Talmud do, Talmud don't?

[Natan-El]

I was curious as to everyone's opinion on the Talmud, and whether or not these men, like Paul, were led of the Spirit to write any of this.

Personally, I haven't made up my mind. I know that this is definitely outside of the realm of what Adonai has told us to observe, but what if, like some of the new testament it's just commentary by men who were "visited" by the Spirit of G-d?

[Mark]

First, we understand Talmud to be a collection of rabbinical understandings over time. It is not authoritative- it' s not even meant to be. In many cases, it is open ended debate, rabbinical scholars give multiple aspects of a particular issue without ever coming to consensus.

Talmud is a theological library that is valuable in gaining a perspective of men who are recognized as having walked with and who have a deep grasp of God's Word. Have you ever been in a pastor's library? There are often thousands of books that he consults on various cultural and theological subjects. He doesn't consider these books inspired or even necessarily authoritative; but having value, knowing that these authors have spent more time and often great resources investigating the subjects that they have written about.

Talmud is the rabbinical "pastor's library". It should not be considered anything more; but shouldn't be disdained as anything less. There is great value in the writings of Talmud. It also has it's share of hogwash. is our foundation by which everything is compared the point of reference from which we interpret all things. haTorah (Joshua through Malachai in most English translations) is inspired writ that builds upon that foundation- not adding to it; but affirming it. Brit Hadashah (New Testament) is inspired commentary that confirms the applications of and extends its message beyond the borders of Israel.

Where Talmud agrees with Scripture, we agree, and value its insights. Where Talmud contradicts Scripture, we disregard- remembering that Talmud was not wriiten by one author, nor was it contrived over one century; but is a collection of Jewish thought that spans nearly a thousand years of Hebrew intelect.

[Chizuk Emunah]

Where Talmud agrees with Scripture, we agree, and value its insights. Where Talmud contradicts Scripture, we disregard

On this general principle I would agree, but would take it one step further. Since I firmly believe that HaShem gave Moshe an Oral as well as the Written , then I would say that from the Midrashim, Gemara, and Talmud, these works could be considered authoritative so long as they meet the following requirements:
1. They don't contradict the Written
2. They don't contradict Yeshua's halacha
3. They don't contradict the halacha of the Yerushalayim Beit Din (as headed by Ya'akov HaTzeddik)

Whether or not they are considered authoritative by the Messianic Community is currently a matter of debate... So, as it stands, it is up to each individual household to decide the matter for themselves.

[Blake]

As with many things there is much to be learned in the Talmud which is true and right, but there is some that is not true. Read with the Spirit and you will be benefited, read it without and you will not.
Ben-Avigor gives very good quidelines.

[Rick]

Where Talmud agrees with Scripture, we agree, and value its insights. Where Talmud contradicts Scripture, we disregard

1. They don't contradict the Written
2. They don't contradict Yeshua's halacha
3. They don't contradict the halacha of the Yerushalayim Beit Din (as headed by Ya'akov HaTzeddik)

Mark and Natanel ben-Avigdor, well said. I apply the same standard to both ends of the spectrum. I think there is much wisdom in both the Rabbinic writings, and some of the "Christian" commentary's. We have to sift out the nuggets with the sieve of Scripture, and toss what doesn't meet that standard.

[Yitzchak]

notzriyehudi said:

Where Talmud agrees with Scripture, we agree, and value its insights. Where Talmud contradicts Scripture, we disregard

On this general principle I would agree, but would take it one step further. Since I firmly believe that HaShem gave Moshe an Oral as well as the Written , then I would say that from the Midrashim, Gemara, and Talmud, these works could be considered authoritative so long as they meet the following requirements:
1. They don't contradict the Written
2. They don't contradict Yeshua's halacha
3. They don't contradict the halacha of the Yerushalayim Beit Din (as headed by Ya'akov HaTzeddik)

Whether or not they are considered authoritative by the Messianic Community is currently a matter of debate... So, as it stands, it is up to each individual household to decide the matter for themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree with the issuance of an Oral by HaShem. However, I think we need to be careful in attributing the Talmud as such, and I am glad you used the word "could" be.

