Healing on the Sabbath -- Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker

RSS
Email

Author	Comment
tyolilums	Healing on the Sabbath -- Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker	Lead	[-]
Posts: 412 (03/01/09 10:37:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None I'm presently reading Hyam Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker. It has been recommended several times here. I'm not that far into it, but I have a question about something I've read to date. The subject is healing on the Sabbath. The GT has the Pharisees criticizing Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Jesus then says something about being able to circumcise on the Sabbath to counter the Pharisees. Maccoby writes that the Pharisees wrote about healing on the Sabbath and never did forbid it. Can someone point me to where I might read what they say on this subject? He doesn't give a specific reference other than saying it is in law books. I have a habit now of checking what people tell me. I'd like to check this if possible. Last Edited By: Sophiee1 06/12/09 07:26:41. Edited 1 time.
Netanel		#1	[-]
Posts: 1611 (03/01/09 12:01:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Ty - One example is Vayyiqra 18:5: וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם Ush'mar'tem et huqqotai v'et mishpatai asher ya'aseh otam ha-adam va-hai ba-hem . . . You shall observe My decrees and My laws, which man shall carry out and by whiuch he shall live . . . The Sages derive from the expression by which he shall live that the commandments were given for the sake of life, not death. Therefore, if the performance of a commandment will endanger life - such as the familiar case of a patient who must be rushed to a hospital on Shabbat - the need to preserve life supersedes the observance of Shabbat. The exceptions are the three cardinal sins: idolatry, forbidden sexual relationships, and murder; and cases where violation of commandments would cause desecration of G-d's Name (Sanhedrin 74a). My time is short now, but I will add some more which illustrate Maccoby's point a bit later.
Sophiee1		#2	[-]
Posts: 11886 (03/01/09 12:26:24) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: The GT has the Pharisees criticizing Jsus for healing on the Sabbath. Jsus then says something about being able to circumcise on the Sabbath to counter the Pharisees. Brit Milah (the covenant of circumcision) takes place on the eighth day of life for a male child -- irregardless of whether it is Shabbat or even Yom Kippur for that matter. I don't see this reference in the GT (if you can give a source it would help), but if it is in the GT, the GT is wrong. We are commanded to perform the Brith Milah on the eighth day. So it is not a question of "being able to circumicse on the Sabbath" but rather a COMMAND to circumcise on the eighth day. We are also commanded not to perform melachot on Shabbat -- and in the case of Matthew 12 and Luke 6 and the other references, Jsus' healing on the Sabbath might or might not have been a sin -- depending on HOW he healed those people. There are 39 melachot. From the OU: 1. Carrying 2. Burning 3. Extinguishing 4. Finishing 5. Writing 6. Erasing 7. Cooking 8. Washing 9. Sewing 10. Tearing 11. Knotting 12. Untying 13. Shaping 14. Plowing 15. Planting 16. Reaping 17. Harvesting 18. Threshing 19. Winnowing 20. Selecting 21. Sifting 22. Grinding 23. Kneading 24. Combing 25. Spinning 26. Dyeing 27. Chain-stitching 28. Warping 29. Weaving 30. Unraveling 31. Building 32. Demolishing 33. Trapping 34. Shearing 35. Slaughtering 36. Skinning 37. Tanning 38. Smoothing 39. Marking If, in the process of "healing" Jsus did any of those 39 activities he sinned. Furthermore, Jsus encourages his followers to sin on Shabbat (a sin all by itself) by carrying on the Shabbat. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Netanel		#3	[-]
Posts: 1612 (03/01/09 17:13:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Not if their lives were in danger. This is the point Maccoby makes.
tyolilums		#4	[-]
Posts: 413 (03/01/09 17:28:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I believe Maccoby is making the case that Jesus did not sin. Thus the GT is presenting a false problem that didn't even exist in order to attempt to separate Jesus from appearing in-line with the Pharisees and make the Pharisees out to be the bad guys. I suppose if you believe Jesus really did sin in healing this man on the Sabbath then you probably wouldn't support what he is presenting here in this book. As far as I can tell he just asked the man to hold out his hand and when he did it was healed. That action doesn't break any of those things listed in Sophiee's post. However, based on Netanel's comment, I doubt this was a life and death matter. It was a deformed hand. So.... maybe we had better establish whether you agree with this book's reasoning or not??? So far he makes an interesting case. But he doesn't appear to be attacking Jesus so much as the authors and the reasoning behind what they wrote.
