Hey, this is off topic but it is the only Jewish thread I could find here.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050900sci-genetics-jews.html
In terms of what may seem like a large number of laws in Judaism (613 is the traditional count), there are two things to bear in mind:
-
The laws were not only rules for individual behaviours, but also include the rules that the Israelites in the wilderness were to use to establish a just society once they reached the Promised Land. Think for a minute about the number of laws that your state has regarding something as simple as automobiles, and the 613 doesn’t seem overly oppressive.
-
Many of the 613 laws are not practiced today. A large number of them refer to the era of sacrifices in the Temple, for example. Others were discarded over the centuries for a variety of reasons/pretexts, such as the seventh year being a sabbath for the land, with the land lying fallow.
Actually, CDext, the “seventh year” law is still observed by many farmers in Israel.
However, to add to your comments, some laws only apply at certain times (no leavened bread, for example, only applies on Passover). Certain mitzvos also only apply to certain people (for example, the prohibition of coming into contact with the dead only applies to a Kohen [a priest]). Others only apply to men or only to women. The numbers of laws that are incumbent upon everyone at every time is actually very small.
Zev Steinhardt
Frist things first: Referring to my first response post, the chapter which describes the parameters of “murder” is Numbers 35.
Onto other things…
Gaudere:
It does refer specifically to a courtroom situation. It doesn’t, on the other hand, restrict itself to “harmful” lies. It means to not act as a witness for any act that you have not truly witnessed.
gesh:
As said above, this phrase is interpreted to mean, “Anything that is hateful to you, do not do to others.” In fact, it is permissible to not like someone…provided there’s good reason, and provided you make your feelings known (as opposed to pretending to be his friend in public, but hating him in private).
Not really. The Ten Commandments themselves are too concisely written to rpovide any serious guidance…without the rest of the Torah and the Oral Tradition to fill in the details, it’s so open to interpretation that two people claiming to adhere to them could be doing things completely differently.
Leah Channah:
Traditional (or Orthodox) Jews adhere to the oral traditions as well.
Orthodox Judaism does as well. A woman can pray with a set minyan if she wishes to. However, Orthodox Judaism holds that only one who is obligated (not optionally) to obey a certain commandment may perform it on behalf of others…hence the lack of female cantors (for example) in Orthodox practice.
jab1:
The Torah, however, does demand that someone accidentally causing the death of another be exiled to a “city of refuge” for a certain period of time. It is important that the loss of human life be taken seriously, and allowing such a loss to go completely unpunished would undermine that in a society. However, such a person is not called a “murderer.”
Who says it did? This thread was in response to someone in a different thread who claimed that belief in capital punsihment is inconsistent with “thou shalt not kill,” that’s all.
Or JC, or Muhammad, or Buddha. Or, for that matter, Homer, Aristotle, Plato or Socrates.
We have writings attributed to all of the above, and traditions (by those who trust the veracity of the writings), but no other evidence…pointless to single out Moses.
Chaim Mattis Keller
"Or JC, or Muhammad, or Buddha. Or, for that matter, Homer, Aristotle, Plato or Socrates.
We have writings attributed to all of the above, and traditions (by those who trust the veracity of the
writings), but no other evidence…pointless to single out Moses."
However most of the above can be cross referenced by historical sources of one kind or another. Moses is a good example - the name is not Hebrew or Jewish and is never used again in the bible. It is a good Egyptian name and does occur in their writings. The midwife or midwives who attended to Moses have good Egyptian names, non-Jewish and non-Hebrew names that don’t occur again in the bible. This is a whole specialty of research and study done by a large mixed group of archaeologists, orientalists, linguisticists (What?) from many religions and colleges or universities.
G. Ernest Wright,
George E. Mendenhall,
John Bright,
Frank M. Cross, Jr.
David Noel Freedman,
William Foxwell Albright,
E. A. Speiser
to name a few.
I doubt CM Keller is familiar with these works, his belief system does’t need it. But, to those of us who do, the sources are out there, usually at local libraries and some are on the internet as well.
To say that Moses never existed - well, that’s quite a leap.
And I’m not too sure about this either: “The people had probably been asking the priests over and over where the laws came from and this was the story they cooked up, borrowing a few details from the legends of King Sargon, who also is supposed to have been…”
I can’t think of one in the OT (faulty connections) but Stephen said one in the NT in Acts: 7:1-54, a very elongated and pro-Christian version but there are several shorter versions in the OT. The point being that the traditions were very old.
Orthodox Judaism does as well. A woman can pray with a set minyan if she wishes to. However, Orthodox Judaism holds that only one who is obligated (not optionally) to obey a certain commandment may perform it on behalf of others…hence the lack of female cantors (for example) in Orthodox practice. - cmkeller*
Toda rabbah, for responding, Chiam. I’d love to find an Orthodox congregation that allows women to pray and be counted as part of a minyon, who would be encouraged to wear tallit and kippah, and to chant Torah for the entire congregation on Shabbat morning.
Sorry other readers. This is tangental to the original question. Or maybe not. shrug
Hm. I am surprised to hear you say that. I thought that there were no women cantors because of the prohibition for men to hear a woman’s singing voice - the reason that my college Jewish singing group got little support from the Orthodox community despite being Shomer Shabbas, and the reason said singing group could not perform (informally) at the wedding of a member.
