But how about marriages, funerals, bar mitza’s & etc ? I have seen Rabbis officiating at marriages. I know Rabbis (& Cantors) are considered legally clergy. Is it the terminology “priest” that is the problem?
But as to my other point, are there not respected Rabbis, whose followers have made claims the Rabbi was the Messiah? What is thought of them ( the Rabbi’s and the followers)? Are they still Jewish? Is the Rabbi’s wisdom still venerated? How far have they gone?
Leo Rosten, in his The Joys of Yiddish, listed the following names as deriving from kohan:
Cohen
Cohn
Cahn
Kahn
Kagen
Cahana
Echt
Katz (from the initials of kohen tzedek, priest of Israel)
He adds that some people include Köhne in the list,
some people add Schiff (meaning ship, a pun on Kahn, German for boat) and Bloch (for which Rosten gives no reason).
He notes that there is no known etymological link between Cohen and the Irish Cohan/Cohane, then goes on to add
A Bar Mitzvah is not at all like a sacrement, which must be administered by a priest.
“Bar Mitzvah” literally means “son of the commandment.” When a boy turns 13, he is Halachicly considered an adult. Period. It is customary for a boy, upon becoming a Bar Mitzvah to lead the prayer services and/or read from the Torah. There is often a party/celebration as well. There is, however, no official ceremony requiring a Rabbi.
Same for a funeral. No official Rabbi is needed.
As for a wedding, a wedding can be done without a Rabbi as well. All that is really needed is a bride, groom and proper witnesses. In practice, however, the marriage laws can be complex and it is universal practice to have a Rabbi on hand to make sure it is done properly. Aside from supervising, however, there is nothing that can’t be done by anyone else.
So far, every claim to being the messiah has been proven wrong. Rabbi Akiva (one of the most revered Rabbis in Jewish history) thought that Bar Kochba was the messiah. However, upon his (Bar Kochba’s) death, he realized he was wrong and abandoned that view.
Shabbatai Tzvi had many followers. They all left him when he converted to Islam.
Many people in Lubavitch thought that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was the messiah. After his death, the majority of them realized that they were wrong. I believe that as time passes, the few that still cling to this (IMHO erroneous) belief will change their opinions as well. They are, however, still Jewish.
Zev Steinhardt
To prove the point: I am not a Rabbi, but I am the regualar Torah-reader in my synagouge.
Zev Steinhardt
IzzyR:
I don’t have any sort of halachic quote, but I’ll give you two historical examples: If I recall correctly, construction of the second Temple was not begun until most of the people were purified through the Red heifer; and of course, on Chanukkah, the Macabees could not make more oil for the menorah until after they had been properly purified…hence the need for that small flask to burn eight days, seven days to be purified and one to make the new oil. Granted, that does not refer to a new Temple or new Altar, but I’d think that if it’s necessary for new oil, it’s certainly necessary for a new structure.
Good point. I thought you were coming at that one from the impurity angle.
CKDextHavn:
All I can say is, I’m shocked. But I’m willing to bet his opinion is in the minority rather than the majority.
Well, I should preface my comments by saying that prayer such as we know it today did exist in the time of the Temple and the sacrifices (although some of the liturgy took different forms; then, it was intended to be complementary to sacrifice, not a complete substitute for it). So even if sacrifices were to be re-instituted, prayer would not be abolished.
Would I be happy with it? Why in the world wouldn’t I be? I mean, am I supposed to feel squeamish about the slaughter of animals? I eat meat almost every day. On the other hand, the Torah clearly indicates that the sacrifices are the primary means of supplication, thanks and atonement, and that prayer is only a substitute. Why would I not be happy with having the genuine item available to me?
Danielinthewolvesden:
Thanks for the quotes from the New Testament. I guess this means one of two things: the non-Pharasaic sects of Judaism did indeed confer some form of ordination (something I did not previously know), or the writers of the Gospels used that term for him out of respect, disdaining the Pharasaic definition of the term.
There have been a few false Messiahs in the past. Probably the most famous ones other than JC were Shabbatai Zvi, a 17th-century fellow, and Jacob Frank, who had a somewhat smaller following, in the 18th century.
Messianism wouldn’t in and of itself render a “Rabbi’s” status invalid, but certainly apostacy and heresy would. This is where Jews would draw the line in continuing to maintain respect for a Rabbi’s (or former Rabbi’s) teachings.
