posted
I learned a lot and totally enjoyed the last two pages. If I knew which ones you wanted me to erase I could do that. This really helped me understand a whole lot more about Jewish beliefs.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got a question. My understanding is that rabbinical tradition starts a few decades after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Did people who self identified, or would have been known by the rest of Jewish society as rabbis exist prior to the destruction of the temple? If so, were rabbis a coherent group prior to the temple's destruction?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term "rabbi" was less common prior to that (though not non-existent). But it's a matter of nomenclature. One of the most famous rabbis, for example, was Hillel the Elder. The one who stated: "What is hateful to you, don't do you your friend". And he didn't have the title "rabbi". Not because he wasn't entitled to it; it would have been like calling Albert Einstein "Mr. Einstein".
Rabbinical tradition begins... well, really it begins at Creation, with some law and lore having been given to Adam by God, and passed down through the generations. But usually, we think more of Sinai.
We refer to Moses as "Moshe Rabbenu", which is Hebrew for Moses, our Rabbi. He was really the first rabbi, although, as in the case of Hillel the Elder (only more so), he didn't carry that title.
The authority God gave to Moses was passed from Moses to Joshua, to the Elders during the time of the Judges, to the Prophets. Ezra, for example, was a disciple of Baruch son of Neriah, who was a disciple of Jeremiah, who was a disciple of Zephaniah, who was a disciple of Nahum, who was a disciple of Joel, then Micah, then Isaiah, and so on, all the way back. From Ezra, it continued through Simeon the Just, Antigonus of Socho, and then five pairs of Sages (called "The Pairs), the fifth of whom were Hillel the Elder and Shammai.
These were all rabbis, despite the fact that the title wasn't used. They all fulfilled the same function in the chain of transmission of God's Torah. The Prophets did more than that, of course.
The Sages after that were known to later generations as Tannaim. They carried the title "Rabbi". One of these, a descendent of Hillel, was Rabbi Judah the Prince, who compiled the Mishnah, a codification of elements of the Oral Torah. The Sages after this time (around 230 CE) were called the Amoraim.
When the Romans made it punishable by death to confer rabbinic authority in the traditional way, the title "Rabbi" was restricted to those who had been so ordained. This type of ordination could also only be given in Israel, so those Sages living in Babylon, as well as those who couldn't be ordained properly because of Roman persecutions, were given the title "Rav", instead. A shortened form of "Rabbi".
The Second Temple was destroyed during the Tannaitic period, and there were definitely rabbis who were called by that title living at the time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Note: I don't agree with all the absolute dates given in these pages.)
(Further note: the second link shows a rabbi who lived in the early 1900s, who could trace his Torah "lineage" back 130 "generations" to the day God gave the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai. He's only one rabbi who can do that; it's not at all uncommon.)
posted
Some Orthodox Jews have said Reform Rabbis and authorities in general flat out lie to their congregants? Do they mean it is with malicious intent? As in some Reform authorities actually know better? Or is it the Orthodox view that lies are just being spread based on misinterpretation?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephan, in general, I don't think most Reform rabbis know any better. There are rare cases of Reform rabbis who were originally Orthodox, but basically apostasized. A friend of mine grew up in Kansas City, and knew a man like that.
A couple of years ago, I went to some talks given by Rabbi Neil Gilman, from the Jewish Theological Seminary. That's the Conservative movement's seminary. He's on the faculty there, and he's written books, and so on. He'd been invited for a weekend to this Conservative synagogue. Not really a synagogue, because it's not that formal, and it's very hands-on. Not the spectator sport that most Conservative synagogues (and Reform temples) tend to be.
He didn't know what hit him. And these are people who have a severely flawed imagine of how Judaism works, and they still knew enough to tie Gilman in knots.
Is Gilman malicious? By no means. He's lost. I felt so sad for him. It was clear that he was stuck between what he knew and what he wanted to be true, and at his age (he's in his 60s, I think), he's just in too far.
Last year, he came out with a proclamation that the Conservative movement should be honest and stop claiming to be bound by Jewish law. I was actually kind of proud of him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sL, I liked your answer to Noemon's question.
Theaca, I'm glad it was helpful to you. And I'm not asking for anything to be edited, although I appreciate the offer.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are rare cases of Reform rabbis who were originally Orthodox, but basically apostasized. A friend of mine grew up in Kansas City, and knew a man like that.
I know one or two as well. But I agree, they are definitely in the minority.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A couple of years ago, I went to some talks given by Rabbi Neil Gilman, from the Jewish Theological Seminary. That's the Conservative movement's seminary. He's on the faculty there, and he's written books, and so on. He'd been invited for a weekend to this Conservative synagogue. Not really a synagogue, because it's not that formal, and it's very hands-on. Not the spectator sport that most Conservative synagogues (and Reform temples) tend to be.
He didn't know what hit him. And these are people who have a severely flawed imagine of how Judaism works, and they still knew enough to tie Gilman in knots.
Is Gilman malicious? By no means. He's lost. I felt so sad for him. It was clear that he was stuck between what he knew and what he wanted to be true, and at his age (he's in his 60s, I think), he's just in too far.
