JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Zenith on May 11, 2010, 06:46:33 AM
-
Hi!
I am not a jew, and I have some questions about ye/your religion.
1. What translations of the Tanakh exist? are they many? And what manuscripts to they use for it?
by the way, is there a site from where I can download a Tanakh in english for free?
2. What is the Talmud for you, how do you appreciate it to be? And maybe, some details about what actually it is (are there only commentaries on the Tanakh?). Is there any other jewish book besides Talmud? (now I don't mean hundreds of other books of commentaries you may find to buy).
3. It's hard for me to understand... What's the difference between writting G-d with that "-" or with "o"? For me, this difference is like the difference of synonyms (differently written, differently spelled), or writting it in two different languages. Which is still the same thing, because they mean the same thing. Can anybody please clarify this to me?
thanks in advance.
-
Hi!
I am not a jew, and I have some questions about ye/your religion.
1. What translations of the Tanakh exist? are they many? And what manuscripts to they use for it?
by the way, is there a site from where I can download a Tanakh in english for free?
2. What is the Talmud for you, how do you appreciate it to be? And maybe, some details about what actually it is (are there only commentaries on the Tanakh?). Is there any other jewish book besides Talmud? (now I don't mean hundreds of other books of commentaries you may find to buy).
3. It's hard for me to understand... What's the difference between writting G-d with that "-" or with "o"? For me, this difference is like the difference of synonyms (differently written, differently spelled), or writting it in two different languages. Which is still the same thing, because they mean the same thing. Can anybody please clarify this to me?
thanks in advance.
1. There are many different translations of the Tanakh. I don't know of any specific websites like that.
2. The Talmud is the oral law. At Mount Sinai, we received both the written law and the oral law. The oral law was supposed to be passed down orally, but it became too long and complex for people to remember by heart so it was written down as the Mishnah. The two components of the Talmud are the Mishnah and the Gemara (commentary on the Mishnah).
3. In Hebrew, it is forbidden to write out G-d's name. It isn't prohibited to write G-o-d since it is just an English word, but it is a custom to write "G-d" since the word is supposed to represent G-d.
-
about point 1.
if there are many translations, do you have any thoughts about a verse found in different translations, like "but which is the correct one?". especially if they are based on different manuscripts.
about point 2.
as I do not know too much about jews or judaism, I'll have to ask:
- what is Mishnah?
- what is Gemara?
- I suppose you mean that "written law" is Tanakh, and that "oral law" is Talmud. So, you understand the Talmud as being as reliable as the Tanakh? And one more question must I ask: if there was meant a written law, then why would it be needed an oral law too? And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written? And how did it become too long? Who added to it?
about point 3.
You mean it is forbidden to write Hashem (Y, H, W and H) in hebrew? but where is it written, or why is it forbidden to write it in hebrew? (by which I understand that writting it in other language than hebrew is not forbidden).
-
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
However, you should note that these translations are based on the JPS - Jewish Publication Society - English translation of the Bible from 1917. Needless to say (or perhaps it does need to be said here) the JPS is not exactly the most learned or reliable translation.
Included here is:
Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Writings - Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra / Nehemiah
Their main site is here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/index.htm
-
Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).
And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?
-
Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).
And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?
I use the Artscroll Mesorah Chumash for my English translation. Of course the best thing to do would be to learn the Hebrew and read it yourself, then you will not be fooled by xtian {or other foreign} translations {like King James, etc}...
Learning Hebrew is the best bet, then you can attempt to understand the ONE TRUE TORAH! It has not changed a single letter in over 3500+ years..
-
The Oral Torah was given along side the Written Torah at Mount Sinai. It was not written down for almost 1300+ years until just around the Roman invasion period about 2000 years ago.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/190,104/What-are-the-Mishnah-and-Talmud.html
What are the Mishnah and Talmud?
A. The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?” To answer this and many other questions (like how to slaughter an animal in the kosher way, what tefillin are), G-d explained the entire Torah to Moses. Moses then explained the entire Torah to the people orally. This explanation is therefore called the Oral Torah, since it was transmitted by word of mouth and was not written down.
B. The Oral Torah was taught mouth-to-ear, mouth-to-ear, through the generations until the 2nd Century C.E., at which point the sages felt that it would be forgotten unless it was written down. Rabbi Judah the Prince indeed went ahead and compiled the basics into a 63 volume document called the Mishnah. The Mishnah was taught in schools through the generations, with an accompanying oral explanation. In the 5th Century C.E., it became too vast and confusing for people to understand, and the oral explanation was written down in a massive collection that dwarfs the Mishnah. This explanation is known as the Gemara, and together they - the Mishnah with its Gemara commentary - form the Talmud.
C. The 63 volumes of the Mishnah are divided into six sections, each one on a different area of Jewish life: Agriculture, Shabbat and Holidays, Family Relations, Civil Law, Temple Sacrifices and Ritual Purity. Thirty eight volumes of the Mishnah have accompanying Gemara commentary, making them Talmudic Tractates. The Talmud thus consists of huge books crammed with densely packed Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language that uses the Hebrew alphabet. The Talmud follows the six-section structure of the Mishnah.
How do I study Talmud?
1. Study with a partner or with a class
OK, you’ve decided to study Talmud on your own, with your brand-new English-language version. Now, you’re cruising through the third page, and you get stuck—something doesn’t make sense. The commentaries help, but not completely—what do you do? To preempt this problem, The Rabbis instituted what might be called the “buddy system”—always studying Torah, and particularly the intricate, challenging Talmud—with a partner. Better yet, go to a Talmud class—you’ll learn even more and meet people who share your avid interest in Talmud, too. Chances are your local Chabad center offers one.
2. Remember what you’re doing
The Talmud is not just an engrossing exposition of Jewish law and lore—it’s part and parcel of the Torah. In other words, it’s not just another book—it’s a Jewish book. When you study Talmud, remember that you’re studying Torah, Divine wisdom.
You might also want to read:
What are the books of the Mishnah?
and
What are the names and topics of all the Tractates of the Talmud?
PS: We believe that all the Laws of Torah were given to Moses at Sinai... Why was it given Orally? Take a guess? So that those false religions like Christianity and Islam would not be able to steal it... They basically stole only the Written part and did not steal the oral Torah {as a matter of fact they reject it, making the Written word completely useless}...
Oral Torah explains how to be able to perform the commandments... For instance what does the Torah mean when it says to write the Torah on the doorpost of the house {mezzuzah}? Only the Oral Torah explains how we actually perform this commandment of Mezzuzah... Same with TzitTzit and Tefillin , etc. The Tanakh is like the Clifford Notes, abridged version, with the Oral law filling out the missing pieces.
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
http://www.torahanytime.com/rabbi_singer_oral_law_1_mp3.html
The Oral Law - part 1
More than 3,300 years ago, God transmitted to Moses both the Written and Oral Law. What is the Oral Law and why was it transmitted that way? Missionaries claim that although the Written Law is the word of God, the Oral Law was a mischievous invention of the rabbis! Is this claim really true or is the Oral Law divinely inspired?
-
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
WRITING THE TALMUD
During the centuries following the completion of the Mishna, the chain of transmission of the Oral law was further weakened by a number of factors: Economic hardship and increased persecution of the Jewish community in Israel caused many Jews, including many rabbis, to flee the country. Many of these rabbis emigrated to Babylon in the Persian Empire. The role of the rabbis of Israel as the sole central authority of the Jewish people was coming to an end. This decentralization of Torah authority and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.
So they began to have discussions about it and to write down the substance of these discussions.
Since at this time a significant portion of the Jewish population was living in Babylon, which was outside the bounds of the Roman Empire, the rabbis there put together their discussions, the end product of which was called Talmud Bavli or the Babylonian Talmud. Even before this process had begun in Babylon, in the land of Israel, another set of discussions took place and the end result was Talmud Yerushalmi or the Jerusalem Talmud. (Incidentally, the Jerusalem Talmud was not written in Jerusalem; it was written in Tiberias, the last place where the Sanhedrin sat, but was called the Jerusalem Talmud in deference to the Sanhedrin's rightful home.)
Due to persecution of the Jewish community in Israel the Jerusalem Talmud, completed in the mid 4th century C.E., was never completed or fully edited. The Jerusalem Talmud is much shorter (it contains only four of the six sections of the Mishna(4)) and is more cryptic and harder to understand than the Babylonian Talmud. The situation of the Jews in Babylon was much more stable and the rabbis in Babylon had considerably more time to edit and explain the subject matter.
Although there are two Talmuds, they are not really separate. The Rabbis of Babylon had access to the Jerusalem Talmud while they were working on their text. But if there is dispute between the two Talmuds, the Babylonian Talmud is followed.(5) Both because Babylonian Talmud is considered more authoritative and the Jerusalem Talmud is more difficult to study, Jewish students pouring over the Talmud in yeshiva are using chiefly the Babylonian Talmud. The Talmud is more than just an application of the details of the Jewish law as expounded in the Mishnah. It's the encyclopedia of all Jewish existence.
The Talmud also contains a lot of agadata -- these are stories that are meant to illustrate important points in the Jewish worldview. These stories contain a wealth of information on a huge range of topics. you name it, it's in there.
This information was vital to the Jewish people because Jewish law was never applied by reading a sentence in the Torah and executing it to the letter. Take for example, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." It was never Jewish law that if someone blinded you, that you should go and blind him. What is the good of having two blind people? It was always understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not a life for an eye) and 2) that it means the value of an eye for the value of the eye, referring to monetary damages. Thus, the Talmud presented the written and oral tradition together.
To read the Talmud is to read a lot of arguments. On every page it seems that the rabbis are arguing. This kind of argument -- the purpose of which was to arrive at the kernel of truth -- is called pilpul. This word has a negative connotation outside the yeshiva world, as people read these arguments and it seems to the uneducated eye that the rabbis are merely splitting hairs, and that some of the arguments have absolutely no basis in everyday life. But this is not so.
The reason why the rabbis argued about things that may not have any application to everyday life was to try to get to truth in an abstract way – to understand the logic and to extract the principle. These rabbis were interested in knowing what reality is and in doing the right thing. Reality is what Judaism is all about -- the ultimate reality being God.
Another important point is that much of the discussion and dispute is focused on relatively minor points while the larger issues are generally not disputed. You don't see a single argument as to whether or not you eat pork, or whether or not you can light a fire on the Sabbath. These things were a given, they were totally agreed upon. Only small points were subject to discussion. And these rabbis were wise enough to know that a day would come when the principles established by getting to the core kernel of truth would have far reaching implications.
GEMARA
When you look at the page of the Babylonian Talmud today, you will find the Hebrew text of the Mishna is featured in the middle of the page. Interspersed between the Hebrew of the Mishna are explanations in both Hebrew and Aramaic which are called the Gemara.
The Aramaic word Gemara means "tradition." In Hebrew, the word Gemara means "completion." Indeed, the Gemara is a compilation of the various rabbinic discussions on the Mishna, and as such completes the understanding of the Mishna.
The texts of the Mishna and Gemara are then surrounded by other layers of text and commentaries from a later period.
The text of the Mishna is quoting rabbis who lived from about 100 BCE to 200 CE. These rabbi are called the Tanaim, "teachers." In this group are included such greats as Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, Rabbi Akiva, and of course Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. (In the Gemara, they usually have the title Rebbe before their first name although there are many exceptions such as the names: Hillel, Shamai, Ben Azai and Ben Zoma.)
The text of the Gemara is quoting the rabbis who lived from about 200 CE to about 500 CE. These rabbis are called, Amoraim, "explainers" or "interpreters." In this group are included Rav Ashi, Reb Yochanan, etc. (Names of the Babylonian Amoraim usually are preceeded by the title Rav as opposed to the Amoraim of Israel who continued to use the title Rabbi/Rebbe. This is because the authentic institution of smicha – rabbinic ordination -- was only done in the Land of Israel.)
The surrounding text of today's Talmud also quotes Rishonim, literally "the first ones," rabbinic authorities (from c. 1,000 C.E. until 1,500 C.E.) who predated Rabbi Joseph Caro, the 16th century author of the code of Jewish law known as the Shulchan Aruch. Among the most prominent Rishonim are Rashi, his students and descendants who were the chief authors of the Tosaphos, Maimonidies and Nachmanides. We will discuss the contributions of these rabbis in future installments.
Just how important was the work of Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi and those that followed him would become very clear in the next hundred years when the Jewish people face another threat to their religion. This is when the Roman Empire decides to convert its entire population to Christianity.
-
Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).
And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?
Well, I'd certainly rely on the JPS more than any Christian, Greek, etc translation.
There are always problems with any translation. That's the nature of the beast. Artscroll is generally used in the orthodox world, however it seems they incorporate Rashi (a rabbinic commentator) often times rather than give the simple translation. It is also the opinion of a rabbi that I know, that they based themselves largely on the JPS translation. That said, either of these are probably the best option other than learning directly with a fluent Orthodox Rabbi who can translate for you. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's "Living Torah" is also another option and of course with its own complaints on it by various people. Any of these can be very helpful.
The Talmud is the expression of the other pillar of Torah given to the Jewish people aside from the written Torah - namely the "oral Torah." This is the tradition of explanation of the written Torah along with the expression of the written Torah's laws as understood by our nation in a continuous process of divine service since we received it. It is the ONLY authoritative and authentic tradition of derivation of Torah law that continues in the path of Moshe, Joshua, the elders and the prophets before them (ie, before the Talmudic sages who continued within their overall paradigm, which no other group can possibly claim). Of course it began as an Oral Torah, but now it too is written down. Or at least its underpinnings are written in a canonical text known as the Talmud. But the Oral Torah itself continues to proliferate in every generation based on the precendent and underpinning that is the Talmud, which all Jews are bound by.
-
Is there an english translation of the Bible you consider to be reliable? (I refer to the books of the Tanakh).
And by the way, what's your opinion on Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic texts concerning the books of the Tanakh? Do you have thoughts like "but what was originall written?", "what was the original text" or you got to a resolution?
I'm not sure what you mean. Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today. This surprised scholars. But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different. What do you mean exactly?
-
I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.
The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”
Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.
about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included) I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough. Also, other examples in the torah (like making fire - which was not as simple as it is now using a button or something on the stove -, then preparing food, which implies enough effort as you cannnot call it that you "rested" in that time).
Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?
However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally.
but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).
I'm not sure what you mean. Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today. This surprised scholars. But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different. What do you mean exactly?
"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).
-
- I suppose you mean that "written law" is Tanakh, and that "oral law" is Talmud. So, you understand the Talmud as being as reliable as the Tanakh? And one more question must I ask: if there was meant a written law, then why would it be needed an oral law too? And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written? And how did it become too long? Who added to it?
Excellent questions.
The oral law is needed to expound upon and give explanation to what is in the written text. The written text, if you investigate the manner in which it appears, is in many cases not written in much detail, uses ambiguous expressions (at least to our untrained eyes), encapsulates ideas in metaphor or analogy, hints at something, is terse etc etc. To fully understand what is meant by G-d's revelation requires an attached explanation and/or instructions, details, and elaboration. It makes sense that the people who received this text, (The Jewish people) at the time they did and afterward, had a working understanding of what is meant throughout the text - or at least the greatest among this people, the most scholarly and pious and wise, would have operational understanding of what is meant in various places where the text itself does not sufficiently elaborate for someone unread and unfamiliar with the group's common expressions, culture, practices, beliefs, understandings, etc and moreso for those unfamiliar with what G-d means with various statements or indications. And these most learned of men would transmit and teach to the Jewish people in general what is meant throughout the Torah text. And it was their job to do so as the Torah itself says explicitly. The oral Torah consists of the body of understanding that is attached to the written text, as maintained and transmitted by those most learned and pious -starting with Moshe of course who had a great deal to explain to the people, as the verses themselves tell us- to the most learned and pious of the elders, the prophets, the scholars, etc.
Anyone who is not from this group of people and following in their path and comes to try to (mis)lead the Jewish people is considered a charlatan.
As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsh explains, and it seems quite fitting an explanation to me, as I paraphrase it: the Written Torah is written as if it is a series of lecture notes, a mere synopsis based on a detailed complex series of discussions between G-d and man in which the lecture notes refer to notions and concepts and details which were internalized by those present for the discussion, but not written down, and by the learned after them (and by the masses or in many cases, subsequently taught to the masses either from Moshe to the masses, or Moshe to the learned to the masses, etc etc). Similar to note-taking, a word or expression on the paper can simply highlight a more detailed idea or refer to something greater with a linguistic cue that serves to remind of the greater idea. Likewise, certain verses in the Torah only highlight a much deeper or complex or more detailed subject that must be known independent of what is written. So while reading the written Torah by itself can be fulfilling and spiritually worthwhile, to understand its complex laws in detail and the overall operational infrastructure it requires for the Jewish nation fully applying its many facets, this cannot be done by reading the written Torah alone and thus it remains in some ways a closed book. (I understand that is not relevant to a non-Jew who does not have to apply the Torah fully as part of the Jewish nation with all the commandments binding on Jews - and that is precisely why the Oral Torah is considered the domain of the Jews only). With the Oral Torah one can fully appreciate and understand the Torah and apply it fully as a Jew and within a national infrastructure, all under the umbrella of tradition of those who first received it and were present at that earthshattering event at Mount Sinai. Without the oral Torah, much remains hidden and impossible to implement, and we would be disconnected from the tradition of those who received the revelation and comprehended God's wisdom and law to the highest level when it first happened. So we would be stabbing in the dark at what to make of the many verses and what to do in practice.
As to this part of your question:
And, Do you think the oral preservation of a message is as reliable as it would have been if it was written?
This leads us to a very fascinating discussion of Oral traditions and the transmission of canons orally. Scholars now understand that this ancient discipline was indeed quite reliable and sound. With the development of technology, the oral culture has died out, and most things today are written, typed, etc for storage, so it seems foreign to us, but oral transmission of knowledge was nonetheless quite common in ancient societies and that methodology indeed maintained a reliable, genuine transmission. Another commonly known example is Homer's oddyssey which was only preserved through memorization and oral tradition until written down at some later date. Without the modern society and all its trappings, distractions, and gadgets, the mind has an incredible ability to memorize and store information.
This now will tie into the rest of your question that of course not all of it was memorized from earlier. Most sources suggest that in the early days of the Great Sanhedrin until its demise with the destruction of the Temple, that people wrote down private notes of the decisions (aside from the fact that their decisions become the binding practice and universally accepted authority, and thus the religious observance serves as a testimony to the tradition). So with private note-taking, not everything had to be memorized. It was later that these decisions, and those from new developments and new issues, became organized into a canon and memorized (the mishna), whereby "gemara" - the expounding on this canon known as mishna - was instituted, and at some later date sealed as the final format - the Talmud, which contains all the mishnas and their explanations with gemara as one overall text.
Interestingly, this fascinating process (that which we refer to as Oral Torah and which over time produced the Talmud and continues to this day with further decisions on modern day issues based on the teachings of the Talmud) reveals a pattern of interaction between text and accompanied analysis as well as a repeating dialectic between not only tradition and creativity, but also between consolidation and expansion.
Clearly a most complex subject, but hopefully this brief explanation will suffice.
-
I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.
The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”
Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.
about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included) I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough. Also, other examples in the torah (like making fire - which was not as simple as it is now using a button or something on the stove -, then preparing food, which implies enough effort as you cannnot call it that you "rested" in that time).
Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?
However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally.
but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).
I'm not sure what you mean. Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today. This surprised scholars. But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different. What do you mean exactly?
"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).
