Meat and dairy

[By Grace]

I hope this is the right place to ask this; if the mods think it should be in the halachic section, that's fine, too!

Can someone please explain to me how all these restrictions on eating and/or cooking meat and dairy separately have come out of the 3 verses that just say "You are not to boil a young animal in its mother's milk"? It seems to me they could have just as easily said you can't eat eggs, since there's the possibility the mother chicken was also killed for meat. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I'm trying to figure out what standards I will try to keep for my own conscience from my own study.

Thank you!

[CharlesYTK]

The Jewish authority constructed a set of intricate laws around the commandments. They were what we call "HEDGES". Their purpose was that if you transgressed the minor hedge law then you knew that you were close to violating the actual commandment. This process is very detailed and is found largely in the Talmud and what is called the Oral Torah.

The commandment was not to seeth (boil) a kid in it mothers milk. It was really an adnomition against cruelty practiced widely by Pagans. (Pagan's incorporate a lot of violence, and degridation in their worship) In this case the Kid goat or lamb was cooked (probably thrown in alive in the boiling mothers milk) such that, the thing which would have brought life and strength and a bond of love for the Kid, now became torture and death. This is an abomination to God. All animals that are killed Kosher are killed very humanely, such that the animal may not even be aware that it is fataly wounded.

So from the fear of braking this law against cruelty, it was misunderstood (in my opinion) to mean that you can not consume any meat with dairy. This is obviously wrong because that means you can not have milk, or milk gravy with chicken. And it is clear that chickens do not produce milk. You can not have dairy with fish. Fish o not give milk. But soon it was separate cookware, separate dishes, and even separate kitchens. One for dairy one for meat.

Sorry no offence meant to any who observe this particular Kosher law. I also observe it but from what I would consider a biblical understanding rather than a Rabbinical understanding. I do not boil a young animal live or dead in the milk that was meant to be life to it through Gods design, turning Gods blessing into a curse of death.

Charles

[By Grace]

Charles, thank you, that makes a lot of sense. That's kind of what I suspected, but wanted confirmation. Does anyone else have anything more to add?

TIA,

[Henaynei]

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm


On three separate occasions, the Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/torah.htm) tells us not to "boil a kid in its mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/oral.htm) explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/rabbi.htm) extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In addition, the Talmud (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm) prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common. It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together.

This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils, pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are cleaned, and the towels on which they are dried. A kosher household will have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for dairy. See Utensils (http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Utensils) below for more details.

One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy. Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours. This is because fatty residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat, however, one need only rinse one's mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in the mouth.

The Yiddish (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/yiddish.htm) words fleishik (meat), milchik (dairy) and pareve (neutral) are commonly used to describe food or utensils that fall into one of those categories. Note that even the smallest quantity of dairy (or meat) in something renders it entirely dairy (or meat) for purposes of kashrut. For example, most margarines are dairy for kosher purposes, because they contain a small quantity of whey or other dairy products to give it a dairy-like taste. Animal fat is considered meat for purposes of kashrut. You should read the ingredients very carefully, even if the product is kosher-certified.

[Henaynei]

I hope this is the right place to ask this; if the mods think it should be in the halachic section, that's fine, too!
Thank you!We'll leave it here for now - as long as the posts stay with the OP and don't digress too far :) I think it will get more exposure here :)

If they do digress too far the thread may be moved to preserve the integrity of the OP :)

b'Shalom
Henaynei
Moderator
http://www.nehemiah-center.org/Henny.jpg

[By Grace]

On three separate occasions, the Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/torah.htm) tells us not to "boil a kid in its mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/oral.htm) explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/rabbi.htm) extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In addition, the Talmud (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm) prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common. It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together.
Actually (you'll be proud of me!) I read all that on the Judaism 101 site before I posted my question! I just don't understand how they go from boiling a kid in its mother's milk to keeping all meat separate from all dairy, and even keeping fish separate from meat. It seems like a whole lot of trouble and expense just to take that one commandment to such an extreme. I read on one site where there are specific instructions on how to, what's the word, kasher (?) a dishwasher if it's been used for one then needs to be used for the other. At one point, the recommendation was to clean it, according to their instructions, then let it sit for a year!

[CharlesYTK]

Actually (you'll be proud of me!) I read all that on the Judaism 101 site before I posted my question! I just don't understand how they go from boiling a kid in its mother's milk to keeping all meat separate from all dairy, and even keeping fish separate from meat. It seems like a whole lot of trouble and expense just to take that one commandment to such an extreme. I read on one site where there are specific instructions on how to, what's the word, kasher (?) a dishwasher if it's been used for one then needs to be used for the other. At one point, the recommendation was to clean it, according to their instructions, then let it sit for a year!
Here is the answer. Henny gave it to you. It was Rabbinical tradition not a Torah command.