Sophiee1		#5	[-]
Posts: 11887 (03/01/09 17:31:27) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel, I have Maccoby's book. I was responding to what Ty wrote: The subject is healing on the Sabbath. The GT has the Pharisees criticizing Jsus for healing on the Sabbath. Jsus then says something about being able to circumcise on the Sabbath to counter the Pharisees. Maccoby writes that the Pharisees wrote about healing on the Sabbath and never did forbid it. My points were two: 1) that circumcision (brit milah) is a commandment for the eighth day -- assuming the child isn't too ill for it, ergo if Jsus brought up something about "you Pharisees say it is ok to circumcise on the Sabbath, so why can't I heal someone. . ." it would certainly have been an ignorant statement as circumcision is a commandment. 2) That healing on Shabbat would only be forbidden if the process of healing violated one of the 39 melachot. As you pointed out, Netanel, one may break one of the forbidden melachot if it is a question of "life or death" -- as saving a life (pikuach nefesh) supercedes any other mitzvah. The example given in the GT is of Jsus fixing a withered arm -- a withered arm has likely been around for a long time and could "wait" for the end of Shabbat to be healed. The example in Matthew 12 that Jsus gives (if a sheep falls into a pit, won't you lift it out?) is a case of pikuach nefesh -- the lamb would most likely die in the pit if not removed. . . but a man with an arm that has been withered for some time can wait a few hours to have it healed. But going back to my second point, if the healing process didn't violate one of the melachot then Jsus wouldn't have violated the Sabbath. Since the Pharisees in the GT take him to task for the healing (and of course we don't know if any of the stories in the GT are "real") it would seem that the method of the healing did violate melachot. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Sophiee1		#6	[-]
Posts: 11888 (03/01/09 17:37:19) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	tyolilums wrote: I believe Maccoby is making the case that Jsus did not sin. Thus the GT is presenting a false problem that didn't even exist in order to attempt to separate Jsus from appearing in-line with the Pharisees and make the Pharisees out to be the bad guys. I suppose if you believe Jsus really did sin in healing this man on the Sabbath then you probably wouldn't support what he is presenting here in this book. As far as I can tell he just asked the man to hold out his hand and when he did it was healed. That action doesn't break any of those things listed in Sophiee's post. However, based on Netanel's comment, I doubt this was a life and death matter. It was a deformed hand. So.... maybe we had better establish whether you agree with this book's reasoning or not??? So far he makes an interesting case. But he doesn't appear to be attacking Jesus so much as the authors and the reasoning behind what they wrote. Netanel's comments and mine don't conflict. If Jsus healed the man's arm without breaking any of the melachot forbidden on Shabbat then there was no sin in Jsus' healing on the Sabbath. The only time pikuach nefesh (saving a life) comes into play is when a mitzvah must be broken in order to save a life. If the melacha isn't broken, it isn't an issue. I'll give you an example I once heard. There was a very learned Rav in Eastern Europe in the 19th century. He was very ill and nearly dead. The family sent for the doctor who was a non-Jew. The doctor insisted that the Rav eat a broth made out of pork. Now, whether the doctor did this out of cruelty or not I can't say, but the doctor insisted it was a difference between the Rav living or dying. The Rav drank the broth while tears streamed down his face. . . but in this case pikuach nefesh over ruled the laws of kashrut. The Rav lived. Given the way the GT writes the story of Jsus and the man with the withered arm I tend to agree with Ty's assesment that Jsus did not sin in healing the man on Shabbat, and that it is a "false problem" just to make the Pharissees look bad. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
Netanel		#7	[-]
Posts: 1613 (03/01/09 18:02:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Ty - I was particularly refering to the episode in the GT where the disciples pick and eat some rough food. Maccoby makes the case that this was a life and death situation which a later scribe attempted to skew. Yéshu's citation of David's situation only makes sense if he is comparing the current situation of his disciples. David's life was in danger, and Maccoby held that so too were the characters in the GT story. Thus the GT is presenting a false problem that didn't even exist in order to attempt to separate Jesus from appearing in-line with the Pharisees and make the Pharisees out to be the bad guys. This is a common thread throughout Maccoby's books on this subject. And IMO he usually presents a very solid case. There are times in the GT where the authors portray the Pharisees opposing Yéshu on a completely Pharisee concept. Anyone familiar with the Pharisees would realize how ridiculous it seems for the authors of the GT to be portraying the Pharisees opposing Yéshu when he is stating a Pharisee concept. In the opinion of Maccoby a number of these probably originally said "Sadducees" instead of scribes of Pharisees, and were changed when the Sadducees no longer existed, and the Pharisees were the main Jewish body, and thus the natural target of the GT's messages against "the Jews".
