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

[dantech]

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?



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.

I think the mere fact that he thinks the Torah is written at a 6th grade level shows that were wasting our time.

 

[Simplelogic]

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.

Please…enlighten me on what you believe the correct wording is then.

 

[Simplelogic]

I think the mere fact that he thinks the Torah is written at a 6th grade level shows that were wasting our time.

Yes, YHVH has no interest in confusing His people. He wants things to be simple so that man has a SIMPLE choice to obey or not. This is how He judges the hearts of men. Its not based on ones intellectual abilities to comprehend hidden meanings and interpretations.

 

[Simplelogic]

Eye for an eye is an all encompassing concept which all Judicial law falls under. FAIRNESS. There are numerous cases in Torah where we see the practical/literal interpretation of this concept but it is situation specific.

You are attempting to set an obvious trap by stating that the law is not literal. Then when I admit this reality you suggest that I am attempting to allegorize the text, which I am not doing. I have encountered many like you before and your game is the same as the rest. First, you attempt to create a dilemma in the text. You also seek to make the Torah out to be complex and lacking without your Rabbinic explanation. You create the problem then provide the solution…the Rabbi's.

Everything you are doing is undermining the beautiful simplicity of Torah (when understood in historical context). You are also undermining the Torah itself which states that following it is "not too difficult" nor something that we have to seek out others for its understanding. Your mindset is the very reason that there are so many different sects which all claim to interpret Torah "the right way". Only the simple, childlike, adherence to Torah will bring about true repentance and unity amongst the Jewish people. Not false complexity for the sake of exclusive interpretation.

 

[rosends]

Please…enlighten me on what you believe the correct wording is then.

It is simple enough for a 6th grader. Can't you simply look up what the word means and apply that to the text? The root is pretty easy.

 

[Simplelogic]

It is simple enough for a 6th grader. Can't you simply look up what the word means and apply that to the text? The root is pretty easy.

Ewe….good one.

Actually it is pretty easy to understand. The entire passage is attempting to convey that the Torah is simple. It doesn't take a Hebrew scholar to figure this out:

11For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

So however you want to translate נִפְלֵ֥את, it should go with out saying that the word compliments the rest of the sentence…."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, that we may hear it, and do it?

Again, expressing the same point.

13Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

Interesting here how it says we don't need someone else to go get it for us…wonder what that means??

14But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Need I say more? Yes, if you just read it like a child then the interpretations is simple and easy to understand.

 

[Simplelogic]

How do your Rabbi's interpret this simple passage??

“And so if a prophet testified that the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him that the law of a certain commandment is correct, that prophet must be EXECUTED., as it is written, ‘it is not in heaven’ (Deuteronomy 30: 12). Thus God does not permit us to LEARN from the prophets, ONLY FROM THE RABBIS who are men of logic and reason” (Maimonides, p.27-28).

What morons! The text is clearly not talking about YHVH's inability to work through prophets. Yet Maimonides and other Rabbi's have found a clever way to use this verse to bolster their authority over Torah. Which has nothing to do with Deut 30.

 

[Simplelogic]

The incident of Rabbi Eliezer in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metsia 59b holds a central place in modern Rabbinic theology. According to the story, Rabbi Eliezer was the greatest of the Rabbinical sages of his time. One day he was engaged in a debate over some minute points of the rabbinic law, and he brought forth every imaginable argument to support his stand. But the other rabbis were not convinced. He grew very frustrated. They were just hardheaded, stubborn,

intransigent, and unwilling to bend or listen to reason. In desperation, he invoked a miracle, “If I am right, let the trees prove it!”

54

There was a great rumble, and all the trees of an orchard outside their meeting place were uprooted and began flying through the air. The rabbis retorted, “We do not listen to trees!”

Eliezer then cried out, “If I am right, let the rivers prove it!” The rabbis ran outside, and saw the great river begin to flow backwards. They were very impressed, but stonily replied, “We do not listen to rivers!”

So the rabbi exclaimed, “If I am right, let the walls of the academy prove it!” The walls of the building where they were sitting began to cave in and crumble. Again the rabbis obdurately replied, “We do not listen to walls.”

Finally, Eliezer shouted, “If I am right, let Heaven prove it!” A voice from heaven then thundered, “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that the law agrees with him?” The rabbis were still unconvinced, and declared, “Sorry, we do not listen to Heaven!”

Thus modern rabbis conclude that the interpretations of the rabbis supercede the direct decrees of God Himself in heaven!

Rabbinic theologians, based on this apocryphal incident, claim that any prophet who prophesies that the Rabbis are wrong on even a minor point of interpretation, must be executed.

 

[rosends]

Ewe….good
So however you want to translate נִפְלֵ֥את, it should go with out saying that the word compliments the rest of the sentence…."neither is it far off".

