EZEKIEL

and YHWH’s

Judgment

for the

Good News

PEOPLE

VOLUME XII

Judaism

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

Judgment for the

Good News People

Volume XII--Judaism

by

an unworthy servant

And you shall know the truth,

and the truth will make you free.

(John 8:32)

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.

Contents

Volume XII--Judaism

CHAPTER PAGE

- Cover Page 1

- Title Page 2

- Contents 3

- Publisher’s Preface 5

Part JJ--Judaism

168 Omission of the Jews, Revisited 6

169 The Good Jews and Their Call 9

170 The Talmud I 13

171 The Talmud II 27

172 The Talmud and the NT I 40

173 The Talmud and the NT II 46

174 The Talmud and the NT III 57

175 Good in Judaism 68

176 The Synagogue 79

177 Some Bad in Judaism 89

178 The Temple I 103

179 The Temple II 114

180 Messianic Judaism 128

Part KK--Good and Bad Jews

181 Good and Bad Jews 140

182 The Delimma of Defining Jews 149

183 The Two Seedlines 154

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

Publisher’s Preface

Greetings! The following presentation is volume twelve of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site.

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

Chapter 168--Omission of the Jews, Revisited

The Jewish Problem

Former chapters have discussed the dilemma which the Jews have faced for the last 2,000 years since they seem to have been partly or largely omitted in YESHUA’s great commission, described in the previous chapters (Matt 10:5-6). But there are some further issues largely neglected when assessing this subject.

Yes, Certain Jews Lose

There is at least one relevant underlying consideration on the question of "why" is it that the Jews were certainly omitted in the definition of YESHUA's stated commission, which cannot be argued (as postulated in earlier commentary).

In a sense, this undeniable factor was outlined and commented upon previously in this work in the discussion of the parable of the vineyard or absentee landowner, depending upon how it is to be characterized (Matt 21:33-41; Mk 12:1-9; Lu 20:9-16).

Per that context, this one issue surfaces in a most intriguing little remark by The ANOINTED ONE when He told them, the Jews, that "The kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a nation (Greek ethnos, which was discussed at length in a previous chapter) bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt 21:43).

On this mention of the kingdom, some perceptive Christian scholars and students of the Word have advanced the theory that the subject of the "kingdom" concerns the future millennium on earth under the government of The MESSIAH and does not address the overall issue of "salvation" in later time periods, per se.

Frankly, this writer has "some" appreciation for this thesis--since it dovetails so nicely with the findings in this study, as well as other aspects of the Scriptures. Obviously, space is too confined herein to broach this huge topic at this time, although it is clearly deserving of extended study.

Dogs and Swine, Revisited

Earlier chapters focused on the great wickedness of the Edomites and their Scriptural linkage to dogs (and the apparent connections of swine with the Amalekite Khazars, who are the epitome of evil and wretchedness).

As noted previously, some of the Scriptures are so piercing and strong that there are good reasons to believe that either the Edomites collectively or the Amalek-Edomites particularly will not be allowed into the coming Messianic kingdom on earth.

As they are dogs, they will apparently not be allowed into the kingdom (Rev 22:15). Exclusion can also surface in the context of the possible Amalek-Edomite swine tie, broached formerly.

Perhaps it was the tragic mistake by Yehudah of trying to incorporate the evil Amalekite dogs and swine into Judaism which was the real reason why The HIGHEST elected to exclude the Jews from the great commission of Matthew 10:5-6.

The Amalekite Reason?

Also, it might be that the foolishness and stupid blunders which the good Jews made in the days of John Hyrcanus and later with the Khazars proved to be the catalyst which would make them have to wait until a future time frame to have a calling and reconciliation to YHWH YESHUA.

Whether it was just this cited remark by YESHUA on taking the kingdom from the Jews (Matt 21:43) or something else, the clear fact remains that the Jews collectively were not to be a part of the first century CE recipients of the Good News.

Thus, Shaul seems to have written that they (evidently the good Jews) were then rejected and excluded from salvation. But later on, they will experience reconciliation (Rom 11:15).

