Can you name 10 traditions Yeshua Hamashiach took issue with?

[The Revolting Man]

That's a fair comment Zec.
The answer is, "a whole heck of a lot of them".
The Mishnah records in a whole lot of detail not only various interpretations of how to keep Laws but also WHICH RABBIS taught such and such. This was written down around 200 AD. It had been memorized by the Tannaim Sages who claimed it's much much older. You can certainly go the route of poking holes in those claims. I don't think, however, it's far fetched to consider that such details could have survived from Yeshua's day in an oral tradition for a couple of centuries (though we believe the oral tradition is much much older than that). This is actually the official position of the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute Messianic Judaism's only real Yeshiva (seminary). The position is actually that the Mishna and many comments of the gamara go way before that time. This makes sense if you consider the 400 years of silence where we don't have prophecy on the level of "write this down" happening. Instead there is a transition into the Rabbinical way of approaching scripture.

Your comment that the Talmud is "barely a thousand years old(in it's current form)" is misleading (though I don't think intentionally). The current format (Vilna Edition) is only a couple hundred years (in it's current form). The heart of the talmud, however, is the Mishneh and the comments of the rishonimi and those are far more ancient than you suggest. People misunderstand the nature of the talmud.
Part of the Talmud is written in Hebrew, so that's from a time period when folks spoke Hebrew. Many scholars think Hebrew was no longer spoken in Israel during the days of Yeshua, so riddle me that one?
The Gemara, running commentary / history, in the Talmud is written in Babylonian Aramaic since those who wrote it lived in Babylon. So you may want to rethink that just because we have records of a thing being put on paper at a certain date, hardly means that thing is "created at that date". Respectfully, you may want to learn a bit more about Talmud before making sweeping statements about it brother.

It is not a bible.
It's a conversation across the generations. It includes disagreements, arguments, and the rationale for majority decisions by the courts which Moses commanded be established (religious courts).
It's a bundle of case law in this sense which preserves the dissenting opinions in court cases regarding Torah Law so that future generations can learn not only the ruling (i.e. the tradition) but also the way of thinking which leads to this ruling. There is a common misunderstanding among Hebrew roots folks that the Jewish way of understanding Torah somehow obfuscates Talmud and written Torah.
Among those who study there is always an awareness of a mitzvah that is written in the bible verses a court decree by a religious court. Rabbis often point these things out "that's a tachinah" someone will say. "It's not in written Torah".

Your comment that the Talmud is younger than the Quran" is entirely false and the opinion that the core of the Talmud is younger than the New Testament, well that's not how Jews see it and it's not the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute's perspective either (these are all believers in Yeshua the Messiah).

Everything I've read says that the Talmud wasn't finished until 1000 A.D. I will accept that parts of it are older than that but it wasn't completed (hence in the form that we know it) until comparatively recently. And as far as I can tell it wasn't referenced in the canonical writings anywhere.

 

[IshChayil]

A

Actually, you have answered the question. Twice.

Here's what I know. Christian tradition, our 'sages' have tons of great teaching. Volumes and volumes. Much of it codified into doctrines and streams of thought. No different than Judaism. Some us great, some debateable, some clearly wrong in hindsight once held to the fullness of Scripture. 'Old' and 'new' testaments. I know the players, the streams of thought, the errors. It is, imho, a minefield. Most Christians don't view it as such, but no Calvinust turns a new believer loose with Arminius or vice versa.

The combined errors are like barnacles on a boat, they ocassionally need to be scraped off... we call that Reformation. It happens from time to time. Coming to Hebrew roots, I began to recognized heavier layers of barnacles that I needed to scrape off. And, I recognized chunks of doctrine are based mostly on NT Scriptures with assumptions gluing it together.

The nature of religion and the nature of man dictates that barnacles get added. Period. Full stop. Judaism is no different. The problem is I don't know the playing field, the barnacles, the different streams of thought, etc. As one who leads, why in the world would I knowingly go or send others into a 'minefield' that I know has error? Particularly when I don't know where all the errors are?