What you're referring to is differences in minor things like extra letters (extra vav's and extra yuds) which do not change the meanings of the words and certainly NOT different words in the texts. In that sense, we already knew this before the dead sea scrolls were found because we know about the Aleppo codex, etc. This is nothing new. They have never found texts of Torah itself with any different words or different meanings. If you like the Yemenite manuscripts over the Ashkenazi, or you prefer the Ashkenazi, etc etc, no problem. There are different traditions and they are bound to pop up when copying by hand a written document on parchment. There is a Jewish law within Oral Torah that specifically addresses this potential problem. We go by the majority of texts and to my understanding the current usage of the masoretic format is the result of that. Admittedly I'm not expert in this area.
-
I would also caution strongly about the usage of Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the phony interpretations of these scrolls that have been propagated in academia since the inception of detailed study of the texts. When these scrolls were initially found, Jewish scholars and rabbis were forbidden from analyzing or studying them . The motives were not pure and the scholars who commandeered the control and dictatorial exclusionary power over the scrolls had agendas in their exclusion of Jews from this academic endeavor. They had something to hide and wanted to push their beliefs into the scrolls and onto the people at large. I am sure these agendas are incorporated into whatever "altered bibles" you refer to.
Once a Jewish scholar clandestinely recreated and studied the scrolls, he exposed phony interpretations (and interpreters), and the lid was blown off of the field, now with Jewish scholars allowed access to the scrolls and many new ideas and theories surfacing even to this day.
-
I will not be able to reply to all today, so I'll leave some for... maybe tomorrow.
The Torah--i.e. the Five Books of Moses--is very vague. For instance, the Torah says not to “work” on Shabbat. But what’s “work?”
Actually, I think there are enough verses in the Torah which explain what it means.
about holydays (in which I think the Sabbath can be included) ---
You THINK, but you don't know. Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing? Well, that is precisely our claim.
I found in
Leviticus 23:7 "In the first day ye shall have a holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work. " (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm)
And servile work seems clear enough.
How is that clear? You can explain to me all things that constitute "servile work" and all types of work that are not within that category? And you will know for sure you are correct about what G-d meant? That is a spurious claim. There is no way you or I can just naturally arrive at that and think that everyone else will agree to our premises if we merely make them up ourselves. And clearly you haven't attemped to do so.
Also, I think there must be some exceptions, like: if one breaks his leg in the sabbath day, I don't think the correct thing is to cover your ears so you would not hear him screaming...
am I wrong or missing something?
Once again, no offense, but you think, and we know. Because we have a tradition of what the exceptions are and are not. But these were derived by those who received the Torah and whom G-d tasked with the duty to understand and explain and teach Torah to the Jewish masses. It is not derived 3000 years after the fact by you or I guessing and speculating with logic and cut off from society or practice or tradition or from consensus for that matter.
However, I agree that there are some things that are not written in the torah, like the dressing of the priests (how exactly they should look, not approximatively), but that was rather preserved by practice, more than just saying it to the descendents... and that might have come to be written finally.
Yes, that is certainly logical to expect. However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim? This can be in many aspects. And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not?
As a very important parallel to this discussion, one should note that there are many areas in Jewish tradition where we have ancient traditions that explain the text of the Oral law! So just as we had traditions that explained the details of the written law, once the Oral law became a written text of its own, it itself can be unclear in some ways without an accompanied practical tradition to explain the plain words that are written. Here's a primary example. Certain Yemenite Jewish communities maintain to this day a tradition for which locusts are kosher to be eaten and which locusts are not, and they can identify them on sight. That was only preserved through transmission of tradition, whereas the "descriptions" and "names" of various locusts written down in the Talmud mean absolutely nothing to those groups of Jews who lost this tradition upon being displaced to different climates, etc. This type of phenomenon is inherent in any written text baseline of instructions, not limited to just the Written Torah.
Certainly you (or any modern day person) cannot profess to tell me in which subjects of written Torah this is a relevant issue and in which it is not. And for those which you admit to, including for instance the clothes of the Cohanim, it is only the Talmudic sages who have explained this tradition, just as they explained the other traditions, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, and they are just as reliable on that subject as on any other. And people cannot come later (thousands of years later) and say they know differently based on some kind of guesswork or intuition that contradicts what the people who received the traditions recorded for us.
but about the interpretation of text, how do you know they were right in everything? (that is, that nothing was missing from what was meant, and that they didn't interpret/understand anything wrong. And if the argument is that many or all came to that conclusion finally, that still seems not reliable to me).
It depends what you mean exactly. When it comes to understanding moral teachings of the Torah, ie philosophical beliefs, there is more flexibility (with the exception of a few commandments which demand of us to believe in G-d's Oneness), and different ideas can be true or accepted, and may even vary from individual to individual. But if you refer to the law - how we practice the various commandments and carry them out in their details and on a national level, on this there can be no disagreement that G-d gave the authority to Moshe and the elders of his generation, and subsequently each generation that followed in their path after them, to teach and explain the actual details of these practices to the masses. It's not as if G-d kept these matters hidden from Moshe. I'm sure you're not claiming that. So over time, more of this becomes "canonized" because for instance, how can we depart from how Moshe and the Prophets instructed us on how to construct mezzuzot for our doorposts? (or the general idea of what the muzuzot are)? It is sensible and logical that over time, the body of explanation, especially with regards to practical law observance, can become solidified and canonized because the Torah gives authority to those who explain it and solidify it, and the Jewish masses are bound to their explanations - not to a "Jonny-come-lately" who did not stand at Sinai, did not receive tradition from those who did, and comes around thousands of years later and makes something up based on reading a translated verse. Of course there have been many in such a situation to try to claim "authority" for themselves, but we do not grant it to them.
I'm not sure what you mean. Within the dead sea scrolls findings, they uncovered a Book of Isaiah which is exactly like the one we use today. This surprised scholars. But I'm not sure why I should expect it to be different. What do you mean exactly?
"In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text)
I have also read in a book of "Dead sea scrolls" about differences, and also, I think, in all modern christian bibles (that is, those that appeared after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and checked) they are applied (they put sentences in paranthesis many times, when there is something that differed).
[/quote]
As I alluded to in my comment above, it is important to know which texts in particular they refer to and what they mean by "differences."
-
Regarding Shabbat, all Torah says is that we must cease all creative work... The Talmud explains the 39 Melachot, or prohibited forms of Labor.... Torah does not define what Work is? For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...
-
I am currently listening to the video you sent link to... It will pass some time before I will be able to reply.
Just to know I did not forget about it.
-
The Mishna is a hasty, lossy compression of the oral law as it was past down the generations. The Talmud was then compiled to clear out and explain the mishnaic law.
-
First off, thanks for the links to the Tanakh…
Then,
1. I cannot tell how often or early I will be able to reply, so expect anytime long delays.
2. Don’t ever send me any long video/audio to watch/see. It’s very much hard work and it takes a lot of time to quote from there, reposition the bar so that I hear again what he said because I did not understand well, etc. plus that I’ll have to wait a lot until he finishes his speech while a text can be read very quickly.
3. Sorry for the long reply.
Learning Hebrew is the best bet, then you can attempt to understand the ONE TRUE TORAH! It has not changed a single letter in over 3500+ years..
I will be able to start learning hebrew seriously only after a month, but until I will be able to say “I know hebrew” I will have to rely on english translations. By the way, do you have some kind of Hebrew lexicon/dictionary or something that explains correctly and completely the meanings of words (optionally having the references in the Bible where that word appears)?
If you say that the Torah (I suppose you refere only to Torah, not to whole the Tanakh) hasn’t change a single letter in over 3500+ years (from the original), I think that’s rather something like ‘faith’ rather than something that can be checked.
G-d explained the entire Torah to Moses. Moses then explained the entire Torah to the people orally. This explanation is therefore called the Oral Torah, since it was transmitted by word of mouth and was not written down.
I don’t think there is any evidence to say that what God told Moses, apart from what was written, is exactly what you have in the Talmud (i.e. Mishnah).
We believe that all the Laws of Torah were given to Moses at Sinai... Why was it given Orally? Take a guess? So that those false religions like Christianity and Islam would not be able to steal it... They basically stole only the Written part and did not steal the oral Torah {as a matter of fact they reject it, making the Written word completely useless}...
The reason you gave is improper. Islam was founded after the Talmud was completed, and the founders of christianity (jews) were accustomed to the “Oral Law”. So christians had all the chances to ‘steal’ the “Oral Law”, and muslims to steal the Talmud.
And to say that the Talmud is the exact explanations of the Tanakh that were given originally, is like the catholic church saying that their teachings today are exactly the the teachings first christians were taught, yet I'm 100% sure that their teachings have changed considerably in time. This is only my skepticism.
part 2 follows. don't reply yet.
-
All you are saying is that you have doubts, you don't bring any proof of your position.
There are proofs that the Oral law had to be given at Sinai... There is proof that the Torah has not been changed {as a matter of fact there is a commandment (one of the 613) that man can not add nor subtract from the Torah}... There are Torah scrolls which have survived for 1000s of years and they are not different than the Torah scroll we read today.
The other religions rejected the Oral law and thereby are unable to fulfill the commandments because the Torah does not explain how to fufill commandments, only that the commandment exists {witness the commandments for Tzit-Tzits, Tefillin, Mezuzah, Sukkot, Shabbat, etc.}...
If you are truly interested you should study, not simply say that because other religions say something that it is the same as with Judaism. Judaism existed for 1000+ years before Christianity deviated from Hashems word.
-
You sent a link to http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
Somewhere it says:
Hadrian dies in 139 C.E and with his death came an improvement in the treatment of the Jewish community in Israel. During a period of relative quiet, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi managed to befriend the Roman emperors who succeeded Hadrian, particularly Marcus Aurelius (161-180 C.E.). Writes historian Rabbi Berel Wein in his Echoes of Glory (p. 224):
"Providentially, in the course of the Parthian war, Marcus Aurelius met Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi], and they became friends and eventually confidants . Marcus Aurelius consulted with his friend in Judah on matters of state policy as well as on personal questions.(1)
As much as you may like this story, it sounds to me as if a muslim had said that (we know they believe both Moses and Jesus preached Islam) some great imam in the 2nd century was the best friend of the Roman Emperor and they discussed personal matters and that the roman emperor finally converted to Islam :|. Maybe it is easy for you, because you are accutomed to that teaching, maybe you were born with it (indoctrinated with it = believing it was true before asking questions), but I was not, and nor stories about “great jews” fascinate me. That story extolls Yehudah HaNasi as orthrodox/catholic christians extoll their ‘saints’ and muslims extoll Muhammud.
He gathered together all the traditions, enactments, and interpretations and expositions of every position of the Torah, that either come down from Moses, out teacher, or had been deduced by the courts in successive generations.
So not all from Talmud is what was said to Moses by God. And the traditions, interpretations and expositions that have been understood/deduced by generations may not be 100% correct, right? Or, how much can you put your trust in man?
This decentralization of Torah authority and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.
Although I did not read the Mishna, as I’ve noticed, scriptures go like this: they are understood in a certain manner, something that becomes the tradition/culture, even though the scripture itself may teach otherwise. For instance, look at the catholics who pray to sculptures and in the same time agree with “The ten commandments”. But the “understanding of the bible” is given by lots of ‘saints’ (which were, maybe among others, commentators) who tell how they should be understood (and catholics are not the only ones who do that).
And I think that the inability to form a unity, a culture (where a standard could have been forced upon people), not necesarily/only already known facts, led to differences between their beliefs/interpretations. That’s how I believe that it didn’t happen before they were spread out (or at least, that much):
This decentralization of Torah authority [that is, there was no unity anymore, rabbis were spread]and lack of consensus among the rabbis led to further weakening of the transmission process. It became clear to the sages of this period that the Mishna alone was no longer clear enough to fully explain the Oral Law. It was written in shorthand fashion and in places was cryptic. This is because it was very concise, written on the assumption that the person reading it was already well-acquainted with the subject matter.
By the way, I think both agree that in Jesus’ time, there was a sect/party who called themselves (or were called by others) saducees and another who were called pharisees. They were a unity, yet, they had different views/understanding of the same scripture. And if that happened then, it must surely have happened even before, so finally, there was no “one unique understanding” that was preserved through ages, but different understandings of different people. And if some people gather all the info and try to get to a consensus, they might have (my opinion, great odds) left out some good understandings and preserve some wrong understandings.
The situation of the Jews in Babylon was much more stable and the rabbis in Babylon had considerably more time to edit and explain the subject matter.
That is, how they understood them, however they understood them. There is no way we can tell that they were right in everything, even though all that gathered reached a consensus.
The Talmud is more than just an application of the details of the Jewish law as expounded in the Mishnah. It's the encyclopedia of all Jewish existence.
Which most surely is not what God told Moses, but teachings that have been kept by generations about the past. There are also legends in countries about their past, which most surely were believed (some may still be believed), so the only thing you can do is put your whole trust in many generations of men, that none was wrong and non fabled.
This information was vital to the Jewish people because Jewish law was NEVER applied by reading a sentence in the Torah and executing it to the letter. Take for example, "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." It was NEVER Jewish law that if someone blinded you, that you should go and blind him. What is the good of having two blind people? It was always understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not a life for an eye) and 2) that it means the value of an eye for the value of the eye, referring to monetary damages. Thus, the Talmud presented the written and oral tradition together.
(emphasis by me)
Despite you dislike to hear it, I have another view on this matter.
1. You can’t prove that it was never applied/understood like that.
2. Actually, if one wealthy man blinds you and pays you a some of money which some consider “the price of your eye” is like myself blinding you and give you 5 dollars. That’s because you cannot buy an eye, nor can money replace the eye, and money cannot replace what you could have done with the eye you lost. and even, for a wealthy man, that price may be less than money he spends in a day. And I don’t know how fair that is.
I’ll ask you a question now: in Leviticus 24:17 it is written:
“And if a man strikes down any human being he shall be put to death.”
Now, what is the good of having two dead people? Shouldn’t it be understood on two levels: 1) that justice must be proportional (it's not an eye for a life) and 2) that it means the value of a human being for the value of the human being, referring to the payment in money (i.e. to his relatives)?
The reason why the rabbis argued about things that may not have any application to everyday life was to try to get to truth in an abstract way – to understand the logic and to extract the principle. These rabbis were interested in knowing what reality is and in doing the right thing. Reality is what Judaism is all about -- the ultimate reality being God.
That suggests that there are more ways one can get to the truth, and may even mean that it is the same taking it abstract as taking it literal, which is impossible (smth like, however you understand it, it is ok).
Of course, everybody is interested in knowing “what reality is and in doing the right thing”, only that people find each a different reality and are doing many different things which they call “right” things. “try to get to truth in an abstract way” is not uncommon and it means to “play around with words”. That’s how NIV translation of the Bible ‘understood what the author actually meant’ and wrote in 1 Chronicles 20.3 “and brought out the people who were there, consigning them to labor with saws and with iron picks and axes. David did this to all the Ammonite towns” and many other places where they sought to get ‘what the author meant when he said that’, because, from their understanding, it seems that the author was not capable to write what he meant. Muslims also take their qur’an ‘in a symbolic way’, thus giving the qur’anic verses totally different meanings. And worst of all, my opinion, is that one gets to an understanding and forces to everybody else his own view/understanding (something that everybody does), so the others don’t have the ‘right’ to judge for themselves and deny them, because they are already “heavenly words”. Take for instance christian orthodoxes, in which they already have the “understandings” given by saints, and priests, and that “understanding” and those words are considered “the very commandments and will of God”.
And these rabbis were wise enough to know that a day would come when the principles established by getting to the core kernel of truth would have far reaching implications.
Actually, there is no way to check that they thought about that, but they are extolled to that high knowledge that they knew too much and were too wise to be doubted they got to ANY wrong conclusion.
Yet, I read in Jeremiah 8
“7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming; but My people know not the ordinance of the LORD. 8 How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of the LORD is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes. 9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?”
(http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1108.htm)
It is said that they have rejected the word of the Lord, yet they considered themselves wise because of the law (word) of the Lord. How that? And the work of the scribes was in vain, because the wisdom that “is in them” is nothing to the Lord. And they did not know the ordinance of the Lord, although they had the books and the scribes who were working on them (by the context, I suppose it is not only about copying the books for preservation, but… probably even comments and interpretations).
if you see I understood wrong, I expect you to point out.
part 3 follows.
-
From
http://www.torahanytime.com/rabbi_singer_oral_law_1_mp3.html
I listened to all of it, because my first language is not english it was a bit hard to understand some things he said, I used “…” where I didn’t know what he said:
“If we want to know how to perform the written Torah, how to perform what it says, that’s what the Oral Torah tells us. As an example, let’s say today we picked out the today’s New York Times, … and we began to cut away all the headlines, we cut all the headlines out of the newspaper, and on a fresh piece of paper we scotchtaped all the headlines, one beneath the other. That’s what the written Torah would be like, all we have is we’d have the headlines but it really doesn’t tell us a whole lot about how to do it, how to perform it, what do we do? ”
That what he said is odd. You know, chrstian orthodox and catholics say a bit the same about the Tanakh, a kind of “very, very basics and very vague”, that it is not enough, and is quite ignored in the favour of the teachings of the ‘saints’, which are that many in number and a lot of text that they don’t even have the time for the Bible itself (of which, I think Tanakh is mostly ignored). But I think that even the most important thing is ignored, while the highlight is on the other books, which explain how you should understand the text.
About newspaper headlines: what is the good in reading the newspaper headlines? Shouldn’t one rather read the newspaper text? If so, then the newspaper headline is useless. Or, should one read a crypted text, if, because it is crypted, cannot be understood, or he should read the “explanation of the text” instead?
“The first reason is simply that christianity could not in any way embrace a body of divinly inspired literature that they did not have access to.” – how do you know it is a divinly inspired literature? I read above that they used their wisdom to get to a consensus and understand things. As I understood – without reading the Talmud – is that they did not even claim that “God said to me/us: go and do that!”, so that, if God said that to them, their work is to be trusted. Otherwise, it’s a man’s work.
Also, the author also said somewhere that the rabbies that made the Talmud were not anti-spiritual to “add things to God’s word” (as it is forbidden, commandment written in Deuteronomy). However, I don’t believe that this story is like muslims say about jews/christians, and said “ok… now, let’s change the Bible!” and started a project, “Changing of the Bible”. They [the jews] needed only to receieve themselves some erroneous teachings as “Oral Torah” (or, “there was always this teaching”), and all they did, they might have done with the thought that what they did was good. Some teachings might have started as simple understandings/views of some people, but they came to be understood as “God’s word”. There may also be deeds and rituals that started as some “teachings of the elders”, or just some people considering them to be that “it is good to do that”, but after some time, their value began to grow in time, and finally to be understood as “God’s ordinance”.
“And there’s a very funny thing you sould know, that when you’re dealing with christianity… it’s never said, but it’s understood that somehow, in the christian eye, in the christian view, all the rabbies that predated Jesus, all the rabbies that were born before the year 1, they’re somehow ok, and usually the church will say nice things about them. All the rabbies that came after Jesus were all very, very evil, and very corrupt and so on. Because the rabbies before Jesus never had the chance to reject Jesus, … and they’re somehow ok, but all the rabbies that were post Jesus … to christian literature… they are painted in the darkest … .”
I never asked people about this issue, maybe it’s a bit exaggerated, or maybe not most believe that in an exaggerated way. I’ll tell you my opinion: There are always different people, and there are always influences that give birth to sects/parties. If you look to the history of Israel as presented by the Tanakh, you don’t see the people remaining all on the “right path”, but went astray many times (this is how easy it is for any people/group to change from the original).
2 Kings 22.8-13: I suppose they speak about the books of Moses (scroll of Law), if the “Oral Law” was written only in Common Era. So, if God’s written law was so easy to be forgotten, how could the “Oral Law” have been preserved from generation to generation?
