Is there such a thing as Pharisees and Sadducees today?
MehAyinAta
definitions of both Pharisees and Sadducees in "The American Heritage Talking
Dictionary":
phar·i·see (f²r"¹-s) n. 1. Pharisee. A member of an ancient Jewish sect
that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both
its oral and written form. 2. A hypocritically self-righteous person. [Middle
English pharise, from Old English fariseus and from Old French pharise, both
from Late Latin pharºsaeus, from Greek pharisaios, from Aramaic
pµrºšayy³.]
Sad·du·cee (s²j"…-s", s²d"y…-) n. A member of a priestly, aristocratic
Jewish sect founded in the second century B.C. that accepted only the written
Mosaic law and that ceased to exist after the destruction of the Temple in 70
A.D. [Middle English Saducee, from Old English Sadducas, Sadducees, from Late
Latin Sadd¿caeº, from Greek Saddoukaioi, from Hebrew ßµdûqî.]
--Sad"du·ce"an (-s"…n) adj. --Sad"du·cee"ism n.
I have not been able find anything in my Israeli Tannach about these people.
Are they an invention of the New Testament? Also that there are today Jews
that align themselves into these categories are any of them Chassidim and if so
can anyone on this newsgroup identify what Chassidic groups align themselves
with either or category?
Amen Selah
Israel Tekehlet
http://hometown.aol.com/israelt519/myhomepage/index.html
Any love that depends on a specific cause, when that cause is gone, the love is
gone; but if it does not depend on a specific cause, it will never cease.
Perkei Avos/Chapt. 5:19
BUSHBADEE
(MehAyinAta) writes:
>
>I have not been able find anything in my Israeli Tannach about these people.
>Are they an invention of the New Testament? Also that there are today Jews
>that align themselves into these categories are any of them Chassidim and if
>so
>can anyone on this newsgroup identify what Chassidic groups align themselves
>with either or category?
>
not many people know who or what the Sadducees or Pharisees are or were.
First
Judiasm
Christianity
and Islam are all Pharasidic religions.
Your definition of what they accepted and did not accept is correct but there
was a lot more to it than that.
For the best books on Pharisidem I would suggest two sets of two books both by
Louis Finkelstein the former Provost of the Jewish the Jewish theological
Semary of America.
Both sets of books are tittled "The Pharacees" The blue set is subtittled "The
Sociological Backround of their faith" and I forget the sub title of the Red
set but it is more of the origonation aand religios beliefs.
Both are published by The Jewish Publication society of AMerica.
Except for a small sect that still exists and only accepts the Torah the
Sadducees are gone.
They supported the temple and included most of the priests.
They also supported the Romans who appointed the High priest.
In the NT case, Ciaiphas.
In actualitty Ciaiphas could not even be a quireboy in the Jewish temple as he
was neither a Levite or an Arronite.
He bought his job from the Romans.
The Pharasitic concept continues to this day and kept the Jewish religion
alive. They accepted the Oral torah and the writings of the rabbis.
Any religion which accepts oral traditions such as Judiasm, Christianity, or
Islam is considered to be a Pharasidic religion so Pharasism is alive and well
today.
If Jesus has existed he would have been a Pharasee.
His teachings were the type of teachings which exemplify the Pharisidic
tradition.
His supposed arguments with his fellow Pharasees of his time were normal and
are nothing compared to the discussions of Shammi and Hillel for vituberance.
The NT was in all probibility written by Christians who had little to no
knowledge of Jewish law and custom of the time and is there fore full of such
mistakes.
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
Charles Vitez
normative judaism can be traced back to the "scribes" (Soferim) as we know
them.
The Tzadukim lost all religious raison d'etre with the destruction of the
Temple and their philosophy has not survived.
The assumption must be, therefore, that in so far as the descendents of the
Tzadukim survived the Roman persecutions, etc, as jews, they are adherents
of the end result of the pharisee's religion.
Charles Vitez
"MehAyinAta" <mehay...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020106173556...@mb-mc.aol.com...
> Is there such a thing as Pharisees and Sadducees today? I found these two
> definitions of both Pharisees and Sadducees in "The American Heritage
Talking
> Dictionary":
>
> phar·i·see (f²r"¹-s) n. 1. Pharisee. A member of an ancient Jewish sect
> that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in
both
> its oral and written form. 2. A hypocritically self-righteous person.
[Middle
> English pharise, from Old English fariseus and from Old French pharise,
both
> from Late Latin pharºsaeus, from Greek pharisaios, from Aramaic
> pµrºsayy³.]
>
> Sad·du·cee (s²j".-s", s²d"y.-) n. A member of a priestly, aristocratic
> Jewish sect founded in the second century B.C. that accepted only the
written
> Mosaic law and that ceased to exist after the destruction of the Temple in
70
> A.D. [Middle English Saducee, from Old English Sadducas, Sadducees, from
Late
> Latin Sadd¿caeº, from Greek Saddoukaioi, from Hebrew ßµdûqî.]
