Must a Jew follow all the commandments?

[Valke2]

Before a thread was closed, I was asked to explain how a Jew is not required to perfectly keep the law in order to be saved, or redeemed, etc.

First, it should be noted that some sages/rabbis believed the more laws/halacha they could come up with the better. This view was not exactly embraced by all the jews. We know this because 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.

Now, Rabbi Hanania ben Akashya said: “[Hashem] wished to give Israel merit. THerefore, He gave them many teachings and commandments, as it is written ‘The Lord desires His [servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching’ (Isaiah 42:21).” Commenting on this, Rabbi Samuel Uceda (16th century) wrote:

“God wished for the human heart to be raised up to God’s service through teachings and commandments, and not to respond foolishly to the multiplicity of details and conclude that since there are so many, no one can possibly do them all. THerefore the Tanna (sages) taught us that God, who has sanctified us with His commandments and instructed us, does not issue commands as a mortal king does. The mortal king fixes for his servant theexact amount of work required; and thus, when the servant fails to complete all of it, he is punished fornot having fulfilled the entire command of the king. But Hashem is different. By multiplying teachings and commandments for Israel He did not intend to say that they must complete all teachings and fulfill all commandments, and that they would be punished for not doing so, even if they had fulfilled some, or even most, of them. Were that the case, the multiplicit of teachings and commnadments would serve primarily to generate punishment. The matter is not so. You are not required to complete the work; one who does less is acceptble along with one who does more, as long as they intend what they do for the sake of heaven… Thus, the multiplicity is not a reqason for punishment; on the contrary, God wanted to provide Israel with merit, for those who cannot fulfill them all. Wondrous reward grows without end as a person grows in learning and in fullfillment of commandments, and that is why God multiplied for us teachings and commandements.”

This answers the classical Pauline complaint about the Law.

 

[inJESUS]

Are you talking about the 613 mitzvot ?

 

[inJESUS]

Rabbi Samuel Uceda (16th century) wrote:

 

[Valke2]

It gets much harder to find quotes from 1st century sages. The custom then was to post annoynmously. There Mishna states that one can remove the milk from an udder and then eat the udder with other meat. This would be an example of liberal interpretation of the kashurt halacha, which normally prohibits mixing milk and meat.

A 1st century sage came along and prohibited such a practice in his community.
Rami bar Tamri was visiting the community on the eve of Yom Kippur. TO make an example of the dangers of making too many laws, he cooked the uder with meat and ate it in public. It is a long midrash that I don’t feel like posting, but the point of the story seems to be that one should not sacrifice the spirit for the details.

Also, we have to keep in mind that the issue of multiplicity of laws was greater in the 16th century because there were a great many more laws than there were in the 1st century.

 

[Valke2]

Deeds of kindness are equal to all the commandments. Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Peah
This conclusion was prbably based on the story in Genesis of God clothing the naked and God buring Moses.

 

[inJESUS]

Are you actually refering to this Pauline passage?

For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.”

 

[dessert]

Deeds of kindness are equal to all the commandments. Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Peah
This conclusion was prbably based on the story in Genesis of God clothing the naked and God buring Moses.

Are you saying that Jews don’t believe in taking a vow, or what would the equivalent to a vow be?
I am thinking commandments vs vows although I am not explaining myself well.

 

[sambos671]

Before a thread was closed, I was asked to explain how a Jew is not required to perfectly keep the law in order to be saved, or redeemed, etc.

First, it should be noted that some sages/rabbis believed the more laws/halacha they could come up with the better. This view was not exactly embraced by all the jews. We know this because 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.

Now, Rabbi Hanania ben Akashya said: “[Hashem] wished to give Israel merit. THerefore, He gave them many teachings and commandments, as it is written ‘The Lord desires His [servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching’ (Isaiah 42:21).” Commenting on this, Rabbi Samuel Uceda (16th century) wrote:

“God wished for the human heart to be raised up to God’s service through teachings and commandments, and not to respond foolishly to the multiplicity of details and conclude that since there are so many, no one can possibly do them all. THerefore the Tanna (sages) taught us that God, who has sanctified us with His commandments and instructed us, does not issue commands as a mortal king does. The mortal king fixes for his servant theexact amount of work required; and thus, when the servant fails to complete all of it, he is punished fornot having fulfilled the entire command of the king. But Hashem is different. By multiplying teachings and commandments for Israel He did not intend to say that they must complete all teachings and fulfill all commandments, and that they would be punished for not doing so, even if they had fulfilled some, or even most, of them. Were that the case, the multiplicit of teachings and commnadments would serve primarily to generate punishment. The matter is not so. You are not required to complete the work; one who does less is acceptble along with one who does more, as long as they intend what they do for the sake of heaven… Thus, the multiplicity is not a reqason for punishment; on the contrary, God wanted to provide Israel with merit, for those who cannot fulfill them all. Wondrous reward grows without end as a person grows in learning and in fullfillment of commandments, and that is why God multiplied for us teachings and commandements.”

