How do you tie your tzitzit?

[Nachshon]

When did Yeshua ever add to ? If He made the way narrower, then He is a heretic, as we are commanded to not add to the .
My way is not just "good enough." you have been unable to prove that Father requires a certain shade of blue.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Pioneer]

nachshon said:

When did Yeshua ever add to ? If He made the way narrower, then He is a heretic, as we are commanded to not add to the .
My way is not just "good enough." you have been unable to prove that Father requires a certain shade of blue.

Shalom,
Nachshon

Kinda read into things, don't you?
His "But I say" narrowed the WAY of the Mitzvot! Which ever way you want to translate way, either derech or halakah!
If you walk in his footsteps or follow his Tightening or Loosening of halakah. The WAY is Narrow!

Not here to fight with you! I don't think Yeshua would be offended by my saying "Close, only counts in Horseshoes."
He would proably think it a funny way to say "Narrow is the way."

Shalom

[Nachshon]

No. I just read them. Rabbanites read into them. Talmud teaches you to read between the lines. Karaism teaches you to read black words on white pages.
None of Yeshua's commands are anything that wasn't in already. He merely pointed them out. Yeshua didn't add, He merely explained. And He said nothing about what colour to make your tzit-tzioth.

I don't think Yeshua would be offended by me telling you that you've broken the camel's back. A humorous way to say "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" or "they put heavy burdens on the backs of men" or "Do not add."
Please do not patronize me.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Chizuk Emunah]

The only thing that bothers me about the Rabbinic way of doing it is that they insist that theirs is the only way, and thus add to the .

I would define halacha not as adding to the , but rather interpreting it properly. A close examination of all the different sects of Judaism will show that they each maintain their own set of halacha. Even with the Orthodox community you have different halachot for Modern Orthodox, Ashkenazim, S'fardim, Yemenite, Chabad, and Chasidism.

When did Yeshua ever add to ? If He made the way narrower, then He is a heretic, as we are commanded to not add to the .

Whether people agree with it or not, the plain simple fact is that while Rabbi Y'hoshua did not add to the , he did in fact agree with P'rushim halacha on almost every occasion.

If one considers halacha to be "adding" to the , then I would have to disagree with that position. For halacha is not adding to the , but applying practical application. That's what this subforum is all about, "Practical Observance." It could just as well have been titled "Halacha." One other thing to keep in mind is that the existed in it's Oral form for about two thousand years before being written down by Moshe at Har Sinai.

[Nachshon]

I tend to think He agreed more with the Zadukay halacha, as you know.

[Nachshon]

Oh, and my objection was not to anyone saying that He fulfilled (i.e. properly interpreted) , but rather the idea that He narrowed the way. That I would consider adding to . If it was implicit in the original command, I have no problem with that. If one is to say that He made it narrower than it was in the beginning, I must take issue with that interpretation.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Yitzchak]

nachshon said:

No. I just read them. Rabbanites read into them. Talmud teaches you to read between the lines. Karaism teaches you to read black words on white pages.
None of Yeshua's commands are anything that wasn't in already. He merely pointed them out. Yeshua didn't add, He merely explained. And He said nothing about what colour to make your tzit-tzioth.

Nachson,

The truth of the matter is that we are not able to always deal with black words on white pages. How so? Well the black words on white pages command that we do things which we are no longer capable of doing. We do not have a Temple for instance.

Further, as has been pointed out, their was an oral tradition prior to Moshe writing things down at Har Sinai. With that said, my position is that there has to be an oral law, as there are issues that have not been elaborated on.

I do not, however, accept that this oral law has to be the Talmud.

I don't think Yeshua would be offended by me telling you that you've broken the camel's back. A humorous way to say "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" or "they put heavy burdens on the backs of men" or "Do not add."
Please do not patronize me.

The very fact that Yeshua elaborated on existing points of is one proof for an oral tradition. This is the issue that addressed above when I said there were things which were not elaborated on.

