Abrahamics Only: Should there be a Karaite label under the Judaism tab?

[Simplelogic]

Contrary to the Messianic Jewish website that you lifted the above from, without attribution, as the Gemara and the commentators clarify Abba Shaul's ban, it becomes clear that what he says in Sanhedrin is merely a reinforcement of what it says in Nedarim, or vice-versa.

I realize that there was a partial ban. But this ban was added later. The pronunciation was not the reason for the ban. Nor can you provide any proof that it was.

 

[Simplelogic]

Contrary to the Messianic Jewish website that you lifted the above from, without attribution, as the Gemara and the commentators clarify Abba Shaul's ban, it becomes clear that what he says in Sanhedrin is merely a reinforcement of what it says in Nedarim, or vice-versa.

Why don't you take the time to clarify?

 

[Katzpur]

Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism today places the Torah below the Oral Law, just as the Mormons purport to be Christians but place the Bible below the Book of Mormon.

Mormons value the Bible and the Book of Mormon equally. They do not put one above the other.

 

[Rhiamom]

Mormons value the Bible and the Book of Mormon equally. They do not put one above the other.

So they say. But their young missionaries are required to read the entire Book of Mormon, and none of the Bible. The Book of Mormon is clearly their defining scripture, with their token regard for the Bible there to support their claim of being Christian.

 

[Katzpur]

So they say. But their young missionaries are required to read the entire Book of Mormon, and none of the Bible.

Nope, you're wrong about that.

The Book of Mormon is clearly their defining scripture, with their token regard for the Bible there to support their claim of being Christian.

And you're wrong about that, too. We do not have merely "a token regard for the Bible." It has been called "foremost among the Church's 'standard works'." It just blows my mind how confident some people are in telling me, a lifelong Mormon, what Mormons supposedly say, believe, claim and teach.

 

[dantech]

They put the Talmud above the Torah every time the Talmudic "explanation" or "interpretation" is different from the plain and obvious meaning of the Torah, and when the Talmud is preferred as the authoritative source. Which is all the time. Why is the study of Talmud elevated above study of Torah, such that the commandment to study Torah is warped into the study of Talmud instead?

And the meaning of that section of the Shema is clear; it means to carry the Torah always with you, in thought, and before you, as a goal. To filter the world through figurative lenses of Torah, and interact with the world wearing figurative gloves of Torah. The obvious reference is to the words HaShem is commanding, the Torah. The invention of tefillin is from rabbis trying to mine the Torah for as many rules as possible. But tefillin is an ancient custom, and I see nothing objectionable in this overly literal interpretation.

I don't know where you get this stuff...

We do not translate Torah study into Talmud study.
Torah study to us means the studying of any material which is related to Torah, and that would include the Talmud.

We have the obligation to listen to the reading of the Torah 4 times a week, we have no obligation towards Talmud study. I lately haven't had much time to study, so I fulfill my obligation of "Torah study" by studying the reading of the Torah, since I am the one reading it at the Shul anyways.

Before learning Talmud, many young students will start with popular commentary such as Rashi or Rambam or even the Kiztur Halakhah. Talmud is more for the advanced students, so to say that we put it's study above the study of Torah is just nonsense...

I will give you a few specific verses later when I have the time from the Torah. I wonder how you will explain them without going beyond its literal meaning.

One example, "an eye for an eye". This makes sense to you literally?

 

[Tarheeler]

***MOD POST***

Thread moved to Same Faith Debates per staff consensus.​

 

[Simplelogic]

I will give you a few specific verses later when I have the time from the Torah. I wonder how you will explain them without going beyond its literal meaning.

One example, "an eye for an eye". This makes sense to you literally?

What are you talking about. Are you suggesting that humans are not capable of anything but a "literal" reading without the Rabbi's holding their hands?? Eye for an eye is simple to understand and is elaborated on throughout the Torah. Doesn't take a very smart man to figure it out, just a humble one who is willing to read Torah. Its not rocket surgery for crying out loud.

