh day, [some] of the people went out to gather [manna], but they did not find [any]. The Lord said to Moses, How long will you refuse to observe My commandments and My teachings?

– that is, by you,  ‘creative’ work.
And this is ‘creative’ work too (which is allowed because it is a necessity):

but what is eaten by any soul that alone may be performed for you.

– but this itself is also a creative work! In other words, everything is creative work! Or give me an example of what is not creative work and why.

So gathering was also creative – according to you – but in a “creative” sense that is totally different in the meaning than the one I found in dictionary. So what is creative to you then? From all of these I get to understand that there is actually no difference in definition between your “creative work” and “activity” except that you consider the 39 melachot “creative work”, for I don’t know what reason.

If you claim that in their high wisdom, the sages interpreted the Tanakh, maybe you can tell me how they got from the verses in the Tanakh about the Sabbath to the 39 melachot. How were the 39 melachot written? How did the ones you call sages realize that these 39 melachot are the answer for the Sabbath day? And, by the way, how can I be sure that melacha does indeed mean “creative activity”, whatever "creative" means?

[Zenith]

“PRAY IN THE 10 COMMANDMENTS” ISSUE

PS: Where in the 10 commandments is the commandment to pray? Are you really that obtuse?

The same is with catholics and orthodoxes that read the Ten Commandments but pervert the meanings of “pray” and maybe other words so that they can find justification to praying to others than G-d, and everybody – except themselves, because they are already indoctrinated – sees that they are breaking the commandment, while the orthodox & catholic people find a different meaning (interpretation) of what “praying” means.

Sorry for making it confusing. When I talked to an orthodox Christian about the word itself “praying” we were taking into consideration the first and second commandment of the ten which said not to have other gods but Him (G-d):

You shall not have the gods of others in My presence

but if you pray to somebody, that makes it fit in this category. And second commandment (in the order in which the verses are written) is about material objects to which people pray:

4. You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness which is in the heavens above, which is on the earth below, or which is in the water beneath the earth. 5. You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your G-d, am a zealous G-d, …

. Prostrating is bowing down, while worshipping includes praying (praying is a form of worship). So I am not “really that obtuse”. The “praying” issue fits in the 10 commandments.

[Zenith]

PRAYING 3 TIMES A DAY AND SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS

Another issue you discussed... The Jewish custom of praying 3 times a day. This did not come from Daniel as you wrongly suggest.

The 3 prayer times were fixed by the Men of the Great assembly in order to correspond to the three Sacrifices which took place in the Holy Temple. There are three Sacrifices:

1) Saacharit
2) Minchah
3) Maariv
 

What I knew about the praying 3 times a day was what I heard from that audio (I used quotes to quote exact sentences from him):
The audio stated that they (the Babylonian people) sought to catch Daniel with “something that was against the Law of Moses, against the teachings of God”, “to order Daniel to do something that they knew it was against Judaism, against the divine law of the Jewish faith [that was prayer]”. “But the oral law tells us indeed that we are obligated to pray 3 times a day”. It said that the oral law teaches that a jew must pray 3 times a day “which you will never find it anywhere in the 5 books of Moses, that there is such an obligation, that there is such a commandment to pray 3 times a day.”, and the people go to the king and ask for him to command none to pray for 30 times a day because they knew the oral law commands jews to pray 3 times a day so  “Daniel is forced to violate it [the commandment]. They catch him and report him back to the king.” – I quoted what the man in the audio said.

So you say that it is only a custom while the guy from the audio said that it was a law of Moses, a teaching of God, so that Daniel had to keep it with the price of his life.
You said (quoted):

Accordingly, it was perhaps not unusual for some Jews to pray three times a day, morning, evening and night, in their own way. King David, for example, declared that he prayed three times daily,6 and Daniel (in Babylon) prayed three times daily facing in the direction of Jerusalem.

So did Daniel pray three times a day to keep God’s commandment (even with his life) as the man in the audio said or because of a custom?

I’ll discuss the “custom” version, because of what ye (muman613 and KWRBT) said:
If praying 3 times a day was only a custom, then what I tried to explain about Daniel not only remains valid, but it’s also strengthened by the guy in the audio: I said that men can easily take a custom (tradition) and understand it as a Law of God, with the same importance as the laws given by God – even if the custom was from man – and even claim to be given by God through Moses (“something that was against the Law of Moses, against the teachings of God”). So this better proves my point… unless I understood wrong the guy in the audio.

Anyway, if you read my posts in this topic, the answer was: there is no telling how the traditions changed through the ages until they got to those who compiled them. For instance, knowing of Daniel’s custom of praying 3 times a day, the jews could have said “Daniel was a great prophet, let’s do what he did!” and after many generations of people practicing this tradition (praying 3 times a day) they understood it as utterly necessarily, so they said “it must be a commandment of G-d, if it is kept so strictly like the other commandments!”, “G-d asks us to do so!” and so, finally, because “All the laws were given at mount Sinai and only some of them were written”, the commandment of praying 3 times a day must have been given at mount Sinai.

You just completely made all of that up and it has no relation to what actually happened.