The Oral Torah (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/oral.htm) explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/rabbi.htm) extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In addition, the Talmud (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/talmud.htm) prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy.

It was Rabbinical tradition not a Torah command.

Charles

[iitb]

It's amazing how hard it is to find a straight answer to this question. ;)

From http://www.shemayisrael.com/j/keepingkosher/chap1.html#46

Q: What are the basic laws of meat and milk?

A: The Torah states three times that it is forbidden to cook a kid in its mother’s milk. 35 One time refers to cooking the meat of a kosher animal (not fowl) with the milk of a kosher animal, one to eating this mixture, and one to receiving benefit from it. The term milk here includes dairy products. The Sages forbade eating meat and milk together even if the mixture was not cooked. They also forbade eating fowl (e.g., chicken, duck) with milk. Furthermore, they ordained that one must wait (between one and six hours, depending on one’s custom) after eating meat or fowl before eating dairy.

[By Grace]

It's amazing how hard it is to find a straight answer to this question. ;)

From http://www.shemayisrael.com/j/keepingkosher/chap1.html#46

One time refers to cooking the meat of a kosher animal (not fowl) with the milk of a kosher animal, one to eating this mixture, and one to receiving benefit from it. The term milk here includes dairy products
I can see generalizing the command to all kosher animals, at least, the mammals. But I don't see how the milk of one animal can't be used for cooking a different kind of animal (say, cooking beef in goat's milk), although I guess that's not such a big difference. But to say that "milk" applies to all dairy doesn't make sense to me unless by "dairy" you mean specifically any kind of milk product (like cheese, butter, etc.), and you don't include eggs, which are also sometimes considered to be dairy. I can definitely see how they all three refer to cooking, and one may even refer to eating, since the surrounding verses refer to eating, even though that one verse doesn't say eating. But I don't see the last one, "receiving benefit from it." What does that mean exactly? And I don't see how fowl would apply at all or how fish got involved in it.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative. I hope no one is offended by these questions. This whole concept is just so foreign to me, and I'm only trying to understand where these ideas are coming from. I see that these things have been directed by the rabbis, Sages, Talmud, etc., but why did they put them in there like that in the first place? What did they see in these three verses that caused them to make these determinations?

TIA,

[JewishHeart]

I agree with following Torah and believe in kashrut, but whenever I get into halacha, to wait 4 hours for the ashkenazis and 6 for the sephardics. ... I hear Paul saying that he worries in Galations about not concentrating on the weightier issues of Torah. " I worry for you that you are now keeping ( the word in the Greek means to scrutinize to pieces) festivals and new moons." Paul wasn't saying it was wrong to keep these, but to scrutinize them like halacha does.

[CharlesYTK]

Well said JH. Sometime we seem to miss the point!
:-)

[HoT-MetaL]

When we look back, with science, we can see that a lot of the Levitical laws, sent by God, were for our own protection! For example, a woman and her period. She wasnt allowed contact because of hygene.

God is Holy, and so laws were also passed for his holiness.

Please correct me if im wrong!

God Bless, metal.

[CharlesYTK]

When we look back, with science, we can see that a lot of the Levitical laws, sent by God, were for our own protection! For example, a woman and her period. She wasnt allowed contact because of hygene.

God is Holy, and so laws were also passed for his holiness.

Please correct me if im wrong!

God Bless, metal.
Yes there are cetainly good physical reasons for all of Gods laws. Take Gravity as a good example. Everytime we try to violate this law, we endanger our existance. The Kosher laws are the same. But the laws can be understood Biblically, (scripturally) or Rabbinically. I prefer the former over the latter.

But the Kosher laws are more than just good advice for our heath ect., they are to teach us to make a distinction between the holy and the vile. Let me explain:

God wants us to do all things in a holy way as holy people who represent him.

He does this by giving a way to sanctify that which is common and make it into a holy act. Sex was God's invention. Sex without control is vile. Sex within marriage, becomes a holy act, it is sanctified by marriage.

Our time is common and can be used for holy of for vile, or every day the same all work days all time to make money; but God sanctifies our time by dividing it into segments that set aside holy days, the Sabbath for the week, new moon for the month the feast days for the year, sabbatical for the 7 years, jubilee for the 7 times seven years. Therby he makes all time sanctified because it is not every day the same, every day another work day.

There are all kinds of things that can be eaten, consumed without harming us, snakes, earthworms, grubs. And we can eat until we are engorged and then puke and eat some more as gluttons. But God draws lines accross our eating as well to sanctify eating and dividing it into clean and unclean, so that our eating becomes a holy act, and we give thanks to him for it.