> --Sad"du·ce"an (-s".n) adj. --Sad"du·cee"ism n.
Micha Berger
: The assumption must be, therefore, that in so far as the descendents of the
: Tzadukim survived the Roman persecutions, etc, as jews, they are adherents
: of the end result of the pharisee's religion.
I don't think the Saducee religion could survive the fall of the Temple.
It was overly Temple centric in worship, and had no focus of authority
without an active priesthood.
That said, the Karaites believe that there is a lineage from Saducism
to Karaism. I do not know enough about their arguments to assess its
validity.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Charles Vitez
destruction of the Temple, but I guess that jews will be jews and those that
survived the destruction would have joined with their brethren, under the
only jewish leadership available (ie, Javne).
My knowledge of the Karaites is largely based on Graetz and the relevant
articles in the Jewish Encyclopaedia - but then the author, Albert Harkavy
was the acknowledged expert - and it is understood that (despite what was
implied in the recent JTS on-line exhibition) there is no connection between
the theology of the Tzadukim and that of the Karaites (genealogical
connection is also improbable).
Charles Vitez
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:a1cpq9$pmrpk$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
MehAyinAta
the Pharisees believe in the resurrection. Are those true statements?
Israel
Herman Rubin
MehAyinAta <mehay...@aol.com> wrote:
>Is there such a thing as Pharisees and Sadducees today? I found these two
>definitions of both Pharisees and Sadducees in "The American Heritage Talking
>Dictionary":
>pharisee (fr"-s) n. 1. Pharisee. A member of an ancient Jewish sect
>that emphasized strict interpretation and observance of the Mosaic law in both
>its oral and written form. 2. A hypocritically self-righteous person. [Middle
>English pharise, from Old English fariseus and from Old French pharise, both
>from Late Latin pharsaeus, from Greek pharisaios, from Aramaic
>prayy.]
>Sadducee (sj"-s", sd"y-) n. A member of a priestly, aristocratic
>Jewish sect founded in the second century B.C. that accepted only the written
>Mosaic law and that ceased to exist after the destruction of the Temple in 70
>A.D. [Middle English Saducee, from Old English Sadducas, Sadducees, from Late
>Latin Saddcae, from Greek Saddoukaioi, from Hebrew dq.]
>--Sad"duce"an (-s"n) adj. --Sad"ducee"ism n.
>I have not been able find anything in my Israeli Tannach about these people.
>Are they an invention of the New Testament? Also that there are today Jews
>that align themselves into these categories are any of them Chassidim and if so
>can anyone on this newsgroup identify what Chassidic groups align themselves
>with either or category?
They are not an invention of the New Testament. There were
many sects in the later Temple days, the claim being that
there were two dozen "heresies", and the Pharisees and the
Sadducees were two of the most prominent.
The Pharisees, from the Hebrew or Aramaic word meaning
"breach" (see Genesis 39:29), were the ones who founded the
Academy after the destruction of the Temple, and who set up
modern Orthodox Judaism, and in my opinion by deliberately
suppressing the dissenters. We do not know too much about
the opinions of the other sects: we have some on the
Essenes and the Zealots.
The Sadducees (tzaddiqim), was the group to which at least
the Hasmonean priesthood belonged. They rejected the
Mosaic origin of the Oral Law, and probably most of the
Oral Law as being binding. The Karaites claim to have come
from them.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Ron Aaron
> They are not an invention of the New Testament. There were many sects
> in the later Temple days, the claim being that there were two dozen
> "heresies", and the Pharisees and the Sadducees were two of the most
> prominent.
>
noch a mol (yet again)?
Either post a source for the 'two dozen heresies', or stop posting that.
Thanks.
Ron
Jay Lapidus
Sadducees. For an historical survey of the period, I highly recommend
Shaye Cohen, _From the Maccabees to the Mishna_, available in
paperback.
In short, the "philosophies of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago" have
*not* "remained in tact." And it's clearly not true that the
Pharisees "set up modern Orthodox Judaism."
The prevalent theory is that the Pharisees were the forerunners of
Rabbinic Judaism. Their name in Hebrew, "Perushim," means
"Separatists," that is, those who separate themselves from impurity
and from untithed produce.
There were a number of sects during the 2nd Temple period, some of
which are named in Rabbinic literature, and others named from
elsewhere, including the early Christians, Essenes, the Qumran sect,
Boethusians, et al.
The prevalent theory about the Sadducees is that they sere favored by
the Establishment, i.e., the monarchy and the Temple priesthood, but
this is not certain. While they rejected Rabbinic Oral Torah, it is
by no means certain that they did not have an oral tradition of their
own.