The Talmud speaks about the origin of prayer and the obligation to pray 3 times daily with shemoneh esray (18 blessings).   No one has any illusion that that was a Torah requirement to say Shemoneh Esray (the 18 blessings).  The Torah requires sacrificial offerings.  The verses say so themselves.  No one watched a kohen and then said "oh the Torah must obligate that."  It's in the Torah. 
And again, no one has any illusions about the shemoneh esray, because the Talmud itself points to the Anshei Knesseth Hagedola as having authored the basic structure of the Shemoneh Esray.   So it didn't exist beforehand, even if a general obligation to prayer may have been commonly understood to exist.   The Shemoneh Esray - the 18 brachot- was an innovation which the rabbis initiated as the Temple service became extinct, and ultimately it became the replacement of the sacrificial offerings. 

After generations of people believing this, those who started to compile the traditions into books added, of course, this ‘given at mount Sinai’ commandment among them. There are great odds that it has happened this way.

No the odds are not great unless you consider 0 to be "great odds."   This contradicts what we know happened.  Unless you also want to throw the historians under the bus and create your own history based on your opinion.

That which I said was a hypothesis. I’ve used only the teachings of that audio which claimed that – unless I understood wrong – praying 3 times a day is the “law of Moses” (which therefore couldn’t have been given but by God through Moses in Moses’ lifetime). The origin of praying three times a day, which is written in the Talmud, seems plausible, so I won’t debate that. By the way, I still have one question about it: you said “The Torah requires sacrificial offerings.  The verses say so themselves.” but tell me – maybe you find more quickly – where it is written in the (written) Torah that the sacrificial offerings also required something to be sung or said (like the 18 blessings)? It might say, at least about one kind of sacrificial offering, but it may take longer for me to find it, so I ask you to do that and I will now continue with the other issues of this discussion.

[Zenith]

THE THREE DAILY PRAYERS BY NISSAN MINDEL
I’ll discuss this because I can’t keep my ‘mouth shut’ and it is relevant to the subject.

Our Sages tell us that the custom of praying three times a day was originally introduced by our Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham introduced prayer in the morning, Isaac—in the afternoon, and Jacob added one at night.1

In the Zohar2 (where the inner meaning of the Torah is revealed) and in Chabad philosophy3 it is explained further that each of the three Patriarchs represented a particular quality which they introduced into the service of G‑d. Abraham served G‑d with love; Isaac—with awe; Jacob—with mercy. Not that each lacked the qualities of the others, but each had a particular quality which was more in evidence. Thus Abraham distinguished himself especially in the quality of kindness (חסד) and love (אהבה),while Isaac excelled especially in the quality of strict justice (דין) and reverence (יראה), while Jacob inherited both these qualities, bringing out a new quality which combined the first two into the well-balanced and lasting quality of truth (אמת) and mercy (רחמים). We, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, have inherited all these three great qualities of our Patriarchs, and this enables us to serve G‑d and pray to Him with love and fear (awe) and mercy. The quality of mercy enters when we realize that our soul is a part of G‑dliness, and we feel pity for it because it is so often distracted from G‑d by the material aspects of the daily life.

Sorry, but this sounds too fairytale.

I’m sorry if that made you feel uncomfortable, but indeed this is what I believe. And I will also explain my point (if you hate me saying that this is wrong, I don’t know how to say it and make you feel good, so I will say it as I can). The story suggests that:

1.   The patriarchs added to the laws of God against God’s law that says:

And now, O Israel, hearken to the statutes and to the judgments which I teach you to do, in order that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord, God of your forefathers, is giving you. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you

I don’t think they acted against the law of God, so the story should be false (unless I understood something wrong). They could have not given commandments (or teachings “what to do”) to the generations that followed after them from themselves. Either God told them “say this and do that” and to everybody it was an obligation (like the circumcision) or God did not tell them and the patriarchs did not invent any new law (or teaching “what to do”). If I am wrong, give me a single law or tradition (or teaching “what to do”) invented by a patriarch or even a prophet in the Tanakh – that was not a commandment from God. It is written that Abraham gave the commandment of the circumcision because God said to do it. I don’t believe that circumcision could have occurred if God did not command it.

2.   The ‘patriarch addition’ to the “law of God” (oral law) is futile. The best thing that can happen if you do pray three times a day (in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening) is that you can praise yourself to people who pray less than three times, and believe you are more religious. This way also muslims consider themselves more religious because they pray 5 times a day, so one of them could ask you “why do we pray 5 times a day, and you only 3 times a day?”. If the number of times a day one prays matters much to God, then they are right.

3.   “that each of the three Patriarchs represented a particular quality which they introduced into the service of God. Abraham served God with love; Isaac—with awe; Jacob—with mercy.” – that’s weird. I supposed the patriarchs had to be people, not symbols (to symbolize something). Then, it’s like saying “I fear God more than you do, but you obey God more than I do!”(provided that what God asks of man is known) – how can one be greater than other? How could have Abraham loved God a lot, but have lower awe and mercy? Or how could have Isaac had greater awe for God, but lower love for Him?

4.   “Thus Abraham distinguished himself especially in the quality of kindness (חסד) and love (אהבה),while Isaac excelled especially in the quality of strict justice (דין) and reverence (יראה), while Jacob inherited both these qualities, bringing out a new quality which combined the first two into the well-balanced and lasting quality of truth (אמת) and mercy (רחמים).” – I’d like to see this deduced from the Tanakh. If you say about Abraham that he proved his love by being ready to sacrifice his son, I’d rather say he proved faith by trusting God to resurrect Isaac - because, before being born Isaac, God told Abraham that in this Isaac will be established the covenant (Gen 17.19) so there was no other way for Abraham but to believe that his God can and will resurrect Isaac after is burnt for sacrifice.
Now Isaac: you say that he excelled in the quality of strict justice (which implies truth), yet he lied people telling that Rebecca is his sister, not his wife (Gen 26.7)
Now Jacob: you say that he inherited both qualities, and imply that he also excelled in the quality of truth, yet he cheated his brother twice! He stole his brother’s firstborn right and then lied, pretending that he was Esau to get the better blessings from his father. So I’m really curios how you can deduce from the Tanakh that the patriarchs excelled in these qualities.