Do you see the pattern? God takes the plain and common and turns it into holiness and something special through sanctification, by way of the Torah. Therfore the Barakah, Blessed are you o Lord our God King of the Universe, who has sanctified us through your comandments....

Charles

[Henaynei]

while tempting, that is flawed logic - trying to apply our understanding as the reason for HaShem's laws.....

just because you or I can find some benefiit in keeping this law or that - the only reason HaShem gives for His Laws is this........

that we might be Holy as He is Holy

aka

that we might be unique and separated as He is unique and separated......

While HaShem certainly expects that we would use our minds to investigate His Torah, deciding that we now *know* why He gave certain Laws (*especially* in the face of the fact that He *has* told us why) is a rather large dose of arrogant thinking ;)

[Buccaneer]

I'm not trying to say anything but I am just wondering about the Talmud I believe it's called who dictate and interprate the iffy subjects. Can they not be in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

[CharlesYTK]

while tempting, that is flawed logic - trying to apply our understanding as the reason for HaShem's laws.....

just because you or I can find some benefiit in keeping this law or that - the only reason HaShem gives for His Laws is this........

that we might be Holy as He is Holy

aka

that we might be unique and separated as He is unique and separated......

While HaShem certainly expects that we would use our minds to investigate His Torah, deciding that we now *know* why He gave certain Laws (*especially* in the face of the fact that He *has* told us why) is a rather large dose of arrogant thinking ;)
Excuse me;Who is this comment adressed to?

Charles

[Henaynei]

Excuse me;Who is this comment adressed to?

Charles :) specifically to hotmetal's comment, and to the concept in general also :)

[Talmidah]

I can see generalizing the command to all kosher animals, at least, the mammals. But I don't see how the milk of one animal can't be used for cooking a different kind of animal (say, cooking beef in goat's milk), although I guess that's not such a big difference.
Basically comes down to the principles of life and death...and not mixing the two.

[CharlesYTK]

Basically comes down to the principles of life and death...and not mixing the two.
Hi Talmidah,

I think I know what you mean. I expressed a similar thought above. The milk is the life giving substance to the young animal. However in a broader sense, it is the blood that carries the life of the animal according to scripture, and therefore the restriction against blood or consuming a live animal, (an animal torn. A common Pagan activity.) Blood and milk are completely different in respect of whether it is life or nurishment that supports life. I believe the intent of the law is to stop Gods people from doing the practices of the Pagans. Pagans drank blood, they tore the limbs off a live animal and ate it or just ate the animal live, they would boil a kid in the mothers milk. All acts of degridation, inhumanity, violence. They also practiced sexual immorality and had temple prostitutes. They formed images with their own hands to worship them. ECT ECT. All these things are forbidden to us, because God wants clear lines of disctintion between his people and the Pagans.

Holding to a rabbinical hedge, that takes the intent and the word of the law way beyond what the words say is a completely different matter. This is holding Rabbinical sages in higher regard than the Torah itself. And you know that many do infact hold Talmud as a higher authority than Torah. It is exactly the same as the church who upholds the traditons of what they call "the church fathers" or "the doctrine handed down by the saints" (hahaha)over the literal scriptures in their Hebraic context. The church fathers made an entire new religion that was void of Torah, and void of Jewish involvement, and the vast majority of Christains follow these doctrines today, giving more credit to the church fathers than to what is plainy written in the word.

I do not mean this to become a lecture. But I continue for the sake of Henny who might be reading this.

The sages of Talmud did not agree 100% with one another on many many issues. Yet they were able to respect each others thought and have discussion about them. We today do not have to accept their opinions as fixed and sacred and are allowed to dispute with them, (their opinions). Since they did not agree with one another, then we do not have to agree with them either. Rabbinical teachings have value. They give us opinions to consider, imformation on the thoughts of another time, perhaps closer to the events, but under different circumstances than we are faced with today. All knowledge was not shut off when Talmud was compiled. God still speaks to the hearts of men and brings new light to his word even today and we are duty bound to investigate the word in this light.

Blessings to you

Charles

[CharlesYTK]

:) specifically to hotmetal's comment, and to the concept in general also :)This is not an insult or flaming. It is an observation.

Henny if we are to take the word of the Rabbinate to be the same as Gods word, giving Talmud the same authority as Torah, then consider this:

In that system there was a court for the Gentiles. There was also a court for the women. And women were not allowed to openly comment on the scriptures or have authority over a man especially in spiritual matters. The power you have as a moderator here, with the ability to chastise, rebuke, censor, locking threads you do not approve of, delete and PM is completely against the teachings and practices of Judaism as presented in Talmudic writings. So if you are saying that people today have no right to read the scriptures and make comment and try to apply them in meaningful ways to their lives, and that we must simply accept that the Rabbiis were flawless and their word the highest authority, then please, believe this. But hang up your moderators hat, and become a lurker only and if you have a question or comment take it to your husband for discussion and clarification.