Sophiee1		#8	[-]
Posts: 11889 (03/01/09 18:48:08) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Maccoby argues that Jsus was fleeing from Herod and thus he and his men were in fear for their lives. (I don't think this is in the Mythmaker BTW). Maccoby is making a big assumption here as there is nothing in the Greek Text to support this idea. There is nothing in the GT to indicate that Jsus' disciples were fleeing for their lives when the picked, carried and ate RAW GRAIN on Shabbat. Maccoby can make the assumption, for arguments sake, that they were fleeing for their lives -- but the GT itself doesn't even suggest this possibility. (Of the grains in Israel 2000 years ago none can be eaten raw BTW -- so again we most likely have a made up story to make the Jews "look bad"). Whereas one can argue that the healing of the man was not a violation of melacha, the gleaning on Shabbat WAS a violation. Jews are forbidden from picking on Shabbat. It is a death penalty offense to pick something up and carry it somewhere else. Again, this is NOT a man made interpretation of the law. The Torah clearly states it in black and white: *Quote:* Exodus 31: 15. Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the L-rd; whoever performs work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.' How do we know picking is part of that work which is forbidden? Torah again: *Quote:* Numbers 15:32. (the Israelites) found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. . . .35. The L-rd said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; the entire congregation shall pelt him with stones outside the camp. 36. So the entire congregation took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones, as the L-rd had commanded Moses. Torah says it is forbidden to M'amair (pick / carry / gather) natural things (like grain or wood) on Shabbat. Jews are forbidden from picking on Shabbat. It is a death penalty offense to pick something up and carry it somewhere else. Again, this is NOT a man made interpretation of the law. The Torah clearly states it in black and white: Quote: *Quote:* Exodus 16:23 He said to them, "This is what HaShem commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to HaShem. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.' " and *Quote:* Exodus 31: 15. Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the L-rd; whoever performs melacha on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.' How do we know picking aka "carrying" aka "gathering" (all the same thing) is part of that melacha which is forbidden? Torah again: *Quote:* Exodus 16:26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any. . .16:29 Bear in mind that HaShem has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." and *Quote:* Exodus 20:10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to HaShem your G-d. On it you shall not do any melacha. We are even given an example where a man is found picking things up on the Sabbath and he is put to death as a result: *Quote:* Numbers 15:32. (the Israelites) found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. . . .35. The L-rd said to Moses, The man shall be put to death; the entire congregation shall pelt him with stones outside the camp. 36. So the entire congregation took him outside the camp, and they pelted him to death with stones, as the L-rd had commanded Moses. So in the GT we have Jsus telling his followers to pick on the Sabbath, which is a clear violation of the Torah. So did J-sus observe the Sabbath law not to work (including not to pick). Nope: *Quote:* Matthew 12: 1 One Sabbath J-sus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain. Did J-sus admonish his apostles for breaking the Sabbath. No. But some Pharisees did. They approached J-sus and said to him: *Quote:* Matthew 12:2 Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" Now is the perfect time for J-sus to observe the law and tell his followers to stop it, but he doesnt. Instead, as in the previous example, he doesnt deny they did anything wrong. Instead he changes the subject! He brings up the story of when David was running away from Shaul and got bread from the priest. Ill discuss his excuse next, but lets continue on the Sabbath subject for a minute and not get sidetracked, like J-sus. Now remember that earlier J-sus says: *Quote:* Matthew 23:1 Then J-sus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. So does he practice what he preaches? Nope he says he doesnt HAVE to obey Torah law. Matthew 6: 5Then J-sus said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath." Well, why cant J-sus change the laws if he wants to? Besides the fact that earlier he said NOT TO, the Torah itself commands that we not add to or subtract from it: *Quote:* Deuteronomy 4: 2. Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the L-rd your G-d which I command you. Yet J-sus not only broke the law of the Sabbath, but he made excuses about it. He definitely subtracted from the commandments of the WRITTEN Torah and this is only one example. One last point before we move on. Some Xians make the point that the men were hungry and hunger over rules manmade laws about picking. 1. These are not man made laws, they are in Torah. 2. Any Jew prepares for Sabbath the day before, knowing it is unlawful to cook or pick on Sabbath. 3. Any Jew is welcome at any other Jews table for Sabbath. If they were hungry they could have eaten at the house of any Jew around. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12
tyolilums		#9	[-]
Posts: 414 (03/01/09 18:51:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I apologize for tossing in the circumcision bit. I have no idea where I pulled that from.
