To my Jewish friends on this forum...

[dybmh]

the customs/traditions of the Avraham ben-Terahh, his son Yitzhhaq ben Avraham ben-Terahh, Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham ben-Terahh, and the descendents of Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham ben-Terahh were the following:

1. The 7 mitzvoth/Noachide laws.
2. Brith Milah on the 8th day for males.
3. Prayer during Shahhrith (morning), Minhhah (afternoon), and Arvith (night).

?? זה הכל ??

" ... אַבְרָהָ֖ם בְּקֹלִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמֹר֙ מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֔י מִצְו‍ֹתַ֖י חֻקּוֹתַ֥י וְתֽוֹרֹתָֽי ... "

 

[John D. Brey]

Or an atheist trying to explain scriptures to Christians. But, I have to just be patient and loving. (or try to )

Dominic Crossan is an atheist and he does a pretty good job of explaining Christian scripture to Christians. I've learned quite a lot from him.



John

 

[rosends]

?? זה הכל ??

" ... אַבְרָהָ֖ם בְּקֹלִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמֹר֙ מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֔י מִצְו‍ֹתַ֖י חֻקּוֹתַ֥י וְתֽוֹרֹתָֽי ... "

Check the commentaries here, especially the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban.

 

[Alien826]

First, thank you for taking the time to reply so fully.

The reality is that anyone in the world can have any opinion they like or want, and no Torath Mosheh Jew is going to tell someone what opinions they should and shouldn't have.

That being said, if you go by the OP of this thread a very specific question was asked to the Jews on RF about a very specific topic. So, anything I post in this thread is directly concerning that issue mentioned in the OP.

Noted. Though the question was simply whether you are annoyed by Christians misinterpreting your scriptures, which I suppose could be fully answered by a simple "yes" or "no". The discussion seems to have progressed far beyond that point. Anyway ...

In terms of expertise, there is another reality that seems to be ignored sometimes. That is that the vast majority of Jews on RF and in the world are not trying to convince Christians to convert out of Christianity. There are though very well funding Christian organizations that have an established mission to convert Jews to Christianity.

Yes. I have heard that if I wanted to convert to Judaism and approached a Rabbi, he would refuse me three (?) times in order to make me prove my seriousness. Is that correct? To me that makes elegant sense, given the amount of hard study that is required. On the other hand, Christians require a simple affirmation of belief only (OK Christians, I know a lot more follows but I mean just to get in the door). In Christians' defense, they are commanded to proselytize, annoying though it can be.

Lastly, to rephrase your statement so it meets with the reality.

"For Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews the be all and end all authority on Jewish scripture, is the Hebrew Torah, the Hebrew Tanakh, and the mesoreth we received from thousands of years of Israeli/Jewish history in Hebrew and Aramaic. Someone who doesn't have the level of expertise specified in both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah is someone who Hashem commanded Torath Mosheh Jews to ignore, as specified in the Hebrew or Yeshayahu 8:20."​

​

Understood and noted.

I will repharse your statement.

"Ehav4Ever and all the Jews on RF who know Hebrew, in its varioius dialects and stages in history, know the Hebrew language because we a) learned it from an Israeli/Jewish chain of transmission that goes back thousands of years, b) we learned from experts who grew up interacting with the vast Israeli/Jewish based knowledge of our ancestral language, c) because most of us interact with ancient and modern Hebrew daily as a spoken, read, and written language, and d) because it is our ancestral language. Thus, from the time a Torath Mosheh Jew is about 3 years old until we pass away we learn with experts, become experts (daily), and we train our chidren to be experts in the ancestral language of our people. Someone who has not taken part in such a process if of course someone who cannot claim to know Hebrew nor know what is actually written in a Hebrew text of any period."​

Got it.

It raises a question though. Given that God wanted his words/message/teaching to be understood (if not why not?), then why make it so dern difficult for people to understand it? I understand that any answer you give may be speculative.

The best way for someone to determine what I do and don't know is to test me on it. You are correct, I could easily be claiming to do something I can't do. Yet, I would also suggest that I have been on RF long enough to have built up a reputation for being more than willing to show my sources for someone I claim. Yet, there is no requirement for anyone to take my word for it. People should challenge anything and everything that they can't prove to be true.

Now here you have misunderstood me. I was not questioning your honesty. I simply meant did you intend your expertise to apply only to the translation of the words themselves and not extend to the meaning of the words. This may sound like a silly question, but it could open an option for non Hebrew speakers (readers?). For example if someone had an English translation (by you, or someone similarly qualified) would they be qualified to, say, dispute the meaning of the text? Or is there some factor that comes into play when a person reads the Hebrew directly?

