Did Yeshua Break the Sabbath

[mpossoff]

DID Yeshua break the Shabbat?Response:

Ger here’s sort of a synopsis.

I always thought and believed that Yeshua since He is Messiah over turned the Pharisee’s interpretation of scripture.

Check this out. It is enlightening to me!

Matthew 12:1-8

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”
3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

You would excpect Yeshua in the above to immediately rebuke the disciples for breaking the Sabbath. , “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!”

So Yeshua said “You foolish Pharisee’s with all your rules and regulations and traditions of men, picking grain and rubbing it between your fingers in order to eat is not breaking the Sabbath. Buy your tradition you break the commandment of God”.

I would have expected Yeshua to say the above though.

“Look you hypocrites the Torah doesn’t say it’s breaking the Sabbath to pick grain”.

In reality the Torah does forbid harvesting on the Sabbath. Exodus 34:21.

Instead of Yeshua saying “Uh uh, they weren’t breaking the Sabbath” He admits that they were. But defends their decision to do so.

Then Yeshua said: , 3“Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?

Yeshua said David and his men did something that was not lawful. Yeshua is also conceding that Him and His disciples were doing something not lawful on the Sabbath.

According to the Torah it is not lawful for anyone to eat the bread of the presence that was in the Tabernacle except for the priesthood.

David and his men did something unlawful on the Sabbath.

What is the relationship between David and his men and Yeshua and His disciples?

Both were hungry.

In the Midrash David is explaining to the priests ‘give me some bread to eat so we will not die of hunger’. The preservation of life takes precedence over the Sabbath and most commandments.. This is a principle that is true in rabbinic literature.

Then I ask myself were Yeshua and His disciples SO hungry that their lives were in danger? That they were going to starve to death like David and his men?

It is permissible to save a life. So if someone is dying you can break the Sabbath and do whatever you can to try and save a life. You can heal if life is in danger.

So the question I have where Yeshua and His disciples SO hungry that their lives were in danger? Where is this line drawn because Yeshua heals when life is not in danger.

The sages teaching about the commandments(Leviticus) that you should live by them, not die by them. If it’s a difference between life and death you break the Sabbath.


Yeshua says: 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless. The priest break the Sabbath and are innocent. Why are they innocent? Because they have a commandment to do so. On one hand there are commandments not to break the Sabbath and one the other hand commandments to carry out the services of the Temple. When two commandments contradict each other and both are of equal weight a person has to choose the positive commandment. The Talmud says(unquote) whenever you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment contradicting, if you can fulfill both of them that’s preferable. But if not let the positive come and supercede the negative commandment. So in regards to the priesthood you have a positive commandment to do the Temple service, the positive commandment supercedes the prohibitions of Shabbat.

Yeshua and His disciples are not priests and they are not doing the Temple service. How can Yeshua construe that they have a positive commandment to eat the grain. The Talmud says(unquote) if the service of the Temple supercedes the Sabbath, how much more so should the saving of human life supercede the Sabbath laws.

This is the same argument that our Master uses. Yes indeed Yeshua had regard for tradition. Yeshua But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
The Temple service over-rides the Sabbath.

How much more so does something greater than the Temple service over-ride the prohibitions of the Sabbath?

What is it that is greater than the Temple? What is the one that is greater than the Temple?

I would say Yeshua is the one that is present that is greater than the Temple. So my thinking would be like this:

1- The Temple service over-rides the Sabbath.
2- Yeshua is greater than the Temple service
3- Therefore Yeshua can do whatever He wants to on the Sabbath.

There is a problem with this reasoning because it can be used to sanction anything.

It doesn’t make sense as a halachtic defense because Yeshua doesn’t need to keep the torah He can do whatever He wants. Then the point of Him being sinless and obedient becomes pointless. Are the Pharisee’s going to accept that? “Oh we forgot you are greater than the Temple” Of course not.

What is it that is greater than the Temple then? what else is present there that is greater than the Temple in the grain fields? His answer is But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.This is what is present that is greater than the Temple.Compassion for human beings.


Why was it possible for David and his men to over-ride the Temple service by taking the bread of the presence? Was King David greater than the Temple? No he wasn't. But his human need less he and his men suffer and starve was greater than the Temple service. That need was greater than the Temple service. The same in this case. Yeshua illustrates the same point in the Good Samaritan. The sages know that the preservation of life takes precedence over the Temple service. The priest should have stopped, it was wrong for him not to.

Yeshua applies this to His disciples. Their need is greater than the Temple service because they are hungry. The disciples probably were very hungry. Unfortunately at least for me I can't fantom being that hungry or starving. Compassion for human suffering to eliviate human suffering is a higher priority than even the Temple service.

Since the Temple service is higher priority than the Shabbat, the discples are halachly permitted to violate the Sabbath in this situation.

Then He says For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. I have always though that this meant Yeshua who is the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. He's Lord of the Sabbath so he can do whatever He wants. You know since He's the Lord of the Sabbath His disicples could get away with breaking the Sabbath. Son of man simple means human being in 'hebrew'. In this case this is how it should be read. Human beings take precedence over the Sabbath. Yeshua is not making this up, he is quoting a piece of oral Torah because it is found later in rabbinic sources. In the Talmud it says(unquote) The Sabbath is giving to you, you have not been given over to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath so that man is lord over the Sabbath.

