Talmud do, Talmud don't?

[Mpossoff]

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. Even Rabbi Y'hoshua recognized this authority and passed it along to his talmidim.

Does Moshe explain how to observe the mitzvot?

If so then Oral should jive with Moshe's explanations?

I guess my question is Oral necessary to fullfil the requirements?

Example:

Exodus 35:1-3

Then Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said to them, “These are the words which the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3 You shall kindle no fire throughout your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”

As quoted I believe from Nachson

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.

Moshe didn't make this up. As text says These are the words which the LORD has commanded you to do

So it wasn't from Moshe it was from Hashem through Moshe.

For me I don't need Oral to 'figure out' the above passage. I'm not saying that Oral is bad by any means, I'm asking if Oral is necessary to fullfil the written requirements as above pertaining to the Sabbath as an example.

And if I didn't observe the Sabbath as per Oral would one get the same response as Nachson because he didn't follow Oral ?

My point is that, I'll use Nachson as an example, Nachson was judged per say based on Oral . Does that make it right?

If it does make it right then Oral is equal or above written .

If it doesn't then there is something wrong.

Marc

[Chizuk Emunah]

nachshon said:

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

I know. The greatest Rebbe to ever walk on the face of the Earth was Moshe Rabbeinu!

[Chizuk Emunah]

mpossoff said:

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. Even Rabbi Y'hoshua recognized this authority and passed it along to his talmidim.

Does Moshe explain how to observe the mitzvot?

Sort-of. HaShem explained it to Moshe, and then Moshe explained it to Am Yisrael.

I guess my question is Oral necessary to fullfil the requirements?

Rabbi Y'hoshua seemed to think so.

Example:

As quoted I believe from Nachson, "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."

I would say that some leeway was given, but not to the extent that HaShem allows to just go around making stuff up. If this were the case, then HaShem set us up for failure at Sinai. I don't believe he would have done such a thing.

Moshe didn't make this up. As text says These are the words which the LORD has commanded you to do

So it wasn't from Moshe it was from Hashem through Moshe.

100% Correct!

And if I didn't observe the Sabbath as per Oral would one get the same response as Nachson because he didn't follow Oral ?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that it is not my position to judge someone else. If they decide not to keep the Oral , then that is their prerogative.

My point is that, I'll use Nachson as an example, Nachson was judged per say based on Oral . Does that make it right?

Again, we are not in a position to have the authority to judge someone else's walk. Only someone vested with that authority could make that decision.

If it does make it right then Oral is equal or above written .

I hold that Sheba'al Peh is equal to Shebikhtav.

[Mark]

It is important to understand that Talmud (as written text) is a fairly modern document. The first printing wasn't until the early 1520s. The earliest texts that are used go back to the ninth and tenth centuries (found in the Vatican, interestingly enough). This gives some important context to the perspective of the writers, compilers and translators of the Talmud.

When studying Talmud, one finds that some of the writing is not so much pro- as it may be considered "anti-Christian". This isn't suprising when you consider the relationship between Jews and Christians during the 1500s. It wasn't pretty. So, much of Talmudic writings, even in its explanations of interpretation, is strongly biased against any familial relationship to Christianity.

Is Talmud Oral ? We must admit that it cannot be completely because there are statements of Talmud that clearly and directly contradict . Is Oral found in Talmud? I believe that there were very godly and righteous contributors to the compilation of Talmud; and the origins of many thoughts found within its volumes date back to Abraham and Moses. I would say there must be truth in that idea; yet, how do we determine what is Oral and what are the ideas of man? Keep in mind that while many of the original thoughts and ideas found in Talmud are Scripturally based, they have been rehearsed and retranslated by men who have their own agendas. It is no more immune to anti-Yeshua and anti-Christian tendencies than our English Bibles are to anti-semitism.

[Mpossoff]

Mark,

Where are the Oral Laws found?

As an example the Oral Laws on how to observe the Sabbath?