Jewish Righteousness

Subsequent chapters on the Jewish religion will broach the question of righteousness among the Jews in some detail.

Most Christians hate Judaism and the Talmud so passionately that it is impossible for them to ever grasp that any Jew could be righteous and have a form of righteousness. Undoubtedly, these persons will be in for quite a shock in the coming days.

True, the Jews were omitted from YESHUA’s commission in Apostolic days. And indeed, this very same thing may happen again here in the age end in terms of the coming reconciliation of the age end election (as described in former chapters). But one must be prudent on this thing and not try to adopt any unfounded conclusions without sufficient study and research.

Anyway, the following chapters will look very carefully at the entire Jewish religion (and culture) to determine whether the Christian views have merit or not.

For sure, the presence of the evil Amalekites in Apostolic days must have hurt the true Jews considerably. Surely, the same thing has happened and is happening here in the age end.

But YHWH is A Great SOVEREIGN RULER of His creation. He may begin a work of righteousness here in the age end which will completely blow our minds.

Clearly, there are a lot of good Jews out there (like many of the Ultra Orthodox). If they would just consider, address, and accept YESHUA as The MESSIAH, they offer all kinds of possibilities for good. We just need some patience on this thing to allow The ELOHIM to work out His will.

Chapter 169--The Good Jews and Their Call

More on the Omission of the Jews

As outlined in former chapters, there were some good reasons on why YHWH seems to have seen fit to omit the collective Jewish people for the great commission given YESHUA. While we may not have all of the particulars on the “why” for the omission, the presence of the Amalekite workers of evil mixed in with the good Jews in apostolic days must surely have something to do with it.

Actually, the same argument can be made now in the present situation. Many wretched Amalekites are assuredly mixed in with good Jews. From the human perspective, it might seem almost impossible to separate the two definitions. Consequently, it must remain a question as to what extent the present Jews can be a part of a work of YESHUA’s righteousness in the age end.

However, in looking at the book of Zechariah, there are some powerful reasons suggesting that this very thing will happen. Therefore, maybe the world will have some surprises in the next several years. This option will receive more commentary in this study in subsequent chapters.

The Olive Tree Link

In carrying on with this theme, Shaul correctly brought up his marvelous discussion on the olive tree (Rom 11:16-26) which was elaborated upon previously. Here, the apostle observed that the natural branches had been broken or pruned off by YHWH (because of unbelief). Cloudlessly, the broken off branches of the olive tree were certain Jews (Rom 11:23).

Therefore, in view of this thinking, it is probable that the whole thrust of the Good News message was and is a focus only upon salvation for some aspect of YESHUA's coming kingdom and not upon the general theme of reconciliation for Adamites (I Cor 15:22) and perhaps others (Isa 56:3-7), which could materialize in an entirely different time frame and under explicitly different circumstances.

Consequently, it might well be that for some definite reason, or reasons, and whether elaborated upon so far herein or not, the Jews (and vast numbers of other peoples, races and kinds as well), in the collective and general sense, were not to be the real "recipients" of the Good News of the coming kingdom in the historic sense.

Therefore, regardless of whatever the cause for the omission, there was a purpose for this reality whether one can understand it or not. YHWH knew what He was doing. He made no mistakes in this process.

Incidentally, this cutting off of the natural branches (the good Jews, discussed earlier herein) creates a situation where they too have to be grafted back to the good olive tree in order to partake of reconciliation and life (Rom 11:24).

In other words, it isn’t only that the wild, olive shoots (in the lost House of Yisrael) must be grafted in; but similarly, the natural branches, which were cut off, also have to be grafted back. Since the natural, good, branches were cut off from Second Temple Judaism, it is apparent that this is where they must be grafted back to--in order to achieve redemption. This issue will be broached in the succeeding chapters.

To The Jew First?

