Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] daughters jacob never spoke of

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brak <Brak AT neo.rr.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] daughters jacob never spoke of
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:38:22 -0500

The reason I joined this list was to engage in scholarly conversations about textual analysis, not get into theological discussions.

But since this thread has beens o long and so persistent I have decided (maybe the result of lack of better judgment) to give my three cents (extra penny due to inflation)

According to various belief systems (including some Christian sects) the Law was given in two formats - written and oral. Hence the acceptance o f an Oral Law does not constitute an "adding" to the Law, but rather the acceptance of the Law in its fullness. And as stated there are a lot of blank spaces which the Oral Law fills in. Also their is the reality that a picture is worth a thousand word - and so is oral instruction. Imagine trying to write instructions, using only words, on how to throw a football correctly. It would be very hard and cumbersome, a lot of time and effort would be involved - as opposed to the minute or two it would take to do it in person via an oral teaching format. This helps the puzzle to fall into place, as if you knew of the oral teaching and you read a simple note from the coach saying "throw the ball" you would know what to do. But without that context you could very easily try to throw the football in the way a pitcher throws a baseball - a throw but not the right one.

It is important to make a distinction between the Oral Law given to Moses at Sinai, and the Rabbinical Laws added as an attempt to "fence in the Torah". Many people make the mistake of merging these two distinct items into one, but the Mishnah and Talmud do make these distinction.

As to the Jesus factor. In the context of the text He was speaking against the Rabbinical additions that the particular group of Pharisees had created. It wasn't a statement again the Oral Law, or all Rabbinical Law - just that of the particular group.
There were sub-sects within the sect of Pharisees. The two major ones that most are aware of is that of Hillel and Shamia. If you study the debates between those of Hillel and those of Shamia, and then compare that to the debates between Jesus and the "Pharisees" you will find some amazing similarities. For example the issue with the healed paralytic carrying his mat on the Sabbath was a debate whether it is lawful to carry an item within the same domain. According to Hillel you can (this is the halacha observed today), according the Shamia you can't. And let us not forget that Jesus taught His follows to obey the halacha of the Pharisees and Sages. "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Mat 23:2-3) So Jesus was saying that even though they may not practice what they preach - we as Christians are to.

But I return to my initial line of thought. Is this area of discussion proper for this forum?
I was under the impression that the forum was to discuss variants between manuscripts, q/k issues, parsing of words and translation.
This thread to me has been basically about doctrine, dogma, creed, and faith.

So am I incorrect and this forum is open to theological debating, or is it as I originally thought - an area for textual analysis and research.

If I am incorrect please forgive me for raising an issue about it. If I am correct please forgive me for adding my three cents to the discussion.




B"H
John Steven

Shoshanna Walker wrote:

So how many fathers do I have, if there were three "forefathers", Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov?

I know you are teasing me, though....

So you didn't need Oral Torah to teach you that Avraham showed courage in leaving the security of his family, but that isn't what is referred to by saying that the Torah emphasizes that Avraham was a man of faith. It is specifically faith in G-d that the Torah teaches about Avraham - and courage has a different meaning than faith anyway. Without Oral Torah you wouldn't know that G-d tested his faith with 10 tests.

Although it may not be applicable to you, without Oral Torah there are many Mitzvot that we wouldn't know how to perform, because the details of how to perform them were not included in the written text. Deut. 12:21 - "As I have commanded you" Where did G-d command us how to perform slaughter?

Or "You shall keep Shabbat holy, as I have commanded your fathers" Jeremiah 17:22. Where did G-d command us exactly in detail how to keep the Shabbat holy?

Rav Aryeh Kaplan explains it better than I am able: http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

And what apparent contradictions between Oral and Written Torah are you referring to? How can you make that statement when you haven't learned Oral Torah?

I don't mean to be disrespectful to those on this list who don't believe that Torah consists of Oral and Written Torah, but if, from time to time, I am able to cite how some of our Commentaries explain verses that you are discussing, do you mind? Some of our Sages and Commentaries were famous as Biblical Hebrew linguists, shouldn't their input be included here?

Shoshanna




Shoshanna wrote:
Abraham merited being one of our avos (forefathers). His 2 most
famous character traits were that of a man of FAITH and
charity/chesed. Hashem subjected him to 10 tests of faith, he passed
all of them. This abduction of Sarah by Avimelech was one of these
tests. He therefore was not a coward.

JCR: If Abraham was one of your fathers wouldn't that
make you one of his daughters?


Also, I think I agree with you that the word 'coward'
was a poor choice of word as Abraham had already shown
great courage in leaving the security of his family
to go and reside amongst foreigners who might decide
to kill him at any moment.

However, one observation I would like to make is that
I don't need any oral torah to reach this conclusion
as the information given in the actual torah is more
than sufficient.
Personally, I find it quite enlightening to listen to
your testimonies of what the oral torah has to say
because I don't have a copy and have never had the
chance to read it. However, I do have to agree with the
sentiments expressed by Peter that it would be a little
unreasonably if someone were to expect the list members
to accept the oral torah as Yah's word especially where
there are apparent contradictions with the testimony of
the real torah.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page