God Ate Meat and Milk Together [Archive]

seebs

16th March 2004, 08:42 PM

There's the long version:

Also Sprach Carla Miriam Levy:
> for example, chicken is considered "meat" even though there's no danger of boiling a chicken in its mothers' milk. Indeed, the whole milk/meat separation thing is a fence around the Torah's very specific injunction against boiling a kid in its mother's milk, which was presumably a ritual practice of some other cult at the time.

For years I've imagined the conversations around the camp-fires in the Wilderness. 40 years is a long time. For Moses it must have seemed a *very* long time...

Moses:
OK, like, listen up guys. God says that it's really cruel to boil a kid in its mother's milk, so don't do it, K?

One Of Moses's People and God's Chosen (possibly with a Welsh accent):
How do we know if it's its mother? I got lots of goats, and they all look the same to me. At least, they do from the front.

[Hoots of laughter and derision]

Moses:
Fair point, brother. No, stop tittering you lot. Titter ye not! Brother Hugh has raised a valid point and, while I'm obviously not Our Lord, I do have certain negotiation rights during this transition period from slavery to full PL/MH citizenship. Therefore, in deference to Brother Hugh's failing eyesight - Oy! I said no tittering! - I am empowered to interpret this particular requirement to mean that no kid shall be boiled in any goat's milk /in case/ it was its mother's.

Another One of M's P & G's C:
What about lambs?

Moses:
Huh? "Don't boil a lamb in goat's milk"? Why not?

AOoM'sP&G'sC:
No, what about boiling a lamb in ewe's milk?

Hugh:
No, Iestyn, I already told you, mine's goat's milk.

Iestyn:
Not you, Hugh, ewe!

Hugh:
OIC

Moses:
When you two have quite finished...

[Hugh and Iestyn shuffle uncomfortably]

Moses:
Right, brother Iestyn has raised a valid point. For the avoidance of doubt, and in a spirit of equal opportunity for young even-toed ruminant ungulates, thou shalt not boil a kid in goat's milk, nor a lamb in ewe's.

Hugh:
I already told y...

Moses:
Shut up, Hugh.

Hugh:
Sorry.

Yet AOoM'sP&G'sC:
Do we have to not boil it?

Moses:
Sorry, Brother Dai, you lost me.

Dai:
Do we have to not boil the lamb? Only, I don't like boiled lamb. Goes tough and loses all its flavour the way my wife does it. I'd rather not have mine oven-baked, if it's all the same to you.

Moses:
Well, Brother Dai, your Bronwyn's cooking is famous throughout the Wilderness...

[Howls of derisive laughter]

Moses:
...but are you telling me that she bakes lamb with ewe's milk?

Dai:
No, but she uses garlic butter, and that's made from milk, isn't it?

[Mumbles of "No, it grows in the ground, you [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]!"]

Moses:
OK, Brother Dai, fair enough. I think that we can extend the rules from the specific case outlined by Him to cover all forms of cooking lamb or kid wherever milk, or milk-derived produce, is used, and there is a risk that the milk or milk-derived produce might have come from the animal's mother.

Still AOoM'sP&G'sC:
What if it's older?

Moses:
Sorry, Brother Gareth, do you mean cheese, or what?

Gareth:
No, not cheese. Cheese is made from carpet weevils, as any fule kno. I mean, what if it's a big sheep, or a big goat. Its mother might still be alive.

Moses:
Is that likely?

[General murmurs of "Ol' Geraint's Daisy lived to be over 22 years old before she accidentally glanced into a mirror and lased herself to death" and similar tales of aged beasts]

Moses:
OK, OK. No lambs or kids or ewes or rams or goats to be cooked in any way where the method of cooking involves milk or milk derivatives that have come from the same species.

ASAOoM'sP&G'sC:
Wether!

Moses:
It's a desert. The outlook is sunny. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

AYAOoM'sP&G'sC:
I like a bit of boiled fish, me.

All:
Shut up, Tomos!

ASAOoM'sP&G'sC:
No, a wether is a castrated sheep, innit?

Moses:
I never knu dat! OK, wethers too. Thank you, Brother Lloyd.

AROOoM'sP&G'sC:
Calves. You forgot calves.

Moses:
We haven't got any calves. I broke the golden one, and the rest died of BSE four years ago.

AROOoM'sP&G'sC:
We might buy some more.

Moses:
Who from?

Lloyd:
"From whom".

All:
Shut up, Lloyd!

Tomas:
We might encounter a band of roving cattle salesmen. You never know.

Moses [irritated]:
OK, calves too, if we ever get any.

Bronwyn:
I get my milk delivered.

[More tittering, and accusations of children looking more like the milkman than Dai.]

Moses [testily]:
So, it's still milk, isn't it?

Bronwyn:
Yes, but I don't know what kind it is, do I? It could be goat's or ewe's or *anything*. It's just white stuff in a bottle to me.

Moses:
My God, Brother Dai, whatever did you see in this woman?

Dai:
Big tits, Mo'.

[Gales of laughter. Bronwyn hits Moses and Dai with her handbag and storms off to her tent. Hugh follows, trying to look inconspicuous.]

Moses:
Seriously, though, brother, the lady does have a point. How many of you can't tell goat's milk from ewe's milk?

[A number of hands are raised. Moses is becoming extremely irate.]

Moses:
Right then. Brother Aaron, take a note of this. No animal, of any form, and regardless of age or sex, is to be cooked in any manner that involves milk, or milk-derived produce, regardless of the species that produced the milk, because it might be its mother's milk. Said regulation shall from hereon in apply to all goats, and sheep, and cows.

Lloyd:
And deer.

Aaron [writing]:
...and...deer...

Iestyn:
And antelope.

Aaron:
...and...antelope...

Lloyd [getting in the swing of things]:
And gnu.

[Various "What's gnu?" "Nothing, what's gnu with you" etc.]

Aaron:
...and...gnu...

[Moses is almost beside himself]

Tomas:
And chickens.

Aaron:
...and...chickens...

Moses:
Noooooooo!

[Fade]

koilias

16th March 2004, 09:39 PM

May I remind you that there is one fence around Torah that is even more riduculous than the one above:

Love those who hate you...for if you love those who love you what credit is that to you?

As the incident immediately following the angelic visitation shows, even Abraham can convince HaShem to practice Hesed. If he can change HaShem's mind with a major commandment, how much more can he convince HaShem to change His mind on a minor one. :D

koilias

16th March 2004, 09:41 PM

Dare I say, maybe Abraham was testing HaShem's patience to see how much he could get away with.:D

simchat_torah

16th March 2004, 10:55 PM

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 03:51 AM

Yeppers. YHWH manifested as three men, and "they ate" of the "butter, milk, and the calf":

Gen 18
1 Yahweh appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day.
2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and saw that three men stood opposite him. When he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth,
3 and said, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in your sight, please don’t go away from your servant.
4 Now let a little water be fetched, wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
5 I will get a morsel of bread so you can refresh your heart. After that you may go your way, now that you have come to your servant.”
They said, “Very well, do as you have said.”

6 Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah, and said, “Quickly make ready three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes.”
7 Abraham ran to the herd, and fetched a tender and good calf, and gave it to the servant. He hurried to dress it.
8 He took butter, milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them. He stood by them under the tree, and they ate.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

YatzivPatgam

17th March 2004, 07:10 AM

#1) Was that YHVH that appeared?

#2) Did they eat the meat and milk together, or seperately?

I'm definately not intending to defend the Talmudic interpretation, I'm only playing devil's advocate to the OP.

shalom,
yafet
Chaver, why would you defend it? ;)

The answer lies in a simple timeline. This comes before the actualy mitzvah is given to Yisrael.

HaShem doesn't manifest into anything- those three men are angles.

And if it wasn't for those fences Kolias, you wouldn't be able to purchase all those neat Jewish things, like Teffilim, Tzzizit, Mezzuzah that I know you love so much ;)

Regardless, HaShem or Angles representing his divine message are not bound to Mitzvah.

Shalom

Hix

17th March 2004, 07:22 AM

I was actually about to post this, the Mitzvah regarding not mixing milk and meat had not been given yet. It is for this reason Moshe was able to marry a gentile, and several other laws such as incest were broken before they were given. Becuase they were broken does not mean they were permissible.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Henaynei

17th March 2004, 07:28 AM

Actually - the rabbinic interrperataion is that while indeed "they did eat" it in no way specififies a time frame and that after eating the dairy portion "the visitors" waited a period of time before eatig the meat - afterall it takes quite a while to cook a whole kid... it is doubted that Avram made wait the whole time it took to prepare the meat, but instead they "noshed" on the dairy .... seems the hospitable thing to do :)

Sephania

17th March 2004, 11:24 AM

I was reading Steve's post and this came to me. Sarai baked cakes, or some quick flat breads ) (pitas?) So this bread was for all of them. Now everyone assumes that they all ate the bread with milk, and cheese, and meat. But where does it say they did?

Abraham tells them:
5 (And) I will fetch a morsel of bread, and stay ye your heart; after that ye shall pass on; forasmuch as ye are come to your servant.' And they said: 'So do, as thou hast said.'

So he runs and tells Sarah:

6 (And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said): 'Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes.'