You can not insist on Rabinical authority while setting it aside for yourself.
The Rabbis were wrong about Messiah. I think they were wrong about meat and dairy and a great number more things as well.

Charles

[Henaynei]

Sir, you have totally missed my intent and what I said - sorry. Besides, as you even queried to discover, it was not directed at you or anything you said.
Additionally, I operate under several layers of male authority - thank you ;)

To avoid any further danger of your responses transgressing the rules against discussing moderator actions in public threads I invite you to PM your concerns to me personally :)

I assure you they will get the scruitny and attention they deserve.

HOWEVER, I urge that this thread get back on track with the OP.

[Buccaneer]

Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. . . . So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (Genesis 18:1,)

[Henaynei]

Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. . . . So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (Genesis 18:1,) :) The rabbis are not ignorant of this passage :)

As you might surmise, milk and butter are relatively quick to procure and prepare. Therefore they are fairly immediately available.

However, to prepare a calf can take nearly half a day. After all they did not have a cut of beef in the frige and a micro to nuke it in :) They had to select, slaughter, butcher, dress and roast the calf, as I said, this takes quite a long time.

It takes way too long for a hospitable host to make his weary guests wait before they are refreshed with something to eat. Thus, they were given an appetizer, if you will, before the main course was ready. The milk and butter while they waited for the main meal :)

[CharlesYTK]

Sir, you have totally missed my intent and what I said - sorry. Besides, as you even queried to discover, it was not directed at you or anything you said.
Additionally, I operate under several layers of male authority - thank you ;)

To avoid any further danger of your responses transgressing the rules against discussing moderator actions in public threads I invite you to PM your concerns to me personally :)

I assure you they will get the scruitny and attention they deserve.

HOWEVER, I urge that this thread get back on track with the OP.Sory Henny,
But I think you missed the point here. You are insisting on Talmudic interpretation of the scriptures, saying that the sages had the last word, the only acceptable understanding for Halacha.

What I am saying is that there are many things which we in this place (and time) do not practice. I used your position of authority over men as a moderator as an example. I am not making coment on your ability or practice in this capacity but only to your right to be in that position, despite any "layers" of authority above or below you. By Talmudic principle you would not be allowed to even speak in this venue let alone have and exercise the authority that you do for example your comments to me in this thread would not only bring rebuke but could get you stoned. (the rock kind, not the rock and roll kind)

Let's take another example perhaps less associated with you personally. How many wear unblended cloth? Car you actually buy such a garment? Well I have seen 100 % cotton, and 100% silk. I own both of these. But this is a really small portion in the inventory of most American stores. Most fabrics are blends, because they won't wrinkle as bad, they don't fade, can be machine washed, resist stains and are cheaper.You might deny having blended cloth, but I suspect that most people do wear them.

This is why I addressed your activity as someone who can speak with authority and censorship power over a man in spiritual matters, because this is undeniable.And it is a violation of rabbinical Talmudic understand which you insist upon. Now lets be very clear on something here. Since I do not reognise Talmudic authority beyond reerence and information of Judaism in the second temple period and after, and since I practice apostolic Judaism, which is based only on the halacha of Yeshua and the disciples, I have no big issues with a women in this position. Yeshua and His disciples liberated women in the aith amking them on equal standing with the Jewish men, just as they did also with the Gentiles. Women were fully an active part of the faith, (the way).

Do you see what I am saying to you. I accept your position because I do not regard the Rabbis as a final authority. You profess Rabbinical authority but enjoy the rank and priveledge afforded you through apostolic Judaism while at the same time denying apostolic authority in favor of Rabbinical authority, the very authority that would deny you to have the freedom and authorty you have. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Charles

[Buccaneer]

:) The rabbis are not ignorant of this passage :)

As you might surmise, milk and butter are relatively quick to procure and prepare. Therefore they are fairly immediately available.

However, to prepare a calf can take nearly half a day. After all they did not have a cut of beef in the frige and a micro to nuke it in :) They had to select, slaughter, butcher, dress and roast the calf, as I said, this takes quite a long time.

It takes way too long for a hospitable host to make his weary guests wait before they are refreshed with something to eat. Thus, they were given an appetizer, if you will, before the main course was ready. The milk and butter while they waited for the main meal :)

"So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared"
Past tense. He took the butter, milk, and the calve which had been prepared already.

[Henaynei]

Sorry Henny,
But I think you missed the point here. You are insisting on Talmudic interpretation of the scriptures, saying that the sages had the last word, the only acceptable understanding for Halacha. Alas, your understanding of halakah is incomplete - your view of monolithism is incorrect.