On 7 Jan 2002 17:32:37 GMT, in article
<a1clpj$gaq$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The philosophies of the Pharisees of 2000 years ago remain intact as all
>normative judaism can be traced back to the "scribes" (Soferim) as we know
>them.
>
>The Tzadukim lost all religious raison d'etre with the destruction of the
>Temple and their philosophy has not survived.
>
>The assumption must be, therefore, that in so far as the descendents of the
>Tzadukim survived the Roman persecutions, etc, as jews, they are adherents
>of the end result of the pharisee's religion.
Herman Rubin wrote:
>There were
>many sects in the later Temple days, the claim being that
>there were two dozen "heresies", and the Pharisees and the
>Sadducees were two of the most prominent.
>
>The Pharisees, from the Hebrew or Aramaic word meaning
>"breach" (see Genesis 39:29), were the ones who founded the
>Academy after the destruction of the Temple, and who set up
>modern Orthodox Judaism, and in my opinion by deliberately
>suppressing the dissenters. We do not know too much about
>the opinions of the other sects: we have some on the
>Essenes and the Zealots.
>
>The Sadducees (tzaddiqim), was the group to which at least
>the Hasmonean priesthood belonged. They rejected the
>Mosaic origin of the Oral Law, and probably most of the
>Oral Law as being binding. The Karaites claim to have come
>from them.
Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to,
as long as you're ashamed of it."
- Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
Jay Lapidus
<20020107181217...@mb-fk.aol.com>,
mehay...@aol.com (MehAyinAta) wrote:
>I understood that the Sadduccee rejected the concept of the resurrection but
>the Pharisees believe in the resurrection. Are those true statements?
Yes.
Jay Lapidus
<20020106192245...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
bush...@aol.com (BUSHBADEE) wrote:
>not many people know who or what the Sadducees or Pharisees are or were.
Very true.
>First
>Judiasm
>Christianity
>and Islam are all Pharasidic religions.
Absolutely not! Christianity is anti-Pharisaic, especially the Book
of Matthew. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee before he "saw the
light", but we have only his word for it.
>For the best books on Pharisidem I would suggest two sets of two books both by
>Louis Finkelstein the former Provost of the Jewish the Jewish theological
>Semary of America.
Dr. Finkelstein was in fact the chancellor.
>Both sets of books are tittled "The Pharacees" The blue set is subtittled "The
>Sociological Backround of their faith" and I forget the sub title of the Red
>set but it is more of the origonation aand religios beliefs.
>
>Both are published by The Jewish Publication society of AMerica.
And his books are a bit dated.
>Any religion which accepts oral traditions such as Judiasm, Christianity, or
>Islam is considered to be a Pharasidic religion so Pharasism is alive and well
>today.
>
>If Jesus has existed he would have been a Pharasee.
He did exist, and he wasn't.
wba...@panix.com
: On 8 Jan 2002 00:50:27 GMT, in article
: Yes.
I am concerned with the use of the the phrase"the resurrection" in this
post. I would prefere jus"resurrection" as pertaining to everybody's
resurrection, not just the Christian use of the term for their messiah.
Am I just being to hypersensitive, or is this the usual meaning of the
phrase,"the resurrection?"
Wendy Baker
MehAyinAta
What I'm talking about (and I'm not a Christian) is the resurrection as
mentioned in The Thirteen Articles of Faith outlined by the Rambam specifically
#13 where as Jews should accept that there will be a resurrection. "Shetiheyeh
Techiyat Hametim" "that there will be a resurrection of the dead"
chsw10605
"Jay Lapidus" <jlap...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
Neither Charles nor Herman is accurate regarding the Pharisees and
Sadducees. For an historical survey of the period, I highly recommend
Shaye Cohen, _From the Maccabees to the Mishna_, available in paperback.
Is he the same Rabbi Cohen of Priority One in the Five Towns?
CW
BUSHBADEE
<jlap...@mailandnews.com> writes:
>
>>First=20
>>Judiasm
>>Christianity
>>and Islam are all Pharasidic religions.
>
>Absolutely not! Christianity is anti-Pharisaic, especially the Book
>of Matthew. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee before he "saw the
>light", but we have only his word for it.=20
Then I would suggest that you do not know what you are talking about.
Islam uses the Haddaths which are verbal and similer to the Talmud.
Christianinty particularly the Catholics do nor read the bible and rely on the
Popes interpetation which takes precidence over the NT.
Most Christians rely on verbal law beside the NT.
They by Finklestsien and definition are Pharisidic.
>
>>For the best books on Pharisidem I would suggest two sets of two books =
>both by
>>Louis Finkelstein the former Provost of the Jewish the Jewish =
>theological
>>Semary of America.
>
>Dr. Finkelstein was in fact the chancellor.