Another way you can look at it is like this. If I need to get some serious auto-work done on my car which will either make my car safe to drive or dangerous to drive I can:

1. Seek out the expertise from someone who has a proven track record to successfully work on cars, and the correct and current credentials to work on cars.
2. Seek out someone who, by their own admission, knows nothing about cars - has never driven one and has no idea where the engine is.

Personally, if I am going to have a discussion with someone on the topic of auto work and safety it is only going to be with someone who has something valid to say about said topics. Thus, I am going to have that discussion with the person represented in #1. I could easily, for the sake of wasting time, discuss the issue with #2 but that would be foolish for me to waste my time if the person is trying to claim to know how to repair a car while also admitting they don't know cars. On my part, if I rely on their advice I am going to probably involved in a major and fatal accident.

Yes, of course. But car maintenance is a subject where we can generally determine what is right and wrong quite easily. For example, after the repair is complete a layman can usually determine if it was done correctly. He says he fixed the brakes? Drive the car slowly and see if the brakes work. On the other hand abstruse interpretations of scripture don't lend themselves to such easy tests. Your point remains about expertise, but it's not as simple in application. For example, the question often remains "is there an answer at all?"

As to question #1, if you receive such a mailing I am going to assume that you requested it or accepted it and said rabbi, whoever he is, did not force you to accept the mailing. Thus, you are at all times free to have your own opinion.

Yes of course. But I'm not asking about being entitled in the general sense. I mean do you think that I should have questioned the Rabbi, given our wide discrepancy in expertise.

Further, based on your description the rabbi you describe did not state that you had to accept what you were told. I.e. your first question should have been which rabbis state this, where did they get such information, and what is the meaning of such an element of reality - if it were true? In terms of it being ridiculous you can say that the entire account of how the Torah was received is ridiculous. So, if how the Torah was received has a kernal of truth to it then one can assume that a description of how the (לוחות) actually looked, in reality based on the statements of certain rabbis could also have a kernal of truth. That being said, the Hebrew Torah is not the source of most westerners get the tombstone image from. Most of them get it from Christian artists and not from the Hebrew texts.

He stated it as truth, not conditionally. It took a private question from me to get the nuanced answer.

As far as interrogating him as you suggest, I would not have done that out of respect. We have a friendly relationship that I would not want to endanger over something so trivial. In any case, his answer settled the matter to my satisfaction, some Midrash should not be taken as seriously as others.

I don't think the whole story is ridiculous. Mistaken maybe, but not ridiculous. I reserve that for statements that seem on the face of them to be obviously untrue. And yes, I know that the tombstone images are not Biblical (Torahical?).

My take on it is covered in what I wrote above.

I take it you mean that there could be some truth in it.

Maybe I can ask the question again in a different way. Do you recognize this claim from any of your studies? If you do, what side of the question would you support, if any?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

?? זה הכל ??

" ... אַבְרָהָ֖ם בְּקֹלִ֑י וַיִּשְׁמֹר֙ מִשְׁמַרְתִּ֔י מִצְו‍ֹתַ֖י חֻקּוֹתַ֥י וְתֽוֹרֹתָֽי ... "

משנה תורה

אז, כל שרשום למעלה האלו ה"מצותיו חוקיו ותורתיו" שהקב"ה נתן להם לפני מתן תורה בהר סיני​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Noted. Though the question was simply whether you are annoyed by Christians misinterpreting your scriptures, which I suppose could be fully answered by a simple "yes" or "no". The discussion seems to have progressed far beyond that point. Anyway ...

Greetings. Actually, that was not what the OP stated. The OP stated the following.

"Do y'all get annoyed when Christians come in trying to explain your own holy scriptures to you? I see this happen all. the time."
​

To this I respondeded in the thread:

After almost 1,700 years of such I think some of us Jews have just gotten used to it. Others of us just ignore it, now that we no longer live under regimes that force us to interact with them on this issue more options are available to us. There was a time where Jews were forced to be a part of such a discussions. See the videos at the bottom of my post.​

I take it from a little bit different angle, living in the modern time we live in. It is a little difficult to get annoyed when someone says they understand something better when they read it with translations geared towards their bias while I and other Jews like me read from the text in the language it was originally written in.​

 

[Ehav4Ever]

It raises a question though. Given that God wanted his words/message/teaching to be understood (if not why not?), then why make it so dern difficult for people to understand it? I understand that any answer you give may be speculative.