Yeshua is actually using and quaoting oral law to exhonerate His disciples.

Some food for thought.

This makes way more sesce to me. I always beleived that Yeshua was putting them off with absurbity. Because I didn't understand the argument from a 'Jewish way of thinking'. I didn't understand that halachtic argument and the 'logic'. This is the BRILLIANT genius of the Master! Wow!

He reveals not just a genius halachtic argument BUT more importantly He reveals the HEART of God! Who prioritizes people and compassion over inflexible rules.

Marc

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

Then there is the saying from the sages 'The Sabbath was given into your hands, not you to the Sabbath's hands.'

[GerTzedek]

Marc, I hope I can get back to you more fully later. Time is pressing.

I think before we go further, we need to come to a semantical agreement what "breaking" a law means. To me, laws have exceptions built into them, sometimes explicitely, other times needing judges to point them out.

For example, its against the law to drive 85 mph in Los Angeles. But if I'm doing 85 on the 405 to get someone to the hospital, what cop is going to ticket me? He'll turn on his siren and drive in front of me so that me doing 85 will be safer. Many times, the exceptions are actually in the books, either as part of the law, or part of legal history which can be appealed to.

In the SAME WAY, scriptural laws do not exist independently of the community which interprets them. This is why in Deut 17 G-d sets things up for judges to rule on application of Torah.

I'm fairly sure that Yeshua was pitting one interpetation against another. All you have to do is read the Talmud to know that in many scenarios, the rabbis had not yet reached a consensus. It is also worth remembering that bet Shammai ran the Sanhedron at the time we are discussing -- a very legalistic school of thought as opposed to bet Hillel. I'm certain Yeshua wasn't the only rabbi that had the finger pointed at him by that crowd, "Ummmm! Look what HE is doing!!!!!"

So.... let's ask the Rabbi how things finally panned out (I'm curious too!). I'll ask over in the Orthodox area.

[BereanTodd]

I think you are making it more difficult than nesacsary. I think Yeshua rejected the man made additions to the law, I do not think he upheld or followed rabinnical or talmudic teachings, and the point is that all of the rules of do's and don'ts with regards to the Sabbath are extra-Biblical.

Yeshua said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man." I don't think He looked for or had a loop-hole in the traditions, I think He rejected them.

[GerTzedek]

I think you are making it more difficult than nesacsary. I think Yeshua rejected the man made additions to the law, I do not think he upheld or followed rabinnical or talmudic teachings, and the point is that all of the rules of do's and don'ts with regards to the Sabbath are extra-Biblical.

Yeshua said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man." I don't think He looked for or had a loop-hole in the traditions, I think He rejected them.
Matthew 23:1-3 refutes absolutely your contention that Yeshua did not acknoweldge rabbinical authority to interpret law.

Further, we can ALWAYS go back to Deut 17: If by chance Yeshua HAD been "sola scritpura" and not bothered with oral torah and halakhic rulings, he would have violated a scriptural command.

So which way do you want it? Yeshua violating halakhah and thus violating Deut 17? Or Yeshua observing halakhah BECAUSE he kept the Biblical commandments, including Deut 17?

[visionary]

This is like playing the devil's advocate. .. Trapping Yeshua into looking like He could not keep the law.

From the premise that Yeshua did not sin, I would say that ALL the law was observed, and it is the man made restrictions that are up to interpretation and that Yeshua contested in this instance. As Ger pointed out, this is acceptable behavior among the sages, so Yeshua had justification for this instance. The accusers had no further accusations nor further comments, so I say they were stymied for the moment.

[mpossoff]

I think you are making it more difficult than nesacsary. I think Yeshua rejected the man made additions to the law, I do not think he upheld or followed rabinnical or talmudic teachings, and the point is that all of the rules of do's and don'ts with regards to the Sabbath are extra-Biblical.

Yeshua said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man." I don't think He looked for or had a loop-hole in the traditions, I think He rejected them.

Actually Todd if you you really look into it Yeshua didn't reject the traditions.

And I admit that I am know I'm examining myself in my walk in Torah because I have recently been enlightened.

Actually if you look at the 39 melachot I cannot say that I find them unreasonable. These were present in Yeshua's day. BUT when understood in their general sense rather than there specific or focusing on some remote application is I believe what Yeshua debated. He didn't debate the TRUE general applications but seem to debate the remote applications.

I'm no expert but I'll try to give you an example. I grew up in a Jewish community comprised of reform, orthodox, conservative Jews. (NOTE I'm not criticizing or judging just trying to give an example.) The orthodox by keeping the oral tradition would not carry their children. Why? because oral tradition says not to carry on the Sabbath. This is focusing on a remote application that topples the basic Spirit of the general application. Because the basic/general application according to the sages is that carrying a load has to do with creation and building of the Tabernacle that constitutes melachot. The children of Israel were commanded to not even to continue building the Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Carry a load has to do with the building of the Tabernacle and is based on that according to the sages. This has to do with commerce, buying and selling. This is not made up it's actually in scripture in Nehemiah. Some will not even carry gloves in their pockets because of the remote application.