In one set he is listed as the chancellor and in another his collaberator is
listed as the chancellor.
>
>>Both sets of books are tittled "The Pharacees" The blue set is =
>subtittled "The
>>Sociological Backround of their faith" and I forget the sub title of the=
> Red
>>set but it is more of the origonation aand religios beliefs.
>>
>>Both are published by The Jewish Publication society of AMerica.
>
>And his books are a bit dated.
>
>>Any religion which accepts oral traditions such as Judiasm, =
>Christianity, or
>>Islam is considered to be a Pharasidic religion so Pharasism is alive =
>and well
>>today.
>>
>>If Jesus has existed he would have been a Pharasee.
>
>He did exist, and he wasn't.
I will not argue with you.
I will accept what you say when you can provide a single historical document
from the time of Jesus that mentions him or any thing he is supposed to have
done.
Till then, he to historians, is as valid as the tooth fairey
>
>Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
>"I don't care what denomination you belong to,=20
> as long as you're ashamed of it."
> - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
>
>
>
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd.
> that align themselves into these categories are any of them Chassidim and
if so
> can anyone on this newsgroup identify what Chassidic groups align
themselves
> with either or category?
There were a group of Polish Chassidim before the war who were known as
Cherem Chassidim, as their Sadducee opinions placed them in cherem, or
excommunication. When a Chinese scholar wrote about them, he could not
pronounce Cherem properly, so the name of the community became Chelm. Their
descendants are the Chassidei Creedmoor, of Queens, NY.
Ian
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Herman Rubin wrote:
>
>> They are not an invention of the New Testament. There were many sects
>> in the later Temple days, the claim being that there were two dozen
>> "heresies", and the Pharisees and the Sadducees were two of the most
>> prominent.
>
> noch a mol (yet again)?
>
> Either post a source for the 'two dozen heresies', or stop posting
> that. Thanks.
I second that request. I asked Herman for a source a while ago and
recieved no reply. Now Ron also asks for a source.
Maybe I should start posting about Herman's halitosis? (Not that I
know that Herman indeed has halitosis, but if posting without a
source is valid...)
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Michael Shimshoni
>bush...@aol.com (BUSHBADEE) wrote:
Much skipped.
>>If Jesus has existed he would have been a Pharasee.
>
>He did exist, and he wasn't.
a Paulian addition or perversion, in which ways did he differ from
the Pharisees? Michael Shimshoni
wba...@panix.com
: In article <20020106173556...@mb-mc.aol.com>,
: MehAyinAta <mehay...@aol.com> wrote:
:>Is there such a thing as Pharisees and Sadducees today? I found these two
:>definitions of both Pharisees and Sadducees in "The American Heritage Talking
:>Dictionary":
:>I have not been able find anything in my Israeli Tannach about these people.
:>Are they an invention of the New Testament? Also that there are today Jews
:>that align themselves into these categories are any of them Chassidim and if so
:>can anyone on this newsgroup identify what Chassidic groups align themselves
:>with either or category?
: They are not an invention of the New Testament. There were
: many sects in the later Temple days, the claim being that
: there were two dozen "heresies", and the Pharisees and the
: Sadducees were two of the most prominent.
: The Pharisees, from the Hebrew or Aramaic word meaning
: "breach" (see Genesis 39:29), were the ones who founded the
: Academy after the destruction of the Temple, and who set up
: modern Orthodox Judaism, and in my opinion by deliberately
: suppressing the dissenters. We do not know too much about
: the opinions of the other sects: we have some on the
: Essenes and the Zealots.
: The Sadducees (tzaddiqim), was the group to which at least
: the Hasmonean priesthood belonged. They rejected the
: Mosaic origin of the Oral Law, and probably most of the
: Oral Law as being binding. The Karaites claim to have come
: from them.
From what I leared many years ago in a comparative religion course in
college, During Jesus 's life time the Sadducees were the dominant group
and may have been those who opposed him. By the time the gospels were
written the Temple had been destroyed, bringing down the Sadducees Now,
the Pharisees had become more dominant and opposed much of the new
Christian teachings. As a result, when they wrote of the life of their
god, they made the Pharisees into the "bad guys," as they were the ones
they were fighting. (bad pronouns there!)
Wendy Baker
: --
Jay Lapidus
<7DA95A1...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il>,
MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) wrote:
>Besides the Habbad influence of messianism, which could be easily
>a Paulian addition or perversion, in which ways did he [Jesus] differ from
>the Pharisees?
He was antinomian, did not support the Temple service, did not support
the sacrifices, and not support the Oral Torah, according to the very
little we know about the historical Jesus. Everything written about
him, whether in the NT or elsewhere, is noncontemporaneous.
