Questions about Judaism answered by a Jew!

[thirdwatch512]

This is not a true statement. It is true that the Catholic Church recognizes some books which the Jews do not recognize. These are called collectively the Dueterocanon by Catholics. Protestants do not recognize these books any more than Jews do. The list of books recognized by Protestants is:

wrong.

although Catholic Bible's have 7 extra books in them, protestant and Catholic Bible's still have more books (or chapters moreso) in our OT then Jews do in their Tanakh.

for example, malachi. a Tanakh has 3 chapters in Malachi. but an Old Testament, reguardless of protestant or Catholic, has 4 chapters!

so generally ALL Christians have more books, chapters, or something of that nature in our OT.

 

[lavikor201]

Should a jew take the Talmud seriously? My friends say that the Tanakh is more important.

You cannot understand the Torah without the Talmud. Just like you cannot understand Talmus without Torah. Both go hand in hand.

so generally ALL Christians have more books, chapters, or something of that nature in our OT.

Thank you.

 

[lavikor201]

You have to understand that I dony reject the Talmud for what it actually is:

A studie of the Tanach. (A good studie and sometimes a bad studie)
Oppinions of different Rabbies. (right oppinions and wrong oppinions)

Remember that this was Hashem's plan. He wanted the Rabbi's to argue it out, and He said that whatever their conclusions are, that's the Halchaha. Now it's Hashem Who made this plan, and Hashem Who decides whether people make mistakes of not, so if Hashem said that this approach works, why second guess it? The thing to remember is that it's Hashem's plan, and if He saw an imperfection in it, He can easily protect His plan from it, meaning, He can make sure that the Rabbis won't make mistakes, or He could have thought of a different plan.

But the bottom line is that Hashem said this is how the Halachah is determined. He made the plan, He knew of whatever weaknesses there may be in it, and He approves anyway. So why assume there's a problem?

Sometimes, Hashem will cause wise men to make terrible mistakes in judgment (Gittin 56b), because the generation is not worthy of having the wise decision made for them (Maharsha ad loc). On the other hand, Hashem does give Tzadikim supernatural wisdom when they are deserving. This is called Ruach HaKodesh. When Hashem said to follow the Chazal, Hashem knew every statement they will even make. If He said to follow them, that means He makes sure that following them is the right thing to do. Since we have no way of knowing that Chazal made a mistake, we are obligated to follow them regardless, and doing so means we did the Will of G-d. So even if it could be true that Chazal erred, it was the will of G-d that we should follow that error, meaning, in the end, that we are doing the right thing.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

We aren't worried that the Rabbis made mistakes in the Mishnah and Gemarah. First of all, we're talking about people great enough to easily resurrect the dead.

They were infallable and had these kind of abilities? Sounds a lot like the Shiite concept of infallible Imams. Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

 

[Woodrow]

One Last Time: "This thread is not to be used for debate purposes by anyone."

Is there any part of that, that is not understandable?

 

[lavikor201]

Now my main dissagreement is with that modern belief Of reincarnation(as rebbe said as animals).

Actually The Torah and Talmud speaks of ressurection in the Olam Haba.

Reincarnation is the decsent of the soul into a body if it has not completed it's mission the first time around. that is before moshiach comes.

 

[Abu Zakariya]

The actual definition of infallibility is the incapability of making mistakes. So you're saying that they weren't infallible and could make mistakes? From what I understood, you believe that God gave them infallibility and protected them from making mistakes (I didn't say their infallibility was due to their own powers or something), but now you're saying that they weren't infallible at all? They could make mistakes? Now I'm really confused.

 

[Grace Seeker]

wrong.

although Catholic Bible's have 7 extra books in them, protestant and Catholic Bible's still have more books (or chapters moreso) in our OT then Jews do in their Tanakh.

for example, malachi. a Tanakh has 3 chapters in Malachi. but an Old Testament, reguardless of protestant or Catholic, has 4 chapters!

so generally ALL Christians have more books, chapters, or something of that nature in our OT.