Yet, the Good News did go to the Jews initially in the first century CE, and then to the other tribes, as already has been stated. In fact, by the time of the death of Stephen, it seems clear that the message had went only to the Jews. Was it for a witness only--fully realizing that many of the supposed Jews were nokri/nekar aliens who would actually reject the Truth?

In this context, it's worth observing that except for Judas Iscariot, who was a Judean Jew (perhaps an Edomite, racially, as suggested in "The Other End of the World" by the earlier mentioned Dr Roger Rusk, brother of the well known Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under John F Kennedy), most, if not all, of the other early disciples were Galileans (Acts 1:11; 2:7).

If the people living in the Galilee area (the Hasidim stronghold, described earlier) were mostly of Binyamin and/or Levi, in contrast to the false Jews living in the Jerusalem area, it might be that these Galilean disciples were not racial Jews at all. Of course, they were religious Jews and that fact is not under dispute. Perchance, many of them were Binyaminites, as was Shaul the apostle.

The Nucleus of the Apostolic Assembly

This then opens up another possibility in that SALVATION comes from or out of the Jews. So possibly, this text is saying that YESHUA went to the (true) Jews in order to raise up an immediate body of disciples, preachers, ministers, evangelists, apostles, missionaries, etc who would become the nucleus of teachers that would, in fact, go to the lost House of Yisrael in the Diaspora.

Maybe, YESHUA and the twelve apostles went to the (legitimate) Jews first to reach these called out missionaries. This possibility seems to gain some credibility when one goes back and looks at some of the presentations in the book of John and particularly those associated with discussions on who were and are the people of The ELOHIM and of YESHUA’s sheep fold, as elaborated upon previously herein.

Some Jews Did Believe

In the context of the bad Jews who could not or would not hear YESHUA and hence were not of His sheep, Yohanan saw fit to point out on several occasions the presence of some number of believers in YESHUA among the Jews (Jo 8:31; 10:42; 12:11, 42). What distinguished these believers from the non-believers? Perhaps the answer lies in their racial backgrounds (in being true Israelites), as previously described.

In an earlier discussion on the law and its permanence, focus was directed on the time when Shaul decided to go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16) and to see Yakov and the Jerusalem brethren.

At that late date, perhaps around 60 CE or so, Shaul found that the Jerusalem congregation consisted of “thousands” of Jewish believers (Acts 21:17-27). Certainly, these believers were religious Jews and Hillel Pharisees (Acts 15:5), who were zealous for the Torah (Acts 21:20); and not necessarily racial Jews at all.

While there was this presence of thousands of believers among the Jews in Palestine, the NT writings would seem to suggest that their numbers (certainly, from a racial perspective) may have been limited in terms of the totality of the Apostolic Assembly, as it eventually developed over the Roman Empire.

In terms of racial Jews, they perhaps were limited to 12,000 or so (Rev 7:5); and many, or most, of these could have come from racial Jews of the Assyrian captivity.

Except for the immediate missionaries who did respond, the Jews generally rejected YESHUA's message back then and as well subsequently, although that condition will evidently change here in the age end (Zech 8:6; 12:10).

If the reader of this study is a person believing in the sovereignty of The ELOHIM and the issues about election and calling, it appears evident that for whatever reason, the Good News was not sent to the Jews, generally, for salvation, at least in the then and thereafter context to modern times.

Perhaps the Good News message of the New Testament was sent to the Jews first only to provide a witness or perhaps to merely raise up the initial missionaries to go later to the lost House of Yisrael out in the Diaspora.

Regardless of why, the fact remains that true Israelite Jews will ultimately have their calling. We can be sure of it as being an absolute certainty.

The Sects of Judaism Once More

Also, in trying to assess the qualities present in the likely good Jews, who were the pruned off branches of the olive tree, one must bring to mind the previous discussion on the different philosophical sects in Judaism and YESHUA's comments and dealings with them, as well as their possible racial and ethnic origins.

Per this earlier presentation, there are some facts surfacing and present which might lead an open minded person to suppose that the Pharisees of the Hillel School (to include the Hasidim) were very close in religious persuasion to The ANOINTED ONE and the Nazarenes.