The author, whoever he was, of the Book of Matthew was the most
knowledgeable of the 4 Gospels about Pharisaic practices. He depicted
Jesus as deliberately and publicly flouting them and preaching against
them.
Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
Herman Rubin
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>Neither Charles nor Herman is accurate regarding the Pharisees and
>Sadducees. For an historical survey of the period, I highly recommend
>Shaye Cohen, _From the Maccabees to the Mishna_, available in
>paperback.
>In short, the "philosophies of the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago" have
>*not* "remained in tact." And it's clearly not true that the
>Pharisees "set up modern Orthodox Judaism."
>The prevalent theory is that the Pharisees were the forerunners of
>Rabbinic Judaism. Their name in Hebrew, "Perushim," means
>"Separatists," that is, those who separate themselves from impurity
>and from untithed produce.
>There were a number of sects during the 2nd Temple period, some of
>which are named in Rabbinic literature, and others named from
>elsewhere, including the early Christians, Essenes, the Qumran sect,
>Boethusians, et al.
>The prevalent theory about the Sadducees is that they sere favored by
>the Establishment, i.e., the monarchy and the Temple priesthood, but
>this is not certain. While they rejected Rabbinic Oral Torah, it is
>by no means certain that they did not have an oral tradition of their
>own.
As I stated before, there has to be some additional legislation,
common law, or the equivalent. The question is, how much
authority does it have? Also, what is the source of the
authority? The Orthodox claim Divine authority; this is a major
point of disagreement.
If the oral (or written) addition body of laws is considered
to be a purely human creation, it is easily amended. If the
Orthodox believed this, I believe that they would amend the
divorce laws to allow women to initiate the proceedings, and
not require the man to give the get. But if it is from God,
one needs a Divine alteration of the Torah to change it, and
the Torah itself states that this cannot happen.
>On 7 Jan 2002 17:32:37 GMT, in article
><a1clpj$gaq$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
>"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>The philosophies of the Pharisees of 2000 years ago remain intact as all
>>normative judaism can be traced back to the "scribes" (Soferim) as we
>know
>>them.
>>The Tzadukim lost all religious raison d'etre with the destruction of
>the
>>Temple and their philosophy has not survived.
This is by no means clear. The Karaites claim to be the
inheritors of their philosophy, possibly mixed with others.
There seems to be some evidence of the existence of the
Karaites earlier than the Orthodox will admit.
>>The assumption must be, therefore, that in so far as the descendents of
>the
>>Tzadukim survived the Roman persecutions, etc, as jews, they are
>adherents
>>of the end result of the pharisee's religion.
It depends on how one defines "Jews". When the Samaritans
in Israel (before the 1967 war) could not find mates, they
were accepted by the State of Israel as Jews.
Also, I do not see how your statement justifies the present
insistence on "Pharisaism" as the only Judaism.
>Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
>"I don't care what denomination you belong to,
> as long as you're ashamed of it."
> - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
maurie fox-warren
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:a1ktjm$2m...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
<snipped - feel like a mohel>
>
> It depends on how one defines "Jews". When the Samaritans
> in Israel (before the 1967 war) could not find mates, they
> were accepted by the State of Israel as Jews.
>
> Also, I do not see how your statement justifies the present
> insistence on "Pharisaism" as the only Judaism.
You seem to conflate Pharisaism and Orthodoxy but Reform, Modern Orthodox
and Conservative Judaism all identified themselves as legitimate heirs of
the classic Judaism of the Dual Torah which is a direct heir of the Judaism
of the Pharisiees. Reconstructionism is a direct descendent of Conservative
Judaism so we can place it on that line. Renewal seems to draw heavily (if
selectively) from the mystical tradition which was (and perhaps is) a key
element of traditional Judaism.
Thus the only "Jewish" communities that aren't in the Pharisee line are
those which were isolated from the rest of the Jewish world during the
development of the Talmud. We have Karaites, Samaritans, the Bene Israel of
India (perhaps) and similarly isolated groups. Is this what you had in
mind?
Maurie
BUSHBADEE
Rubin) writes:
>
>
>If the oral (or written) addition body of laws is considered
>to be a purely human creation, it is easily amended
You bring up an interesting thing.
In the temple law, a priest who violated his vows was punished with his head
being smashed with a Log.
Where did this come from.
I do not think it came from the Torah.,
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <20020111010310...@mb-mg.aol.com> bush...@aol.com (BUSHBADEE) writes:
In article <a1ktjm$2m...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman
Rubin) writes:
>If the oral (or written) addition body of laws is considered
>to be a purely human creation, it is easily amended
You bring up an interesting thing.
In the temple law, a priest who violated his vows was punished with his head
being smashed with a Log.
Where did this come from.