5.   “We, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, have inherited all these three great qualities of our Patriarchs, and this enables us to serve God and pray to Him with love and fear (awe) and mercy.” – that’s absurd. I believe it’s impossible (scientifically at least) that if a man is merciful, then his descendants to become all or even most, merciful, just because of genes.  If one loves God, it is also impossible genetically that his descendants to inherit this (I’m not talking of education and teaching of the belief in God) and thus to become God lovers, or to be capable of greater love for God than other people. All this you say feeds your desire for superiority: you claim that Jews are superior in nature to other people, and you love this idea (because it says that you are superior). And you even claim that you have to be superior in nature (genetically) to be able to serve or better serve God! This is haughtiness and haughtiness is forbidden (1 Samuel 2.3 “Do not increasingly speak haughtily; Let not arrogance come out of your mouth, For the Lord is a God of thoughts, And to Him are deeds counted.”)

6.   “The quality of mercy enters when we realize that our soul is a part of Godliness, and we feel pity for it because it is so often distracted from God by the material aspects of the daily life.” – what do you mean that your soul is a part of Godliness? Then, I thought mercy should have been mercy for other people not self pity, in order to be godly.

The Torah contains 613 commandments. Among them is the command to "serve God with all our heart and all our soul."4 How do we serve God with our heart? By praying to Him. In doing so, we fulfill not only the commandment of praying to God, but also other commandments, such as to love God and to fear Him, which are separate commandments.

Wooow! I can’t believe what I’m reading! I remember this verse of the Tanakh:

And the Lord said: "Because this people has come near; with their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart they draw far away from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of people, which has been taught.

Isn’t that verse clear enough? You can’t love God by simply praying to Him and you can’t fear God by simply praying to Him.
But you’ve (or he’s) reduced “And you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your means.” (Deut 6.5) to “pray often to God”!

During the first one thousand years, or so, since the time of Moses, there was no set order of prayer. Each individual was duty-bound to pray to G‑d every day, but the form of prayer and how many times a day to pray was left to the individual

And what was wrong with that, that it needed to change?

Therefore, when the Jews returned to their homeland after the seventy years' exile was over, Ezra the Scribe together with the Men of the Great Assembly (consisting of prophets and sages, 120 members in all) fixed the text of the daily prayer (Shemone Esrei—the "Eighteen Benedictions"), and made it a permanent institution and duty in Jewish life to recite this prayer three times daily. Ever since then it became part of Jewish Law (Halachah) for each and every Jew to pray this ordained and fixed order of prayer three times daily

First, is it written somewhere in the Tanakh about the 18 benedictions?
Then,
It’s very hard for me to believe that Ezra (the author of the Book of Ezra of the Tanakh) added to the laws of God against God’s law that says:

And now, O Israel, hearken to the statutes and to the judgments which I teach you to do, in order that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord, God of your forefathers, is giving you. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Or if you think that I have skewed views, tell me how the story does not say that Ezra broke this commandment.

And by the way, how did the Men of the Great Assembly gather to say “let’s add that to the laws, let’s command that!”? Isn’t that a kind of council where they decide X and Y, but of which God misses? (Isaiah 30.1)

[Zenith]

ABOUT MY ‘OPINION’

We don't throw away the tradition of law code that stems all the way back to Moshe because some guy came 4 thousand years later and says "Stop being such experts in the law - It's simple and it goes according to my opinion because I decided that I understand better than Moshe and the elders understood."  The equivalent of saying:  The illiterate floor-sweeper knows the biologists are all wrong!"

I didn’t claim at all that you are being experts in the law, I didn’t claim Moses was wrong or that I am smarter than him. As about the elders – I guess they are the ones you call sages – I think they are your idols and you might never give up on them, just because you adore them too much.
If you think that phrase was exaggerated,
Idol = “any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion”
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idol)
So it was not.

And it doesn’t go that way, as you said: “it goes according to my opinion because I decided that I understand better” (let’s take it here: “better than you”) but “it goes according to my opinion until I’m proven otherwise”. And I think that's normal for a man.

[Zenith]

ABOUT OBJECTIVNESS

The next time you have an urge to puncture the trunk of a sugar maple tree and drain its syrupy sap, think again! According to some Rabbis, draining the sap is equivalent to uprooting the sap from its source of growth, in this case the tree, and is thus a transgression of Kotzair.

And what about the guy in the audio of the web page who explained that if the law regarding the Sabbath would have not been 100% and clearly detailed - as it is not in the Tanakh - then it could not have been objective and it would have not been compatible with the statement that “the breaking of the Sabbath is punished by death” (because no one knows what breaks the Sabbath)? So, if you do that - drain the sap - will you be punished to death or not? Because the law of the Sabbath should be objective, not subjective.