Don't think that I quarrel with what you have said, I am sure you know Orthodox customs better than I do. Having said that: I assume you mean that a woman could read Torah only in an all-woman service. Or were you not speaking of reading Torah at all? If you really meant that a woman could chant Torah, count as part of a Minyan, or lead prayers in a mixed-gender service (separated by a proper mechizah of course,) then I am very happily (and gratifyingly) surprised.Hold on. This is starting to get out of hand. Let’s set the matter straight.
A woman can lead a prayer group of women. She cannot do so for men. The reason is because a person can only fulfill an obligation for others when they, themselves, have that same obligation.
Because women do not have the same obligation that men do to pray, read the Torah, etc., therefore women cannot do so for men. On the other hand, since women, for example, have the same obligation to make blessings on food that men have, I can listen to my wife make a blessing and fulfill my obligation through her.
Zev Steinhardt
Iolanthe:
Women are permitted to learn Torah for their own purposes (including an all-female group) any time they want. However, they would not be able to do so for a Minyan containing males because males are obligated to learn Torah, whereas for women, it’s optional. The Torah reader in a minyan is just another type of cantor - his job is to fulfill the congregation’s obligation on their behalf (cantor for prayer, Torah reader for, obviously, Torah). However, one who is not obligated cannot fulfill the obligation of one who is.
If the cantorial service includes singing, then the issue of the women’s singing voice comes into play as well, but it need not be sung…leading the prayers can be spoken unmusically.
Again, they can’t do it, because a minyan is required only for certain prayers (such as Kedusha, Borchu and Kaddish) that a woman is not obligated to perform. Only those who are obligated can compose the requirements necessary for others’ obligations.
That’s the source of the Orthodox rules regarding such things.
Chaim Mattis Keller
What Leah Channah said: << Traditional Jews still live by the written law. Conservative Jews add the oral traditions to the written law and make some adjustments for the technology and lifestyle offered by modern times. >>
I suspect a misplaced phrase, I think what she meant to say was: << Traditional Jews (whether Orthodox or Conservative) still live by the written law and the oral traditions added to the written law. Conservative Jews make more adjustments for the technology and lifestyle offered by modern times. >>
My main comment on the 613 commandments was not that some are no longer observed (no blue threads in the tallit, for instance). That was a side comment, and I apologize if I was unclear. My main point was that the laws were intended to be both a guide for individual behaviour, and the laws of a just society. As a legal code, they’re remarkable few laws.
Thus, one sees “hairsplitting” regarding the laws. What does the prohibition against murder mean when it’s a case of self-defense? Etc. This hairsplitting often seems strange to Christians; and I suggest thinking of it in the context of a legal system, where the societal laws must cover all the possibilities.
Just as another side comment, comparing to Christianity, which says to render unto Caesar the things that are salad dressings: Christianity is aimed at individual salvation, even in a wicked society, and so there are very few rules for being a good Christian. Judaism is aimed at creating a just society, and so there are lots of rules about what that means.
Okay, I want to take back some of what I wrote earlier.
It’s certainly possible there was a Moses. But I have to wonder if maybe he was really an Egyptian and not Hebrew, that the story of his mother setting him adrift and being found by the royal family was added later. Why? People are more likely to trust and follow one of their own than a foreigner. (We see this in our own constitution, which says a President must be a native-born American citizen.) By telling people Moses was really Hebrew and not Egyptian, the people were more willing to accept him as a great patriarch. The legend of Sargon I being cast adrift dates back to about 2300 BCE, well before the Babylonian Captivity of 700 BCE, which is when most scholars believe the Torah and the OT was finally written down.
Why would an Egyptian prince want to free Hebrew slaves? Maybe he realized that slavery was wrong. Maybe he loved one of them and became sympathetic to her and to her people. Maybe he had long, passionate discussions with a stubborn Pharaoh over this and finally realized the only way they would ever be free was to get them out of Egypt.
Perhaps the plagues are also legendary or perhaps they really happened, but they had some natural cause. Some archaeologists have seriously suggested that the volcano Thera on the island of Santorini erupted at this time and that many (but not all) of the plagues could have been caused by this eruption and Moses saw the resulting chaos as a golden, perhaps heaven-sent opportunity to head for Sinai. (No, I don’t think a volcano would have killed the first-born of Egypt and spared everyone else. That part is myth or legend.)
jois:
I have to question these statements. First of all, very few names are used by more than one person in the Bible. Moses doesn’t stand out amongst them any more than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron or David for that matter.
As for Moses being an Egyptian name, this is a bit fishy as well. I recall hearing that “-mose” is a common Egyptian name-suffix. However, “Moses” is a Latinization of the Hebrew “Moshe.” And the Hebrew etymology for the name is provided in the Bible, containing genuine Hebrew words. To speculate (without a shred of evidence) that “Moshe” is itself a Hebraization of an Egyptian word sounding more like “-mose” and based on that to conclude that the Hebrew explanation given for the name was made up after the fact is a serious stretch.
jab1:
But Moses didn’t need to be accepted by Jews of Babylonian times; he needed to be accepted by Jews of his time. If the story was, in large part, made up to appeal to a different audience, why bother with even mentioning most of the stuff that got written down…the slavery, the Golden Calf, the incident of the spies…none of these are complimentary to the Jews’ ancestors.
I can’t speak of the chronology of the Sargon story, but the chronology of Judaic history you wrote is off. Secular historians believe that the Babylonian exile occurred in 586 BCE. Traditional history states that it occurred in 422 BCE.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Clarification. Thank you Zev and Chaim (and Shabbat Shalom.)
Was it Freud who came up with the notion that Moses was Egyptian?
Sam Stone wrote:
You’re talking about Luke 2:14 here, right?