Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul a Pharisee?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul a Pharisee?
  • Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:28:10 +0100


Michael,
I am glad you have cited Shabbath 14:3-4, as this passage has been widely
misunderstood. It does not imply that healing in itself was forbidden on the
Sabbath. It arises from a rabbinical bye-law (enacted probably in the
second century) that medicinal substances should not be employed as a method
of treatment on the Sabbath (in cases of minor ailments) lest people should
be tempted to break the Torah law forbidding the grinding of medicines on
the Sabbath (this type of rabbinical bye-law was known as `a fence around
the Law'). The rabbis freely acknowledged that this bye-law did not have
the status of Torah law, and therefore they allowed it to be infringed in
cases of severe pain, even if no danger to life existed. Please note that
this bye-law concerned the METHOD of healing, not healing itself, which was
permitted even by rabbinic law if no medicinal substances were involved.
In the case of Jesus, his method of healing did not involve medicines,
so was permitted by both Torah and rabbinic law (if indeed the rabbinic
bye-law existed in his time). Faith-healing on the Sabbath is permitted in
all circumstances.
The above explanation of Shabbath 14:2-4 is found in all the Jewish
commentaries on the Mishnah.

With best wishes,

Hyam Maccoby


Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Abernathy" <mabernat AT cub.kcnet.org>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 11:51 PM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul a Pharisee?


> Sorry to interrupt your discussion but could you explain something to me?
> Shabbath 14:3 forbids eating hyssop on the Sabbath because it was used for
> healing. Shabbath 14:4 forbids sucking vinegar through the teeth to treat
a
> toothache. I am not aware of these acts being considered work. How is it
> that these wree forbidden unless, healing was forbidden? I am aware of
> passage in the Babylonian Talmud that allow for healing if the patient's
> life was in danger, but only if the patient's life was in danger. Could
you
> please clarify further?
> Michael Abernathy
> mabernat AT cub.kcnet.org
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
> To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 9:19 AM
> Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul a Pharisee?
>
>
> > >Loren:
> >
> > I wrote:
> >
> > >Both Hillelites and Shammaites agreed that
> > > >faith-healing on the Sabbath was permitted.
> >
> > You ask:
> > > Even in non-emergency situations?
> >
> > Yes, even in non-emergency situations. Healing in itself is not
included
> > among the kinds of `work' forbidden on the Sabbath (see Mishnah ,
Shahbath
> > 7:2). If, however, the METHOD of healing was a form of `work' (e.g.
> > building a fire, or grinding medicines), the act of healing was
forbidden
> > EXCEPT in an emergency, when all Sabbath prohibitions became null and
> void.
> > In the case of Jesus, the method of healing (i.e. faith-healing) did not
> > involve any act defined as `work', and therefore his kind of healing was
> > permitted even in the absence of emergency.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Hyam Maccoby
> >
> >
> > Research Professor
> > Centre for Jewish Studies
> > University of Leeds
> > LS2
> > Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
> > fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
> > e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Loren Rosson" <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
> > To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 12:15 PM
> > Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Paul a Pharisee?
> >
> >
> > > Hyam,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the data regarding Shammaites vs
> > > Hillelites. I will look into their differences (and
> > > similarities) more closely and for now will concede
> > > that a "Shammaite Saul" does not resolve the problems
> > > of Acts 5 as much as I thought it did.
> > >
> > > But by the way...
> > >
> > > Loren Rosson III
> > > Nashua NH
> > > rossoiii AT yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo!
> > Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as:
h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > $subst('Email.Unsub')
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: mabernat AT cub.kcnet.org
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page