I do not think it came from the Torah.,
Where did you hear this? Anyway, what "vows"? And if his head was
smashed with a log, a log of what? Oil or wine? (*)
-Shlomo-
(*) To ruin the joke: a "log" is a talmudic liquid measure, used
(mainly) for measuring liquids used in sacrifices.
Herman Rubin
>Much skipped.
> Michael Shimshoni
Messianism was quite common in those days. There may
well have been more than one new claimant to being the
Messiah per year. Where did the messianic ideas in
the Talmud and later come from? More than the Pharisees
believed in it.
Herman Rubin
>MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) wrote:
>>Besides the Habbad influence of messianism, which could be easily
>>a Paulian addition or perversion, in which ways did he [Jesus] differ =
>from
>>the Pharisees?
>He was antinomian, did not support the Temple service, did not support
>the sacrifices, and not support the Oral Torah, according to the very
>little we know about the historical Jesus. Everything written about
>him, whether in the NT or elsewhere, is noncontemporaneous.
None of this is clear. The clearest is his attitude about
the Oral Torah, and some of that is closer to the Talmudic
version than to what it was claimed was practiced. Was
the "standard" version at the time to allow breaking the
Sabbath for life or health?
Also, those who finally wrote the history had decided to
follow Paul and break with the strict interpretation of
Jewish law. Even what they remembered they rewrote.
>The author, whoever he was, of the Book of Matthew was the most
>knowledgeable of the 4 Gospels about Pharisaic practices. He depicted
>Jesus as deliberately and publicly flouting them and preaching against
>them.
>Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
>"I don't care what denomination you belong to,=20
> as long as you're ashamed of it."
> - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
BUSHBADEE
>And it's clearly not true that the
>Pharisees "set up modern Orthodox Judaism."
>
I would suggest you read one of the many books on the Pharisees by Finklestien.
He was considered the formost authory on Pharisidism.
As I have said in the past.
Judiasm
Christianity
and Islam are all considered Pharisidic religions.
With out the Pharisees and their acceptance of Rabbinic Authority it is most
likely that there would be no such thing as a jewish religion.
BUSHBADEE
Rubin) writes:
>
>None of this is clear. The clearest is his attitude about
>the Oral Torah, and some of that is closer to the Talmudic
>version than to what it was claimed was practiced. Was
>the "standard" version at the time to allow breaking the
>Sabbath for life or health?
The standards of the time as now, always put life ahead of any law.
Even the life of an animal.
If an animal was found in distress on the Sabbath and in danger of dying if not
immediatly rescued, one was free to help the animal. If the animal was not in
danger of immediate death and the situation was such that the animal could wait
till the end of the Sabbath then you were not obliged to aid the animal till
after the end of the Sabbath.
In Judiasm, life always come before any thing else.
To save one life is to save the world.
>
>
>>The author, whoever he was, of the Book of Matthew was the most
>>knowledgeable of the 4 Gospels about Pharisaic practices. He depicted
>>Jesus as deliberately and publicly flouting them and preaching against
What you say is true, except it was not the case.
These debates amongst Rabbi's (No such term existed then) was common. We have
only to look at the debates between Hillel and Shammi to see the invectives
that were used and they far exceeded any thing used by Jesus.
As proof of this we can see this same carrying on to this day as the Rabbi of
one sect attacks the Rabbi of another sect.
I do not know what it is in Judiasm that causes this fanatism where one
Rabbinical group thinks they have the answere's to the exclusion of other
Rabbinical grouops.
Rabbi Kahane preached agains this internal strife.
He preached that the Jews had enough external enemies with out fighting amongst
them selves. He prohibited the members of HIS jdl from attacking other Jews no
matter what. Unfortunetly this prohabition did not survive his death.
I have a number of his pamplets in which he preaches this love of Jews (some
where in my files.)
He was sorely misunderstood by many.
It is interesting that when he preached in an orthodox synogogue, he and his
ideas were readily accepted. He was welcomed.
But< I remember every time, that is every time without exception that he
preached in a wealthy reformed synogog such as the Steven Wise Temple there was
always, and I do not mean some times, some one who stood up and asked him "What
Antisemitism". I guess the Jews in orthodox synogogs knew about what anti
semitism.
He was wildly misunderstood by many, who have never read any of his books.
Harry Weiss
>>Much skipped.
> Messianism was quite common in those days. There may
> well have been more than one new claimant to being the
> Messiah per year. Where did the messianic ideas in
> the Talmud and later come from? More than the Pharisees
> believed in it.
From Sinai.
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Herman Rubin
>>>Much skipped.
>> Messianism was quite common in those days. There may
>> well have been more than one new claimant to being the
>> Messiah per year. Where did the messianic ideas in
>> the Talmud and later come from? More than the Pharisees
>> believed in it.
>From Sinai.
I would not be willing to put it that far back, but it is
old. Some even claimed that Hezekiah was the Messiah.
