Do you have questions about Traditional Judaism?

[rosends]

Could someone please tell me what is the difference between the Jewish faith embodied by the Law of Moses and the "traditional Judaism" we see today?
Were the "traditions" a later addition, and if so what traditions were added that were not found in the Mosaic Law?

Thank you in advance.

The simplest answer is that the complete version of (orthodox) Judaism is the [written] Mosaic code coupled with the [oral] Mosaic law, supplemented by the developing application of law and the addition of traditions and rabbinical explication.

This is a very difficult concept. I will make it more and less clear by citing a passage from the talmud, the Tractate Menachos, page 29b:
(Rav Yehudah): When Moshe alighted to receive the Torah, Hash-m was tying crowns on the letters.

1. Moshe: You do not need crowns (Maharsha - to aid understanding, and surely, only You understand their meaning)!

2. Hash-m: After many generations, there will be a Chacham, R. Akiva, who will learn mountains of Halachos from them.

3. Moshe: Show him to me!

4. Hash-m put Moshe in the eighth row in R. Akiva's class. Moshe could not understand the class, he felt depressed. A question was asked, and R. Akiva's only answer was 'we know this from a tradition from Moshe from Sinai.' Moshe felt better.

 

[rosends]

Jesus Taught not to murder, He expanded on this teaching by adding not to hate your fellow man. the source teaching "dont murder" was not changed.

would you agree or disagree with this?

dont murder is a teaching in the Hebrew bible, Jesus taught on dont murder, and teachings like this is what i am referring to.

also i am referring to what Jesus taught and only what Jesus taught. not what churches say He taught.

Jesus, in this statement, did not expand anything. Lev 19:17 tells us not to hate. A disagreement with Jesus and his teachings would not stem from that example. However when he sets up, in the antitheses, a law (for example) that anyone who is angry is as if he committed murder, that becomes a problem.

But the rejection of Jesus isn't based solely on isolated teachings which we reject. It has to do with the behaviors and the claims which are also evident. I could ask you "why aren't you a Sabbatean? Is it because he converted to Islam?" And you might say "No. being a Muslim has nothing to do with it -- it is a problem with who he was and the entire concept of who he claimed to be."

 

[metis]

Jesus Taught not to murder, He expanded on this teaching by adding not to hate your fellow man. the source teaching "dont murder" was not changed.

would you agree or disagree with this?

dont murder is a teaching in the Hebrew bible, Jesus taught on dont murder, and teachings like this is what i am referring to.

also i am referring to what Jesus taught and only what Jesus taught. not what churches say He taught.

No Christian denomination that I know of condones murder, and neither do I.

 

[Akivah]

Tanakh teachings.

The teachings from the Tanakh prove that jesus was not a god, not a divine message, and diverged from G-d's teachings.

 

[Akivah]

dont murder is a teaching in the Hebrew bible, Jesus taught on dont murder, and teachings like this is what i am referring to.

My local police chief tells us not to murder. I didn't realize my police chief is a messiah.

 

[jaybird]

The teachings from the Tanakh prove that jesus was not a god, not a divine message, and diverged from G-d's teachings.
My local police chief tells us not to murder. I didn't realize my police chief is a messiah.

thats not what i said. you dont have to be a rude jerk about it.

 

[Akivah]

thats not what i said. you dont have to be a rude jerk about it.

Its a direct quote from your post. You don't have to call names when I show the logical flaws of your own statements.

 

[columbus]

can someone please explain exactly what this thread is for?

This forum is primarily for Jewish people to discuss Judaism. Questions from other people are permitted, but only questions. You were responding to the answers.
Yes, RF can get confusing.
I hope you do take Tarheelers advice and start a thread in "Religious Debates" forum. There are things I would like to say. But it would be against RF rules for me to do so here in the Judaism forum.

Tom

 

[jaybird]

im sorry if i offended anyone with this question. i did not realize it was such a controversial taboo thing to ask. i grew up in the rural south, there is not a Jewish person in 50 miles of me. i was told all my life Jews were wrong, their teachings are wrong dont listen to anything they say, blah blah, all this from those that know nothing about Judaism. all im looking for is why there was a separation of the 2 faiths, i have heard nothing but prejudiced opinions and i wanted a Jewish opinion.
edit - the "prejudiced opinions" i am referring to are those i have heard all my life by my culture that i grew up in before i made this post.

