Judaism and Supplemental Material

[David Davidovich]

Even though, I'm putting this thread in the Religious Q&A section, I'm hoping that no one gets offended if their comments are questioned or disagreed with. Because I know with myself, I will question something for clarity or disagree with something if it looks like it's not true or doesn't make sense to me.

ALSO, I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IS IS A VERY LONG OP, HOWEVER, I WASN'T INTENDTING THAT EVERY WORD BE READ, BUT I AM POSTING THIS INFORMATION AS A GUIDE AS TO WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. THEREFORE, I'M HOPING THAT NO ONE GETS OFFENDED AND COMPLAINS ABOUT THE OP BEING TOO LONG.

But what I would like to know is: Why does Judaism use supplemental material, which is in addition to the Torah and the Tanakh such as the Talmud and the Midrash in addition to the words and the guidance of Sages and Scholars?

And the reason why I asked because I had gotten into a very interesting and informational conversation with someone who considered himself to be a Torath Mosheh Jew, and I had gotten the impression from him that the Torath Mosheh Jews are the only true Jews, and that Judaism isn't even an appropriate designation for true Jewish faith.

Also, our conversation stated in my #post #76(hyper link) on page 4 of the Trinity claims that the Jews believed that a Son is equal to his Father thread, and you can click on either link to follow the discussion. However, the points that I wanted to highlight are starting with post #246(hyperlink) where the poster that I was talking to, Ehav4Eve, said:

David Davidovich said: ↑
Well, from now on with you, I will only use the term Torath Mosheh Jews. Also, there sure would be a lot of people who would disagree with/would not like you saying that their version of being Jewish isn't really valid and that only Torath Mosheh Jews are.

Now, getting to the term "Judaism" in English this term has only a modern usage and often is used to describe things that are not Torath Mosheh and are not ancient, authentic, nor autoratitive. A good example is the term Judeo-Christian. For Torath Mosheh Jews, this term "Judeo-Christian" really means Christianity and not Torath Mosheh and not Yahaduth.

In all ancient sources where the term (יהדות) "Yahaduth" is found it does not mean what the English term Judaism is used in the western world to mean. Thus, now a days you have Christian Jews who claim to follow "Messianic Judaism" BUT if you go back prior to the 1960's no Christian Jew ever used the term (יהדות) to describe what they were doing. They originally called themselves "Hebrew Christians." At no point in their history did they describe what they were doing as Torath Mosheh.

As an experiment do the following. Take anything that has the term "Judaism" attached to it in English and see if that thing was in practice or accepted among Yemenite Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Maghrebi Jews, Asian Jews, etc. Further, look at the origin of said thing and if you find it only started in particular modern year and had no predecesor in earlier mentioned ancient Jewish communities you will know that said thing is not Torath Mosheh.

And in #post #264(hyperlink)

David Davidovich said: ↑
Well, from now on with you, I will only use the term Torath Mosheh Jews. Also, there sure would be a lot of people who would disagree with/would not like you saying that their version of being Jewish isn't really valid and that only Torath Mosheh Jews are.

Good to hear. In terms of a person disagreeing or not liking. I don't have a problem with that. If what they are saying is "historically accurate" they can easily bring the "historical information" that prooves the ancient, authentic, and authorative nature of what they call as their "version" and we can go from there.

I can tell you from past experience, most people who have a "version" of something know when what they are talking is not ancient and they express this themselves in their own information. So, that is not a problem at all.

Again, it is not a matter of "Torath Mosheh Jews" being valid, it is that "Torath Mosheh" is valid, it is ancient, authentic, and authoratative for Jews and that all modern "versions" of something were started by Jews who were originally Torath Mosheh and those individuals made a conscious decision to move away from it and start a "movement" to represent their seperation.

Therefore, please share your thoughts and opinions on this topic.

 

[Harel13]

The answer is pretty simple: Jews believe in the existence of the Oral Torah, also handed down in Sinai. The Oral Torah in written form (and this has only been the case in the last 2000-1400 years, depending what source we're talking about) is expressed via all of these other books and texts.