He explained why was needed an oral law.
So I have this question: Then why was it needed a written law? (if there was an “Oral Law” that fully explained the written law, and was oral) Then why was then needed to be a very short and vague and cryptic written law?
Now, he explained:
“why do we have an oral law? Why wasn’t all written down?”
“In reality the question is trully a silly question, because you can’t have even a language without an oral law. It’s impossible. Ask a christian who says “I don’t believe in an oral law”, ask them, you know, when you look to these hebrew letters, al they are, the hebrew letters, are consonants. The vowel that you see beneath it, the dots … is that system ancient? No, it’s modern, it was created by the masoretes. Milenia ago, sages came together and they actually recorded how to pronounce these letters, but that wasn’t there originally. So it’s our language, the hebrew language. Is it oral or is it written? In reality it’s oral. How do we know what vowel it goes beneath what consonant? How do you know? It wasn’t handed down with those vowels, everyone knows that.”, “the masoretes, did not create the vowel system, they were simply handing down.”, “you can’t even have a language without an oral law.”
The very important thing is preservation. You can’t have a language without having sounds, yet the language changes in time (i.e. some minor gramatical differences, some different spelling, some differences in how you draw the letters, extern influences, some new neologisms, some words become archaisms, etc.), and if most of it is oral, when you get to the end, you don’t know from where you started.
About the language: he said that a language cannot exist without an oral law. What he said was a bit odd. First off, there are deaf people which – as far as I know – can read and write. So, if everybody was deaf, having all the text, would there be no language? Yet all is preserved in text. And about Hebrew language, there is no way of telling that the same spelling was in the time of masorettes as in the first years of Hebrew’s existence. So there is a great probability that the ‘oral law’ of the Hebrew language has CHANGED in time. And this is the great problem.
Rosetta Stone and Egypt hieroglyphs: there is no oral law here. There is only the understanding of symbols, which, if everyone was deaf, was able to understand, because of greek, the Egyptian hieroglyphs. So no ‘oral’ (sound) is required. Only text. Moreover, without even knowing to read Egyptian, one could learn what something is written in Egyptian hieroglyphs.
about the legal system (loyars, judge, a jury) – now that’s a good idea for me to explain.
It was said that the written law cannot exist without an oral law. Ok, so we have one judge, one jury, two lawyers, a written law, and one accused of breaking the law. If this oral law is correct, then it means that the accused one is always found guilty if guilty, or innocent, if innocent, and that, if guilty, he receives the proper punishment. But that is not true always (or mostly) which means that the oral law is unreliable. That because people use their reasoning for the written law and for the evidences they receive from both parts, and people are… imperfect and thus, unreliable.
This would be translated into scriptural sense as Malachi 2.9 “… according to how you do not keep My ways and [how] you show favoritism in the Torah.” – so it seems they understood/interpreted the Torah(oral law?) in a way in which they favored people.
“bible prophecy: in the end of the days all the nations will know the true God and they will acknowledge their error – which he added that when the true messiah comes, the nations will set aside their erroneous beliefs and will see that the Jews are right” and it gives as reference the verse Zechariah 8.23 “So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, "Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you."”
I’ll give you a different view: First, there are many denominations in what is called ‘the religion of Christianity’ (which I’d rather call, many religions – but they are not called so), and my opinion being that most of all ‘Christians’ see things erroneous (maybe 95%+) and the fact that this is not the only existing religion (there are many atheists, muslims, hinduists, etc.) and we do not know how their number will change in time. Second, it is not said that people will get jews and ask from jews the law. Isaiah 2.3 “And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the law come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” – it says that God will teach them, not the jews. Also, in Zechariah 8.22 it is written “And many peoples and powerful nations shall come to entreat the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.” – the target is the place of Jerusalem, not the jews. And the target is the Lord of Hosts, not the jews.
As you might have noticed, I used “law” instead of Torah (as Torah means law), because 1. I believe in the rest of the bible there are teachings and commandments others than the law of Moses (not only commentaries about it) and I believe people need to take heed of them. 2. So you will not understand “Oral Torah”(Talmud) because nowhere is it written in the Bible – as far as I know – that your Talmud is the “Oral Torah”, therefore, it might have nothing to do with it.
It was spoken about this verse:
Lev 26.46 “These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the laws that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses.” – this is how I found translated in http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9927 (yet I heard Thorahs in the audio, which is erroneous because the verse refers to the commandments, not to the books that came to be called so – actually if within the Torah it is written that the itself has been given, then it’s like telling whether this sentence is true or false: “This sentence is false.” = nonsense).
About the fact that the Oral Law is not known to Christians. Sorry, but the Christians are not aware of the Hadiths or many other religious books (even their own). Also, ye and the muslims do not have access to the story of each saint and each teaching of the orthodox Christians or the catholics. So that’s not something astonishing.
another part follows
-
EVIDENCE FOR THE ORAL LAW - given by him
About Deuteronomy 29:29 “The hidden things belong to the Lord, our God, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah.”
If that seems clear to you that you always had and will have all the teachings of God, this contradicts the Bible, because it is also written that Israel had gone astray in its history and lost its access to the law (see 2 Kings 22.8 ) and the people of Israel were not taught the law because of evil rulers, etc. The solution to this issue seems to be the following (which I also found translated in some places): “forever” does not mean what we usually understand of “forever”:
Isaiah 32.14-15 “14 For the palace shall be forsaken; the city with its stir shall be deserted; the mound and the tower shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; 15 Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.” – forever until?
Eccl 1.4 “4. A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth endures forever.” While Isaiah 51.6 and Psalm 102.26-27 say that the earth will be destroyed. Forever until?
Also, Exodus 21.6: the slave will actually serve him until death only.
And it gives the example with the Sabbath and “don’t work” thing. And, as there is a capital punishment for that, one must know clearly what “work” means. However, maybe with some exceptions, this does not require a separate law from God in which to explain what “work” means. This is like many Christians who say about everything that it’s cryptic and symbolical and that only they (certain people) can interpret them, and the interpretation is X (here, they claim they are divinely inspired). Everybody does that and doesn’t think of the fact that in Moses’ time, God spoke (i.e. through Moses) to a bunch of simple, uneducated people (I suppose they did not receive education in Egypt’s schools), and they’re deriving all kinds of meanings to simple words that were said in their own language which they already knew and understood, which also contains natural language (i.e. if you tell people “You must not kill” people understand it’s not about killing bugs, and if they also receive the law that they should put to death people whom do X, they don’t get to that confusion to say “I don’t understand anything!” – which, for a robot, should happen). And “work” is not has not a “subjective” meaning, but belongs to natural language (one must be insane to say – and have the conviction that it is so - that by digging all day he rested).
It is said about Exodus 16.29, but it seems some verses from above are also needed:
Exodus 16.25-29 “And Moses said, Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field. 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? See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, on the sixth day, He gives you bread for two days. Let each man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the seventh day” – the issue (and the context) is not ‘getting out of there’, but not going for mana.
Otherwise, it contradicts this: 2 Kings 4.23 “And he said, "Why are you going to him today; it is neither the New Moon nor the Sabbath." And she said, "It's all right."” Also by Ezec 46.1-9. By the way, as far as I know, people (jews) used to go to synagogues in the Sabbath day, which makes me believe it was not forbidden to get out of the house.
About shofar and blowing – he seems to be right, but that doesn’t prove all Talmud to be reliable.
About Daniel and not eating gentile-cooked food – maybe the food and the wine were sacrificed to idols (smth like 1 Corinthians 8.7)
By the way, do you have (or still have) a law such as explained by Acts 10.28 and Acts 11.3? (I refer to eating on the same table with a gentile).
About praying 3 times a day: maybe the tradition of praying 3 times a day was taken from Daniel’s custom, who did so. By the law, he was required to pray (perhaps that is the reason those asked the king the term of 30 days of not praying – otherwise, if he was required by the law to pray 3 times a day, they might have thought of a much shorter term, as two or three days).
About strangled animals (Acts 15.20), indeed, it is not written in the Tanakh.
Also about how to slaughter an animal (deut 12.21) I don’t think it’s written anywhere in the Tanakh.
-
VARIATIONS IN MANUSCRIPTS - that he talked about
About the fact that there are much more variants of the NT than of the Tanakh: my understanding of this is that:
1. There are much more manuscripts of the NT than of the Tanakh (as far as I know); If Tanakh would have had too many manuscripts, maybe the number of variants would be higher.
2. Tanakh and the jewish culture began (with Moses) with a small number of people (compared to Christianity), in a compact place (all were in one place) – compared to christians, who were spread out in different locations, without a leader to be always with them to teach them and God punishing (i.e. with fire from heaven) everyone that tried to turn things his way; Christians were more exposed to outside influences (like Gnosticism, other philosophical and religious influences) from the beginning. This would affect the preservation of the text by various people.
These, my opinion, are the reasons of the many variants, which are – as far as I know – more in the early periods than in the later (when the Church should have used its authority to preserve the text as it was – and even so I don’t trust that the church leaders (i.e. popes) did not ever change anything).
So, I don't think that there is an evidence in the number of variants that one is holy and other not. I'd like to have all the manuscripts once (when I would also be able to understand what they say) to see exactly what everyone says, instead of having someone interpreting for me what it is and giving me a compilation "this is the truth!". For instance, variations like a verse or a part of a verse repeated in other place (i.e. from exodus to deuteronomy, from the ten commandments) doesn't scare you like "no one can know what it was written originally". And there are other things alike.
-
Quoting from your posts...
About the Sabbath day:
You THINK, but you don't know. Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing? Well, that is precisely our claim.
Well, not necessarily. If I had seen the God of the Bible in Israel as it was in the biblical times (prophets, supernatural things, people (or certain prophets) to ask God and Him to answer, literally), then I would have undoubtedly believe jews know. And I think we are all after-the-fact.
And about keeping the oral law into memory, it sounds like the muslims claim that their surahs were learnt (from hearing) and were much later written 100% correctly (which also seems to me impossible).
About the cloths of the priests:
Yes, that is certainly logical to expect. However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim? This can be in many aspects. And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not?
Well, the cloths are clearly not self-understandable from the Bible. And I think it’s impossible to know which from the Talmud are and which are not from the laws given by God through Moses. If you give me an absurd interpretation of a clear verse in the Bible I will clearly say that that was not given by God through Moses (which, if it’s wrong, it should probably mean that my logic is absurd).
For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...
For instance, this is an absurd interpretation to me.
First off, Moses could not have prohibited turning the light on/off because there was no electricity then. Second, you do not start fire by turning on the light. Third, I can’t imagine, before the Sabbath day to start turning on the light switch and to attempt to complete turning on the light switch during the Sabbath day. Fourth, if a gentile had a jew as slave, and he would have forced him to move the couch all the Sabbath day inside the house, would the jew call it that he rested in the Sabbath day?
-
Quoting from your posts...
About the Sabbath day:
You THINK, but you don't know. Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing? Well, that is precisely our claim.
Well, not necessarily. If I had seen the G-d of the Bible in Israel as it was in the biblical times (prophets, supernatural things, people (or certain prophets) to ask G-d and Him to answer, literally), then I would have undoubtedly believe jews know. And I think we are all after-the-fact.
And about keeping the oral law into memory, it sounds like the muslims claim that their surahs were learnt (from hearing) and were much later written 100% correctly (which also seems to me impossible).
About the cloths of the priests:
Yes, that is certainly logical to expect. However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim? This can be in many aspects. And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not?
Well, the cloths are clearly not self-understandable from the Bible. And 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. If you give me an absurd interpretation of a clear verse in the Bible I will clearly say that that was not given by G-d through Moses (which, if it’s wrong, it should probably mean that my logic is absurd).
For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...
For instance, this is an absurd interpretation to me.
First off, Moses could not have prohibited turning the light on/off because there was no electricity then. Second, you do not start fire by turning on the light. Third, I can’t imagine, before the Sabbath day to start turning on the light switch and to attempt to complete turning on the light switch during the Sabbath day. Fourth, if a gentile had a jew as slave, and he would have forced him to move the couch all the Sabbath day inside the house, would the jew call it that he rested in the Sabbath day?
Turning on a light allows electricity to flow into a circuit... This is prohibited by the Melachot of Finishing.. And Yes, if a Jew had to move a couch all day it would not be a violation of the Melachot of Shabbat, though it might be something which is not in the spirit of Shabbat {another issue altogether}.
BTW, Shabbat starts on Friday night {as the Jewish day begins at sunset}..
-
"Turning on a light allows electricity to flow into a circuit... This is prohibited by the Melachot of Finishing"
I think it would be a good idea if you tell me what you understand of "finishing".
i.e.
- Are you allowed to finish dressing yourself?
- Are you allowed to finish moving to the destination in your house?
- Are you allowed to finish talking?
- Are you allowed to finish drinking water?
if these questions seem very odd to you, know that the same is to me with the turning the light switch = finishing :|
Also, if the jew is allowed to move the couch, I understand that he is able to arrange the other objects in the house, right? if so, he could choose to rearrange all the objects in the house, which seems very WORK to me.
And I knew about the sabbath day, that it starts Friday night/evening and it ends Saturday night/evening.
Tell me, about this, which hour is exactly the one when the sabbath day starts?
and if it takes you a lot of time to read carefully all what I have written above, know that it has taken me a lot of time to read & listen & write & check & etc. (for instance, I couldn't have listened to all what that man said and ignore it when I seriously believe he was wrong, and to continue here the conversation as if I agreed)
and, by the way, there is another post, you might have forgotten to answer...
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,45778.0.html
-
Here is a site which discusses the 39 categories of forbidden work on the Sabbath:
http://www.torahtots.com/torah/39melachot.htm
THE 39 MELACHOT
Lamed-Tet Melachot
PLEASE NOTE: This is just a VERY BASIC introduction. There are many complex laws regarding Shabbat, and this is not the forum for decisions regarding what is or is not allowed on Shabbat. This is just to give the reader a flavor of the intricate halachot involved. A competent halachic authority should be consulted with any questions.
Melacha (plural "melachot").
1. Melacha refers to the 39 categories of activity that are forbidden on Shabbat. Melacha, is not "work." At least not the English definition of the word "work." You may not carry a needle out into the street on Shabbat, yet you may drag a heavy sofa across the room. So what Melacha is forbidden on Shabbat?
The 39 categories of activity that are forbidden on Shabbat, are all labors that have something in common - they are creative activities that exercise control over one's environment.
Specifically, the Talmud derives these 39 categories from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes the commandment to cease work on Shabbat in Shmot Parashat Vayakheil, with its detailed instructions on how to build the Mishkan*, and the preparation of its components, as described in Shmot / Exodus 31 and 35.
*[Mishkan - Tabernacle; the portable, temporary version of the Holy Temple that the Jews carried throughout the forty years in the desert into Eretz Yisroel (the land of Israel), until they built the Beit HaMikdash]
This is to teach us, explains the Talmud (Shabbat 49b), which activities constitute melacha: any creative act that was part of the mishkan's construction represents a category of work forbidden on Shabbat. These categories are forbidden by the Torah.
2. Toldot - Work which is different from that done in the Mishkan, but which achieves the same result. These types of melacha are also prohibited by the Torah.
3. Rabbinic Decrees - There are a number of additional activities that are forbidden by the Rabbis. There are several categories of decrees that prohibit:
a. Activities that might lead directly to the violation of a Torah prohibition.
b. Use of items not designated for Shabbat use (muktzah).
c. Activities that might lead one to think that a prohibited activity is permissible (Ma'arit Ayin - The appearance of the eye).
d. Activities that are not appropriate for Shabbat, even though they are technically permissible (Uvda D'Chol - [resembles] weekday activity). The Navi Yeshayahu (Prophet Isaiah (58:13-14) recorded a prohibition against speaking of business and against weekday-oriented activities.
Here is the list of the 39 Melachot (main activities) prohibited on the Shabbat as listed in the Mishna Shabbat 73a:
1. Zoreah - Sowing (seeding)
2. Choresh - Plowing
3. Kotzair - Reaping (cutting)
4. M'amair - Gathering (bundling sheaves)
5. Dush - Threshing
6. Zoreh - Winnowing
7. Borer - Sorting (selecting, separating)
8. Tochain - Grinding
9. Miraked - Sifting
10. Lush - Kneading
11. Ofeh / (Bishul) - Baking/cooking
12. Gozez - Shearing
13. Melabain - Whitening (bleaching)
14. Menafetz - Disentangling, Combing
15. Tzovayah - Dyeing
16. Toveh - Spinning
17. Maisach - Mounting the warp (stretching threads onto loom)
18. Oseh Beit Batai Neirin - Setting two heddles (preparing to weave)
19. Oraig - Weaving
20. Potzai'ah - Separating (removing) threads (Unweaving)
21. Koshair - Tying a knot
22. Matir - Untying a knot
23. Tofair - Sewing
24. Ko'reah - Tearing (unsewing - ripping)
25. Tzud - Trapping
26. Shochet - Slaughtering (Killing)
27. Mafshit - Skinning
28. M'abaid - Salting/tanning process [1]
29. Mesharteit - Tracing (scratching) lines
30. Memacheik - Smoothing / scraping
31. Mechateich - Cutting (to shape)
32. Kotaiv - Writing two or more letters
33. Mochaik - Erasing two or more letters
34. Boneh - Building
35. Soiser - Demolishing
36. Mechabeh - Extinguishing (putting out a flame)
37. Ma'avir - Kindling (making a fire)
38. Makeh B'Patish - Striking the final blow (Finishing an object)
39. Hotza'ah - Transferring (transporting) from domain to domain (carrying)
[1] The list of Melachot in the Talmud (Tractate Shabbat 7:2) includes salting hides and tanning as separate Melachot. The Talmud (Tractate Shabbat 75b) states that these two are really the same Melacha, and amends the Mishna by inserting tracing lines, as the twenty-ninth Melacha.
These 39 Melachot are divided into six (6) groups:
Group I = Numbers 1-11
Group II = Numbers 12-24
Group III = Numbers 25-31
Group IV = Numbers 32-33
Group V = Numbers 34-35
Group VI = Numbers 36-39
Group V = Numbers 34-35
Group VI = Numbers 36-39
Group I is connected to the field work.
Group II is connected to the making material curtains
Group III is connected to the making of leather curtains
Group IV is connected to the Krushim (beams of the Mishkan)
Group V is connected to the putting the walls of the Mishkan up and down
Group VI is connected to the final touches of the Mishkan
1. Zoreah - Sowing (seeding)
The first of the thirty-nine melachot is zoreah, sowing. Zoreah includes planting, sowing, or watering seeds to induce or encourage growth. This melacha is only transgressed in a place where a seed could grow. Therefore, if one drops a seed in the desert or on a well-traveled road where it would be crushed, one has not violated the prohibition of zoreah. It is also not considered zoreah to feed seeds to chickens in a coop where it is very likely that the chickens will eat all of the seeds before they can germinate.1
Back to top
2. Choresh - Plowing
Choresh, or plowing, is the second of the thirty-nine prohibited melachot. It is prohibited to plow the ground---to level it off or make holes in it, like the holes used for planting seeds. Dragging a heavy lawn chair in one's backyard, (a really heavy lawn chair), is considered plowing, if it makes holes in the ground, and is thus prohibited on Shabbat. However, a distinction may be made between making holes in the ground and making mere compressions in the ground. The latter, which is what wheels of a wheelchair or a baby carriage might do to the ground, is permissible on Shabbat. Pushing the ground down and consolidating it, is halachically different than puncturing the surface of the ground. So, baby carriages on a dirt roads, are OK.1
Back to top
3 - Kotzair - Reaping (cutting) Harvesting
Kotzair, the third of the thirty-nine melachot is the uprooting or severing of any living plant or vegetation from its source of growth. Thus, one may not uproot plants, branches, or even just one leaf. Plucking a flower, picking fruit from a tree, vegetables from a garden, or mushrooms from the forest floor are actions all prohibited under the category of kotzair because these actions involve severing a living plant or part of a living plant from its source of growth. [Mushrooms, in other areas of Halacha, Jewish law, are not classified at plants for they do not "grow FROM the ground" but "grow ON the ground." (Thus someone about to eat a mushroom should make the blessing Shehakol - appropriate for milk, water, and foods that do not grow from the ground - and not make the blessing HaAdamah). But with respect to kotzair, mushrooms are Halachically equated as plant life for they draw nutrients from the soil, and thus should not be separated from their source of growth on Shabbat.1] 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. Picking grapes from their stems, however, is allowed, provided that grape bunches have already been detached from the vine on which they grew.