Sophiee1		#10	[-]
Posts: 11890 (03/01/09 18:55:25) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Ty, this is probably going into far more detail than you want -- but David did not sin in the example Jsus' supposedly gave in the GT (I call it "But gee David sinned so why can't I?"). I'll be happy to explain if you want. For now I just want to go into more detail on why the idea of Jsus and his disciples eating raw grain is total nonsense. The information in this post came originally from "Drashi" -- the former Admin of the Jews for Judaism forum (now defunct). I'm not sure if I've modified it or if this is his exact post -- but in either case, the credit (or blame) goes to Drashi! Why would Jsus followers choose to pick and eat raw grain, to a nice Shabbat meal, in someone's home? Why would the followers want to give even the appearance, of potentially doing something sinful, when it wasn't necessary? Why did Jsus not use this breaking of G-d's law to explain to his followers that they were sinning -- he was supposed to be a great teacher, right? Why did Jsus instead choose to make up excuses, for their behaviour? Why would Jsis think call into question, the knowledge of the Pharisees, whom he had earlier, in Matthew 5:20, called righteous? Actually, if there were moist fields, they would be forbidden to walk through them in the first place. Another sin! From Drashi: BTW, the Greek does not say "ears of corn" but , which means the extending part of the grain plant. Corn is a grain, I won't argue that. So is wheat and oats. But the KJV also has the grain be corn in Berashit 27:28, and 27:37 (having Isaac give Esav some wine and corn instead of wine and grains.) and 41:5, 41:35 (Pharoah dreaming of corn), 41:49 (Joseph collecting corn), and they even insert "corn" in 41:57 for the heck of it (and on and on). You would have thought Egypt and Israel was in the center of Kansas. Egypt grew fig trees, wheat, and barley, melons, pomegranates, veggies, and vine plants. Israel had similar crops. However, wheat is typically only grown in the coastal areas, in the valleys (not near Jerusalem) and then it is not frequently grown because it needs a lot of water in a long growing season, so some years it might not be grown at all. Barley, on the other hand is a fast growing plant that would flourish during the short rainy season. So let's say it wasn't wheat, (desert wheat raw is pretty unlikely), but make it barley instead. But as you will see below, there is a short time where it is harvested. However, when these items can be harvested is also interesting. The following is a chart of modern harversting practices in Israel, and one can apply these periods to 2000 years ago as well to get an idea of climates (this is from an agricultural chart, and notice the lack of corn). So Jsus and pals were probably chomping down barley in late-March through later April. It's not to hard to cut the heads off: But you still have to husk them (even if you are going to make beer out of them). The husks are not digestible, but will clean you out good if you eat them!) And once you crush the husks on a mat and toss the mat up and down for the husks to fly into the air, and spend loads of time doing this, you will get the final products (see after and before photos): Ok, now that we have had a short farming lesson, there are some questions: The text says that they were picking and going to eat. Somehow raw barley seems unlikely. Who wrote those texts? Keep in mind that Ancient Rome grew corn and it was a staple of their armies. The Greeks would typically grow olives in the rocky areas and corn and other grains where there was abundant soil. But not in Israel. Which leads to some other speculations... סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/01/09 18:58:18. Edited 1 times.
Netanel		#11	[-]
Posts: 1614 (03/01/09 19:09:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee - Ty, this is probably going into far more detail than you want -- but David did not sin in the example Jsus' supposedly gave in the GT (I call it "But gee David sinned so why can't I?"). I'll be happy to explain if you want. This statement is fallacious. Yéshu does not say that David sinned so his followers can sin. Framing it like that just insults people's intelligence. Regarding the story, the key to the exchange is the citation of David. He is drawing a correlation between the state of health of his followers and the state of health of David in that example. Everything you said is true regarding all the violations that story would entail under normal circumstances. However, if the lives were in danger - which Maccoby holds to be the case, and may even explain the Greek alludes to - all of that is suspended. The fact that the "grain" was the furthest thing from a pleasurable meal gives further credence to the notion that they were starving, and were not merely flaunting the laws of Shabbat.