With respect, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. I listed all of the books, side-by-side. You can see that while the Protestant Bible has sub-divided some of the books of the Tanakh into more than one book that there are no additional writings. As far as the issue of chapters, again the numbering system is different.

Your example of me being wrong was to cite the book of Malachi -- in Christian Bibles have 4 chapters and there are only 3 chapters in the Jewish Tanakh -- yet, and this is very important, they are the very same verses.

The book of Malakhi (in the Jewish Tanakh) has 24 verses, while the book of Malachi (in the Christian Bible has only 18 verses). Chapter 4 of Malachi (in the Christian Bible) is identical to the final 6 verses (verses 19-24) of chapter 3 of Malakhi (of the Jewish Tanakh). Thus these two books have the same content, just with different numbering system, just as I explained previously with regard to the Jewish book of Shmuel (in the Tanakh) being divided up differently into 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel in the Christian Bible, but again the content remains the same.

Now, I admit I have not done a verse-by-verse comparison of every single line of the Tanakh with the Protestant Bible, so there may be a few cases where translators have differed as to what the original text was, but I stand by my comment that I made to Lavikor that while he was correct with respect to differences between the Catholic Old Testament and the Tanakh, that the Protestant Old Testament is in essence the same as the Jewish Tanakh.

 

[King David]

They were infallable and had these kind of abilities? Sounds a lot like the Shiite concept of infallible Imams. Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

You have understood what he says! Eventhought the Talmud expresses different point of vieuw! He isnt able to see that at least one of them isnt right!

 

[lavikor201]

The actual definition of infallibility is the incapability of making mistakes. So you're saying that they weren't infallible and could make mistakes? From what I understood, you believe that God gave them infallibility and protected them from making mistakes (I didn't say their infallibility was due to their own powers or something), but now you're saying that they weren't infallible at all? They could make mistakes? Now I'm really confused.

Alright, it is tough but I will explain.

The Rabbis are not infallible. What it is, is that G-d protected them from making mistakes in the message. Just like how Muslims say that Mohammad was infallible in writing down the Quran and spreading the message of Islam, we believe G-d protected the Talmud fromm mistakes, and the fact that difference of opinion occurs in the Talmud I explained.

You have understood what he says! Eventhought the Talmud expresses different point of vieuw! He isnt able to see that at least one of them isnt right!

The post above by King David reveals how he doesn't even understand the first thing about the Talmud.

The Gemara says that both (Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel) opinions are the words of the living G-d. The French Rabbis asked: how can two opposite opinions be true? One forbids an act another permits it? They answered that when Moshe ascended to receive the Torah they showed him 49 arguments each for permitting something and forbidding it. He asked G-d how to deal with that. He was told that this will be left to the Rabbis of each generation to decide and their decision will be binding…

With respect

With all due respect Grace, the jewish view is that the "Old Testament" is different from the Tanakh.

 

[King David]

Lavikor I wanted to explain myself but my threads have been deleted. You didnt understand what I mean maybe we should meet I see you are in The country.

 

[King David]

Another vieuw on the issue of reincarnation:

Reincarnation: The Transmigration of a Jewish Idea

Though some Jewish thinkers vigorously rejected the notion of reincarnation, kabbalists embraced it enthusiastically.

By Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs

The reincarnation of souls into other people or animals--known as gilgul hanefesh (lit. the rolling of the soul) in Hebrew--is an outgrowth of the idea of the soul's immortality. It has seized the imagination of many Jews and remains a popular literary subject. Numerous stories of demonic possession and exorcism by wonder rabbis are based on the idea of lonely souls, sinners in previous lives, entering into other bodies. Reprinted with permission from The Jewish Religion: A Companion, published by Oxford University Press.