Mowing a lawn is kotzair. We also may not handle any growing flowers or plants. It is also forbidden to climb a tree or smell an attached fruit, but it is permitted to smell a growing flower.1
Back to top
4 - M'amair - Gathering (bundling sheaves)
Gathering is the fourth of the thirty-nine Melachot. Gathering consists of collecting natural produce into a bundle. The prohibition, in fact, only applies to natural produce - gathering manufactured products is completely permitted. So there's no need to stop your little brother from collecting the candy bags after they have been throw at the Bar-Mitzvah boy. Actions that would fall under this category would be piling scattered fruit, putting together a bouquet of flowers, or stringing figs (something that was much more common in the time of the Mishna than it is today). Although this Melacha seems rather innocuous compared to such heavy-hitters as writing, plowing, and lighting a fire, it was the Melacha done by the first person to ever violate Shabbat, the wood-gatherer, in Bamidbar / Numbers 15:32.
Back to top
5 - Dush - Threshing
The fifth of the 39 melachot, is Disha, or threshing. Its purpose is to separate kernels of grain from their husks, and it has been expanded to include the removal of any wanted item ( known as 'ochel') from its unwanted natural container ( known as 'pesolet'). This has ramifications in terms of a subcategory of disha, namely s'chita, or squeezing.
One is not permitted to squeeze the juice out of a fruit on Shabbat.
However, there are a few legitimate ways to remove the juice from the fruit:
1)Suck out the juice, as it is a shinuy, or change, from the usual manner of squeezing out juice.
2)Squeeze juice out purely for the intention of improving the taste of the fruit, even if you keep the juice.
3)Squeeze the juice straight onto a solid that will absorb it.
(It should be noted that Rabbeinu Chananel prohibits this third activity, although he is in the minority. However, even he would allow the squeezing of lemon onto a solid.)
Back to top
6- Zoreh - Winnowing
The sixth melacha is zoreh, winnowing. Winnowing is a fundamental step in harvesting wheat because it separates the grain from the waste. In the mishkan, wheat was grown for the Lechem HaPanim, the showbread. After threshing, the kernels and the chaff would be left together on the ground, and the farmer would take a pitchfork, and throw a mixture of it in the air. The waste would blow away, leaving the heavier kernels. Many commentators explain that the melacha of zoreh is similar to borer, sorting or separating, and miraked, sifting, in that the main point of each melacha is separating the bad from the good. One way of explaining the difference between the three is by the means used for each; zoreh is through wind, borer is by hand, and meraked is through a sifting device. One may not blow away nutshells from a mixture of nuts and shells.
Back to top
7 - Borer - Sorting (selecting, separating)
The seventh of the 39 melachot, is borer, or sorting. It is any form of selecting or sorting inedible matter from food by hand. This includes removing undesired objects or matter from a mixture or combination such as removing spoiled cherries from a bowl of cherries or removing bones from a fish. (Gefilte fish is the traditional Ashkenazi solution to this problem.) Borer also includes the sorting of nonfood items mixed together, such as sorting dirty silverware from a mixture of clean and dirty silverware.
Sorting is only permitted when ALL of the following three conditions are met:
1) The selection is done by hand.
2) The desired objects are selected from the undesired, and not the reverse.
3) The selection is done immediately before the time of use.
For example, if one has a bowl of mixed almonds and raisins and wants only the raisins, you must remove the raisins by hand, remove the raisins from the almonds, and intend to eat all the selected raisins immediately after removing them. This description of the complex melacha of Borer is very simplified, see note above.
Back to top
8 - Tochain - Grinding
The eighth of the 39 melachot, is tochain, or grinding. Tochain is defined as the act of breaking down an entity into small parts whereby it becomes suitable for a new use, such as grinding wheat into flour. Any kind of normal crushing, chopping, or grinding, by hand, or with a tool, falls under this category. There are four exceptions to Tochain: it only applies to earth-grown products; previously ground substances may be crushed again; food may be ground for immediate use; and substances may be ground in an abnormal manner.
In the time of the Talmud, medicines were ground up from herbs and other vegetable sources. Because of this, taking any form of medication was Rabbinically prohibited (except in life-threatening situations) to safeguard the melacha. Since the reasoning behind this prohibition no longer applies today, the details of its application have become very complicated. In brief, one is allowed to take medicine only for illnesses that weaken the entire body or that are very painful. Medicine should not be taken for slight aches or a cold. This aspect of tochain contains many more details, and 'The 39 Melachot,' Vol. 2, by Rabbi Dovid Ribiat is a good place to find out about them.
Back to top
9 - Miraked - Sifting
The ninth melacha, is miraked or sifting. How then, does it differ from borer, which also involves separating undesired from desired items? One suggestion is that meraked is the sifting specifically done with a keli, or instrument, especially designed for the purpose of straining, such as a sieve. Sifting flour to make it finer, or sifting the pebbles out of a pile of sand would be good example of miraked, while merely picking the pebbles out by hand would be termed borer (by the way, the pebbles themselves are generally muktza, thus making this whole activity a rather bad idea on Shabbat). Some Rishonim, (early Sages), make another distinction between miraked and borer, namely that borer is defined as removing the bad from the good, whereas miraked involves allowing the items that one wishes to keep, to pass through the strainer, retaining only the garbage on the face of the strainer. It includes the sifting of flour and the straining of liquids.
Back to top
10 - Lush - Kneading
Lush, or kneading, is the act of forming a solid or semi-solid substance of particles using a liquid. There are two steps in this process: contact of the liquid with the flour, and the mixing of the two with a kneading action. Some examples of lush are mixing water with sand to produce thick mud, mixing water and powder to make thick paste, and making plaster. There are many facets to this melacha which should be researched further, but it is interesting to note that, according to The 39 Melochot by Rabbi Dovid Ribiat (p. 527-49), it is permitted to soak matzah in soup or to dunk cookies in milk because these foods disintegrate when in contact with liquids.
Back to top
11- Ofeh / Bishul - Baking / Cooking
The prohibition of Ofeh / Bishul is generally understood to be the causing of a change in the properties of a food or substance by use of heat. This includes cooking raw food until it becomes edible and causing change in nonfoods as well, such as the baking of bricks. If one were to place raw food on a flame, one should, and is required, to remove the pot before the raw food cooks. Generally, bishul does not occur in solid foods until the raw solid, or even part of it, becomes minimally edible. Liquids, however, since they are dramatically approved when heated, need only to be warmed and not physically changed by heat to be considered a violation of bishul. The minimum amount of heat needed to make substantial change is known as "Yad Soledet," (hand draws back) and is the degree of heat from which a person, upon contact, reflexively removes his hand ("hot to the touch").
With this definition of the melacha of Ofeh / Bishul, the eleventh of the 39 categories of work prohibited on Shabbat, we have completed what the Talmud (Tractate Shabbat 74b) calls the "sidura d'pas," the "order of (making) bread," which were the steps taken to cultivate wheat for the Lechem Hapanim (Show Bread) and grow other ingredients essential in the production of dyes that colored the wool curtains and tapestries of the Mishkan. To recap, these steps are: plowing, sowing, reaping, gathering, threshing, winnowing, sorting, grinding, sifting, kneading, and lastly baking / cooking. Baking itself was not performed during the actual construction of the Mishkan since bread was not required for the structure. It was only herbs that were cooked to produce the dyes.
Back to top
12 - Gozez / Shearing
The melacha of Gozez is the first in a group of thirteen Melachot that make up the essential steps in the processing of wool fabrics and garments. The cloth coverings of the Mishkan were made from wool, and the first step in the process was shearing it from the animal. The melacha consists of severing or uprooting any growing part of any creature, even if the creature is dead. The melacha truly only entails removing with an instrument such as clippers or scissors, but the Rabbis later included any type of hair removal. This melacha has a number of important implications, even for those of us who don't own sheep. One may not comb their hair on Shabbat because a comb will definitely pull out hairs. Instead, one may gently use a soft-bristle brush. Cutting or biting one's nails on Shabbat is also prohibited, and one may not pull off loose or dead skin.
Back to top
13 - Melabain - Whitening (bleaching)
The sheared wool needed for the Mishkan was washed in a river. The Melacha of Melabein, literally "whitening," is expressed through three categories of activity: Shriyah, or soaking, Shifshuf, or scrubbing, and Sechita, or squeezing. More commonly, melabein is the act of cleaning on Shabbat, which is prohibited. Here are some halachot that explains what is forbidden in each one of those categories:
1) Soaking - One may not pour anything (that includes, water, seltzer, etc.) or spray anything on a stain to loosen it or erase it from one's clothes completely. Remember that when you spill something on yourself at lunch. Everyone's knee-jerk reaction, of course, is to reach for the seltzer.
2) Scrubbing - This prohibition includes folding over part of one's clothing to rub it against the stained spot in order to remove the stain. It also includes scratching out a dried stain from one's clothes with one's fingernail.
3) Squeezing - This category includes wringing out one's clothes on Shabbat. The good news, though, is that the prohibition of squeezing things out does not apply to sprinkling one's hair with water to hold down 'the frizz.' But, just watch yourselves. A sprinkle is OK, not a shower!
Back to top
14. Menafetz - Disentangling, Combing Raw Materials
After bleaching the wool, the next step is to comb the tangled threads to prepare it for spinning / weaving (by hand and with a comb). The prohibition of menafetz applies to the act of beating compact material into separate strands. This includes one who combs wool or beats flax stalks or any similar process. Some add that menafetz also applies to loose hair, in which case combing a wig is also prohibited on Shabbat.
Back to top
Continued in the next post...
-
15. Tzovayah - Dyeing
To manufacture wool, the wool must first be sheared from the animal, and then the tangled fibers combed out. The next step is the Melacha of dyeing. Dyed wool was used for the curtains and the covers of the Mishkan. The Melacha includes coloring or darkening any material that is ordinarily colored, dyed, or painted for some useful purpose. If the coloring is only temporary, it is still rabbinically prohibited. This Melacha is the source for the prohibition of wearing makeup on Shabbat, since one is coloring the skin. Some authorities even prohibit sunbathing for this reason. Dyeing food is not considered Tzovayah because food's primary function is to be eaten, not to serve as art.
16. Toveh - Spinning
This Melacha involves twisting fibers together to make long threads. Given that none of us work in sweatshops, when would this melacha ever be relevant to us?
Well, for those of us who wear tzitzit, there comes a time when the threads of the tzitzit may fray and separate from one another. On Shabbat one may not twist the threads back together.
Back to top
17. Maisach - Mounting the warp (stretching threads onto loom)
Warping is the first step in the creation of woven fabric. The longitudinal threads are called warp and the transverse threads are called weft. Warping entails aligning and setting warp threads firmly in position in order to allow the weft threads to pass over and under them in perfect sequence. This is an important preliminary step of all types of weaving, including lattice-work, making a simple pot holder, and basket making. (See Meleches Arigah by Rabbi P. Bodner p. 19 for a detailed explanation of this melacha.)
Back to top
18. Oseh Beit Batai Neirin - Setting two heddles (preparing to weave) - Threading two threads
This melacha is one of the five steps in making cloth. Technically, it involves threading two threads through the (heddle eyes) rings in each of the two harnesses of the loom. Practically, this prohibition would apply to setting up a loom with at least two strings or threads in one direction, as one might do to make a potholder.
Back to top
19. Oraig - Weaving
The melacha of Oraig involves completing the creation of a fabric by passing the "transverse weft" thread under and over the "warp" threads. The reason these terms might sound unfamiliar is that they apply to thread mounted on a loom, a device that most of us have probably never seen. On a more practical level, on Shabbat it sometimes happens that a thread in one's clothes becomes snagged on a hook or nail, causing the fabric around it to bunch up. Pulling and smoothing the bunched-up fabric is a direct violation of this melacha. On a less practical level, braiding shaitel (wig) hair is also prohibited because of Oraig.
Back to top
20. Potzai'ah - Separating (removing) threads (Unweaving or removing Weaves
The Melacha of Potzai'ah is removing weaved threads from a loom. Excess threads eliminated from areas that are too densly packed is also Potzai'ah.
All the Melachot from 'mounting the warp' to here were required for weaving the Mishkan's curtains.
Relevance? Remember making potholders on the little square looms. The weaving would be Oreig, which is prohibited on Shabbat. Removing the finished product from the "loom" is the Melacha of Potzai'ah.
Back to top
21. Koshair - Tying a knot
During consruction of the Mishkan, those who fished for chilazon, a small fishlike creature whoe blood was used for techeilet [the blue dye used for the curtains of the Mishkan], would both tie and untie their nets, since it was sometimes necessary to remove ropes from one net and attach them to another.
Also, to prepare thread for stitching, it was necessary to tie the ends of the thread into a knot in order to tighten and hold the stitching to the seam. Similarly, the ends of the stitches in a seam must be tied into knots to keep the stitching from unraveling. Tying these knots is the melacha of Koshair.
There are two types of prohibited knots:
kesher uman, a craftman's knot, and kesher shel kayama, a permanent knot.
Any tight knot that will never loosen and become undone on its own is considered a kesher uman, whereas a kesher shel kayama refers to any knot that is meant to remain permanently, even if it is a type of knot that may sometimes come undone over time. In practice, any knot that is either tight and durable (and made without any specific intention to undo it later) or one that is meant to last permanently (even if not tight or durable) is forbidden to make, and must be treated as a possible Kesher M'de'oraisa (Torah-restricted knot).
Thus, a bow-tie used for tying shoes or decorative lace is not considered a knot, and making this knot for only a day, i.e. 24 hours or less, is therefore permitted. On the other hand, if one intends to leave it indefinitely in its knotted state then it is considered a kesher shel kayama even though it is not very firm.
Practical instances of Koshair:
- One may not seal a plastic garbage bag with a tight overhand knot rather a "slip" knot.
- One may not tie string in a double knot around a box of cake even if he intends to untie the string the same day.
Back to top
22. Matir - Untying a knot
The prohibition of untying applies to cases where the knot one is untying is also prohibited. If the knot is such that tying it was a violation of a Torah law, then untying that knot is also a Torah violation; similarly, if the knot is a violation of a Rabbinical law, so too untying it is in violation of a Rabbinical law.
Back to top
23. Tofair - Sewing
While sewing certainly implies stitching two separate pieces of fabric together, which was done for the cloth coverings of the Mishkan, the Melacha of Tofair is more general and consists of combining any two separate objects into one single entity, by any means. One important concept in regards to Tofair is that an action is not considered Tofair if the connection is meant to be created and broken as part of the object's functional design. Therefore using buttons, zippers, safety pins, and Velcro is permitted. Gluing is considered Tofair only when the gluing is meant to be permanent. As a result, the adhesive on disposable diapers can be used, while "Fun-tack," which is often left in its position indefinitely, is prohibited.
Back to top
24 - Ko'reah - Tearing (unsewing - ripping)
As they began to wear and tear, and when small holes created by moths were found in the curtains of the Mishkan, the fabrics would have to be repaired. This was usually done by first tearing the holes to make them larger and then sewing them back together in an even seam. Tearing was performed in the Mishkan for no other purpose.
The basic concept of Ko'reah may be described as the tearing of a single object into two parts, or the detaching of the two objects that became combined as one.
Ko'reah is only possible with materials that are sewn or glued together when torn. Rope or thread is repaired by tying the ends with a knot, not by sewing of gluing. Therefore, one may cut a price tag off of a garment (discreetly), preferably with a knife.
One may tear apart food packaging, wrapping around bandages, napkins, medicines, clothing, or even toys provided that no letters or designs will be torn (Mochaik) and that no vessel is formed (Makeh B'Patish).
Milk cartons with the glued tops present a problem of Ko'reah. Some authorities see the spout as a temporary seal, and a glued joint of a temporary nature may be undone on Shabbat. However, some say that the best way to open cartons is by opening both sides, thereby ensuring that the problem of creating a vessel is addressed.
In general, one may retrieve the food or drink from their packaging by destroying the box or carton that they come in. When destroying the container, no melachot are violated:
(1) Ko'reah is avoided (destructive tearing for a food or Shabbat necessity is permitted)
(2) Makeh B'Patish is avoided (since by destroying the carton, there is no way that one could be making a vessel out of it).
Despite the option of these destructive methods, any cartons, boxes, wrappers, bags, or other food packages should preferably be opened before Shabbat.
Back to top
The next few Melachot, were performed during construction of the Mishkan on the Tachash animal, from whose hide a covering for the Mishkan was made.
25. Tzud - Trapping
Tzud involves trapping or confining an animal or insect, providing that the species is one that is normally trapped or hunted. According to some poskim, Tzud is one of the few melachot that can be violated even without a direct action. For instance, frightening an animal into a corner is considered tzud even if one never came in contact with it.
Because we no longer come into frequent contact with farm animals or wildlife, this melacha is mostly relevant to us when applied to pets and insects. Pets for the most part can be considered totally domesticated and already "trapped." It is therefore permitted to force them into a room or back into the house. (According to Rav Moshe Feinstein, Zt"l, eminent Posek of our generation, pets are muktza and should not be touched; therefore, one should only verbally urge it into the room or house.) In terms of insects, any insect that is slow-moving, such as a caterpillar, can be trapped because its sluggishness can already be considered a confinement. Dangerous insects such as hornets and wasps may be trapped using the classic plastic cup method, but not with a specially designed bee-trap (on Sukkot, such a trap must be set up before Shabbat and Yom Tov).
Back to top
26. Shochet - Slaughtering (Killing)
Shochet is the second Melacha in the series of melachot that deal with preparing skins. After trapping the animal, it is necessary to kill it in order to take the skin. Killing by any means, whether by slaughtering, stabbing or battering, not just shechita (ritual slaughter) as applied to kosher animals, would make one liable. This prohibition applies to all kinds of animals and things that come from the dirt.
Practical applications of Shochet are causing bleeding or blood clots, putting poison where it is likely to kill an animal, and spraying insects.
Back to top
27. Mafshit - Skinning
After slaughtering the animal, the next step in the process of preparing hides is to remove the hide and spread it out flat, hence the prohibition of Mafshit. This Melacha is not relevant in situations where the skin has already been cooked and is in an edible form, but rather only in cases where the skin is on a newly-slaughtered animal. Therefore, this prohibition does not apply to removing the skin of a cooked chicken (although attention must be paid to the laws of Borer, separating).
Back to top
28. M'abaid - Tanning
Tanning involves the process by which raw animal hides are preserved. Hides are soaked in potent tanning solutions until they reach a point of long-lasting durability; this would ensure that they would remain in good shape for the Mishkan. M'abaid also applies to finished leather as well as raw hides, and therefore one is not permitted to use any shoe polish which contains leather preservatives.