Sophiee1		#12	[-]
Posts: 11891 (03/01/09 19:35:41) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Excuse me???? Mark 2: 25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of G-d and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."he consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (See also Matthew 12 and Luke 6). How have I mis-stated the GT? Jsus (not Yeshu, a made up name) does say that he did no worse than David -- inferring that David sinned ergo HE can sin. . . David did NOT sin. Jsus, per the GT, DID. Did David sin by eating the consecrated bread? Was Abiathar the high priest David approached? Was Abiathar ever a high priest? Were Davids men with him? Remember, per the GT J-sus is a man-G-d. He is messiah. He is a learned rabbi. So all these facts in Mark must be correct, but are they? Nope. He got the priest wrong. David was alone: no men with him. Abiathar was never a high priest. And it was not unlawful to eat bread offered as the Tanach clearly says: *Quote:* 1 Samuel 23:2. And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came trembling toward David, and said, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" And as for the argument that Abiathar was a priest at the time -- nice try but the GT doesn't support that argument. The GT doesnt say a priest, it says he was the high priest. Nowhere in the Tanach does it ever say Abiathar became high priest. The high priest following his father was Zadok. Ahimelech served Zadok as a second priest to Zadok (I Chronicles 18:16). The GT uses the Greek word "epi" which means "upon." (Think "David went into the house of G-d "upon" Abiathar, the high priest"). This is an idiom in Greek that speaks of a person's rank. So "upon the high priest" refers to his status in office as high priest during the time J-sus met with him (which he wasn't then or ever). At no time does it refer to just any period of that person's life. You can see examples of this by reading Matthew 10:17,18; Mark 13:9; Luke 3:1,2; Luke 4:27; Acts 11:27,28; Acts 23:30, Acts 24:20,21, Acts 25:10,26; I Corinthians 6:1,5,6; II Corinthians 6:5,6; II Corinthians 7:14; and I Timothy 6:13. 1.The high priest is Ahimelech, Abiathars father. 2.Abiathar was never a high priest (Zadok was the next high priest) 3.No one is with David, he is alone 4.It is not unlawful for David to eat the bread. David did NOT break any laws *Quote:* 1 Samuel 23:5. And the priest answered David, and said, "There is no ordinary bread in my possession, but there is holy bread, if the young men have but kept themselves from women." 6. And David answered the priest, and said to him, "But, women are withheld from us as of yesterday and the day before yesterday when I left, and the young men's garments are hallowed, We know that David was of the tribe of Judah, not a kohein how could the kohen gadol (high priest) give him permission to eat the showbread (lechem hapanim)? Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life). The reason Ahimelech gave David the lechem ha panim was because David was in fear of his life and needed food. Contrast that with J-suss disciples picking grain on Shabbat. Were their lives in danger? So J-suss argument shows yet another lack of basic Jewish knowledge. But does it matter if David sinned? Even if David HAD sinned, how does that erase the breaking of Torah law by the man without sin? Jews do not claim that David is a man-G-d, or without sin. We've seen that not only did J-sus sin in breaking Sabbath, but he didnt have his facts straight on the laws. As for your saying: Everything you said is true regarding all the violations that story would entail under normal circumstances. But then you go on to say that (text be damned) MAYBE they were running away from Herod. It is one thing to make assumptions "maybe" -- quite another to have it supported in the text (as you infer). The text in the GT does NOT say they were running away from Herod and that this was a life or death situation for Jsus (making it a possible pkuach nefesh). You said: The fact that the "grain" was the furthest thing from a pleasurable meal gives further credence to the notion that they were starving, and were not merely flaunting the laws of Shabbat. No. The fact that the GT authors wrote that they ate raw grain gives NO credence to the notion that this story happened at all, let alone that they were starving! סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/01/09 19:41:38. Edited 1 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#13	[-]