As for the terminology - that has varied between communities around the diaspora and still does, but to a lesser extent. I myself don't mind the lables Orthodox Jew or Dati Leumi (=National Religious) or religious Jew, if you want to get specific. If not, plain "Jew" is equally fine.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And the reason why I asked because I had gotten into a very interesting and informational conversation with someone who considered himself to be a Torath Mosheh Jew, and I had gotten the impression from him that the Torath Mosheh Jews are the only true Jews, and that Judaism isn't even an appropriate designation for true Jewish faith.

The following may help.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

that Judaism isn't even an appropriate designation for true Jewish faith.
.

Now that Shabbat has ended here in Israel I can address your question in more detail. See the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But what I would like to know is: Why does Judaism use supplemental material, which is in addition to the Torah and the Tanakh such as the Talmud and the Midrash in addition to the words and the guidance of Sages and Scholars?

Because for Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews, the Talmud Midrash, guidance of Torah based Jewish leaders such as Rabbis, Hachamim, Rebbes, and Morim is because.

1. The word Torah describes both the written and the oral Torah.
2. The word Torah (תורה) comes from the Hebrew root that means instruction (ירה).
3. The there are a numerous instructions/commands in the Hebrew text of the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh directs Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews to perform the Torah per the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah is found in the Mishnah, Talmuds, Midrashim, and the words and guidance of Rabbis, Hachamim, Rebbes, and Morim.

Please note: That when a Jew tells you that she/he is Orthodox or Dati Leumi they are telling you they are a Torath Mosheh Jew. Orthodox Jew/Judaism and Dati Leumi are simply modern terms used in some communities to describe a certain type of Torath Mosheh Jew. See below from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

As for the terminology - that has varied between communities around the diaspora and still does, but to a lesser extent.

Shavua tov. I think their question was more about the etymology of the words. For example, as far as I know "historically" Jews who happened to be Hellenists never called what they were doing "Hellenistic Judaism" nor did they claim what that Hellenistic aspect of whatever they were doing came from Mount Sinai. I think that is the source of the question.

 

[Harel13]

Shavua tov.

I think that is the source of the question.

Could be.

For example, as far as I know "historically" Jews who happened to be Hellenists never called what they were doing "Hellenistic Judaism" nor did they claim what that Hellenistic aspect of whatever they were doing came from Mount Sinai.

I'm pretty sure Philo would disagree on the latter point.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I'm pretty sure Philo would disagree on the latter point.

I am not sure about that. Where did Philo ever use the term "Hellenistic Judaism" and claim what that Hellenistic aspect of whatever they were doing came from Mount Sinai?

Remember, there is a difference between saying certain "natural" human concepts are universal, and thus also found ancient Israeli culture than saying that this idea which is purely Greek/Hellonistic and never historically found in the Middle East is an ancient Israeli one. For example,

 

[Harel13]

I am not sure about that. Where did Philo ever use the term "Hellenistic Judaism"

I said "the latter point". With that said, I know you know that "Judaism" (in whatever language) is a fairly new term, so it would not have been used by Philo or contemporaries. They usually used terms such as "laws of [our] forefathers/patriarchs" or "laws of Moses". And yet their conception of these laws was very much Hellenistic.

and claim what that Hellenistic aspect of whatever they were doing came from Mount Sinai?

Unfortunately I am cramming for university tests and only come here when taking breaks, so I don't have time to collect sources for you. If it's important to you, remind me in two weeks when I'll have more spare time. Meanwhile, if you're interested, I recommend reading the following works by Philo: 'On the Life of Moses', 'The Decalogue', 'The Special Laws' and 'On the Contemplative Life' for example (all can be found here).

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I said "the latter point". With that said, I know you know that "Judaism" (in whatever language) is a fairly new term, so it would not have been used by Philo or contemporaries.

Yes, I know. That was the heart of David Davidovich's question to me in the thread that he referenced.

They usually used terms such as "laws of [our] forefathers/patriarchs" or "laws of Moses". And yet their conception of these laws was very much Hellenistic.

Exactly, and that was the point that I was making in the thread that David Davidovich referenced. I.e. that for Jews who can be determined as "Hellenstic" had ideas that are, even today, recognized as "Hellenistic conceptions."

Unfortunately I am cramming for university tests and only come here when taking breaks, so I don't have time to collect sources for you.

I completely understand. Been there. Good luck for your courses.