I'm sorry, it is not personal and it is not antisemitic. Rabbinic Judaism may have some good and reliable stuff. So does Christianity. BOTH have error built in. I have experienced personal reformation and come back to Scripture alone without filters. Does that mean I leave some stuff on the table or maybe not get the most out because I don't read sages or theologians much anymore? Maybe.

I'll know it is time to delve into Jewish thought when I see brothers on that side of the aisle wringing hands and acknowledging that they, too, have missed the mark with manmade interpretations.

I love you and bless you. I choose to walk with you, but may not drink from that fount until the Mashiach throws in a branch to sweeten the bitter elements.

Be that branch. Begin to question everything in the interest of the fullness of truth and for the sake of your brothers. Identify and call out the errors.

Shalom.

So I wrote a full response to this then took it down.
I may send it to you in private. The main thrust was "why teach how dangerous Judaism's traditions are when you acknowledge yourself that you don't really know much about said traditions".

So instead, I'll answer your question regarding what parts of Jewish thought I would warn against today. This is getting a bit off topic for this thread but I'll indulge you since things are heating up more than I would like over here and I hope this will help cool them down.

First thing that comes to mind is Kabbalah.
Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism and has introduced concepts which the sages did not; primarily reincarnation. This is a dangerous example of "adding to" in my opinion.
To be fair, I have never studied Kabbalah because I was warned by my Rabbi when I was younger that one should not study Kabbalah unless he is: 1) a Master of Torah 2) Married 3) 40 years old; otherwise it can drive a person insane.

Effectively #1 still keeps me from studying that vast field of thought. It's a bit funny that the very field of thought which Rabbis warn against studying is the one that's so popular among Lefties in the West.
As I said, I never studied it so I can't comment more deeply on it but I would certainly extend my Rabbi's warning to anyone else who asks me about it.

The other kind of weird group I'd warn against is Chabad Lubevich. I used to feel comfortable (years ago), attending services at chabad. The Rabbi knew I'm Messianic. I was living in an area where there were no Messianic synagogues so I would attend Chabad on shabbat and a church on Sundays... kind of a weird time in my life. The orthodox service is mostly saying Palms in Hebrew or some other old prayers anyway.
Anyway, that was a long time ago. One time in Israel I went to a Chabad to buy some tallit katans (Jewish underwear for others reading) and when I walked in there was a huge picture of Menachem Schneerson on the hallway wall. I was disturbed in the spirit and decided to leave.
Many Chabad Lubavechers believe that Menachem Schneerson is the Messiah. So, obviously that's not cool.
So that's the second stream of thought I'd recommend avoiding. I'm speaking specifically about Chabad Lubevich.
A third would be excessive numerology. I find this to largely be a distraction from valid Torah study. Sure, sometimes there's something interesting that comes out of it but I don't like it when believers get caught up too deeply in that. For the same reason I warn believers against the huge colossal distraction that is the study of "Paleo Hebrew"; pretty much a scam that pretends Hebrew language is somehow effected by what the original Phoenician letters where pictures of. I wrote extensively about that here a year+ ago. Like numerology, it takes away time from valid Hebrew/Torah study though at least with numerology there is some validity at times.

So if you warn folks to avoid Kabbalah, this includes the Zohar, the primary document used by Kabbalasts (written in Aramaic). I'd also keep people away from "Merkavah Judaism" which is more mysticism (which I don't know much about).
Reform Judaism as a stream of thought; this is "liberal Judaism" as properly identified in Britain whereas the US name obfuscates the position. It's pretty much open rebellion against the sages.
Reconstructionist Judaism - sometimes OK depending on the place but also tends to be more liberal and years back their Yeshiva came out with a ridiculous position against Israel.

For someone interested in expanding their knowledge in Jewish thought with primary source documents only, I would recommend to read the Mishnah Tractate Pirqei Avot also known as "Ethics of the Fathers".
This can shine some light on New Testament understandings like "All of Israel shall be saved" as quoted by Paul (referring in all likelihood to the Pirqui Avot). It also has other teachings such as, "what is hateful to you do not do to others". It can be read critically taking in what's useful and there's a lot of nice material to be included in sermons; I'm sure your students would appreciate any gems you find in it.