Posts: 1772 (03/02/09 00:42:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: We know that David was of the tribe of Judah, not a kohein how could the kohen gadol (high priest) give him permission to eat the showbread (lechem hapanim)? [snip] But, Sophie, the T'nach doesn't actually say that Ahimelech gave David לֶֽחֶם הַפָּנִים lehem ha-panim ("show-bread"); what it actually says is וַיִּתֶּן־ל֥וֹ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן קֹ֑דֶשׁ כִּי֩ לֹֽא־הָ֨יָה שָׁ֜ם לֶ֗חֶם כִּֽי־אִם־לֶ֤חֶם הַפָּנִים֙ הַמּֽוּסָרִים֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְיָ֔ לָשׂוּם֙ לֶ֣חֶם חֹ֔ם בְּי֖וֹם הִלָּקְחֽוֹ׃ "....the kohén therefore gave him kodesh, because there was no bread there other than the lehem panim that had been removed from Adonai's Presence so it could be replaced with fresh [literally 'hot'] bread right after [the old bread] was removed" (Sh'muel Alef 21:7) We therefore see that the kohén did NOT give David any of the lehem panim, just some "kodesh". There were many kinds of kodesh (i.e. "holy" food), some of which it was perfectly okay for non-kohanim to eat, provided they were not טָמֵא tamé ("unclean"). The Radak (Rav David Kamhi) writes in his commentary on Sh'muel Alef 21:5, פֵּרַשׁ אֲדֹנִי אָבִי ז"ל לַחְמֵי־תוֹדָה שֶׁיּוּכַל זָר לְאָכְלוֹ בְּטָהֳרָה "My honoured father, of blessed memory, explained [that it means] bread that had been brought with a thanksgiving offering, which was permitted to be eaten by anyone, provided they were in a state of טָהֳרָה tohorah". http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Sophiee1		#14	[-]
Posts: 11892 (03/02/09 07:13:28) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I understand that, Mordochai, but my point is that the GT says: *Quote:* Mark 2: 25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of G-d and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (See also Matthew 12 and Luke 6). The T'nach makes it clear that Ahimelech was the kohein gadol (high priest), not is son, Abathar. The GT got a very basic fact of the story wrong: one of the two main persons in it! You are, of course, correct that David didn't sin at all by taking the bread as long as he was ritually pure -- so the whole story is yet another fake one, made up by people ignorant of Judaism to make the Jews "look bad." Here are a few places in the T'nach that make it clear that Ahimelech was the kohein gadol at this time: 1 Samuel 23:2. And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came trembling toward David, and said, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" 1 Samuel 22 11. And the king sent to call Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, the priest, and all of his father's household, the priests who were in Nob; and they all came to the king. (JPT) 2 Samuel 8 15. And David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice and charity for all his people. 16. And Joab the son of Zeruyah was over the host; and Yehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was recorder. 17. And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Ebiathar were [the] priests; and Seraiah was scribe. (JPT) It wasn't Abiathar. It was Ahimelech. The bread wasn't identified as lechem hapanim, but as kodesh (holy) bread -- as you point out. The "inerrant GT" strikes again. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/02/09 07:26:51. Edited 1 times.
tyolilums		#15	[-]
Posts: 415 (03/02/09 08:20:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Unfortunately this thread moved off topic from my original question. I'll figure it out. Sophiee, I couldn't find that verse you gave for 1Sam 23:2 . A 1Sam 23:9 says And David knew that upon him, Saul was plotting the evil; and he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring near the ephod.". I don't which one was priest at the time.
ProfBenTziyyon		#16	[-]
Posts: 1775 (03/02/09 09:31:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee1 wrote: It wasn't Abiathar. It was Ahimelech.... The "inerrant GT" strikes again. In fact, not only was it "not Abiathar", but actually there is no such name as "Abiathar"; the name is אֶבְיָתָר Ev'yatar, and he was not the אֶבְיָתָר kohén gadol ("Chief/Head Kohén"). Furthermore, there were two kohanim by the name of אֲחִימֶֽלֶךְ Ahimelech: one was a son of אֲחִיטוּב Ahituv and was a descendant of אֶלְעָזָר El'azar (this is the one mentioned in Sh'muel Alef 22:11), while the other was the son of a kohén named אֶבְיָתָר Ev'yatar (who supported אֲדֹנִיָּהוּ Adoniyyahu in his unsuccessful attempt to claim the crown after David died − M'lachim Alef 1:7 − and was later dismissed from serving in the Temple by Shlomoh for doing so, as recorded in M'lachim Alef 2:26-27) and he was a descendant of אִיתָמָר Itamar (this is the one mentioned in Sh'muel Beit 8:17 and Divrei Hayamim Alef 24:6). http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Netanel		#17	[-]
Posts: 1615 (03/02/09 11:32:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sophiee - Excuse me???? Mark 2: 25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of G-d and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."he consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (See also Matthew 12 and Luke 6). How have I mis-stated the GT? Jsus (not Yeshu, a made up name) does say that he did no worse than David -- inferring that David sinned ergo HE can sin. . . 