Something like that seems to be common. The idea that
some super-hero will arise to bring on the Golden Age
causes peoples to put someone in power who supposedly
will "solve all the problems"; what usually happens is
just the opposite. Remember that "Utopia" literally
means "nowhere". Invoking God just makes the idea
more believable.
Most Reform Jews do not believe in a Messiah, but in a
Messianic Age. I see the prospect as a tragedy. But
I see a real danger that we can slide into a world
totalitarian state, which is what it means.
BUSHBADEE
arg...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) writes:
>
> Where did this come from.
> I do not think it came from the Torah.,
>
>Where did you hear this? Anyway, what "vows"? And if his head was
>smashed with a log, a log of what? Oil or wine? (*)
>
> -Shlomo-
>
It came from an ancient history book.
I believe it was one of Finklestien's book on the Pharisees (I have read 4 of
them).
The log was a thick wooden log. Their skulls were crushed.
I believe they have found at least one skeleton of some one executed in this
manner.
Harry Weiss
> In article <a1nu8j$kdp$3...@news.panix.com>,
> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>>Much skipped.
>>> Messianism was quite common in those days. There may
>>> well have been more than one new claimant to being the
>>> Messiah per year. Where did the messianic ideas in
>>> the Talmud and later come from? More than the Pharisees
>>> believed in it.
>>From Sinai.
> I would not be willing to put it that far back, but it is
> old. Some even claimed that Hezekiah was the Messiah.
Actually according to tradition one could go back to the time of Jacob who
accrding to tradition wanted to reveal when Moshiach was coming.
Chizkiahu accoridng to the Talmud (I think brachot first chapter) was
qualified and should have been Moshiach except for a few things that are
discussed there.
> Something like that seems to be common. The idea that
> some super-hero will arise to bring on the Golden Age
> causes peoples to put someone in power who supposedly
> will "solve all the problems"; what usually happens is
> just the opposite. Remember that "Utopia" literally
> means "nowhere". Invoking God just makes the idea
> more believable.
> Most Reform Jews do not believe in a Messiah, but in a
> Messianic Age. I see the prospect as a tragedy. But
> I see a real danger that we can slide into a world
> totalitarian state, which is what it means.
> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Michael Shimshoni
Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com% writes:
%Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
%
%>>Much skipped.
%
%> Messianism was quite common in those days. There may
%> well have been more than one new claimant to being the
%> Messiah per year. Where did the messianic ideas in
%> the Talmud and later come from? More than the Pharisees
%> believed in it.
%
%From Sinai.
Wow! What a clear proof of that theory, putting an end to that
discussion, and leaving Herman nonplused!
%> Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
%Harry J. Weiss
Michael Shimshoni
Talqcom
>From: hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>Date: 01/12/2002 8:46 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Some even claimed that Hezekiah was the Messiah.
But in what context was such a claim made? He was already the king of Judah,
which was a sovereign state.
There was no reason to have a Mashiah.
>Something like that seems to be common. The idea that
>some super-hero will arise to bring on the Golden Age
This is Heroic thinking, maybe, but has zero to do with Judaism or its notion
of Messiah (which has zero to do with heros or golden ages or the like). This
is why I often tell you that you read Judaism through a wholly assimilated
prism.
Messiah does not mean "saviour." That is "Moshia'" and is only used in
refernce to God.
> Remember that "Utopia" literally
>means "nowhere". Invoking God just makes the idea
>more believable.
Jews who imagine a Utopia under a Saviour are assimilated to the mental
environment of Christianity.
>But
>I see a real danger that we can slide into a world
>totalitarian state, which is what it means.
No it does not, any more than you understand the Jewish notion of galluth and
Messiah.
I see your complete obfuscation of all clarity on the subject the real tragedy
here.
Ray
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> arg...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)) writes:
>
>> Where did this come from.
>> I do not think it came from the Torah.,
>>
>>Where did you hear this? Anyway, what "vows"? And if his head was
>>smashed with a log, a log of what? Oil or wine? (*)
>
> I believe it was one of Finklestien's book on the Pharisees (I have read 4 of
> them).
> The log was a thick wooden log. Their skulls were crushed.
> I believe they have found at least one skeleton of some one executed in this
> manner.
Ypu mean there is no other way for a skull to be crushed? Or they found
the log next to thge skull?
BUSHBADEE
>
>Ypu mean there is no other way for a skull to be crushed? Or they found
>the log next to thge skull?
>
>Moshe Schor
I do not know Moshe, but evidently that was the law.
Perhaps in your wisdom you could illuminate the group on where this Jewish
Temple law comes from.
If Finklestien wrote of it, there must be a plethora of other writers who have
written of it, if you do not know it existed.