That's exactly why there was an Oral Torah and why there had to be an Oral Torah.   People DID know what actually broke the Shabbath because Moshe told them.  He explained to the elders and the elders also told the people.    Can't you see how the entire Torah would not make sense, unless there was some vehicle of interpretation and explanation going on which expressed to the people the details and inner workings of the law which is not expressed fully in the written text?   This shows how senseless it is to deny there was an Oral component to the Torah.   You demonstrate that with your own comment.  It can't possibly have been that people were obligated to death for violations and everyone just wandered around not really knowing what was against the law and what was within the law.  Much too serious punishment for that.

I think you did not understand my point here. I will explain myself.
My point was: the guy in the audio said that the law must be objective (instead of, subjective = however anyone interprets it) and that it needed the ‘Oral Law’ to clarify it, to give it full explanations, yet his arguments did not prove good because not even the ‘Oral Law’ clarifies it: in the ‘Oral Law’ there are subjective views and some say that a deed is ok while others say that it’s against G-d’s law – just as it happened if there was no ‘Oral Law’ – some would say that something is ok, while other that it is not ok - so the argument of the guy in the audio failed, because the Oral Law did not solve the problem (it’s still subjective to different rabbi’s views).

So maybe you tell me whether you get killed if you drain the sap in the Sabbath day or not. And why.

[Zenith]

ABOUT THE ‘ORAL LAW’ AND CRYPTED TANAKH

That's exactly why there was an Oral Torah and why there had to be an Oral Torah.   People DID know what actually broke the Shabbath because Moshe told them.  He explained to the elders and the elders also told the people.    Can't you see how the entire Torah would not make sense, unless there was some vehicle of interpretation and explanation going on which expressed to the people the details and inner workings of the law which is not expressed fully in the written text?

You decided that everything must be simple, therefore it is?   What is the relevance of the ignorant opinion you just stated?  G-d gave laws, and to determine where a modern technology fits within those laws, requires detailed knowledge of the modern technology and detailed knowledge of the laws themselves.   

About the knowledge of the modern technology – needed to keep God’s laws, it sounds like this: A man asks God: “God, I want to keep your laws, but I don’t know how” and God answers “gather X sum of money and go to the Y super-university in New York and study physics”. If that doesn’t sound odd to you, then read this:

… to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, … For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.

God asks people to obey His written commandments (nowhere in the Tanakh I find “and the oral commandments that came with them”), it is all about His written commandments. It says to obey them, because they – these written commandments - that God asks us to obey are not concealed (that is, hard to understand, with hidden meaning, right?) from people, yet you say they are cryptic! Whom should I believe? Also, God says that they aren’t “far away” as “beyond the sea” as to need a man to go there, as at that Y University of Physics! God says that He gave His laws to the people and they need not to go anywhere else to have the “complete laws”, and yet some would say that you need to go to the Y University of Physics to “determine where a modern technology fits within those laws”! Now who’s wrong? And also, if God’s commandments are and were never concealed from His people, then doesn’t that mean that they never needed the ones you call sages to un-conceal (expose, show clear, reveal) the laws for the jews?

Yet some would find what is clear as being concealed and say “it can’t be understood!” Why?
Maybe Isaiah gives the answer to this:

And He said, "Go and say to this people, 'Indeed you hear, but you do not understand; indeed you see, but you do not know.' This people's heart is becoming fat, and his ears are becoming heavy, and his eyes are becoming sealed, lest he see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and his heart understand, and he repent and be healed."

If I don’t understand wrong, both “see” and “hear” in the verse means to understand (maybe we wonder why it was written “his heart understand” and not “his mind understand”, right?)
So, understand what? Maybe this clears up the smoke:

Stop and wonder; they became blind and they blinded [again, not see]. They were intoxicated but not from wine; they reeled but not from strong wine. For the Lord has poured upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and He has closed your eyes; the prophets and your heads who stargaze, He has covered. And the vision of everything has been to you like the words of a sealed book, which they give to one who can read, saying, "Now read this," and he shall say, "I cannot, for it is sealed." And if the book is given to one who cannot read, saying, "Now read this," he shall say, "I cannot read."

And, if we read further,

And the Lord said: "Because this people has come near; with their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart they draw far away from Me, and their fear of Me has become a command of people, which has been taught.

We face the teaching from “The Three Daily Prayers By Nissan Mindel” that stated that we love God and we fear Him by praying to Him (while the verse makes clear distinction between the heart and the words, and the authentic fear of God cannot be a command taught by the people – as to pray, so you cannot obey the commandment to fear God by praying to Him).

So, they do not understand “the vision of everything”. No wonder it was said that the Tanakh is cryptic.

I think we have to start from the beginning again. I got a bit confused. So, what you say should be besides the Tanakh?

(a)   Commentaries of jews about the Tanakh, interpreted in the humanly possible way (which means that common people can understand the Tanakh)? If so, it is normal for such things to exist, and they – the commentaries - should not be trusted as the Tanakh is, but should only be accepted as “commentaries” (not raised to the rank of “law”, for instance), because commentators may not be right in everything.

