Search this Topic:
Tue, 5-Jun-12 11:20:07
Am I seeing things, or did someone really try to "prove" Yeshu with a portion of Talmud where each person says the Messiah is named after their teacher?
Wed, 6-Jun-12 03:51:23
Wed, 6-Jun-12 21:20:36
Wed, 6-Jun-12 21:24:12
"It must be concluded from the otherwise multiply attested meaning of 'mesar napsha' as 'to put oneself in danger' that the Targum says only that the Messiah put himself in danger of death, not that he actually died."
[footnote 2] "The phrase, he delivered up his soul (mesar napsha) appears throughout several different Aramaic Targums and is idiomatic for he risked his life," citing for support various Targumim for Deut. 24:15, Num. 31:5, Judg. 9:17 and Ps. 99:6.
"do you see that hannah, your MURDERED messiah/god is not found in torah or ANCIENT jewish INTERPRETATIONS of the torah."
Wed, 6-Jun-12 22:54:59
Thu, 7-Jun-12 00:09:34
Thu, 7-Jun-12 00:20:28
Thu, 7-Jun-12 00:28:58
[Daas Torah, quoting Ramban, my emphasis]
"[T]he commonly accepted view of rabbinic authority is based on the Sifre which is not the authoritative view.
[This commonly accepted view is Ramban, who wrote:] 'G-d always protects them [the Sanhedrin] from error and mistake.'"
My conclusion - Ramban is not the authoritative view, but he is currently the commonly accepted view.Commonly accepted by whom? As you may know, Torah authority is not a democracy. We follow the majority of gedolim, not talmidim sitting in kollel.
[Daas Torah quoting Ramban, emphasis mine]
"In other words you can’t argue, 'How can I eat that which is prohibited by the Torah or how can I execute this person when I know he has not transgressed?' Rather your attitude must be, 'The absolute obedience to the rulings of the Sanhedrin is what G-d has commanded me and I must observe the mitzvos exactly as the Sanhedrin (which is in G-d’s presence in the Temple) says.'”
My conclusion - Ramban was willing to extend that "protection from error" to really big life-death Torah decisions.I wonder if those who worship a man and are filled with the "Holy Spirit" are protected from error.
[Daas Torah quoting Yad HaMelech, emphasis mine]
"Thus all halachic rulings which appear to contradict the words of the Torah e.g., eating prohibited fats or killing an innocent man – irrespective as to the authority of the rabbi giving the ruling they are not to be accepted."
My conclusion - Both Yad HaMelech and Daas Torah acknowledged Ramban's view allowed for killing an innocent man. They just didn't consider his stature a good enough reason to accept this "halachic ruling".
It has nothing to do with Ramban's stature. It has to do with the system and process of determining Jewish Law.
[Sophiee's article, emphasis hers]
"Yes, the Rabbis have contended points of Law, but always on minor details of Laws, never on major issues."
My conclusion - You were not aware of the above controversy when you first posted this. Now that you are aware, I can't tell if you read past it, or if you are choosing to deny it, or if you don't agree that "killing an innocent man" is one of Torah's "major issues".
I believe Sophiee was bringing up the topic of machloket, not the daily rulings of a Jewish Court or posek.
Now to your contention, also repeated several times:
"[Y]ou continue to miss the point -- which is that the Rabbis do NOT 'change' the Torah."
This actually wasn't the point - it was the infallibility issue which prompted me to post the Daas Torah link. But okay, let's go there too.
That the rabbis are not supposed to change D'Reita Torah is self-evident. Claiming that they DON'T change written commands is not connected to reality.
For each command that is changed, there is supposed to be a compelling reason - either conflicting with other obligations (shofar vs. shabbat), or imposing a hardship on the people (shmitta vs. prosbul), or physical impossibility of carrying them out (korbanot vs. prayers). Some changes or cancellations of Torah by rabbinic authorities don't qualify for any of these. Shofar was a mitzva that orginally was only performed in the Temple. Prosbul is permitted d'oraisa because the right of debt collection is transferred to the Court and shmitta applies to individuals. Korbanot - well, you know what the prophet Hoshea said about that.
1- Torah says we are not to use the names of pagan gods:
"Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth." (Exod.23:13)
Why do we have a Jewish month in the summer named after Tammuz, a Babylonian god?