Anyway I hope this helps.
Shalom

 

[The Revolting Man]

What exactly kind of logical fallacy is "calling bullsh*t"? I don't remember learning that one.
It sure sounds convincing though.


Zec, I never argued that tradition was the reason for not killing a Passover lamb any more.
One thing I wrote you specifically was that now Yeshua is our Passover lamb; that's actually a standard Christian argument against sacrificing. To say that I said "you can't keep that Torah law b/c ummm ummm tradition that's why yeah" is inaccurate. You do know that the Passover lambs had to be slaughtered at the holy place (first the Mishkan "Tabernacle" then the Beit Miqdash "temple") right? That's how it happened in scripture, not just tradition. Only the first Passover lamb was to be slaughtered "in your own home" because we did not yet have the holy place. (The Israelites were even later restricted by Moses to not do offerings on private altars any more and that all slaughtering should be done at the Mishkan).
I further reasoned that halakhic exegesis has determined that men are not to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. This yields the traditional understanding that only an expert butcher should slaughter a living animal so that the animal will not suffer. Now you did not yield my counsel (despite your views of me being wiser and what-not) and you admitted later that the animal which you slaughtered for your Passover meal that year really fought with you. I was careful not to say "I told you so" but now that you bring it up again as if I was so off-base in leaning on traditional understanding and somehow trying to get you to violate a commandment, I'll now say [over a year later] "I told you so". You made an animal suffer unnecessarily in an unsanctified place, when we already have a Paschal lamb, so that you could keep the command "according to your own understanding". I've grown to care for you these last couple of years but I'd like to humbly ask you to revisit the oversimplification of your remark above. Was I really telling you to violate a command ... because tradition or was my argument a bit more cogent and nuanced than that?
Might it be the case that you were just being stubborn in your own ways you didn't want to listen to reason, and even repeated the process again this year (still with a struggling animal but "not as bad as last year")?

The only reason I even intervened so strongly on that issue was I believe it's a sin to do that (a believer in Yeshua to slaughter a Passover lamb at home in this day and age). I was treating you as a brother with my correction. (Maybe I am wrong on my understanding of the issue, but I want you to see the reasoning for this was not simply "tradition")

You actually would have had a point if you had spoken to me about the issue of only sacrificing the Passover in the place that God chooses to put His Name. You didn't. Your approach was that I couldn't perform the butchering without causing undue suffering, a concept the details of which could not at all be ascertained through scripture. It's a completely subjective standard that can't be applied practically. Normally when I put down an animal I punch a hole .357 of an inch right behind the ear at high velocity. They drop like a stone. There is no suffering at all. Chickens I chop the head off of. I doubt they feel anything either. Does that meet the standard? What even is the standard? There is none. It's a completely made up thing. It's nowhere in the Bible and it's completely unworkable in reality.

Now I am re-evaluating my approach to Passover. @PeteR brought up the real issue of the command to only do it in what is most likely Jerusalem. That's actually in the Bible, no traditions needed. If you had led with that you would have had a much better chance of effecting my behavior. Although at the moment I am pretty sure that all the Laws that Moses gave right before the Israelites went in to the Land only apply to Israelites in the Land. That's an idea I think you gave me when you were talking about the Shemitah one time.

As far as the lambs struggling, I think that's at least part of the point. It's a very visceral experience to cut an animal's throat and both years so far I've been struck with the similarities between myself and the lamb. You can say you told me so but I would counter that I never denied it. I just think when something is labeled a covenant for all times it should be taken pretty seriously. I am, as always, willing to be proven wrong.

 

[IshChayil]

You actually would have had a point if you had spoken to me about the issue of only sacrificing the Passover in the place that God chooses to put His Name. You didn't. Your approach was that I couldn't perform the butchering without causing undue suffering, a concept the details of which could not at all be ascertained through scripture. It's a completely subjective standard that can't be applied practically. Normally when I put down an animal I punch a hole .357 of an inch right behind the ear at high velocity. They drop like a stone. There is no suffering at all. Chickens I chop the head off of. I doubt they feel anything either. Does that meet the standard? What even is the standard? There is none. It's a completely made up thing. It's nowhere in the Bible and it's completely unworkable in reality.