What the problem I see and I am guilty of this is that I see that orthodox will not even carry their babies on Shabbat because of the oral tradition of not carrying a load and therefore say to myself "that's rediculious" missing the basic true general 'pinciple' so to speak of the actual tradition of carrying a load. Because I only see the focus of the remote I can't see the real true application so I disregard the whole tradition as nonsense. But when I look at the application of carrying a load like in Nehemiah it has nothing to do with the most remote application as not carrying your baby. Or pre tearing toilet paper.

Make sense?

Marc

[BereanTodd]

Matthew 23:1-3 refutes absolutely your contention that Yeshua did not acknoweldge rabbinical authority to interpret law.

Further, we can ALWAYS go back to Deut 17: If by chance Yeshua HAD been "sola scritpura" and not bothered with oral torah and halakhic rulings, he would have violated a scriptural command.

So which way do you want it? Yeshua violating halakhah and thus violating Deut 17? Or Yeshua observing halakhah BECAUSE he kept the Biblical commandments, including Deut 17?

I reject your understanding of Deut 17. The rabbinical teachings are not and never were authoritative from God's view. God is the final and only judge and authority, and we are righteous only in so much as we meet His standard. There may be some good and fine teaching in the rabbinical and talmudic thought, but it is not the rule or judge of God or of sin or of right or wrong. In so much as they adhere to God's standards of righteousness they are fine. But they are not God's revelation, nor His commandments.

[Steve Petersen]

I reject your understanding of Deut 17. The rabbinical teachings are not and never were authoritative from God's view. God is the final and only judge and authority, and we are righteous only in so much as we meet His standard. There may be some good and fine teaching in the rabbinical and talmudic thought, but it is not the rule or judge of God or of sin or of right or wrong. In so much as they adhere to God's standards of righteousness they are fine. But they are not God's revelation, nor His commandments.


What is the correct understanding of Deut. 17 then. Who is God speaking of when he mentions priests and elders? Were there none when Yeshua walked the earth?

You know and history shows that there were priests and elders of Israel when Jesus was here. The only way to get around their authority with regard to Deut. 17 is to de-legitimize them somehow. Typically this is done based on the rejection of Jesus by SOME of them.

Acts is clear that many priest were followers of Jesus:

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Another method commonly used to de-legitimize them is to say that Jesus is greater than they and therefore his word is final. Fine. Here is what Jesus said:

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Best to obey him then.

[mpossoff]

What is the correct understanding of Deut. 17 then. Who is God speaking of when he mentions priests and elders? Were there none when Yeshua walked the earth?

You know and history shows that there were priests and elders of Israel when Jesus was here. The only way to get around their authority with regard to Deut. 17 is to de-legitimize them somehow. Typically this is done based on the rejection of Jesus by SOME of them.

Acts is clear that many priest were followers of Jesus:

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Another method commonly used to de-legitimize them is to say that Jesus is greater than they and therefore his word is final. Fine. Here is what Jesus said:

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Best to obey him then.

Steve I agree and this is what the Spirit is leading me too. I always believed that Yeshua was totally against their traditions but He wasn't. It appears He was against the extremely remote applications of the traditions but not the traditions themselves are a true basic understanding. As the true basic understanding isn't difficult and isn't a burden. On the other hand the remote extremes are difficult and a burden.

But this doesn't negate the fact that the traditions make sense at the basic level.

Marc

[muffler dragon]

The rabbinical teachings are not and never were authoritative from God's view.

If this is how you feel; then you stand opposed to the Torah. ;)

[ChazakEmunah]

If this is how you feel; then you stand opposed to the Torah. ;)
Pretty much.

[A_Pioneer]

Except for healing on the sabbath, Yeshua was not even accused of breaking the sabbath. My Rabbi points out that each opportunity Yeshua would say to one or more of his talmidim to thresh grain or some other thing as a teaching opportunity. A talmid would do like his Rabbi.
For each time he makes halacah which is unlike the prevailing one.

Shalom

[Steve Petersen]

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Did%20Y%20Brk%20the%20Sabbath.pdf

[GerTzedek]

Berean, it doesn't matter that the decisions of the judges (pharisees, rabbis) don't come straight from HaShem. G-d has granted them the authority to make these rulings, and they are BINDING. In fact, the death penalty was prescribed for those who presumed to argue with the rulings!

Others here have already backed this up with Matthew 23:1-3, just as I did. There is just no way to get around this. Yeshua supported the authority of the Torah teachers and judges, the pharisees, the rabbis...

I have to agree with the others that if you reject the authority of the rabbinical rulings, you stand opposed to Torah...
AND to Yeshua.

[visionary]

Paul went to Damascus with the papers of authority to persecute and kill as many believers as he could find. God stopped him on the road and changed his cause of action. So is God defying the misuse of Torah authority?

