Torah-Forum :: View topic

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

Hello,
I am not Jewish in any shape or fashion. However, in order to understand my Christian faith better I have been studying Judaism by reading some Talmudic writings. Right now I'm working my way through Everyman's Talmud by Cohen and I would like to ask questions regarding what Jewish thought is to topics I've come accross while reading this book. Are people here willing to help me gain understanding of Judaism and Jewish thought?

My first question has to do with the section entitled the doctrine of God. Specifically a correlation with the existance of God and its relation to Monothesism

It is related, R. Reuben stayed in Tiberias, and a philosopher asked him:'who is th emost hateful person in the world?' "The person who denies his creator"

Which later seems to be based on this principle

"nobody proceeds to commit a transgression wthout first having denied Him who Prohibited it" (Tosifta Shebuoth III6

So the esence of belief in the existance of God necissarily follows moral living. Not to live morally is the same as denying the existance of God. So when I correlate it with the unity of God I found it interesting that the idolater is first seen as

The idolater'breaks the yoke of God's law from off him'(Sifre Num III31b)

as being the first consept and then later is thought of in contrast to Polytheism. So essentially we begin with living accountably under moral guidance which by its nature is inclusive of a Divine being since we are living in accordance with His precepts? Where to not live morally means we are both idolaters and denying God. Am I correct in viewing this way?

Kiddush Cup · 08 Dec 2007

I am not Jewish in any shape or fashion.

I am Jewish, albeit a bit out of shape, but I must confess I really don't understand your question.

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

I guess I'm looking at some begining places so I can understand Jewish thought. And so far my understanding is based on the book "Everyman's Talmud". Now since I have not been raised Jewish there may be things that you take for granted that seem informative to me. So starting at the begining with the existance and unity of God we have these consepts and I'm wondering if I understand it correctly. 1) the fact that there is a universe means that there is a G-d 2) Whether You believe in YHWH or not The fact that if you do not live as though you are accountable (under moral restraint) you have denied the existance of G-d. 3) This lack of moral restraint is what identifies an Idolater. (in the 1st instance) Is this correct?

Roo · 18 Sep 2004

We believe in G-d. We strive to live a moral life,to be people with a conscience.

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

Yes thats true but I think its a bit more than that as I've tried to ask about. See for any understanding of Torah I wan't to be able to have a functional Jewish frame work to review it. So in the sense that I mentioned when I read, for instance, Idolater. I, in the first instance will view it as people who do not live without moral restraint. In the second instance a people who worship Idols. Where as in my religious upbringing I might view it as the 2nd instance first and the 1st instance later or being a subcatagory of the 2nd instance. I want to get into that kind of detail with Jewish thought or theology.

Poster · 30 Aug 2005

There are many cases where something is 'like' something else.

However, one can test the limits of how much it is 'like' the other thing.

The best way is to ask a rabbi.

Shy of that, the second best way is to ask if the punishment applies.

So, let's take your case:

If someone were to openly deny that G-d exists, live an immoral life, he likes to make babies cry, he insults women, he farts in elevators for fun, and he uses the N word around Black people to bait them.

He does not get the death penalty for idol worship, he didn't do any idol worship at all.

Perhaps he might be punished by G-d, but the Jewish court is not allowed to punish him for idol worship, he did not satisfy the definition of 'idol worship'.

Let me give another example:

Suppose I were to say, "If you look at a married woman with lust in your heart, it's as if you actually had adulterous relations with her."

Once again, the crime is lust, a true violation of a biblical commandment, but the crime is *not* actually having adulterous relations, therefore no death penalty, the second actual crime of having relations with a married woman did not occur.

In mesechta Yevamos, a tractate of the Talmud, a question comes up whether one can push off a negative commandment if a positive commandment requires it.

The example of Shabbos (the Sabbath) is given, What if I had to break the Sabbath to do a positive commandment?

However, since the commandments of the Sabbath are extreme, that characteristic defines the Sabbath is more stringent than, say, other negative commandments of the Bible.

Proof of the extreme nature of the Sabbath is given, if you violate the Sabbath, it's as if you are committing idol worship (I think because the Sabbath is a sign between G-d and the Jewish people, so, if you break the Sabbath, it's as if it's idol worship).

But it's not actually committing idol worship.
Proof: While you can be convicted of breaking the Sabbath, you can not be convicted of idol worship.
(also, the match itself does not become prohibited in benefit, whereas if I worship my shoe, my shoe become forbidden to use for benefit, I think. This rule does not apply to objects attached to the ground, so, when the Native Americans or Japanese worship a mountain, it's not forbidden to benefit from the mountain, the mountain is attached to the ground, unless the act of benefiting from the mountain is a known form of worshiping the mountain.)

Finally, an important note:

Matters of a philosophical nature found in the Talmud often are categorized as 'Aggadita'.

Calling the breaking of the Sabbath seems far more like 'Aggadita' than the other kind of Talmud study. Aggadita is not material of the same cloth as the rest of the Talmud, and it's improper form to make hard conclusions based on that material.

It's not the same stuff.