We must keep in mind that there is specific references to Yeshua in the Talmud, which are not pleasant. There are instances where the believing community is dicussed as well, and this is not pleasant. So, as it has been said, we are not to look at it as authoritative.

I think Mark brings up the most relevant point, and that is the fact that Gemara is open ended debate, which in many cases does not settle an issue.


Also, one must keep in mind that the present Rabbinic authority, and those that compiled the Talmud were operating outside of the prescribed Kahal desired by HaShem, under Moshiach Yeshua.

As it relates to the Messianic communities acceptance, I would direct you to one of the most famous debates in the Talmud. "Not in the Heavens", which is the debate regarding Achnai's oven. This sets up the pattern for Halakhic authority as we know it in traditional non-Messianic Judaism. Even the Bat Kol is ignored.

With all that said, I have studied the Talmud since my youth, and continue to do so. I think any writing that speaks of the revelation of Adonai will have some nuggets of gold to glean.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The Talmud is no doubt helpful in many respects, but no where does , Nevi'im, nor do the Ketuvim say that it is authoritative on the same level of the TeNaKh...nor, should it be considered on the same level of authority as the writings of the very talmidim of Yeshua HaMashiach. Yitzchak makes excellent points. The Talmud is a body of mixed writings from various sages and rabbis. Several of the writings therein condemn our faith. So, are we to pick and choose from Talmud?....Wouldn't it all be authoritative if it was truly a homogenious work of Adonai?? But, clearly it is not, or we would have to all deny our faith in Yeshua this very moment. This should be sobering.

We should be very careful to elevate a body of work to being authoritative in the body of Mashiach when it was written by men that -did not- believe in Yeshua and many of them even held contempt for our Messiah. Again, there is much good wisdom found in these volumes and much to be considered. It certainly should not be thrown out all together just as we would not through out your local Messianic rabbi's teachings today...But, test them, try them, and use what you can...but, just as you don't elevate your current rabbi's words to the authority on par with Adonai's, don't do it with the Talmud....For we have no proof what was from Elohim and what was not. If it doesn't contradict ...it is probably from Adonai...but, we know some of it does contradict Adonai's instruction.

Shalom aleychem chaverim,

Reuel

[Nachshon]

I am forced to disagree to some extent with what has been said. As to the commentary, etc. that is well and good, though I often find myself disagreeing with the rabbinic commentary. Where I must disagree is with regards to an oral . I cannot help but disagree with its existence. "And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel." Deuteronomy 31:9
You are Hebrew scholars. You know that the prefix "ha" is not only "this" but "the" aswell. "wayyichtov mosheh eth-hatowrah" is "and wrote Mosheh the ." Mosheh wrote both "this" and "the" . The . The only . What does say, then? Does it not say, "The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it." Deuteronomy 13:1 (Stone)
And what did Yeshua say reguarding it? "Why also do you transgress against the commandments of God because of your traditions?" Mattai 15:3b (Younan) and again, "And they revere me in vain, while they teach the doctrines of the commandments of the sons of men." Mattai 15:9 (Younan)
I do not intend to accuse you of purposefully breaking , but I cannot reconcile the idea of an Oral with the and the words of Yeshua. Did Yeshua not also say, "The scribes and P'rushim sit in the seat of Mosheh. Therefore, everything that he says to you that you should, keep and do. But not according to their deeds, for they talk, but do not." Mattai 23:2-3 (from the Peshitta)
Oral is nothing more and nothing less than adding to the words of YHWH. Whatever Mosheh says, I desire to do. But I do not want to walk in the ways of the P'rushim, because they talk, but do not.
I do not mean to accuse. I don't believe it is wrong to obey the Oral (except in the cases you've pointed out, where it clearly disagrees with the commands of Tora and the hallacha of Yeshua) but I do believe that it is a violation of to insist on these traditions as anything more than that: traditions.