According to the Torah, Hashem gave the 613 mitzvoth of the Torah to the Israeli/Jewish nation/people - not to the rest of the world. The rest of the world has the 7 mitzvoth which are easy to understand, and in reality most of the world already does most of them out of shear logical deduction of being human with human reasoning.

The 613 mitzvoth were/are/will be only the way of life for Israelis/Jews as a part of an agreement that Israelis/Jews made at Mount Sinai in order to receive the land of Israel. Also, not something that was ever meant to be a basic human requirement. According to the Tanakh, all of the nations of the world have an inherant mission that is specific to them within the parameters of the 7 mitzvoth of Noah. There was never a requirement, for example, the Songhay nation in West Africa, the Mongolians in Asia, the Han Dynasty in China, or the Minoan and the Mycenaeans in Europe to become Jewish and move to the land of Israel.

Further to this point, according to Jewish text from the last few thousand years ALL of the people of the earth at one point in the past kept or knew about the basis of the 7 mitzvoth. Hammurabi's code and other ancient sources from ancient kingdoms all over the world seem to imply that all ancient human societies had rules of law that are similar to the 7 mitzvoth in one way or the other. So, literally in every language the basis is there and completely understood in the languages of the world.

Yet, when it comes to the Israeli/Jewish nation/people Ivrith is the national/cultural language of the culture/laws/philosophy/concept/etc. Thus, the Tanakh is authorative for Jews ONLY in the Hebrew language. Thus, if a non-Jew joins the Israeli/Jewish nation/people they do by learning Ivrith, no different than most people apply for citizenship to a country often learn the language and culture of the nation they are joining.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I take it you mean that there could be some truth in it. Maybe I can ask the question again in a different way. Do you recognize this claim from any of your studies? If you do, what side of the question would you support, if any?

Yes, the entire concept is derived from what is written in the Hebrew Torah. (Bracketed in red and also in yellow)

I.e. The statements that the rabbi you contacted wrote have a basis in the "written Torah" from the above statements.

This is something, not often discussed in translation because of the difficult for someone who no interaction with Hebrew to grasp, if they don't know what the language means. This is further described in the "Oral Torah" since the earliest written description/dictionary/lexicon/etc. for the Hebrew langauge comes from the later parts of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Mishnah, and the Talmuds.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, of course. But car maintenance is a subject where we can generally determine what is right and wrong quite easily.

The same is true for language and writing. If someone tries to tell me something is in the Hebrew Tanakh I can literally, within 1 to 2 minutes, I determine if what they are saying is right or wrong.

For example, after the repair is complete a layman can usually determine if it was done correctly.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would never go to a layman for, as I stated "serious auto-work done on my car which will either make my car safe to drive or dangerous to drive." I would place my safety, and the safety of my family, only in the hands of a proven expert in auto-safety. Further, besides excluding a layman I would most definately not place my safety in the hands of someone, as I stated, "who by their own admission, knows nothing about cars - has never driven one and has no idea where the engine is."

He says he fixed the brakes? Drive the car slowly and see if the brakes work.

No thanks. I would not let a layman work on my brakes at all. Sorry, but that is not I do things. I would go to school to learn how to a mechanic LONG before I would let some Johnny Come Lately-bro science-just fell off the banana layman work on my brakes. Maybe it is because I come from a different culture but that is not what we do in my family.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

On the other hand abstruse interpretations of scripture don't lend themselves to such easy tests. Your point remains about expertise, but it's not as simple in application. For example, the question often remains "is there an answer at all?"

This may be a national cultural difference between. The Torah, for Torath Mosheh Jews, is not a "scripture" in the way you describe. It is like how the Constitution works in American culture. I.e. the American Constitution is the basis of all historical and current national and state laws in the USA.

The Torah is the same in Torath Mosheh Jewish society/culture/etc. It doesn't rely on abstruse intepretations. Ancient Israeli/Jewish society received the Oral Torah in order to maintain how to do what is in the written Torah. That is why ALL ancient Jewish communities 100% agree on what the basis of halakha is and how we derive. Where Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews differ, modernly, is in areas that are not halakha from the Torah based Supreme Court, called the Sanehdrin.

So, in terms of expertise on any Torah level, you must understand one simple rule.

