Okies, as I understand the Orthodox POV, the Torah is the written law, as delivered at Sinai. The Talmud is the codification of the Oral Law, also delivered at Sinai.
Awrighty then, why the hell did you guys wait two thousand years to write down the Oral Law?!? Weren’t you afraid of forgetting, or of the possibility of someone along the lines having a really bad stutter? For that matter, why was part of the Law received in oral form, and some in written form?
As always, I humbly await enlightenment. (One thing I love about Judaism is that ** there is always a reason. ** You don’t get any of that “'cause that’s the way it is” crap from Talmudic scholars )
Yes, but you have to realize that the key word here is interpretations. Most of the stuff in the Talmud can be traced back to a source verse in the written Bible. So you certainly can’t call that stuff “non-Biblical.”
sdimbert:
Actually, it was the Saducees, and later, the Karaites. The Pharisees wre the Rabbis of the Mishna and Talmud.
Actually, I’m told that there is a small group of Karaites out there somewhere.
SuaSponte:
Sure those were possible fears…however, what would have been even worse would be if something were remembered wrongly and then written down, since the written word is usually treated with greater authority than the spoken word. The system of teacher-student transmission with comprehensive reasoning and debate served the Jewish people very well. On top of that, there was the attitude that if G-d didn’t write the stuff down, he didn’t want that stuff written down.
Why, then, was it written down at all? Because under the cruelty of Roman domination, there was the serious fear that all capable teachers would be wiped out. As it is, the Romans did manage to wipe out the Jewish community in Palestine and halt the transmission of Rabbinic ordination.
The Written law contains all, but in an extremely concise manner. The Oral law is boundless and new wrinkles to it are constantly found, and new books written. So the most efficient was of giving the Oral Torah was to have it transmitted orally and anything that would be in doubt could be resolved by cross-referencing it with known aspects of the law and the Written Torah. And that, in a nutshell, is what much of the Talmud is.
But again, guys, going by JUST this limited thread, ie an OT religion which follows the OT & as little else as possible, would not the Conservative faction be closer? Or is it somewhere in between? For the sake of this thread we will assume the OT is only the OT, and not the Talmud. Again, I am not saying the Talmud was not handed down at Sinai, or is not as divinely inspired, but it is not the Torah/Prophets etc.
It doesn’t have to be an “OT religion”, just a religion that includes the OT as part of the religious literary work on which it is based (is there a term for that?).
Since all the religions (for the OP) are based on at least the OT, it follows (for me) any additional writings must not contradict the OT. To mix metaphors, I don’t like games that change horses midstream.
The Talmud for example, seems to be a very important component of the Jewish faith. It should therefore be based on the OT, interpreting it, but not contradicting or modifiying instructions therein. Christianity has the NT, so it shouldn’t contradict the OT. Moromons add the TT, so it should be consistent with both the OT and NT.
Of course, the more work that is added, the harder it is to maintain consistency. I’m not questioning the Bible or God, I’m questioning the validity of the claim that religions follow them.
Ah, well, in THAT case, I am afraid that the NT directly “contradicts” the Laws of the OT. That is kinda the whole point of Christianity, you see, that the death of JC freed us from the Law. I am not an expert on the Mormon version, but as they accept the Mercy of JC to release them from the OT law, and then go on their own path from there, they certainly “contradict” the OT as much as the “mainstream” Christian religions.
Altho, IMHO, some Talmudic teachings are a stretch from the direct OT, I cannot think of any that contradict the OT. Based on your “rules” it would have to be a branch of Judaism, or some minor sect some where I am not familiar with, or has very few followers. For EG, there is a sect that follows the OT Laws just as the Jews do, kosher and all, but accept Jesus as the Messiah. Since, the OT does say a Messiah WILL come, you COULD say that a religion that says He has arrived is closer to the OT, but that would all be interpretation. There also could be some karaites ( thanks for the term, cmk) out there (I knew there was A sect that just held to the OT Law, and not the Talmud, but I was unsure if there were many members, or what its current name was, I knew about the Saducees). Now, let our Talmudic experts explain how you go about converting, and I might think that ONE of the rules might make you wince, assuming you are not already “that way”.
What is the difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud and is that one of the reasons they were reluctant to write down oral law?
Going by the OT alone is quite confusing. That’s why we have the Oral tradition that went with it. For example (firing up bibles.net):
**
Duet 6:8 "And thou shalt bind them [these words] for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. "
**
Which words? How should you bind them? Which hand? What the heck are frontlets anyway? Do you put them directly between your eyes?
**
Duet 6:9: “And you shall write them [these words] upon your gates”
**
Which words? Just this sentence? This paragraph? All of Dueteronomy? Should we just take a pen and write them on the gates themselves? Put the words on paper and attach the paper to your gates? Which gates? Only the front door? All the rooms? Only the kitchen?
**
Lev 23:40: "And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. "
**
Clearly talking about the holiday on the 15th day of the seventh month. However:
Which trees are “goodly trees?” Which trees are “thick trees?” How are you to take them? Should you steal them? Buy them? Grow them on your own? And what should you do with them once you’ve taken them?