Last year, he came out with a proclamation that the Conservative movement should be honest and stop claiming to be bound by Jewish law. I was actually kind of proud of him.
It so happens that I have attended many services and events at JTS, being Conservative and having gone to Columbia. I have also attended Conservative shuls in 5 states. I don't feel qualified to comment on what most shuls (Conservative, Reform, or Orthodox) are like, but it seems to me that you and I have had vastly different experiences. I have never been to a Conservative shul where I felt like a spectator, rather than a participant, and I'm also shocked that Rabbi Gilman would say something like that. I am not proud of that statement and I don't agree with it at all.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a good index, or topical guide available for the Talmud? Reading through the (fantastic) Shottenstein edition of Berachos, I realized that while it did have a Scripture Reference index, it didn't have any other sort of topical guide or index.
Are there any good hard-copy indeces you could recommend?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know of any hard-copy ones. I've never actually heard of such a thing before. But here's one called WebShas that sounds pretty useful, even if it's online. It may not be complete yet, however.
I believe the Soncino English translation of the Talmud has a subject index in it, actually. But I don't know if you can get that separately.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to put some Tehillim up in Aerin's room, but I'm not sure which would be the most appropriate. We already have the Shir Hamalos in her bassinet and stroller and swings. What do y'all think?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some common ones to put up: Psalm 1 (because she is in her first year); whichever one contains her name-verse (if you know it -- if not I can try to find a list); and the verses from 119 that correspond to the letters of her name.
There are dozens that are commonly recited when praying for health; you might pick one or more of those.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
121 - it's a Lubavitch custom (as far as I know) and I spent a lot of time growing up with close family friends who are Lubavitch. My mother wanted me to put red ribbons everywhere and this was my compromise. We said it every day Aerin was in the hospital.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read something explaining the inclusion and the exclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the Christian Old Testament. The argument for inclusion is that they were in the Torah at the time of Christ, and the exclusion because they were apparently removed from the Torah around 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. I was wondering if anyone knows why the books were removed.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: Sela Shoshana. Sela is samech lamed ayin.
Trouble is, that combination (beginning with a samech and ending with an ayin) is not common. (Actually, that's a very odd spelling of selah altogether.) My Artscroll siddur doesn't have that as an option . . . and I'm not seeing any in a quick skim of the first 20 chapters.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The books are Baruch, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees I and II, Judith, and Esdras, I believe. And all I know about this council is what this says.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those books are not part of the TaNaCh because they lack direct divine inspiration. And probably the reason I never heard of this council before is some guy made it up in the late 1800s.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one book there is some debate about is Ben Sirach. It's actually refererenced in the Gemara once or twice as part of Ketuvim. That view didn't prevail, however.
(Edited: Ben Sirach is better known as Ben Sira, or Ecclesiasticus.)
Yes, actually. I never thought about it - she's named after Andrew's aunt (mother's sister). No one knew her Hebrew name (his family is pretty secular) and her English name was Stephanie. However, Andrew's father's name is Steven, so we had to pick something different. I looked at a list of names that start with samech and I liked Sela the best. Shoshana is after Andrew's paternal grandfather, so we got both sides covered.
The next one will be named for my family.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be okay to just do verses, rather than the whole chapter? I'm not sure what, if anything, is customary.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that much is, except perhaps among Lubavitchers. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with using verses. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My question:
Many of these rules seem insanely strict and wholly arbitrary. What's the point?
I'm not an expert, not yet, but I did some research for a term paper ("The Importance of Memory in Jewish culture"). Most rules that seem to be arbitrary today, used to be very sensible in ancient times. For example that they are not allowed to eat pork. In hot countries (and without refrigerators) it was pretty dangerous to eat pork meat because it was known to perish very fast. People could get sick and die. It's a bit like the thing with the holy cows in India. They became holy because a living cow is more useful for people who are nearly starving. It can give you milk as long as it lives, which is better than having meat for only a few days.
In both cases, it was a matter of survival to stick to those rules. The biological survival of the people AND the survival of the Jewish religion and culture itself. I think, a lot of rules also derived from the need to protect their religion and culture whilst being surrounded by Gentiles in most of the countries where you can find Jewish communities. A matter of assimilation without getting 'swallowed' by the majority.
Certainly, there's a lot of tradition, too. I mean, Catholics, in contrast to other Christian movements, are commanded to eat fish on Fridays, although there doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for this rule but tradition.
The more I find out about the aspects of Jewish life, the more I'm convinced that Judaism is a very SENSIBLE religion.
I really appreciate that people are encouraged to ask questions, that you are commanded to learn! Especially in contrast to the Christian religion. I'm NOT against Christians, but I don't like to ask them about the WHY. I made the experience that most of my fellow Christians think it is a matter of respect to accept the rules without asking "Why", as if I would question the authority of the Scriptures only because I want to know. That's sooo frustrating!
Thanks a lot for this thread, Rivka!
