Talmud do, Talmud don't?

[Nachshon]

rej1s said:

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

Thank you for the suggestions. If I become interested in studying Talmud they will be very helpful. But I don't believe in Oral . Before I commit that much time to studying something I'll have to be convinced it's worthwhile.
Actually, there's a website with large portions of the Talmud. I have a link someplace...
Again, thank you for the suggestions, and the offer. I really do appreciate it.

Yitzchak, I encourage you to look at the linguistic evidence I pointed out in my first post. Possibly the only good thing that came of the Reformation is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Shalom,
David

[Yitzchak]

Yitzchak, I encourage you to look at the linguistic evidence I pointed out in my first post. Possibly the only good thing that came of the Reformation is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Shalom,
David

I had read your original post. Keep in mind in my original post I stated that I believed that there is Oral , but warned that we are unsure as to what exactly the Oral is. I warned that we should not just assume that the Talmud as we have it is this Oral . You will also note that I made it clear that our authority is the scriptures alone, and that Oral in the form of the Talmud is not authoritative.

On the other hand, to assume that the only thing HaShem spoke is what we have in writing is far fetched as well. This thinking limits G-d as the Rabbi's do when they refuse to listen to the Bat Kol.

So, do not assume that because I support the notion of Oral , that I am supporting a set of documents that we have now. I do not know what is and what isn't, I just believe that we would need instruction further in some cases, as has already been pointed out.

L'Shana Tovah,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

Please forgive me if this is redundant, but I want to be sure my point is made. D'varim 31:24 says, "And it was that Mosheh made an end of writing the words of the Towrah..."
I think it is very clear.

Shalom,
David

[Rick]

Nachshon, I suggested the books for you to consider BEFORE you dismis the Talmud. Others have stated very clearly what I think is the consensus here;

I believed that there is Oral , but warned that we are unsure as to what exactly the Oral is. I warned that we should not just assume that the Talmud as we have it is this Oral . You will also note that I made it clear that our authority is the scriptures alone, and that Oral in the form of the Talmud is not authoritative.

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.

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.

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.

There is much wisdom there so long as it is in line with Scripture. Scripture is our basis from which we judge ALL commentary.
before you comment further, read, and pray.

Shalom Achi
Rick

[Yitzchak]

nachshon said:

Please forgive me if this is redundant, but I want to be sure my point is made. D'varim 31:24 says, "And it was that Mosheh made an end of writing the words of the Towrah..."
I think it is very clear.

Shalom,
David

David,

Your point has been made, as you have stated it several times. However, as Rick has pointed out, it appears that you have either not read what we have written to you, or for some reason misunderstand what we are saying.

L'Shana Tovah,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

Rick, I am not altogether against Talmud. I've read Pirkeyi Avot and a few select other passages. The main dilemma I have is that I cannot reconcile the idea of an Oral with the written One. Two out of the four quotes you posted stated that they believed in an Oral . This is what I am opposed to. Thank you again for the literature suggestions.

Shalom,
David

[Rick]

The main dilemma I have is that I cannot reconcile the idea of an Oral with the written One.

David, I have a simple view on the vs/ Oral tradition.
Let me explain it this way; Moshe wrote down the , (literally the teaching or "instructions" of Hashem). After he: "made an end of writing the words of the " Our "Instruction manual" if you will-
I believe he was also given an "explanation" of the "Instructions".
The "Explanation" is the oral tradition, or "Oral ". I think we do have at least some of these 'explanations' preserved for us in the writings of the sages.

Clear as mud?

Yom Tov, Achi,
Rick

[Pioneer]

rej1s said:

The main dilemma I have is that I cannot reconcile the idea of an Oral with the written One.

David, I have a simple view on the vs/ Oral tradition.
Let me explain it this way; Moshe wrote down the , (literally the teaching or "instructions" of Hashem). After he: "made an end of writing the words of the " Our "Instruction manual" if you will-
I believe he was also given an "explanation" of the "Instructions".
The "Explanation" is the oral tradition, or "Oral ". I think we do have at least some of these 'explanations' preserved for us in the writings of the sages.