Reincarnation is the idea that a soul now residing in a particular body may have resided in the body of another person in an earlier period of time. Theories of reincarnation or metempsychosis are found in many religions and cultures, ancient and modern, but there are no references to the idea in the Bible or the Talmud and it was unknown in Judaism until the eighth century CE, when it began to be adopted by the Karaites [a sectarian Jewish group].

showPerspectives();​

The Philosophers Were Scornful

The usual Hebrew term for reincarnation is gilgul, "rolling," that is, the soul "rolls" through time from one body to a different body. The earliest [non-Karaite] reference to the doctrine is that of Saadiah [882-942] (Beliefs and Opinions, vi. 8). Saadiah writes:

"Yet I must say that I have found certain people, who call themselves Jews, professing the doctrine of metempsychosis, which is designated by them as the theory of the 'transmigration' of souls. What they mean thereby is that the spirit of Reuben is transferred to Simeon and afterwards to Levi and after that to Judah. [These names are generic, like Tom, Dick and Harry; no reference to the sons of Jacob is intended. Ed.] Many of them would even go so far as to assert that the spirit of a human being might enter into the body of a beast or that of a beast into the body of a human being, and other such nonsense and stupidities."

We learn incidentally from Saadiah's discussion that one of the reasons these people believed in reincarnation (this reason resurfaces in the Kabbalah) was because of the theological difficulties in G-d allowing little children to suffer. That they do, it was argued, is because of sins they had committed in a previous existence.

Among the other medieval thinkers, neither Judah Halevi [died 1141] nor Maimonides [1135-1204] makes any mention of the doctrine. Albo [15th century] (Ikkarim, vi. 20) refers to the doctrine only to refute it. He argues that the whole purpose for which the soul enters the body is to become a free agent, but once a soul has become a free agent why should it return to occupy another body? It is even more unlikely, says Albo, that human souls transmigrate into the bodies of animals.
The Mystics Were Believers

The kabbalists, on the other hand, do believe in reincarnation. The Zohar [the great 13th century kabbalistic text] refers to the doctrine in a number of passages (e.g. ii. 94a, 99b). Nahmanides [1194-1270], in his commentary to the book of Job (to Job 33:30), speaks of reincarnation as a great mystery and the key to an understanding of many biblical passages. The later Kabbalah is full of the belief in the transmigration of souls.

Various sins are punished by particular transmigrations; for example, the soul of an excessively proud man enters the body of a bee or a worm until atonement is attained. The heroes of the Bible and later Jewish histories are said to be the reincarnation of earlier heroes. Thus the soul of Cain (Genesis 4:1‑16) entered the body of Jethro and the soul of Abel the body of Moses. When Moses and Jethro met in friendship they rectified the sin caused by the estrangement of the two brothers (Exodus 18:1‑12).

Manasseh ben Israel (died 1657) devotes a large portion of his Nishmat Hayyim ("The Soul of Life") to a defense of reincarnation. In chapter 21 Manasseh observes that the doctrine was originally taught to Adam but was later forgotten. It was revived by Pythagoras [the 6th-century BCE Greek mathematician and philosopher], who was a Jew (!), and he was taught the doctrine by the prophet Ezekiel.

The Hasidim believe explicitly in the doctrine, and tales are told of Hasidic masters who remembered their activities in a previous incarnation.
Three Kinds of Reincarnation

In the kabbalistic literature three types of reincarnation are mentioned:

1. gilgul, transmigration proper, in which a soul that had previously inhabited one body is sent back to earth to inhabit another body.

2. ibbur, "impregnation," in which a soul descends from heaven in order to assist another soul in the body.

3. dybbuk, a generally late concept, in which a guilt‑laden soul pursued by devils enters a human body in order to find rest and has to be exorcised.

The philosophical difficulty in the whole doctrine of reincarnation lies in the problem of what possible meaning can be given to the identity of the soul that has been reincarnated, since the experiences of the body determine the character of the soul. How can the soul that has been in two or more bodies be the "same" soul?