(b)   Or, we should consider the Tanakh as a cryptic text and tell people “you cannot understand it!” (though I wonder how these guys could understand it: Nehemiah 8.2 “and all who could hear with understanding”; and also even we say people can’t, they might) so there would be necessary a Different Law with full authority as Law and new prophets to tell that Different Law (or what is traditionally called ‘Oral Law’, being something different to the Tanakh). In this case, very smart men (Sages) don’t fit in, because the Tanakh itself does not give credit to the wisdom of men when it’s about God’s law (Isaiah 44.25; Jeremiah 8.8-9). Instead, prophets from God are required. Also, this would make the Tanakh futile, because it is cryptic and it is supplanted by that Different Law. And if there is a Different Law (an oral Law), then that is against the Tanakh that claims that the law that God asks us to keep was written (Hosea 8.12, Deut 30.10)

(c)   Or, we should consider the Tanakh as a crypted text with its ‘hidden meaning’ (Deut 30.11: hidden, concealed) but its teachings preserved by people, and finally collected. So there were no sages here, because everything was already known and in existence since Moses’ time (except for the laws that have been added by people which God does not ask us to keep – He asks us to keep only His written Law: Hosea 8.12, Deut 30.10)

I believe the first (a) is most plausible. You may wish to explain your view, so I would understand better of what should be there more than the Tanakh.

[Zenith]

THE RABBINICAL AUTHORITY

And yet other things are labelled as "derabanan" (Of the rabbis, a rabinnical decree, a fence, etc).   There are many categories of law.  The verses in the Torah invest these powers with the elders and scholars whose job it is to judge the cases and teach the Torah to the people and make rulings.    I suspect we've been through this already.   But if not, this is found in Devarim (Deuteronomy) where it refers to the Beit Din and going to resolve a case that cannot be resolved at the local level.

And even though the rabbis can enact fences as they did in some laws in the Talmud,  no one then conflates the different categories of law as being the same.  No one 'pretends' that rabbinical decrees are actually Torah laws.  They are separate categories that are also binding on us (by us, I mean Jews of course, not those who are not part of the covenant, no offense).

I have to contradict you here, sorry. Unless I understood wrong, I have to contradict you. You claim that jews are obligated to keep these rabbinical laws given centuries ago by the verses Deut 17.8-13? If so, I think you are wrong. These verses do NOT say that whatever the Levites and judges decide must be kept written and other judges and Levites in later centuries are forced to use the same judgments. If it would be so, there would be a great problem if it would once have happened like this:

But you have turned aside from the way. You caused many to stumble in the Torah. You corrupted the covenant of the Levites, said the Lord of Hosts. And now I, too, have made you contemptible and low to the entire people according to how you do not keep My ways and [how] you show favoritism in the Torah.

Anyway, even if that would not be the case, or there would be a separate thing that deals with it, what if, there was a better judgment for a case? Every case when judging a case relies on the judge’s mind. But two judges may have two different opinions. What about two judges that are separated by 200 years? So why should the last one be submitted to the choice of the first one? The first one’s judgment may help – even the result if it’s known – but maybe the second one gets to a better judgment on the same case? So those verses seem to me like that: you have a case you cannot solve yourself, then you go to a judge (like a nowadays judge with all the stuff), and after the trial ends you must do what has been decreed (i.e. that guy is punished by this or punished by that, or if he is found innocent, he is freed – you cannot ignore the decree of the trial). But what you said seemed a totally different thing. And by the way, those verses don’t say that Levites or judges can go by themselves and make a council in which to choose to add new laws to force upon people to be kept for all the generations that will follow.

“No one 'pretends' that rabbinical decrees are actually Torah laws.  They are separate categories” – that’s interesting… no one pretends that they are Torah laws, but everyone is forced to obey them. It’s like “it’s not the Torah law, but like the Torah law.”, which, besides the fact that they are called otherwise, there seems no difference at all (at least how I understood it to be). And by the way, in Deuteronomy it doesn’t even say that one must to go to the Levites or judges for anything, but only if the case is too hard for him; moreover, it also doesn’t say that if those Levites or judges decree is faulty he has to obey it (in this case he might go to other Levites or judges); he is doing wrong only if he does not obey them because of presumptuousness. In here (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0517.htm) it says “And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel.”

[Zenith]

CHALLENGE

You are questioning the foundation of Jewish practice and belief, not the idea of the light bulb on Shabbath

Actually, I question both.

For what reason?  Why do you question the foundation of Jewish practice and belief?  If you come with a challenge, there must be something prompting it.  Would you mind sharing that?  And if you're a non-Jew, Jewish practice and belief really has nothing to do with you.

If you insist something in a “challenge” form, here it is:

Challenges:
1. Prove me that those interpretations of the Tanakh given by the Oral Law are good interpretations of the Tanakh;

2. Prove me that the historical data given by the Talmud is true;

3. Prove me that all the other laws beside those written in the Tanakh (like praying 3 times a day) are either given by God or that God agrees with them.

4. Prove me that all the Oral Law that you claim to be given by God through Moses is indeed given by God through Moses.

5. Prove me that the jewish people whom for such a long time, since their exodus from Egypt until the end of their history written in Tanakh, are more rebuked and blamed by God for  not listening to Him and not keeping His laws than being stated about them “how faithful they are!”, these people that in this all long period have gone astray so often, prove me that after the end of their history recorded in the Tanakh, for I don’t know what reason stopped going astray as they did before, but it remained a permanent reliable authority (sages, rabbis, whatever) that could have not gone astray, but was always the preservers and teachers of the truth – I really can’t believe it: how that before, all were going so easily astray and all the teachers of the law and everybody was going astray in that period, except sometimes very few, and after the end of the history given by Tanakh all changed suddenly and people started to have always a reliable institution to teach them the clear, pure truth.

Of which, the most important ones are 1 and 3. Some may be impossible to answer, but I asked in case you believe you have the answers.