Clear as mud?

Yom Tov, Achi,
Rick

Moshe spent forty days and forty nights on the mountain with Y H V H not even taking time to eat nor drink or sleep. Are there even forty days of information ? As many here have said there are instructions in that need further information.

I, myself find that those who do not accept any oral instructions have no trouble with anything from the Holy Ghost!
As I said before that is why there is 3500 denominations, all of the right! According to those 3500 denominations there was no Holy Ghost before before the death of Jesus. I guess they are right or half right, because there was just the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Lord, but no Holy Ghost!
We have , oral and the Holy Spirit along with the B'rit Hadashah. I am quite comfortable with that, most of the members here are also.

Shalom

[Rick]

The Bible, or written law, contains unexplained passages and hidden sentences, which can not be fully understood without the help of the oral law. Further, the written law contains generalities, whilst the oral law goes in for explanations in detail, and is consequently much larger in volume. Indeed, as a figure of speech we could apply to it the words in Job (iv. 9), "The measure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the sea." The knowledge of this oral law can not be expected to be found amongst those who are bent on enjoying earthly life and worldly pleasures; its acquisition requires the relinquishment of all worldliness, riches and pleasures, and requires intellect aided by constant study. [MIDRASH TANHUMA]

[Nachshon]

rej1s said:

The main dilemma I have is that I cannot reconcile the idea of an Oral with the written One.

David, I have a simple view on the vs/ Oral tradition.
Let me explain it this way; Moshe wrote down the , (literally the teaching or "instructions" of Hashem). After he: "made an end of writing the words of the " Our "Instruction manual" if you will-
I believe he was also given an "explanation" of the "Instructions".
The "Explanation" is the oral tradition, or "Oral ". I think we do have at least some of these 'explanations' preserved for us in the writings of the sages.

Clear as mud?

Yom Tov, Achi,
Rick

Quite clear. But I'm a fan of Salmon Ben Yerusham. Paraphrasing, he said that if Father did see fit to give an Oral , then the writers of Talmud have already violated it, because if He had wanted it written down, then He would have had Mosheh write it down, but if He gave it orally, He meant for it to be passed down orally, and by writing it down, it has been violated. So even if He did give an Oral , then the Talmud cannot be trusted, because it violates its own prinicple.

Shalom,
David

[Pioneer]

nachshon said:

rej1s said:

David, I have a simple view on the vs/ Oral tradition.
Let me explain it this way; Moshe wrote down the , (literally the teaching or "instructions" of Hashem). After he: "made an end of writing the words of the " Our "Instruction manual" if you will-
I believe he was also given an "explanation" of the "Instructions".
The "Explanation" is the oral tradition, or "Oral ". I think we do have at least some of these 'explanations' preserved for us in the writings of the sages.

Clear as mud?

Yom Tov, Achi,
Rick

Quite clear. But I'm a fan of Salmon Ben Yerusham. Paraphrasing, he said that if Father did see fit to give an Oral , then the writers of Talmud have already violated it, because if He had wanted it written down, then He would have had Mosheh write it down, but if He gave it orally, He meant for it to be passed down orally, and by writing it down, it has been violated. So even if He did give an Oral , then the Talmud cannot be trusted, because it violates its own prinicple.

Shalom,
David

In this issue you almost make a point from your lofty point of view.
Put yourself in the shoes of those who thought all will be lost they have killed almost everyone with knowledge, just like Elijah saying "What doest thou here, Elijah?
14 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

These Rabbis were just like Elijah, Only I am left and they seek my life. Their great crime was being human, Yeshua might have said to them as he did his disciples, "Oh you men of little faith."
And God said to Elijah "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Ah yes, we can look back upon them and wonder why they had so little faith in the creator of the universe! But for the grace of God, there go I!

From my view of the events of God bringing the "Children of Israel out of Egypt." Seeing all the wonders wroth, how could they slip back in to idolitry so easily. Would you or I have fared any better?

Yep! it was intended to remain oral, yeah, they violated the mandate, but they were flesh and blood and not Gods.
I remember when I was a man of little faith.