We can not raise the authority to absolute binding status, with all due respect, there has to be checks and balances or we will end up with tyranny.

[mpossoff]

Paul went to Damascus with the papers of authority to persecute and kill as many believers as he could find. God stopped him on the road and changed his cause of action. So is God defying the misuse of Torah authority?

We can not raise the authority to absolute binding status, with all due respect, there has to be checks and balances or we will end up with tyranny.

Yeah but was it Torah authority?

I agree. Yeshua did keep the traditions, EXCEPT in instances when it negated the true actual command.

Let me try to give you an example that can apply today. In some orthodox communities where I grew up the orthodox didn't carry their babies. Why? because they were keeping one of the 39 as 'not carrying a load'. This is an extreme and remote application of the true intent of this oral tradition. Is the tradition or oral law of 'not carrying a load' bad? Of course not. In fact it makes sense in it's true application which has nothing to do with carrying a baby, carrying a pair of gloves or even your car keys(this is true in some orthodox circles). So the basic command of the oral of 'not carrying a load' makes absolute sense. But what the Pharisee's did in some instances was to put even heavier 'loads' on the basic command to make it remote and far to build as much fense around the basic intent.

I'm telling you when you can look at the 39 at it's basic and true intent it will change your view, maybe.

What we will do is say "look the orthodox don't even carry their babies". In our minds since they won't carry their babies we think that this whole oral tradition is rediculous and say and then totally criticise these traditions as 'traditions of men'.

Unfortunately the way I see it the remote applications are rediculous but the basic true intent is not.

With all this being said I believe Yeshua would too and he did.

Marc

[Steve Petersen]

So is God defying the misuse of Torah authority?

We can not raise the authority to absolute binding status, with all due respect, there has to be checks and balances or we will end up with tyranny.

I was going to raise this point before: Just where is the Torah authority for removing a priest/elder? What is the process? Specific verses, no sermons.

[visionary]

I was going to raise this point before: Just where is the Torah authority for removing a priest/elder? What is the process? Specific verses, no sermons.By the same token where is the process by which God has given authority? God giveth and God taketh away....I think the opening up the robes of the priests for all to see their wickedness is God's way of defrocking them.

[Steve Petersen]

By the same token where is the process by which God has given authority? God giveth and God taketh away....I think the opening up the robes of the priests for all to see their wickedness is God's way of defrocking them.

I asked for no sermons. :sigh:

Really, if everything we do is supposed to be based on Torah we should be able to find some way to remove priests and elders in there. Can anyone point me to this process?
:scratch:

[Henaynei]

G-d had His way
34 And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever as an example

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I think you are making it more difficult than nesacsary. I think Yeshua rejected the man made additions to the law, I do not think he upheld or followed rabinnical or talmudic teachings, and the point is that all of the rules of do's and don'ts with regards to the Sabbath are extra-Biblical.

Yeshua said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man." I don't think He looked for or had a loop-hole in the traditions, I think He rejected them. Yahshua said, "Mankind was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for mankind." The Sabbath was made for mankind (Man=Mankind.) The disciples were not harvesting the field, but getting something to eat. If Yahshua was a law breaker, then he was not the perfect lamb of God. The pharisees had made many unrightous additions to the laws. The priests in control in those days were the Hellenistic Jews.Three Shepherds
Zec 11:4. This is what the LORD my God says: "Pasture the flock marked for slaughter. 5. Their buyers slaughter them and go unpunished. Those who sell them say, 'Praise the LORD, I am rich!' Their own shepherds do not spare them. 6. For I will no longer have pity on the people of the land," declares the LORD. "I will hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They will oppress the land, and I will not rescue them from their hands."
7. So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock. 8. In one month I got rid of the three shepherds.
The flock detested me, and I grew weary of them 9. and said, "I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh."

10. Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations. 11. It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching me knew it was the word of the LORD.

12. I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.

13. And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

14. Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15. Then the LORD said to me, "Take again the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16. For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their hoofs.

17. "Woe to the worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!
May his arm be completely withered,
his right eye totally blinded!"


The Sanhedrin, Sadducees and Pharisees. The Three Shepherds.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Open my eyes, that I may see
Wondrous things from Your Torah.

[TheRabbi]

The entire premise of this argument is superfluous and doesn't add up. If a man is starving, he doesn't need Jesus or anything greater than the temple in order to break the Sabbath for food. Anyone who is starving can break any commandment to eat. You can eat pork if you're starving.

An army doesn't even have to be hungry to eat things that aren't permitted (treif, temple offerings, etc.). If they are engaged in what's called a Milchemet Mitzvah, essentially a God ordained battle, they can eat whatever they need to remain in top shape.

A starving man would not have been condemned for reaping and eating. Why is it that he who was greater than the Temple allowed his followers to starve to the point that they had to desecrate the Sabbath? Their eating didn't bring any new idea that we didn't already observe. So what exactly would be the point? Why didn't they pick that same grain on Friday?

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

The entire premise of this argument is superfluous and doesn't add up. If a man is starving, he doesn't need Jesus or anything greater than the temple in order to break the Sabbath for food. Anyone who is starving can break any commandment to eat. You can eat pork if you're starving.