But this isn't good enough for his guests so he:

7 (And Abraham) ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto the servant; and he hastened to dress it.

8 And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

Notice that it says "they did eat", but not that each of them ate everything.
What I see here is that they all had bread, one may have had his bread with meat, the second with cheese ( not butter, curd is cheese) and the third with milk. We can deduce that they all had bread because Abraham told Sarah to measure 3 measures of fine meal, which also indicates that he didn't plan on eating with them.

Another thing comes to mind as well, why did Abraham stand by the tree? Why didn't he join them? Wouldn't this have been proper nomadic custom to eat with your guests?

Actually - the rabbinic interrperataion is that while indeed "they did eat" it in no way specififies a time frame and that after eating the dairy portion "the visitors" waited a period of time before eatig the meat - afterall it takes quite a while to cook a whole kid... it is doubted that Avram made wait the whole time it took to prepare the meat, but instead they "noshed" on the dairy .... seems the hospitable thing to do :)

"And he took curd, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat."

But wouldn't there be a break in the list if that were so? These three things are strung together like they are "brought to the table at the same time. The kid wouldn't have had to have been cooked whole would it? After slaughtering it "steaks" could have been cut off and quickley "grilled" :)

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 12:10 PM

Sephania

17th March 2004, 12:34 PM

I wasn't trying to refute her. Just passing on some insight and asking a question. Seems that most of what I write rubs you the wrong way Simchat Torah, why is that?

To Henaynei, sister, I was not saying that what you posted was not correct, just thinking about this scenario and throwing out thoughts. I will be more careful in the future.

koilias

17th March 2004, 03:12 PM

And if it wasn't for those fences Kolias, you wouldn't be able to purchase all those neat Jewish things, like Teffilim, Tzzizit, Mezzuzah that I know you love so much ;)
ha, ha, ha. Exactly. ;)

Actually, Haver, one binds Torah with acts of Lovingkindness...

Hesed v'emet you shall not forsake,
You shall bind them around your vocal chords
And write them on the tablet of your heart.

משלי ג 3

Now that's a fence!

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 03:30 PM

Henaynei is correct as to the Talmudic interpretation of this passage. Essentially, the Rabbis teach that while the kid was cooking they ate the butter, milk and cakes while the calf was being prepared to be placed before them.

just a little fyi...

Shalom!
yafet

What I see, personally though, is that Occam's razor isn't in favor of that interpretation. :-)

There are two distinct groupings: The bread which would have probably taken the longest to cook as they were kneaded and needed to rise; and the dairy with meat. There is no mention of them eating the bread, but there is a specific mention of them eating the cheese/butter, milk, and meat within the same breath.

A literal reading of the text has:

1) Abraham telling Sarah to make cakes, her in the tent.

2) YHWH's manifestation / Angels (whatever you interpret it as) having the dairy and meat brought before them, and eating it.

3) Then they ask where Sarah was (there is no account of her bringing out the bread she was working on in the tent).

4) Sarah, herself, still in the tent, overhearing their conversation.

Why do we have to add to the Torah by reading between the lines?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Hix

17th March 2004, 03:33 PM

Henaynei

17th March 2004, 04:12 PM

Henaynei

17th March 2004, 04:13 PM

Henaynei

17th March 2004, 04:19 PM

Regardless, this occurance happened before the mitzvot were given, which means it cannot be used to prove that the Mishna is invalid. Which we all know was the original reason of this thread.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~
Actually the rabbis teach that Torah was given, from the beginning (Torah is Wisdom and Wisdom is from the foundations) - they back this up by showing such verses AS the one discussed here, and Avraham giving a tithe, and He'vel giving a sacrifice from the herd in contrast to the one offered by his brother that led him to sin..... and a multitude of others. AND if the rabbis are to believed, that the Mishna is "contained" in the Torah , then it too, must have been "alive" in some manifestation before Sinai.

JewishHeart

17th March 2004, 04:52 PM

I think some people reallllllly stretch things to get to say what they want. Why don't we just read the black and white? The truth is God ate meat and milk together, any other interpretation is stretching the word of God (like the druggies do to say that marijuana is permissible in the Bible, or JWs, or Mormons)... why cant we just read the black and white? The truth is oral Torah is dead ! Moses finished every word, it says so in Deuteronomy. The Kariates are right ! If more messianics were like Kariates and reject oral Torah, it would make things alot easier !

Sephania

17th March 2004, 04:54 PM

Henaynei, kinda along the line of ALL were present at the foot of the mountain that day?

JewishHeart

17th March 2004, 04:54 PM

I will say this much, I respect oral Torah in as much as it held the Jewish people together in the diaspora; but not as divine. My wife and I light candles every Shabatt, and one of the reasons is to identify with our people. But oral torah and its traditions is a trap if you see it as divine.

Hix

17th March 2004, 05:10 PM

Actually Jewishheart most dont see it as divine, but binding all the same. G-d gives the Rabbis the authority to legislate and for the people to follow:

Deuteronomy 17:8 - If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the L-rd thy G-d shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the L-rd shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, [to] the right hand, nor [to] the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the L-rd thy G-d, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

Lets face it, without Oral Torah there would be widespread confusion as to how to perform certain aspects of the law. Written words can only tell so much, they are LIMITED. That is why G-d had an Oral Torah created as well. We are told not to do work on Shabbat in the Torah but only the Oral Torah tells us what work is! And how about the commandment of tefillin, without the Oral Torah these verses would be misinterperated in a million different ways.
What does that leave? confusion, arguing between HaShems people over this law and that law and what this means and what that means. And even worse than that people failing to perform the set mitzvot becuase they dont understand how its done the way HaShem wants.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 05:18 PM

Seems that most of what I write rubs you the wrong way Simchat Torah, why is that?

Actually Zayit, when I had originally posted my last response in this thread I had not even bothered to read your reply as of yet. I was merely complimenting Henaynei and adding to what she said. In other words, there was no way I was responding to you because I hadn't even read what you had written yet!

I believe that most of the 'conflict' you might perceive is nonexistent. We have probably agreed on as many topics as we hav disagreed on, and I don't think I have ever responded merely to attack you.... only to make a particular point I might disagree with.

I cringe to use the words, "its all in your head" because that sounds derrogatory, but I can't think of a better way to put it. sorry :sigh:

Shalom,
yafet

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 05:23 PM

My response that you felt indicated that you 'rub me the wrong way':

Henaynei is correct as to the Talmudic interpretation of this passage.

Here, I affirm that Henaynei properly expressed the Rabbinical interpretation.

Essentially, the Rabbis teach that while the kid was cooking they ate the butter, milk and cakes while the calf was being prepared to be placed before them.

just a little fyi...
and here I go on to add a touch more to her explanation.

I don't see where I addressed you Zayit. I merely stated "the Rabbis teach XYZ"... not that, "Zayit, you're wrong, and here's my proof." You see, I often find that the average Messianic is rather uneducated when it comes to Rabbinical teaching, and I make it a point to at least include that in the disucssion. Whether I agree or disagree with the Rabbis is another thing all together.

In fact, on this particular issue I have a very difficult time believing their interpretation. I would even go so far as to say I lean towards your view.

shalom,
yafet

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 05:43 PM

Actually Jewishheart most dont see it as divine, but binding all the same. G-d gives the Rabbis the authority to legislate and for the people to follow:

Deuteronomy 17:8 - If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the L-rd thy G-d shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the L-rd shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, [to] the right hand, nor [to] the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the L-rd thy G-d, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.

Hix, we already dealt with this before in a pervious thread. You're reading into things again. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates:

This talks about retribution, not Oral Torah. For example, this does NOT allow for the entire Tract on the Sabbath in the Talmud, because none of the arguments within the Sabbath Tract have to do with blood for blood, plea and plea, and wound for wound (injury for injury and retribution, people not taking REVENGE and other things into their own hands).

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Hix

17th March 2004, 05:50 PM

aha, I just KNEW you would respond, always ruin my fun Thadman ;)

I did notice you conveniently missed the rest of my post as to how sola scriptura DOESNT work such as with tefflin and the Shabbat but oh well:
Now in this instance the Rabbis are given authority to legislate, I only posted from that particular part becuase it was convenient, just becuase the top mentions a certain bit does not mean that is all the Rabbis are given authority for. On the contrary Yeshua said for the people to follow what the Rabbis say as they sit on Moshes seat. Authority for the Rabbis is a consistant message, with more scripture than the one example Ive managed to find.
Now lets try and get this thread back on topic...

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Mordechai18

17th March 2004, 05:52 PM

I agree with the Karaites re: Oral Law. I believe the Oral Law is the cause of more division than not.
I won't go into why because it is not my intent to debate.

b'Shalom

ShirChadash

17th March 2004, 05:54 PM

OH Morry I hope and pray for the day when you will be "legally" able to debate among us on this forum!!!! ;) I can NOT wait to hear what you have to say about everything.Seriously.

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 06:04 PM

Let me remedy this, my friend :-)

Lets face it, without Oral Torah there would be widespread confusion as to how to perform certain aspects of the law. Written words can only tell so much, they are LIMITED. That is why G-d had an Oral Torah created as well. We are told not to do work on Shabbat in the Torah but only the Oral Torah tells us what work is!