Plus, from a study of the New Testament, there are no apparent Scriptural complaints leveled against the Karaites (if their beginnings were, in fact, present in first century, CE Judaism, in contrast to their alleged later origin in the eighth century) or of the Essenes. Thus, there is reason to believe that these sects may have also had some "good" attributes along with the Hillel Pharisees.

Chapter 170--The Talmud I

The Christian Problem

In the remarks on the Torah, in the prior chapters, there has always been a hang-up among Christians because they inevitably confuse YHWH’s righteousness, as defined and communicated in His Torah, with the so-called righteousness found in Christian denominations.

Jews, particularly secular or non-observant Jews, who are often Amalekites, have the same problem somewhat with Judaism (although the Jews are not as bad as Christians in substituting their own ideas as righteousness).

Invariably, both the Jewish and Christian forms of righteousness open the door to a discussion of the concept of the Talmud (at least, in the vein of the Jews). But what most of the world fails to understand is that there are Christian Talmuds as well (yes, plural Talmuds because Christendom has many Talmuds). This backdrop creates a need to now look at the idea of the Talmud.

In mentioning the Jewish Talmud versus the Christian Talmuds, there is one key point of demarcation separating the two that deserves mention here at the very start.

The Jewish Talmud, however good or bad it may be, is effectively a commentary upon the Torah (based upon traditional interpretations of Jewish sages over vast centuries); while the Christian Talmuds, however good or bad they may be, represent the ideas and beliefs of the different Christian teachers which may or may not relate to the Torah.

Christian Rage Over the Talmud

In bringing up the issue of the Talmud, it must be recognized that this subject to Christians is much like the reality of saying anything bad about the Jews (which throws many Amalek-Edomites [as defined earlier], in particular, into a fit and rage).

The May-Jun 2002 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 4) quoted the Christian understanding of the Talmud from the “Christian News” (v. 40, p, 10) as follows:

“The Talmud, the highest authority for Jews and which they consider to be the Word of God, teaches that Jesus Christ is a bastard and Mary a prostitute. Some Jews want Christians to remove what they consider to be anti-Semitic sections in the New Testament. Christians have not asked Jews to remove the anti-Christian statements in the Talmud. They should be left in the Talmud to show that the Talmud is a book of lies.”

The importance of this quotation is that neither the “Christian News” or the “America’s Promise” ministry has any idea whatsoever about the true nature of the Talmud.

As an illustration of this reality, the Talmud (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 11A; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 1:4) provides that “He who observes the teachings of Bet Shammai deserves death” (as quoted by Harold Hemenway, “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” p. 6, whose work is mentioned elsewhere herein).

Moreover, per Hemenway (ibid, p. 6), the Talmud even links Bet Shammai with Satan--as cited in a prior chapter (Yevamot 16A), and calls the Jewish Zealots murderers (Mishnah Sotah 47A). It is very interesting that YESHUA would probably agree 100% with some of these words on Bet Shammai and possibly even the Zealots (as established at length elsewhere herein).

Criticism Was Common with the Pharisees

The prior chapters noted the historical record which proves conclusively that YESHUA’s criticisms/condemnations of certain Pharisees of His time were much like those emanating from other Pharisaical teachers of that day.

Many of the words/criticisms (or correctly opinions) of the Pharisees found their way into the Talmud (which was never subjected to the prevalent editing that commonly occurs in today’s controlled society).

Consequently, the Pharisees commonly criticized and condemned themselves (each other) over their own sins, failures, and shortcomings (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 13, p. 366)--as well as calling various people dogs, pigs, vipers, children of the Devil and of Satan (as discussed elsewhere herein). Yes, YESHUA, Himself, publicly participated in the same “name calling” actions. He even called Herod “that Fox.”

In terms of attacking (some) Pharisees (apparently of the School of Shammai) for their hypocrisy, Judaica says that YESHUA was “far meeker” than the Essenes and “not sharper” than similar utterances found in the Talmudic sources (ibid, v. 10, p. 13). This is a most important point.