An army doesn't even have to be hungry to eat things that aren't permitted (treif, temple offerings, etc.). If they are engaged in what's called a Milchemet Mitzvah, essentially a God ordained battle, they can eat whatever they need to remain in top shape.

A starving man would not have been condemned for reaping and eating. Why is it that he who was greater than the Temple allowed his followers to starve to the point that they had to desecrate the Sabbath? Their eating didn't bring any new idea that we didn't already observe. So what exactly would be the point? Why didn't they pick that same grain on Friday?The pharisees had made many unrightous additions to the laws. The priests in control in those days were the Hellenistic Jews.

[GerTzedek]

Not starving. Just HUNGRY.

[GerTzedek]

MIchael, you have no idea what you are talking about. Bet Shammai, which controlled the Sandhedron during those particular years, and bet Hillel, which did not, were NEITHER ONE Hellenistic.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

MIchael, you have no idea what you are talking about.Lol.

[TheRabbi]

Michael,
I don't see what the pharisees have to do with what I said. Please explain yourself.

[mpossoff]

The entire premise of this argument is superfluous and doesn't add up. If a man is starving, he doesn't need Jesus or anything greater than the temple in order to break the Sabbath for food. Anyone who is starving can break any commandment to eat. You can eat pork if you're starving.

An army doesn't even have to be hungry to eat things that aren't permitted (treif, temple offerings, etc.). If they are engaged in what's called a Milchemet Mitzvah, essentially a God ordained battle, they can eat whatever they need to remain in top shape.

A starving man would not have been condemned for reaping and eating. Why is it that he who was greater than the Temple allowed his followers to starve to the point that they had to desecrate the Sabbath? Their eating didn't bring any new idea that we didn't already observe. So what exactly would be the point? Why didn't they pick that same grain on Friday?

Rabbi maybe the one who was greater than the Temple isn't who you are implying. Maybe the one greater than the Temple were the human beings and compassion for the human beings.

You are implying with most of what Christianity interprets this passage. "He's the one greater than the Temple service therefore Yeshua can do whatever He wants to on the Sabbath is the common view of the passage and common amongst those that reject the Gospels.

Because you have to read the passage in context:

There is a problem with this reasoning because it can be used to sanction anything.

It doesn’t make sense as a halachtic defense because Yeshua doesn’t need to keep the Torah He can do whatever He wants. Then the point of Him being sinless and obedient becomes pointless. Are the Pharisee’s going to accept that? “Oh we forgot you are greater than the Temple” Of course not.

What is it that is greater than the Temple then? what else is present there that is greater than the Temple in the grain fields? His answer is But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.This is what is present that is greater than the Temple.Compassion for human beings.

The answer to your implication is in His answer But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. So He's not referring to Himself as greater than the Temple because of His answer.

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Michael,
I don't see what the pharisees have to do with what I said. Please explain yourself. You asked the question: "Why didn't they pick that same grain on Friday?" My answer is that they were not harvesting the field to begin with. They were just getting something to eat. They never broke any Sabbath law.The pharisees had made many unrightous additions to the laws. The priests in control in those days were the Hellenistic Jews.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

MIchael, you have no idea what you are talking about. Bet Shammai, which controlled the Sandhedron during those particular years, and bet Hillel, which did not, were NEITHER ONE Hellenistic.The Hellenistic Jews took control of the temple in 167 BC.

[mpossoff]

You asked the question: "Why didn't they pick that same grain on Friday?" My answer is that they were not harvesting the field to begin with. They were just getting something to eat. They never broke any Sabbath law.The pharisees had made many unrightous additions to the laws. The priests in control in those days were the Hellenistic Jews.

Hmmm good point.

Let's say I have an apple tree in my back yard and I'm hungry and go out and pick an apple from the tree?

Or I'm on my way to the synagogue and I'm hungry and there happens to be an apple tree on the way and I pick and an apple?

Marc

[TheRabbi]

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that the idea that a starving man could break the sabbath to eat, is nothing new. Jesus is teaching us that we should be nice and let starving people do whatever they need to eat? Is that your point? That's nothing new. That's nothing that wasn't already known, accepted and in practice at the time.

And it still doesn't explain why a man that runs around feeding 5 thousand people with one basket of food can't feed the 12 guys that are with him every day.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

The Seleucid king Antiochus refounded Jerusalem as “Antioch” in Judea with the status of polis in 175 B.C. The Sanhedrin served as the city's boule; the Mosaic law, as its constitution. The Hellenized high priest Jason displaced his more conservative brother Onias III and functioned as archon. Jason constructed a gymnasium and introduced Greek secondary education, training the elite youths as ephebes or citizens in training. Jason was succeeded as high priest by the even more radical Hellenists: Menelaus, Lysimachus, and Simon. Resistance to Hellenism resulted in Antiocus' reducing Jerusalem's status to katoikia (garrison town), with Syrian troops stationed in the city in 169 or 168 B.C.