And for what compelling reason do I need to listen to the incoherent babbling and uninformed opinions of a 4000-years-later Johnny-come-lately who wants to give his opinion to cut us off from the Sinaitic Legal Tradition which goes all the way back to Moshe and the generation of the Sinai revelation?   You and I both know there is absolutely no reason to do any such thing.

That makes me ask myself: When Moses wrote the books of law, for what compelling reason do I need to listen to some guys that came more than a thousand years later and said “Moses also said these stuffs, only that he did not write them. Now you got to believe it was all from him!”?
Hopefully those opinions can be debated somehow.

[Zenith]

THE FUNNY THING

… If you say “the difference is that Christianity is false, and thus can change chaotically because G-d is not with them, while Judaism is true and thus cannot change”, know that everybody believes that his own religion/creed is the true and thus can never change while other religions and creeds may change chaotically because G-d is not with them. So this is like a muslim saying to a hindu: “how can you be so blind not to see that your religion is false?” while both believe foolish things, believe their own religion because of the same weaknesses  (i.e. blindly trusting in clerics, because most around them believe so, etc.) while the only difference is that each has a different story about divinity and laws. So just believing that you already believe the truth cannot help at the preservation by the clerics of what was said in the beginning. So, from my point of view, because I was not aware of what Judaism is, this is no argument: everybody says that they are right and the others are wrong, so am I going to be convinced by everybody that each, with his own religion or creed is right? And if you don’t care to find an argument for me – something like “I believe the truth, now be gone and don’t tell me anything” - can you find arguments for yourselves?

Why do you make up your own answer to your question and then complain that it's a crappy answer?   Kind of funny.

Yeah, that sounds funny, but that was not my intention. I supposed that one of you might have had this opinion so in order to skip that eventual discussion, I explained that possible view. If you say it sounds odd, I will try from now on not to explain possible views, but let you answer instead if you have something to say there.

[Zenith]

“ASKING G-d” ISSUE

By the way, why don't you ask G-d to clarify this to you?

I don't understand this question.   Do you think I speak with G-d?   Sorry to disappoint you, but G-d does not speak to me, I am no prophet, and there are no prophets today.

1.   I didn’t mean Him to say to you words in a dream or in a vision or something. If you ask Him to clarify something to you, don’t you believe He can do something like one day you see something clear, as a verse, or anything may be, which you did not before, a kind of “ringing bell”, or Him to make so that you would find the proper answer somewhere. Do you believe that G-d can’t do that, or that asking G-d for help can’t be helpful? And I also did not expect you to say that there are no prophets today, so the following question I ask:

2.   Why do you think is the reason for not being prophets today?

And by the way, when I said this “By the way, why don't you ask G-d to clarify this to you?” I wasn’t too careful when I placed it there, I might have not given the intended meaning to that. I meant, if you have an issue or a doubt like “is this thing really forbidden by G-d or misinterpreted by people?”, like removing the cap of the soda bottle which some claim that it is a prohibition in the Sabbath day while others say that it isn’t (I say like this because you believe that these written 39 melachot are what G-d asks). So, don’t you pray to G-d to clarify things to you? If it’s about G-d’s law which you have to keep, then I guess that it is very important to know exactly.

This was the last post of this series. Now I expect your replies.

[edu]

Zenith, you should be aware that assuming you are not Jewish, you don't have to be one to be a good person or to have a portion in the world to come. It is sufficient that you observe the 7 Noachide Precepts {some spell it Noahide} together with having the right ideological outlook, towards G-d and the Jewish people.

I feel no need to prove to you to be a Jew. If you don't have the proper respect or willingness to listen it's better anyway that you stay as you are.

For now, I will just end with one more comment. If you are looking to become a citizen of any country, if your wish to become a citizen is dependant on agreeing with every decision that the country's High Court makes, you will never end up becoming a citizen nor will any serious country take you.
Citizenship is dependent upon accepting the authority of the courts even if you believe they are wrong.
  There are exceptions but this is the general rule.
  I believe you , Zenith, are coming with the attitude towards the oral law. "If You prove to me that 100% of the interpretations of the Oral law are correct, I'll accept. If not, I won't".
 

[Zenith]

1. If I will ever receive replies from you guys, please try to use English terms, or at least to put the translation in English in parentheses, and please try not to use terms assuming that I know them. For instance, I have heard the "7 Noachide Precepts" for the first time from edu. I had a good luck though, because I found it pretty quickly on wikipedia.org.

2. With all the respect, if Noah had given certain commandments to be kept by gentiles, wouldn't they supposed to be known by at least most gentiles and not to find out of them from Jews? I mean, something like, in ancient greece and many other ancient civilizations to exist some documents to say "a very great ancestor of ours called Noah gave us these commandments!"? But to say that only Jews have the commandments meant for gentiles... is way too odd. Not that I expect you to understand what I meant.

If you don't have the proper respect or willingness to listen it's better anyway that you stay as you are.

I don't know if you can believe me, but I also feel the strong feeling that you have absolutely no willingness to listen to me. It's like I say something which I see important and it passes through your ears while you are thinking about something else and don't care about what I say, but only hear "You are wrong!" which you don't like to hear and so, you reply "I don't like what you hear, you say that I'm wrong, go away!"

About the respect issue... I've talked on a freedom-of-speech forum, also with muslims, so I know what disrespect is. Disrespect is to mock somebody, to act haughtiness, with arrogance, that is, to act as yourself are very high, very smart, very important, that you're somebody, while the one you talk to is stupid, worthless, etc., or to mock his religion (i.e. one could call the 'prophet' Muhammud a retard, a pig, only to make muslims feel awful). I don't think I did that, and if you say that the words I used, like "absurd", "very odd" to describe your beliefs, are actually disrespectful, they aren't, because they really sound like that to me and there is no better word to describe the same thing, and they are not arrogant or other kind of "ugly" words.

