Must a Jew follow all the commandments?

[Bible_Reader]

Rav Aha bar Ula has said “Whoever derides the words of the Sages is condemned to boil in excrement.” (Berakhot 2:1). Such a statement would not have been necessary if there was no danger of Jew deriding the words of the sages.

I am a bit startled to see you give this example, because it recalls one of the most shocking *aggada *in the Babylonian Talmud, *Gittin *57a. The gemara there cites mishna Berachos 2:1, and then (in uncensored editions) references a certain “Yeshu ha Nazarene” being subjected to this very punishment. It thus becomes clear that the mishna you cite was either originally penned as anti-Christian propaganda, or came to be interpreted in that way by the time the gemara was redacted.

It should be noted that during the Middle Ages, when Jews were persecuted, the reference to Jesus was deleted from some editions, and the Vilna edition of the Talmud has the censored text. There is sufficient manuscript evidence to document the change (see, for example, the Steinsaltz edition or even the Soncino edition [see Babylonian Talmud: Gittin 57”]footnote 3 on this page]). Further, some Jewish apologists have argued that the reference is to “another” Yeshu ha Nazarene.

A full scholarly discussion of the profoundly offensive nature of this passage (and its subsequent censorship) can be found in a work that remains a standard reference on the topic: (pdf download)Christianity in Talmud and Midrash by Robert Herford. For a discussion of this passage, see pages 64-71, particularly the passage beginning on p. 67 (“Jesus and Balaam in Hell.”)

A more modern treatment of this passage can be found in chapter 8 “Jesus’ Punishment in Hell” of Peter Schaefer, in his 2007 work (published by Princeton University Press), Jesus in the Talmud. (It should be noted that neither Herford nor Schaefer are casual readers or hostile to Judaism; indeed Peter Schaefer has a named chair in Judaic Studies at Princeton University, is the director of the Judaic Studies program at Princeton, and is an editor of an academic journal, Jewish Studies Quarterly.)

A fair reading of the text reveals that the *mishna *you quoted, and the *gemara *which in references it are associated with it are a profoundly vulgar anti-Christian sentiment – an Jewish fantastic image of Our Lord being subjected to a degrading punishment.

 

[Valke2]

A fair reading of the text reveals that the *mishna *you quoted, and the *gemara *which in references it are associated with it are a profoundly vulgar anti-Christian sentiment – an Jewish fantastic image of Our Lord being subjected to a degrading punishment.

My quote had nothing to do with Jesus. You’re well written post expressed your choice to interpret it otherwise. However, as Jesus, from a jewish view, acted out of disdain to the sages, it follows that he would be veiwed as being subject to such punishment. Having said that, you need to remember that this was a largely oral tradition and the use of exaggeration/hyperbole was often employed as a useful tool to help one remember.

 

[sambos671]

My quote had nothing to do with Jesus. You’re well written post expressed your choice to interpret it otherwise. However, as Jesus, from a jewish view, acted out of disdain to the sages, it follows that he would be veiwed as being subject to such punishment. Having said that, you need to remember that this was a largely oral tradition and the use of exaggeration/hyperbole was often employed as a useful tool to help one remember.

Your right about the book of Jashar. It is no longer extant. In the 1300 some unknown Jewish writer attempted to write a book of the same title from their understanding of Mishnaic teachings. That’s what I’m referring to. Not actual Mishna teachings. As far as Talmud I think there are two: The Jerusalem Talmud writen around 250 to 300 AD (CE for non christians) and later the Babylonian Talmud around 400 AD.

So on the discussion before. If in Torah Moses says not to add or take away from the Law he had given in response to Adam and Eve’s addition to what God had said. How then can Talmud or Mishnaic teaching be acceptable? I think the only argument for this is that with this statement Moses included Oral Tradition. But then if this is so then why is it acceptable to say this rabbi said this or that rabbi said that and have two different meanings? My thing with the whole Jashar thing is that I believe that mideval judaism changed from that of 1st Century Judaism. The later writings (mideval) seem different then Jewish writings during the Sulucid and Ptolemaic times. I have a problem with a seeming lack of strong central belief. Maybe its just my hangup but there it is. Also My question about if a 3rd temple would be built which teachings would the Jews accept for it? Would Animal sacrifices begin or would it turn the Jews against each other?