In addition, this entire direction has nothing to do with my original comment, which has everything to do with denying the validity of applying man's understanding of the reason for HaShem's rules in super-position over HaShem's own stated reasons..... perhaps a re-read of my post would be fruitful :)

What I am saying is that there are many things which we in this place (and time) do not practice. I used your position of authority over men as a moderator as an example. I am not making coment on your ability or practice in this capacity but only to your right to be in that position, despite any "layers" of authority above or below you. By Talmudic principle you would not be allowed to even speak in this venue let alone have and exercise the authority that you do for example your comments to me in this thread would not only bring rebuke but could get you stoned. (the rock kind, not the rock and roll kind) So a woman is not allowed to speak in a home, or mixed public gathering?? That has never been so. Rashi's daughters were both well learned and well spoken. And D'vorah certainly held moderator like responsibilities ;) I operate directly and indirectly under the authority of men.

Let's take another example perhaps less associated with you personally. How many wear unblended cloth? Car you actually buy such a garment? Well I have seen 100 % cotton, and 100% silk. I own both of these. But this is a really small portion in the inventory of most American stores. Most fabrics are blends, because they won't wrinkle as bad, they don't fade, can be machine washed, resist stains and are cheaper.You might deny having blended cloth, but I suspect that most people do wear them. Again your understanding of halaka and Torahon this mitzvah is flawed. The only mixings that are forbidden in Torah, and in halaka are those of flax and wool. That is all ;)

This is why I addressed your activity as someone who can speak with authority and censorship power over a man in spiritual matters, because this is undeniable.And it is a violation of rabbinical Talmudic understand which you insist upon. Now lets be very clear on something here. Since I do not recognise Talmudic authority beyond reverence and information of Judaism in the second temple period and after, and since I practice apostolic Judaism, which is based only on the halacha of Yeshua and the disciples, I have no big issues with a women in this position. Yeshua and His disciples liberated women in the faith making them on equal standing with the Jewish men, just as they did also with the Gentiles. Women were fully an active part of the faith, (the way). Again, slightly inaccurate but I accept that this is your view.

Do you see what I am saying to you. I accept your position because I do not regard the Rabbis as a final authority. You profess Rabbinical authority but enjoy the rank and priveledge afforded you through apostolic Judaism while at the same time denying apostolic authority in favor of Rabbinical authority, the very authority that would deny you to have the freedom and authorty you have. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

Charles Obviously you have little idea what being a moderator in this forum is like - we have neither the freedom nor privilege you assume ;), but I appreciate that you have no problem with my authority in this context.

[JewishHeart]

Charles,

You and I have like beliefs in that I too respect the rabis and sages of old, I too respect halacha, however I do not count it as binding. I find great revelation sometimes in halacha, and sometimes I find warp reasoning. I count halacha as a commentary to be discerned. Like the Kariates I find that halacha has no authority, but unlike the Kariates I find that much of Jewish tradition is great. Lighting Shabatt candles for instance, is not a Torah concept, however it has kept the Jewish people together as a people for thousands of years.. therefore, I respect and practice it to identify with our people. I do not say that G-d has commanded us to light the SHabatt candles, because He hasn't. Tradition has to go to the side when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the written Word (NT and OT).

Meat and dairy seperation is one of the halacha interpretations that I find flawed. I see alot of twisting and side resources used to establish it as fact, but with the written Word alone as your resource ( in Hebrew or in English)... you will not find such a command.

I do find the Orthodox halachic interpretation of two Messianic images, Ben Yosef and Ben David, accurate on the other hand and revelatory (one of many). For instance I take great liking to Rabi Nachman's teachings, but have great disdain for Rambam.

All in all, Messiah is the center and the Holy Spirit is our interpreter of Torah. When somebody asks me which of the 613 they have to keep, I usually break down into four teachings. 1.) The eternal priestly role and ritual calling of the Jewish people, and Torah's moral calling to the Gentile believers. 2.) the revelation of the nature of G-d and His Messiah (Yeshua) 3.) being obedient to the Torah according to the revelation the Holy Spirit gives you 4.) justice and the kingdom rule of Messiah Yeshua.

I believe for Gentile believers in the Messiah (born-again christians, christian Zionists or Messianic Gentiles) that there is grace as long as we have a personal relationship with G-d through Messiah Yeshua. Messiah is the center of G-d's attention. For Jewish people Messiah should be the center and they should do their priestly responsibilities to serve the Gentiles and on behalf of G-d and His Messiah (yes I do believe Yeshua is divine and in the triune nature of G-d).