If you call me disrespectful because I claimed that you are utterly wrong in some issues, that I know better than you some things (otherwise I wouldn't have said things like "it is actually so!"), or even that I claimed that your sages and your rabbis should not be venerated or blindly trusted, that I claimed that it is not impossible for them to be wrong in certain aspects, that I blamed Jews of doing the same wrong things other people do, that I claimed that human imagination (i.e. stories) and customs became valued as holy because were taught by elders (and maybe others like them) and finally became canonized as "G-d's word", I don't think that that is disrespectful, sorry. As far as I know, saying to somebody that he is wrong is not disrespectful and saying my opinions as I did is not disrespectful. I believe you call me disrespectful because I do not say that you are right, because I do not glorify you and because I do not glorify your religion and I don't say "I'm sure that G-d is deeply happy with you". That is the "proper" respect you ask me. If you really believe that I was disrespectful, please quote what I said and say the nature of my disrespectfulness (i.e. arrogance, if you see somewhere), considering how you would debate a catholic christian who venerates things that you consider wrong (but for him they are holy), because this respect you ask must be the respect you give.

And by the way, I can call you (only muman613 and KWRBT) disrespectful too: you see, through all the discussion you had the attitude towards me as I am the floor-sweeper while you are the experts, that whatever you tell me I should just swallow because "you know". I was called obtuse, ignorant, ignoramus, things I said were called foolish, and I was almost always blamed for contradicting you (something like, how do you dare say that I am wrong?) still I didn't complain.

I believe you , Zenith, are coming with the attitude towards the oral law. "If You prove to me that 100% of the interpretations of the Oral law are correct, I'll accept. If not, I won't".

In part, because KWRBT asked for a challenge.
then, because of the link from muman613
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter2-19.html
which encouraged Jews to debate with heretics, so I understood that if I contradict them, they are encouraged to reply. So I understood that ye are encouraged to reply to me even though I'm not a jew.

About the citizenship, if I understood well, you mean that you don't agree with all the Israeli theology but you have to obey it because it is state law? In this case, for instance, if one doesn't believe that the electrical lamp fits into the 39 melachot but it's punished by the state, I don't mean that Israeli Jews should turn on the light so they would be killed by the state. I believe that a man must obey his country, as long as it does not force him to brake G-d's law, so abstinence from turning on the light in the Sabbath day should be no problem. But, if I understood wrong what you said about citizenship, then I guess that what you said was too vague.

I've read from the first posts again, thinking that maybe I missed something or misunderstood something or something. I won't debate things that slipped me because I don't believe you care about them. All I say is that I realized that about the "melachot" issue, I forgot from where we started as the discussion went on, only in the last series of posts I talked about "creative activity" because that seems too confusing and vague, as "exercise control over one's environment" is also very vague. Now I guess that "chachamim" means "wise men" or "sages", when I first read it I had no idea whom KWRBT referred to. And it is possible that some of my explanations were hard to understand.
 
By the way, you (at least KWRBT) accused me of attempting to cut you off from your tradition. That statement seems to me like "you won't separate us from the tradition, even if that contradicted the Tanakh!". Please don't take it offensively, it's just how it seems to me. You might consider a blasphemy only to question the Talmud, and maybe that's the reason you understand me as disrespectful.

Hopefully this post does not sound disrespectful to you.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

And by the way, I can call you (only muman613 and KWRBT) disrespectful too: you see, through all the discussion you had the attitude towards me as I am the floor-sweeper while you are the experts, 

You are out of line.

Keep in mind that edu is not KWRBT or Muman.   Aside from that, you had no reason to start a rant like this, and you make a mistake by making this personal.

that whatever you tell me I should just swallow because "you know". I was called obtuse, ignorant, ignoramus, things I said were called foolish, and I was almost always blamed for contradicting you (something like, how do you dare say that I am wrong?) still I didn't complain. 

Don't put words in my mouth, kid.

You are making things up and attributing them to me.  This is unfair.


I'll respond to your posts eventually when I take time to read them.   You just sit tight.  In the meantime, drop the victim narrative and cease the attacks.   You don't "win" your argument by getting people to feel sorry for you or making someone else out to be malevolent.

[AsheDina]

Gracious.

Zenith, in May, just barely 3 mos ago, you knew ZERO about the Jewish faith, now YOU are calling the shots? 

KWRBT is correct, you are way out of line.

[muman613]

Here are my questions to Zenith...

1) Are you Halachically Jewish?

2) If so, are you willing to learn, or are you here to simply argue?

3) If you are not Jewish then I don't think we can do anything to change your opinion about G-d and the truth of Torah.

I will consider my response to you based on the answers to these questions...

Thank you...

[edu]

Zenith wrote

With all the respect, if Noah had given certain commandments to be kept by gentiles, wouldn't they supposed to be known by at least most gentiles and not to find out of them from Jews? I mean, something like, in ancient greece and many other ancient civilizations to exist some documents to say "a very great ancestor of ours called Noah gave us these commandments!"? But to say that only Jews have the commandments meant for gentiles... is way too odd. Not that I expect you to understand what I meant.