Marc

mark said:

It is important to understand that Talmud (as written text) is a fairly modern document. The first printing wasn't until the early 1520s. The earliest texts that are used go back to the ninth and tenth centuries (found in the Vatican, interestingly enough). This gives some important context to the perspective of the writers, compilers and translators of the Talmud.

When studying Talmud, one finds that some of the writing is not so much pro- as it may be considered "anti-Christian". This isn't suprising when you consider the relationship between Jews and Christians during the 1500s. It wasn't pretty. So, much of Talmudic writings, even in its explanations of interpretation, is strongly biased against any familial relationship to Christianity.

Is Talmud Oral ? We must admit that it cannot be completely because there are statements of Talmud that clearly and directly contradict . Is Oral found in Talmud? I believe that there were very godly and righteous contributors to the compilation of Talmud; and the origins of many thoughts found within its volumes date back to Abraham and Moses. I would say there must be truth in that idea; yet, how do we determine what is Oral and what are the ideas of man? Keep in mind that while many of the original thoughts and ideas found in Talmud are Scripturally based, they have been rehearsed and retranslated by men who have their own agendas. It is no more immune to anti-Yeshua and anti-Christian tendencies than our English Bibles are to anti-semitism.

[Chizuk Emunah]

mark said:

It is important to understand that Talmud (as written text) is a fairly modern document. The first printing wasn't until the early 1520s. The earliest texts that are used go back to the ninth and tenth centuries (found in the Vatican, interestingly enough). This gives some important context to the perspective of the writers, compilers and translators of the Talmud.

I would argue that the printed Talmud is fairly recent. But the Talmud itself was written, compiled, and redacted over the course of 500yrs, from 900 BCE until it was completed in the 5th Cent.

When studying Talmud, one finds that some of the writing is not so much pro- as it may be considered "anti-Christian". This isn't suprising when you consider the relationship between Jews and Christians during the 1500s. It wasn't pretty. So, much of Talmudic writings, even in its explanations of interpretation, is strongly biased against any familial relationship to Christianity.

These biases have been refuted. See quotes below.

"By selectively citing various passages from the Talmud and Midrash, polemicists have sought to demonstrate that Judaism espouses hatred for non-Jews (and specifically for Christians), and promotes obscenity, sexual perversion, and other immoral behavior. To make these passages serve their purposes, these polemicists frequently mistranslate them or cite them out of context (wholesale fabrication of passages is not unknown)...
In distorting the normative meanings of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed close to two thousand years ago by people living in cultures radically different from our own. They are thus able to ignore Judaism's long history of social progress and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion.
Those who attack the Talmud frequently cite ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice.
source: Anti-Defamation League"

"Anti-Talmud accusations have a long history dating back to the 13th century when the associates of the Inquisition attempted to defame Jews and their religion [see Yitzchak Baer, A History of Jews in Christian Spain, vol. I pp. 150-185]. The early material compiled by hateful preachers like Raymond Martini and Nicholas Donin remain the basis of all subsequent accusations against the Talmud. Some are true, most are false and based on quotations taken out of context, and some are total fabrications [see Baer, ch. 4 f. 54, 82 that it has been proven that Raymond Martini forged quotations]. On the Internet today we can find many of these old accusations being rehashed...
source: Rabbi Gil Student"

Is Talmud Oral ? We must admit that it cannot be completely because there are statements of Talmud that clearly and directly contradict . Is Oral found in Talmud? I believe that there were very godly and righteous contributors to the compilation of Talmud; and the origins of many thoughts found within its volumes date back to Abraham and Moses. I would say there must be truth in that idea; yet, how do we determine what is Oral and what are the ideas of man? Keep in mind that while many of the original thoughts and ideas found in Talmud are Scripturally based, they have been rehearsed and retranslated by men who have their own agendas. It is no more immune to anti-Yeshua and anti-Christian tendencies than our English Bibles are to anti-semitism.