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure, if somebody already asked this question, because I haven't had time to read EVERY post, yet, but I couldn't find an answer on "Torah.org", "jewfaq" or "everythingjewish", so here it is:
Do you know why non- Jews are called Gentiles? I don't think there is any connection to the French word "gentile" (= "pretty")? If there is: *lol* How sarcastic!
posted
That's a new one on me -- I never even wondered! *laugh*
According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the two words are actually related, because gentle (which I assume is related to the word you mentioned) derives from the meaning of "from the same family or clan." Clearly whoever came up with that had no idea what real sibling rivalry can be like. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and as I mentioned in the Mormon caffeine thread, I don't believe that the laws of kosher have much, if anything, to do with sanitation. Any such issues are purely in the nature of a side benefit . . . and mostly a way for some people of recent eras to claim understanding of laws whose meaning is primarily spiritual. Not physical.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Gentle"?! Then it's either ironic (when we take the "same family"-meaning OR sarcastic (when we have a look at history). Either way, I like that. Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Many of these rules seem insanely strict and wholly arbitrary. What's the point?
Most rules that seem to be arbitrary today, used to be very sensible in ancient times. For example that they are not allowed to eat pork. In hot countries (and without refrigerators) it was pretty dangerous to eat pork meat because it was known to perish very fast.
Not significantly faster than other foods. And singling out pork begs the question. Horse doesn't spoil any faster than beef, but beef is permitted and horse isn't.
These "explanations" have nothing to do with why the laws exist. In most cases, they are rationalizations invented by Jews who wanted to stop keeping kosher.
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: The biological survival of the people AND the survival of the Jewish religion and culture itself. I think, a lot of rules also derived from the need to protect their religion and culture whilst being surrounded by Gentiles in most of the countries where you can find Jewish communities. A matter of assimilation without getting 'swallowed' by the majority.
Pinky, let me try and explain what's wrong with your analysis. It's true that we have some laws that are explicitly there to maintain a distance between us and non-Jews. But we never hide that fact -- when it's a fact.
We have always been very careful to draw a distinction between the laws given to us by God and the rabbinic enactments that were not. Both categories are binding on us. But one of the commandments is a prohibition against adding laws and claiming that they are from the Torah, rather than rabbinic. And we follow that law very strictly.
The laws given to us by God were given to us by God. Not invented by men. If we claimed that every single one of our laws was from God, you might have some cause to wonder whether we had made it up. But we don't.
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: The more I find out about the aspects of Jewish life, the more I'm convinced that Judaism is a very SENSIBLE religion.
But with all due respect, Pinky, if the religion you think is sensible is one where we invented the laws for reasons such as the ones you're suggesting, that's not Judaism that you're looking at.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: Do you know why non- Jews are called Gentiles? I don't think there is any connection to the French word "gentile" (= "pretty")? If there is: *lol* How sarcastic!
We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile". [/QB]
Aha. Well, the only time I've ever heard that term is, when English speaking Jews refer to Non- Jews, so certainly, I wondered.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
@pork: there's a special kind of maggots (or insects or...?) that prefer pork to other kinds of meat and that can be hazardous to your health. Whatever.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We didn't come up with the word. English isn't the language of Judaism, and no English term can be anything but a rough translation.
The term "gentile" was made up by non-Jews themselves. The Hebrew term is goy, with the plural goyim. Goy means "nation", and Jews are called a goy kadosh, or "holy nation", ourselves. The reason it came to mean "non-Jew" was that in many places in the Bible, we're told not to try and behave k'chol ha-goyim: "like all the nations". From that usage, the other nations, in the aggregate, became known as goyim.
That said, here is an etymology of the word "gentile".
Aha. Well, the only time I've ever heard that term is, when English speaking Jews refer to Non- Jews, so certainly, I wondered. [/QB]
Ah. No, it's just that a lot of Jews use that term in English, because some idiot anti-semite started a story that "goyim" means "beasts", and rather than risk violence, it seemed easier to use the English term.
Also... you've never heard the term used by Mormons? I've been told by a few Mormons that I, as a Jew, am a Gentile. Go figure...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pinky: @pork: there's a special kind of maggots (or insects or...?) that prefer pork to other kinds of meat and that can be hazardous to your health. Whatever.
So why is it that horse is every bit as non-kosher as pig? So is rabbit and bear and snake and shrimp and lobster and scallops and sturgeon and catfish. All things that I've always wondered what they taste like, but will never find out.
I do have a vague memory of an episode of Babylon 5 where Michael Garibaldi commented that Narn taste like chicken. I don't remember the context, though.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, don't you think that it's more likely that Pinky was thinking of trichinella worms, which cause trichinosis?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: So why is it that horse is every bit as non-kosher as pig? So is rabbit and bear and snake and shrimp and lobster and scallops and sturgeon and catfish. All things that I've always wondered what they taste like, but will never find out.
Might be interesting to see whether those meats, when undercooked, carry health risks beyond those common to all undercooked meats. I know that horse and bear are both carriers of Trichinella.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I have been studying microbiology today, for reasons I will impart in a PM. (Not that I'd have put off answering a PM to that awkward point where it becomes ... well, you know. Not that. ) I'm all over the Taenia.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
If I knew which ones you wanted me to erase I could do that. This really helped me understand a whole lot more about Jewish beliefs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