The truth is that one does not have to accept just what the Rabbi's say regarding the techelet, as there is now scientific data as well. In one instance a scientist was able to study an ancient burial shroud which had the blue techelet.

Some of this information is avaiable on the Beged Ivri link that I provided on an earlier post. Other information is available by doing some further research.

I believe that if we have the ability to determine what was worn by our forefathers, then by all means we should continue within that same framework.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

So we are not capable of doing them. When Mashiyakh returns, He will restore all things. Until then, I am content.
There was a written tradition prior to Mosheh at Sinay. It is written, "v'ze sepher toldoth 'adam."
My point is that some things don't need to be elaborated on. A common rabbinic argument is that we need Oral to tell us how long our tzit-tzioth need to be. But I think this is answered summarily in one sentence. "Perhaps some commandments do not have a measure."-- Salmon Ben Yeruham.

How is that so? All Yeshua did is point out that which was already implicit in the commands written down by Mosheh. Yeshua has set the example. Based on the principles He gave us, we can interpret all of . Aside from that, I do not believe that He left any of uninterpreted. The more I study, the more convinced I am that Yeshua was living , and that He lived the , and that the accounts written of Him are our key to .
Even if it is what was used by someone 2,000 years ago, 1) that does not prove that this was the only die used. 2) if it was a Pharisee, then they already had their halacha in place, so it means nothing to me.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Nachshon]

Natanel Yitzchaq, and Pioneer, I need to apologize. I have not been at all respectful during this discussion. I'm sorry. I will do better.

[Yitzchak]

nachshon said:

So we are not capable of doing them. When Mashiyakh returns, He will restore all things. Until then, I am content.
There was a written tradition prior to Mosheh at Sinay. It is written, "v'ze sepher toldoth 'adam."
My point is that some things don't need to be elaborated on. A common rabbinic argument is that we need Oral to tell us how long our tzit-tzioth need to be. But I think this is answered summarily in one sentence. "Perhaps some commandments do not have a measure."-- Salmon Ben Yeruham.

How is that so? All Yeshua did is point out that which was already implicit in the commands written down by Mosheh. Yeshua has set the example. Based on the principles He gave us, we can interpret all of . Aside from that, I do not believe that He left any of uninterpreted. The more I study, the more convinced I am that Yeshua was living , and that He lived the , and that the accounts written of Him are our key to .
Even if it is what was used by someone 2,000 years ago, 1) that does not prove that this was the only die used. 2) if it was a Pharisee, then they already had their halacha in place, so it means nothing to me.

Shalom,
Nachshon

While I would agree with much of what you said, but if you read what I wrote you would already know this. However, this thread is not about what you and I believe regarding the oral tradition, and I only used it to make a point.

The most important issue. is your last statement, and it is this one that not only concerns me, but with which I most adamantly disagree.

Those people of 2000 years ago, including the Rabbi's are those in the natural that paid the price to preserve for us. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I think you are a very bright young man, however, you have not walked long enough on this earth, no less in the faith to have experienced the persecution, scorn, and sometimes death that people have experienced so that you can know study . Please do not ignore the history of our people. Please do not assume that these people did not have the inspiration of HaShem in spite of their not recognizing Moshiach.

Back to the main point of this thread, which was how we tie the TzitTzit. We should observe the Mitzvot, and if you are fully convinced that you ar fulfilling it, then Baruch HaShem. Really, if you want to know the truth, I don't think anyone of us really fulfill it, as I do not think when was written and after that people walked around with "shmata's" (Yiddish= rags) under their shirts with the fringes hanging out. They were attached to the garment that they wore. like the seamless garment that Yeshua wore.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Nachshon]

The ones who preserved the for us were Ben Asher and his descendants: Zadukay, or Karaites. I am not saying that the Rabbanites have not, and do not continue to, suffered for the sake of , but there are also Karaites who have, and still do.
I do not deny that they had inspiration based on their not accepting Messiah. I based it on the clear errors I see in Talmudic thinking, and the writings of the Oral . I do not ignore the history of our people. I simply do not look at it in the same way that you do.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Blake]