 

[Levite]

What are you talking about. Are you suggesting that humans are not capable of anything but a "literal" reading without the Rabbi's holding their hands?? Eye for an eye is simple to understand and is elaborated on throughout the Torah. Doesn't take a very smart man to figure it out, just a humble one who is willing to read Torah. Its not rocket surgery for crying out loud.

I see. So you have independently understood that "an eye for an eye" means financial compensation for a lost eye. Fine. How do you gauge that compensation properly? What are the minimum legal and ethical issues involved? How will you be able to assure that everyone understands the verse non-literally in the same way? How will you be able to assure that everyone follows this commandment fairly according to the same set of minimums of observance?

We need the Rabbis, if for no other reason, than for the same reasons any society requires authoritative judges and codifiers of law. Because otherwise, law is open to anyone's interpretation at whim, resulting in anarchy.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think you are confused on this commandment my friend. Eye for an eye is not a specific command in itself as you are suggesting. It is an figurative command which is the concept for which all Hebrew law should fall under. The Torah is clear on restitution and how a man must perform this act in many different cases.

Once again your Rabbi's have created a false dilemma by acting like this is a obscure command which requires their interpretation to even keep. The Torah is not to difficult for us to understand. Most is written on a 6th grade reading level.

 

[Simplelogic]

Nope, you're wrong about that.

And you're wrong about that, too. We do not have merely "a token regard for the Bible." It has been called "foremost among the Church's 'standard works'." It just blows my mind how confident some people are in telling me, a lifelong Mormon, what Mormons supposedly say, believe, claim and teach.

I have read your book of "Mormon" and found it to be a blasphemous account which places false words in the mouth of Jesus. I would be happy to debate this with you if you want.

 

[Katzpur]

I have read your book of "Mormon" and found it to be a blasphemous account which places false words in the mouth of Jesus. I would be happy to debate this with you if you want.

Given your attitude, I'm afraid I'm not interested. Besides, it would just be one of those debates that goes nowhere. Neither one of us can prove what Jesus said.

 

[Levite]

I think you are confused on this commandment my friend. Eye for an eye is not a specific command in itself as you are suggesting. It is an figurative command which is the concept for which all Hebrew law should fall under. The Torah is clear on restitution and how a man must perform this act in many different cases.

I see. So it's completely figurative. So what, then, are the laws to be when I am injured by someone else, or I injure another? What rules govern actual interpersonal resolutions in injury cases in Jewish society?

What about the law of the goring ox, or the ox which falls into an open pit? Are those purely figurative oxen? What about the laws of forbidden sexual relations? Are you only forbidden from having sex with your figurative sister, but not your actual one? How about kashrut? Only figurative pork forbidden, but actual pigs are just fine?

Or are we all individually just supposed to decide on whim what is figurative and what is not, and for what is not, are we all just supposed to try and make common-sense guesses as to how to fulfill these commandments, in what way, with what minimums, under what circumstances, etc.? Are we all just supposed to exist in a chaos of everyone doing whatever they think is a proper interpretation, or are we all somehow magically supposed to guess the same rules and guidelines?

Or is this another instance where you think these are strangely specific visions of the future? Is the goring ox actually a nuclear missile? When the Torah says kosher fish need to have fins and scales, is that actually talking about an AK-47?

Most is written on a 6th grade reading level.

While I am not at all surprised that you clearly don't understand Torah, I am more concerned that you appear not to understand the way that law in general works in societies, and what it requires to function.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone who so consistently proclaims their adherence to Torah can have such low opinion of the text. To state (entirely erroneously) that Torah is mostly written on a sixth grade reading level is to entirely dismiss or be oblivious to the richness, the depth, the complexity, and the nuance of Torah. I can only assume you completely misunderstand Torah to suppose it to be so simplistic, because if not, it would certainly mean you were contemptuous of the text.

 

[Simplelogic]

11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Deut 30:11-14

 

[Simplelogic]

How to carry out "eye for an eye" is discussed throughout the Torah for every kind of circumstance. Sorry you can't see this very simple fact.