Now I am re-evaluating my approach to Passover. @PeteR brought up the real issue of the command to only do it in what is most likely Jerusalem. That's actually in the Bible, no traditions needed. If you had led with that you would have had a much better chance of effecting my behavior. Although at the moment I am pretty sure that all the Laws that Moses gave right before the Israelites went in to the Land only apply to Israelites in the Land. That's an idea I think you gave me when you were talking about the Shemitah one time.

As far as the lambs struggling, I think that's at least part of the point. It's a very visceral experience to cut an animal's throat and both years so far I've been struck with the similarities between myself and the lamb. You can say you told me so but I would counter that I never denied it. I just think when something is labeled a covenant for all times it should be taken pretty seriously. I am, as always, willing to be proven wrong.

Haven't seen @PeteR 's post about that (way to go Pete). I have a number of discussions with Hebrew roots guys at different places and can't always remember all the details of each discussion. I am certain I mentioned to you that we already have a Passover Lamb and also that the need to sacrifice in one's home was only for the 1st passover.

Had you just by default gone along with Judah you would have avoided sin and learned why later.
Way to open up about that bro.

That's why G-d puts big brothers in our life (not saying me, saying the millions of hours Jewish sages have already spent on these issues can be borrowed; like you appreciated the value of halachik exegesis by the sages in determining rules for clean/unclean birds).
I stand by the uneccessary animal suffering as quite provable from scripture (but I don't want to derail this thread arguing about that stuff here). Heck, is being a good steward of the Earth causing more pain or less?
Often we respond/react to certain positions (myself included) because of the lefties who have taken certain positions; it clouds our judgement because as conservatives we are so used to reacting against the insane left there are triggers that bleed over. I believe in conserving what we can of the Earth but I find myself reacting at times against those positions b/c all the "global warming" hype.

This is the take away I'm hoping well-meaning Hebrew Roots folks can get: The Olive Tree's trunk's way of keeping mitzvot doesn't have to be "feared by default". It's often a much better vehicle for getting a Torah keeper where they want to go (at least as a starting place). I think it's the enemy stirring up the strife between brothers with "fear of Jewish traditions" in order to trip up people in their walk.

shalom

 

[IshChayil]

Everything I've read says that the Talmud wasn't finished until 1000 A.D. I will accept that parts of it are older than that but it wasn't completed (hence in the form that we know it) until comparatively recently. And as far as I can tell it wasn't referenced in the canonical writings anywhere.

Zec,
the Talmud is simply a commentary on the Mishnah (the oral tradition of how to keep the Torah).
Google about the Mishnah to get a better understanding of when it was codified (2nd century). The Mishnah is written in Hebrew. The commentary part of Talmmud, Gemara, is written in Aramaic.

Your confusion stems from the fact that the spirit of gemara keeps growing as more commentators interact with it throughout the centuries. There are technical terms for each "age of commentators". The tannaim were the guys who had the mishna memorized at the time it was written down or slightly before. These tannaim often quote baraitas "sayings" which did not make it into the mishnah codification which perhaps should have been in there. The general feeling is that since the Mishnah was only The rishonim "first ones" are the first new layer of comments added to the gemara. There are several more groups (in decreasing weight) who interact with the earlier generation's decisions, arguments, etc. reviewing and disputing, digging and thinking as it were. This is why whatever source you got the idea that the Talmud was just written down 1000 years ago "in its current form" provided you that gloss.
One of the most famous medieval Rabbis, known as Rashi, commented on the entire Talmud. It's fairly standard to include his comments in modern editions of the Talmud (Rashi lived around 1100 AD).