Meanwhile, if you're interested, I recommend reading the following works by Philo: 'On the Life of Moses', 'The Decalogue', 'The Special Laws' and 'On the Contemplative Life' for example (all can be found here).

Yes, I have heard of that but if I understand correctly all of Philo's works have been preserved by Christian sects and not by within any Jewish community. I could be wrong about that.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

And the reason why I asked because I had gotten into a very interesting and informational conversation with someone who considered himself to be a Torath Mosheh Jew, and I had gotten the impression from him that the Torath Mosheh Jews are the only true Jews, and that Judaism isn't even an appropriate designation for true Jewish faith.

The following may help in identifying what type of Jews are being described by the term Torath Mosheh Israelis/Jews.

 

[David Davidovich]

The answer is pretty simple: Jews believe in the existence of the Oral Torah, also handed down in Sinai. The Oral Torah in written form (and this has only been the case in the last 2000-1400 years, depending what source we're talking about) is expressed via all of these other books and texts.

As for the terminology - that has varied between communities around the diaspora and still does, but to a lesser extent. I myself don't mind the lables Orthodox Jew or Dati Leumi (=National Religious) or religious Jew, if you want to get specific. If not, plain "Jew" is equally fine.

Thank you for your reply, Harel13, however, from what I've seen in some videos that I watched, I'm starting to see that all those other books and texts and rabbis and sages and various versions of Judaism don't quite seem to match up with the written Torah or Tanakh. But I would like to share one of those videos with you, which seems to demonstrate that, However, you or anyone one else doesn't have to watch the video because I will outline the main points that I am referring to below the video:

The video starts out by discussing how Satan is referred to in the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures and Old Testament to Christians) only around 6 or 7 times while the Christian Bible (i.e. the New Testament) mentions Satan/the Devil over 150 times.

Also, I really appreciated when the speaker in the video explained how a famous Jewish saying states that: If you want to understand anything in Judaism or the Bible, find the first place the idea appears in the Bible.

And then he goes on to mention how serval verses in the Jewish Bible demonstrate how the word satan can be used as a noun or a verb. And the first example that he used is in Numbers 22:22 where the angel of the Lord is referred to as an "adversary" where the Hebrew word la-satan is used, which means a roadblock, or obstacle.

Also, in 1 Kings 11:23-25, the human Rezon is referred to as an adversary/la-satan twice in those verses. And in 2 Samuel 19:22(23 in the Jewish Bible), the sons of Zeruiah are mentioned as those who are interfering or who are adversaries.

However, there are 3 times where satan is used as a proper name and is referred to a prosecutor or accuser. In Job 1:6-12, according to Jewish theology, Satan (HaSatan) is referred to as one of God's angels whose powers are circumscribed by God and who does not operate according to his own will.

Also, Zechariah 3:1-5 shows where Joshua is standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan (HaSatan) was standing at his right hand to rebuke him. And Satan was accusing Joshua of being unworthy because Joshua's sons married women that priests were not supposed to marry, and which is found in the book of Ezra, And the video goes on to mention how a Jewish rabbi had explained that God rebuked Satan because Joshua had been miraculously plucked from the fire where 2 other Jews had been thrown into, but Joshua didn't perish. Additionally, God told Joshua to take off his filter clothing, which represented sending his son's non-Jewish wives away and how because of that, God had taken Joshua's guilt away.

And 2 Samuel 24:1 mentions how:

Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

click here: 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He stirred up David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (biblehub.com)

while the parallel verse at 1 Chronicles 21:1 said:

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

click here: 1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (biblehub.com)

Therefore, seemingly conflating both their identities.

But, in addition to mentioning how in Isaiah 45:7, God says:

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

click here: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create the darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things. (biblehub.com)

the video also goes on to state how Jewish rabbis have explained how during the Genesis creation, and after each creation day, God saw that it was very good. However, this even included the yetzer hara or the evil inclination, which is actually satan. Therefore, from a Biblical and a rabbinic point of view, satan is very good and is one of the greatest blessing that God has ever gave us as human beings, and how satan is the vital force that animates human beings. And if it wasn't for the yetzer hara, or this vital force, people wouldn't get jobs, get married, have children, build houses, etc., and they would have no drive and would be lethargic. Additionally, the Jewish Rabbis said that if we lived in a world without temptation, obstacles, obstructions, etc., there would be no opportunities for virtue or to do good. Also, they said that the reason why It's virtuous to be good is because there are so many temptations and obstacles not to be good.