Compare:
The Declaration of Independence = Aggadita (found within the Talmud)
The US Constitution = The Talmud (excluding the Aggadita)
The Federalist Papers = Tosefta
Supreme Court = The rabbis

True story:

I was once debating whether 'creativity' was forbidden on Shabbos.
I argued it was not, the other person said it was indeed a violation of Shabbos.
I proved my point by asking, "is creativity one of the 39 malochos?"
The other person backed down.
He could have persisted by defining 'creativity' as that which is only found in the 39 categories, but that's a case of redefining something after the horse has left the barn, he didn't want to commit to that, so he conceded the point.
Upon further thought, there are many things which are 'creative' but not forbidden at all on the Sabbath, for instance, verbally composing a song (without writing) or arranging dishes on a table and food on a plate; mentally composing a lecture, etc.

PS, Yes, I chose that example above intentionally, you didn't imagine it, it wasn't a coincidence. Wink

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

I think I understand what it is you are saying. BTW what is Malochos? So when reading Torah and you see the Term Idolater how do you understand the term? Is it a contextual review that is compared to the Aggadita, Talmud, Tosefta, or Rabbis? Or is their a specific principle that you begin with?

rivkagila · 15 Oct 2004

Ralph, I think the trouble is that you're starting in the wrong place. If you want to understand Judaism, you don't begin with the Talmud; you begin with far more basic concepts.

I recommend Aish, Judaism 101, and of course our hosts, Torah.org.

You're (metaphorically) trying to read a foreign language without knowing the vocabulary or the grammar! For example, "melacha" (pl. melachos or melachot) has no good English translation. While it is commonly translated as "work", that is very misleading and inaccurate. A better translation might be "actions forbidden on Shabbos".

Poster · 30 Aug 2005

... So when reading Torah and you see the Term Idolater how do you understand the term? Is it a contextual review that is compared to the Aggadita, Talmud, Tosefta, or Rabbis? Or is their a specific principle that you begin with?

I believe the written defines the term as worshiping something created on the earth and in the heavens. I used to know the exact verse.

I believe a rabbi defined a worshiped object as something poured before an idol, bowed to as a divine power, or something worshiped in the fashion normal to that idol, even if we would normally consider the particular action disrespectful. Extreme examples include an idol that was worshiped by throwing rocks at it and one that was worshiped by human excrement, no kidding.

The over-riding principle is to interpret the bible as the bible itself requires in the written bible itself: Follow the rulings of the office holders, the rabbis, who happen to also be experts in the matter of interpreting the bible. Think of it like the American Supreme Court, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. The Supreme Court just so happens to have Constitutional experts.

If one ever suspects that someone other than the Traditional Rabbis might be equal experts in bible study, why is it that they don't even speak Hebrew fluently (in most cases)? But the bottom line is that the bible defines the rabbis as the final arbiters of the matter.

I believe that while not believing the bible contains stories that actually occurred. See the thread on whether the bible stories really happened.

Oh yes, Exodus 20 verse 4-5 and Numbers 23:19 regarding idol worship.

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

Thanks Rivkavila, I will look at those sites but I probably need a class.

Poster what happens when you have a Rabbi who wants to interpret Torah more litterally and one who does not? I've noted with the US Constitution we have this issue.

Rachamim Pauli · 05 Apr 2005

Most of Judaism is common horse sense. However, the monetary laws are very difficult for a modern man to comprehend and sometimes do not make sense when dealing with collective condominiums. Sometimes, it is a matter of Civil Law taking precedence over Torah Law in modern monetary matters.

The wisdom of the Sages was not based on man living in an apartment complex.

Poster · 30 Aug 2005

Those who do not believe in 100% literal Torah usually keep that tid bit of information to themselves.

Usually, the way it's supposed to work, is that a rabbi either knows what the halacha is, or he calls someone smarter depending on the difficulty of the question.

On choosing a rabbi, the best way is to ask some questions that don't matter to you personally, if, over time the answers contain wisdom that inspires you, has deeper insights into Torah and life beyond what you would have imagined, then you have a good candidate for asking questions you care more about.

Otherwise, shy of that any Orthodox rabbi will do.

It's a good sign if they take the trouble to look up your question or you see them calling a bigger rabbi...

just like a way to test someone's kashrus is to ask where they put their trefe utinsils. If they don't have any that need kashering, not ever, if they don't know what you're talking about, then that means...

Rachamim Pauli · 05 Apr 2005

I can give you an example of literal Torah where monetary compensation is given in its place.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" nobody starts gauging out eyes but a large monetary compensation is given. In the case of a tooth the dental work embarrassment, value of the the person is adjusted and the other person would be fined/sued for such an amount.

RivkaGila is correct one does not start with texts which I who have not covered in more than 40 years of Torah learning and I send out in my rabbipauli.blogspot almost week to thousands of people. When one starts learning addition and subtraction in school, one does not delve first graders into probability and statistics and advanced matrix theory. The same holds true in history, learning ones own language and grammar and Torah Judaism.

In fact that is one of the reasons why I laugh at the immodest Madona trying to learn Kaballah when she hasn't learned modesty and humbleness which is a prerequisite to learning Kaballah.

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

However, I am reading "Everyman's Talmud" Shouldn't that be sufficient for the uninitiated for them to understand?

QuestioningRalph · 05 Nov 2009

Also apart from just the surface belief that there is a G-d and we should live morally; doctrinally doesn't the thought preceed as I've described? I'll ask it again here

1) the fact that there is a universe means that there is a G-d 2) Whether You believe in YHWH or not The fact that if you do not live as though you are accountable (under moral restraint) you have denied the existance of G-d. 3) This lack of moral restraint is what identifies an Idolater. (in the 1st instance) Is this correct?

I'm particularily interested in #2 and #3 of these questions with regard to the view of Torah.