I think getting caught up in Halacha in essence to obedience to Torah and Torah's Messiah is what the apostle Paul was warning against. I like the fact that you call it " apostolic Judaism."
By the way,
Have you ever heard of Tikkun or Dan Juster, Asher Intrater, Don Finto, and Eitan Shishkoff?

[Henaynei]

"So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared"
Past tense. He took the butter, milk, and the calve which had been prepared already. hmm.... perhaps that is what the hebrew says, I don't know for sure. I do know that the rabbis say that they waited 30 min (the appropiate time for milk and butter) before eating the meat. But you could argue that from several directions if you choose..

When I approach halaka and determine my relevance to it I ask myself: "Is there a scriptural reason to NOT do this thing" and usually the answer is "no." Unfortunately most people, and especially Americans, tend to approach all authority with a "prove to me why I should" attitude. Thus they miss a great many blessings ;) When it comes to halaka I much a prove to me why I should not approach ;)

http://images-partners.google.com/images?q=tbn:5y55bvkSvAkJ:http%3A//www.christianaction.org/Ten%2520Commandments.jpg (http://www.mywebsearch.com/jsp/GGimgr.jsp?tu=http%3A//images-partners.google.com/images%3Fq%3Dtbn%3A5y55bvkSvAkJ%3Ahttp%253A//www.christianaction.org/Ten%252520Commandments.jpg&pu=http%3A//www.christianaction.org/plate_series.htm&iu=http%3A//www.christianaction.org/Ten%2520Commandments.jpg&su=http%3A//www.mywebsearch.com/jsp/GGimg.jsp%3Ffr%3D15%26searchfor%3Dten+commandments%26ptnrS%3DZSzeb001%26st%3Dbar) LOL - I always liked Mr. Heston

[JewishHeart]

Heynanei, I think your approach is wise... the question is whether you do find things wrong... or if you find halacha 100 percent infallible like the Tanach and Brit HaChadasha.

[JewishHeart]

perhaps that is what the hebrew says, I don't know for sure. I do know that the rabbis say that they waited 30 min (the appropiate time for milk and butter) before eating the meat

Heyanei, ROFL!!!!!!!

The sephardics say he waited this many hours, the ashkenazis say this many hours, the charadim say this many hours, and the chassidim say that many hours.

If that doesn't "mbabel et hamoach" (confuse the head) about the authority of halachic interpretation.

[JewishHeart]

we forgot to add ethiopian or other rabbinical traditions of this seperation law

[Henaynei]

Heynanei, I think your approach is wise... the question is whether you do find things wrong... or if you find halacha 100 percent infallible like the Tanach and Brit HaChadasha. There is no knowledgable Jewish person on earth who finds halaka 100% correct - not even the rabbis who are cited in Talmud and Midrash.

The mind set that approaches halaka from that view is decidedly shaped by the hellestic logic system that finds the concept that there can only be one right answer to a question as ludacrious. This IS the logic system that 90% ofd the world's current population knows as "the only logical approach, Jim." But even the inscrutable Spock was, after all his wanderings, just a greek ;)

[ShirChadash]

Heynanei, I think your approach is wise... the question is whether you do find things wrong... or if you find halacha 100 percent infallible like the Tanach and Brit HaChadasha.
I haven't been able to figure this out -- but what is it to you whether she does or doesn't take either stand? In your opinion, if she accepts halacha as 100% reasonable and chooses it as authoritative in her life for how she will live out Torah, she is in the wrong?

I have still not really seen anyone here, who is MORE accepting of rabbinic halacha, proclaim that others are wrong for not being so... but I have sure seen a lot of that from those in the less-accepting of rabbinic halacha camp toward the "other side".

[ShirChadash]

I gotta say, as a relative outsider to this thread, and one who isn't in either "camp", that this thread reads like Henny is in the "hotseat" and not only the questions are very personal, but also the comments, some of which have been very affrontive and accusatory in nature, IMO.

I just don't get it. I hate to see this.

[CharlesYTK]

hmm.... perhaps that is what the hebrew says, I don't know for sure. I do know that the rabbis say that they waited 30 min (the appropiate time for milk and butter) before eating the meat. But you could argue that from several directions if you choose..

When I approach halaka and determine my relevance to it I ask myself: "Is there a scriptural reason to NOT do this thing" and usually the answer is "no." Unfortunately most people, and especially Americans, tend to approach all authority with a "prove to me why I should" attitude. Thus they miss a great many blessings ;) When it comes to halaka I much a prove to me why I should not approach ;)


I see what you are saying and do understand. But since I am sort of on that other side more akin to "the American approach" I would say "Show me where in Torah God instructs us that it is OK to have meat and dairy so long as they are separated by X number of hours or minutes." You and I know it is not in Torah. It is Rabbinical. The Rabbinate who formed post 2nd temple Judaism recorded in Talmud, were wrong about many things. They were especially wrong about Messiah. And if they could not se and understand from the spirit that Yeshua was Messiah, then why should I jump blindly into believing the rest of the things they require? I'm not just an american. I am one who holds to Apostolic Judaism. So I beliee in simple aith with obedience to the teachings of Messiah and his personally trained men. Not the Rabbiis who thought Yeshua to be a charlitan and demon posessed.