[Gershom] Scholem has suggested that it was this difficulty which led the Zohar to postulate the existence of the tzelem ("image"), a kind of "astral body" which does not migrate from body to body and which therefore preserves individual identity. We are here in the realm of the occult, as, indeed, we are in the whole area of reincarnation.

Some modern Jews are attracted to the occult and believe in reincarnation. Otherwise the doctrine has had its day, and is believed in by very few modern Jews, although hardly any Orthodox Jew today will positively denounce the doctrine. This doctrine of reincarnation shows how precarious it is to attempt to see Judaism in monolithic terms. Here is a doctrine rejected as a foreign importation by a notable thinker such as Saadiah, and upon which other thinkers, including Maimonides, are silent, and yet, for the kabbalists, it is revealed truth.

Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs is the rabbi of the New London Synagogue, Goldsmid Visiting Professor at University College London, and Visiting Professor at Lancaster University. His books include Jewish Prayer, We Have Reason to Believe, Principles of the Jewish Faith, and A Jewish Theology.

 

[Grace Seeker]

With all due respect Grace, the jewish view is that the "Old Testament" is different from the Tanakh.

Well, please educate me. I was serious in requesting that. As I said, I know that their are different books used in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Tanakh, but beyond the different grouping of the Tanakh in the Protestant Bible and the obvious ways that we would bring a different point of view to interpreting the material different, in what other ways do Jews view the "Old Testament" used by Protestant Christians from the Tanakh used by Jews?

 

[King David]

Alright, it is tough but I will explain.

The Rabbis are not infallible. What it is, is that G-d protected them from making mistakes in the message. Just like how Muslims say that Mohammad was infallible in writing down the Quran and spreading the message of Islam, we believe G-d protected the Talmud fromm mistakes, and the fact that difference of opinion occurs in the Talmud I explained.

28. Then will you dwell in the land that I gave your fathers, and you will be a people to Me, and I will be to you as a God.

So does it mean when we where in exile we werent to him as a people? And G*d wasnt to us as a G*d?

The post above by King David reveals how he doesn't even understand the first thing about the Talmud.

The Gemara says that both (Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel) opinions are the words of the living G-d. The French Rabbis asked: how can two opposite opinions be true? One forbids an act another permits it? They answered that when Moshe ascended to receive the Torah they showed him 49 arguments each for permitting something and forbidding it. He asked G-d how to deal with that. He was told that this will be left to the Rabbis of each generation to decide and their decision will be binding…

So please explain me that chapters between others that say we didnt behave well in exile , and the religious authority has always been responsible through all of biblical history:

Yechezkiel - Chapter 36 (amongst others)