But I thought that the video was very enlightening and educational, however, it just kind of threw me off near the end concerning Jewish Rabbis' viewpoint about how God deliberately created satan/yetzer hara or the evil inclination in order to make the world better and sounded more like Biblical exegesis rather than explaining Bible verses to demonstrate their doctrines.

Additionally, I pretty much understood what was being said in this video, but I will post another YouTube Jews for Judaism video, which seems to contradict what was said in this video.

 

[Harel13]

Thank you for your reply, Harel13, however, from what I've seen in some videos that I watched, I'm starting to see that all those other books and texts and rabbis and sages and various versions of Judaism don't quite seem to match up with the written Torah or Tanakh. But I would like to share one of those videos with you, which seems to demonstrate that, However, you or anyone one else doesn't have to watch the video because I will outline the main points that I am referring to below the video:

The video starts out by discussing how Satan is referred to in the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures and Old Testament to Christians) only around 6 or 7 times while the Christian Bible (i.e. the New Testament) mentions Satan/the Devil over 150 times.

Also, I really appreciated when the speaker in the video explained how a famous Jewish saying states that: If you want to understand anything in Judaism or the Bible, find the first place the idea appears in the Bible.

And then he goes on to mention how serval verses in the Jewish Bible demonstrate how the word satan can be used as a noun or a verb. And the first example that he used is in Numbers 22:22 where the angel of the Lord is referred to as an "adversary" where the Hebrew word la-satan is used, which means a roadblock, or obstacle.

Also, in 1 Kings 11:23-25, the human Rezon is referred to as an adversary/la-satan twice in those verses. And in 2 Samuel 19:22(23 in the Jewish Bible), the sons of Zeruiah are mentioned as those who are interfering or who are adversaries.

However, there are 3 times where satan is used as a proper name and is referred to a prosecutor or accuser. In Job 1:6-12, according to Jewish theology, Satan (HaSatan) is referred to as one of God's angels whose powers are circumscribed by God and who does not operate according to his own will.

Also, Zechariah 3:1-5 shows where Joshua is standing before the Angel of the Lord and Satan (HaSatan) was standing at his right hand to rebuke him. And Satan was accusing Joshua of being unworthy because Joshua's sons married women that priests were not supposed to marry, and which is found in the book of Ezra, And the video goes on to mention how a Jewish rabbi had explained that God rebuked Satan because Joshua had been miraculously plucked from the fire where 2 other Jews had been thrown into, but Joshua didn't perish. Additionally, God told Joshua to take off his filter clothing, which represented sending his son's non-Jewish wives away and how because of that, God had taken Joshua's guilt away.

And 2 Samuel 24:1 mentions how:



click here: 2 Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He stirred up David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (biblehub.com)

while the parallel verse at 1 Chronicles 21:1 said:



click here: 1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (biblehub.com)

Therefore, seemingly conflating both their identities.

But, in addition to mentioning how in Isaiah 45:7, God says:



click here: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create the darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things. (biblehub.com)

the video also goes on to state how Jewish rabbis have explained how during the Genesis creation, and after each creation day, God saw that it was very good. However, this even included the yetzer hara or the evil inclination, which is actually satan. Therefore, from a Biblical and a rabbinic point of view, satan is very good and is one of the greatest blessing that God has ever gave us as human beings, and how satan is the vital force that animates human beings. And if it wasn't for the yetzer hara, or this vital force, people wouldn't get jobs, get married, have children, build houses, etc., and they would have no drive and would be lethargic. Additionally, the Jewish Rabbis said that if we lived in a world without temptation, obstacles, obstructions, etc., there would be no opportunities for virtue or to do good. Also, they said that the reason why It's virtuous to be good is because there are so many temptations and obstacles not to be good.

But I thought that the video was very enlightening and educational, however, it just kind of threw me off near the end concerning Jewish Rabbis' viewpoint about how God deliberately created satan/yetzer hara or the evil inclination in order to make the world better and sounded more like Biblical exegesis rather than explaining Bible verses to demonstrate their doctrines.