My favorite modern version of the talmud is the Steinsaltz edition. This edition continues to grow as Rabbi Adin Steinsalz interacts with the gemara by adding his own comments (today).
Hope this helps you understand better. If civilization still stands the Talmud will continue to be interacted with 500 years from now but nobody will say that the Talmud is just 1500 years old at that point. It's certainly much older than the Quran and the orally maintained content is likely older than the New Testament; at least many aspects of it are such as the teachings of Rabbis who predate Yeshua.

There's a lot of misunderstandings that becomes misinformation that goes on about all things Jewish in the Hebrew roots movements.
I hope this is clearer for you now brother.

shalom

 

[Mojo]

I would add that at times Hashem doesn't want Israel to even do His commandments because their hearts were in a bad place "you think I want the blood of bulls? The cattle on a thousand hills are mine...." this same spirit of Hypocrisy addressed in the Old Testament is also revisited in the New. Have the right attitude and loyalties when you fulfill the commands. Most of Yeshua's attacks are on this attitude/motivation issue.

Excellent point...And the Son of David often echoed King David and his psalms in this regard.

 

[PeteR]

So I wrote a full response to this then took it down.
I may send it to you in private. The main thrust was "why teach how dangerous Judaism's traditions are when you acknowledge yourself that you don't really know much about said traditions".

So instead, I'll answer your question regarding what parts of Jewish thought I would warn against today. This is getting a bit off topic for this thread but I'll indulge you since things are heating up more than I would like over here and I hope this will help cool them down.

First thing that comes to mind is Kabbalah.
Kabbalah is Jewish mysticism and has introduced concepts which the sages did not; primarily reincarnation. This is a dangerous example of "adding to" in my opinion.
To be fair, I have never studied Kabbalah because I was warned by my Rabbi when I was younger that one should not study Kabbalah unless he is: 1) a Master of Torah 2) Married 3) 40 years old; otherwise it can drive a person insane.

Effectively #1 still keeps me from studying that vast field of thought. It's a bit funny that the very field of thought which Rabbis warn against studying is the one that's so popular among Lefties in the West.
As I said, I never studied it so I can't comment more deeply on it but I would certainly extend my Rabbi's warning to anyone else who asks me about it.

The other kind of weird group I'd warn against is Chabad Lubevich. I used to feel comfortable (years ago), attending services at chabad. The Rabbi knew I'm Messianic. I was living in an area where there were no Messianic synagogues so I would attend Chabad on shabbat and a church on Sundays... kind of a weird time in my life. The orthodox service is mostly saying Palms in Hebrew or some other old prayers anyway.
Anyway, that was a long time ago. One time in Israel I went to a Chabad to buy some tallit katans (Jewish underwear for others reading) and when I walked in there was a huge picture of Menachem Schneerson on the hallway wall. I was disturbed in the spirit and decided to leave.
Many Chabad Lubavechers believe that Menachem Schneerson is the Messiah. So, obviously that's not cool.
So that's the second stream of thought I'd recommend avoiding. I'm speaking specifically about Chabad Lubevich.
A third would be excessive numerology. I find this to largely be a distraction from valid Torah study. Sure, sometimes there's something interesting that comes out of it but I don't like it when believers get caught up too deeply in that. For the same reason I warn believers against the huge colossal distraction that is the study of "Paleo Hebrew"; pretty much a scam that pretends Hebrew language is somehow effected by what the original Phoenician letters where pictures of. I wrote extensively about that here a year+ ago. Like numerology, it takes away time from valid Hebrew/Torah study though at least with numerology there is some validity at times.

So if you warn folks to avoid Kabbalah, this includes the Zohar, the primary document used by Kabbalasts (written in Aramaic). I'd also keep people away from "Merkavah Judaism" which is more mysticism (which I don't know much about).
Reform Judaism as a stream of thought; this is "liberal Judaism" as properly identified in Britain whereas the US name obfuscates the position. It's pretty much open rebellion against the sages.
Reconstructionist Judaism - sometimes OK depending on the place but also tends to be more liberal and years back their Yeshiva came out with a ridiculous position against Israel.

