Over here, in GD:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5267684#post5267684
We have a debate going. Some Goyim (which I am also) think that they can read a bit of the Talmud and suddenly become experts on Talmudic law. :rolleyes: I am trying to tell them that it ain’t that easy, at all. :dubious:
Care to help or comment? Or even comment here?
I have a close friend who studied the Talmud at a rigorous Talmudic school in Jerusalem. This friend of mine is intensly academic, and is currently getting his doctorate.
What he described to me was that you can’t hope to grasp the contents of the Talmud using only the Talmud as a source. It is intended to be taught using the traditional methods, which require a teacher who learned in the same way. In other words, what is contained in the Talmud is only half of the tradition, and the other half is oral.
Since today and tomorrow are Rosh Hashanah, it’s unlikely for any REAL experts in the Talmud to come forward until sometime this weekend.
Ed
The debate in question does not involve a complex interpretation of the Talmud, just a plain reading of the Mishnah Sanhedrin, and a contention about whether the Sanhedrin trial as described in the Gospel of Mark would have been legal under Jewish law. I contend that it was not, DrDeth argues otherwise.
My contention is based on the following elements:
Mark’s trial happens at night, at the home of the High Priest, on the Passover, which also happened to be the Sabbath. Jesus is found guilty of “blasphemy” for claiming to be the Messiah and a death sentence is pronounced immediately rather than waiting until the next day as specified in the Mishnah.
It is my position that the above account contains the following violations of law:
A trial at night instead of during the day.
A trial away from the Temple.
A trial on the eve of the Sabbath.
A trial on Passover.
A conviction of blasphemy for a statement that was not blasphemous.
A death sentence passed on the same day as a trial.
DrDeth contends that all of these elements were legal under Jewish law.
I will happily welcome any input from our Jewish scholars after the holidays.
Shalom.
Umm, no. That’s not what I said at all. You said that the trial of Jesus was impossible due to the fact it violates Jewish law. I said that the established experts have no problem at all of accepting the trial happened MORE_OR_LESS as per the Gospels. Thus, your interpretation flies in the face of what the experts say. In fact=the experts don’t even list your Theory as an alternate postition.
It is quite possible the trial violated some sections of the Talmud. Since I am no expert, I don’t know and don’t care. It is also possible that the details of the trial as per the Gospels are incorrect. Since “biblical inerrancy” is not something I have any belief in (heck, I am very doubtful of Jesus being the Messiah…I have only atenuous hope there is a Higher Power and an afterlife of some sort), again, I don’t know and I don’t care.
But what you said that the Trial didn’t happen, and that the fact it violated (per the Gospel story) several aspects of the Law proved that it didn’t happen. That’s what we’re argueing about.
But between (The Trial violated some aspects of the Talmud) and (The Trial didn’t happen) is a HUGE gap.
This gap can easily be filled in by any of four postulates: 1. It did violate violate some sections of the Mishnah, but other Law could be interpreted to make it legal. 2. It did violate some sections of the law as written, but Oral tradition (thanks Jawdirk) was interpreted as allowing it anyway. 3. It did violate some sections of the law, but the Sanhedrin went ahead and did it anyway, as they did in several other documented cases 4. They were able to use Talmudic reasoning to prove their case and make the trial legal, at least in their eyes.
This stuff really belongs in the GD thread. If you are now stating that you weren’t trying to argue that the trial was illegal then I misunderstood you in the GD thread. Whether the illegalities of the Mark’s trial make it sufficiently implausible that it should be regarded as fiction is a matter for debate, though, and not for GQ.
Since it’s still the Sabbath, I wouldn’t expect our resident Jewish scholars to be on the boards until tomorrow (or at least after sundown) but the only question for this thread is the legalities of the trial, not its historicity.
I can get my father (a rabbi) to try and answer your question later tonight, probably.
On this note… I’ve noticed many White Nationalist (nazi) sites “quoting” the talmud, negatively. What I’m wondering, is: Is any of that stuff actually in the talmud? I doubt it… but still am wondering.
http://www.wckkkk.com/talmud/
for an example.
Knowing the SDMB’s history with Stormfront, this should be interesting.
The Talmud is not read as one would expect a typical law book to read. It reads more like the minutes of a rabbinical meeting.
A typical section of Talmud would start with a Mishnah being quoted. One Amora (later Talmudic scholar) will either ask a question on the language of the Mishna, make a comment, bring a Mishna or Braissa (a Tannatic work not included in the Mishna) that contradicts this Mishna. Then each side will stake out it’s opinions, bring proofs, rebuttals, etc. Not always is a conclusion reached. Very often, a proof may be brought from a totally different topic of Jewish law and the text will then go into a 10 page digression to talk about the new topic.
If you didn’t understand half the words I used in the previous paragraph, then you probably don’t have the background to study the Talmud. It is assumed that Talmud students already have some knowledge in Biblical law, as well as an understanding of the rules of biblical exegesis (did I get that word right?). The discussion will often use a code word for a complicated concept and assume that the reader understands what that word means without explaining it at all.
Besides the Jewish law aspect, there are portions of the Talmud (called the agaddah which deal with stories of the Sages or bibilcal characters, but where no explicit laws are learned.
As for the famous “Talmud quotes” many are outright frauds, others are mistranslations and others are accurate quotes taken so out of context as to completely change their meaning. Perhaps the best site I’ve seen that handles these “quotes” is one run by a David Maddison at this site.
Zev Steinhardt
Thanks, been looking for one of those pages for a long time now. Gotta love the dope.
Thanks Zev. ;j
I think that clears that up. DtC- we’re going to have to get an opinion from a Talmudic expert to find out what the Mishnah really says (not to mention the other books of Law). No offense DtC- you’re well read and all, but I have a lot of Jewish freinds, and they fell down laughing at the hubris of a gentile layman trying to use the Talmud to prove a point. None of them were willing to say more than that as they all said THEY weren’t qualified either. ;j
And even when we do, there remains my other points, which as you said- need to be covered in GD. There we both agree.