Additionally, I pretty much understood what was being said in this video, but I will post another YouTube Jews for Judaism video, which seems to contradict what was said in this video.

Hi. I read your entire post, but the only question I saw was about a discrepancy between Samuel and Chronicles, so I'm not sure how that makes the Oral Torah problematic. Perhaps I missed something. Could you please clarify?

 

[David Davidovich]

In another Jews for Judaism video by the same speaker in the first video, he seems to be saying that demons or evil spirits do kind of exist... (depending on which Sage's point of view). And around 29:20, the speaker mentions how the Bible warns against staying away from occult practices and implies that there are real dark and potent forces that are involved with those practices. Also, the speaker refers to the prohibition against idolatry in the Jewish Bible and explains how the word "Elohim" is mentioned in connection to that. Plus, at 31:33, he refers to the Kabbalists teaching of "the other side" [sitra achra] and the various spirit layers or levels of worlds between heaven and earth, where a kind of like spirit dimension exists. However, I will admit that the speaker does kind of circle back to what he was saying in the first video about how all these dark and evil forces were created by God for his own purposes, along with Maimonides' point of view that these forces don't have any real powers. However, the speaker said that Maimonides was unique in this approach. Therefore, in this video, the speaker kind sounds like he's all over the place with the point of view from various forms of Judaism (e.g. the Kabbalah) and various views from Sages on this particular subject.

And then there's the idea of the (demon?) Azazel and the goat demon, Se'irim, which are mentioned in the Bible and/or Jewish literature and Jewish thought.

 

[David Davidovich]

The following may help.

Hey, my friend, I will have to get to those some other time because my brain is cooked after watching and taking notes on the two videos that I posted. lol

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Also, I really appreciated when the speaker in the video explained how a famous Jewish saying states that: If you want to understand anything in Judaism or the Bible, find the first place the idea appears in the Bible.

Greetings. I know this was directed at Harel13 but I would just like to make a small suggestion, which may also be a clarification.

Please be aware that the speaker in the video, when using the word "bible", is not referecing the any English translation, no matter who did it. He is saying, essentially, if you want to understand anything in Torath Mosheh/Orthodox Judaism you start from the Hebrew text of the Tanakh.

Having read through your question I can tell you that literally all of them would be easy to clarify if you were face to face with someone who a) knows Hebrew/Aramaic, b) had the Hebrew Tanakh right in front of you both, c) did not use any translation text, and d) translated for you on the spot directly from the Hebrew text while providing you historical Jewish linquistic, cultural, historical, and theological support for everything they showed you from the original Hebrew text.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Hey, my friend, I will have to get to those some other time because my brain is cooked after watching and taking notes on the two videos that I posted. lol

Not a problem.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thank you for your reply, Harel13, however, from what I've seen in some videos that I watched, I'm starting to see that all those other books and texts and rabbis and sages and various versions of Judaism don't quite seem to match up with the written Torah or Tanakh.

If I can respectfully make a few points here. In terms of your statement that all those other books and texts and rabbis and sages and various versions of Judaism don't quite seem to match up with the written Torah or Tanakh. There a few problems you may have with this statement.

1. The authors of the various content in the Tanakh wrote it in several periods of ancient Hebrew and in a few places ancient Aramaic.
   • They wrote using the linquistic stylings, idiom, and expressions of ancient Israeli/Jewish culture from several thousand years ago.
   • There is no way to word for word translate an ancient language into modern English w/o loads of commentary to explain the history, linquistic stylings, idiom, and expressions of said ancient culture.
   • That being said, if you are not able to read the originals and if you don't know the scope of a more than 3,000 year old history, culture, etc. directly from the people who come from that culture how would you know what the intent of what the authors' actually wrote was and what the meaning of their intent was?
2. The oldest "written" discussions/descriptions of ideas found in the "Hebrew" Torah from start to finish are Tehillim (Psalms), Mishley (Proverbs), and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes).
   • Tehillim (Psalms), Mishley (Proverbs), and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes) were all written in ancient Hebrew from the 1st commonwealth period of Israel and all written by Jewish men who have descendenets that exist in the Jewish community even in this day.
     