You have said above that my understanding is faulted, my logic is faulted and my approach inaccurate. From a rabbinical stand point you are absolutely correct. But I don't give a small rodents back side for the word of the Rabbinate unless it also agrees with the words of Messiah and his disciples.
And I think some of the pillars here are in danger and are misleading others because of their infatuation with Jewish customs. They hold those traditions in higher reguard than the word of God plainly stated and the teachings of Yeshua. To call someone Lord, means that you recognise their authority and will follow their instructions, faithully. So if Yeshua is Lord then we need to follow him not Rambam or Rabbi Schmearson.

Charles

[simchat_torah]

or if you find halacha 100 percent infallible like the Tanach and Brit HaChadasha.
I don't think that any Jewish sect will tell you that halacha is 100% infallible. In fact, halacha gets updated as the centuries continue. Halacha, as understood by the majority of Rabbinical leaders, is a 'fence' around what is 100% perfect.

-yafet

[Henaynei]

To call someone Lord, means that you recognise their authority and will follow their instructions, faithully. So if Yeshua is Lord then we need to follow him not Rambam or Rabbi Schmearson.

CharlesThen spoke Yeshua to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying,
"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
All therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not."

[CharlesYTK]

Jewish Heart "I think getting caught up in Halacha in essence to obedience to Torah and Torah's Messiah is what the apostle Paul was warning against. I like the fact that you call it " apostolic Judaism."
By the way,
Have you ever heard of Tikkun or Dan Juster, Asher Intrater, Don Finto, and Eitan Shishkoff?"

Thanks for the works above. Yes I read Dan Justers book when it first came out and have given several copies away to other Gentiles. I've read some at his side, Tikkun? Don't know the other two fellows. Have you read anything by Namos, or T.L. Lancaster Timm Hegg and the team at First fruits of zion. I find their teaching to be to most accurate Messianic teaching in print.

I agree with your position. As you say our understanding (though faulted and inaccurate) is very much alike.

Charles

[CharlesYTK]

I gotta say, as a relative outsider to this thread, and one who isn't in either "camp", that this thread reads like Henny is in the "hotseat" and not only the questions are very personal, but also the comments, some of which have been very affrontive and accusatory in nature, IMO.

I just don't get it. I hate to see this.
The Question of this thread addresses the validity of the laws of meat and dairy. Since that is not a Torah command but is instead a Rabbinical tradition, that not even the different sects of Judaism agree on, I am challenging its validity. My comments to Henny are not accusatory as you think. I am challenging the IDEA of preaching Rabbinical authority in one area while dismissing it to suit yourself in another area. Sort of picking a choosing.

This forum has espoused some teachings and endorced doctrine that is a direct affront to the Gospel. It goes unchallenged. Why, because people know that if they challenge these teachings, especially if they come from the pillars of this forum that they will be chastised in some way. This is not a good thing. At least the Rabbiis of the Talmud had the fortitude to challenge one another and to reason things out. That is not possible here. I suspect that before the day is out this thread will be locked out, deleted or my mailbox will fill up with PM's. Why? Because I challenge the teachings of men who are respected even though they rejected Yeshua and disregard his word. Men whose teachings and doctrine are upheld here by the pillars.

Charles

[Henaynei]

Once again, you mis-take my words, although I am sure inadvertantly.

Your understanding of what halaka is, is faluty and inaccurate, that is, your understanding of what it is TO the Jewish people who knowledgable adhere to it.

No one, least of all I, challenge *your* right or intent in personally chosing to not follow Halaka. If you do not folow it, then perhaps it was not meant for you :) NP ;) Certainly for you to do that which is contrary to your beliefs would, in the long run, likely be counter-productive for many ;)

[CharlesYTK]

Then spoke Yeshua to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying,


"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:


All therefore they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not after their works: for they say, and do not."