 

[metis]

How to carry out "eye for an eye" is discussed throughout the Torah for every kind of circumstance.

Actually it is not, and the "proof in the pudding" is that God directs Moses to create courts whereas certain decisions can and need to be made, and these do not just apply to what we would call "civil law". There are simply way too many variables that could never be much accounted for in advance.

Even the Talmud cannot be viewed as being complete, thus the necessity even today of having bet din at various levels.

 

[Levite]

11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.12It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?’ 14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Deut 30:11-14

Someone needs to learn Bava Metzia 59a and b.

 

[rosends]

Just a couple of notes @Simplelogic's recent posts:

1. You quote Deut 30:11 and underline the phrase "it is not too hard for thee."
The Hebrew says "לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ" -- how do you get to "too hard" from "נִפְלֵאת"? That isn't the literal or simplest and most logical reading of the verse.
2. Once you assert that an "Eye for an eye" is figurative and symbolic then you can claim "How to carry out "eye for an eye" is discussed throughout the Torah for every kind of circumstance. " because then anything that relates to anything can be considered part of that topic. But the verses in Ex 24 read clearly "But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." I am not sure how all this is symbolic or figurative, nor how any of this is explained elsewhere for any circumstance.

Karaites have their own oral code but it is local and not centralized. A branch of Judaism which encourages a divided people instead of a unified one is going to be a tough sell.

 

[Simplelogic]

Just a couple of notes @Simplelogic's recent posts:

1. You quote Deut 30:11 and underline the phrase "it is not too hard for thee."
The Hebrew says "לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ" -- how do you get to "too hard" from "נִפְלֵאת"? That isn't the literal or simplest and most logical reading of the verse.
2. Once you assert that an "Eye for an eye" is figurative and symbolic then you can claim "How to carry out "eye for an eye" is discussed throughout the Torah for every kind of circumstance. " because then anything that relates to anything can be considered part of that topic. But the verses in Ex 24 read clearly "But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." I am not sure how all this is symbolic or figurative, nor how any of this is explained elsewhere for any circumstance.

Karaites have their own oral code but it is local and not centralized. A branch of Judaism which encourages a divided people instead of a unified one is going to be a tough sell.

You are misunderstanding me. I certainly don't believe in that "eye for an eye" is merely figurative. It is a concepts which sums up the entire Hebrew judicial system which details exactly how this concept should function. This is what I meant by "symbolic". It is not literal in the sense that if someone cuts off my foot, then I can go cut off theirs. It is speaking of the concept of appropriate punishment which varies according the the severity of the crime. These statutes are all literal and easy to understand in the Torah.

נִפְלֵאת is rendered "to hard" in the JPS. It can also be rendered as "not hidden". Either way, my point stands.

 

[rosends]

You are misunderstanding me. I certainly don't believe in that "eye for an eye" is merely figurative. It is a concepts which sums up the entire Hebrew judicial system which details exactly how this concept should function. This is what I meant by "symbolic". It is not literal in the sense that if someone cuts off my foot, then I can go cut off theirs. It is speaking of the concept of appropriate punishment which varies according the the severity of the crime. These statutes are all literal and easy to understand in the Torah.

נִפְלֵאת is rendered "to hard" in the JPS. It can also be rendered as "not hidden". Either way, my point stands.

Please show me where in the text the judicial system which includes the concept of "eye for an eye" is detailed and explain how "eye for an eye" is either symbolic (and how you decide that it is) or not symbolic. These interpretations which go beyond the simple and clear logic and meaning of the text are not part of a reading limited to what the Torah says.

Giving me how the JPS interprets the word is no better than reporting the KJV. Each has an agenda and an interpretive schema. The JPS relies on a variety of rabbinic explanations. It is tough to explain the text without citing talmudic notions. The word, itself, means neither "hard" nor "hidden." Quoting either one means not holding to what the word actually says.