   • So, if a person can't read ancient Hebrew of the 1st commonwealth of ancient Israel and if they don't know the linquistic stylings, idiom, and expressions of ancient Israeli/Jewish culture from several thousand years ago then it is safe to say that they can't really understand the content of Tehillim (Psalms), Mishley (Proverbs), and Qoheleth (Ecclesiastes).
   • Everything mentioned here is true for any of the texts found in the Hebrew Tanakh.
3. Now here is the kicker. The earliest written text to address the entire Tanakh that was written by people who a) knew the linquistic stylings, idiom, and expressions of ancient Israeli/Jewish culture from several thousand years ago and b) were direct descendents from the authors of the Tanakh as well as Israelis/Jews mentioned in the Hebrew Tanakh is - drum roll - The two Talmuds (Babylonian and Jerusalem).
   • All modern day dictionaries, lexicons, etc. about ancient Hebrew and Aramaic all are forced to use the Talmuds as a reference because of this reality.
   • Modern Christian dictionaries, lexicons, etc. of ancient Hebrew, at some point have to start by referencing the Talmuds at some point because of the fact that the early (and modern) Christian scholars who tried to interact with the Hebrew Tanakh a) don't descend from families that knew/know the linquistic stylings, idiom, and expressions of ancient Israeli/Jewish culture from several thousand years ago and b) are not direct descendents from the authors of the Tanakh as well as Israelis/Jews mentioned in the Hebrew Tanakh.
   • Thus, the Talmud's are the oldest written records that detail Israeli meanings of words, idioms, traditions, understandings, and ideas covering the entire Hebrew Tanakh.

Further to that, there are some concepts that Jews are not required to have steadfast ideas about. Demons for example are one those. There is no requirement for a Jew to beleive that there are demons and there is no requirement for a Jew to completely dismiss it (IF there is evidence to their existance).

The problem that anyone would face is - Ugh, what exactly is a demon and why should I care? As a quick example, the world that "some" Jews use to describe a demon (שד) or plural (שדים) doesn't have to mean what most people in English think of when they of the English word demon.

In fact, the etymology of the English word demon seems to have undergone some changes over the years.

The Rambam and others held one view and other rabbis held a different view. In their time, it was not a requirement to beleive in either view. In our time it is definately not required because most Jews have no contact with anything that can defined as a demon. Maybe because demons, as westerns thing of the English word, never existed. Maybe, because they could only influence those who could not scientifically analyze them out of existance. Maybe, the leaders of ancient meant something different when they used the word (שדים) than people mean with the English word demon. On a base level (שדים), no matter what they were or are not the basis of the Torah nor of Yahuduth (Judaism). Instead, what is the basis if Hashem and the Torah.

So, even if a rabbi who kept Torath Mosheh in one period beleive one thing about (שדים) and another rabbi who kept Torath Mosheh in a different period believed something else it doesn't matter. What matters is that both of them held by the same basis of basis if Hashem and the Torah. Thus, when you see them praying they are using most of the same words. When you see them doing Passover they are mostly doing the exact same things on the same days, during the same time of the year. When you see them wearing tzitzith you can see that the same basic structure behind it. When they reference Jewish history they are talking about the same history.

 

[David Davidovich]

The following may help.

I finally watched these videos, and they did help. Also, I was under the impression that Torath Mosheh Jews only went by the Torah and that no other instructional material or guidance was involved. However, I do have to say that similarly, Christian religions also they their leaders who interpret Biblical material and who instruct and make judicial decisions for the rest of the members of their faith. Although, I'm not sure if I understood what was said about Kabbalah and other revelations from God and how it is understood that these revelations were passed down during the same time when the Torath was disseminated in written form.

 

[David Davidovich]

Hi. I read your entire post, but the only question I saw was about a discrepancy between Samuel and Chronicles, so I'm not sure how that makes the Oral Torah problematic. Perhaps I missed something. Could you please clarify?

Actually, that was a segue to discussing the Jewish viewpoint of creation, along with the input of Sages

Hi. I read your entire post, but the only question I saw was about a discrepancy between Samuel and Chronicles, so I'm not sure how that makes the Oral Torah problematic. Perhaps I missed something. Could you please clarify?

It's what I said in the last sentence of my post about how I was going to post another YouTube Jews for Judaism video, which seemed to contradict what was said in this video. Therefore, you would have to look at the video in my post following that one, which is post #14, to see what I was talking about.