The Talmud does not just contain halacha, but also contains aggadah as well. This statement sums it up pretty well.

"The Talmud contains a vast amount of material and touches on a great many subjects. Traditionally Talmudic statements can be classified into two broad categories, Halakhic and Agaddic statements. Halakhic statements are those which directly relate to questions of Jewish law and practice (Halakha). Aggadic statements are those which are not legally related, but rather are exegetical, homiletical, ethical or historical in nature."
quote from wikipedia: Talmud

That being said, is there bias to be found within the Talmud? Possibly. But I haven't seen it, and the above scholars have researched and subsequently refuted claims of bias.

Where are the Oral Laws found?

As an example the Oral Laws on how to observe the Sabbath?

Shalom Marc, I know you asked this of Mark, but I wanted to let you know where to find them. They can be found in the Mishnah, Tractate Shabbat, 7:2. They're there, but hard to find. There's a lot of dialog you have to get through to find them.

Shalom,
Natanel

[Mark]

I understand your position, Natanel. I've read the sources and their refutations that the texts refering to Yeshua must not have been speaking of the Christian Messiah. I'm afraid that I don't buy it; especially since many Jewish authorities use these same texts to discredit our Messiah.

There are statements in Talmud that are outright hostile toward Christainity and cannot be interpretted as any other way. Again, this hostility is not without historical justification (they were being robbed and in some cases, slaughtered by Christians). Yet, we cannot presume that these texts are unbiased nor under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Early rabbinics did not even suggest that Talmud was inspired; though para-bioblical stories have always been found to hold value. It was necessary to maintain the distinction between Tanakh and other writings- thus is why the Talmud is separate. It hasn't been until recently that in rabbinic Judaism, Talmud is given greater weight and authority (in some Rabbinical circles) than even the Tanakh.

Paul found value in the ancient sayings; yet He concludes that all Scripture (grapha: writings- Talmud had not yet been written as such) are profitable... so the man of God may be complete. (2nd Timothy 3:16-17. By such a statement we can legitimately argue that while Talmud may have value, it may also be considered unnecessary.

[Mpossoff]

Hi Mark,

Although I'm just a 'baby' in my walk I think Talmud could have some value and not necessary.

From from my experience the Talmud is equal in authority to the TaNaK.

As from my grandmother's experience, a observant/G-d fearing woman, she didn't use the Talmud. Most likely because it wan't necessary for her to live a observant life.

Marc

[Chizuk Emunah]

mark said:

I understand your position, Natanel. I've read the sources and their refutations that the texts refering to Yeshua must not have been speaking of the Christian Messiah. I'm afraid that I don't buy it; especially since many Jewish authorities use these same texts to discredit our Messiah.

Yes, but many of those same authorities also use the NT say that Ribi Y'hoshua did away with . I guess we will also find both Chri*tian and Jewish scholars who misunderstand these writings.

There are statements in Talmud that are outright hostile toward Christainity and cannot be interpretted as any other way. Again, this hostility is not without historical justification (they were being robbed and in some cases, slaughtered by Christians). Yet, we cannot presume that these texts are unbiased nor under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Early rabbinics did not even suggest that Talmud was inspired; though para-bioblical stories have always been found to hold value. It was necessary to maintain the distinction between Tanakh and other writings- thus is why the Talmud is separate. It hasn't been until recently that in rabbinic Judaism, Talmud is given greater weight and authority (in some Rabbinical circles) than even the Tanakh.

I cannot comment on the portions that may or not be anti-Chri*tianity, but I can attest to the fact that one can be anti-Chri*tianity and not attack a Jew that was shomer- (Ribi Y'hoshua).

By such a statement we can legitimately argue that while Talmud may have value, it may also be considered unnecessary.

Again, I refer to Ribi Y'hoshua. He lived and taught according to Sheba'al Peh. Many of his teachings were also aggadic in nature. Is the aggadah necessary? Not really, but can be encouraging. But is the halacha necessary? I would argue that it is.