1. Now you, son of man, prophesy concerning the mountains of Israel, and say; O mountains of Israel, hearken to the word of the Lord.
2. So said the Lord God: Since the enemy said about you, "Aha!" and "the high places of the world have become our inheritance,"
3. Therefore, prophesy and say; So said the Lord God: Because, yea because those around you were appalled and longed for you to be an inheritance for the remnant of the nations, and you were brought up on the lips of every language and the gossip of every people.
4. Therefore, O mountains of Israel, hearken to the word of the Lord God. So said the Lord God to the mountains and to the hills, to the streams and to the valleys, to the desolate ruins and to the deserted cities, which became a scorn and a mockery to the remnant of the nations that are around.
5. Therefore, so said the Lord God: Surely with the fire of My anger I spoke about the remnant of the nations and about Edom in its entirety, who appointed My land for themselves as an inheritance with the joy of every heart, with disdain of soul, because her expulsion was for plunder.
6. Therefore, prophesy concerning the soil of Israel, and say to the mountains and to the hills, to the streams and to the valleys, So said the Lord God: Behold I have spoken with My anger and with My fury because you have borne the disgrace of the nations.
7. Therefore, so said the Lord God: I have raised My hand; surely the nations that are around you-they will bear their disgrace.
8. And you, the mountains of Israel, will produce your branches, and you will bear your fruit for My people Israel because they are about to come.
9. For behold I am for you, and I shall turn to you, and you will be tilled and sown.
10. And I shall multiply men upon you, the whole house of Israel in its entirety, and the cities will be settled, and the ruins will be built up.
11. And I shall multiply upon you man and beast, and they will be fruitful and multiply, and I shall settle you as in your early days, and I shall make you better than your beginnings, and you will know that I am the Lord.
12. And I shall cause man to walk upon you, My people Israel, and they will inherit you, and you will be to them for an inheritance, and you will no longer continue to be bereaved of them.
13. So said the Lord God: Because they say to you, 'You are a devourer of men and you were a bereaver of your nations,'
14. Therefore, you shall no longer devour men, and you shall no longer bereave your nations, says the Lord God.
15. And I shall no longer let you hear the disgrace of the nations; the taunt of the peoples you shall no longer bear, neither shall you bereave your nations any longer," says the Lord God.
16. And the word of the Lord came to me, saying:
17. "Son of man! The house of Israel, as long as they lived on their own land, they defiled it by their way and by their misdeeds, like the uncleanness of a woman in the period of her separation was their way before Me.
18. Wherefore I poured My wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, because they had defiled it with their idols.
19. And I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. According to their way and their misdeeds did I judge them.
20. And they entered the nations where they came, and they profaned My Holy Name, inasmuch as it was said of them, 'These are the people of the Lord, and they have come out of His land.'
21. But I had pity on My Holy Name, which the house of Israel had profaned annong the nations to which they had come.
22. Therefore, say to the house of Israel; So says the Lord God: Not for your sake do I do this, O house of Israel, but for My Holy Name, which you have profaned among the nations to which they have come.
23. And I will sanctify My great Name, which was profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord-is the declaration of the Lord God-when I will be sanctified through you before their eyes.
24. For I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the countries, and I will bring you to your land.
25. And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean; from all your impurities and from all your abominations will I cleanse you.
26. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
27. And I will put My spirit within you and bring it about that you will walk in My statutes and you will keep My ordinances and do [them].
28. Then will you dwell in the land that I gave your fathers, and you will be a people to Me, and I will be to you as a God.
29. And I will save you from all your uncleannesses, and I will call to the corn and will multiply it, and I will not decree famine again over you.
30. And I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you shall no more have to accept the shame of famine among the nations.
31. And you shall remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own eyes on account of your sins and on account of your abominations.
32. Not for your sake do I do it, says the Lord God, may it be known to you; be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
33. So says the Lord God: On the day that I will have cleansed you from all your iniquities, and I will resettle the cities, and the ruins shall be built up.
34. And the desolate land shall be worked, instead of its lying desolate in the sight of all that pass by.
35. And they shall say, 'This land that was desolate has become like the Garden of Eden, and the cities that were destroyed and desolate and pulled down have become settled as fortified [cities].'
36. And the nations that are left round about you shall know that I, the Lord, have built up the ruined places and have planted the desolate ones; I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will perform [it].
37. So says the Lord God: I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel to do for them; I will multiply them-the men-like a flock of sheep.
38. Like the flocks appointed for the holy offerings, like the flocks of Jerusalem on its festivals, so will these cities now laid waste be filled with flocks of men, and they shall know that I am the Lord."


It speaks about bait(House of) Israel בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל why not children of Israel?

 

[lavikor201]

King David, first what has any of what you said, have to do with the quotes you quoted?

Then I will answer your questions.

Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs is the rabbi of the New London Synagogue

Is he Orthodox?

Well, please educate me. I was serious in requesting that. As I said, I know that their are different books used in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Tanakh, but beyond the different grouping of the Tanakh in the Protestant Bible and the obvious ways that we would bring a different point of view to interpreting the material different, in what other ways do Jews view the "Old Testament" used by Protestant Christians from the Tanakh used by Jews?