Nachshon, there is no unbroken line of succession from pre-exillic times to the Karaites. There is no proof or evidence to that fact. It's all speculation so don't tout these whispers and blind speculations as fact. Because, they are not. Ana Ben- Dawid did absorb a few rustic jews he believed to be remnants of the Tzaddikim (Who were wicked and hellenistic in Rabbi Y'hoshua's time) and Boethusians. I think that although its possible they were most likely simply ignornat of rabbinical traditions because they were cut off from the rest of jewry for many years. Karaism developed as a reaction to Islam, which attacked Rabbinical authority. Anan Ben Dawid even incorporated elements of Islamic interpretation tradition into his own.

Also, Y'hoshua could not have been a Tzaddikm. One obvious clue is that he had the title of "Ribi" or "Rabbi" a title that only the Perushim bestowed or used! Y'hoshua's fellow perushim called him this, meaning he was almost certainly ordained after being a talmid under a Perushim leader. That's a big time giveaway he couldn't have been Perushim, especially since he ruled on certain issues of Halakha. Mostly siding with Bet Hillel but at least on one occassion siding with Bet Shammai.

[Nachshon]

Nor is there evidence for Rabbanites. We're all guessing. You say the Zadukay were isolated, and therefore not familliar with rabbinic tradition. So what you are implying is that this was something new. Had Oral always been around, then the Zadukay would have known about it when they first became isolated, nu?
In reaction to Islam, nu? According to Karaite-Korner.org, "The historians tell us of Jewish leaders whose resistance against the Talmud put them in direct conflict with the Islamic government, which had empowered the Rabbis and given them full authority over other Jews."
I did not claim that he was a Zaduka. I only claimed that His interpretation of was like that of the Zadukay. He could not have been a Zaduka, also, because He accepted the belief in the immortality of the soul, and of angels.
So why do you call Yeshua "Rabbi"? Did I miss something?

[Blake]

Well actually, the line of sucession from pre-exillic Perushim and Orthodox Judaism is very well established. There is no question of this, but a question of id the perushim were legitimate.

If the Tzaddikim objected to the writing of halakah they would have to preserve it only orally. A scattering of Tzaddikim in isolated nomadic groups in desert would've certainly lost the bulk of their oral traditions or modified them beyond recognition. And certainly being isolated from the Jewry they would not have adopted the standard Perushim Halakha that prevailed in Judaism.

Question, why would a Rabbi who was a talmid under a Perushi teacher, that believed in Perushi doctrines such as the judgment and ressurection, (not the immortality of the soul which is a greek concept incorporated into jewish folk belief not representative of pershim tradition), and angels who also demonstrated that he approved of Perushi halakah (but never Tzaddikim equivalents written in their "Book of Decrees", consider Tzaddikim "interpretations" superior to Peruhsi? If he was a Perushi, and is to be emulated why aren't you yourself a Perushi?

And also, the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran have shed much light on the dispute between Tzaddikim and Perushim. It was not a rejection to an Oral Tradition but a rejection of how it should be transmitted. The Tzaddikim has their own written version of halakha (The Book of Decrees and wanted to impose it on the rest of jewry for their own gain and ease of life. So, they were opposed to the oral transmission of because it undermined their self-serving decrees. No 1 century sect (including early Chr*istians/Messianic Jews) opposed Oral Law. They may've not viewed them as fully binding but they were accpeted.

The reason for the wicked Tzaddikim's "doctrines" were political and self-serving. They were Roman collaboratings and exploiters of the poor. They were generally despised by the common people, and were in the highest classes of society almost exclusively. And, it the wicked Tzaddikim High Priest who pressed for Rabbi Y'hoshua execution by the Romans.

The "Pharisees" mentioned in the NEw Testament were most likely the Hellenist High Class Tzaddikim collaborating Perushim who served on the corrupt Sanhedrin.

[Blake]

And, no matter what you believe it is undeniable Y'hoshua was an ordained Rabbi during time.