Yeshua said the one that has no sin, let him cast the first stone.

If you are absolutelly sure that there is no "Oral " and that we who accept the notion are headed to destruction. Then you are right to campaign for it to be banished. But on the other hand, if you do not have absolute proof! You just, may be, against God.

Shalom

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom 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, absolutely 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 earlier 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

I would have to say amein v'amein. I believe that this would be an accurate view of the official stance of this forum. I would also reinforce the idea that the written and the scriptures we have from Beresheet (Gen.) to Revelation are the -only- authoritative scriptures we can count on. But, that our Heavenly Father most likely provided some oral to his righteous ones. It is also known as listening to the voice of Adonai. But, we cannot as Messianic Jews and Gentiles dogmatically say that the Talmud as we have it today is all-authoritative. Can I hear any ameins?

When "oral " is presented here on the forum, it should not be presented as authoritative upon the body of Messiah. It should be tested by the written , and even then it is usually only one of many options of how to carry out a mitzvah.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[Nachshon]

pioneer said:

nachshon said:

Quite clear. But I'm a fan of Salmon Ben Yerusham. Paraphrasing, he said that if Father did see fit to give an Oral , then the writers of Talmud have already violated it, because if He had wanted it written down, then He would have had Mosheh write it down, but if He gave it orally, He meant for it to be passed down orally, and by writing it down, it has been violated. So even if He did give an Oral , then the Talmud cannot be trusted, because it violates its own prinicple.

Shalom,
David

In this issue you almost make a point from your lofty point of view.
Put yourself in the shoes of those who thought all will be lost they have killed almost everyone with knowledge, just like Elijah saying "What doest thou here, Elijah?
14 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

These Rabbis were just like Elijah, Only I am left and they seek my life. Their great crime was being human, Yeshua might have said to them as he did his disciples, "Oh you men of little faith."
And God said to Elijah "Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

Ah yes, we can look back upon them and wonder why they had so little faith in the creator of the universe! But for the grace of God, there go I!

From my view of the events of God bringing the "Children of Israel out of Egypt." Seeing all the wonders wroth, how could they slip back in to idolitry so easily. Would you or I have fared any better?

Yep! it was intended to remain oral, yeah, they violated the mandate, but they were flesh and blood and not Gods.
I remember when I was a man of little faith.

Yeshua said the one that has no sin, let him cast the first stone.

If you are absolutelly sure that there is no "Oral " and that we who accept the notion are headed to destruction. Then you are right to campaign for it to be banished. But on the other hand, if you do not have absolute proof! You just, may be, against God.

Shalom

Alright, then, let's examine the evidence in Tanakh. Deuteronomy 31:9. Mosheh wrote what?
What did Yeshua teach? "Then Yeshua answered and said to them, 'Why also do you transgress against the commandments of God because of your traditions?'" Mattai 15:3 (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) And again, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on 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, and do not. And they bind heavy burdens and place them upon the shoulders of the sons of men, but they do not desire to touch them with their fingers." Mattai 23:2-4 (from the Peshitta)

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Pioneer]

Nachshon,
Here we have Yeshua speaking to the Sadducees, two things they reject, the resurrection and the oral ; Mt 22:29 But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
These are the "Head of ther Temple" and being accused of not knowing the scriptures!! Plus not knowing the power of God!!! Being a Pharissee showing human nature, being a hypocrite,
no doubt not a desired attribute, but a far piece from not knowing the scriptures and the power of God.
Like I said I am not sure about the Oral , so I m not arguing about it. Just your stand is about as absolute as one can get. Can you prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Or a perponderance of the evdience? Since it has been argued for centuries and it is still as volatile as it has ever been, I am afraid it won't be proven today.
Shalom

[Nachshon]

No, you're right. It will not be proven today. My object is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have a reasonable stance.
In the case you mentioned, kept in context, it is clear that He is dealing with their lack of belief in the resurrection, a doctrine that their descendants, the Karaites, have rejected. Why did He not address their lack of faith in Oral , as He evidently attacked at least certain Talmudic laws so blatantly?

Shalom,
Nachshon