Work is work. Do not add or subtract from his Law :-) God didn't define it down to the number of wheat grains you can lift before it is considered work because work is an arbitrary concept (how many grains of sand does it take to make a "dune" as opposed to a "pile"). In other words, if you feel you're working on the Sabbath, DON'T! :-)

And how about the commandment of tefillin, without the Oral Torah these verses would be misinterperated in a million different ways.

There is NO command of Tefillin. Sure you can say, "Well here is where something that sounds like it is described, and if you interpret it this way it is a command," but that once again adds to God's Law. Tefillin are mentioned in the NT, and where they were mentioned they were criticized, much like EVERY OTHER Oral "Law" in the volume. We've dealt with this Hix, and yours is not a solid case :-)

Additionally, how do you know that the Rabbinic traditions of today are those that existed in the 1st Century? They've been passed down through the ages by men who reject Jesus as the Messiah, and strived to include those traditions which Jesus EXPLICITLY spoke out against (specifically, the Sabbath, ritual clenliness, etc).

Given the choice, I'd follow the Torah as Jesus proposed in the NT, not a modern Rabbinical interpretation.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Mordechai18

17th March 2004, 06:05 PM

OH Morry I hope and pray for the day when you will be "legally" able to debate among us on this forum!!!! ;) I can NOT wait to hear what you have to say about everything.Seriously.

I accept this as a very high compliment, Zemirah. Thank you.

ShirChadash

17th March 2004, 06:12 PM

You are very welcome, my dear brother.

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 06:15 PM

Hix

17th March 2004, 06:18 PM

JewishHeart

17th March 2004, 06:50 PM

"without the Oral Torah, what then?" - Hix

Hix,

The Holy Spirit

Hix

17th March 2004, 06:56 PM

Then youve just created your own set of Halacha, you see the paradox here? The law cannot be followed without creating halacha or following halacha already created. Il stick to the Rabbis, they were given the scriptures for them to interperate.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

JewishHeart

17th March 2004, 07:18 PM

"Then youve just created your own set of Halacha, you see the paradox here? The law cannot be followed without creating halacha or following halacha already created. Il stick to the Rabbis, they were given the scriptures for them to interperate. "- Hix

I prefer the Holy Spirit to the rabis.

The Holy Spirit is my halacha

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 07:20 PM

messy messy messianics.

sigh...

Henaynei

17th March 2004, 07:59 PM

My husband and I have been fighting this "battle" for 16 years - and in response he created the fictional character "Mad Moshe'" - some day when we get the scanner working well I will post some of the cartoons he has created - sometimes laughter communicates where discussion can not :)

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 08:11 PM

haha everyone wants to rain on my parade today ;)

Anyway Steve-o, if people feel themselves they are working, what about a doctor on call or a fireman or something similar? They are working and receiving money for it, however they do it to save lives. The Oral Torah says to save a life, keeping Shabbat falls by the wayside, without the Oral Torah, what then?

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Did Jesus ever get paid for his healing? Did Paul ever get paid for his teaching?

There is a Biblical difference between, as an example, between being a server at a soup kitchen and catering at a dinnerparty.

When I work for the Dean over the summer, I refuse to do anything on Friday nights after sundown and Saturdays. If they need my help at those times, I volunteer. :-)

If, for another example, a volunteer EMT squad, with the help of a volunteer Fire Department, extracts you from your car and patches you up do they break the Sabbath? Now what happens if Rural Metro comes along, scrapes you off the sidewalk, saves your life, THEN hands you a bill for $500, do they break the Sabbath?

WWJD?

Torah is never "trumped." :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

17th March 2004, 08:12 PM

Thadman ... Thadman ... Thadman.

I don't think that either of you have a very strong argument. The fact is, Y'shua actually taught a number of Oral Mitzvot. However, at the same time, he also disagreed with a lot of oral mitzvot.

Where is the truth? I think its somewhere between where the two of you stand.

;)

shalom,
yafet

My friend, what are some examples of such teaching? If you could post them, I would like to examine them on my free time. :-)

Taude saggi!
-Steve-o

simchat_torah

17th March 2004, 09:34 PM

I will post them soon ;)

I would also have to ask you, would Y'shua then, according to your analogy, have to deny categorically each and every Oral Halacha? Obviously this doesn't exist, so I'm sure you can't answer yes... aren't we then caught in a rather perplexing paradox under this side of things?

But first, I'd like to comment:When I work for the Dean over the summer, I refuse to do anything on Friday nights after sundown and Saturdays. If they need my help at those times, I volunteer. :-)

If, for another example, a volunteer EMT squad, with the help of a volunteer Fire Department, extracts you from your car and patches you up do they break the Sabbath? Now what happens if Rural Metro comes along, scrapes you off the sidewalk, saves your life, THEN hands you a bill for $500, do they break the Sabbath?

So... you would work for free, but not work for money. I don't think the Torah defines "work" as in that which is only done for money. See how sloppy interpretations can get without some established form?

I'm not here to condemn your 'work' on Shabbat, but certainly you can't say that merely because your work isn't paid for that you are 'resting', nu?

shalom,
yafet

The Thadman

18th March 2004, 01:58 AM

I will post them soon ;)

Much appreciated :-)

I would also have to ask you, would Y'shua then, according to your analogy, have to deny categorically each and every Oral Halacha? Obviously this doesn't exist, so I'm sure you can't answer yes... aren't we then caught in a rather perplexing paradox under this side of things?

I see one important pattern in his teachings: That which adds to God's Torah is to be tossed.

This is why it is proper to do good on the Sabbath, not a sin and/or ritually impure if you don't wash your hands up to the elbow, and it is NOT right to divorce one's wife except for sexual shame/impurity.

But first, I'd like to comment:
So... you would work for free, but not work for money. I don't think the Torah defines "work" as in that which is only done for money. See how sloppy interpretations can get without some established form?

Depends on the nature of what needs to be done. If it is what I do during the week, I cannot. If it's showing a bunch of freshmen the campus, or helping them take a test, how is this work? Is taking a fishing trip work? Is eating out with friends work?

If a math wiz does calculus problems for fun, and an english major finds it to be a chore, who is doing work? The whiz who does problems to relax, clear his mind and rest? Or the english major who cannot stand to work with derivatives?

I'm not here to condemn your 'work' on Shabbat, but certainly you can't say that merely because your work isn't paid for that you are 'resting', nu?

The nature of what we're calling "work" here is completely different, which I failed to mention in my previous post. I would not and could not do my normal "9-to-5 stuff" on a Sabbath. I do not see a paradox, my friend.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Hix

18th March 2004, 05:03 AM

I see a BIG paradox, the Torah does not define work, so there could be a million and one definitions thereof. In essence you are creating your own Halacha. It is impossible to perform the Torah without some halacha and interperation involved, Id rather go with a source that was given full authority.

The example of someone whos profession means they are daily saving lives, and should they work on Shabbat is living proof. The Oral Torah is clear that it is permissible to work on Shabbat to save a life, in fact it is permissible to break any mitzvot to save a life as life is most important.
As far as I know its a karaite view that its permissible to work on Shabbat but to request not to get paid for it, and if you dont get paid for it in the first place its fine. Well for a start they have created their own halacha/oral law again, and secondly that doesnt take away from the fact they are still working.

Yafet is right, what we have here is a classic example of mis-interperation becuase the Torah is not specific on what work is. Noone in their right minds can claim that G-d would give such an important mitzvot without giving a more in depth explaination for the people to follow.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

INOrder

18th March 2004, 01:48 PM

Hello all,

what I see here is something that my Rabbi has taught me between the difference of a Jew and the difference of a gentile concerning Torah.

The Pakistani who has a few Jewish customers asks the Rabbi, "Can I work on the sabbath?"
the Rabbi replies, "No, you cannot work on the sabbath"
the Pakistani responds, "ok"
and continues to make his work until he thinks the sabbath has come for him.
This 1st pakistani applied this sabbath as any one day out of the week for to him it said, "6 days you shall work".

Now here is an Irish man who lives in a Jewish neighborhood and he asks the Rabbi, "I realized that you Jews dont work from sundown friday to sundown saturday, should I work on the sabbath?"
The Rabbi says, "no"
The Irishman says, "ok" and he goes about his way.

The Rabbi makes a remark, "Oyvey, goyim!"

There is a Jewish student and he asks the Rabbi, "Rabbi, why do we not work on the sabbath?" [this is equivalent to asking "should I work on the sabbath?" as the two goys had asked, no difference in the question other than wording.]

The Rabbi responds with the biblical nuggets.
The Jewish student replies, "Then what If what I consider not working is work to you, am I in trouble?"
The Rabbi responds, "yes"
the Jewish student responds "why?"
the Rabbi gives him more biblical nuggets.
Then the student asks of the Rabbi, "teach me what is considered work and not work so that I may keep the way of HASHEM and be a light by doing so."