Need I say more? Yes, if you just read it like a child then the interpretations is simple and easy to understand.

So you read like a child by skipping the words you don't know and assuming a meaning because it seems to make sense to you. OK.

 

[Levite]

The incident of Rabbi Eliezer in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metsia 59b holds a central place in modern Rabbinic theology. According to the story, Rabbi Eliezer was the greatest of the Rabbinical sages of his time. One day he was engaged in a debate over some minute points of the rabbinic law, and he brought forth every imaginable argument to support his stand. But the other rabbis were not convinced. He grew very frustrated. They were just hardheaded, stubborn,

intransigent, and unwilling to bend or listen to reason. In desperation, he invoked a miracle, “If I am right, let the trees prove it!”

54

There was a great rumble, and all the trees of an orchard outside their meeting place were uprooted and began flying through the air. The rabbis retorted, “We do not listen to trees!”

Eliezer then cried out, “If I am right, let the rivers prove it!” The rabbis ran outside, and saw the great river begin to flow backwards. They were very impressed, but stonily replied, “We do not listen to rivers!”

So the rabbi exclaimed, “If I am right, let the walls of the academy prove it!” The walls of the building where they were sitting began to cave in and crumble. Again the rabbis obdurately replied, “We do not listen to walls.”

Finally, Eliezer shouted, “If I am right, let Heaven prove it!” A voice from heaven then thundered, “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that the law agrees with him?” The rabbis were still unconvinced, and declared, “Sorry, we do not listen to Heaven!”

Thus modern rabbis conclude that the interpretations of the rabbis supercede the direct decrees of God Himself in heaven!

Rabbinic theologians, based on this apocryphal incident, claim that any prophet who prophesies that the Rabbis are wrong on even a minor point of interpretation, must be executed.

As usual, you miss the point.

First of all, your paraphrase of this narrative leaves much to be desired (possibly because you appear to have lifted it wholesale from a comment on another website). The point was that, at the end, when Rabbi Yehoshua (arguing on behalf of the Sanhedrin against Rabbi Eliezer) refutes the Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice), he quotes, lo bashamayim hee ("It is not in Heaven,") referring back to Devarim/Deuteronomy 30:12, the very section you were misinterpreting earlier.

Rabbi Yehoshua's prooftexted point is that the jurisdiction of Heaven to decide individual issues under the law was given up by God when the Torah (both Written and Oral) was handed down at Sinai, because that jurisdiction is part and parcel of Torah. It was God's choice to give us the Torah: we didn't steal it from Him. So since it was a freely given gift to us, God cannot then decide to interfere with its interpretation and application. Rather, He also must abide by the rules He gave us in Torah, which include the rule that we must incline after the majority in legal debate, and that it is the rabbis-- who are the "judges which there shall be in that time" spoken of in Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:19-- who have jurisdiction to interpret Torah and decide issues at law.

You (or the idiot whose bad paraphrase you quoted wholesale) missed posting the final bit of the story in the Talmud, where Rabbi Yehoshua runs into Eliyahu ha-Navi (Elijah the Prophet), and asks him what was going on in Heaven when all this took place in the Sanhedrin; Eliyahu answers him that God laughed, exclaiming "My children have defeated me [at debate]!"

There is a long and unfortunate history of false prophets working wonders or doing sorcerous tricks to support their misrepresentations of divine word or misinterpretations of Torah-- much like Jesus apparently did. Therefore, the Rabbis make clear that working wonders is not a legal prooftext. Even if one can persuade a Heavenly Voice to confirm one's opinion, that is also not a legal prooftext.

Because functional systems of law cannot be based on random claims of prophetic messages. Functional systems of law require ordered systems that can be relied upon to produce effective legal results, whether you have prophets (real or false) around, or wonders or neither. Prophets and wonder workers are notoriously unreliable when it comes to always being around when you need them, and when it comes to everyone being satisfied that they are "the real thing." But law should be law no matter who is around, and it should be something able to be discussed and agreed upon by anyone sufficiently qualified.

If nothing else, this goes to the principle expressed in Vayikra/Leviticus 18:5, et mishpotai taasu v'et chukotai tishmeru lalechet bahem va-chai bahem: ani Hashem eloheichem ("Follow my laws and my observe my legislations, doing them all, and live by them: I am Hashem your God."). In other words, one must be able to observe the commandments in such a way that everyone can understand them in agreement with one another, so that we, as a society, can live by them. This requires an ordered system of laws. Jurisprudence by random spiritual ecstaticism is not a workable model by which a society can live: to think so would be foolish.

 

[dantech]

As usual, you miss the point.