This answers the classical Pauline complaint about the Law.

Toda rabba rav.

Another question if you don’t mind. I hear a lot of Jews on this site say that if it doesn’t affect Judaism they don’t care. I guess because we’re all just goyim. Thats seems rather elitist doesn’t it? Why would God seperate Abba Abraham to create a nation of hebrews that could care less about the goyim around them? Doesn’t God want all humanity to come to him? (I just reread and it sounds a little forward. Sorry) But these are thought that came to me from the last thread. If the Law pleases him then why not all humanity? Why do the goyim just need to follow the Noahic law?

 

[Valke2]

Are you actually refering to this Pauline passage?

For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.”

I was referring to the Pauline argument that the law is somehow a burden rather than a gift.

 

[Valke2]

Are you saying that Jews don’t believe in taking a vow, or what would the equivalent to a vow be?
I am thinking commandments vs vows although I am not explaining myself well.

I’m not sure I understand the question. I wasn’t thinking about vows. Jews believe in vows but are counseled against taking them because of the seriousness should they break them.

 

[Valke2]

Toda rabba rav.

Another question if you don’t mind. I hear a lot of Jews on this site say that if it doesn’t affect Judaism they don’t care. I guess because we’re all just goyim. Thats seems rather elitist doesn’t it? Why would God seperate Abba Abraham to create a nation of hebrews that could care less about the goyim around them? Doesn’t God want all humanity to come to him? (I just reread and it sounds a little forward. Sorry) But these are thought that came to me from the last thread. If the Law pleases him then why not all humanity? Why do the goyim just need to follow the Noahic law?

Judaism in general, cares very much about what happens in the world. When we read Genesis, we learn that God says, at least 4 times, that ALL nations will be blessed through Abraham. As to why only Israel has additional laws to follow, you can get different answers. The traditoinal answer was that through Israel, God’s name was to be glorified to the world. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to establish a religion that could be adopted by billions and require the kind of committment, learning, and practcal implementation that Judaism requires. It is not a mass friendly religion.

 

[inJESUS]

I was referring to the Pauline argument that the law is somehow a burden rather than a gift.

cursed is anyone who breaks the law, no? the law is a gift but you are cursed if you break it…doesn’t this gift turn into burden because of sins?

 

[Pete_1]

cursed is anyone who breaks the law, no? the law is a gift but you are cursed if you break it…doesn’t this gift turn into burden because of sins?

The same could be said of free will.

Does not the bible teach that the law was a steward untill the new covenant was established or am I wrong?

 

[grandfather]

It gets much harder to find quotes from 1st century sages. …A 1st century sage came along and prohibited such a practice in his community.
Rami bar Tamri was visiting the community on the eve of Yom Kippur. .

I am curious about sages. Can someone help?

Is there some means or a method in Judaism of determining when someone is a sage, or who is and who is not? Is it by general agreement of the rest of the Jews that a certain person is a sage? Do Jews view the teachings of sages as something that they have some obligation to follow? Do sages have some recognized authority to teach or speak for God as prophets did? Why is their teaching revered? What happens if someone disagrees with a sage? Do all sages agree with one another? In Judaism if someone quotes a sage is that a way to prove the correctness of a religious point of view? Are sages simply students of religion whose commentary is respected? When in history did referencing the commentaries of sages become the norm for determining the rightness or correctness of religious matters in Judaism? Are there recognized sages in every century?

 

[Nickkname]

The same could be said of free will.

Does not the bible teach that the law was a steward untill the new covenant was established or am I wrong?

points to your signature

Please give a credible source where you found that in the Bible.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Judaism in general, cares very much about what happens in the world. When we read Genesis, we learn that God says, at least 4 times, that ALL nations will be blessed through Abraham. As to why only Israel has additional laws to follow, you can get different answers. The traditoinal answer was that through Israel, God’s name was to be glorified to the world. As a practical matter, it would be difficult to establish a religion that could be adopted by billions and require the kind of committment, learning, and practcal implementation that Judaism requires. It is not a mass friendly religion.

Wasn’t there an outer court in the temple in Jerusalem where the gentiles could come and worship the God of Israel? Were they then somehow connected to the Jews even though they weren’t Jews? How did this work out in practice? How about today? No temple=no true way for gentiles to worship the one God? What is the Jewish view on this?

I guess this leads to another question which I will post in a separate thread.

 

[Valke2]

I am curious about sages. Can someone help?

Is there some means or a method in Judaism of determining when someone is a sage, or who is and who is not? Is it by general agreement of the rest of the Jews that a certain person is a sage? Do Jews view the teachings of sages as something that they have some obligation to follow? Do sages have some recognized authority to teach or speak for God as prophets did? Why is their teaching revered? What happens if someone disagrees with a sage? Do all sages agree with one another? In Judaism if someone quotes a sage is that a way to prove the correctness of a religious point of view? Are sages simply students of religion whose commentary is respected? When in history did referencing the commentaries of sages become the norm for determining the rightness or correctness of religious matters in Judaism? Are there recognized sages in every century?