Shalom,
David

[Chizuk Emunah]

And here I disagree with you Nachshon. Let me illustrate why.

One of the mitzvot says,"Honor Shabbat and keep it holy." How on Earth are we to know how to honor Shabbat and keep it holy without any sort of instruction to go along with it?

Also, another mitzvah says to "slaughter an animal after the manner that I have proscribed." Proscribed? Where in the Written does it tell us how to properly slaughter an animal?

Quite simply there has to be an Oral otherwise we would not know how to keep the most basic of mitzvot that HaShem has given to us.

As for Y'hoshua's position (keep in mind that he was a P'rush), feel free to post your thoughts here,"Yeshua's Halacha. I know I haven't posted anything in it in a while, but may be more motivated if I was sure there were more people interested.

[Nachshon]

I beg to differ. I think Father purposefully gave us leeway. He gave us room to serve as He wants us to, because it's not the same for everyone. Reading Talmud, we wind up with discussions about how big the door of your Sukka can be. Pilpul! What does Sha'ul say about "endless genealogies"? (I Tim 1:4)

On the contrary, I think Scripture is quite clear that Mosheh wrote the , as I have shown.

Shalom,
David

[Pioneer]

To those who doubt if there is or was an Oral , answer me this, why would Yeshua say to the Sadducees, "Not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."? These were the head of the Preists, in charge of the Temple.
Kinda heavy a charge! Just what was missing in their theology?
PARDES & resurrection! It is clear to me that without Oral it would be every man is right in his own eyes. There would be 3500 denominations and all of them right? LOL

I'm through.

[Rick]

Nachshon, I would like to recommend to you a couple books that might help in giving you a foundation from which to begin looking into Talmud/Oral .
They are as follows;
"Wisdom of the Talmud" by Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser
"Gateway to the Talmud" by Rabbi Meir Zvi Bergman
And "The Talmud. (Selections from)" by H. Polano

These are where I started. I also Have the entire Babylonian Talmud in digital if you would like a copy emailed. I also have it in the form of a Topic file for eSword. I have the entire Talmud Yerushalmi in PDF, (untranslated, HUGE file).
I also have a few Midrash tracts. If interested I can provide these resources to anyone on the forum.

Shalom uv'rachah b'Yeshua HaMashiach
Rick

[Chizuk Emunah]

I'd definitely be interested Rick. I've read bits and pieces here and there, but definitely do not have anything so comprehensive.

[Yitzchak]

As this is a very important and controversial subject, it is worth repeating some points.

In my mind the most difficult issue with the subject of "Oral " is not whether it exists, but in what form it exists.

I for one, absolutey believe that there is Oral . I absolutely believe that Moshe received instruction from HaShem that he did not write down.

The problem that I have is that I cannot accept that what we presently have as the Talmud is without question these instructions.

This is where I must repeat an ealier point. The Rabbi's who compiled this work over centuries, were operating outside of the Kahal which was to be established according to .

Too many people within Messianic Judaism want so to identify with the Rabbinic Judaism, that they are willing to accept whatever the Rabbi's say. This is compromise, and is not consistent with our relationship with the Living .

We are not called to be accepted by Rabbinic Judaism. We are called to be set apart. Rabbinic Judaism needs to be accepted by us, as we are the true followers of the that was established by, and given through Moshiach Yeshua.

As has been stated by my most learned of brothers. Read the Talmud, study the Talmud, be encouraged by it where is lines up with , but do not be deceived into thinking that it stands as equal to or higher than .

L'Shana Tovah

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

pioneer said:

To those who doubt if there is or was an Oral , answer me this, why would Yeshua say to the Sadducees, "Not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."? These were the head of the Preists, in charge of the Temple.
Kinda heavy a charge! Just what was missing in their theology?
PARDES & resurrection! It is clear to me that without Oral it would be every man is right in his own eyes. There would be 3500 denominations and all of them right? LOL

I'm through.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Until Mashiach returns, it is each man doing what is right in his own eyes. So we pray daily for His return.

Shalom,
David