See, the Jewish soul continuously seeks while the gentile is satisfied until he observes something else that he might want to know about.

one Jew thought that picking up sticks was not a big deal at all, but he knew better and died for it.

a gentile asked of two rabbi's, "tell me the entire Torah in the time I can stand on one foot".
One of the Rabbi gave him Oral Torah and told the gentile to learn the rest of what is Judaism.
It seems that gentiles and gentile souls only want quick and simple answers. They want the easy way.
It isnt that this is bad.
However such souls, even if they do not agree, should not in any way plunge on those that seek much more study.
If any of you are satisfied with the tid bits, then ok, be done and sit while those who wish to move on let them move on.
And I am one to move on, and in fact I am beginning to see this New Testament as a type of Talmudic writing; full of the Oral Torah everywhere I read in it. I am Jewish so I can see these things.

I didnt come here for a debate, just to share my thoughts, and pardon me if I have offended anyone, that is not what I intended.

bye

ShirChadash

18th March 2004, 02:05 PM

Most excellent, INOrder. Thanks for sharing that. :)

JewishHeart

18th March 2004, 06:24 PM

Hix,

Whatever happened to the conviction of the Holy Spirit and reading the word in the Spirit of God?

INOrder,

I hear you, but have you ever noticed that its the simple people who enjoy life the most?

The difference between messianic Judaism and rabbinical Judaism - messianic Judaism the way to God is relationship (through Messiah Yeshua) and anything that hinders that relationship should be tossed; in rabbinic Judaism it is study, and anything that hinders study of oral torah should be tossed.

What did G-d create us for? Study or Relationship?

What is the scriptures worth without the Holy Spirit to convict us?

My oral Torah- read the Torah and let the Holy Spirit lead me in obedience.

Otherwise the blood that helps us , "enter the throneroom of grace with boldness and confidence in our time of need" is diminished to rabbinical decisions.

InOrder,

Seek the G-d of Moshe, the G-d of Avraham,the G-d of Yakov, seek a personal relationship with G-d. Don't settle for the decisions of men on obedience to G-d

JewishHeart

18th March 2004, 06:29 PM

JewishHeart

18th March 2004, 06:31 PM

BTW- there are two rabis I love to study, so I'm not "sigur" on oral torah ( just as commentary that needs to be tested)

Rav Cook

Rav Nachman

simchat_torah

18th March 2004, 07:10 PM

Henaynei

18th March 2004, 07:31 PM

koilias

18th March 2004, 07:33 PM

Have any of you read the rabinic decision on the kosher oven?

The majority ruled over HaShem (Yeshua) Himself.

The rabi who agreed with G-d was exiled and persecuted.

This is your inheritance in oral Torah- obeying man over G-d.
No...this story is told to illustrate that HaShem Himself will assent to the judgment of the council. Yeshua said the same:

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

He said "I no longer call you servants, but rather, friends...For you know my Father's business".

Now THAT, Haver, is a TRUE RELATIONSHIP WITH HASHEM.

Henaynei

18th March 2004, 07:55 PM

There is no such rabbinic discussion.
Ahhh... actually, simchat_torah, there is. And it played pretty much the way JewishHeart said it did.

THIS is why almost every Torah observant, Talmud positive person here has at one time or another stated that Talmud is (for them) to be followed in all things, UNLESS the specific halakah contridicts Torah. Yes, Torah is primary, but in more cases than not, Talmud is the tool (augmented by the Ruakh) that best enlightens what Torah is telling us to do :) For while good and g-dly scholars have passed to us much wisdom that has stood the rigorous test of millenia, they are men and *can* be subject to the usual human frailities.

By the way I strongly recvommend for the serious Halakick student:
Rabbi Akiva's Messiah (http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.ACCT80159/sc.2/category.2/it.A/id.89/.f;jsessionid=ac112b6b1f43c3daed73eff049c8b11bc59b4d68b9fc.qQvJq2PEmlnva30L-BbQmkLz-ATzr6Lzn6rzqwTxpQOUc30KaNDNo6XKq6zInRmTbgbNo6XK-kDvrA4Ka34IqQvJq2PEmlnva30L-BbQmkLz-ATzr6Lzn6rzqwTxpQOxah4QbhqN8QvJpkixo6XHngbynknvrkLOlQzNp65In0__), by Daniel Gruber
(How the Pharisaical branch of Judaism gained the upper hand to become the leading form of Judaism through its own "false messiah", Bar Kochba.

I do not agree with all the opinions of Daniel Gruber, but his book has much historical information and is very enlightening for the serious rabbinic student.

Here is some information on the Oven Event:
The tanoor Akhnai, an earthen oven: is it clean or unclean? (http://www.lehigh.edu/~gdb0/simcha/Gruber.htm)

Note that the issue of whether what Jewish people do is worthwhile or valid or merciful

The issue is the authority that the Rabbis claim over Scripture and even God himself.
As a consequence of Rabbi Eliezar’s defeat, the other Rabbis voted to excommunicate him (when he wasn’t there).
Rabbi Eliezar was the heir of Yachonan Ben Zakkai (Yochanan praised as the wisest of the sages) and brother-in-law of Rabban Gamaliel. He was a priest and a traditional Rabbi (opposed to interpretation), the leader in his generation of Beit Shammai, called Rabbi Eliezar the Great, the very first Rabbi quoted in the first tractate of Mishnah.
What is happening here is theo-political: Beit Hillel is takes authority from Bet Shammai.
Five major things that this story teaches:

The Rabbis do not accept the miraculous in determining the correctness of a tradition.

Deut does warn against following someone with a sign, if they are proclaiming let us go after other gods. So signs can be in an anti-G-d context.
But the issue with Rabbi Eliezar doesn’t fall into this category, since he wasn’t talking about following other gods. It wasn’t a question of idolatry but authority.
Can proof be brought from a carob tree or a stream of water or a voice from heaven? Scriptures says so. E.g., Aaron’s rod, or blood in Nile, fleece of Gideon.

The Rabbis paid no attention to a heavenly voice (Bath Kol) after Sinai.

Rabbi Joshua says, "lo ba-shamayim hi, It is not in heaven."
So after Sinai, we pay no attention to a heavenly voice.
Yet throughout Scripture, HaShem speaks it.
In Job, Psalms, and Ezekiel, He speaks from heaven.
Indeed, everywhere else in Talmud itself, a voice from Heaven is authoritative.

The authority to determine what is acceptable does not rest with G-d but with the majority.

Pay no attention to a heavenly voice (bath kol).
Ex 23:2. "You shall follow a multitude to do evil," by implication you must follow a multitude to do good. But who defines good? In the story, God didn’t know he had decreed this! He didn’t know that he’d given up his authority to the majority of Rabbis.
In Tanakh, the majority is almost always wrong! Throughout Tanakh, God acts as if he’s still in charge, bringing judgment upon the majority when it is in sin.

Yet this story portrays G-d as laughing, "My sons have defeated (outwitted) me!" Yet is G-d ever portrayed in Tanakh this way? Are men ever smarter than G-d?

It’s a humorous story when you read it, but when you think of it, it’s not so funny. Contrast Psalm 2 and other references to G-d laughing, in supreme authority.

The Rabbis will excommunicate anyone who will not submit to their decision.

This is not normative first century Judaism.
It’s fitting that it’s Rabbi Eliezar the Great that’s been excommunicated, circa 115 CE.
BTW, Talmud records that Eliezar had discussions with Talmidei Yeshua, and respected some things they had to say.

This story marks a major turning point in Jewish history, comparable to Constantine giving authority to the Bishops.

Mordechai18

18th March 2004, 09:16 PM

This story marks a major turning point in Jewish history, comparable to Constantine giving authority to the Bishops.

This whole thing makes my eyebrows sore from arching too much. It bothers me deeply and profoundly.

Henaynei

18th March 2004, 09:25 PM

This whole thing makes my eyebrows sore from arching too much. It bothers me deeply and profoundly.Yes, I, too, have had some trouble with this.... what is it that bothers you?

Mordechai18

18th March 2004, 09:38 PM

Yes, I, too, have had some trouble with this.... what is it that bothers you?

Hmm, without getting contentious, I have problems with the level of authority assumed by Rabbinical sources.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Exodus 34:27

Haha, it's kind of funny, thinking about being on this board - with followers of Jesus holding the Oral Law in higher regard than I do! :)

Henaynei

18th March 2004, 10:00 PM

Hmm, without getting contentious, I have problems with the level of authority assumed by Rabbinical sources.

Haha, it's kind of funny, thinking about being on this board - with followers of Jesus holding the Oral Law in higher regard than I do! :)HaShem created levity (see - it even has the priesthood in it!!) just look at the giraffe and the rhino, the shrew and the dung beetle - HE just HAS to have an ironic sense of humor.

The walk with Him is by nature full of irony and delicate pathos..... if our eyes only remain on Him and not our own feet ;)

koilias

18th March 2004, 10:36 PM

Haha, it's kind of funny, thinking about being on this board - with followers of Jesus holding the Oral Law in higher regard than I do! :)Actually, achi, this is were frame of reference is very important.

The Oral Torah is given to us a gift to use respectfully and for the good of humanity...

If we use it disrespectfully, threatening others with it, instead of bringing them to a closer relationship with HaShem and with our neighbor...as it is intended...then we are violating a sacred gift--HaShem's very nearness to us. This is why Yeshua's brother Yacob said: Do not let many among you become teachers.

The Oral Torah is given so that we may be His friends. HaShem freely gives us authority because He loves us.

Mordechai18

18th March 2004, 11:21 PM

HaShem created levity (see - it even has the priesthood in it!!))