According to Torath Mosheh, ALL Jewish parents are supposed to be rabbis of their households and be experts in Torah, including the language our ancestors, who taught us Torah. That is the way that for thousands of years a large majority of the Jewish population were able to manage knowing the language of the Tanakh even after we were exiled and our language was no longer a "national language." Thus, when we deal with the Torah we are dealing with it legally, socially, philosophically, and if you will spiritually all at the same time because Jewish communities have always been made up these various elements, for thousands of years. Nothing has changed that.

 

[dybmh]

משנה תורה
View attachment 68818​

אז, כל שרשום למעלה האלו ה"מצותיו חוקיו ותורתיו" שהקב"ה נתן להם לפני מתן תורה בהר סיני​

?? כל שרשום ??

"מצותיו חוקיו ותורתיו"

אמר רמב״ן‎

ותורתי להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני

והנראה אלי מדעת רבותינו שלמד אברהם אבינו התורה כלה ברוח הקדש ועסק בה ובטעמי מצותיה וסודותיה ושמר אותה כולה כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה ושמירתו אותה היה בארץ בלבד ויעקב בחוצה לארץ נשא האחיות וכן עמרם כי המצות משפט אלהי הארץ הן אף על פי שהוזהרנו בחובת הגוף בכל מקום (קדושין לו)

Ramban on Genesis 26:5:1

 

[Alien826]

According to the Torah, Hashem gave the 613 mitzvoth of the Torah to the Israeli/Jewish nation/people - not to the rest of the world. The rest of the world has the 7 mitzvoth which are easy to understand, and in reality most of the world already does most of them out of shear logical deduction of being human with human reasoning.

The 613 mitzvoth were/are/will be only the way of life for Israelis/Jews as a part of an agreement that Israelis/Jews made at Mount Sinai in order to receive the land of Israel. Also, not something that was ever meant to be a basic human requirement. According to the Tanakh, all of the nations of the world have an inherant mission that is specific to them within the parameters of the 7 mitzvoth of Noah. There was never a requirement for, for example, the Songhay nation in West Africa, the Mongolians in Asia, the Han Dynasty in China, or the Minoan and the Mycenaeans in Europe to become Jewish and move to the land of Israel.

Further to this point, according to Jewish text from the last few thousand years ALL of the people of the earth at one point in the past kept or knew about the basis of the 7 mitzvoth. Hammurabi's code and other ancient sources from ancient kingoms all over the world seem to imply that all ancient human societies had rules of law that are similar to the 7 mitzvoth in one way or the other. So, literally in every language the basis is there and completely understood in the languages of the world.

Yet, when it comes to the Israeli/Jewish nation/people Ivrith is the national/cultural language of the culture/laws/philosophy/concept/etc. Thus, the Tanakh is authorative for Jews ONLY in the Hebrew language. Thus, if a non-Jew joins the Israeli/Jewish nation/people they do by learning Ivrith, no different than most people apply for citizenship to a country often learn the language and culture of the nation they are joining.

I hope that helps.

Yes, thank you.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You can just use Abraham and Moses, we all know who they were.

Actually, I can't. We we compare what Abraham and Moses means to most Christians and westerners they think of something like this.

For Torath Mosheh Jews, Avraham ben-Terahh and Mosheh ben-Amram is how the names of our ancestors were actually pronounced, and also conceptially we are talking about something more akin to the below.

Thus, conceptually we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

?? כל שרשום ??

"מצותיו חוקיו ותורתיו"

אמר רמב״ן‎

ותורתי להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני

והנראה אלי מדעת רבותינו שלמד אברהם אבינו התורה כלה ברוח הקדש ועסק בה ובטעמי מצותיה וסודותיה ושמר אותה כולה כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה ושמירתו אותה היה בארץ בלבד ויעקב בחוצה לארץ נשא האחיות וכן עמרם כי המצות משפט אלהי הארץ הן אף על פי שהוזהרנו בחובת הגוף בכל מקום (קדושין לו)

Ramban on Genesis 26:5:1

See the highlighted parts below:

 

[Alien826]

Yes, the entire concept is derived from what is written in the Hebrew Torah. (Bracketed in red and also in yellow)

View attachment 68819

I.e. The statements that the rabbi you contacted wrote have a basis in the "written Torah" from the above statements.

This is something, not often discussed in translation because of the difficult for someone who no interaction with Hebrew to grasp, if they don't know what the language means. This is further described in the "Oral Torah" since the earliest written description/dictionary/lexicon/etc. for the Hebrew langauge comes from the later parts of the Hebrew Tanakh, the Mishnah, and the Talmuds.

Seriously, would it have broken your arm to translate these passages into English for me?