The Maccabean revolt was in part a class struggle of the pious poor who clung to the traditional ways and the aristocracy who embraced Hellenism as a means to get ahead. Though the Maccabees succeeded in gaining political autonomy for Palestine, they were unable to stem the tide of Hellenism. The new rulers (called Hasmoneans) grew increasingly Hellenized. Jonathan was recognized by the Seleucids as king and high priest (150 B.C.) becoming in effect a Seleucid official. The Maccabees opposed the religious syncretism of Hellenism but succumbed to the broader culture of Hellenism. Holman Bible Dictionary: http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/

[TheRabbi]

Picking, by definition is reaping. The amount doesn't change the definition.

[TheRabbi]

Your pharisee/priest argument falls flat due to the fact that the hellenist priests were Sadducees and rejected the oral Torah. If you are going to call the Oral Torah an addition, then I ask you to show me a time when Israel did not observe these laws.

[mpossoff]

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that the idea that a starving man could break the sabbath to eat, is nothing new. Jesus is teaching us that we should be nice and let starving people do whatever they need to eat? Is that your point? That's nothing new. That's nothing that wasn't already known, accepted and in practice at the time.

And it still doesn't explain why a man that runs around feeding 5 thousand people with one basket of food can't feed the 12 guys that are with him every day.

So you agree that Yeshua actually is using and quoting oral law to exhonerate His disciples? I'm not understanding you.

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

That's totally irrelevant to the discussion. My point is that the idea that a starving man could break the sabbath to eat, is nothing new. Jesus is teaching us that we should be nice and let starving people do whatever they need to eat? Is that your point? That's nothing new. That's nothing that wasn't already known, accepted and in practice at the time.

And it still doesn't explain why a man that runs around feeding 5 thousand people with one basket of food can't feed the 12 guys that are with him every day. A priest of God does most of his WORK on the Sabbath, but yet he is not breaking the Sabbath commandment. There is a big difference between picking a apple off a tree to eat, compared to harvesting the tree.

[mpossoff]

A priest of God does most of his WORK on the Sabbath, but yet he is not breaking the Sabbath commandment. There is a big difference between picking a apple off a tree to eat, compared to harvesting the tree.

Or picking grain from the grainfields.

As I posted before Yeshua kept the oral traditions.

I posted this:

And I admit that I am know I'm examining myself in my walk in Torah because I have recently been enlightened.

Actually if you look at the 39 melachot I cannot say that I find them unreasonable. These were present in Yeshua's day. BUT when understood in their general sense rather than there specific or focusing on some remote application is I believe what Yeshua debated. He didn't debate the TRUE general applications but seem to debate the remote applications.

I'm no expert but I'll try to give you an example. I grew up in a Jewish community comprised of reform, orthodox, conservative Jews. (NOTE I'm not criticizing or judging just trying to give an example.) The orthodox by keeping the oral tradition would not carry their children. Why? because oral tradition says not to carry on the Sabbath. This is focusing on a remote application that topples the basic Spirit of the general application. Because the basic/general application according to the sages is that carrying a load has to do with creation and building of the Tabernacle that constitutes melachot. The children of Israel were commanded to not even to continue building the Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Carry a load has to do with the building of the Tabernacle and is based on that according to the sages. This has to do with commerce, buying and selling. This is not made up it's actually in scripture in Nehemiah. Some will not even carry gloves in their pockets because of the remote application.

What the problem I see and I am guilty of this is that I see that orthodox will not even carry their babies on Shabbat because of the oral tradition of not carrying a load and therefore say to myself "that's rediculious" missing the basic true general 'pinciple' so to speak of the actual tradition of carrying a load. Because I only see the focus of the remote I can't see the real true application so I disregard the whole tradition as nonsense. But when I look at the application of carrying a load like in Nehemiah it has nothing to do with the most remote application as not carrying your baby. Or pre tearing toilet paper.

And:

I always believed that Yeshua was totally against their traditions but He wasn't. It appears He was against the extremely remote applications of the traditions but not the traditions themselves are a true basic understanding. As the true basic understanding isn't difficult and isn't a burden. On the other hand the remote extremes are difficult and a burden.

But this doesn't negate the fact that the traditions make sense at the basic level.

And:

Let me try to give you an example that can apply today. In some orthodox communities where I grew up the orthodox didn't carry their babies. Why? because they were keeping one of the 39 as 'not carrying a load'. This is an extreme and remote application of the true intent of this oral tradition. Is the tradition or oral law of 'not carrying a load' bad? Of course not. In fact it makes sense in it's true application which has nothing to do with carrying a baby, carrying a pair of gloves or even your car keys(this is true in some orthodox circles). So the basic command of the oral of 'not carrying a load' makes absolute sense. But what the Pharisee's did in some instances was to put even heavier 'loads' on the basic command to make it remote and far to build as much fense around the basic intent.


Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Picking, by definition is reaping. The amount doesn't change the definition. You said: "And it still doesn't explain why a man that runs around feeding 5 thousand people with one basket of food can't feed the 12 guys that are with him every day." My reply: It was Yahwah who feed the people on the Sabbath. Yahshua only asked Him to hear his prayer.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Or picking grain from the grainfields.