First of all, your paraphrase of this narrative leaves much to be desired (possibly because you appear to have lifted it wholesale from a comment on another website). The point was that, at the end, when Rabbi Yehoshua (arguing on behalf of the Sanhedrin against Rabbi Eliezer) refutes the Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice), he quotes, lo bashamayim hee ("It is not in Heaven,") referring back to Devarim/Deuteronomy 30:12, the very section you were misinterpreting earlier.

Rabbi Yehoshua's prooftexted point is that the jurisdiction of Heaven to decide individual issues under the law was given up by God when the Torah (both Written and Oral) was handed down at Sinai, because that jurisdiction is part and parcel of Torah. It was God's choice to give us the Torah: we didn't steal it from Him. So since it was a freely given gift to us, God cannot then decide to interfere with its interpretation and application. Rather, He also must abide by the rules He gave us in Torah, which include the rule that we must incline after the majority in legal debate, and that it is the rabbis-- who are the "judges which there shall be in that time" spoken of in Devarim/Deuteronomy 17:19-- who have jurisdiction to interpret Torah and decide issues at law.

You (or the idiot whose bad paraphrase you quoted wholesale) missed posting the final bit of the story in the Talmud, where Rabbi Yehoshua runs into Eliyahu ha-Navi (Elijah the Prophet), and asks him what was going on in Heaven when all this took place in the Sanhedrin; Eliyahu answers him that God laughed, exclaiming "My children have defeated me [at debate]!"

There is a long and unfortunate history of false prophets working wonders or doing sorcerous tricks to support their misrepresentations of divine word or misinterpretations of Torah-- much like Jesus apparently did. Therefore, the Rabbis make clear that working wonders is not a legal prooftext. Even if one can persuade a Heavenly Voice to confirm one's opinion, that is also not a legal prooftext.

Because functional systems of law cannot be based on random claims of prophetic messages. Functional systems of law require ordered systems that can be relied upon to produce effective legal results, whether you have prophets (real or false) around, or wonders or neither. Prophets and wonder workers are notoriously unreliable when it comes to always being around when you need them, and when it comes to everyone being satisfied that they are "the real thing." But law should be law no matter who is around, and it should be something able to be discussed and agreed upon by anyone sufficiently qualified.

If nothing else, this goes to the principle expressed in Vayikra/Leviticus 18:5, et mishpotai taasu v'et chukotai tishmeru lalechet bahem va-chai bahem: ani Hashem eloheichem ("Follow my laws and my observe my legislations, doing them all, and live by them: I am Hashem your God."). In other words, one must be able to observe the commandments in such a way that everyone can understand them in agreement with one another, so that we, as a society, can live by them. This requires an ordered system of laws. Jurisprudence by random spiritual ecstaticism is not a workable model by which a society can live: to think so would be foolish.

I agree with everything here. On the other hand, SimpleLogic, if you can get a heavenly voice to tell me that you are the one who's right about Judaism, I'll be sold!

 

[Desert Snake]

What do my beliefs have to do with my question?? Karaite Jews are a valid sect of Judaism. Karaite Judaism does not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah. Why do they not deserve a tab? There are other sects in Judaism which hold to different Messianic claims (which Karaites do not). Why make this about me anyways??

Because you repeatedly have stated that verbal Torah is wrong, even in principle, despite countless arguments going against your position. So to be talking about a Judaic sect now, I have to question your motives.

 

[Levite]

I agree with everything here. On the other hand, SimpleLogic, if you can get a heavenly voice to tell me that you are the one who's right about Judaism, I'll be sold!

I won't.
לא בשמים היא.

 

[dantech]

I won't.
לא בשמים היא.

I was joking, not that it matters since it won't happen.

 

[dantech]

So you read like a child by skipping the words you don't know and assuming a meaning because it seems to make sense to you. OK.

That's what a 6th grader would do...

 

[Simplelogic]

Because you repeatedly have stated that verbal Torah is wrong, even in principle, despite countless arguments going against your position. So to be talking about a Judaic sect now, I have to question your motives.

No argument has been made from the Torah. But I have defended my position from the Torah. No man has authority to add or negate commands. Not even if the intent is good hearted.

 

[Simplelogic]

Please, someone please give me a different interpretation of Deut 30 then. I am all ears.

 

[Desert Snake]

No argument has been made from the Torah. But I have defended my position from the Torah. No man has authority to add or negate commands. Not even if the intent is good hearted.

Fine, then are you converting to Karaism then? I mean, the tradition of verbal Torah is not this silly simplified concept you are presenting, so there is no use arguing it with you.

 

[nothead]

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.

Is it your position that the later Christian writings knew of the correct pronunciation?

Or were these Judaic writings?

 

[nothead]

You are misunderstanding me. I certainly don't believe in that "eye for an eye" is merely figurative.

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.

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.

What is a better translation for Deut 30:11? Just curious.