A “sage” when I use the term and when the term is used within Judaism, generally refers to the greatest jewish thinkers of all time. THe sages often disagreed with each other on a variety of topics. We don’t call our great thinkers sages today, although their are certainly great jewish thinkers in Judaism today.

In general, the sages studied with what would rabbis (were themselves rabbis) and then proved themselves by their reasoning and teachings…

Now to take a step back. God gave us the Torah (among other things) and set forth the commandments by which we are to live. Halacha/Jewish Law is the interpretation of those commandments. It tells us how to apply God’s law to a variety of situations in our life. THe Halacha was developed by the sages and rabbis and continues to evolve as necessary.

 

[Valke2]

Wasn’t there an outer court in the temple in Jerusalem where the gentiles could come and worship the God of Israel? Were they then somehow connected to the Jews even though they weren’t Jews? How did this work out in practice? How about today? No temple=no true way for gentiles to worship the one God? What is the Jewish view on this?

I guess this leads to another question which I will post in a separate thread.

First of all, I just want to remind you that I was born Jewish. I wasn’t born a history professor.

Answering the last question first, there is always a “true way” for gentiles to worship God fromthe Jewish perspective. If we were to say that since the Temple is destroyed, the Gentiles cannot truly worship God, then what could we say about our own form of worship? Even when the Messianic Age arrives, Judaism doesn’t teach that the wolrd will become Jewish. Only that it will worship the One true God. From this persepective, it can be argued that many are already doing this via their own faiths.

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.

 

[grandfather]

]A “sage” when I use the term and when the term is used within Judaism, generally refers to the greatest jewish thinkers of all time. THe sages often disagreed with each other on a variety of topics. We don’t call our great thinkers sages today, although their are certainly great jewish thinkers in Judaism today.

If this is this a common term used by many or most Jews how does the classification of sage get imputed to some person? How are they recognized? Do Jews agree on who is a sage and who is not? Since the sages disagreed with one another on different topics, how is the truth of any one topic determined, which is right and which is wrong? Or is the discussion of sages an endless “on the other hand” speculation?

In general, the sages studied with what would rabbis (were themselves rabbis) and then proved themselves by their reasoning and teachings…

To whom did they prove themselves? There seems to be some kind of general acceptance that so and so is proven as a sage, but if they disagree with one another (maybe that does not matter) the whole thing seems to be pointless. Do they arrive at any certain knowledge or truth, or debate forever among themselves for the sake of debate?

Now to take a step back. God gave us the Torah (among other things) and set forth the commandments by which we are to live. Halacha/Jewish Law is the interpretation of those commandments. It tells us how to apply God’s law to a variety of situations in our life. THe Halacha was developed by the sages and rabbis and continues to evolve as necessary.

But if they disagree with one another, how is the proper interpretation known? Who appointed the sages and gave them authority to interpret and how do you know they are right? Why does the law need interpretation?

 

[grandfather]

A “sage” when I use the term and when the term is used within Judaism, generally refers to the greatest jewish thinkers of all time. THe sages often disagreed with each other on a variety of topics. We don’t call our great thinkers sages today, although their are certainly great jewish thinkers in Judaism today.

In general, the sages studied with what would rabbis (were themselves rabbis) and then proved themselves by their reasoning and teachings…

Now to take a step back. God gave us the Torah (among other things) and set forth the commandments by which we are to live. Halacha/Jewish Law is the interpretation of those commandments. It tells us how to apply God’s law to a variety of situations in our life. THe Halacha was developed by the sages and rabbis and continues to evolve as necessary.

Interpretation of law:
Sage A says X about the topic Q.
Sage B disagrees and says Y about Q.
Sage C agrees with sage A with a slight permutation.
Sage D disagrees with X and Y and proposes Z about Q.

Logic says one of the sages might be right, or all could be wrong and the correct interpretation is yet to be found. Logic says there is confusion about how to correctly interpret the law if the recognized sages disagree. It is impossible using the methodology of relying on sages to know the correct interpretation of the divinely revealed law. It is an endless debate, a going in circles.

If indeed God revealed the law, why did He do so? It must have been for the benefit of the recipients, so that they could know how to live according to His design or will for them in their journey through life and time. If He revealed the law for their good He must want them to know it and the correct interpretation of it, assuming it requires interpretation.

The law is no good to anyone if it can not be properly understood, if it can not be properly applied to the lives of people. Surely in revealing the law God could not have willed this confusion.

The sages may be great thinkers and they may be of good will and intention, but if they do not agree, if one is right about one thing and wrong about another, then they can not be relied upon.

The prophets spoke to the people on behalf of God. When they spoke their claimed authority was God. “Thus saith the lord”. They were giving a direct message from God. Christians believe with Jews that the Jewish prophets spoke with divine authority. The commentators on the prophets, whether called sages, scribes, or any title, do not, however wise they may be in terms of human intellect.

Do you agree with this?