Ha! I never noticed that before! :D

Mordechai18

18th March 2004, 11:23 PM

This is why Yeshua's brother Yacob said: Do not let many among you become teachers.

Interesting! That's not a quote I had ever heard before - could you please provide for me book and verse number? That could be a very useful quote... it seems not to be taken very seriously in the church these days...

The Thadman

19th March 2004, 12:11 AM

Interesting! That's not a quote I had ever heard before - could you please provide for me book and verse number? That could be a very useful quote... it seems not to be taken very seriously in the church these days...

Ya`qoov 3:1

Also see: Matthew 23:10: "Neither be called "Rabbim," for ONE is your Rabbi, the Messiah." (emphasis mine)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Mordechai18

19th March 2004, 12:17 AM

Veddy intadesting...

koilias

19th March 2004, 01:51 AM

That could be a very useful quote... it seems not to be taken very seriously in the church these days...
Unfortunately no. I believe the book of Yacob is second only to Yeshua's teachings to be followed scrupulously by the Church. Unfortunately, neither teacher is much followed in the Church (especially the Reformist churches who literally ignore the gospels in favor of their readings of Paul). The Church has it's own blind oral interpretation of Scripture which prevents us from grasping the full force of these teachings.:(

koilias

19th March 2004, 01:59 AM

Mordechai...this might surprise you to know but you probably already know more about Yeshua's teachings in the gospels than the average Christian. (And if not, you probably certainly understand him better)...

May the Holy One, Blessed is He, bless your studies.

Mordechai18

19th March 2004, 04:53 AM

Mordechai...this might surprise you to know but you probably already know more about Yeshua's teachings in the gospels than the average Christian. (And if not, you probably certainly understand him better)...

That is a frightening thought...

May the Holy One, Blessed is He, bless your studies.

Thank you, and you also. :)

The Thadman

19th March 2004, 05:17 AM

That is a frightening thought...

Unfortunately, it is very true.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

JewishHeart

19th March 2004, 06:04 AM

Heynanei,

I also like Daniel Grubers Book on Rabi Akiva's Messiah, great book!!!!

JewishHeart

19th March 2004, 06:07 AM

My problem with Oral Torah is that much of it (not all) was created by people that were anti-Yeshua, after the destruction of the temple, to provide a way other than messianic Judaism w/o the temple.

JewishHeart

19th March 2004, 06:07 AM

My problem with oral Torah is how can someone who is anti-Yeshua be authorative on the Torah

JewishHeart

19th March 2004, 06:12 AM

Just like Am Yisrael could not go before God wihtout Moshe, so we need our Jewish Messiah Yeshua and the Ruach HaKodesh now to interpret the scriptures correctly.

Henaynei

19th March 2004, 07:24 AM

They were not so much "anti-Yeshua" at that point, just anti-Messianic.... they forcably distanced themselves from the Messianic community who would not accept Rabbi Akiva's Messaih - Bar Kokhba - as THE Messiah, thus dooming the revolt. To their mind the Messianics were *directly* responsible for the destruction of the Temple. NOT something to be brushed off lightly :cry:

While I learned MUCH from Daniel Gruber's book - it does not hinder me from accepting Mishna and much of Gamara in my walk and honoring of Yeshua's commandments. (See Signature:) )

RVincent

19th March 2004, 07:34 AM

There is a joke in Israel that goes something like this...

God spoke to Israel and said :
Don't cook a baby calf in its mother's milk

Israel said:
Ah! Don't eat meat and milk together

God Said:

No,No,No, Don't cook a baby calf in its mothers milk

Israel said:

Oh , have seperate plates for milk and seperate plates for meat.

God said,

No,No....Don't cook a baby goat in its mothers milk

Israel said:

Oh five hours wait in between meat and milk

God said:

ok ok do what you want hahaha

:D I think this says it all.

That's why Messiah said "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." (Matt. 23:2) with the "cheeseburger stuff". But nobody cares what they say anyway, because most of them were decended from foreign nethinim (Joshua chapter 9. 1 Kings 9:20-21. Ezra 2:58.)

INOrder

19th March 2004, 03:08 PM

Hello Jewish heart,

I am inclined to say that I cannot agree with anything you have said at all.
And in respect to you I will not argue with you but state certain establishments of Traditional Judaism and inform you to who I am [limitedly].

One, You are correct to say that Traditional Rabbinical Judaism is based on study. Hut you are mistaken to say that we have no relationship with Ha-Shem.

By the guiding of the Wind of G'd in our Rabbis we attach ourselves to G'd.
I do not believe that you are understanding what your New Testament is teaching.
Paul had encouraged his student [Talmid] Timothy to study and to also divide the scripture correctly which may have to do with the order of the Torah cycle and/or may have to do with the principles of Hillel [since the New Testament does claim the Paul was a student of Hillel's grandson Gamaliel].

A physical thing cannot attach itself to a spiritual being but only by the physical.
Me, as a human being cannot touch Ha-Shem and so I cannot have a relationship with Ha-Shem in that manner.
However, if I attach (relate) myself to Ha-Sham by MTZVOT(that which attaches me to Ha-Shem) then I have a relationship. This saying can be found in Ecclesiastes 12.9
Yet to dedicate oneself to study may be wearysome but it is a part of our life and this is how we know how to properly use the Torah.

If your purpose is to convert me [which i see that very much inferred in your comments to me] that will not in any way happen.
I have a current respect for the New Testament. but if the way I see the new testament is not what it says but what you say I do not want any part of it.
I have tolerance for the Jews that are within the boundaries of Judaism and they hold on to their personal belief in Jesus. But it is not my belief and I do not want it.
So please no altar calls this irritates me

bye

simchat_torah

19th March 2004, 05:47 PM

Hello Jewish heart,

I am inclined to say that I cannot agree with anything you have said at all.

hahha... don't worry about it INOrder, I think this feeling is shared by many of us here ;)

I too greatly dispute Jewish Heart's arrogant claims.
*sigh*

My problem with Oral Torah is that much of it (not all) was created by people that were anti-Yeshua, after the destruction of the temple, to provide a way other than messianic Judaism w/o the templeYet, messy-anics tend to use many rabbinic traditions.

Allow me to ask Jewish Heart, do you wear a Kippah? Do you light Shabbat candles? Do you wear a tallit or tzitzit? Do you observe Sabbath from sundown to sundown?

I could name off a plethera of other traditions I'm sure you uphold... and guess what? None of these halachic decisions were created by 'messianic' Rabbis.

Hmmm... seems like you're held in a paradox, nu?

My problem with Oral Torah is that much of it (not all) was created by people that were anti-Yeshua, after the destruction of the temple, to provide a way other than messianic Judaism w/o the temple.Normally I have patience with people. However, you want to proclaim you're on this side of the fence (Judaism). Yet you want to hold this arrogant attitude.

Funny thing, Paul (Sha'ul) stated he is a Pharisee of Pharisees. He did not indicate that "he was" and now is no longer. He was of the Tribe of Benjamin, and a pharisee among pharisees. He was a student of Hillel (so to speak). Y'shua, Sha'ul, Kefa, Ya'acov and a plethera of others taught Rabbinic tradition. Y'shua borrowed his parables from previous Jewish sages.

Yet you hold this arrogance and contempt.

shame on you.
-Yafet

simchat_torah

19th March 2004, 05:51 PM

simchat_torah

19th March 2004, 05:51 PM

Am I negating the leading of the Ruach?
by no means.

but this arrogance disgusts me.
Harsh words? You bet. Do you think the words spoken by JH are just as harsh when they fall upon Jewish ears? Even more so.

simchat_torah

19th March 2004, 05:56 PM

Another interesting point is that which Henaynei brought up. Are/were the Rabbis anti-Yeshua?

True, they rejected a deity who introduced replacement theology, paganism, defiled the feasts, and nullified the Torah. But have they heard of the Jewish Rabbi named Yeshua? Can you honestly say they 'rejected Y'shua'?

Quite hardly.

Mordechai18

19th March 2004, 06:24 PM

Some, who have walked in light of the Torah for a handful of years, suddenly have this arrogant attitude that they know Torah better than those who have walked in light of it for multiple mellinia.

This reminds me of how the Native Americans must feel when some New Agers read a couple of books and declare themselves shamans and start giving lectures. :)

Another interesting point is that which Henaynei brought up. Are/were the Rabbis anti-Yeshua?

True, they rejected a deity who introduced replacement theology, paganism, defiled the feasts, and nullified the Torah. But have they heard of the Jewish Rabbi named Yeshua? Can you honestly say they 'rejected Y'shua'?

Good point (as usual). I doubt many Jews at all know the Jewish Yeshua rather than the cultural Jesus they are confronted with every day.

Mordechai18

19th March 2004, 06:28 PM

Yet, messy-anics tend to use many rabbinic traditions.

I have seen this and been confused by it.

Allow me to ask Jewish Heart, do you wear a Kippah? Do you light Shabbat candles? Do you wear a tallit or tzitzit? Do you observe Sabbath from sundown to sundown?

I could name off a plethera of other traditions I'm sure you uphold... and guess what? None of these halachic decisions were created by 'messianic' Rabbis.