The Jews received the Torah with its 613 commandments only at the time of Moses. Until that time, the fact that G-d, rewarded and punished for good and bad behavior as the Torah testifies which indicates some other moral code was in effect at that time. In any case some of the Noachide precepts are spelled out explicitly in Genesis chapter 9.
Also various non-jewish characters in the Tanakh appeal to some moral code in order to make a point on their behalf.
In addition the story of Noah's flood is found in the stories of many different non-jewish cultures. Since, some of the 7 Noachide precepts contradicted activities that the gentiles wanted to do, such as worshiping idols, restraint on certain types of sexual relationships (for example, with adultery with another Man's wife, male homosexuality, etc) robbery, and murder, I see no reason to suspect that a detailed lists of the Noachide laws, would survive outside the Jewish community.
Furthermore, it is well known that before Christianity and Islam reached many countries, those countries were totally pagan. Why is it that some of the details of some of those pagan cultures are totally forgotten today? Because, an opposing ideology used force or bribery to stamp out remembrance of those cultures over the centuries.
So if this could happen to pagan cultures, why not to the Noachide precepts?
In a previous post you asked me for a better definition in mind when I accused you of being disrespectful to the sages.
I will try again to make my point clear by use of an analogy. Let's say there are many science professors that after many years of personal research and based on knowledge past down to them from previous generations, come to some scientific conclusions and then some kid off the block after 2 months of dabbling in the subject, says he knows better than everyone. All of them are wrong and he is right.
I would call that disrespectful.
(Except for certain extreme situations which are not relevant here).
Now substitute rabbis for science professors and yourself for that kid off the block and you will see what I define as disrespectful.
In your case, I personally believe that it is wrong and perhaps forbidden to provide you with addtional Torah information outside the 7 Noachide precepts.

[Zenith]

And by the way, I can call you (only muman613 and KWRBT) disrespectful too: you see, through all the discussion you had the attitude towards me as I am the floor-sweeper while you are the experts,

You are out of line.

Keep in mind that edu is not KWRBT or Muman.   Aside from that, you had no reason to start a rant like this, and you make a mistake by making this personal.

Well, not only one said that I do not show proper respect, so I presumed that those who understood me as such are not too rare among ye. That is, I believed that most, if not all Jews who have followed the discussion considered me as disrespectful.

And about the personal thing, I do not make this personal, I mean, I don't have any feeling to leave this post or forum, and I don't feel as a victim, but it was something like "if I was somewhat harsh, then know that you were not soft either" which means that I don't see why you would find my words a real reason for the end of the replies. I'm not asking anybody to be soft; instead, I don't like to be asked by others to be soft "or else...".

that whatever you tell me I should just swallow because "you know". I was called obtuse, ignorant, ignoramus, things I said were called foolish, and I was almost always blamed for contradicting you (something like, how do you dare say that I am wrong?) still I didn't complain.

Don't put words in my mouth, kid.

You are making things up and attributing them to me.  This is unfair.

By "you" I meant "ye", so, for instance, I know that thou did not call me ignoramus.

About "that whatever you tell me I should just swallow because "you know"", "I was almost always blamed for contradicting you", again I did not "blame" one man in particular, and, if it was understood otherwise than it was meant, it was the feeling that ye (whichever of ye) blamed me for "not listening", that I ignore your (either of ye) arguments and only try to argue, not to understand, as what you (whichever of ye) say should just be enough for me to accept your views as correct.

As I might have some guilt for these misunderstandings, I apologize. Anyway, I can't promise anything, it might be some lack of skill in saying something so others would understand correctly, and saying all what is needed (i.e. one may keep important things in his mind, not writing them down, considering that they can be self-understood), but it may also be that we don't know each other, so we just presume the other's intentions, what he meant, etc.

I'll respond to your posts eventually when I take time to read them

That makes me feel happy.

[Zenith]

Gracious.

Zenith, in May, just barely 3 mos ago, you knew ZERO about the Jewish faith, now YOU are calling the shots? 

KWRBT is correct, you are way out of line.

Well, I didn't talk to a jewish man about Judaism in my entire life until May, about that time. In my town, as far as I know, there is no synagogue, maybe no jewish man. So the only place where I could have got to know what Judaism is all about, was forums, that's why I asked questions here. Yet I have some religious background, so I'm not having 0% knowledge about anything, but even reading the Tanakh doesn't make you know what Jews believe, right? (something like, "how do you know how they understand it? how do you know how much it means to them?", "how do you know what other things they rely on along with the Tanakh?").

As for the first posts vs last posts... it was not my initial intention to debate anything here, I had the thought but a kind of "maybe much later", but as we started to debate, I couldn't have said "ok, ok, however you say!" when in my head the views and understandings were wrong.

[Zenith]

Here are my questions to Zenith...

1) Are you Halachically Jewish?

2) If so, are you willing to learn, or are you here to simply argue?

3) If you are not Jewish then I don't think we can do anything to change your opinion about G-d and the truth of Torah.

I will consider my response to you based on the answers to these questions...

Thank you...

I really don't understand why knowing the answers to these questions means so much to you and why they are so important for the debate.

Anyway, if it makes you feel better:
1) No
2) Even if I shouldn't have answered here because of 1): if I get to the conclusion that my views are wrong, to learn, but as long as I see my views as correct, to argue.
3) I understand your question to be, whether I'm Jewish or not, and the answer is that I'm not. I understand that this answer discourages you to reply to my posts, though I don't understand why it makes such a difference for our discussion.