As per a Rabbinical restriction, the preservation of food items is also prohibited. As such, one may not put fresh fish, meat, or vegetables into a pickling solution to cause them to become sour and thus preserved. (However, returning pickles to their jar is permitted.) Salting foods is also problematic, and the Sages prohibited sprinkling salt on some foods and vegetables. According to the Shulchan Aruch (321:3), one may not salt a plate of cucumbers, radishes, peas, onions, garlic, scallions, peppers, lettuce, carrots, turnips, or string beans.
Back to top
29. Mesharteit - Tracing (scratching) lines, Marking
After smoothing the processed hide of an animal, one must outline the area that is going to be cut. The act of outlining, or marking, is the Melacha of Mesharteit. This prohibition applies to skin, klaf (parchment), paper, wood, and other materials, with the exception of food. It is forbidden to mark even with your fingernail.
Example: One cannot mark a piece of paper with lines in order to write letters in a straight line.
Back to top
30. Memacheik - Smoothing
Memacheik is the method by which hair was removed from the hides used to create the walls of the Mishkan. Similar to smoothing hides, Memachaik only applies to surfaces that are firm. For example, sanding or smoothing a wooden or leather surface would be Memachaik.
Memarai'ach refers to the rabbinic prohibition that stems from Memachaik. The prohibition of Memarai'ach applies to the smoothing of substances that can be molded i.e. wax, creams or ointments. It does not apply to completely viscous substances, so things like liquid soap do not even fall under the rabbinic prohibition. The rabbinic prohibition also only refers to smearing. Pressing cream onto the skin, however, may be permitted, providing one is careful only to press and not to smear. Food, also, does not fall under the rabbinic prohibition, since food is considered prepared as it is, and smoothing it doesn't constitute an important change. However, if one were to use the food in any way other than to eat it (i.e. spreading butter on chapped lips), it would be considered a normal substance subject to all the regular prohibitions.
Back to top
31. Mechateich - Cutting (to shape) Measured Cutting
Thus far, we have been reviewing Melachot related to the preparation of hides, the goal being the incorporation of these materials into large coverings for the Mishkan. Cutting hides, or any material for that matter, with one's hands or an instrument, to a pre-measured size and shape is called Mechateich. Following the general pattern set by previous melachot involved in the tanning process, Mechateich doesn't apply to food items, and one may cut measured pieces of fish, cake, and challah on Shabbat.
Small packets of sugar, salt, coffee, ketchup, mustard, etc., may be opened on their perforated lines because the intention is not to deliberately and skillfully follow the lines (to create a neat cut), but only to retrieve the item. However, the perforated lines on a box of tissues are meant to help produce a neat opening, and opening the box is thus Mechateich.
The Melacha of Mechateich is not to be confused with Ko'reah (tearing). Mechateich is measured cutting, while Ko'reah is not. Mechateich applies to all materials, while Ko'reah does not.
Back to top
32. Kotaiv - Writing two or more letters
The wall boards of the Mishkan were inscribed with letters to facilitate matching them each time the Mishkan was erected. This Melacha is often defined as creating meaningful images, not simply as writing. This is because, while forming two letters is generally the minimum for the prohibition of Kotaiv, forming any images of at least that size would be problematic, including painting pictures, etching a design into wood, and embroidering a design into cloth.
There are two interesting Rabbinic prohibitions that emanate from Kotaiv. One, as applicable to other melachot, is doing Kotaiv in a non-permanent fashion, such as writing one's name with one's finger on a windowpane. The other prohibition is from doing any activity that may lead to writing. For this reason, conducting business is problematic on Shabbat. Additionally, according to the Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchata, playing a game that generally involves writing (as in keeping score) would be problematic on Shabbat from a Rabbinic standpoint, although one does not actually plan to write. (Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:31)
Back to top
33. Mochaik - Erasing two or more letters
If the Mishkan's builders erred in writing letters on the boards, they would erase them in order to write the proper ones. This Melacha is defined as erasing meaningful images. The Torah prohibition encompasses both the cleaning of a writing surface and the obliterating of letters or characters. This also applies to non-traditional ways of erasing, like blotting something out instead of erasing it. One therefore must be especially careful when opening packaging that has letters on it on Shabbat. The Melacha only applies to letters. Destroying words is not a problem.
There are a number of interesting prohibitions that arise from this Melacha. Cutting a cake with lettering in the icing may be a problem. One should be extra careful to cut between letters. However, letters that are engraved in dough, like the lettering on some biscuits, is not considered writing and may therefore be destroyed without a problem. Deliberately washing off writing from the skin may be a problem. Books with writing on the leaves of the pages also present a problem. When the book is opened the words are destroyed, and when the book is closed again the words are re-created. There is much discussion as to whether this falls under the category of Mochaik and Kotaiv. However, all agree that it is best to avoid this if possible.
Back to top
34. Boneh - Building
The prohibition of building on Shabbat has wide ramifications. The main acts that are prohibited are building something attached to the ground or adding to something that is already built on the ground. Even doing a kol-shehu, a very small amount, of these actions is considered Boneh. Furthermore, fixing something, like a nail, on such a building is also prohibited.
In addition to building things that are attached to the ground, the prohibition of Boneh also covers 'building' something in the ground itself; for example, making a hole in a house or in a courtyard (provided that the hole is not dug solely for the dirt, in which case there is only a rabbinic prohibition against it). However, digging a hole in a field would be a violation of Choresh, plowing.
35. Soiser - Demolishing
The 35th melocho, Sossair is essentially the reverse of Boneh, building. As the Jews traveled throughout the desert, it was necessary to build and demolish the structure of the Mishkan by taking apart the separate kerashim, planks.
The Melacha Deoraisa (Torah prohibition) applies only when the act of demolition is accompanied by an intention to rebuild eventually. However, any act of destruction (albeit unconstructive) is rabbinically prohibited because of its resemblance to the Melacha Deoraisa.
Practical cases:
One may not remove the handle of a window crank, unscrew / replace a tap filter, or replace a window screen.
It is not a problem to destroy parts of an edible food item, such as the shape of a cookie, while eating it. The reason given is that the functional use of food is for eating. Since Boneh and Soiser do not apply to the regular use and function of an object, there is no halachic problem of destroying food while eating it.
Back to top
36-37. Mechabeh and Ma'avir - Extinguishing and Lighting Fires
These two Melachot are closely related; one is the opposite of the other. Fire was used for cooking the dyes during the construction of the Mishkan and later for the Korbanot and is therefore prohibited. Mechabeh is extinguishing fire; Ma'avir is kindling fire. One practical application of these prohibitions is electricity. One cannot use electricity on Shabbat. For example, turning lights on and off is prohibited.
Back to top
38. Makeh B'Patish - "The Final Hammer Blow" Striking the final blow (Finishing an object)
This Melacha has its roots in the building of the Kerashim, the beams of the Mishkan. These beams were made of wood covered with gold. The gold sheathing was kept in place with golden nails that were hammered into the wood. The final hit on those nails to complete the beam was Makeh B'Patish. Although the Melacha stemmed from work done with a hammer, the prohibition applies to any act of completion. For example, putting shoelaces into a shoe for the first time may be prohibited on Shabbat because of this Melacha. The Melacha can also apply to liquids: carbonating water, according to some, is also Makeh B'Patish.
It is interesting to note that restoring an item is not considered an act of creation and is therefore allowed on Shabbat. For example, a pendant that fell out of a necklace may be replaced because both the necklace and the pendant were not "broken" in their separated state. The same applies to a shoelace that came out of a shoe. There is also discussion about opening soda bottles. 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.
There are a number of Rabbinic prohibitions that emerge from this Melacha. One prohibition is that of playing musical instruments. The Rabbis made this prohibition to prevent people from playing and accidentally tuning the instrument. This would be considered Makeh B'Patish. Singing and whistling are not included in this prohibition. Another prohibition is that of tovelling dishes on Shabbat. Because one is not allowed to use the dishes before immersing them, the immersion gives off the appearance of "repairing" the object.
Makeh B'Patish is a fascinating and broad Melacha. It is extremely complex because it can apply to almost anything. It is one of the few Melachot that are not tied to performing a specific action. It focuses on the result, not the actual action. As such, there is a large volume of Rabbinic literature dedicated to understanding the exact nature of the prohibition. For further research one can look at the sources listed below or any of a multitude of other sources.
Back to top
39. Hotza'ah - Transferring (transporting) from domain to domain (carrying)
Hotza'ah is the general term for the last of the thirty-nine Avot Melachot of Shabbat.
The Torah prohibits one to transfer (i.e., carry, throw, push, etc.) an object from a "reshut hayachid", a private domain*, and "reshut harabim" - a public domain** and vice versa.
- Hotza'ah is carrying or moving something (transferring an object) between a reshut hayachid, and reshut harabim.
- Hachnasah - refers to transferring objects from a reshut harabim to a reshut hayachid.
Transferring an object either from a private domain to a public domain (Hotza'ah) or the reverse (Hachnasah) is forbidden by the Torah.
- Ma'avir Arba Amot b'Reshut harabim - carrying an object from one place in a public domain to another over a distance of at least four Amot, (appoximately 7 feet ) or more is similarly forbidden.
- Moshit, which involves "passing" an object from one reshut hayachid to another reshut hayachid through reshut harabim (as described in the Mishnah Shabbos 96a is also a Biblical prohibition.
*Reshut Hayachid - Private domain - is defined as an area enclosed by walls, fences or a series of doorframe-like structures (as used in an Eruv***) not less than ten tefachim high (approximately 38-40 inches). It may be ground level, or a pit ten tefachim deep. Private ownership is not a precondition for a Reshut Hayachid.
**Reshut Harabim - Public domain - is an area not enclosed by partitions even if title would legally deem it private property. Some areas are deemed "public" by the decree of our Sages of Blessed Memory; others are designated "public" by Torah law. Areas considered "public domain" by rabbinic guidelines can be converted to "private domain" by the establishment of an Eruv. Biblically ordained "public domains" cannot be included in an Eruv.
***An Eruv is an instrument by which an area which is not a private domain is halachically (by Jewish law) converted to one. To achieve this, the right of passage is rented from the owners, or the municipal authority - usually a contract for permission to use the property (poles and cables ) of the public utilities corporations is secured; and the construction of a perimeter around the area using natural barriers, walls, and/or a series of gate-like structures is completed. The word Eruv is derived from the verb to mix or blend since an Eruv blends many properties into a single private domain.
In order to transgress the Torah prohibition of Hotza'ah, certain conditions must be met.
An Akirah (initiation of movement) and a Hanachah (putting the object to rest) must be performed on the object by the same person. If one person does the Akirah and another does the Hanachah, only a Rabbinical prohibition is involved (Shabbat 3a). It is possible to move an object without ever performing an Akira, such as when the object is dragged.
One transgresses the Torah prohibition of Hotza'ah only if he picked up the object which he moved (Akirah) with the *intention* of placing it down again in another Reshut (domain). If he decides to place it in another Reshut only *after* picking it up, he has not transgressed a biblical prohibition, and hence need not bring a Korban Chatas for atonement.
(d) One only transgresses the prohibition of Hotza'ah if the object transferred has a certain minimum size. The Mishnah (Shabbat 75b) describes this size as, "Anything that is normally put away for human use and people do put away this amount of it." If the object transferred is food, one is only liable to punishment if the food is the size of a dried fig (k'Grogeret). For liquids, the amount is a Revi'it.
The labor of moving an object from one domain to another, seems like the most insignificant of all the melachot. Indeed, some early commentators call it an "inferior labor" (Tosafot Shabbat 2a). After all, nothing is really done to the object - it merely changes location. (See Beur Halacha 318.)
Yet this one "inferior" melacha seems to draw an inordinate amount of attention. About a third of tractate Shabbat, and about a third of the laws of Shabbat in the Shulchan Aruch, deal primarily with the laws of hotza'ah. And Rav Nachman of Breslov teaches that this prohibition is so important that all of the 39 forbidden labors are included in the prohibition on carrying! (Likutei Halachot Shabbat 7:30.) As you can obviously see, the Melacha of Hotza'ah is a very complex Melacha and contains many more details. This is not the forum for decisions regarding what is or is not allowed on Shabbat. This is just to give the reader a flavor of the intricate halachot involved. A competent halachic authority should be consulted with any questions.
-
Regarding closing a light switch I believe it is considered Finishing because the purpose of the circuit is to provide electricity to the lamp, when a Jew closes the switch the circuit is 'finished' and thereby it is a prohibited work.. For instance if I am building a wall and I need to lay bricks, when I lay the last brick on the wall it is to finish the wall... Such work finishing a wall would be prohibited.
Dressing and other examples you brought are not the same kind of work...
I will look at your other thread later tonight or tomorrow...
I hope you can learn something from this..
-
I will look at your other thread later tonight or tomorrow...
and I will read the replies you gave from my last post until here after you finish reading them and replying to them. I do this so that you will have the time to reply and I will not deviate the subject to other issues without you being able to read what I wrote there.
yet there is something I want to add to my posts above, maybe it is somehow helpful.
There is a book, a novel in my country called "The Hatchet". The story is about a woman in a village who's husband did not return home for a long time (he went with the sheep and in a certain number of months he should have returned, but he did not for many more months). She went after him knowing that something bad must have happened to him. She finally finds his dead body with a hatchet (or his hatchet, can't remember well) in his skull, finds the guilty ones, proves them guilty and buries her husband.
Maybe I gave to many details. Anyway, the point is, somewhere in her journey she meets a jew who is wiling to transport her (and her son) at some destination, and now saturday arrived. I'll translate the passage:
"The second day, saturday, they got on their horses and waited for the merchant [the jew]. He was late again. He did not get his sleigh in the road [it was the beginning of the spring or end of winter] until the snow from the eaves started to melt and lick because of the sun.
- Don't be upset of this delay please, friends, he justified himself laughing [laugh easily]. I'ts because of our conventions/agreements with God. Today it's saturday and we are not allowed to walk on road. Unless we are on water - we can go further until that water ends. If you are on water, you can go. So God allowed us to be travelers on water. Seeing that it is necessarily that I would be tomorrow at the Calugareni [a village or something] I have waited the snow to melt and lick from the eaves and the snow to melt from the ground. As soon as the water got under the sleigh, I could have started. From now on we will go only on water until home.
Vitoria [the woman] made a cross sign [I don't know how exactly this should be translated, it's a sign made by christian orthodox people - I think catholics as well - moving their hand to the head then chest then left then right at a religious object or at a church of theirs or when they hear something that is very absurd/odd that they are astonished]
- From where this commandment? Did you chat [stay to talk] with your God?
- Not me, but one of my relatives/kin of long time ago, whose name was Moses. Thus I travel on water towards home and there my wife will come outside with opened arms. The water remains outside and inside I find wine and hot meal. You can host at my house, if there is no problem for you, as Nechifor Lipan [the husband of the woman] did."
So, do you believe he broke the sabbath or not?
-
We believe that all the Laws of Torah were given to Moses at Sinai... Why was it given Orally? Take a guess? So that those false religions like Christianity and Islam would not be able to steal it... They basically stole only the Written part and did not steal the oral Torah {as a matter of fact they reject it, making the Written word completely useless}...
The reason you gave is improper. Islam was founded after the Talmud was completed, and the founders of christianity (jews) were accustomed to the “Oral Law”. So christians had all the chances to ‘steal’ the “Oral Law”, and muslims to steal the Talmud.
And to say that the Talmud is the exact explanations of the Tanakh that were given originally, is like the catholic church saying that their teachings today are exactly the the teachings first christians were taught, yet I'm 100% sure that their teachings have changed considerably in time. This is only my skepticism.
part 2 follows. don't reply yet.
Actually, Zenith, what you said is not true. At the time of the Christians and the development of various heretical sects out of Judaism, the Oral Torah (at that time not crystallized into the Talmud because it was not yet written), was a monopoly solely in the hands of the chachamim and guarded by them. So no, the heretical sects could not actually "hijack" the Oral law, even if occasionally borrowing from it or using aspects of it. By most likely accounts the Talmud was not written down in final form until the period of the gaonim in the late 900's. Until that time it remained an orally transmitted body. Likewise, the mishnayoth were compiled by Rebbe Yehuda HaNassi around 160-200 CE and these formed the basis for all Talmudic discussion which followed, but these were a memorized corpus transmitted orally and with a singing/reciting method in the houses of study of the chachamim, only to be written down much later. (Iggereth Sherira Gaon, French edition reflects that in Sherira Gaon's time perhaps nothing had yet been written, but certainly in Rebbe's time - and all of Sherira Gaon's explanation of the compilation of the mishna demonstrates this - the "compilation" does not refer to writing).
Long story short, an oral text not in written form prevents the wide distribution of its contents or its falling into the hands of the uninitiated.
-
You sent a link to http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48948646.html
Somewhere it says:
Hadrian dies in 139 C.E and with his death came an improvement in the treatment of the Jewish community in Israel. During a period of relative quiet, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi managed to befriend the Roman emperors who succeeded Hadrian, particularly Marcus Aurelius (161-180 C.E.). Writes historian Rabbi Berel Wein in his Echoes of Glory (p. 224):
"Providentially, in the course of the Parthian war, Marcus Aurelius met Rabbi [Yehudah HaNasi], and they became friends and eventually confidants . Marcus Aurelius consulted with his friend in Judah on matters of state policy as well as on personal questions.(1)
As much as you may like this story, it sounds to me as if a muslim had said that (we know they believe both Moses and Jesus preached Islam) some great imam in the 2nd century was the best friend of the Roman Emperor and they discussed personal matters and that the roman emperor finally converted to Islam :|. Maybe it is easy for you, because you are accutomed to that teaching, maybe you were born with it (indoctrinated with it = believing it was true before asking questions), but I was not, and nor stories about “great jews” fascinate me. That story extolls Yehudah HaNasi as orthrodox/catholic christians extoll their ‘saints’ and muslims extoll Muhammud.
Unfortunately what you've written here is nonsense, Zenith. First of all, cease the comparisons with Islam because it doesn't belong in the same sentence.
Secondly, if you have any even slight grasp of history, you would realize that it would be impossible for Rebbe (or any Talmudic sage for that matter) to have "regrouped" and brought together chachamim from all over Israel to convene on a topic of Jewish law and recreate a centralized authority of Jewish practice without the aid or at least indifference of a particular Roman emperor. It was the Romans who disbanded the Sanhedrin and the unified Bet Din that followed it because the Romans knew that the lifeblood of the Jewish people was the Torah and its instructions came from the Sanhedrin - the body of rabbis making decisions on consensus of Torah interpretation. They ruthlessly oppressed this institution and much of the Roman behavior is what produced the dispersal and various "streams" of tradition that developed within the Jewish people in the various schools/yeshivot, and this created the need for Rebbe to come along and streamline the approach to halacha (Jewish law) by gathering a consensus and creating a new canon based on previous rulings and traditions, using rules of majority and other factors that would serve as a baseline to unite the Jewish practice among all the chachamim and respective schools. Rebbe had not only the respect and reverence of all the chachamim of these various developing schools as a righteous scholar and worthy nasi, he also was a scion of the tradition and methodology of Rabbi Akiva which came to dominate Jewish thought and was considered the highest form of genius among the scholars, so much so that even as a young scholar Rebbe was teaching his own grandfather and another elder scholar Torah which they drank up as they sat before him (Talmud relates this), and he had the prestige and riches (historical fact that he was a rich man - descendent of the "royal family" of the Jews, the nasi which goes back to Gamliel the Elder, Hillel the Elder before him, and back before the common era - these Jews descended from King David), so he had the prestige and riches and congeniality/political connections to enable an easing of the relations of the Roman govt to the Jews. All this together enabled him to bring together all of these schools of chachamim to create a canon based on extant practices known as the Mishnayoth.