I agree with you about kippot and shabbes candles. But the wearing of tzitzit even I (as no fan of the Oral Law) see as commanded.
Where I disagree here is that the Rabbis have nullified the part of Torah which commands us to wear a thread of blue in the fringe on our four-cornered garment.
So I wear tzitzit, but with techalet (the blue thread) and no kippa. It confuses the heck out of Observant Jews.

JewishHeart

20th March 2004, 12:33 PM

I've explained this before: I wear a kippa sometimes out of respect in synagogue, when in an orthodox setting, etc ( as the Brit HaChadasha explains to do as long as you are not doing something anti-biblical). I light Shabatt candles because it held our people together in the diaspora (not because I believe in the authority of Talmud), I keep biblical kosher and not rabbinic kosher (unless I need to keep a rabbinical kosher kitchen for the sake of having orthodox guests over to eat in the future) , I keep Shabatt ( according to what the Holy Spirit asks me to do or not to do and not Halacha - I follow the Halacha of the Holy Spirit) ... there are other things I keep in Torah according to my revelation of them from the Holy Spirit. Even when I listen to a sermon from my congregational leaders in Israel I weigh it with the Ruach HaKodesh. I love the Torah , like David said " Lord how I love your law."

But the point is this- the purpose of Torah is to lead us to the Messiah, not to lead us to Torah.

I suggest a good reading of the book of Hebrews, Galations, and Romans.

I know that most christians miss the point of these books and accuse messianics of legalism because they keep Torah.

I think many messianics miss the point of these books and accuse christians ( or Jewish believers) of not keeping Torah ( like they see it) and miss the point of a relationship with G-d in Messiah Yeshua.

The two need to become one and from both sides there is a lot of work.

Many christians ( not all) want messianics to come to their side to be one.

Many messianics ( not all, but alot on this board) want christians to come to their side to be one.

It lies somewhere in the radical middle that only those in tune with the Holy Spirit ( and not Halacha) can find.

Let us build together the one new man.

from,

a fellow messianic

simchat_torah

20th March 2004, 01:55 PM

But the point is this- the purpose of Torah is to lead us to the Messiah, not to lead us to Torah.

This is backwards. The messiah came to lead us to Torah... more on this later, must run for now.

However, this ultimate flip flop is what has reconciled so much pride, etc. in MJ'ism.
I suggest a good reading of the book of Hebrews, Galations, and Romans.

and?

simchat_torah

20th March 2004, 01:57 PM

I agree with you about kippot and shabbes candles. But the wearing of tzitzit even I (as no fan of the Oral Law) see as commanded.

Ahhh... yes Mordy. However, how are the tzitzit tied? How many do you wear? How many strings? etc etc etc...

this is all founded in Halacha ;)

Talmidah

20th March 2004, 02:06 PM

But the point is this- the purpose of Torah is to lead us to the Messiah, not to lead us to Torah.
Hmmm...I have found that studying Torah and striving to obey the One who has given it to us has actually led me closer to G-d.

Hix

20th March 2004, 02:10 PM

Exactly, Torah is the connection between those under the eternal covenant and HaShem. To deny this is to deny the foundational message portrayed throughout the Bible.

Messiah = Torah = light of the world.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

Mordechai18

20th March 2004, 11:51 PM

Ahhh... yes Mordy. However, how are the tzitzit tied? How many do you wear? How many strings? etc etc etc...

this is all founded in Halacha ;)

If G-d did not specify those aspects of the mitvah, then we may use our own judgment. We are not, after all, commanded that we must all wear them identically.
Look at the detail into which HaShem goes in Leviticus. So we see that when He wants to be specific, He certainly can be!
So, the lack of detail means that whatever is not specified is not essential, as far as HaShem is concerned.

Tzitzit (http://www.karaite-korner.org/tzitzit.shtml)

A simple web search turns up between 3, 6 or even more different ways of tying tzitzit.

Mordechai18

21st March 2004, 12:11 AM

Interestingly enough, Yafet, Matthew 23:5 mentions the fact that different people wore their Tzitzit of different lengths. (The verse criticises some who wore their tzitzit extra long so as to make a show of their piety.)
Perhaps their length was not specified even at that late date?
I don't know, but that's how it seems to me.

YatzivPatgam

21st March 2004, 07:16 AM

..I keep biblical kosher and not rabbinic kosher (unless I need to keep a rabbinical kosher kitchen for the sake of having orthodox guests over to eat in the future)...
This is an impossibility. The Torah commands you to slaughter animals in the way HaShem has prescribed, yet the instructions are not found within the written Torah.

Henaynei

21st March 2004, 02:42 PM

This is an impossibility. The Torah commands you to slaughter animals in the way HaShem has prescribed, yet the instructions are not found within the written Torah.
Ken v'Omeyn!! YatzivPatgam!!

The Thadman

21st March 2004, 11:53 PM

Ahhh... yes Mordy. However, how are the tzitzit tied? How many do you wear? How many strings? etc etc etc...

this is all founded in Halacha ;)

They're tassels tied with blue cord, who cares how they're tied? The blue cord is what's important (because that's what you look upon to remember the Law Of YHWH) :-) Current halacha teaching ties them too large (a criticism given by Jesus). Plus halacha gives 6 traditions of how to tie them. ;)

In short, who cares? Tying them uniquely is not a sin. :-) All we need is to remember that God said:

Numbers 15
38 Speak to the children of Israel, and bid those who they make them tassels in the extremities of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the tassel of each extremity a blue cord:
39 and it shall be to you for a tassel, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute;
40 that you may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

I have a couple sets. One white set tied with blue that I have on my cargo pants, whose pockets have loops and are perfect fringes/extremities for hanging them on. Whenever I put something into my pocket I have to look at them (and with the amount of junk I carry around with me it's OFTEN :-) ). One set that is black thread tied with blue, which is on my trenchcoat, in such a place that whenever I put it on or take it off I need to handle them, and a couple more.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

21st March 2004, 11:55 PM

This is an impossibility. The Torah commands you to slaughter animals in the way HaShem has prescribed, yet the instructions are not found within the written Torah.

They are within the Torah. :-)

Saying they're not, is like looking at Leviticus and asking "What's the bride price?" completely ignoring where it gives the exact amount in Deuteronomy :-)

It's not a matter of how the animals are slaughtered (although a stretch of a reading makes it sound that way), but what kind of animal, from where, and under what conditions, in the SAME chapter. :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

21st March 2004, 11:57 PM

Domi_Adsum_05

22nd March 2004, 12:03 AM

It's not a matter of how the animals are slaughtered (although a stretch of a reading makes it sound that way), but what kind of animal, from where, and under what conditions, in the SAME chapter. :-)
And we know that we are forbidden to "eat the blood" from Torah itself, as well.

YatzivPatgam

22nd March 2004, 11:03 AM

They are within the Torah. :-)
Devraim 12 ( starting at verse 20 ) has HaShem asking us to kill a flock the way he has commanded us. Could you point out the specific instructions on how we were commanded to kill them?

Saying they're not, is like looking at Leviticus and asking "What's the bride price?" completely ignoring where it gives the exact amount in Deuteronomy :-)
In Shemot 22, we are told of the dowry for virgins, where does it explain the cost of dowry, specificly, how much?

simchat_torah

22nd March 2004, 03:52 PM

In short, who cares?

I wasn't pointing out that one way or another is correct. I was merely pointing out the hypocritical attitude JH has towards Rabbinic Judaism. IF he has his tzitzit tied according to halacha, then he is following the very tradition which he despises.

I'm not arguing as to which tradition is correct, merely that there is a plethera of traditions that JH himself follows that are purely founded in Rabbinic Judaism.

shalom,
yafet

simchat_torah

22nd March 2004, 03:53 PM

Devraim 12 ( starting at verse 20 ) has HaShem asking us to kill a flock the way he has commanded us. Could you point out the specific instructions on how we were commanded to kill them?
Unfortunately, its not there ;)

Thus HaShem ordained the Beit Din in order to instruct the commuity on how to observe Torah as a community. That which is regulated by the human heart, is done via Ruach HaKodesh.

shalom,
yafet

Domi_Adsum_05

22nd March 2004, 07:13 PM

[/font]

I wasn't pointing out that one way or another is correct. I was merely pointing out the hypocritical attitude JH has towards Rabbinic Judaism. IF he has his tzitzit tied according to halacha, then he is following the very tradition which he despises.

I'm not arguing as to which tradition is correct, merely that there is a plethera of traditions that JH himself follows that are purely founded in Rabbinic Judaism.

shalom,
yafet
And a very good point, that. IMHO. :)

The Thadman

23rd March 2004, 01:42 AM

Devraim 12 ( starting at verse 20 ) has HaShem asking us to kill a flock the way he has commanded us. Could you point out the specific instructions on how we were commanded to kill them?