 

[columbus]

i did not realize it was such a controversial taboo thing to ask

It is not taboo at all. But RF has forums where people of some religious tradition can discuss it without interference from outsiders.
If you just wanted to ask a question, this Judaism DIR(Discuss Individual Religion) is the right forum. If you want to discuss or debate the answers it is not. That would be "Religious Debate" forum.
Trust me when I say this, I have a million infractions
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., i have heard nothing but prejudiced opinions and i wanted a Jewish opinion.

On what grounds do you dismiss posts 106 and 107 as prejudiced rather than Jewish?

 

[jaybird]

On what grounds do you dismiss posts 106 and 107 as prejudiced rather than Jewish?

i made a change on that, the prejudice i am referring to comes from my own faith and culture of what i was taught growing up. it was not meant to be directed at anyone here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i made a change on that, the prejudice i am referring to comes from my own faith and culture of what i was taught growing up. it was not meant to be directed at anyone here.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Deeje]

The simplest answer is that the complete version of (orthodox) Judaism is the [written] Mosaic code coupled with the [oral] Mosaic law, supplemented by the developing application of law and the addition of traditions and rabbinical explication.

This is a very difficult concept. I will make it more and less clear by citing a passage from the talmud, the Tractate Menachos, page 29b:
(Rav Yehudah): When Moshe alighted to receive the Torah, Hash-m was tying crowns on the letters.

1. Moshe: You do not need crowns (Maharsha - to aid understanding, and surely, only You understand their meaning)!

2. Hash-m: After many generations, there will be a Chacham, R. Akiva, who will learn mountains of Halachos from them.

3. Moshe: Show him to me!

4. Hash-m put Moshe in the eighth row in R. Akiva's class. Moshe could not understand the class, he felt depressed. A question was asked, and R. Akiva's only answer was 'we know this from a tradition from Moshe from Sinai.' Moshe felt better.

All very confusing for a non-Jewish person who is unfamiliar with Jewish terms. I too live in an area where there are no Jews at present. Synagogues are usually found in cities here in Australia, so we don't really find Jewish people in rural areas, though I am sure there must be some.

Firstly, could you please explain these unfamiliar terms to me?

Teactate Menachos?
Maharsha?
Chacham? (I am assuming is a teacher? Rabbi?)
Halachos?

I think I get the gist of the story though.

(Forgive me, I must put these things into my own vernacular for understanding)
When God gave Moses the Law, he added extra divine meaning to it (crowns?) though these deeper truths were not obvious at the time?
Moses queried the need for such "crowns" to aid in understanding God's law which I am assuming that Moses thought they were pretty straight forward?
God foretells the later appearance of Ravi Akiva who was to add dimension to the stated law with oral teachings, explaining the "crowns"?
Moses requests a preview of this teacher's work and is seated in one of his classes. But Moses didn't understand a thing that the Ravi was saying and was depressed about the fact. After a question, the Ravi assured his class that his teaching was from the law of Moses, embellished or enhanced by the Ravi's explanation of them.That made Moses feel better.....sorry if I messed that up....am I even close?

 

[rosends]

Firstly, could you please explain these unfamiliar terms to me?

Teactate Menachos?

The talmud (the oral law transmitted to Moses at Sinai and then explicated by the rabbis, and written down by the year 400CE) is broken down by subject. Menachos is one such section (tractate).

Maharsha?

Rabbinic commentators ar4e often known by acronyms. Here is this one.

Chacham? (I am assuming is a teacher? Rabbi?)

Generally, it means "wise one" but it is used to refer to a sage who is held in esteem due to sagacity and religious authority.

Halachos?

The laws of Judaism The word means "ways" indicating the way we are3 to act.

(Forgive me, I must put these things into my own vernacular for understanding)
When God gave Moses the Law, he added extra divine meaning to it (crowns?) though these deeper truths were not obvious at the time?
Moses queried the need for such "crowns" to aid in understanding God's law which I am assuming that Moses thought they were pretty straight forward?
God foretells the later appearance of Ravi Akiva who was to add dimension to the stated law with oral teachings, explaining the "crowns"?
Moses requests a preview of this teacher's work and is seated in one of his classes. But Moses didn't understand a thing that the Ravi was saying and was depressed about the fact. After a question, the Ravi assured his class that his teaching was from the law of Moses, embellished or enhanced by the Ravi's explanation of them.That made Moses feel better.....sorry if I messed that up....am I even close?