As I posted before Yeshua kept the oral traditions.

I posted this:

And I admit that I am know I'm examining myself in my walk in Torah because I have recently been enlightened.

Actually if you look at the 39 melachot I cannot say that I find them unreasonable. These were present in Yeshua's day. BUT when understood in their general sense rather than there specific or focusing on some remote application is I believe what Yeshua debated. He didn't debate the TRUE general applications but seem to debate the remote applications.

I'm no expert but I'll try to give you an example. I grew up in a Jewish community comprised of reform, orthodox, conservative Jews. (NOTE I'm not criticizing or judging just trying to give an example.) The orthodox by keeping the oral tradition would not carry their children. Why? because oral tradition says not to carry on the Sabbath. This is focusing on a remote application that topples the basic Spirit of the general application. Because the basic/general application according to the sages is that carrying a load has to do with creation and building of the Tabernacle that constitutes melachot. The children of Israel were commanded to not even to continue building the Tabernacle on the Sabbath. Carry a load has to do with the building of the Tabernacle and is based on that according to the sages. This has to do with commerce, buying and selling. This is not made up it's actually in scripture in Nehemiah. Some will not even carry gloves in their pockets because of the remote application.

What the problem I see and I am guilty of this is that I see that orthodox will not even carry their babies on Shabbat because of the oral tradition of not carrying a load and therefore say to myself "that's rediculious" missing the basic true general 'pinciple' so to speak of the actual tradition of carrying a load. Because I only see the focus of the remote I can't see the real true application so I disregard the whole tradition as nonsense. But when I look at the application of carrying a load like in Nehemiah it has nothing to do with the most remote application as not carrying your baby. Or pre tearing toilet paper.

And:

I always believed that Yeshua was totally against their traditions but He wasn't. It appears He was against the extremely remote applications of the traditions but not the traditions themselves are a true basic understanding. As the true basic understanding isn't difficult and isn't a burden. On the other hand the remote extremes are difficult and a burden.

But this doesn't negate the fact that the traditions make sense at the basic level.

And:

Let me try to give you an example that can apply today. In some orthodox communities where I grew up the orthodox didn't carry their babies. Why? because they were keeping one of the 39 as 'not carrying a load'. This is an extreme and remote application of the true intent of this oral tradition. Is the tradition or oral law of 'not carrying a load' bad? Of course not. In fact it makes sense in it's true application which has nothing to do with carrying a baby, carrying a pair of gloves or even your car keys(this is true in some orthodox circles). So the basic command of the oral of 'not carrying a load' makes absolute sense. But what the Pharisee's did in some instances was to put even heavier 'loads' on the basic command to make it remote and far to build as much fense around the basic intent.


MarcThank you for sharing with me.

[TheRabbi]

What the problem I see and I am guilty of this is that I see that orthodox will not even carry their babies on Shabbat because of the oral tradition of not carrying a load and therefore say to myself "that's rediculious" missing the basic true general 'pinciple' so to speak of the actual tradition of carrying a load. Because I only see the focus of the remote I can't see the real true application so I disregard the whole tradition as nonsense. But when I look at the application of carrying a load like in Nehemiah it has nothing to do with the most remote application as not carrying your baby.
I don't understand why you call the word of God a "tradition".

Jeremiah 17:21
Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and carry no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;

22Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

My Bible says that this "tradition" came straight from the mouth of The Almighty himself. It is very explicit and involves several prohibitions, none of which mentions commerce.

[mpossoff]

I don't understand why you call the word of God a "tradition".

Jeremiah 17:21
Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and carry no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;

22Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.

My Bible says that this "tradition" came straight from the mouth of The Almighty himself. It is very explicit and involves several prohibitions, none of which mentions commerce.

Rabbi what is the basic intent of the command? Does it have to do with carrying your baby? Is carrying your baby the burden it's referring too?

Rabbi what is the basic intent of the command of carrying a load?

I agree with this tradition in it's basic intent and not it's remote application of carrying a baby because Rabbi if you are honest with the text then what does it have to do with carrying a baby?

If you look in Neh. you will discover the basic intent of the command to not to carry a load.

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Ezekiel 20:25. I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by;... Matthew 12
Lord of the Sabbath
1. At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3. He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4. He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6. I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

9. Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10. and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

11. He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12. How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

13. Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14. But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Matthew 15
Clean and Unclean
1. Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2. "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3. Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4. For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5. But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6. he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8. " 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9. They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.

[mpossoff]

Michael,

It should be noted that Yeshua is not against tradition, including many of the traditions of the Pharissee's. In chapter 16 Yeshua even gave the power to set such "tradition" to His disciples.


What Yeshua is opposed to is any tradition not founded in Torah that places itself above Torah.


Now there are tradition that are founded in the Torah.


Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Michael,

It should be noted that Yeshua is not against tradition, including many of the traditions of the Pharissee's. In chapter 16 Yeshua even gave the power to set such "tradition" to His disciples.


What Yeshua is opposed to is any tradition not founded in Torah that places itself above Torah.