The midrash Rabbi Wein cites is merely expressing that "relationship" with the Roman govt in flowerly language. Nowhere does it claim the Roman emperor converted to Judaism or worshipped Judah Ha Nasi (G-d forbid) or any other crazy ideas. The midrash is expressing that the Roman govt eased its restrictions on the Jews (more notably, the chachamim) in the time of Rebbe and his personality played a role in that.
-
You might ask for more about why the Romans oppressed the Sanhedrin and the Jewish sages.
As I said, they recognized what was truly the lifeblood of the Jewish people, and they also understood what was at the root of the revolt against Rome, as well as the rejection of Roman culture. It was the teachings of the Torah as propagated by the chachamim. As Rambam writes in Mishna Torah, Rabbi Akiva bore the shield of Bar Kochva. And the Talmud relates that chachamim considered Bar Kochva in leading the revolt for jewish redemption a potential messiah. The Romans had much to be worried about. It is well known historical fact that the Romans forbade teaching of Torah in public and Rabbi Akiva was murdered for doing so against this decree and died as a martyr reciting the Shema in sanctification of God's name as the Romans tore apart his flesh.
-
Quoting from your posts...
About the Sabbath day:
You THINK, but you don't know. Wouldn't the people who actually received the text actually know, rather than have to speculate and guess after-the-fact, as you are doing? Well, that is precisely our claim.
Well, not necessarily. If I had seen the G-d of the Bible in Israel as it was in the biblical times (prophets, supernatural things, people (or certain prophets) to ask G-d and Him to answer, literally), then I would have undoubtedly believe jews know. And I think we are all after-the-fact.
Jews did see that and preserved tradition. The only "after-the-fact" is you. And subjective speculation helps no one to get to the truth. Do not try to deny or hide the fact that in your after-the-fact speculation you are indeed trying to override the preserved tradition by that group of people who DID witness G-d's miracles and DID adhere to Judaism under the prophets.
And about keeping the oral law into memory, it sounds like the muslims claim that their surahs were learnt (from hearing) and were much later written 100% correctly (which also seems to me impossible).
Enough about Islam, stop comparing it with Judaism. I really don't care what Muslims claim, and what you say has no relevance to this discussion or to Judaism.
You claim it's impossible to memorize a body of text. Why do you say that? Because now we have typewriters and computers to do it for us, so no one tries? I assure you there are chachamim TODAY in Israel like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who in fact have a photographic memory of not only all the Talmudic discussions but even the subsequent interpretations of Medieval rabbis and modern day sources! This is just an example of the power of the human mind, not as a proof for oral traditions. For proof of oral traditions, instead look to history. How were Homer's epics preserved? NOT in writing. It certainly is possible, but all the moreso when it is not a story but a body of law-statements which are unassailable and canonized as inviolable. They certainly memorized and passed down the mishnayot. What reason is there to lie about this? It is not so hard to believe. It was simply an oral culture of learning and oral tradition. You are making it into a straw man by saying it's impossible when it wasn't.
Furthermore, the back and forth of the entire Talmud we do not have to say was memorized without notetaking of any kind because the Talmud's dialectic developed at a later date with its compilation and recording in writing, while the various statements and basic arguments it pieced together were from the earlier memorized tradition. So it is not that we are claiming that the "Talmud" as we know it today in its current finalized form was memorized front to back. It's the basic arguments and statements on various issues that were. This was pieced together into the "conversation" of the Talmud later by Ravina and Rav Ashi who began that process, and this was completed with the era of the Savoraim. Indeed, it may be that the Talmud was not written in whole until after or at the end of the Gaonim (they followed the Savoraim), but pieces of it could have been and notes were indeed taken in the yeshivot.
About the cloths of the priests:
Yes, that is certainly logical to expect. However, why limit it just to the clothes of Cohanim? This can be in many aspects. And do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not?
Well, the cloths are clearly not self-understandable from the Bible. And 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. If you give me an absurd interpretation of a clear verse in the Bible I will clearly say that that was not given by G-d through Moses (which, if it’s wrong, it should probably mean that my logic is absurd). [/quote]
That wasn't my question. You have distorted my argument (perhaps by accident). I was not asking do you profess to know which aspects are from the laws given to Moses by G-d and which are not, perish the thought. They are all from the laws given by G-d. Why would the Torah exclude them? And why would Moses not instruct regarding them? When I said, "do you profess to know in which aspects it would occur and in which it would not" 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. So why do you assume that only clothes of Cohanim would be preserved in such a way and not other things not explicitly explained by the written Torah? I already gave you even a post-Talmudic example of the determination of kosher and non-kosher locusts by Yemenite Jews. But even aside from that. It seems that you want to make an assumption - ie , all things from Talmud were NOT from tradition or preserved in practice and written later, but clothes of Kohanim were (and Talmud accepted that tradition but made up its own for other laws). What is the basis for this assumption? There simply is no basis.
My point was that there can be many subjects which are mentioned briefly in Torah or not explained in detail by the written Torah, which Moshe explained the details to the people, they preserved in practice, and these were later recorded and canonized as well.
For instance there is nothing wrong with moving a couch inside the house, which requires a good amount of physical labor... But one is prohibited from turning on a light switch, which doesnt require much physical work but it is a violation of one of the 39 Melachot... Specifically the prohibition on starting a fire, and completing something...
For instance, this is an absurd interpretation to me.
First off, Moses could not have prohibited turning the light on/off because there was no electricity then. [/quote]
What kind of argument is that? Muman did not say that Moses forbid electricity. Muman said that Moses forbid a specific class of 39 melachot (creative labors), which anything that TODAY falls into those categories for one reason or another, is also forbidden.
Second, you do not start fire by turning on the light.
Lights are a complicated matter in their relation to Shabbath prohibitions. The problem comes with heating up the coil in the incandescent bulb (which happens inside). Fluorescent lights are apparently not applicable to this problem. It takes a detailed understanding of very complex matters of not only Jewish law but physics to understand lights and their relation to Shabbath laws. But this example takes us away from the point at hand. It's a tangent. Because really you are questioning the original prohibitions of the 39 melachot which the sages derive from the Torah and are from Sinai. So whether this or that particular modern-day invention fits within the categories of the 39 melachot is inconsequential to this discussion. You are questioning the foundation of Jewish practice and belief, not the idea of the light bulb on Shabbath. Unfortunately for you, there is simply no "disproof" of what the Sages record and no reason to question what they claim. For some things they cite a tradition to Sinai, and for other things they do not, and they acknowledge innovation (ie rabbinical decree, as some of those prohibitions were labelled) when it happens. So why do I need to doubt those things that they do ascribe to tradition? If they were liars, why didn't they hide any and all of their innovations when they made them? And further as we have already discussed, you do not have any definition of what constitutes "Melacha" to try to claim that you have the "real" tradition 3000 years later and disconnected from transmission, consensus, practice, and reality, but the Jews somehow forgot or invented one "after the fact." Why would the Jews not know what is allowed and what is forbidden on Shabbath? Don't you think that was pretty essential to their whole Biblical experience that you read in the 5 books of Moses? You are basically asking us to accept a conspiracy theory.
-
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.
It is also forbidden to climb a tree or smell an attached fruit, but it is permitted to smell a growing flower.
This is crazy – as many others, but I will not point out all because it’s useless.
By the way, I have a question: what happens if a man (jew) breaks one of these rules of the Sabbath not knowing that it is forbidden – say it happens. Is he killed?
Additionally, according to the Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchata, playing a game that generally involves writing (as in keeping score) would be problematic on Shabbat from a Rabbinic standpoint, although one does not actually plan to write.
And there are others written the same way in your posts: from rabbinic standpoint, not from G-d’s standpoint. Did you ever ask yourself how it is from G-d’s standpoint? What He forbids, not what man thinks is wrong?
36-37. Mechabeh and Ma'avir - Extinguishing and Lighting Fires
These two Melachot are closely related; one is the opposite of the other. Fire was used for cooking the dyes during the construction of the Mishkan and later for the Korbanot and is therefore prohibited. Mechabeh is extinguishing fire; Ma'avir is kindling fire. One practical application of these prohibitions is electricity. One cannot use electricity on Shabbat. For example, turning lights on and off is prohibited.
As much as you may wish it, electricity is not fire.
There is also discussion about opening soda bottles. 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.
Yeah, that sustains a lot your idea that an Oral Torah about the Sabbath was given to FULLY explain what is prohibited and what is not: it cannot be known if something is prohibited by G-d or not. But man takes the authority from G-d and himself (the man, rabbi) prohibits. Have you ever thought that maybe G-d prohibits something that some rabbis teach to do, and by this you might have broken every Sabbath?
Regarding closing a light switch I believe it is considered Finishing because the purpose of the circuit is to provide electricity to the lamp, when a Jew closes the switch the circuit is 'finished' and thereby it is a prohibited work..
Although I read above that it was a thing related to fire, not finishing.
And now, this is the definition of the word “circuit” (in electricity):
Also called electric circuit. the complete path of an electric current, including the generating apparatus, intervening resistors, or capacitors.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circuit)
So the only way to finish the circuit is to destroy it. You cannot finish sending electrons through the wire because they go themselves - you don't 'push' them yourself - and will always go through the wire if there is passage to it (when the switch is on they have passage). The only thing that happens when you turn off the switch is that, for that time when it is off, the electric current does not pass through that path (i.e. to the path to the electric lamp). Nothing is finished. And, because it’s about man, not electric circuit, the man does not finish anything but pushing the switch to off; or, you can say that the man has finished using the electric device (electric lamp) but this is like finishing using a glass after you drank water from it: it's odd to be prohibited.
Dressing and other examples you brought are not the same kind of work...
I asked if they are prohibited or not and why, not if they are the same kind of work or not. And if it’s meaningful, why aren’t they the same kind of work? People need to dress and undress every day.
Actually, Zenith, what you said is not true. At the time of the Christians and the development of various heretical sects out of Judaism, the Oral Torah (at that time not crystallized into the Talmud because it was not yet written), was a monopoly solely in the hands of the chachamim and guarded by them. So no, the heretical sects could not actually "hijack" the Oral law, even if occasionally borrowing from it or using aspects of it. By most likely accounts the Talmud was not written down in final form until the period of the gaonim in the late 900's.
Sory, but I read that “The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 C.E.), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 C.E.), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud)
And in Encyclopaedia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition I read According to the tradition of the geonim—the heads of the academies at Sura and Pumbedita from the 6th to the 11th centuries—the Babylonian Talmud was completed by the 6th-century savoraim (“expositors”). But the extent of their contribution is not precisely known. Some attribute to them only short additions. Others credit them with creating the terminology linking the phases of Talmudic discussions. According to another view, they added comments and often decided between conflicting opinions. The proponents of the so-called Gemara theory noted above ascribe to them the entire dialectic portion of Talmudic discourse.
So it is quite possible that muslims had access to it during the time the qur’an was written until the qur’an reached its final form (as I don’t believe the story that some muslims really learnt all those verses and after muhammud they gathered to write them down).
And about those jews that were the cause of Christianity:
“the Oral Torah, … was a monopoly solely in the hands of the chachamim and guarded by them.” – not guarded so the jews could have not known what it taught. If these jews would have been put to death for breaking the Sabbath by laws of the Talmud, it means that they needed to know them. So, as long as the sects of jews started in the ‘normal’ jewish community, they had access to the ‘Oral Law’. And for the birth of Christianity it does not matter when the Talmud reached it’s final written form, because you suggest that the ‘Oral Law’ was transmitted orally, nothing was added and nothing was put out of the laws. So the jews who gave birth to Christianity knew and understood the Oral Law, because before getting into ‘heretical’ ways they were forced to keep the law, and were punished if they did not.
Long story short, an oral text not in written form prevents the wide distribution of its contents or its falling into the hands of the uninitiated.
No it does not. If the written form is read, the oral form is heard. Both ways, it may get known. And, just curios… why is there such a great problem if the Oral Law (‘the correct explanations in full detail of the Tanakh’) would have gotten into the hands of the ‘uninitiated’? If that brought understanding to the Tanakh they already had, wouldn’t have been that a good thing for them? Maybe that way they (or many of them) would have converted to Judaism.
About Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi:
I did not tell that the text says that the roman emperor converted to Judaism. I just gave a comparison, even emphasized a bit so that you would understand how it sounds in my ears.
Say it was written in a hadith that:
“Some great imam in the 2nd century was the best friend of the Roman Emperor and they discussed personal matters and the roman emperor finally converted to Islam. Thus, Islam has spread more in the middle east in that period.”
How does this sound in your ears? If Islam would have appeared in the first century, would have this sentence sound plausible?
I hope you say “No”. This is how it sounds the story about Marcus Aurelius and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, and they became friends and eventually confidants and that Marcus Aurelius consulted with his friend in Judah on matters of state policy as well as on personal questions.
And second, you start with the total confidence that what the Talmud relates to the events in those days are undoubtedly true. I do not start with that confidence. And if some rabbi invented this “friends” history – which must have been so – he would have not added nor subtracted out of the Law of Moses (to have been diabolical, anti-religious, anti-Judaism, or something). Give me a non-Jewish source that says the same (about the rabbi and the emperor) and I will believe it.
Why are you so disturbed of jews/Judaism being compared with muslims/Islam? People are much the same, you know.
About the “after-the fact” issue:
Jews did see that and preserved tradition. The only "after-the-fact" is you. And subjective speculation helps no one to get to the truth. Do not try to deny or hide the fact that in your after-the-fact speculation you are indeed trying to override the preserved tradition by that group of people who DID witness G-d's miracles and DID adhere to Judaism under the prophets.
YOU (your generation) did NOT witness the events, so you are “after-the-fact” as well. I gave the references in the Tanakh where it was exposed that the jews were going astray and forgotten the laws, it was read to the King from the book of law that was found and they realized – they did not know before – the laws that G-d has given and they have broken. THE JEWS DID NOT KNOW THE LAW. And it didn’t happen only once. The jews have gone astray again and again and again – don’t worry, I don’t blame you for being that way, any people in your situation would have been the same way – and G-d did not guarantee in any place in the Tanakh that Rabbis or any other jews, by their minds and mental capabilities are going to understand correctly His Law or that the Jews need not to worry, because just by thinking about them G-d will make sure they will not understand wrong (in other words, any thing they think and come to believe is G-d’s Word).
And by the way, as I understood, there are more than one creed of Judaism, so how do you know yours is the correct one?
Although there are many things left unanswered to me so far, I hope you will answer this question to me:
How that David asked G-d to teach him His laws?
Psalm 119.108 says “O accept the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me Your ordinances.”
You claim it's impossible to memorize a body of text. Why do you say that? Because now we have typewriters and computers to do it for us, so no one tries? I assure you there are chachamim TODAY in Israel like Rabbi Ovadia Yosef who in fact have a photographic memory of not only all the Talmudic discussions but even the subsequent interpretations of Medieval rabbis and modern day sources! This is just an example of the power of the human mind, not as a proof for oral traditions.
My claim is not that it is impossible to memorize “a body of text” but that I doubt that a very large body of text can be memorized all 100% correctly, especially if that text was not even written. Your assurance means nothing to me, not matter how sincere. As long as I will not meet a man like that and check him myself, I cannot be assured of that.
For proof of oral traditions, instead look to history. How were Homer's epics preserved? NOT in writing.
Yeah, but there’s also no proof that the memory preserved epics were 100% the same as the author told them. Moreover, if one who heard, even many times, an epic, and forgot a section, he could have easily stepped over or replaced it with something else, and that would have been no harm at all.
It certainly is possible, but all the moreso when it is not a story but a body of law-statements which are unassailable and canonized as inviolable. They certainly memorized and passed down the mishnayot. What reason is there to lie about this? It is not so hard to believe. It was simply an oral culture of learning and oral tradition. You are making it into a straw man by saying it's impossible when it wasn't.
So, you say you learnt and keep in mind 100% correctly all the laws written in the Talmud (i.e. laws regarding the Sabbath: you cannot turn off the light switch, you can move the couch in your house, you cannot smell a fruit of a tree, etc.) so that you can keep them correctly?
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?
So why do you assume that only clothes of Cohanim would be preserved in such a way and not other things not explicitly explained by the written Torah?
I did not say that only the clothes of Cohanim are preserved in such a way. I say that many commandments and teachings in the Talmud were not given by Moses but developed in time. I did not read the Talmud to be clear about how many, what, etc. Anyway, I believe that any commandment other than what is written in the Tanakh, and any interpretation is from man, not from G-d. If G-d gave many laws about what to do and what to do not, then why should some be written and others not written? About the looks of a cloth, for instance, there should rather be an exemplar in order to know how to make another, because it is very hard and lengthy or maybe impossible to write all details so that only using them one to make a cloth 'as he should', but about commandments "do X and do not Y" why should there be a difference? Is one less important than other? If one is written so it would not be forgotten, then the other why was it not written? And about interpretations, why should something be written so that nobody could understand it (i.e. to be cryptic)? Why would an explanation about a particular law be written (i.e. in the Torah, in the Tanakh) and the other not? If what was written it was written so that it would be preserved, then it means that all the needed things were written. Otherwise, maybe Moses would have written nothing, and until the middle ages all would have been preserved only orally.
About the electricity issue:
What kind of argument is that? Muman did not say that Moses forbid electricity. Muman said that Moses forbid a specific class of 39 melachot (creative labors), which anything that TODAY falls into those categories for one reason or another, is also forbidden.
Actually, that is not a foolish argument. The prohibition of turning on/off of the light switch was not given by Moses, but was an interpretation of man who said “it fits in category X”. By the way, if the laws (i.e. written in the Torah) are so hard to be understood that the rest of the Tanakh must explain the Torah, but the Tanakh cannot be understood properly, because it needs Mishna to explain it, but even Mishna is not enough, because Mishna needs Gemara to explain it, how do you know that Gemara is enough? Maybe there should be another book to fully explain Gemara (like the issue of traveling on water, if it is not explicitly forbidden or allowed in one of these books – is it?).
Lights are a complicated matter in their relation to Shabbath prohibitions. The problem comes with heating up the coil in the incandescent bulb (which happens inside). Fluorescent lights are apparently not applicable to this problem. It takes a detailed understanding of very complex matters of not only Jewish law but physics to understand lights and their relation to Shabbath laws.
First off, I don’t think it needs an advanced scientific knowledge to keep the laws of G-d. Second, as much as you may wish it, that heating is not accompanied by flames (fire). Third, if heating 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. Fourth, you missed the point of the commandment: that man was not killed because that was “fire”, but because he was working on the Sabbath day (gathering woods, making the fire using those woods, throwing woods in fire to keep it burning is all work).
About Judaism
Because really you are questioning the original prohibitions of the 39 melachot
Yeah, that’s the main issue.
You are questioning the foundation of Jewish practice and belief, not the idea of the light bulb on Shabbath
Actually, I question both.
For some things they cite a tradition to Sinai, and for other things they do not, and they acknowledge innovation (ie rabbinical decree, as some of those prohibitions were labelled) when it happens. So why do I need to doubt those things that they do ascribe to tradition?
Please, explain a bit in more detail how they cite, what they say when citing. Is it “At the mount Sinai, Moses said that…” or “Moses said that…” or how? It might sound odd, I’m just curious how they said.
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. 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.
By the way, even orthodox and catholic clerics were written down "at that council it has been agreed that", "X pope or X bishop or X church father understands that as" but that didn't help to the correct preservation of what was initially said.
This should answer this question:
If they were liars, why didn't they hide any and all of their innovations when they made them?