You know I'm trying to find out how this rather strange idea came about. You also know, I would hope, that I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language at all. How did you think chunks of (to me) lines and squiggles would help me understand? I'd like to see what it actually says, and totally I trust your ability to translate accurately.

Sorry, but I hope you see why I'm feeling frustrated.

I'll add an "OK" for your other posts.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

?? כל שרשום ??

"מצותיו חוקיו ותורתיו"

אמר רמב״ן‎

ותורתי להביא תורה שבעל פה הלכה למשה מסיני

והנראה אלי מדעת רבותינו שלמד אברהם אבינו התורה כלה ברוח הקדש ועסק בה ובטעמי מצותיה וסודותיה ושמר אותה כולה כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה ושמירתו אותה היה בארץ בלבד ויעקב בחוצה לארץ נשא האחיות וכן עמרם כי המצות משפט אלהי הארץ הן אף על פי שהוזהרנו בחובת הגוף בכל מקום (קדושין לו)

Ramban on Genesis 26:5:1

גם

עוד ו

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Seriously, would it have broken your arm to translate these passages into English for me?

Yes, because it proves the point that I am making between what I can see in the text as someone who can natively read it and someone who cannot. If I were to translate it it, you would have to rely on my ability to translate for you. Exactly, the first point you made about whether I am able to correctly translate something.

Every Torath Mosheh/Orthodox Jew on RF who saw what I posted immediately knows what it says and how it is connected to what the rabbi you mentioned wrote. But I didn't post it for the sake of proving to you what the rabbi stated, only to show that I know where what he wrote came from and the basis. In short, is from the written Torah and more or less says what what he stated.

Further, you asked about what the rabbi stated. What I am trying to convey to you is you won't see what he was talking in translation. You will only see it by interacting with the Hebrew text. Thus, I marked in red and yellow where the concept he mentioned is derived from in the written Torah. You could read something in English, but the English doesn't convey the idea.

Lastly, by translating it for you I take away your ability to choose what you think it means. I.e. I take away your ability to have a different opinion to what the rabbi told you.

By simply showing it to you - you now have the ability to take it and investigate for yourself whether what the rabbi wrote you has any basis in the original Hebrew text. This concept is actually an ancient Jewish one and is why we are all taught Hebrew while we are young so when we get older we can take these texts question them, debate them, research them, debate them so more, come to conclusions, dispel our conclusions, establish new ones, and start the process all over again.

You know I'm trying to find out how this rather strange idea came about. You also know, I would hope, that I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language at all. How did you think chunks of (to me) lines and squiggles would help me understand? I'd like to see what it actually says, and totally I trust your ability to translate accurately.

It is for this reason, that if you are really interested in what the original Hebrew Torah says a forum is not the best place for something like. Also, internet news letters are not the best place for that. That is something that would better served face to face with a Torath Mosheh Jew or Orthodox Jew who knows Hebrew and is able to sit with you face to face with the texts in front of you both. Literally, every question you have can be answered within about ten minutes rather than hours of writing on a computer.

Again, this is how we Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews learn Torah. Face to face, and communally.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Seriously, would it have broken your arm to translate these passages into English for me?

You know I'm trying to find out how this rather strange idea came about. You also know, I would hope, that I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language at all. How did you think chunks of (to me) lines and squiggles would help me understand? I'd like to see what it actually says, and totally I trust your ability to translate accurately.

Sorry, but I hope you see why I'm feeling frustrated.

I'll add an "OK" for your other posts.

The following may help with the issue of translation and correct understanding of a text, especially an ancient one.

 

[dybmh]

​

View attachment 68824

"שאינו מצווה"

כן! אבל אתה אמרת מנהגים/מסורות

the customs/traditions of the Avraham ben-Terahh, his son Yitzhhaq ben Avraham ben-Terahh, Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham ben-Terahh, and the descendents of Ya'aqov ben-Yitzhhaq ben-Avraham ben-Terahh were the following:

1. The 7 mitzvoth/Noachide laws.
2. Brith Milah on the 8th day for males.
3. Prayer during Shahhrith (morning), Minhhah (afternoon), and Arvith (night).

?? זה הכל מנהגים/מסורות ??

 

[dybmh]

טוב
על דרך הפשט
חקותי" ללכת בדרכי השם להיות חנון ורחום ועושה צדקה ומשפט ולצות את בניו ואת ביתו בהם"

?? למה לא אמר הרמב"ם "חקותי" (חנון ועושה צדקה ומשפט...) במשנה תורה הלכות מלכים ??