For someone interested in expanding their knowledge in Jewish thought with primary source documents only, I would recommend to read the Mishnah Tractate Pirqei Avot also known as "Ethics of the Fathers".
This can shine some light on New Testament understandings like "All of Israel shall be saved" as quoted by Paul (referring in all likelihood to the Pirqui Avot). It also has other teachings such as, "what is hateful to you do not do to others". It can be read critically taking in what's useful and there's a lot of nice material to be included in sermons; I'm sure your students would appreciate any gems you find in it.

Anyway I hope this helps.
Shalom

Ish, thank you. This is the kind of honesty that needs to happen. All of this I already knew, but it is refreshing to hear the admission because now we can have an open discussion on what parts are valuable v the fact fact that there are indeed parts to be warned away from.

See? This is where you can be of huge value, that sweet branch... you need a blog explaining the good, the bad and the ugly for Hebrew roots coming to Torah. Start with Pirkeh Avot. Connect and explain the principle from Torah all while maintaining the self effacing honesty that it is wisdom, but not Divinely inspired (Scripture).

To reveal that I know a little... I have some contact with Orthodox, particularly on my trips to Israel. A dear friend who interacts with them a lot recommended Tanya specifically for the pages on Malchut. Priceless in being able to explain who I think Yeshua is and why I keep my trust there.

I'll write more later and answer your PM, seriously busy right now. But, again, thank you for the open response.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Had you just by default gone along with Judah you would have avoided sin and learned why later.

I'm not even a little convinced that I sinned.

 

[Nikud]

5. Money changing in the Temple
There is not ancestral interpretation from Torah that this is OK. Seems Yeshua is correcting bad behavior, not something one's Fathers taught as a good way to observe a commandment. @Kevin have you ever seen anything in the shulchan arukh that talks about the need to money change in the beis miqdash? I'm less knowledgeable on this one so my rebuff of your statement is not a strong one.

No there isn't. Unless one is interpreting what the money changers doing in the temple as an act of the temple treasury, which according to tradition breaks tradition. But there is a truly amazing discussion about buring money that brings to mind a parable by Yeshua.

The Disscusion:

The lengths to which one is required to go to properly guard someone else’s money are beyond belief (not to mention the determination of the thieves). Such is the care one must have when guarding the money of others. Yet such is not very practical[5] and halacha lemaaseh, in actual practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 291:18) rules that one only need guard money as is commonly done by the masses. Whereas in at one times that may have meant burying the money, today it would probably be sufficient to keep it locked in one’s home.

[2] So concerned were our Sages with the possibility of theft that they insisted that those who worked in the Temple treasury wear clothes that had no pockets and nothing sewn on them (Krishna Shekalim 3:2). Even if we need not fear that spiritual leaders might steal – a fear that is, sadly, not always unreasonable – having pockets would open them up to suspicion of theft by others. Public figurers must not only uphold the highest of ethical standards they must also be perceived as doing such.

Shmuel argues – and it is not clear to me whether this is a leniency or stringency – that “money can be guarded only by burial in the ground.” One must literally bury the money if one wants to protect it. Fascinatingly, Rava claims that Shmuel relaxes this requirement if one receives the money on Friday afternoon[3]. One just does not have the time late on Friday to dig and bury, and hiding it somewhere in the house would be “the way of the watchmen.” However, if one does not bury the money immediately after Shabbat ends one would be liable for any loss. Not too much leeway here[4].

[3] The Gemara only exempts money given bein hashemashot, at twilight, on Friday afternoon. This cannot be understood literally as Shabbat begins before twilight, and handling money at that point would be a violation of the rabbinic laws of muktza – and digging a hiding place a biblical violation of chofer, one of the 39 melachot of Shabbat. 
Rather it emphasizes that even on Firday afternnon one must go to great lengths to ensure the money is well hidden.

[4] In another fascinating glimpse into the world – both religious and economic - of the Sages, the Gemara notes that if the depositor is a Torah scholar one need not bury the money immediately after Shabbat, as perhaps the money will be needed to purchase wine for havdallah.

