Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Muslim Apologist Marko مرقس and other apologists claim that following that: The
Jews have taken their priests and rabbis as lords besides Allah... Judaism: Rabbis overrule God. He then referenced the Oven of Akhnai story found in Bava Metzia 59a and 59b. Missionaries, who are usually ignorant as to what the Talmud is and is not, often cite things out of context and claim the Jews have changed Judaism based on their ignorance. Here your Islamic source is trying to say that Jews hold the rabbis and priests "above" G-d Himself. Total nonsense -- and antisemitic to boot! By misusing Jewish sources they do not understand missionaries will "paint the picture" that:
First one must know what the Talmud "is" and what part of the Talmud one can find this story (and it IS a story, not fact or law). The Talmud (there are actually two Talmuds -- Jerusalem and Babylonian) consists of two main concepts: the מִשְׁנָה / Mishna -- which was created to be a "cheat sheet" for a learned person -- the writing was kept to a minimum and meant only to serve as a aid to faltering memories who were taught to memorize the oral mitzvot. The second part of the Talmud are discussions around the Mishna's teachings. These discussions may discuss the finer points of Jewish law (מִדְךְשׁי הֲלָכָה / Midrash Halacha), but there are also stories and humor as well. This מִדְרַשׁ־אַגָּדָה / Midrash Aggadah -- which means telling a story. מִדְרַשׁ־אַגָּדָה / Midrash Aggadah is not prophecy or meant to be taken literally. . . a word or sentence is lifted from the bible to make a moral point. However, prophecy is NEVER based on these flights of fancy. You guessed it, Bava Metzia 59a and 59b, also known as תנור של עכנאי / "the oven of Akhnai", was a story - מִדְרַשׁ־אַגָּדָה / Midrash Aggadah (allegory to make a moral point, not literal meaning). -- not something to be taken literally -- which is how the missionaries present it to their unlearned (in Torah and Talmud) audience. This is wrong, and it is deceitful. Whether or not the missionaries misusing this passage realize they are distorting it is open to question. Most of them probably do not know anything about the Talmud or Judaism let alone מִדְרַשׁ־אַגָּדָה / Midrash Aggadah. The point of the story is to make the moral point that judges have been given the authority to make judicial rulings. The Talmudic story re-enforces what we’ve already been told in the Torah – that we are to appoint judges from all the tribes and then to listen to their rulings! D'varim / Deuteronomy 17:8-12. G-d has told us in the Torah to establish courts and to listen to the decisions made by the judges. G-d put the authority of deciding legal issues in the hands of mortal man -- judges because the Torah was made for us in this world and we are co-creators -- that is the entire reason G-d created us. In Bava Metzia 59b G-d is speaking (in מִדְרַשׁ־אַגָּדָה / Midrash Aggadah, so not meant to be taken literally) and saying proudly ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me." -- the judges He put in place are not afraid of making decisions. So:
"Appoint yourselves judges and police for your tribes in all your settlements that G-d your L-rd is giving you, and make sure that they administer honest judgment for the people. Do not bend justice and do not give special consideration [to anyone]. Do not take bribes, since bribery makes the wise blind and perverts the words of the righteous. Pursue perfect honesty, so that you will live and occupy the land that G-d your L-rd is giving you." D'varim / Deuteronomy 16:18-20. The written Torah tells us:
In the story (and it IS a story) in the Talmud G-d agrees with R' Eliezer on the halacha (Jewish law) -- but the majority of the Rabbis have a different ruling. The Rabbis argue that in a court of law "majority rules" -- and this is G-d's own ruling. Far from showing the Jews are more powerful than G-d, the Rabbis prove to G-d that they are obeying His mitzvot by coming to a majority judicial ruling as He decreed. The missionaries distort the idea that to follow G-d we must use the brains He gave us -- not to disobey Him, but to follow His instructions. Sh'mot / Exodus 23:2 in the bible tells us that we are to rule according to the majority, and be careful to be just. The missionary is keying on "majority" when the key here is "for evil." The footnote, which the missionary ignored in Artscroll, explains: "Several laws are derived from this verse by means of Talmudic exegesis... A judge must voice his opinion according to his understanding of the law and the evidence. Even if he is heavily outnumbered by others, he must not change his opinion to agree with them, if he considers them to be mistaken or intentionally perverting the law." Paints quite a different picture from the one presented by the missionary, doesn't it? Even in the story in Bava Metzia 59a and 59b we have a judge disagreeing with the majority - which is right in line with Sh'mot / Exodus 23:2. Jewish law is very, very careful to adhere to Torah mitzvot, the opposite of the missionary claim. If there is total agreement (for example) of a death penalty the person is NOT put to death. Let's discuss the Jewish legal system. Jewish courts do not use juries -- each court has multiple judges. Today Jewish courts (בית דין / Beit Din / House of Judgement) are comprised of three judges. Rabbis are judges -- this is one of their primary responsibilities and roles. Why three judges? “You should not judge alone, for there is none qualified to judge alone, only the One.” Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 4:8. It must be more than two (at least 3) because the Torah tells us "Do not follow the majority to do evil. Do not speak up in a trial to pervert justice. A case must be decided on the basis of the majority." Sh'mot / Exodus 23:2. A super majority of three from a court of 23 was required to pass a death penalty. At least three had to be "for" on the majority side – in a court of 23 that meant that it had to be 13 - 10 in favor of the death penalty for it to be passed. Two judges are not enough to have a majority (one might have a "tie"). This is why all Jewish courts (including the minor Sanhedrins and Great Sanhedrin) were uneven numbers of 23 and 71. . . The smallest courts have three judges, and our sages tell us that, a Jewish court can not rule against a defendant by a majority created by one judge. In death penalty cases a court had to have at least 23 Judges. The appellate court was the Great Sanhedrin of 71 sitting in the לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית lishkat hagazit (“Chamber of Carved Stone”) in the Temple. If all the judges voted "guilty" or even all but one voted "guilty" the accused was set free. There had to be a super majority of three judges voting for innocent for a man to actually be condemned to death. (again, referencing back to Sh'mot / Exodus 23:2). Missionaries make claims that are simply unsupportable based both on Jewish law and Jewish history. That in itself is explicit proof that in the case of the oven the law was in accordance with the consensus of Sages. In the story the rabbis argue with G-d as to who is right on a judicial ruling (arguing with G-d is an old, respected Jewish tradition dating back to B'reshit / Genesis 18 where Abraham argues with G-d to save the people of Sodom). . . in the STORY G-d eventually agrees with the majority debating the ruling. Got that? G-d AGREES with them. Yet this Islamic missionary -- lifting a lie from Christian missionaries -- wants to point to the story as how Jews ignore G-d's commandments???? How is this story proof of the Jews changing something G-d dictated when G-d agrees with the sages, going so far as to JOKE about it ("my children have bested me!")? G-d can take a joke, but apparently missionaries can not!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|