Judaica (v. 13, p. 366) illustrates some of the things Pharisees said about themselves from the Talmud in the context of condemning their own sins and shortcomings. For example, the Talmud (Sot. 3:4 and 22b) mentions the “sore spots” and “plagues of the Pharisaic party.”

The point is, in the sense of opinion, the sages behind the Talmud were free to criticize and condemn whomever they chose to address--both enemies and friends (even including one of the most famous Jewish teachers of the first century BCE--Shammai).

Today’s Controlled Society

In today’s controlled and “tolerant” society, where there are hate crimes and thought crimes to contend with (as envisioned in George Orwell’s “1984”), it is unthinkable that anyone would dare publicly criticize, condemn, or speak in bad terms of anyone--except politically incorrect people who are not in harmony with today’s social gods (which will be defined later in this study).

It is socially and legally permissible in 2003 in America to condemn right wingers and other politically incorrect people as being racists, White supremacists, homophobes and male chauvinist pigs. Many Christian Churches and Christian leaders regularly condemn and attack politically incorrect persons with names of derision and disrespect and no one seems to get excited over it.

With the huge presence of lawyers throughout the modern Christian world, one must walk the extra mile in talking or writing about others for fear of generating a libel or slander lawsuit. The only people who can be successfully criticized and condemned today are politically incorrect people who dare to say something that is “unauthorized” in today’s controlled and mesmerized society (like the famous “n” word).

So, why is it and how is it that so many modern Christians become so angry when Second Temple Jews were allowed freedom of speech to condemn and criticize whomever they wanted to in the vein of free speech and without fear of retribution. For sure, the Jews of 2,000 years ago would be in trouble in today’s America if they chose to speak out, as they did in their day (unless their words are politically correct).

But Positive Remarks as Well

Importantly, The NT MESSIAH quoted the Talmud positively 32 times or so (per Harold Hemenway, “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?,” appendix). Manifestly, His attitude toward the Talmud was and is considerably different than the position of Christianity over the Talmud for the past 2,000 years.

Admittedly, in the vein of opinion, the Talmud says a lot of things which some persons will disagree with (along with some things which many people can agree with). So while these pro and con cited words, references and allusions are present, that’s not what the Talmud is all about.

This and the following chapters will lay out some understanding about the Talmud which is simply void and blank within Christianity.

Christian Ignorance

When one says anything good about the Talmud, Christians immediately go into a mad frenzy, perhaps because they know so little about it. The difficulty is that Christians know little about the Talmud, other than having some idea on the above reported Talmudic quotations about YESHUA and Miryam.

Thus, of all of the extant Hebrew documents and writings over the years, it is significant that the Talmud infuriates Christians the most. During the dark ages of the dominion of the Roman Church, Catholic Christians sought out and destroyed Hebrew writings by the wagons-full. Certainly, the Talmud was one of the most important writings that they sought out to burn and destroy.

The Roman Catholic Church has made a particular effort through the years to burn and destroy Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic writings (as discussed in prior chapters). The Talmud has been an important focus of this quest.

As late as Aug 1553, Pope Julius III ordered all copies of the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds confiscated and burned (Aug 24, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 23).

Despite this intense hatred and opposition to the Talmud and Hebrew writings, the Talmud, as well as the Hebrew Tanakh, survived--primarily because of the dedication and perseverance of many conscientious Jews (proving that The MOST HIGH made the right decision is committing His Word to the Jews for preservation--Rom 3:2).

It seems to be a strange thing about human nature, but people are afraid of things which they don’t understand. Rather than be forthright and honest and simply say that they don’t understand the Talmud, many Christians will just respond with bitterness and hatred about it because they are ignorant and uninformed.

True, “maybe” some of the wicked disobedience among certain Jews can be traced to certain Talmudic teachings, likely introduced and promoted by the bad figs (as described elsewhere herein), although many of the bad fig Amalek-Edomites and Kenites were and are alleged atheists and could care less one way or the other about the Tanakh or the Talmud.

