Talmud do, Talmud don't?

[Walter]

yitzchak said:

Akhiy Yitzchak, please realise that I write this in all humility, not intending to make accusations, and with great respect for your years and your study, wisdom, and dedication to Father. However, I must object. For much of your post you avoided the issue. I would like to go over this point by point.
1) I think you either missed or avoided his point. He was saying that Yeshua could not have taught from Talmud because Talmud was not written until after Yeshua's time. Please understand, I know that Oral existed before Yeshua. However, this needed to be explained to our friend.
2) I believe that was his point.
3) Why did you not adress what he said? Rather you attacked his usage of a word that you do not use. His point was not about using Yodh-hey-waw-hey. Had he said Adonay, how would you have answered that sentence? Aside from that, you know as well as I that Hebrew had no vowels until the time of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali. To say that a Hebrew word does not exist because the Massoretes chose not to include vowels is petty.
4) This point I will pass over.
I need to go right now, I may come back to this later.

Nachson,

With all due respect, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

I did not enter the discussion to answer his points. I entered the discussion because he was acting as if the opinion of one individual was the policy of the forum.

Both Natanel, and myself, both of whom are moderators here, asked him to re-read the entire thread. We did so because on many occassions it has been said that the Talmud is not to accepted, or venerated above the Scriptures. He chose to ignore these posts, and to continue to make bold statements.

It was these statements which I chose to address. I have a hard time when people lose sight of the blessing they have from Avinu that He chose to pull them out of darkness. We should not be arrogant towards those who have not yet been illuminated in this way.

Simply stated, he was asking questions which were clearly answered on the thread.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

See people are reading into what I posted.

I NEVER made any accusations that this board or it's members hold the talmud above Scripture.

I was just stating MY position on it, and do I have to read everyones elses post before I state mine?

I view the oral law as of MAN, not Elohim, thus not needed.

To those who claim it is of Elohim I ask "Then why did He not write it down with the rest of His law"
and
"Do you trust all those men thru whom it was supposedly passed thru to have been faithful and accurate?"

You also have to admitt that there are some (I'm not saying here) that while not putting talmud ABOVE Scripture, put it at a close second, and make it "esential and neccesary" to matters of faith.


When people get very defensive about something, it reveals the place it holds in their heart - don't you think.

I'm NOT opposed to the Law of Elohim ONE LITTLE BIT, as you can see from my post in another area, just opposed to men ADDING to it or EXPANDING it farther than Scripture does.

Yeshua's yoke is light, till men add on to it.

[Yitzchak]

walter said:

I don't understand why followers of Yeshua want to esteem and use a book that was writen by men who deny Yeshua and thus don't know The Father. ;D

They are blinded guides who can't properly understand Scripture, that don't have The Spirit of Elohim to lead them into Truth.

Why turn to un-regenerated men who lacked the Wisdom of Elohim when we have The Spirit of Elohim and The Mind of Messiah.

Walter,

This is the post that both I and Natanel responded to. It is not addressed to any individual. Who are we to understand you are speaking to?

Specifically, the post just before ths one is written by me. In that post I make it clear that the (Gen - Rev) is the foundation and guide for all that we do. Not the Talmud.

As the leadership of this forum made it clear throughout the thread what their position is regarding Talmud, do you not see how your words could be taken?

My answer to Nachson was not meant to offend you, or anyone else here. I was simply stating why I felt it necessary to take a position. Nobody is required to read every thread when they post their opinion, but I think you could have worded your post differently.

Please forgive me if you took offense.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

I asked Nehemia Gordon about the DSS supporting the idea that the Saduccees had their own oral tradition. His reaction was, and I quote, "LOL. That's one of the funniest things I have ever heard."
I dunno...

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Chizuk Emunah]

nachshon said:

I asked Nehemia Gordon about the DSS supporting the idea that the Saduccees had their own oral tradition. His reaction was, and I quote, "LOL. That's one of the funniest things I have ever heard."
I dunno...

Shalom,
Nachshon

Well, I don't agree with Nehemiah Gordon on many issues, so this particular one doesn't surprise me too much.

What was previously mentioned, was that DSS 4Q MMT proves that all major sects had developed halacha by the 1st Cent. The Pharisees had their own, the Sadducees their own, and the Essenes had their own (as proved by 4Q MMT). The actual source for proving the Tzaddokim had their own halacha comes from the Megilla Ta'anit. The Megilla Ta'anit records that the Tzaddokim halachot were written down in a book called the "Book of Decrees." And it is thought that since many of them were Hellenists by the 1st Cent., the book was written in Greek and called the Biblion Dogmaton.

Shavua Tov,
Natanel

[Nachshon]

I've gotten out my translation of the DSS, but I'm not finding DSS 4Q MMT in the index. Oughtn't it have a number, as in "4Q 427"?
Megilla Ta'anit, being a Rabbinic source, ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but here is a very good explanation, methinks, of what was probably in the Book of Decrees: www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html
Remember, I do not think that tradition is bad. It is only bad when we elevate it to the same level as , and insist that it be kept.