1. Your interpretation of the corn-plucking incident is liable to be misleading to a reader. You admitted earlier to calling it the "But gee David sinned so why can't I?" This is an oversimplification of the incident. Nowhere does Yéshu claim that David sinned, let alone claim that since David sinned his disciples may also sin. What Yéshu does do is cite a scriptural passage which he viewed as a parallel to his disciples' situation, which is a common Pharisaic/Rabbinic method. Yéshu's famous statement, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" comes almost directly from the Talmud. For instance: רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר (שמות לא) כי קודש היא לכם היא מסורה בידכם ולא אתם מסורים בידה Or as can be found in Mordochai's translation of this portion of Yoma 85b, "R. Yonatan ben Yosef said: For it is holy unto you; I.e., it (the Sabbath) is commited to your hands, not you to its hands." 2. Regarding the name Yéshu, it is the standard Hebrew way of referring to him nothing more nothing less. J-sus is much more recently "made up" name than Yeshu, so unless you are going to start calling him by the Greek name he is given in the GT I don't see the point in making a big deal about what I call him. David did NOT sin. Jsus, per the GT, DID. This can only be based on the assumption that Yéshu's followers' lives were not in danger. But without danger to live the citing of the story of David would have been ridiculous and out of place. It would have been irrelevent. But it is precisely because the story of David was considered to be an extreme emergency that Yéshu cites it. The two stories have no similarity unless the disciples' lives are every bit as in danger as the life of David. Ignoring this point - whether purposely or unintentionally - leaves room only for a superficial interpretation of the text. Did David sin by eating the consecrated bread? Was Abiathar the high priest David approached? Was Abiathar ever a high priest? Were Davids men with him? Remember, per the GT J-sus is a man-G-d. He is messiah. He is a learned rabbi. So all these facts in Mark must be correct, but are they? Nope. He got the priest wrong. David was alone: no men with him. Abiathar was never a high priest. And it was not unlawful to eat bread offered as the Tanach clearly says: Correct, but irrelevent to whether mitzvot can be suspended to save a life, which is what Maccoby proposes to be the case here. That the wrong kohén was cited is true does not negate the intent of citing David's case, which makes zero sense unless it is as an example of why his disciples may violate Shabbat and the laws against stealing (to preserve life). On a side note, David was not alone. Verses 3 and 6 make clear that David was not alone. And as for the argument that Abiathar was a priest at the time -- nice try but the GT doesn't support that argument. The GT doesnt say a priest, it says he was the high priest. Nowhere in the Tanach does it ever say Abiathar became high priest. The high priest following his father was Zadok. Ahimelech served Zadok as a second priest to Zadok (I Chronicles 18:16). The GT uses the Greek word "epi" which means "upon." (Think "David went into the house of G-d "upon" Abiathar, the high priest"). This is an idiom in Greek that speaks of a person's rank. So "upon the high priest" refers to his status in office as high priest during the time J-sus met with him (which he wasn't then or ever). At no time does it refer to just any period of that person's life. You can see examples of this by reading Matthew 10:17,18; Mark 13:9; Luke 3:1,2; Luke 4:27; Acts 11:27,28; Acts 23:30, Acts 24:20,21, Acts 25:10,26; I Corinthians 6:1,5,6; II Corinthians 6:5,6; II Corinthians 7:14; and I Timothy 6:13. 1.The high priest is Ahimelech, Abiathars father. 2.Abiathar was never a high priest (Zadok was the next high priest) 3.No one is with David, he is alone 4.It is not unlawful for David to eat the bread. David did NOT break any laws None of this has anything to do with the relevence of citing David's story in support of mitzvot being suspended to save life. I am not a missionary so copying and pasting all of this material does nothing for our conversation. Regarding the four points you make at the bottom: 1. True. Yet Divrei Ha-Yamim Alef 24:3 speaks of Tzadoq of the B'nei El'azar and Ahimelech of the B'nei Itamar as contemporaries under David, when in fact it was Tzadoq and Evyatar who were contemporaries under David, as Ahimelech was killed during Shaul's reign. Verse 6 calls him Ahimelech ben Evyatar when it was in fact Evyatar who was the son of Ahimelech. Shmuél Bét 8:17 and Divrei Ha-Yamim Alef 18:16 also call him Ahimelech ben Evyatar. The problem is that Ahimelech's father is called Ahituv, not Evyatar. And this can't possibly be speaking of a son of Evyatar ben Ahimelech named Ahimelech, because Evyatar was a kohén up until Shlomo's reign, and he had no successor. Long story short, while citing Evyatar as the Kohén Gadol during the incident is a mistake on the part of Yéshu or the authors, it is not relevent to whether or not Yéshu's followers would've been justified in picking/stealing to save their lives. 2. Perhaps so, perhaps not. While David eventually appointed Tzadoq as Kohén Gadol I am not sure that he did so immidiately after the murder of Ahimelech. 3. Verses 3 and 6 make clear that while David may approached Ahimelech alone, he was with a band of young men. David was not alone. 