Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-18-2013, 07:52 PM

where Gemara and Torah disagree Gemara is to be preferred according to the rabbanites

Duvduv · 02-18-2013, 07:56 PM

That is rather unfair oversimplification don't you think? The issue is not one of "disagreement" since the role of the Talmud is to elucidate and clarify the Torah itself. The Torah does not explain the details of how to implement commandments but the Talmud does. Otherwise the Torah itself would be several times larger than it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

where Gemara and Torah disagree Gemara is to be preferred according to the rabbanites

stephan huller · 02-18-2013, 08:02 PM

the Samaritans, Karaites and Falashas wouldn't dare do that. It's almost as bad as the "be nice to one another" exemption of the modern Christians. Either the Torah is divine or it is not. How can manmade opinion trump divine decree? Unless the rabbanites are simply conceding its all manmade, its all made up ...

Duvduv · 02-18-2013, 08:24 PM

Have you gone through the vast numbers of texts of legal and intepretative exegesis produced by the Karaites? Of course they are faced with the sore thumb of how they can ever know that what they perform is actually the will of God or not since they have no system of determining whether a particular choice is divinely sanctioned or not. Whereas in Talmudic Judaism the practices authorized by the Sanhedrins, or the majority of the sages is considered divinely sanctioned being from an authoritative source in the chain of transmission which the Karaites reject. Thus, the Karaites could keep a particular commandment and never have the foggiest idea whether the way they were instructed by their particular analyst was agreeable to God or not.

The issue about "man-made" is based on a misunderstanding. For that matter it would apply both to Rabbanites and Karaites except that Judaism holds of a set of laws that go back to Sinai that are not written explicitly in the Torah, plus other oral teachings and a methodology of exegesis that goes back to Sinai. As a matter of fact Judaism teaches that all divine laws were initially transmitted orally since the beginning of mankind and at Sinai a portion was consigned to writing for a particular purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

the Samaritans, Karaites and Falashas wouldn't dare do that. It's almost as bad as the "be nice to one another" exemption of the modern Christians. Either the Torah is divine or it is not. How can manmade opinion trump divine decree? Unless the rabbanites are simply conceding its all manmade, its all made up ...

mountainman · 02-18-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Are Samaritans Jewish?

Samaritan temple discovered on Mount Gerizim [2001]

Quote:

According to Josephus, Nehemiah’s enemy Sanballat was responsible for building a
temple on Mount Gerizim as an alternative place of worship for the Samaritans, and he
installed his son-in-law, who was of the Jewish high priestly family (Neh. 13:28), as
priest. This temple was destroyed by the Maccabean (Hasmonean) king John Hyrcanus,
about 150 years before Jesus had his conversation at the well.

Eighteen years of excavations by a team of Israeli archaeologists on Mount Gerizim
have succeeded in unearthing the remains of a temple there dating to those times. The
excavations ended in July 2000 with the opening of an archaeological park. Although
little of the actual temple itself remains, the excavations have unearthed the outer
boundaries of the temple complex, a flight of steps and outlines of gateways, said to
match descriptions of gateways given by Ezekiel in his description of the temple of the
coming age. The remains of many animal bones provide evidence that sacrifices were
offered here, and some of the many Hebrew inscriptions discovered contain the name
of God.

In “Was there a temple on Mount Gerizim?” (Nov. 1992, p. 414) Brother Dennis
Elliott gave a more detailed review of the evidence for a Samaritan temple on Mount
Gerizim, also expressing the doubts of the Australian archaeologist David Downs in the
magazine Diggings as to whether such a temple ever existed. It would appear that these
doubts have now been resolved, a Samaritan temple really did exist.

The [Samaritan] temple on Mount Gerizim

Merrill’s Letter - Dating of Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim, Biblical Archaeology Society Staff • [2012]

Magen’s Response - Dating of Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim, Biblical Archaeology Society Staff • [2012]

There was a thread about this somewhere.

semiopen · 02-19-2013, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why are you so absolutist? Is Yehuda Cohn the final authority on the subject about which one may not dare disagree? When it comes to other subjects there are so many valid opinions, but here, so much information throughout the ages was in hiding until revealed by one particular writer in a journal article. Does he fall under Vatican I for academic infallibility?