What is the difference between the Protestant amnd Catholic ones. All I know is that, there is not one Christian Bible that is par on par with the Tanakh verses wise, and many times books wise. Also, I have never read a Christian Bible which did not butcher many translations to make it sound more poetic, favorable towards Christianity, etc.

I believe you also translated it from Greek not the Hebrew, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[King David]

conservative,Masorti

Rabbi Dr. Louis Jacobs is the rabbi of the New London Synagogue, Goldsmid Visiting Professor at University College London, and Visiting Professor at Lancaster University. His books include Jewish Prayer, We Have Reason to Believe, Principles of the Jewish Faith, and A Jewish Theology.


Oh I forgot that G*d prottects only the Orthodox Rabbies from doing mistakes.

This is my point there are various views and we just dont know what is the right one untill the days of Moschiah. We shouldnt see The Talmud as The Entire Thruth.

 

[lavikor201]

conservative

Now, does he follow Halacha? Of course, I am asking you to find me a Torah scholor , and I have explained that the Sadia Gaon is not the answer because many say it is proven he rejected it because Christians and Muslims would ahve wiped out our communities had he not.

I will try to explain to you the best I can first rabbinic authority. The passage refers to what the Sanhedrin in the Torah, however, the judges are also that will be later to. It is explained that if we have a man who is a major Torah giant, in one generation, but one who average in another, and they are the greatest in there generations then they are equals.

However, view since we are in exile, the fact that we have apeals courts using a supreme court and apeals court analogy. Example: When electricity was invented. Who did we go to for judgement? The Rabbis and they told us it was a violation of Shabbat! Now of course, we are not talking about the Sanhedrin and major Sages of the Talmud. We are speaking of halachic descions.

Now in the next post I will move onto your concern about Zionism, but instead of flooding this page with entire chapters, post only the verses that are relevant, and make your post organized and to the point.

Thank you.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What is the difference between the Protestant amnd Catholic ones. All I know is that, there is not one Christian Bible that is par on par with the Tanakh verses wise, and many times books wise. Also, I have never read a Christian Bible which did not butcher many translations to make it sound more poetic, favorable towards Christianity, etc.

In my previous post I listed all of the books of the Protestant "Old Testament", and listed next to them the books of the Tanakh. As I said, I don't think you will find anything in the Tanakh that is not in the Protestant "Old Testament" and vice versa. The Catholic Bible has 7 books not found in the Protestant Bible that are were part of the Greek Septuagint. Catholics accept these as part of the canon of their Bible while Protestants accept only those that were part of the Hebrew Jewish scriptures, not the Greek translation. The Orthodox Church accepts the same canon of scripture as does the Catholic Church.

I believe you also translated it from Greek not the Hebrew, correct me if I am wrong.

No. We don't translate it from the Greek. The King James suffers from it being dependant on the Greek "Textus Receptus" which not only used the Greek Septuigint, but even translated some of the Latin Vulgate back into Greek, when Erasumus didn't have a Greek text available to him. But modern translations use the Masoretic text as the basis for translating the "Old Testament".

 

[lavikor201]

In my previous post I listed all of the books of the Protestant "Old Testament", and listed next to them the books of the Tanakh. As I said, I don't think you will find anything in the Tanakh that is not in the Protestant "Old Testament" and vice versa. The Catholic Bible has 7 books not found in the Protestant Bible that are were part of the Greek Septuagint. Catholics accept these as part of the canon of their Bible while Protestants accept only those that were part of the Hebrew Jewish scriptures, not the Greek translation. The Orthodox Church accepts that same canon of scripture as does the Catholic Church.

The enumeration differs though.

No. We don't translate it from the Greek. The King James suffers from it being dependant on the Textus Receptus which not only used the Greek Septuigint, but even translated some of the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. But modern translations use the Masoretic text as the basis for translating the "Old Testament".

Then I would suggest they get better translators or ones with more neutrality.

 

[King David]

In the days of Moschiah there wont be annymore arguing!! Not before!! Because we just cant understand everything untill then!!