4. Even if it were unlawful for him under normal circumstances (Mordochai brings the opinion of Radaq and his father which says that it was from a thanksgiving offering), saving a life would override it. We know that David was of the tribe of Judah, not a kohein how could the kohen gadol (high priest) give him permission to eat the showbread (lechem hapanim)? Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life). The reason Ahimelech gave David the lechem ha panim was because David was in fear of his life and needed food. Contrast that with J-suss disciples picking grain on Shabbat. Were their lives in danger? So J-suss argument shows yet another lack of basic Jewish knowledge. But does it matter if David sinned? Even if David HAD sinned, how does that erase the breaking of Torah law by the man without sin? Jews do not claim that David is a man-G-d, or without sin. We've seen that not only did J-sus sin in breaking Sabbath, but he didnt have his facts straight on the laws. As for your saying: 1. On the contrary, Yéshu's citation of David's story is an example of familiarity with Pharisaic/Rabbinic teaching, not a lack of knowledge of it. It is the Pharisees - unlike the Sadducees - who hold that there is an exception for saving a life. He could not use David's story to draw a parallel to Yéshu's disciples' situation if he was speaking to Sadducees. It is only the Pharisees who hold that the laws are suspended to save a life, and thus only to the Pharisees - and only under life or death circumstances - would his citing of David's story hold any water. 2. The GT text itself does not say that David sinned by doing what he did, so I don't understand what your preoccupation with David sinning or not is. But then you go on to say that (text be damned) MAYBE they were running away from Herod. It is one thing to make assumptions "maybe" -- quite another to have it supported in the text (as you infer). The text in the GT does NOT say they were running away from Herod and that this was a life or death situation for Jsus (making it a possible pkuach nefesh). You said: I don't have Maccoby's book in front of me right now, but IIRC you are oversimplifying his claim. His claim is based not only on the circumstances, but I believe he also went into grammatical arguments regarding the use of certain words in the Greek text. The circumstances and the citation of David's case should make it clear to anyone familiar with Pharisaic/Rabbinic teaching that it was intended to be portrayed as a life and death situation. No. The fact that the GT authors wrote that they ate raw grain gives NO credence to the notion that this story happened at all, let alone that they were starving! Are you being serious, Sophiee? The notion that anyone would just randomly begin eating raw grain is perposterous. It - along with the other variables in the story - should make it clear to anyone reading it that the intent was to portray a life or death situation of intense hunger. Only intense hunger would cause anyone to eat something that would only serve to put something - anything - in your stomach, and nothing of worth beyond that. If you have an issue with Maccoby's conclusions that is fine, so be it. Ty asked and I specified what instance in particular I was speaking of. Last Edited By: Netanel 03/02/09 12:11:25. Edited 2 times.
ProfBenTziyyon		#18	[-]
Posts: 1776 (03/02/09 12:17:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel wrote: Or as can be found in Mordochai's translation of this portion of Yoma 85b.... Pardon me, but when did I post a translation of an excerpt from Yoma 85b? http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Netanel		#19	[-]
Posts: 1616 (03/02/09 12:35:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The translation comes from the PDF you uploaded in this thread: http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/topic/2722?page=-1
Sophiee1		#20	[-]
Posts: 11893 (03/02/09 13:08:09) Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Netanel, please quote from the Greek Text ANY indication that Jsus and his men were fleeing from anyone in this instance. This is nothing more than a hypothesis of Hyam Maccoby's. I'm amazed you stated that Jsus' supposed use of David's story is an example of familiarity with Pharisaic/Rabbinic teaching, not a lack of knowledge of it when the authors couldn't even get the name of the kohein gadol correct! Why all these bending over backwards apologetics for the Greek Text? If Jsus ever lived and if the GT can be trusted (two very big "if"s) then he may or may not have sinned in the case of healing a man on Shabbat. There is no question that he encouraged his men to sin in the case of picking on Shabbat. Feel free to support your argument with quotes from the GT or T'nach -- or even from Maccoby. I am perfectly serious -- I think the entire tale, like most if not all of the Greek Text, is pure fiction. סופי And everything that Sarah tells you, listen to her voice. Bereshit (Genesis) 21:12 Last Edited By: Sophiee1 03/02/09 13:11:21. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Healing on the Sabbath -- Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker

Healing on the Sabbath -- Maccoby's book, The Mythmaker

Quick Reply