And what if the Pharisees WERE still around and said, you shall not cease from hating the missionaries (Believers in Yeshua) and shall not bear them to live. Should we agree with that and follow that? These men rejected Yeshua, Killed him and all the disiples, persecuted and murdered the followers. Finally to save the righteous the Lord destroyed their temple and scattered them among the nations. And still you think that in the post crucifixion, post resurection and post Shavuot of the spirit that they are still of higher authority than the words of Yeshua and the Spirit that dwells in the blievers??? There isn't a single new born spirit filled believer who is not closer to the lord than these snakes. Yes, Yeshua called them vipers, snakes and worse. You follow them if you choose to, but I will be a bit more cautious.
Charles

[ShirChadash]

Charles, I could go through your posts on this and many other threads here recently, and show you how you have directed your posts to individual persons in a very inappropriate manner IMHO. Not one person here has a problem with you presenting your views. Can you do that without telling Henny things like: "So if you are saying that people today have no right to read the scriptures and make comment and try to apply them in meaningful ways to their lives, (which is, as far as I know, not what she is saying) and that we must simply accept that the Rabbiis were flawless and their word the highest authority, then please, believe this. But hang up your moderators hat, and become a lurker only and if you have a question or comment take it to your husband for discussion and clarification."

Frankly, I think you are behaving obnoxiously, and then when anyone calls you on it, you start to pull the, "oh, the powahs that be, blahblahblah" balownee. Your passive-aggressive posting is very old and I am only one of many who AREN'T among the "powah's that be" who think so. Sorry, Charles -- you know I am "call-it-like-I-see-it" person, very up-front, and I believe in self-moderation so others do not have to do it. I believe you know perfectly well what are reasonable and respectful ways to disagree with others and argue your points. My certainty of this is beginning to slip, I'm sad to say. Nonetheless, I am sorry if this post offends, but I want to speak up so others won't be too intimidated to speak up to YOU about the way you are posting.

I will be happy to edit this is a mod/admin asks me to, or please any of you feel free to do so. I may have a low tolerance for this kind of behavior this week -- my dear friend is dead, she's being buried this afternoon in a state far from me, I can't go, I miss her terribly, and this kind of petty "pillars of this forum", "powah's that be", immaturity-fest is annoying me terribly.

[Henaynei]

And what if the Pharisees WERE still around and said, you shall not cease from hating the missionaries (Believers in Yeshua) and shall not bear them to live. Should we agree with that and follow that? These men rejected Yeshua, Killed him and all the disiples, persecuted and murdered the followers. Finally to save the righteous the Lord destroyed their temple and scattered them among the nations. And still you think that in the post crucifixion, post resurection and post Shavuot of the spirit that they are still of higher authority than the words of Yeshua and the Spirit that dwells in the blievers??? There isn't a single new born spirit filled believer who is not closer to the lord than these snakes. Yes, Yeshua called them vipers, snakes and worse. You follow them if you choose to, but I will be a bit more cautious.
Charles Charles, Yeshua called a specific group of men, who were, yes, Pharisees, those things - but as my quote shows, He by no means called ALL of them that - as you clearly did. Yeshua was a Pharisee, and many of His followers and even defenders who were not followers, all were Pharisees. Because on group of men who came and challenged Yeshua, and He, looking at those men's hearts reveled their kavanah, this *does not*mean that ALL Pharisees were snakes and vipers...... There goes that wallpaper brush again, paint one, paint them all :sigh:

[Henaynei]

BTW - The Pharisees ARE still around, they are Rabbinic Judaism. And while they are not making halaka anymore, per se, they are doing a pretty good job of interperting it and tryint to encourage their people to live a holy life. AND not a few of them also are listening to the Messianics in some circles - but that is a privilege we must earn due to things I know of which you are aware :)

[Henaynei]

There are as many flaws in Talmud castigating and rejecting Yeshua and believers are there are flaws in the accepted texts of the NT that castigate and reject and teach outright hatred of Jews.

So, they are both wrong on that account.

[insaneinthebrain]

This is arguably the saddest thread I've seen here in quite a while. Is nobody allowed a personal opinion anymore? Must we all fight to the death to prove each other wrong?

[simchat_torah]

There are as many flaws in Talmud castigating and rejecting Yeshua
Well, not to be argumentative... heheh... not like this thread needs any more of it... ;)
But, the Talmud does not mention the christian messiah. The various references to "Yeshua" (and other similar names) are attributed to other individuals. The official Jewish stance was laid out in 1241 at the Paris Dispute.

Shalom,
yafet

[Sephania]

I have to agree with Henaynei on one point ( had problems deciphering the rest :blush: ) in that the law regarding clothing or garments is speaking of mixing two different species.

One from day 3 and one from day 6. :)

You are not to mix flax - a plant (which linen is made from and is used for Holy garments) with wool- hair of animal, which comes from goats or sheep ( things used for sacrifice for sin) together.

You can have a cotton and linen shirt, cotton and polyester or any number of synthetic thread mixes, as long as it doesn't contain some proportion of wool and linen.

As far as having 100% silk? That is just 100% worm spit. ;) And is considered Kosher to wear.