Eliyahu
"BUSHBADEE" <bush...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020114041937...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> In article <2002Jan1...@mm.huji.ac.il>, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>
> >
> >Ypu mean there is no other way for a skull to be crushed? Or they found
> >the log next to thge skull?
> >
> >Moshe Schor
>
> I do not know Moshe, but evidently that was the law.
> Perhaps in your wisdom you could illuminate the group on where this Jewish
> Temple law comes from.
> If Finklestien wrote of it, there must be a plethora of other writers who
have
> written of it, if you do not know it existed.
> .
seems to have ever heard of this "law". It does not follow that if one
person writes about something, many others must have written about it as
well.
Eliyahu
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>You mean there is no other way for a skull to be crushed? Or they found
>>the log next to thge skull?
>
> Perhaps in your wisdom you could illuminate the group on where this
> Jewish Temple law comes from.
There _is_ a Mishna which says that for certain infractions the
kohanim would not bother going to a court but would smash the
offender's skull with logs. I don't know if it was ever carried out.
> If Finklestien wrote of it, there must be a plethora of other
> writers who have written of it, if you do not know it existed.
I wasn't asking about the law. I was asking about the "evidence",
that it was actually carried out.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>Subject:Re: b Re: Is there such a thing as Pharisees and Sadducees today?
>Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:35:48 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<2002Jan1...@mm.huji.ac.il>
>bush...@aol.com (BUSHBADEE) writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>
>>>You mean there is no other way for a skull to be crushed? Or they found
>>>the log next to thge skull?
>>
>> I do not know Moshe, but evidently that was the law.
>> Perhaps in your wisdom you could illuminate the group on where this
>> Jewish Temple law comes from.
>
>There _is_ a Mishna which says that for certain infractions the
>kohanim would not bother going to a court but would smash the
>offender's skull with logs. I don't know if it was ever carried out.
Sanhedrin 81b.
>
>> If Finklestien wrote of it, there must be a plethora of other
>> writers who have written of it, if you do not know it existed.
>
>I wasn't asking about the law. I was asking about the "evidence",
>that it was actually carried out.
>
There's a Tosefot in Zevachim 32 that seems to indicate that this punishment
was actually carried out.
Josh
Micha Berger
: There _is_ a Mishna which says that for certain infractions the
: kohanim would not bother going to a court but would smash the
: offender's skull with logs. I don't know if it was ever carried out.
Is that descriptive or prescritive? Saying they did it doesn't mean that
they were supposed to.
-mi
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd.
> > I do not know Moshe, but evidently that was the law.
> > Perhaps in your wisdom you could illuminate the group on where this
Jewish
> > Temple law comes from.
> > If Finklestien wrote of it, there must be a plethora of other writers
who
>
Which Finklestien? No author of that name turns up on any web search. If you
mean Finkelstein, it looks about as authentic as the work of the
pseudo-historian Norman Finkelstein, who seems to deal more with Holocaust
revisionism than pseudo-history of the Temple period.
Ian
BUSHBADEE
writes:
>
>There's a Tosefot in Zevachim 32 that seems to indicate that this punishment
>was actually carried out.
>
>Josh
Is that any thing like the Mushmar in Quiblewith 75 that also discusses the
matter.
By the way I am going to order the complete Talmud Collection from Davka as
soon as I get down through the pile of stuff on my desk.
About 300 bucks.
BUSHBADEE
>
>I wasn't asking about the law. I was asking about the "evidence",
>that it was actually carried out.
>
We have the third resplensesment of the Talmud, tract 61 which indicates one
Smuel Ginsburt had his head crushed when he was involved with the Chief priests
daughter.
Other than that particular tractate I anm not aware of the penalty being
carried out.
BUSHBADEE
Ltd." <icsrcoup...@matrix.ru> writes:
>>
>Which Finklestien? No author of that name turns up on any web search. If you
>mean Finkelstein, it looks about as authentic as the work of the
>pseudo-historian Norman Finkelstein, who seems to deal more with Holocaust
>revisionism than pseudo-history of the Temple period.
>
>Ian
>
We have been talking about Louis Finkelstein, who prior to his death was
associated with the Jewish Theological Seminary of American and who was
considered by many as the foremost authority on Pharisees and who wrote at
least 4 books on the subject..
All this has been published here before.
BUSHBADEE
writes:
>> .
>Why should Moshe do your homework for you? Thus far, you're the only one who
>seems to have ever heard of this "law". It does not follow that if one
>person writes about something, many others must have written about it as
>well.
>
>Eliyahu
>
You have to do your own home work Moishe.
I know about that Jewish law.
It is you that questions the law and it's source.
I am really not interested in that Temple Law's source.
I have read about it, in a book by a reliable, knowledgeable author familiar
with ancient Jewish law and know it existed.
If you want to prove it or disprove it, then it is up to you to do the home
work.
I have done my homework to learn that such a law existed.