 

[sambos671]

Another issue I have is this. I know Jewish people don’t accept Jesus. Thats fine. But here is something that bothered him. Jesus was Jewish and an Itenerant Rabbi. Very familiar with the oral tradition known then (mishna) and commented on Torah as a rabbi. This is what he said:

He replied: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites as it is writen:
These peple honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" And he said to them : "you have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! for Moses said, ‘honor your father and your mother’, and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you you say that if a man says to his father or mother:"whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is in Corban’ (that is a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that:

Seems to be a critism of some mishnaic teachings does it not?

 

[Bible_Reader]

You are correct, sambos671. Mark 7:11 and Matthew 15:5 are usually thought to be direct references to mishna Nedarim 1:4. In that mishna the majority opinion holds that if a meal is offered to God, then one may not allow it to be eaten by anyone (even one’s parents):

He who says, qorban, “A whole offering,” “A meal offering,” “A sin offering,” “A thank offering,” “Peace offering,” — “be what I eat with you,” he is bound (prohibited from eating with the other party). R. Judah permits (declares him not bound). (If he says, “May what I eat of yours be) the qorban,” “Like the qorban, “(By) a qorban (do I vow)” — “be what I eat with you,” he is bound. (If he says,) “For a qorban shall be what I eat with you,” R. Meir declares him bound.

The reason for this is the high regard that the Jews of the Mishna held for one’s vows. Jesus’ point (which he reinforces by his quote from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament) is that this is contrary to Biblical law.

 

[Lapell]

Are your priests simply parroting what the Church in Rome tells them to say or are they interpreting Catholic Dogma in their own way for their respective congregations?

You take it it can’t be none of the above?

 

[Lapell]

I think what you are referring to whenyou ask about a place in the Temple for the Gentiles to pray, was really just a kind of shopping center in the outer courtyard, where people could buy sacrifices, where the moneychangers worked, etc. (I’m not sure if the Christian bible mentions this, but it is possible that the money changers Jesus attacked were gentiles). I’m not aware of any place in the Temple that was reserved for Gentile worship. I could be wrong.

From what we learned, there was a separate court for the women, and then, an outer court for non-Jewish God-fearing people. As for the money changers, they were along with those who sold oxen, goats and sheep and lambs, and also doves for the sacrifices (in case such animal was required to fulfill your obligation toward God but you could not provide them yourself), and they apparently were inside the Temple then… or at its entrance in such a way that it would be distracting the people from their prayers.
Were they Gentiles? Then why did the authorities of the Temple come and ask Jesus why and from whose authority he “threw them out” of the Temple, so to speak? I suppose the authorities had given those cattle sellers permission to be there, had they not? Or was it just the troubling disturbance when Jesus intervened? Hard to tell…
Why could the sellers and the money changers not be Jewish? It was for the Temple sacrifices, not the tax for the Romans!

 

[Sepharad]

My quote had nothing to do with Jesus. You’re well written post expressed your choice to interpret it otherwise. However, as Jesus, from a jewish view, acted out of disdain to the sages, it follows that he would be veiwed as being subject to such punishment. Having said that, you need to remember that this was a largely oral tradition and the use of exaggeration/hyperbole was often employed as a useful tool to help one remember.

Both of you might be interested in a book/DVD I recently read and saw, entitled, “the Hebrew Yeshua vs the Greek Jesus”. Its by a Karaite Jewish scholar from Israel, and he brings out some very interesting bits of info that can lead one to believe Jesus was a karaite, not a support of Rabbanite (Orthodox) Judaism.

(Note: Karaites are Jews who do not accept the Talmud as divinely inspired. They only accept the written Torah and the rest of the Tanakh. They, like all other Jews, do not believe in Jesus as messiah either.)

For more info see hebrewyeshua.com