But you are right that clearly there were some who considered JC a “Rabbi” of sorts.
It usually does, but not necessarily. In fact, my own Rebbe’s last name is Cohen but he is not a Kohen. Nonetheless, he is the exception rather than the rule; I’d say probably 80-90% of "Cohen"s do have the Kohen ancestry.
And a Kohen can certainly receive ordination. Examples of this are the Chofetz Chaim/Rabbi Kagan (mentioned earlier in this and other threads), and my own Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi Chanoch Henoch Leibowitz (may he live and be well).
As for their “officiating” role, it’s mainly becuase their scolarship and ordination have earned them the respect of the families involved in the ceremonies, and as a token of that respect, they are asked to officiate. Anyone can perform the rituals involved in a marriage or funeral, and in fact, there isn’t any religiously-required ceremony at a Bar Mitzvah.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Danielinthewolvesden,
yes, I think it’s the term “priest” that is the problem; you seem to be using it to mean “the leader of a religious congregation.” That is not it’s meaning, certainly not in Christianity, and based on the posts here, not in Judaism either.
“Priest” referers to a person charged with sacerdoatal functions, particularly the offering of sacrifices and mediating between God and humanity. Prior to the fall of the Temple, Judaism had priests that matched this description, but has not had them since. From the comments already posted, the modern rabbi has no sacerdotal functions; the rabbi’s standing comes from his learning.
Similarly in Christianity, the term “priest” is only used in those branches that emphasise the sacerdotal elements of Christianity: Roman Catholicism and Orthodox for example, where the sacraments of communion and absolution (the priest passing on God’s forgiveness to sinner) are key elements of the theology.
Reformed churches that emphasise the “priesthood of all believers” and do not agree that penance is a sacrament tend not to use the term “priest,” because it does not express their doctrine. Instead, they use “minister” or “pastor.”
And, in some of the really reformed protestant groups (e.g. - Quakers, Doukobors), there is no minister and the congregation functions similarly to the descriptions of Jewish congregations posted here: any member of the congregation can lead the congregation in prayer, there is no clergy-person who conducts the marriage, leaders are respected for their faith/learning, and so on.
As usual, Anglicanism does not fit neatly into these categories - the terms “priest” and “minster” are both used, depending on the theological/sacramental leanings of the particular congregation or diocese.
But Oye, could he sing a tune !!!
Ok, I see where the term “priest” is confusing everyone. I mean “legally ordained minister” as in one who has the legal authority to perform marriages, etc, and is generally considered a religous leader.
There is also a section in Acts, where Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel*) stands up to defend JC (then dead) and his teachings, and seems to recgonize JC as a legitimate religous leader, and basicly says -leave them alone, if they are false they will dwindle away, and if true we should not impede them. And Nicodemus, one of the leaders of the Pharisees, also called JC “Rabbi”, so perhaps JC was an “ordained” rabbi, but one from the backwoods, instead of the temple.
Then would not those sects of otherwise Observant Jews, who hold on to all that is Jewish- EXCEPT they consider JC the Messiah- still be Jews?
And with the number of Jews now in the world, would not sacrificing for them all be utterly impractical, unless they increase the # of those who benefit from a single sacrifice from (I believe) 20 (or so) to hundreds or thousands?
- who was also thought to have been the Messiah, but as so often happens, died.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Well, anyone who was born Jewish is considered JEwish all his life, no matter what he believes.
Would they still be observing Judaism? Probably. However, they would also be heretics (at least by Maimonides’ definition, which is, for most contemporary rabbinic authorities the main voice regarding matters of belief and of the Messiah), since once someone dies, that disqualifies him from being the Messiah. Historical precedent supports this, and there is no Old Testament source that in any way implies a “Second Coming.”
Not everybody needs to bring a sacrifice for himself every day. There are communal sacrifices brought every day, but these are one sacrifice for the entire Jewish people. With the exception of the Paschal lamb on the day before Passover, there is no one day on which huge numbers of people are required to each bring their own sacrifices. And in the case of the Paschal lamb, the Rabbis and priests back then worked out a system to make the sacrificing efficient enough so that they could fit in all the lambs. Granted, the number of Jews today is larger than it was back then, but I imagine that with modern management techniques and some application of modern technology (where the Rabbis deem it permissible), the numbers will be able to be accommodated. (hmmm…maybe I should cybersquat on esacrifice.com?)