(Actually in Israel there is a move back to calling the months by their numbers, as we do the weekdays. But it's a tiny minority as yet.)Are we allowed to read the word Tammuz in the Tanach?
2- Torah says that all graves are "tameh" (unclean) at the most serious level possible:
"Anyone who in the open field touches one who has been slain with a sword or who has died naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be unclean for seven days." (Num.19:16)
"But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself from uncleanness, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the water for impurity has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean. So it shall be a perpetual statute for them." (v.20-21)
Why are we encouraged to visit graves of tsaddikim as "a holy and pure place" for prayer? (Shulchan Arukh)
But, all Jews are considered tamei meit at the present time. Does going to a kever make you more tamei meit?
3- Torah says that during Pesach we are to get rid of our hametz:
"Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses." (Exod.12:15)
There is your answer. You must remove the chametz from your property. If you transfer the chametz (personal property) and its location (real property), then you no longer have chametz in your property (it is a non-Jew's property).
4- Torah tells us that we are to go to a posek when we truly don't know how to apply a Torah command, and only in those matters are we required to submit.
For unknown reasons, the famous Tanur Akhnai quote stops in the middle of G-d's declaration, "It [Torah] is not in heaven --". in order to claim that Torah is in the control of men (Deut.30:11-12). But G-d continues: "-- neither is it [Torah] beyond the sea," - which should have kept halachic authority in the Land of Israel rather than allowing it to move to Babylon, Egypt or Europe. It is not some unknown reason. The Torah is clearly saying that it is not in Heaven. One does not need a god-man to tell him or her how to understand it. Talk about omitting. You omitted the rest of the sentence that says: "It is not in heaven to say, "Who can ascend to the heaven for us and take it for us, so that we can listen to it and perform it?"Then, for some reason you write as if the part about across the sea is part of the same sentence. Yet, it is a new idea. As the statement about heaven is a spiritual one. The statement about "across the sea" is about it being unnecessary to undergo a strenuous physical journey to acquire the knowledge. It would be odd if it had anything to do with the Land of Israel, since the Torah was not given in Israel.
But that's where Torah "isn't". He goes on to say where it "is", and there is no mention of the rabbis:
"The word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."
This plainly says that each one who has repented on G-d's terms at the time of the Final Ingathering (v.1-10) has the capacity to understand general halacha, as well as other truth in Torah. Yes, but it doesn't say that you cannot understand the Torah until the Final Ingathering. The context of verse 14 can only mean that the matter is very near to you (the intended audience beginning over 3,500 years ago) now. The next sentence says "See, I have placed before you today . . ."
There is nothing to compare with the experience of knowing G-d directly. The richness of Torah is just a snapshot compared to His real, living, breathing Presence! The Ketubah given to us at Sinai is the promise of Marriage, and the description of how the Marriage works. We are married to the living G-d, not to a Book! So, you are saying that every Christian on the planet knows the Torah better than any learned Jew?
Thu, 7-Jun-12 00:32:17
Thu, 7-Jun-12 10:00:15
HannahInIsrael wrote:There is nothing to compare with the experience of knowing G-d
directly. The richness of Torah is just a snapshot compared to His
real, living, breathing Presence! The Ketubah given to us at Sinai is
the promise of Marriage, and the description of how the Marriage works. We are married to the living G-d, not to a Book!
"Elohim" refers to the Universal God and His Wisdom, whereas the Tetragrammaton (yod-hé-vav-hé) refers to the Personal God and His Mercy.
Thu, 7-Jun-12 10:16:12
7 "[This is what you must do] if your blood
brother, your son, your daughter, your bosom wife, or your closest friend
secretly tries to act as a missionary among you, and says, 'Let us go worship a
new god. LET US HAVE A SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN BY YOU OR YOUR
FATHER.' 13:8 [He may be enticing you with] the gods of the nations around you,
far or near, or those that are found at one end of the world or another. 13:9
Do not agree with him, and do not listen to him."
Thu, 7-Jun-12 10:20:17
conflict(s) with other obligations (shofar vs. shabbat)
Rabbah said: All are under obligated to blow the shofar, but not all are
skilled in the blowing of the shofar. Therefore, there is a danger that
one will take the shofar and go to an expert to learn [how to properly
sound it], and he will carry it four cubits in the public domain [—an
act that is forbidden on the Shabbat]
Speak to the children of Israel, saying: In
the seventh month, on the first of the month, it shall be a Sabbath for
you, a remembrance of [Israel through] the shofar blast a holy occasion.