Now there are tradition that are founded in the Torah.


Marc
Yahshua was not against any commandment laws of God. The pharisees did have the authority to make additions and changes, but not anything that would contradict or nullifiy God's words.

[TheRabbi]

Rabbi what is the basic intent of the command? Does it have to do with carrying your baby? Is carrying your baby the burden it's referring too?

Rabbi what is the basic intent of the command of carrying a load?

I agree with this tradition in it's basic intent and not it's remote application of carrying a baby because Rabbi if you are honest with the text then what does it have to do with carrying a baby?

If you look in Neh. you will discover the basic intent of the command to not to carry a load.

Marc
I'm quite familiar with Nechemiah and it has no bearing on God's word to Jeremiah. The text makes it's intent clear. Do not carry on Shabbat. That's enough for me.

[Steve Petersen]

I'm quite familiar with Nechemiah and it has no bearing on God's word to Jeremiah. The text makes it's intent clear. Do not carry on Shabbat. That's enough for me.

I understand the basis, but couldn't carrying a child be considered an act of compassion?

[mpossoff]

I understand the basis, but couldn't carrying a child be considered an act of compassion?

Steve I think it is an act of compassion.

The point is I'm trying to make and Rabbi is not addressing it is the INTENT of the command.

What is the reason why we are not to carry on Shabbat?

Rabbi says we are not to carry on Shabbat and that's it, correct?

Rabbi is not addressing why the intent was created in the first place.

The sages say it pertains to creation, the act of creation and building of the Tabernacle is the basis how the 39 were created.

Carrying a baby has nothing to do with creating.

Carrying sticks on the Shabbat most defiantely is an act of creating or the intent of creating.

Carrying your gloves or your car keys has nothing to do with the basic intent.

This is where the remote applications to build a fense around the basic command come in.

Because Rabbi carrying a load is carrying a load and that's it which proves that there are possibilities of nor priortizing because of inflexible rules that have nothing to do with the most basic application of carrying a load.

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

I understand the basis, but couldn't carrying a child be considered an act of compassion? Yes it would. The Sabbath was intended to be a blessing, not a curse.

[mpossoff]

I'm quite familiar with Nechemiah and it has no bearing on God's word to Jeremiah. The text makes it's intent clear. Do not carry on Shabbat. That's enough for me.

Nehe 13:15 In those days I saw [people] in Judah treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and loading donkeys with wine, grapes, figs, and all [kinds] [of] burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day. And I warned [them] about the day on which they were selling provisions. 16 Men of Tyre dwelt there also, who brought in fish and all kinds of goods, and sold [them] on the Sabbath to the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. 17 Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said to them, "What evil thing [is] this that you do, by which you profane the Sabbath day? 18 "Did not your fathers do thus, and did not our Elohim bring all this disaster on us and on this city? Yet you bring added wrath on Israel by profaning the Sabbath."

Rabbi this scripture is clearly referring to not a burden as you are referring it to. Carrying a baby is not the burden this is referring too.

Marc

[TheRabbi]

The rule clearly came from the mouth of God. I'll take God's wording over your speculations as to his intent.

[TheRabbi]

What compassion? If the child can't walk, don't take them out for one day. It's that simple. How is this an act of compassion?

[mpossoff]

The rule clearly came from the mouth of God. I'll take God's wording over your speculations as to his intent.

Rabbi yes it came from the mouth of God.

But how come you won't address the context of the scripture?

That the context of scripture from God's mouth doesn't imply that carrying a load means everything that you carry.

This is evident in scripture. This is focusing on remote applications that topples the basic Spirit of the general application. Because the basic/general application according to the sages is that carrying a load has to do with creation and building of the Tabernacle that constitutes melachot.

We certaintly can come up with melachot, which is work. Come on does carrying a baby seriously constitute work that equals creation pertaining to building the Tabernacle for instance.

Is it not possible that the Rabbi's said not to carry anything so one wouldn't break the basic command?

In other words "don't carry anything" as a safeguard( if you will) so one will not even break the basic command of carrying a load with the intent of creating?


Marc

[mpossoff]

edit

[TheRabbi]

I think the problem here is that you have no understanding of the difference between avodah/labor and melacha/work. The two are very different. You are trying to inject avodah into the text when it isn't there.

[mpossoff]

I think the problem here is that you have no understanding of the difference between avodah/labor and melacha/work. The two are very different. You are trying to inject avodah into the text when it isn't there.

RABBI: In Judaism, if people are literally hungry and have nothing to eat, halakhically may they pick an ear of corn?

Marc

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

TheRabbi



I think the problem here is that you have no understanding of the difference between avodah/labor and melacha/work. The two are very different. You are trying to inject avodah into the text when it isn't there.


:doh: Thats like saying there is a big difference between Sunday and the first day of the week.

[muffler dragon]

RABBI: In Judaism, if people are literally hungry and have nothing to eat, halakhically may they pick an ear of corn?

Marc

I would suggest they walk down to their neighbor's house. ;)

[ChavaK]

I would suggest they walk down to their neighbor's house. ;)

LOL! :D