They didn’t need to be liars or evil, and they didn’t need to be a secret society starting a plot (which, I don’t believe they were), so what I say is not a theory of conspiration. I didn’t claim that those who compiled the traditions actually invented them. I do believe they gathered them.
And further as we have already discussed, you do not have any definition of what constitutes "Melacha" to try to claim that you have the "real" tradition 3000 years later and disconnected from transmission, consensus, practice, and reality
Maybe the Tanakh is enough to explain what is forbidden in the Sabbath day, and thus no other explanations were ever given by Moses, have you thought about that?
...but the Jews somehow forgot or invented one "after the fact." Why would the Jews not know what is allowed and what is forbidden on Shabbath? Don't you think that was pretty essential to their whole Biblical experience that you read in the 5 books of Moses?
Given the fact that the Christians developed the worshipping and praying to “Virgin Mary”, which is prohibited by the Bible, as well to others they call “saints” and they started praying to objects, which is also prohibited by the Bible, but it somehow got into their creed as “correct, according to the Bible, etc.”, it is not impossible that other people (i.e. jews) elaborated theories and have given interpretations that came to be understood as “oral law” (explanation given by Moses as how to perform that commandment). Given the fact that the jews have gone astray from time to time (as described in the Bible) it is not impossible that after the Babylonian captivity they did the same or similar (even if not something huge) - actually, there are pretty good odds. So if they did so, then are great odds that they elaborated theories and given interpretations about how to perform certain commandments that came to be “laws” and understood to be “laws of G-d”.
You claim an odd thing to be a “theory of conspiration”, I’ll give you an example:
Catholics (among all other religions and creeds) believe that their religious leaders are and were always devotedly preserving the teachings as they were in the beginning given. They cannot imagine how the Pope could be a liar or have any non-holy thought, so there would be any reason not to blindly trust him (though none likes the word “blindly”, this is how it is). Moreover, they cannot imagine that the priests through all these years and centuries could have taught against what the Bible teaches (except the heretics, which, the most – which were believing ‘the truth’ denounced them). So if I say to them “Your clerics teach you wrong, some lie intentionally, others just believe that is the truth, and actually they did not preserve the teachings of the beginning” wouldn’t they see this as a misplaced idea (like a “theory of conspiracy”) because they trust their clerics? So with you; or tell me what’s the difference between their case and your case. 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?
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.
By the way, why don't you ask G-d to clarify this to you?
-
Zenith,
Im sorry but you seem really confused. You are trying to bend and twist the law because you think you know better.
The 39 prohibited labors is a very simple issue. Nothing to get hung up about. 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. 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. It is not very difficult to see that closing a switch finishes a circuit, thus violating one of the 39 prohibited forms of labor. 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.
Also regarding one who breaks a commandment which requires a punishment {usually lashes or death} it is necessary that he be warned first and that two witnesses observe him violating. So no, someone who accidentally violates is not punished.
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...
I think you have said some things which make you a heretic, a mocker, and someone I have no desire to explain our Holy Torah to. Unless you change your attitude I have nothing else to say to you. I doubt your questions were sincere to begin with...
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.
Just for your reference here are the Ten Utterances:
1. "Anochi HaShem Elokecha…" - "I am the L-rd your G-d, etc." - To have faith in G-d's existence, His concern for the world, His intervention at will in the affairs of the world, and His infinite might.
2. "Lo Yiheheh Lecha …" - "You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence, etc." - the prohibition against idolatry. One of the three Cardinal Sins, for which one must give up one's life rather than violate it.
3. "Lo Tisa …" - You shall not take the Name of the L-rd your G-d in vain, etc." - Do not disgrace Hashem's Name by using it for no valid purpose.
4. Version A: "Zachor et Yom HaShabbat L'Kadesho …" - "Remember the Day of Shabbat to Keep it Holy, etc. - Sanctify the Day of Shabbat by treating it as a Day of Delight, and by the recitation of Kiddush, etc. (Shemot 20:8-11)
Version B: "Shamor et Yom HaShabbat L'Kadesho…" - "Protect the Day of Shabbat to Keep it Holy, etc" - Observe the Day of Shabbat as a Day of Rest by refraining from "Melacha," creative, purposeful interaction with nature, etc. (Devarim 5:12-15)
5. "Kabed et avicha v'et imecha…" - "Honor your Father and your Mother…" - Revering and honoring one's parents is considered a basic commandment in Judaism from the perspective that there are three partners involved in the creation of a human being: one's parents and G-d Himself. That is why this Commandment is included with the first five, which are considered basically between Man and his Creator.
6. "Lo Tirtzach" - "You shall not Murder" - Since the human being is created in the "image of G-d," the level of seriousness of violation of this commandment should not be minimized. Certain taking of life is sanctioned by the Torah, as is the case in the "arba mitot bet din," the four forms of capital punishment, which are at least theoretically part of the legal code of the Torah; or the taking of life involved in a "milchemet mitzvah," "an obligatory war." However, outside of the limited exceptions, the diminution of the "Tzelem Elokim," the "image of G-d" in the world is one of the three Cardinal crimes, for which one must give up his or her life, rather than violate.
7. "Lo Tinaf" - "You shall not commit adultery" - Strictly speaking, this prohibition involves cohabiting with a married woman; this is another of the Three Cardinal Sins, regarding which one must forfeit his life rather than violating.
8. "Lo Tignov" - Literally, this means "You shall not steal;" however, this Commandment has been interpreted to refer to only one kind of theft; namely, to someone who kidnaps a person, forces him or her to work for him, and then sells him or her into slavery. This, like the previous prohibitions mentioned in the verse, murder and adultery, is a Capital Crime; that is, punishable by the death-penalty. "Garden-variety" stealing is prohibited by the Torah in Vayikra 19:11, where it says "You shall not steal, you shall not deny falsely, and you should not lie one to another."
9. "Lo Taaneh ve'reacha ed shaker" - "Do not give false testimony against your neighbor." Giving testimony is a very serious matter in Judaism; one then has the power with words to directly affect someone else's life.
10. "Lo Tachmod beit reiecha,…" - "You shall not covet your fellow's house. You shall not covet your fellow's wife, his manservant, his maidservant, his ox, his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your fellow." This is an area where the Torah legislates regarding a person's inner thoughts and feelings. Only a Divine Lawgiver could possibly legislate in this way, for He knows our innermost thoughts and feelings. The meaning of the prohibition is that a person should regard another's possessions as totally beyond his possibility of acquisition.
-
Questions about "Firstborn" are easily answered when looking at the laws of the firstborn... A firstborn does not imply that there are any siblings, just the fact that the man was the first son of his father from his mother, nothing more.
http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5767/nitzvay67/specialfeatures_jewishlaw.htm
THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW
Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean
Lesson # 393
Laws of Primogeniture
In a recent weekís Torah reading we read: ìIf a man will have two wives, one beloved and one hated, and they bear him sons, the beloved one and the hated one, and the firstborn son is the hated oneís, then it shall be that on the day that he causes his sons to inherit whatever will be his, he cannot give the right of the firstborn son of the hated one ahead of the son of the hated one, the firstborn. Rather he must recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one, to give him the double portion in all that is found with him; for he is his initial vigor, to him is the right of the firstborn.î (D'varim 21: 15-17) After the davening, I was asked by one of the congregants if I could explain some of these halachot to him. I told him it would appear in Torah Tidbits lessons.
It is seen from the Torah verse that the firstborn has a special portion of the estate of his father, that of primogeniture.
In these lessons I shall describe this special portion in three parts: (1) Who is the firstborn? (2) How does he prove he is the firstborn? (3) What portion of the fatherís estate does the firstborn receive?
For illustrative purposes, the firstborn is designated as Reuven and the father is designated as Yaakov.
Primogeniture is the halachic provision whereby a firstborn, if a male, receives a special portion of the estate of the father. For purposes of primogeniture, the firstborn is the firstborn of the father, whether or not he is also the firstborn to the mother. For example, his mother was married to her first husband and had children with her first husband. The first husband divorced her or he died. She then married Yaakov, who had no previous children and has a child Reuven by Yaakov. Such child, Yaakovís first, is Yaakovís firstborn for the purposes of primogeniture, although he is not the first born of his mother. [Ed. note: He does not get Pidyon HaBen, but he is his father's B'CHOR.] The firstborn receives a primogeniture share only if he is the firstborn to the father and only from the fathers estate. He does not receive a primogeniture share of his motherís estate even if he is her firstborn and also the firstborn of his father. He receives a portion of his mothers estate equal to that of the other sons. In order to be one whom halacha recognizes as a firstborn, he must be born while the father is still alive. For the purpose of these laws the word ìbornî means that his forehead emerged from the womb while he was still alive.
There is an opinion that if the father was in a coma when Reuven was born, and died without recovering, Reuven is not considered his firstborn. The verse says that the father ìmust recognize the firstbornî and if he is in a coma he cannot recognize him. If the first baby born to the father is a tumtum, a person whose genitals are not visible, although his gender cannot be determined, he is in reality either a male or a female, not a third gender. (There is an opinion in the Talmud that the tumtum should be considered a third gender.) Since his maleness is not recognizable at the time that he is born he does not become a firstborn for the purpose of primogeniture. This holds true even if there is a subsequent operation preformed on him and it is then revealed that he was a male. Reuven was the first child born to Yaakov after a prematurely born child to the same father, Yaakov died within thirty days of birth. Reuven is the firstborn of Yaakov for primogeniture purposes. Or, if a child was born to Yaakov in the ninth month of pregnancy but was dead when his head emerged, and Reuven is the next child born to Yaakov, Reuven is the first born for the purpose of primogeniture. The first born to Yaakov, Shimon was born by sectional birth and thereafter Reuven was born through a normal birth. Neither Shimon nor Reuven have the status of a firstborn in accordance with the laws of primogeniture. Avraham is a proselyte who before he converted had children with a non-Jewish woman; his first born with a Jewish woman after he converts does not have the status of a firstborn regarding primogeniture. A non-Jewish man has a child with a Jewish woman and after he converts he has another child (whether or not with this same Jewish woman) this latter son is considered his firstborn for the purposes of primogeniture. A Jew, Yehuda, fathered a child with a non- Jewish woman; such son is not considered his son. Yehuda thereafter has a son by a Jewish woman. Such latter son is considered a firstborn for primogeniture purposes. If the firstborn Reuven is a bastard, he is considered a firstborn for the purposes of primogeniture. Similarly if the father Yaakov is a Kohen and fathers a son, Reuven, with a woman who is a divorcee, Reuven is considered a firstborn for the purposes of primogeniture.
Proof that one is firstborn
The question may arise as to whether Reuven is actually the firstborn. The testimony of witnesses is the highest form of proof as to whether or not Reuven is the firstborn of his father. There may be documentary evidence such as letters of the father, birth records, writings in a family Bible. The statements of the father made to people may be introduced as evidence if Beit Din deems it proper. If Reuven died and the eulogy referred to him as the firstborn, it may be adequate to so establish him as the firstborn. It may be adequate as the Beit Din has to decide each case on the facts peculiar to that case.
Absent cogent proof, the following rules are usually followed by Beit Din. The doctor (or the midwife) who delivered Reuven is believed to state that Reuven is the firstborn of twin boys. He is believed if his statement is made contemporaneously with the birth, that is until he leaves the delivery room. The mother is believed to state that Reuven is the firstborn of the twin boys during the first seven days after his birth. On the eighth day, the circumcision ceremony is performed and the father takes the son from the mother. The father is always believed if he states that Reuven is his firstborn. He is believed even if he names a person who was not known to be his son, that he is his firstborn. Once the father states that Reuven is his firstborn, he may not later state that he is not his firstborn. Conversely, the father may state that Reuven is not his firstborn although everyone thinks that he is. If the father was a mute, then statements made by him when he was alive using sign language, or writings, or even nodding with his head when asked if Reuven was his firstborn is adequate proof. In situations where it is not established that Reuven is the firstborn, there must be proof produced that he is the firstborn. For example, one of the sons of the father demands that Reuven prove that he is the firstborn of their father. Perhaps there was a child born before Reuven. He must submit such proof.
The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Chapter 277 of Volume VIII, of a Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law. Copies of this volume can be purchased at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to [email protected]
-
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
Here is Chabads explanation:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682091/jewish/The-Three-Daily-Prayers.htm
The Three Daily Prayers
By Nissan Mindel
Jewish Law makes it our duty to pray three times daily: in the morning, in the afternoon and at nightfall. These prayers are called morning prayer (shacharit), afternoon prayer (minchah) and evening prayer (arvith or maariv ).
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.
When the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, our way of life was set out for us by G‑d. Torah means "teaching," "instruction," "guidance"; for the Torah teaches us our way of life in every detail of our daily life. The Torah contains 613 commandments. Among them is the command to "serve G‑d with all our heart and all our soul."4 How do we serve G‑d with our heart? By praying to Him. In doing so, we fulfill not only the commandment of praying to G‑d, but also other commandments, such as to love G‑d and to fear Him, which are separate commandments.
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.5
There was, however, a set order of service in the The Holy Temple in Jerusalem, known as the Beit Hamikdosh, in connection with the daily sacrifices, morning and evening,while the evening sacrifice extended into the night. On special days, such as Shabbos, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, there were also "additional" (musaf) sacrifices. 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.7 There is evidence that there were, even during the time of the first Temple in Jerusalem, public places of prayer, called Beit Ha'am,8 which the Chaldeans (Babylonians) destroyed when they destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple.
After the Holy Temple was destroyed and the Jews were led into captivity in Babylon, Jews continued to gather and pray in congregation. The places of prayer became like "small sanctuaries"—Beit Mikdash Me'at,9 during the years of exile, the children who were born and brought up in Babylon lacked adequate knowledge of the Holy Tongue (Hebrew) and spoke a mixed language. 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, corresponding to the daily sacrifices in the Holy Temple, with additional (musaf) prayers on Shabbat, Rosh-Chodesh and Festivals, and a special "closing" prayer (Neilah) on Yom Kippur.
Thus, the main parts of the daily prayers were formulated by our Sages. These included the Shema prayer and Shemone Esrei, which still are the main parts of our morning and evening prayers, while the Shemone Esrei is the main part of the Minchah service also. The daily Psalm (from Tehillim) which used to be sung by the Levites in the Holy Temple, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, became part of the morning prayer. Other Psalms of David were included in the morning prayer, and special benedictions before and after the Shema were added. By the time the Mishnah was recorded by Rabbi Judah the Prince (about the year 3910—some 500 years after Ezra), and especially by the time the Talmud was completed (some 300 years later, or about 1500 years ago), the basic order of our prayers, as we know them now, had been formulated.
-
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.
[/quote]
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.
-
Lights are a complicated matter in their relation to Shabbath prohibitions. The problem comes with heating up the coil in the incandescent bulb (which happens inside). Fluorescent lights are apparently not applicable to this problem. It takes a detailed understanding of very complex matters of not only Jewish law but physics to understand lights and their relation to Shabbath laws.
First off, I don’t think it needs an advanced scientific knowledge to keep the laws of G-d.
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. Or you would rather ask the plumber to give his uninformed opinion which is based on nothing objective? And everyone should just go by "personal opinion" and disregard any understanding of the law, the technology, and any precedent in practice or tradition? This is the same silly argument you have made earlier in the thread and it is just as illogical now as it was then. 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!"
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.
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.
Fourth, you missed the point of the commandment: that man was not killed because that was “fire”, but because he was working on the Sabbath day (gathering woods, making the fire using those woods, throwing woods in fire to keep it burning is all work).
Actually I didn't miss the point of anything, but perhaps you did. There are multiple prohibitions on the Shabbath. All forms of Melacha (creative work) are forbidden - the verse says so, and lighting a fire is forbidden as is stated also in a verse.
About Judaism
Because really you are questioning the original prohibitions of the 39 melachot
Yeah, that’s the main issue.
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.
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.
For some things they cite a tradition to Sinai, and for other things they do not, and they acknowledge innovation (ie rabbinical decree, as some of those prohibitions were labelled) when it happens. So why do I need to doubt those things that they do ascribe to tradition?
Please, explain a bit in more detail how they cite, what they say when citing. Is it “At the mount Sinai, Moses said that…” or “Moses said that…” or how? It might sound odd, I’m just curious how they said.
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.
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).
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.
-
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?
-
There is no point in arguing with this ignoramus. I have already explained almost all of what you just tried to explain to him and yet he seems to be boorish, or he has an agenda.
-
Re: "There is no point in arguing "
A classic dialogue between a true believer (muman613) and a skeptic (zenith).
I think it's always healthy to be challenged by disbelief, as long as it's respectful and sincere.
As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!"
-
There is no point in arguing
There might be. At least he asks some good questions.
-
You claim an odd thing to be a “theory of conspiration”, I’ll give you an example:
Catholics (among all other religions and creeds) believe that their religious leaders are and were always devotedly preserving the teachings as they were in the beginning given. They cannot imagine how the Pope could be a liar or have any non-holy thought, so there would be any reason not to blindly trust him (though none likes the word “blindly”, this is how it is). Moreover, they cannot imagine that the priests through all these years and centuries could have taught against what the Bible teaches (except the heretics, which, the most – which were believing ‘the truth’ denounced them). So if I say to them “Your clerics teach you wrong, some lie intentionally, others just believe that is the truth, and actually they did not preserve the teachings of the beginning” wouldn’t they see this as a misplaced idea (like a “theory of conspiracy”) because they trust their clerics? So with you; or tell me what’s the difference between their case and your case. 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. In any case let's address this issue. I'll get back to you. I must admit I jumped around from place to place in your answer because you wrote so much in one post it almost appeared as if you were trying to sell us something, but I see you have subheadings labeled and all that. Still let's try to keep the amount in each post somewhat smaller, break it into separate posts so its more manageable (like I have done in my replies...somewhat).
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.
-
Re: "There is no point in arguing
There might be. At least he asks some good questions. "
I believe that no person is truly a person of faith unless they at some time in their lives have asked these exact same questions and many more besides.
I still find myself having to ponder and ask questions like this of those who teach me, and I also have to ask them of myself.
If someone is simply "born into" a heavily frum family setting, educated as frum and told not to ask any skeptical questions, then how can they in fact be "believers"?
They may say that they believe, but in fact they only "accept".
Generally speaking, each person on the planet accepts and professes to believe whichever religion or doctrines into which they are born and raised, and most people have little if any interest in their own religion or faith, let alone those adhered to by others.
I will go one step further, and at the risk of being accused of apostasy state that I believe that unless one has studied the doctrines of opposing faiths and compared them to Judaism's teachings, then one really lacks a thorough understanding of what it is Jews believe that make us distinctively unique.
I never have had to study how to dispute missionaries, because I know their scriptures better than they do, and I also know what Torah teaches which contradicts other religious beliefs.
I've never accepted "I'VE GOT MY OWN RELIGION AND DON'T NEED YOURS!" as a proper Jewish response to a missionary, because it implies a refusal on the part of Jews to listen to any other views or opinions.
Much better to listen and then shoot them down with their own weaponry.
Just my opinions.
-
Massuh,
I don't dispute what you are saying, our Pirkie Avos gives exactly this advice:
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter2-19.html
Pirkei Avos
Chapter 2, Mishna 19
Answering the Heretic
By Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld
"Rabbi Elazar said: Be diligent in the study of Torah. Know what to answer a heretic. Know before Whom you toil. And faithful is your Employer that He will pay you the reward for your labor."
We are continuing to study the teachings of the five primary students of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai (Mishna 10). This mishna presents the words of R. Elazar, R. Yochanan's fifth and final student.