There are many opinions as to exactly what the anecdote "means" but one thing many accept is that the law of Moses, even at that moment, included more than what was written and later authorities explicated and derived laws which are as valid and authoritative as the ones clearly spelled out in the words.

 

[Raahim]

Peace be upon you,

I have a question I wish to be answered. So I know there are branches of Judaism & that they don't accept each other as legit.
Basically Orthodox is accepted by everyone, but they don't accept everyone else, is this true? And is it really like that in practice or just in theory? I mean like Orthodoxs walking around telling Reforms they are not real Jews, etc.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Deeje]

The talmud (the oral law transmitted to Moses at Sinai and then explicated by the rabbis, and written down by the year 400CE) is broken down by subject. Menachos is one such section (tractate).

Rabbinic commentators ar4e often known by acronyms. Here is this one.

Generally, it means "wise one" but it is used to refer to a sage who is held in esteem due to sagacity and religious authority.

The laws of Judaism The word means "ways" indicating the way we are3 to act.


There are many opinions as to exactly what the anecdote "means" but one thing many accept is that the law of Moses, even at that moment, included more than what was written and later authorities explicated and derived laws which are as valid and authoritative as the ones clearly spelled out in the words.

Thank you for the explanation. I am always looking to expand my understanding. What better way than to ask directly.

 

[Deeje]

One more question @rosends .....is being Jewish generally regarded as a nationality or a religion? For example I have seen someone described as a Jewish atheist. Can there be such a thing?

There are many opinions as to exactly what the anecdote "means"

I heard someone say once that to ask 10 Jews a question is to get 10 answers and they will all be right.....is that what you mean here? Is there no definitive answer from anyone on the meaning of this anecdote?

but one thing many accept is that the law of Moses, even at that moment, included more than what was written and later authorities explicated and derived laws which are as valid and authoritative as the ones clearly spelled out in the words.

How do Jewish people today feel about keeping the law? Does today's world make it harder?

 

[rosends]

One more question @rosends .....is being Jewish generally regarded as a nationality or a religion? For example I have seen someone described as a Jewish atheist. Can there be such a thing?

Judaism is a religion but because it is passed genetically (in most cases) and its members share a history which is not limited by its theology, there are elements of nationhood as well. So someone who is an atheist but is genetically Jewish is part of that Jewish nation construct while not being "Jewish" in practice of religion.

One more question
I heard someone say once that to ask 10 Jews a question is to get 10 answers and they will all be right.....is that what you mean here? Is there no definitive answer from anyone on the meaning of this anecdote?

Jews have developed a variety of reputations. Maybe because Judaism is a religion built on argument, refutation and proof (through the explication of the oral law and the constant development of practical understanding of the various texts), there is a sense that multiple layers of meaning and (even occasionally contradictory) "truths" are acceptable.

[QUOTE="Deeje, post: 4774595, member: 18814"]One more question [USER=55734]
How do Jewish people today feel about keeping the law? Does today's world make it harder?[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of Jews today are not orthodox - their understanding of Jewish law is different from mine, both in its particular form and in its authority to govern day to day decisions. They would say, though, not that they aren't "keeping the law" but that the law and the acceptable way of being a Jew is more expansive than the Orthodox would dictate.[/user]

 

[rosends]

Peace be upon you,

I have a question I wish to be answered. So I know there are branches of Judaism & that they don't accept each other as legit.
Basically Orthodox is accepted by everyone, but they don't accept everyone else, is this true? And is it really like that in practice or just in theory? I mean like Orthodoxs walking around telling Reforms they are not real Jews, etc.

Thanks in advance.

I, as an Orthodox person, would never tell someone whose practice is different from mine that he is not Jewish as long as he is matrilineally Jewish or has converted according to the laws which I hold to be valid. If he is a reform Jew who has a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, I would not consider him Jewish but not by virtue of his being "reform." It would be because he doesn't have the required qualification of a Jewish mother. Branches of Judaism which accept patrilineal descent would have different standards. But again, it wouldn't make someone who is Jewish into a non-Jew in my eyes. There are other subtleties, but that's the crux.