The fact that Yeshuas parable about burying money shows the age of this tradition at at least His Era and not 1000 AD. There are many traditions and writings that can be traced back to the Babaloyian captivity written in ancient non biblical histories. Just as any commentary or interpretation there is good and bad.

Genizah means "reserved" or "hidden" in Hebrew, and is traditionally a place where Jews store sacred documents when they fall out of use. The practice of storing them in a cave or buring them.

The Talmud (Shabbat 115a) stipulates that all sacred writings (scrolls of Torah, Prophets, and Writings), should be preserved in a place where they cannot be destroyed. Though this idea originally was closely tied to a prohibition from ever erasing God’s name, Maimonides ruled that holy books, such as the Talmud and midrash, should be retired to the genizah as well, even though they do not contain God’s name (Mishneh Torah, Hilhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:8)

Another Tradition that goes back to Yeshuas Era.
Dead sea scrolls come to mind.

 

[IshChayil]

I'm not even a little convinced that I sinned.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I'll clarify...
OK here is what you wrote.

Now I am re-evaluating my approach to Passover. @PeteR brought up the real issue of the command to only do it in what is most likely Jerusalem. ...

So why are you re-evaluating your approach to Passover (regarding the lamb issue we were discussing) if you are "not even a little convinced that I sinned"?
Gotta be a "little convinced" to re-evaluate the whole spiel no?
context: Passover slaughter of lamb/goat by yourself on your land
context: pete points out it's wrong gotta be Jerusalem
context: you are now due to comment by Pete re-evaluating

My confusion: You are not even a little bit convinced this was incorrect behavior; surely you can see why I was/am confused on that communication.

 

[IshChayil]

Ish, thank you. This is the kind of honesty that needs to happen. All of this I already knew, but it is refreshing to hear the admission because now we can have an open discussion on what parts are valuable v the fact fact that there are indeed parts to be warned away from.

See? This is where you can be of huge value, that sweet branch... you need a blog explaining the good, the bad and the ugly for Hebrew roots coming to Torah. Start with Pirkeh Avot. Connect and explain the principle from Torah all while maintaining the self effacing honesty that it is wisdom, but not Divinely inspired (Scripture).

To reveal that I know a little... I have some contact with Orthodox, particularly on my trips to Israel. A dear friend who interacts with them a lot recommended Tanya specifically for the pages on Malchut. Priceless in being able to explain who I think Yeshua is and why I keep my trust there.

I'll write more later and answer your PM, seriously busy right now. But, again, thank you for the open response.

Thanks for the advice, but I'd rather see a Hebrew Roots person take up the mantle of "Jewish tradition is not evil brothers so we don't have to continuously reinvent the wheel...and let's stop fear mongering about it."
Preferably someone who used to promote that way of thinking and has since discovered the errors therein.
It needs to be one or more of my Hebrew roots brothers.
There's also a time issue right now.
I've got an ongoing translation/writing project which is a time black hole; I create 1 to 2 new drashes per week (minimum 90 minutes / drash), I'm preparing content for our umbrella organization, and I've been asked to take on a Hebrew & Greek teaching gig here. Full time ministry has not been providing much for parnessah for my family and I need to make some loochie: I'd really like to buy a car and an Air conditioner for my family, ha!
That said, I'm leaning towards the nutty professor job; if so, I don't think there will be a lot of time for adding a blog with Q&A to my list.

How about you write the blog and I can pop in to help sometimes for Q&A (with a light time commitment only)

 

[The Revolting Man]

Maybe I misunderstood you. I'll clarify...
OK here is what you wrote.

So why are you re-evaluating your approach to Passover (regarding the lamb issue we were discussing) if you are "not even a little convinced that I sinned"?
Gotta be a "little convinced" to re-evaluate the whole spiel no?
context: Passover slaughter of lamb/goat by yourself on your land
context: pete points out it's wrong gotta be Jerusalem
context: you are now due to comment by Pete re-evaluating

My confusion: You are not even a little bit convinced this was incorrect behavior; surely you can see why I was/am confused on that communication.

I am not at all worried that my treatment of the lamb was at all sinful. I am almost completely assured I am not required to be in Jerusalem. I still have some study to do there. I've just been too lazy to do it yet.