R. Elazar advises us to be prepared to answer all challenges put forth by heretics. We must anticipate their arguments and be ready with proper and appropriate responses. We must know how the other side is translating (and usually mistranslating) verses and what those verses truly mean. (Don't allow them to turn "a son has been born to us" (written many hundreds of years before the Common Era) into "a son will be born." And certainly don't let them tell you "maiden" means "virgin". By the way, by this I don't mean by this that others are not entitled to their own beliefs. But telling us our own Scripture says it -- when anyone who speaks Hebrew knows it does not -- is going a bit too far.)
And this should not be a difficult task. We have the original Hebrew and all the ancient commentaries on our side. Truth really does speak for itself. Nevertheless, as we all know, getting others to buy truth is 10% content and 90% packaging. We must not only know what to answer. We must well know how to say it.
The term our mishna uses for heretic is "apikorus." This is the Hebrew equivalent of Epicurus, the Ancient Greek philosopher (3rd-2nd Centuries B.C.E.), founder of the Epicurean philosophy ("Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we may die" -- especially with eating habits like that). (The Epicureans were actually more "rational hedonists," but for our purposes, the folk-simplification is sufficient -- and also telling.) The term apikorus in Jewish literature has become synonymous with one who adheres to any doctrine contrary to the basic tenets of Judaism. Certainly Epicureanism is practically antithetical to all we believe in. Death is not an end to existence to be ignored and disregarded. To the contrary: this world is no more than an entranceway before the Banquet Hall (4:21). The eventuality of death should not drive us to indulge ourselves, but to spend our lives preparing for that future grand entrance. (See also earlier, 2:15 .)
In addition (as my father of blessed memory once pointed out to me), scholars have noted that the Talmud's frequent use of this term may have served as an anti-censorship device. When the Sages had occasion to refer to Christianity or other contemporary religions (usually in somewhat less than glowing terms), they would cloak their references by giving the impression they were referring to some obscure Greek philosophical sect. (See for example Talmud Chagiga 5b.) Likewise Gentiles in general were often referred to (both by the Talmud and the commentators) as Cutheans, Canaanites and the like.
R. Elazar's advice of knowing how to respond to the heretic is significant on many levels. Although our gut reaction might be to not dignify the scoffer with a response -- let him wallow in his own vomit -- we are told to take his arguments quite seriously. We must be ready with careful and even considerate responses. It is worthwhile to examine some of the reasons behind this.
First of all, we must stand up for the sake of G-d. Don't ignore them -- even if to our minds their positions really do not warrant a response. We must not give even the most fleeting impression that others' arguments have any validity -- or that they know how to translate our own Torah better than we. Even if we know their arguments are contrived, based upon mistranslations, or quoted out of context, don't let anyone entertain that we had no response. Make it clear that we know better.
The Talmud (as well as Jewish history) has some classic rabbinic comebacks to such confrontations. In Sanhedrin 39a, R. Avohu has a back and forth with a heretic who asked him clearly absurd questions. (He "proved" from a verse that G-d is a priest and therefore asked how could He have immersed Himself after burying Moses being that He is bigger than the world.) R. Avohu was just as quick to respond with verses quoted equally-ridiculously out of context. Clearly, both parties knew their entire debate was ludicrous. However, the rabbi felt it was important that he get the last word (he did) -- and the Talmud felt their "debate" was significant enough to record for future generations. Our superiority in all areas of Torah and theology should be demonstrated conclusively. It started with us -- and we are still the masters.
Second of all, we respond to heretics for their sakes. We are actually sincerely interested in showing others the true light of G-d's wisdom. Far from considering such people infidels to be slain or converted at gunpoint, we would like very much to reason with them. If (and only if) they doubt Judaism because they sincerely sought out truth -- and equally- sincerely reached their erroneous conclusions -- we would be more than happy to enlighten them with our version of truth. Judaism has high regard for individuals who ask questions in matters of faith -- even if their answers have led them along what we consider the incorrect path.
Yisro (Jethro), father-in-law of Moses, is praised by the Rabbis for having tried out every idolatry in the world before realizing the truth of Judaism (see Mechilta to Exodus 18:11). Yisro really meant it. He was obsessed with his search for truth -- for he knew that if there is a G-d, He must have provided man with some form of religious expression with which to serve Him. Eventually -- after an exceedingly long and circuitous route -- he followed in the footsteps of Abraham, and discovered the true G-d. For if a person -- even a heretic -- is interested in truth, we have much to say to him. If, however, he is impervious to open and sincere discussion and can think only in terms of proving he's "right" and rescuing our doomed Hebrew souls, then there is little to be gained from such dialogue.
(I don't mean to be misunderstood. Judaism does not believe in proselytizing. We have more than enough trouble keeping our own in line that we are hardly ready (at this point in history) to take on the world. However, a sincere question always deserves an equally sincere and patient response.)
Lastly, we must respond to scoffers for our own sakes. We must now and then fortify ourselves, let ourselves know that agnostics and scoffers have no real substance to their arguments. A part of us would love to forget about death. It actually doesn't sound so bad to eat, drink and be merry for our few remaining miserable years. But we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the same trap as the agnostic. Don't let ourselves imagine that the scoffers have something on us -- that although their arguments might be less cogent they're at least enjoying themselves down here. Don't feel that we might have won the World to Come, but in the process we've sacrificed this world.
For this reason, it is possible to suggest that our mishna concludes as it does: "And faithful is your Employer that He will pay you the reward for your labor." The commentator R. Yonah asks, did we not learn above "...do not be as servants who serve the Master to receive reward" (1:3)? We are generally told not to focus on heavenly rewards, yet here R. Elazar makes a point of informing us that we will be rewarded?
I believe the explanation is that at times we must be reminded. And one such time is when heretics are challenging our faith. Are we tempted to give their arguments credence? They do have far more relaxed religious requirements. Hey, Passover is coming! No other religion demands Passover cleaning! So maybe -- just maybe -- there is something to be said for other viewpoints and other ways of life.
And so, R. Elazar concluded as he did. G-d does reward us -- and with true pleasure both in this world and in the next. We will be rewarded in full, measure for measure. Generally we do not serve G-d in order to receive reward. But when heretics challenge us, we need that reminder. If we would think that intellectually Judaism is superior, but that let's face it: self-serving, Epicureanism is far more pleasurable, then we have not really gotten the message of Torah. Judaism beats Epicureanism hands down -- spiritually, rationally and physically.
For we should never feel we are sacrificing this world for the next. Hedonists have no idea what pleasure is. They indulge their bodies, performing acts of selfishness and taking, until they burn out physically and either get bored with such pleasures or feel a need to move on to bigger thrills to wring some more excitement out of a pathetic existence. But they are not giving, they are not growing, and they are not sensing true satisfaction. They are merely whetting voracious and insatiable appetites, attempting to placate a gaping, dismal spiritual void with empty calories and endless frustration. They are living for nothing -- and deep down they know it. Only we who understand our purpose in life, who sense our immortality and recognize we are striving towards it, can sense true happiness and fulfillment both in this world and in the next.
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.
-
Re: "There is no point in arguing
There might be. At least he asks some good questions. "
I believe that no person is truly a person of faith unless they at some time in their lives have asked these exact same questions and many more besides.
I still find myself having to ponder and ask questions like this of those who teach me, and I also have to ask them of myself.
If someone is simply "born into" a heavily frum family setting, educated as frum and told not to ask any skeptical questions, then how can they in fact be "believers"?
They may say that they believe, but in fact they only "accept".
Great point. I recently learned through an amazing essay by Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg ZT"L (aka the "Seridei Aish") where he discusses different 'types' of emunah (faith) as compared to emunah in the real sense of the term, and he eloquently presents a very similar point to what you raise here. There are certain forms of "emunah" held by many observant Jews that can hardly be worthy of the term emunah and are no emunah at all. Shutting down the intellect and hiding from questions was one of these types he describes and he refers to that as actually being "kefira" (denial) because it is actually kefira of the self (denial of one's self, or lack of faith in one's self). Emunah is a struggle.
I really wish I could type up an adequate translation of the essay, but it is in very scholarly modern Hebrew and very difficult to translate. But I will bli neder post the link to this essay from the hebrewbooks website.
I will go one step further, and at the risk of being accused of apostasy state that I believe that unless one has studied the doctrines of opposing faiths and compared them to Judaism's teachings, then one really lacks a thorough understanding of what it is Jews believe that make us distinctively unique.
That's another good point, but let's at least start with studying the doctrines of the Jewish faith which most religious Jews don't even do that much. Then they can think about looking at other doctrines and comparing how Judaism is unique etc. Also other philosophies and the ideas of spinoza etc and some famous heretics and how these ideas differ or stray from the Jewish idea. But the sad reality is, most religious Jews do not even look in depth at the doctrines of Judaism and that's a tragedy.
-
Regarding Emunah it is essential for a person to be tested. One who lives a comfortable life without any external pressures will not have a lot of Emunah nor Bitachon because he will never be in a situation where he needs anything from Hashem.
Rabbi Lazer Brody from Breslov.co.il talks at length about the differences between bitachon/trust and emunah/faith and how these two middot go hand in hand in our service to Hashem.
This is a shmuz of Rabbi Schafier:
http://www.theshmuz.com/Parashat-Shemos.html
ספר שמות פרק ה
כב) וישב משה אל ידוד ויאמר אדני למה הרעתה לעם הזה למה זה שלחתני:
And Moshe returned to HASHEM and he said, “Why have you worsened that situation of this people? Why have you sent me?”
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף קיא/א
ועל דבר זה נענש משה רבינו שנאמר ומאז באתי אל פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא חבל על דאבדין ולא משתכחין הרי כמה פעמים נגליתי על אברהם יצחק ויעקב באל שדי ולא הרהרו על מדותי ולא אמרו לי מה שמך
On this matter Moshe Rabbenu was punished. HASHEM said, “It is a shame that which is lost and can no longer be found. Many times I revealed Myself to Avrohom, Yitzchak and Yaakov with the name Kel Shaki, and they never questioned Me, and they never asked me for guarantees….”
The Gemara is telling us that Moshe Rabbenu was punished because he questioned HASHEM. HASHEM commented, “It is a shame that which is lost and can no longer be found,” as if to say, “They don’t make them like they used to. Avrohom, Yitzchak, Yaakov, those were great people, but no more. Moshe, you don’t compare to them
Moshe was the single greatest human being who ever lived
The question on this Gemarah is that we know the single greatest human being who ever lived was Moshe Rabbenu. The Rambam calls him the “father” in Torah and wisdom. He was the greatest of all prophets. In fact, one of our 13 Principles of Faith is that Moshe was the greatest of all Nivi’im, of those who came before and of those who came after.
If, we know that Moshe was greater than even the Avos, how can we understand this Gemara? It is clearly telling us that Avrohom, Yitzchak and Yaakov were superior to Moshe.
The difference between Emunah and Bitachon
The answer to this question seems to lie in the basic distinction between Emunah and Bitachon. The Rambam defines Emunah as the knowledge that HASHEM created and continues to run all of creation. Simply put, nothing can exist and no activity can occur without HASHEM.
Bitachon, however, is a quite different. The Chovos Halevovos defines Bitachon as trusting in HASHEM. It is a sense of relying on HASHEM to watch over and protect us, as if to say, “I take my heavy burden and place it on HASHEM.” While I am responsible to be proactive, I am not in charge of the outcome, and I am not the determinant of the results. I rely on HASHEM to care for me.
Emunah is a state of understanding; Bitachon is a state of trust. Emunah means knowing that HASHEM is involved in every activity on the planet; Bitachon means trusting in HASHEM in this situation.
A person can have Emunah and not Bitachon
A person can have Emunah and not Bitachon. Pharaoh was a classic example. When threatened with Jewish overpopulation in the land, his solution was to throw the baby boys into the Nile. The Medrash explains that this wasn’t a flippant reaction -- it was highly calculated. HASHEM promised Noach that He wouldn’t bring another flood. HASHEM pays back “measure for measure”. Therefore, Pharaoh determined that HASHEM would want to pay back the Egyptians for killing the babies by bringing a flood. Since that couldn’t be, because of HASHEM’s promise to Noach, he felt protected from HASHEM’s wrath.
Clearly, Pharaoh understood the power of HASHEM. He realized that HASHEM watches over the world. He also understood that HASHEM acts with justice. Pharaoh had no problem with Emunah, but he sure didn’t trust in HASHEM – he rebelled. He had Emunah, but no Bitachon.
Growing in Emunah
Both Emunah and Bitachon are based on relating to the world in a deeper manner. Emunah is the understanding that HASHEM is involved in more than just the big picture issues - life and death, war, famine; disease… HASHEM is involved in the minutia of my daily life. That HASHEM is there with me, 24/7 365, all day, every day, from morning to night.
Imagine that I am walking alone on a cold February night, and a car pulls up alongside me. Three thugs jump out, and one holds a gun to my head: My level of Emunah will determine how clearly I see that my fate is not in the hands of some drug-crazed kid, but rather on the decree HASHEM made for me that previous Rosh Hashanah. Amazingly, I can have this understanding and yet lack a level of trust in HASHEM.
Bitachon requires understanding the goodness of HASHEM
To truly rely on HASHEM, there are two additional criteria I must feel: 1. That HASHEM loves me more than I love myself. 2. That HASHEM knows better than I was is for my good. After recognizing that HASHEM is involved in every action that occurs on this planet, I still must focus on the reality that I am a mortal, with limited sight and understanding. That which may appear to be in my best interest may not really be so. That which I deeply desire may actually be to my detriment, whether in this World or the World to Come.
Bitachon is predicated upon knowing that HASHEM has my best interests in mind and that He knows better than I what is for my good. When a person realizes this, and then takes their heavy load and transfers it to HASHEM -- That is Bitachon.
The answer: Moshe was greater in Emunah – the Avos were greater in Bitachon
The answer to the question seems to be that Moshe Rabbenu was on a higher level of Emunah than any other human being, then or since. He saw HASHEM with an absolute clarity. As we see a piece of wood in front of us as undeniably real, he saw HASHEM -- right there. But absolute trust in HASHEM doesn’t necessarily follow. Bitachon is something that is learnt, something that is practiced -- much like a character trait that one develops over many years, one learns, often through life experiences, to be totally, utterly trusting in the kindness of HASHEM. Apparently, the Avos reached a higher level in this regard. They had an unwavering sense of the constant goodness and lovingkindness of HASHEM; hence, they were able to be more trusting of HASHEM – even when on the surface, there were many questions to be asked. Moshe was greater in Emunah, while they were greater in Bitachon.
Stop playing G-d
This distinction has great relevance. Often our problems with faith come from this one issue: we have Emunah, but not Bitachon. We know HASHEM runs the world, but we play G-d. We assume we have the big picture all worked out. I know exactly what I need, exactly what is good for me, and for some reason HASHEM just won’t go along with the program. I know what type of job I need. I know what type of woman I need to marry. I know what schools my kids should get into. And for some reason HASHEM just won’t follow along with my wisdom.
The quantum leap forward in Bitachon comes when I sit down and ask myself: how much do I really know? How often have I assumed that one course of action would be for the best, and I was proven wrong - dead wrong? How much do I truly understand about my inner needs and my nature, what I really need to be happy? How well do I know what is ultimately best for the interests of my wife and my children, their needs, their future?
When a person comes to the core understanding that HASHEM is more concerned for my good than I am, and that HASHEM knows my needs far better than I, he comes to a different degree of trust, a different level of relying on HASHEM. He comes to true Bitachon.
-
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.
-
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”.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
“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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Gracious.
Zenith, in May, just barely 3 mos ago, you knew ZERO about the Jewish faith, now YOU are calling the shots? :laugh:
KWRBT is correct, you are way out of line.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Gracious.
Zenith, in May, just barely 3 mos ago, you knew ZERO about the Jewish faith, now YOU are calling the shots? :laugh:
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.
-
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.
-
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?
If it was to believe that the Tanakh has survived as it was written only because of the Jews, I would have not believed that it survived, but rather ignored it and said "yeah, maybe, among all that is written, something was from God, but we can't know what... if any". The reason I believe the Tanakh has survived is that God wanted it to survive and wanted it to be reliable for the people that followed. If God commanded people to write it (each what he wrote), He should have taken care that what is written is nothing more and nothing less than what He intended to be written and that what is written is preserved as the centuries pass. So, if I didn't believe in God, I couldn't have believed the Tanakh is even a bit of what it was meant, but if I believe in God, then if He commanded people to write something that has survived, then what has survived must be reliable.
so the answer to this question:
"So if this could happen to pagan cultures, why not to the Noachide precepts?"
is that, if God intended it to be preserved, it would have been preserved no matter what. And it would have been preserved so that people would have had accesss to it, if the "Noachide percepts" were required.
About the fact that "various non-jewish characters in the Tanakh appeal to some moral code",
of course that even gentiles have in their nature some moral code: everybody (or, if we consider mental-disease people and alike, almost everybody) has moral code in his nature. But the problem is that it can get perverted by the society and by the teachings he receives, and he can himself do against that moral code.
-
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.
Yeah, at least now I know that this disrespectfulness was to the sages. This should clear the fog a bit.
Now, what I have to say about this...
1. If it makes you feel better, I didn't start reading and studying the Tanakh onle a few months ago. I only started finding out what Judaism is, and thus, what Jews believe, a few months ago.
2. There's a clear difference between science and the interpretation of the Tanakh: science is provable with experiments and all the stuff (so one could use previous knowledge with confidence), while the interpretations, no matter how wise or venerated the people were, are not provable (which means that one cannot rely on them with confidence).
So these (1 and 2) make me believe that contradicting them should not be regarded as a forbidden thing, if it means anything to you.
-
Zenith asked if G-d wants the Gentiles to do the Noachide precepts, why have they survived in their full form only among the Jews?
Answer: During the time of Noah, the whole world went astray except for Noah and his family.
The Tanakh also testifies both in psalms 96:5 and I chronicles 16:26 "for all the gods of the nations are idols". According to your logic G-d would have to abrogate free will to ensure that each and every nation preserves the Noachide precepts even during the many centuries where the nations were fully corrupt. G-d doesn't work by your presumptions.
Rather as the prophet Yishayahu/Isaiah states he has set the Jewish people to be a light unto the nations (for example, 42:6) In 49:6 it says especially the prophet Yishayahu himself will have a major role in being a light unto the nations. And similarly the prophet predicted that from the Zion the Torah shall come forth (Yishayahu chapter 2)
For the sake of time and ease I will use here the Tanakh translation by Koren publishing company.
And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the L-rd's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all the nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say Come let us go up to the mountain of the L-rd, to the house of the G-d of Yaaqov; and he will teach us of his way and we will walk in his paths: for out of Ziyyon(Zion) shall go forth Tora and the word of the L-rd from Yerushalayim(Jerusalem).
-
Zenith writes
1. If it makes you feel better, I didn't start reading and studying the Tanakh onle a few months ago. I only started finding out what Judaism is, and thus, what Jews believe, a few months ago.
Did you learn the Tanakh in the original Hebrew or only the distorted and forced and plain out lying interpretations of the Christians in foreign languages?
-
Rabbi Meir Kahane addressed the first Bnai Noach Conference 1990
and provided some reasons why to be a righteous follower of the Noachide Laws.
For righteous gentiles out there who want to more research, I will provide the following links to his videos (currently elul 5770/Aug. 2010) on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dO3SnckL7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eozNE7yHFLs&p=41B5CBB2A23201FE&playnext=1&index=32
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MOcYh8aKtE&p=EA00E3F881AF42FB&playnext=1&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mflVp3debWY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=312PQa8DEtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eSZzHf7Yyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSD9whRL6WE
or search "Rabbi Meir Kahana speaks at a Bnai Noach Conference 1990"