[Chizuk Emunah]

nachshon said:

I've gotten out my translation of the DSS, but I'm not finding DSS 4Q MMT in the index. Oughtn't it have a number, as in "4Q 427"?
Megilla Ta'anit, being a Rabbinic source, ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but here is a very good explanation, methinks, of what was probably in the Book of Decrees: www.livius.org/saa-san/sadducees/sadducees.html
Remember, I do not think that tradition is bad. It is only bad when we elevate it to the same level as , and insist that it be kept.

It does have a number, let me look it up real quick.

There are actually two manuscripts called 4Q MMT. They are 4Q 394 and 4Q 396. If you don't have these, I'll provide you with a link from U Penn.

Shalom,
Natanel

[Nachshon]

Ah. Thank you. I've started reading it. I haven't gotten through it yet. I really need to be doing my science homework, so it may be this evening before I get back to you.

[Nachshon]

Natan'el, perhaps you had better explain what I missed. I just finished reading Miqsat Ma'ase HaTorah (4Q394-399) and I didn't see where it said or implied that the Saduccees had an oral tradition. I did find something interesting that the Essenes said, though, "Consequently, you will rejoice at the end of time when you discover that some of our sayings are true." (from 4Q398, another ms of MMT. According to The Complete DSS in English) They didn't even expect to be correct in all of their halacha. Only in "some."

[Chizuk Emunah]

nachshon said:

Natan'el, perhaps you had better explain what I missed. I just finished reading Miqsat Ma'ase HaTorah (4Q394-399) and I didn't see where it said or implied that the Saduccees had an oral tradition. I did find something interesting that the Essenes said, though, "Consequently, you will rejoice at the end of time when you discover that some of our sayings are true." (from 4Q398, another ms of MMT. According to The Complete DSS in English) They didn't even expect to be correct in all of their halacha. Only in "some."

You misunderstood. All that MMT proves is that the Essenes had their own established halacha.

The actual source for proving the Tzaddokim had their own halacha comes from the Megilla Ta'anit. The Megilla Ta'anit records that the Tzaddokim halachot were written down in a book called the "Book of Decrees."

Shalom Achi,
Natanel

[Nachshon]

*bangs head on desk* I feel smart now. Thank you for explaining. I feel really smoothe. lol. Okay...now I'm going to crawl into a corner and turn very, very red.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Chizuk Emunah]

No worries.

[Mpossoff]

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.

Hi all,

Can't we find these answers in the ?

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.

That kind of makes sense in a way.

Now there is nothing wrong with tradition in my opinion.

So if one wants to go by tradition/Talmud/Oral Law on how to observe Sabbath as example that's fine I believe.

Currently I lean to what the says.

From the looks of it so far there seems to be very few Sabbath commands. When I started to look I was shocked. Why? Because I know in Orthodox Judaism, correct me if I'm wrong, there are somewhere in the range of 39 or so categories of 'forbidden work'. Now I don't find that in the . If it's there someone please refer me to the text.

Like I said if one wants to follow Oral Law that is wonderful.

Marc

[Nachshon]

Regarding Oral , this is a tragedy that I encountered today. I went to the Kotel Hama'arviy. A Chassid saw my kippa and tzit-tziyot, but also saw that I didn't have tephillin. When he got closer, he also noticed that my tzit-tziyot were not normal. (I'm wearing my Karaite Tzit-tziyot today), so he asked me if I was Jewish. I said yes, but he was asking me about not wearing tephillin, etc. So I explained Karaite Halacha, that I do not accept the Oral , only the Written . I thought it was extremely when his reply was, "Oh, so you're not Jewish."
It was a little funny, though, because another Chassid came up and they started arguing about whether or not I was Jewish. The one goes "Look, he's wearting tzit-tziyot" and the other replies, "Yes, but look at them!"

Shalom ma'aretz haqoddesh,
Nachshon

[Chizuk Emunah]

Well, I think it's that the Karaites have rejected Sheba'al Peh (The Oral ) because there is so much that is lost without it. Even the Tzaddokim (the Saducees, from who the Karaites claim spiritual descendency) wore tefillin. But just because one does not keep Sheba'al Peh, that certainly does not make them Goyim!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. One simply cannot fully follow the mitzvot in Shebikhtav (The Written ) without Sheba'al Peh.

Marc, within Shebikhtav there are certain mitzvot alluded to that are not fully explained.
These include Shabbat, Kashrut, Mezuzot, Tefillin, and Tzitzit.
Why are they not explained? Because HaShem gave halachic authority to Moshe to fully explain how to observe the mitzvot and Moshe's authority has been passed down through the ages.

[Nachshon]

Natanel, I have little desire to argue with your statments. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. the "so much is unexplained" argument is the favourite of every Rabbanite on earth, and it's one of those arguments that I highly doubt anyone is going to ever win, on either side. I've felt like I slaughtered Rabbanites at it, and they came away with the same feeling about me. Why bother? Be fully convinced in your own mind. My point was not regarding whether or not Oral exists. I was saying I think it is that we are so often divided over this issue.
No Rabbi but Rabbiy Yehoshu'a HaMashiyakh. Mattai 23:8-10.

Shalom ma'iyr haqoddesh,
Nachshon