Chaim Mattis Keller
One thing to keep in mind when referring to titles in the New Testament is that these works were not originally written in English or Hebrew, but (mostly?) in Greek. Thus the titles quoted by danielinthewolvesden are English equivalents to Greek equivalents to the originals. I’m not sure how much to make of this.
cmkeller writes:
“However, they would also be heretics (at least by Maimonides’ definition, which is, for most contemporary rabbinic authorities the main voice regarding matters of belief and of the Messiah), since once someone dies, that disqualifies him from being the Messiah.”
I don’t think this is clear-cut. Even if their belief is not part of the accepted Jewish belief I don’t know of a source for this to be considered heresy. And in any event, there is an opinion cited in the Talmud that the messianic prophesies referred to Hezkiah, a (long deceased) king of Judah.
IzzyR:
I’ll take a closer look, but it seemed to me that Maimonides considered this central to the definition, and therefore, belief in, the Messiah.
I thought that stuff was saying that Hezekiah would have been worthy of being the Messiah, except that he didn’t manage to do the job, not that he’d have a “second coming” of sorts.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Of course, Maimonedes is writing in about 13th Century (IIRC), and some of what he writes is clearly to set Judaism apart from Christianity (and in reaction to Christianity). So I’m not sure that we could hold EARLIER situations up to Maimonedes standard, if I’m understanding you correctly.
The main point behind all this priest/rabbi stuff is that, following the destruction of the Temple, EVERY Jew becomes a symbolic priest, and the Sabbath table the symbolic altar for sacrifice.
cmkeller: “I thought that stuff was saying that Hezekiah would have been worthy of being the Messiah, except that he didn’t manage to do the job, not that he’d have a “second coming” of sorts.”
What he was saying was that the messiah has already come, and that it was Hezekiah. (His statement begins “the Jews (will) have no messiah…”). This is parallel to the belief suggested by danielinthewolvesden.
Note that this position was dismissed outright by the Talmud. I am merely suggested that it might not be heresy.
To CKDextHavn:
The idea that Maimonedes invented his list of Prinpiples of the Jewish faith in order to set Judaism apart from Christianity is not at all “clear”. To say that he did this is to say that he was a phony, having claimed special significance for these articles of faith that he knew did not actually exist. There was much discussion, in the hundreds of years that followed Maimonedes, as to whether his principles acurately reflected the 13 articles of faith (or in fact whether there were any specific articles that could be singled out as being more central than any other), but the position of Maimonedes was always taken at face value, and not dismissed as a reaction to some other religion.
BTW, Maimonedes lived his entire life in Moslem countries (12th century Spain and then Egypt), and (to my knowledge) had little or no direct contact with Christianity.
The “table” (not specificaly the Sabbath table) is but one of many activities which have been likened to sacrifices, if performed with the proper intentions. None were intended to supplant the real thing.
“Direct” contact? Possibly not. But he clearly dealt with Christianity issues for Jews in Christian countries, and specifically addressed the folly of Christian Messianism in his writings. Check out the Moznaim Publishing edition of Rambam’s Hilchos Melachim.
Chaim Mattis Keller
“specifically addressed the folly of Christian Messianism in his writings”
Addressed, yes. Formulated his philosophy in response response to, no. Accusations of foreign influence on Maimonedes, then and since, concerned Aristotlarian philosophy, which was, in his day, much in vogue in the Moslem world.
Granted, IzzyR. Note the quote of yours I was responding to.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Stripped to its essence, the overriding argument agin JC being The Man is that he died, and, as cmkeller said elsewhere in his post, Jewish tradition and prophecy does not allow for a Second Coming. Putting aside the (alleged) death, (alleged) resurrection, and the (purported) Second Coming, and his (alleged) statements on the same, was JC an apostate or a heretic? I’ve read somewhere that the founders of Reform Judaism were in many ways trying to establish the faith OF JC, but not faith IN JC.
V.
To answer that you would have to know exactly what he himself said/believed, as distinct from beliefs that his followers had concerning him.
SuaSponte:
Not quite. The founders of Reform Judaism were trying to create a religion with Christian trappings without Christian beliefs. The main reason was to present a more urbane appearance to their German neighbors.
That’s what it appears to me that they were trying to do, but I’m open to hearing the interpretation of others, with a more charitable view of that movement’s founders, on the subject…
Chaim Mattis Keller