It says it not once but TWICE, just to be sure it isn't misunderstood:

Deut 12:20
1 These are the statutes and the ordinances which you shall observe to do in the land which Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess it, all the days that you live on the earth.
2 You shall surely destroy all the places in which the nations that you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every green tree:
3 and you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods; and you shall destroy their name out of that place.
4 You shall not do so to Yahweh your God.
5 But to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, even to his habitation shall you seek, and there you shall come;
6 and there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill-offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock:
7 and there you shall eat before Yahweh your God, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand to, you and your households, in which Yahweh your God has blessed you.
8 You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes;
9 for you haven’t yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Yahweh your God gives you.
10 But when you go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, and he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety;
11 then it shall happen that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, there shall you bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave-offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow to Yahweh.
12 You shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, you, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the Levite who is within your gates, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you.
13 Take heed to yourself that you don’t offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see;
14 but in the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.
15 Notwithstanding, you may kill and eat flesh within all your gates, after all the desire of your soul, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which he has given you: the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.
16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth as water.
17 You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your new wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your freewill-offerings, nor the heave-offering of your hand;
18 but you shall eat them before Yahweh your God in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite who is within your gates: and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God in all that you put your hand to.
19 Take heed to yourself that you don’t forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land.
20 When Yahweh your God shall enlarge your border, as he has promised you, and you shall say, I will eat flesh, because your soul desires to eat flesh; you may eat flesh, after all the desire of your soul.
21 If the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to put his name there, be too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which Yahweh has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.
22 Even as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so you shall eat of it: the unclean and the clean may eat of it alike.
23 Only be sure that you don’t eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the earth as water.
25 You shall not eat it; that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, when you shall do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh.
26 Only your holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take, and go to the place which Yahweh shall choose:
27 and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Yahweh your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of Yahweh your God; and you shall eat the flesh.
28 Observe and hear all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you forever, when you do that which is good and right in the eyes of Yahweh your God.
29 When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations from before you, where you go in to dispossess them, and you dispossess them, and dwell in their land;
30 take heed to yourself that you not be ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before you; and that you not inquire after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
31 You shall not do so to Yahweh your God: for every abomination to Yahweh, which he hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.
32 Whatever thing I command you, that shall you observe to do: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

In Shemot 22, we are told of the dowry for virgins, where does it explain the cost of dowry, specificly, how much?

Deut 22
28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

I am tired of hearing these same arguments over and over again when simply -reading the Torah- fixes them.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

23rd March 2004, 01:45 AM

simchat_torah

23rd March 2004, 01:53 AM

No apology necessary.

:)

Domi_Adsum_05

23rd March 2004, 02:34 AM

Good post, Steve-O.

simchat_torah

23rd March 2004, 03:38 AM

Hix

23rd March 2004, 05:41 AM

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The L-RD our G-d one L-RD: And thou shalt love the L-RD thy G-d with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Sorry to churn up the same aparently annoying arguements but as we know verse 8 here is clearly speaking of tefillin. Without the oral law, this verse is up to more speculation and interpretation than one could ever hope to wade through. It then gos on to describe mezuzot, without the Oral Law, how do we know how to make these things or the details thereof? Without the oral law, these verses would be hopelessly misinterpreted in a thousand different ways. And the proof of that is that you personally believe tefflin, which is mentioned in the New Testament, arent actually what HaShem ment when he gave the law.
Do you really believe HaShem would have given us the Torah in limited form of words without in depth explaination of such things as Shabbat and Tefflin, that would cause countless arguements and divisions over what the Laws mean? Not only that, if G-ds law is ment to be performed then becuase of the lack of interperation there will be people who dont fulfill the mitzvah becuase they dont know how to do it properly.

I think you need to realise Steve-O that whilst not ALL of the Oral Torah may be beneficial, you cannot perform the Torah without some form of halacha, its impossible. Even karaites created their own halacha.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

simchat_torah

23rd March 2004, 11:36 AM

Even karaites created their own halacha.

Karaites are very misunderstood... and I'm no exception to this rule.

As far as I know, they don't have a Beit Din. However, they believe in the creation of a Beit Din when the temple is reconstructed. According to Nehemiah Gordon, the Beit Din should not be in existence when the Temple is no longer standing. Where this is justified is beyond me.

Anywho... the fact remains that there is a set of halacha that they do in fact adhere to in practice. It isn't a written code, but rather a generally understood concept.

Well, I've rambled enough now.
-yafet

JewishHeart

23rd March 2004, 11:44 AM

How do I were a tzittzit? Hahaha , I go to the Judaic store and buy one and put it on when the Spirit of God leads me to or out of respect when in the synagogue. The length of the strings doesn't matter to me, unless I do it to show off which Yeshua forbade. I don't care if Joe Shmoe made the tallit as long as it is concecrated to God and has the Torah requirements (not halacha). Anything else that halacha decided doesn't matter to me, if Joe Shmoe does everything according to Torah and misses the halachic string requirements, who cares?

I think this is what Galations meant when it said Paul worried for them because they observed the feasts. The word observed there basically means goes deep to find something thats not there and not miss anything.

By the way, answer me this?

Did Halacha or Torah matter when King Hezekiah celebrated the feast at the wrong time, G-d saw HIs heart.

Did Halacha or Torah matter at Hannukah whenever at the rededication of the temple the Macabees celebrated Sukkout at the wrong time?

JewishHeart

23rd March 2004, 11:45 AM

Did Halacha or Torah matter when David ate from the sacrafice?

Hix

23rd March 2004, 12:02 PM

*sigh* JewishHeart if you MUST insist on saying Torah doesnt matter why dont you do it in the protestant christian board? They would be slightly more akin to that viewpoint.

Proverbs 7:2 Keep My Torah, and live; and My law as the apple of thine eye.

Proverbs 21:3 – Doing charity and justice is more desirable to the L-rd than a sacrifice.

simchat_torah

23rd March 2004, 12:34 PM

The length of the strings doesn't matter to me, unless I do it to show off which Yeshua forbade.

Funny how the one specific you mention doesn't have a halachic regulation.

Did Halacha or Torah matter when King Hezekiah celebrated the feast at the wrong time, G-d saw HIs heart.

I see the very foundation of your question is flawed. It's not "Torah vs. Halacha". Halacha should always support Torah observance... it should not replace it.

The Thadman

23rd March 2004, 09:07 PM

Steve-o,

While I appreciate the lenghty passage you quoted, it still did not answer the specific question on how to kill the animal... that which Yatziv and I pointed out.

Twas a valliant attempt ;) But unfortunately, the Torah does not specifiy this.

shalom,
yafet

The problem is semantics. :-) In the verse I quoted:

1) God stated that the following were the statues and ordinances which he was ordaining.
2) God talked about the following ordinances for killing and eating:
-You can kill and eat to your heart's content within your gates.
-Don't eat the blood.
-The clean and unclean can eat of it alike, like the Gazelle and the Hart.
-Tithes (a long list of them) cannot be eaten within the gates.
-This must be done in a place that he chooses.
3) THEN he says that in case of not being close enough to the place he chooses do the SAME list of things. He REPEATS himself, the same ordinances that he just talked about: as he commanded.
-Don't eat the blood (this time emphasized).
-The clean and unclean can eat of it alike, like the Gazelle and the Hart.
4) He then wraps up saying to not add or diminish from his commands.

We're not commanded about -how- to kill the animal, but there are regulations, as God instructed, concerning what conditions must be met.

It's a -real- stretch to say that God meant by "as I have commanded," given that he has just listed a slew of commands pertinent to the subject matter, that there was a specific way to slaughter an animal in this verse, and to do so decontextualizes the entire ordinance. :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

23rd March 2004, 09:23 PM

Sorry to churn up the same aparently annoying arguements but as we know verse 8 here is clearly speaking of tefillin. Without the oral law, this verse is up to more speculation and interpretation than one could ever hope to wade through. It then gos on to describe mezuzot, without the Oral Law, how do we know how to make these things or the details thereof? Without the oral law, these verses would be hopelessly misinterpreted in a thousand different ways. And the proof of that is that you personally believe tefflin, which is mentioned in the New Testament, arent actually what HaShem ment when he gave the law.
Do you really believe HaShem would have given us the Torah in limited form of words without in depth explaination of such things as Shabbat and Tefflin, that would cause countless arguements and divisions over what the Laws mean? Not only that, if G-ds law is ment to be performed then becuase of the lack of interperation there will be people who dont fulfill the mitzvah becuase they dont know how to do it properly.

I think you need to realise Steve-O that whilst not ALL of the Oral Torah may be beneficial, you cannot perform the Torah without some form of halacha, its impossible. Even karaites created their own halacha.

Shalom and G-d bless
~Hix~

First, both "totafot" and "zikharon" mean "remembrance," so this isn't a piece of jewelry God's talking about, given a contextual reading. Do you tie the words of your mother upon your throat as it says in Proverbs, or surgically implant a stone of piece of metal in your chest? I thought not :-)

Second, Karaites don't have any formal Halacha. They read Torah and talk about it amongst themselves, coming to a general consensus, nothing even NEAR the status of "Oral Law."

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

The Thadman

23rd March 2004, 09:36 PM

Funny how the one specific you mention doesn't have a halachic regulation.

On the contrary: If I remember correctly, Hillel said the body of tziyot should be three fingers long with the tassel also three fingers long, where Shammai said that the body of tzitzyot should be four and four respectively. There were a few other rulings on the subject, but these two are the only ones that stuck with me :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

JewishHeart

24th March 2004, 07:25 AM

Hix and Simchat Torah,

Are you guys dancing around my question? Let me rephrase it to help you answer.