And since there has been such a great historical conspiracy to promote rabbinic Judaism worldwide, would you care to shed light on the nerve center or headquarters of this conspiracy, regarding tefillin or anything else? However, I prefer not to get drawn into these kind of arguments. I am too busy focusing on verses from Revelation, Matthew and Mark and their context.

For a mere distraction why don't we discuss the theories for the real reasons why the pope resigned when his health is better than his predecessor's was for several years? What could be found out from Cardinals Scola or Bertone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Indeed, a discussion of Tefillim is not suitable to a Biblical Criticism and History forum because it was discussed in the Pentateuch, elucidated in the Talmud, and has been found in archaeological settings. This clearly has nothing to do with the Bible or History.

This is an excellent illustration of your absolute cluelessness.

Rabbenu Tam's Tefillin is discussed by Yehuda Cohn in Jewish Studies Quarterly 2007 (Volume 14)

Rabbenu Tam's Tefillin: An Ancient Tradition or the Product of Medieval Exegesis

Cohn compares Tefillin found in the Judean desert with Rabbenu Tam and Rashi concepts of parchment ordering. He also analyzes the biblical and talmudic commentary on the parchment contents.

I don't see support for your position

But you're probably right, Moses probably said the same thing when some jerk kept asking him.

I'm willing to have an intelligent discussion, in line with the rules of this forum.

I haven't seen a single reference from you. While the question of allowing you to continue to post is up to the moderators, there is no reason to take your posts seriously.

For example, you state that the requirements for tefillin are vague in the Talmud which contradicts your statement that the exact requirements for tefillin are part of the oral law from Sinai. Perhaps your position can be defended (about any vagueness) but the lack of documentation is a disgrace.

Dr. Cohn is the major expert on Tefillin in the world today. His views on the Greek origin are a little controversial, but if he is wrong where did they come from? As I mentioned previously Babylonia, Persia (may Chaldea) are candidates. There is no reason to think that they were around during first temple times.

If you argue that they are from Moses and the wilderness, your task is even more demanding. In fact, you never actually come out and say that that is what you are arguing, presumably because it would be too absurd. You can say or imply that stuff in a synagogue and not be challenged but we are not in one here.

You are responsible for this ridiculous sidebar. I made the simple comment (with suitable references) that tefillim could well be a Hellenistic innovation. This is quite ironic because it is considered perhaps the most distinctly Jewish thing. I'm sorry if that offends you but I made a relatively carefully researched observation and have a right to expect a reasonable argument in return.

Duvduv · 02-19-2013, 06:10 AM

What is intentionally vague is the order of the placement of the required passages in the boxes. You can read up on it. I am often accused of not doing enough of my own research but I see the claim can be spread around.
As far as Cohn is concerned he is the foremost expert according to whom?
I am amazed that discoveries like this are alleged to have somehow passed by all the world's rabbinic scholars for 1000 years.

semiopen · 02-19-2013, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

What is intentionally vague is the order of the placement of the required passages in the boxes. You can read up on it. I am often accused of not doing enough of my own research but I see the claim can be spread around.
As far as Cohn is concerned he is the foremost expert according to whom?
I am amazed that discoveries like this are alleged to have somehow passed by all the world's rabbinic scholars for 1000 years.

There are issues with the number of compartments (2 instead of 4) as well as totally different texts - such as the decalogue, in addition to the shape (mentioned above). This is in the archeological record, so the Rabbis wouldn't have known about this.

Nice comment about Dr. Cohn, actually I deduced that from the fact that if one searches tefillin on JSTOR etc he is the guy that comes up most frequently. Yehudah B. Cohn

Quote:

Yehudah Cohn completed a D.Phil. in Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford in 2007, and also has an MA from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Originally from London, where he had studied Statistics & Computer Science at University College London and Business Administration at the London Business School, Dr. Cohn had a career as a commodities trader in New York prior to beginning doctoral research. The subject of his dissertation was the early development of Jewish ritual practice and its connection to Graeco-Roman magic. Utilizing archaeological and literary evidence, it dealt with the reception history of particular biblical passages as refracted through the Jewish encounter with the Hellenistic world, and the impact of this encounter on Jewish religion and rabbinic texts. The dissertation was transformed into a book, for Brown University's Judaic Studies series, and was published by the Society for Biblical Literature in 2008 under the title Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. More recently he has been co-authoring a Handbook of Jewish Literature from Late Antiquity with Fergus Millar and Eyal Ben-Eliyahu, designed to introduce the individual works concerned to non-specialist scholars, and to Roman historians in particular, which is forthcoming in the British Academy's Research Series. Dr. Cohn's most recent publication is "The Graeco-Roman Trade Fair and the Rabbis", JAOS 2011.

I did go out on a limb, so to speak, but I'll stand by my comment.

Here are the scholars at AskMoses

Is wearing tefillin only a custom of orthodox Jews?

This is from my friend Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, who is a bit of shmuck.

Quote:

Tefillin is something all Jews have done since the time of Moses. Tefillin have been found in archeological digs from the times of the Maccabees and as early as the times of Ezra the Scribe, closely resembling those of today. Under the influence of 18th century European Rationalism, the early members of the Reform movement rejected this practice. Today, as the social sciences have brought us an appreciation of the value of ritual in human development, tefillin are making a strong comeback.

Freeman is the Chabad director of science or some such non-sequitor. The first part of the paragraph includes a remarkable number of lies, depending on when he thinks Ezra the Scribe was around, and what closely resembling those of today mean.

I posted this before:

Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World

Dr Cohn gives a terminus ante quem of first or second century BCE putting it in the Hellenistic period starting at late fourth century BCE. He does not rule out a Persian origin (or even earlier - but doesn't consider that likely).

The Qumran finds included 25 tefillin housrings showed fourteen of the housing contained four cells, two had three cells and the rest had one.

The test goes on to discuss the inscriptions on the parchments, etc.

Now maybe R. Freeman is right, used from the time of Moses, Ezra the Scribe lived at the same time as the Hasmoneans, etc. But oviously it is impossible to have a coherent discussion with someone like him on the topic.

This isn't because he isn't intelligent (although in his case it's not clear) but because he comes from a mindset that he knows that Moses had the Torah dictated to him by God and an unbroken oral tradition. These views are undefendable in academia and frankly they should be banned here. It is fine to believe this, but any opinions based on this about the origin of tefillin, the author of Joshua, etc are just not worth debating.

Duvduv · 02-19-2013, 09:29 AM

There could have been all kinds of groups who advocated any one of a variety of interpretations about the construction of the tefillin, the slots inside, the number of passages, etc. What does that prove?

semiopen · 02-19-2013, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

There could have been all kinds of groups who advocated any one of a variety of interpretations about the construction of the tefillin, the slots inside, the number of passages, etc. What does that prove?

This is exactly why you should not be allowed to post.

Quote:

Can you imagine how many Jewish men would consent to obey the wearing of relatively expensive tefillin for one or two hours daily at least, 6 days a week, check the parchments, straps and boxes every few years, and everything else it entails if someone just thought them up in the 1st century?

Why use this forum to work out your own inner turmoil?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2013, 07:52 PM	#141
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	where Gemara and Torah disagree Gemara is to be preferred according to the rabbanites

02-18-2013, 08:02 PM	#143
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	the Samaritans, Karaites and Falashas wouldn't dare do that. It's almost as bad as the "be nice to one another" exemption of the modern Christians. Either the Torah is divine or it is not. How can manmade opinion trump divine decree? Unless the rabbanites are simply conceding its all manmade, its all made up ...

02-19-2013, 06:10 AM	#147
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	What is intentionally vague is the order of the placement of the required passages in the boxes. You can read up on it. I am often accused of not doing enough of my own research but I see the claim can be spread around. As far as Cohn is concerned he is the foremost expert according to whom? I am amazed that discoveries like this are alleged to have somehow passed by all the world's rabbinic scholars for 1000 years.

02-19-2013, 09:29 AM	#149
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	There could have been all kinds of groups who advocated any one of a variety of interpretations about the construction of the tefillin, the slots inside, the number of passages, etc. What does that prove?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.