 

[IshChayil]

No there isn't. Unless one is interpreting what the money changers doing in the temple as an act of the temple treasury, which according to tradition breaks tradition. But there is a truly amazing discussion about buring money that brings to mind a parable by Yeshua.

The Disscusion:

The lengths to which one is required to go to properly guard someone else’s money are beyond belief (not to mention the determination of the thieves). Such is the care one must have when guarding the money of others. Yet such is not very practical[5] and halacha lemaaseh, in actual practice, the Shulchan Aruch (Chosen Mishpat 291:18) rules that one only need guard money as is commonly done by the masses. Whereas in at one times that may have meant burying the money, today it would probably be sufficient to keep it locked in one’s home.

[2] So concerned were our Sages with the possibility of theft that they insisted that those who worked in the Temple treasury wear clothes that had no pockets and nothing sewn on them (Krishna Shekalim 3:2). Even if we need not fear that spiritual leaders might steal – a fear that is, sadly, not always unreasonable – having pockets would open them up to suspicion of theft by others. Public figurers must not only uphold the highest of ethical standards they must also be perceived as doing such.

Shmuel argues – and it is not clear to me whether this is a leniency or stringency – that “money can be guarded only by burial in the ground.” One must literally bury the money if one wants to protect it. Fascinatingly, Rava claims that Shmuel relaxes this requirement if one receives the money on Friday afternoon[3]. One just does not have the time late on Friday to dig and bury, and hiding it somewhere in the house would be “the way of the watchmen.” However, if one does not bury the money immediately after Shabbat ends one would be liable for any loss. Not too much leeway here[4].

[3] The Gemara only exempts money given bein hashemashot, at twilight, on Friday afternoon. This cannot be understood literally as Shabbat begins before twilight, and handling money at that point would be a violation of the rabbinic laws of muktza – and digging a hiding place a biblical violation of chofer, one of the 39 melachot of Shabbat. 
Rather it emphasizes that even on Firday afternnon one must go to great lengths to ensure the money is well hidden.

[4] In another fascinating glimpse into the world – both religious and economic - of the Sages, the Gemara notes that if the depositor is a Torah scholar one need not bury the money immediately after Shabbat, as perhaps the money will be needed to purchase wine for havdallah.

The fact that Yeshuas parable about burying money shows the age of this tradition at at least His Era and not 1000 AD. There are many traditions and writings that can be traced back to the Babaloyian captivity written in ancient non biblical histories. Just as any commentary or interpretation there is good and bad.

Genizah means "reserved" or "hidden" in Hebrew, and is traditionally a place where Jews store sacred documents when they fall out of use. The practice of storing them in a cave or buring them.

The Talmud (Shabbat 115a) stipulates that all sacred writings (scrolls of Torah, Prophets, and Writings), should be preserved in a place where they cannot be destroyed. Though this idea originally was closely tied to a prohibition from ever erasing God’s name, Maimonides ruled that holy books, such as the Talmud and midrash, should be retired to the genizah as well, even though they do not contain God’s name (Mishneh Torah, Hilhot Yesodei HaTorah 6:8)

Another Tradition that goes back to Yeshuas Era.
Dead sea scrolls come to mind.

Very interesting and nice finds Kev!
Thanks for the post.

 

[Pacman]

Thanks for the advice, but I'd rather see a Hebrew Roots person take up the mantle of "Jewish tradition is not evil brothers so we don't have to continuously reinvent the wheel...and let's stop fear mongering about it."

I am still fairly new to this so perhaps it’s happening elsewhere and I’m just not aware of it but honestly I haven’t seen anyone act this way about it. And if they did I would not fellowship with them or promote them. The folks I have interacted with and watched teachings from point out what they believe are simply traditions, and what are actually biblical commands, but calling them evil I haven’t seen.

The problem I see is that some “traditions” are given the same weight as scripture and I believe when that happens we are running afoul of Deuteronomy 4:2 everyone needs to be careful of that because it happens all the time.