**
Num 29:1: “And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets unto you.”
**
This is Rosh HaShanna. A holy convocation? Which work is servile? What trumpets? How should we blow them? Should we do so all day long? Should we have a jazz concert?
**
Lev 23:27: "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. "
**
Yom Kippur. Afflict our souls? Should we fast? Should we whip ourselves with chains? Should we sit and watch the Teletubbies for ten hours straight (boy, talk about affliction!!)?
There are two more I should point out. We know that “work” is prohibited on the Sabbath. However, outside of lighting a fire and gathering wood, no definition of work is given. Which work is forbidden? This was covered at length in another thread.
In another place (I’m sorry, I don’t have the verse handy at the moment), we are told to slaughter meat “…as I have commanded you.” Yet, there is no other verse that gives us this commandment.
There are many other examples of this type of ambiguity in the commandments of the OT.
The point of all this is that without the Oral Tradition, following the OT alone can be quite confusing. Thus, you can’t follow the OT itself, with no modifications. It’s impossible.
zev, I know that & agree, that is why there are so few successors to the Saducees. Altho they managed, somehow. It is simply not practical. I was trying for a hypothetical case, but with his new explanation, my point is no longer as critical. As far as I know, the Talmud does not directly contradict the OT, save where the OT contradicts itself, eg mainly when older sections are updated with new. (eg, the Temple & sacrifices).
Closer? I don’t believe so. Probably CKDextHavn is the best one to verify the accuracy of the statement I’m making here, but it’s my understanding that the Conservative movement believes that modern “advances” in societal ethics and situations can override the Torah.
carnivorousplant:
The Babylonian Talmud was worked on for about two and a half centuries longer than the Jerusalem one (due to Roman persecution, which did not affect Babylonia), and is therefore considered more authoritative when the two conflict. However, the methodologies and framework of the two are pretty similar.
Here is some information on Conservative Judaism.
I hadn’t known that Rabbi Feinstein had declared any Rabbi calling himself Reform or Conservative was heretical and that their marriages and conversions were void. I’m in trouble. The Lubavitch Rabbi said I was Kosher, but then that was at Purim. ;j
Unitarian Universalist checking in. Do I need to start an “Ask the UU!” thread for you people? Sheesh. We may be liberal and open-minded, but we’re not NuAge hippies who just sit around and say, “That’s cool!” to each other all day. :rolleyes:
Astroglide and others, I’d be happy to give you more details of what it’s like to be UU. If you want to check out the official party line, it’s http://www.uu.org.
Wait a minute. Are you the same as Unitarians? My step-sister is a unitarian and we have bets each xmas whether the preacher will mention Jesus or not in her sermon. Maybe you should start a thread.
uu.org seems to be down right now, but I’ll check it out and have some questions I promise.
I apologize for unintentionally slighting your personal faith; however in my mind, and certainly for the purposes of the OP, UU does not constitute a “religion.”
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, either.
A crude summary of Judeo-Christian belief could perhaps be: the laws of God and how to follow them are outlined for us in our Bible. To my mind, a religion does not allow an individual to determine which of those laws are applicable. That is why I called UU a “non-religion.” And again, I don’t think that’s an insult.
Again, thanks for everyone’s input, I’m reading up like a madman!
Although the Unitarian and Universalist churches joined in 1961 to become UUism, there are still individual Unitarian and Universalist churches in the country; my understanding, however, is that they are all members of the Unitarian Universalist Association in Boston.
My ministers have all taken the tack that they will talk about whatever religion happens to be celebrating whatever holiday it is, but she saves the real “Bible sermon” for the Christmas Eve service, as there are lots of people that celebrate Christmas in a more secular way.
Astroglide wrote:
Thank you, and I realize your intent was not to malign my church, but we are, indeed, a religion, albeit a very non-traditional one. (And, perhaps, as you point out, we may have little to do with the OP, but we do recognize the Bible as a valid religious text, and use it often enough as such, so maybe it’s not so OT after all.)
The quote you took was, IMO, taken a wee bit out of context. Yes, we believe that individual beliefs are of great importance, even so much as to say we don’t have a “list of rules” to follow in order to be a good UU. However, that doesn’t mean we run amok without any rules or moral or spiritual guidance whatsoever.
To me, being a UU means exploring what other religions and belief systems have to offer, and that well includes Christianity. I have the opportunity to learn about, be educated by, and be spiritually enriched by a wide variety of faiths simply by being exposed to them on Sunday mornings. In the end, yes, it’s up to the individual to determine what path he or she will follow in life, but along the way we get to discuss, debate, even argue about what is “truth” and what isn’t.
I will also humbly submit we have strong Humanist leanings, but our spirituality is not compromised by this.
You might want to read the UU Purposes & Principles rather than the essay you quoted:
There is a difference, IMHO, between a “free faith” and a “non-religion.”
)