Zev
Okay, thanks. That makes His next statement in the passage make sense:
“So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” — Mark 2:28
…look who thinks he’s not worthy…
=)
Lib said:
But he was – of Hillel’s school, rather than Shammai(?)'s, based on Chaim’s exegesis above. By the Gospel evidence, He believed in keeping the Law until it was fulfilled by the Messiah, in the radical commitment of self to God they espoused, and, most significantly, he accepted the Resurrection. 
(One key disagreement between Pharisee and Sadducee was on the resurrection; the Pharisees held it would happen on the Day of the Lord; the Sadducees did not believe in it.)
The kind of Pharisee he was not is the one that the Gospel paints the Pharisees as bad guys on account of: the ones who believed in that they were somehow more precious in the eyes of God by their keeping of the law than the ha-aretz(Have I got this right, Chaim?) who constituted the rest of the populace, that the keeping of the Law constituted righteousness before God by itself without devotion to Him, that they should keep themselves separated from the other people as “the only true Jews” – does this description begin to sound like something you’ve heard somewhere before? :rolleyes:
You mean the ones I routinely refer to as “religion politicians”?
Jesus was a Pharisee, and a rabbi*, with essene leanings. But many of the Pharisees were educated city folk, who spoke greek, and JC was a sorta “populist”, from the “country”.
- We have discussed this before, and it is unclear whether JC was a Rabbi, who had been certified, or simply a rabbi, given the title as an honorific. I lean toward the small case “r”.
Thanks to all who clarified my statement about four commandments for which one accepts martyrdom. I was going nuts trying to remember the fourth. Sigh.
Lib, if you’re interested in Jesus as Jew, you might find a group of so-called Messianic Jews to talk to. NOT “Jews for Jesus” which is a Christian group, pure and simple, but a true group of Messianic Jews. They basically try to undo Paul, and go back to the pre-Pauline words of Jesus. Thus, they accept Jesus as Messiah, but they do not believe that his death/resurrection abrogated Mosaic Laws. They keep kosher, have Sabbath on Saturday, follow all of Jewish laws; and at the same time, they celebrate Christmas and Easter, add readings from the New Testament after the Haftorah readings on Saturday morning, etc.
If you can find the rabbi of such a group, who is a reasonable learned individual, you will get an interesting discussion, guaranteed.
Wow, thanks CK! Thank you so much! That is exactly the sort of resource I was looking for. God go with you.
Libertarian:
Okay, I’ve looked it up. First, some corrections from the Tanakh; then the explanations.
I can’t seem to find a reference to David entering the temple and eating holy bread when Abiathar was high priest. Unless there’s something elsewhere in the Tanakh that I’m overlooking, the incident being referred to here is the one recorded in I Samuel 21, where Ahimelech (Abiathar’s father, if I recall correctly) gives consecrated bread to David.
Background on that incident: David had just confirmed that Saul intended to kill him. By secret arrangement with Jonathan, he escaped without Saul’s knowledge. As far as the rest of the kingdom knew, David was Saul’s trusted general, and they got along fine; Saul kept his intentions toward David hidden from everyone (although David and Jonathan managed to figure it out on their own).
David, on the run, came to Ahimelech. He lied and told Ahimelech that he was on an urgent, secret mission for King Saul, and that he had companions awaiting him at his destination. He asked Ahimelech for bread. Ahimelech told him, “I only have holy bread. Are you and your men pure?” David replied that they all were, and Ahimelech gave him the bread.
Now, there are a number of different types of holy bread, which must be eaten in purity, however, most of these can only be eaten by priests. So the question is: what was that “holy bread,” and under what circumstances did Ahimelech give them to David?
Some say that David was indeed in danger of starving, and that’s why he was allowed to eat breads that normally, only priests can eat. However, others question that if this is the case, why did Ahimelech ask whether or not he and his (non-existant) companions were pure? If someone is in danger of starving, he may even eat holy things in impurity. So many, therefore, reject that view.
The main understanding re: the “holy bread” is that it was the showbreads which are placed on the Table in the sanctuary. These breads were baked every Friday, then, after the Sabbath sacrifice, the previous week’s breads were removed from the table, incense was burned, and the bread was then distributed to the priests. (It was miraculously kept fresh for a full week.) In this case, there are two opinions (not counting the one that says David was in danger of starving) as to why he was allowed to eat the bread:
-
The bread Ahimelech referred to was the old breads that were just removed from the Table. However, since the incense was not yet burned, the breads had not yet acquired the level of holiness that forbids them to a non-priest.
-
Some Rabbis disagree with the idea that the breads weren’t forbidden to non-priests until the incense in burned. They say the bread acquires that level of holiness as soon as it is placed into a holy vessel (such as the pans on the Table which held them). According to them, the bread Ahimelech referred to was the new breads that were just baked but not yet placed in their pans on the Table, so they had not yet acquired the sanctity that would have forbidden them to an outsider, but, having been made from holy ingredients, must still be eaten while pure.
Then there is another opinion, that the “holy breads” in question were not the showbreads at all, but rather, were breads that had accompanied a Thanksgiving offering (forty loaves of bread were required to be brought with a thanksgiving offering). These breads are, in fact, permitted to non-priests, but must be eaten in purity.
Polycarp:
Well, I don’t know that Shammai disagreed with Hillel’s statement. Shammai may very well have just been outraged at the non-Jew’s audacity in placing such a condition (that he be taught the Torah while “standing on one foot”) on converting to Judaism, and concluded that he must not have been sincere. Hillel was more willing to accept that the man was sincere in his desire to convert to Judaism.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Chaim
Thank you kindly for going to all that trouble. If you ever ask me a question about the New Testament (for whatever reason, possibly just an occasional intellectual or cultural curiosity), I will spare no effort to get you your answer.
I had understood that Hillel and Shaddai were the leaders of differing interpretations of Torah, growing into the nascent Talmud, at the time they flourished – thanks for the clarification, Chaim. I suppose that’s what I get for listening to Christian teachers! ;j
Sorry, coming into the thread late…
In Hillel’s formulation of the Golden Rule, IIRC there is a crucial added clause that no one has brought up. When asked to explain the Torah standing on one foot, he replied (again IIRC):
Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to others. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn (it).
This last bit is crucial. Just knowing the core principle is insufficient. It is necessary to understand and, presumably, practice, all that additional “commentary”. My principle disagreement with non-halachic streams of Judaism (those that consider the non-“ethical” laws such as kashrut and Shabbat to no longer be binding) is that they tend to dismiss all the “commentary” as archaic and unnecessary. Yes, I know that the Reform movement encourages its members to learn about “ritual” laws and observe those that are personally meaningful to them, but I don’t think that was Hillel’s point at all. And to the extent that Jesus cribbed from Hillel and other traditional Jewish sources, I suspect he didn’t mean it that way either.
Gut Shabbos to all (although I suspect our East Coast Orthodox posters are already on their way home ;j),
Rick