Thu, 7-Jun-12 10:53:34
No Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, midrashic or otherwise, contradicts the plain meaning that this refers to Israel as one man. Whether a verse or a few are applied on some level of interpretation to Moses, or Jeremiah, or David, or the Messiah, or any other individual, these are all individuals belonging to the whole (Israel). Such interpretations do not replace the overall painting, rather they are like zooming in on one of billions of brush strokes which make up the overall painting.While the prophet made it clear enough in the chapters leading up to 53 that the servant is Israel, using the same language chapter after chapter, he was still kind enough to be completely unambiguous in 53:9 when he wrote of his (singular) deaths (plural). People do not tend to die more than once. In particular, the rasha the GT's Yeshu is at least partially fabricated from hasn't even got around to living more than once, let alone dying more than once.The whole of Isaiah 53 cannot be applied to one person any more than all 613 mitzvot can be observed by one person.
Thu, 7-Jun-12 11:23:48
HannahInIsrael wrote:For each command that is changed, there is supposed to be a compelling reason (korbanot vs. prayers).
1Kings 8-33 "When your people Israel
have been defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, and when
they turn back to you and confess your name, praying and making supplication to
you in this temple, 34 then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your people
Israel and bring them back to the land you gave to their fathers.”
Thu, 7-Jun-12 14:10:13
Sophiee1 wrote:....the fact that in the Diaspora Rosh HaShannah falls on two days -- so it will be sounded on the non-Shabbat day (thus fulfilling the mitzvah of hearing the shofar).....
Sophie, perhaps you are not aware of this, but there are also two days of Rosh Hashanah in Ĕrĕtz Yisraél, and it was two days long in most years even when the Temple existed (Rambam, Mishnĕh Torah, Hilchot Kiddush Haḥodesh 5:8).
פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Thu, 7-Jun-12 16:19:28
Thu, 7-Jun-12 16:51:03
HannahInIsrael wrote: “‘Because he poured out’ etc.... While in exile, he poured out his soul to die for the sanctity of the Holy Name.” (Don Yitzhak Abarbanel, speaking of King Josiah / 15th c). . .So
you can rely on Blinkensopp and Tom Stark, whoever they are, for your
Torah wisdom if you want. I will look to the sages who were faithful to
what's written in the Hebrew.
"Rome and all of the Christians who profess the religion of Jesus are from Edom" -- and hence, crucially, that Christendom is the target of the prophetic predictions of doom that were uttered against Edom. . .Christian teachings are "intrinsically impossible" and uproot "true intelligibles and the laws of nature." . .Arbarbanel interrogates the basic logic of the Christian contention. If the sages believed in Jesus, why did they not "join his religion and follow his apostles?". . .given when Jesus lived, he could not have been the Messiah. . .
Abarbanel wrote that Christian commentators have "fabricated" historical facts "not attested in any book" to facilitate their interpretation of an apocalyptic passage in Daniel: "They fix events in accordance with the words of verses that they wish to explain. . .(and) not as they actually occurred."
Thu, 7-Jun-12 17:23:19
Thu, 7-Jun-12 21:56:30
Netanel wrote:No Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, midrashic or otherwise, contradicts the plain meaning that this refers to Israel as one man. Whether a verse or a few are applied on some level of interpretation to Moses, or Jeremiah, or David, or the Messiah, or any other individual, these are all individuals belonging to the whole (Israel). Such interpretations do not replace the overall painting, rather they are like zooming in on one of billions of brush strokes which make up the overall painting.While the prophet made it clear enough in the chapters leading up to 53 that the servant is Israel, using the same language chapter after chapter, he was still kind enough to be completely unambiguous in 53:9 when he wrote of his (singular) deaths (plural). People do not tend to die more than once. In particular, the rasha the GT's Yeshu is at least partially fabricated from hasn't even got around to living more than once, let alone dying more than once.The whole of Isaiah 53 cannot be applied to one person any more than all 613 mitzvot can be observed by one person.
Thu, 7-Jun-12 23:18:50
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.