Did G-d care whenever King Hezekiah celebrated at the wrong time according to both Torah and oral Torah.

Did G-d care when the Macabees celebrated Sukkout at the wrong time after they recaptured the temple?

Did G-d care when David ate of the sacrafice which is outlawed according to the Torah? ( I think Yeshua asked this question as well).

YatzivPatgam

24th March 2004, 09:39 AM

I am tired of hearing these same arguments over and over again when simply -reading the Torah- fixes them.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o
Simchat is correct- you haven't answered anything.

YatzivPatgam

24th March 2004, 09:45 AM

The problem is semantics. :-)
You are using semantics of the wrong language. A fundamental problem.

YatzivPatgam

24th March 2004, 09:50 AM

BS'D

Did G-d care whenever King Hezekiah celebrated at the wrong time according to both Torah and oral Torah.

A better question would be, Did he have the resources available to tell if it was the correct time?

Did G-d care when the Macabees celebrated Sukkout at the wrong time after they recaptured the temple?
see above

Did G-d care when David ate of the sacrafice which is outlawed according to the Torah?
The answer lies in the type of sacrafice that was being offered ( Which was allowed to be eaten. )

The Thadman

24th March 2004, 03:01 PM

You are using semantics of the wrong language. A fundamental problem.

The semantics of the english translation is what makes this problem easier to misinterpret, where the Semitic grammar is less, but not completely un-ambiguous. :-)

It's almost like the difference between "The fruit flies like an apple," vs "The fruit flies like an apple." Is it insects enjoying a treat? Or someone throwing produce?

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

visionary

25th March 2004, 01:12 PM

It is one thing for the Lord to grant us flesh to eat, it is another for us to think that the Lord did not care about the feelings of the animals. If the cow knew that it's calf is being boiled in its milk, that would be sad in deed.

INOrder

25th March 2004, 03:31 PM

hello all,
concerning Macabees and the shouting of Sukkot, what is taught is that this day Hanukkah is the day that people have a chance to selebrat sukkot again.
So hanukkah is the second sukkot.

simchat_torah

25th March 2004, 03:35 PM

Henaynei

25th March 2004, 04:29 PM

Yes, I have studied as well that Channukah was really Sukkot. Essentially, the Jews were not allowed to celebrate Sukkot when the proper time came because of the Roman persecution. When the Jews were freed form captivity, they finally celebrated Sukkot, and this new celebration was later named Channukah.

Its really an interesting study if one has the time.
Isn't this interesting - Sukkot was *such* an important event on the Torah calendar that it was immediately and excitedly celebrated, even out of time, as soon as they had the Temple kosher.

NOW, Khanukah is THE Jewish holiday - even Jews who have never heard of another Jewish holiday have heard of Khanukah. And in most of Judaism it is *the* big celebration - at least much more than Sukkot.

We have lost the true Joy of Sukkot - Yafet or Hix help me here - one tractate in Talmud states that "one has not seen true joy and celebration until one has witnessed Sukkot." Now you are lucky to be able to get enough folks to come to your sukkah on the First night to beable to say the Shema!!:(

simchat_torah

25th March 2004, 05:51 PM

NOW, Khanukah is THE Jewish holiday - even Jews who have never heard of another Jewish holiday have heard of Khanukah. And in most of Judaism it is *the* big celebration - at least much more than Sukkot.

I would say that Passover is the biggest celebration... and Yom Kippur is a close second. I doubt I would say Channukah is the largest celebration. Obviously, to the secular eye, Channukah produces the most sales, etc... but the largest synagogue attendance comes during the high holy days.

shalom,
yafet

INOrder

25th March 2004, 06:36 PM

Hello Simchat,

out of all the festivals, the only one that will remain is Purim:-)
so even though all of the festivals are great. Purim is the greatest.
while Yom ha Kippurim has the most significance- all of them will yeild to Purim.

bye

simchat_torah

25th March 2004, 06:51 PM

out of all the festivals, the only one that will remain is Purim:-)
so even though all of the festivals are great. Purim is the greatest.

Inorder, you've totally lost me now!

I think you're joking, right? :eek:

ShirChadash

25th March 2004, 06:59 PM

INOrder

25th March 2004, 07:58 PM

In no way am I joking,

This is a great teaching amoungst the Traditional Jews.

Study the Hebrew Letters of Yom Ha Kippurim and Purim
The Masters of Torah say that Yom Ha Kippurim LITERALLY means
"day like Purim" and it makes Purim the greater.
YOM =day K=like Purim=lots

:-)
bye

simchat_torah

25th March 2004, 09:03 PM

ummm... Purim isn't even a Torah command!??!!?!?

Sukkot is known, according to Rabbinical Judaism anyway, to be an eternal feast that is even celebrated by all nations, all goyim, in the Millenial kingdom.

Where do you get this puring thing from Inorder?

The Thadman

25th March 2004, 09:54 PM

I would say that Passover is the biggest celebration... and Yom Kippur is a close second. I doubt I would say Channukah is the largest celebration. Obviously, to the secular eye, Channukah produces the most sales, etc... but the largest synagogue attendance comes during the high holy days.

shalom,
yafet

It's sorta how Christmas compares to Easter in the "standard" Christian calendar. Easter (Passover's cognate) is the most important holiday, but Christmas (Channukah's cognate) brings in the most capital. This is an eery parallel. :-)

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

Henaynei

25th March 2004, 10:55 PM

I would say that Passover is the biggest celebration... and Yom Kippur is a close second. I doubt I would say Channukah is the largest celebration. Obviously, to the secular eye, Channukah produces the most sales, etc... but the largest synagogue attendance comes during the high holy days.

shalom,
yafet
For synagogue goers, true :)

But a rereading of my post might reveal I was speaking of all Jews, not just those who go the shul 1 or more times a year/decade - but those who don't too;)

INOrder

26th March 2004, 12:48 PM

Hello Simchat Torah,

I have learned these things from my teacher and Rabbi.
But, since you asked as to which are the sources I had to look online for them because at this moment I cannot get in contact with my Rabbi to ask him.

Here is a good article from Aish:
http://www.aish.com/purimthemes/purimthemesdefault/Purim_Vs._Yom_Kippur.asp
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What?! Purim is actually holier than Yom Kippur?! They didn't teach us THAT in Hebrew school!

by Rabbi Shraga Simmons
The Talmud says that every Shabbat and Jewish holiday is "half spiritual, half physical." We spend part of the day praying in the synagogue (the spiritual), and the rest of the day eating a fine meal and relaxing at home (the physical).

Spirituality is not achieved exclusively by meditating alone on a mountaintop, or by taking vows of abstinence in an out-of-the-way monastery. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. That's why yeshivas are always located near town and the bustle of commercial activity.

We don't retreat from life, we elevate it. On Friday night, we raise the cup of wine to make Kiddush and sanctify the Sabbath day. Spirituality, says Judaism, is to be found in the kitchen, the office, and yes, even in the bedroom.

One exception to this rule is Yom Kippur, when both halves are spiritual: We spend our entire day praying in the synagogue, with no food, no marital relations, and minimal rest.

The second exception is Purim, when both halves are physical: We feast, visit friends, dress in costumes, and drink to excess.

The Vilna Gaon (18th century Lithuania) explains that "Purim" shares the same letters as Yom haki-PURIM -- the official Biblical name for Yom Kippur. That which we accomplish on Yom Kippur with spiritual pursuits, we accomplish on Purim with physical pursuits. These holidays are two sides of the same coin, two halves of the same day.

GREATER THAN YOM KIPPUR

Interestingly, we see the balance of half-physical/half-spiritual reflected within each of these two holidays themselves. On Yom Kippur, we prepare for the fast by having a feast the day before. On Purim, we prepare for the feast by fasting the day before (Taanit Esther)!

We would assume that Yom Kippur is the greater of the two days. But in one sense, Purim is even greater: It is easier to achieve spiritual elevation on a day like Yom Kippur, when we pray and have no time for forbidden activities like gossip or getting angry. By fasting, the soul achieves dominance over the body.

But on Purim, in our state of rambunctious drunkenness, it is much harder to maintain our human dignity. As Rabbi Eliyahu Kitov writes: "If one attains holiness through affliction, and another attains holiness through indulgence, who is the greater of the two? It may be said that the one who attains holiness through indulgence is greater, for the attainment of holiness through indulgence requires an infinitely greater degree of striving and effort."

In this way, the challenge of Purim is greater. Literally translated, Yom hakiPurim is only "a day like Purim."

GARDEN OF EDEN

According to Jewish thought, the last (and only!) people to see the world in a state of perfection were Adam and Eve. The Garden of Eden means a perfect world. How did Adam and Eve fall from that state? By eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is, they pursued the world of illusion, in which the transcendence of the universe (good) is masked by seeming imperfection (evil).

If we approach Purim correctly, when we reach the tipsy state of no longer knowing good from evil, we actually realign our perspective by seeing the Transcendent as the source of all physical reality, thereby revealing its hidden perfection. Therefore Purim at its peak is like a taste of Eden.

The potential for spiritual elevation on Purim is tremendous. As we're drinking and partying, we should keep this in mind and not let the opportunity fly by!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My Rabbi taught me as they have it here and a few more nuggets.
enjoy

bye