Factually, the bad figs don’t care about religion one way or the other (beyond secretly serving Satan), as was proven herein in previous discussions.

The Religion Was Basically Good

Nevertheless, the truth remains that the basic Hebrew or Israelite religion was evidently sound and commendable. Perhaps the problem in Judaism was only over “some” portions of the Talmud and not over all of it. This reality seems to be what one can comprehend from a fair study of the New Testament.

There is another consideration which is extremely profound to recognize and evaluate in any study or contemplation of Judaism as a religion and the Talmud as one of its primary source documents. For this assessment, it must be pointed out that since the days of the early first century CE, a lot of water has run under the bridge in terms of Judaism.

Consequently, modern Judaism is not exactly the same religion that it was in Second Temple times during the lives of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly. Most Christians and Jews alike incorrectly assume that Judaism has not changed over the past 2,000 years. That’s a bad assumption because Judaism and Jewish attitudes toward Talmudic teachings have changed considerably.

While many readers of this study may not initially appreciate it, or be able to readily grasp the just made charge and its extraordinary importance, an abundance of proof will be offered in later chapters. The student of truth is asked to just be patient and the following comments on Judaism and the Talmud will all make perfect sense in time.

The Oral Law

Per “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 750), talmud is a Hebrew word meaning “study” or “learning.” The Talmud was originally called the “Oral Law” because it was handed down orally from generation to generation. In Jewish eyes, some of it came directly from Moshe at Sinai (but per Josh 8:35, this cannot be true on halakhah/legal law--as proven herein) while other parts of it were added as interpretations through the years.

Many Christians feel that the Talmud arose during or after the Babylonian exile (which, on halakhah/legal law, is also impossible, in view of Deut 4:1-2 and 12:32). Christian scholar John Lightfoot dates the beginning of the Oral Law or Tradition at the close of the OT canon (with Malakhi) when the Jews realized that prophecy had ceased (“A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica,” v. I, p. vii).

In any case, of whatever the actual start date might be in history, a fair assessment of the Talmud’s origin and dating surely leads to the time of Ezra, Nechemyah and/or Malakhi. It is therefore very ancient, and it is extremely important for study and contemplation--for purposes to be shortly demonstrated.

To whatever extent Talmudic ideas began being developed at this early time, just after the Babylonian exile, it must be observed that from then on more and more teachings and positions were added to it until it was largely edited, written and codified in the 3d to 5th centuries CE. Consequently, Talmudic teachings were still under development in the first century CE during the life of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly.

This condition goes a long way in explaining why the Talmud is so incredibly important to an understanding of the New Testament. There are many ties and links between the Talmud and the NT, as will be outlined in some detail in later chapters herein on the Talmud and the NT. There is evidence to believe that much of the NT can only be understood in the context of what the Talmud says.

The Need

John Lightfoot (ibid, v. I, p. vii) offers the reason for the development and perpetuation of the Talmud as being the need for the establishment of precedents to deal with questions of ethics and applications (interpretations) of the law that came up within Judaism in the ensuing years. This need is quite manifest and should not shock anyone.

All Christian denominations and individual Christians make interpretations and decisions on the application of YHWH’s Word in their lives and conduct. Certainly, the Jews had the same need. For example, the Torah does say to rest and not work on the Sabbath. However, neither rest or work are always precisely defined in the Scriptures.

Consequently, both Jewish and Christian believers and supporters of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue sometimes have questions about what can be done or what should be forbidden on the Seventh day Sabbath. Inevitably, organized faiths and beliefs attempt to lay down some rules and guidelines in terms of definitions on not only the Sabbath, but likewise a host of other Scriptural subjects.

Is it wrong for Jewish or Christian entities to establish rules and interpretations of the Word to guide them? Of course not! Various groups do this all of the time, to include Christianity, Pharisaical Judaism and even the Essenes, to be shortly described.

The need for such rules and definitions arises because in YHWH’s Torah He routinely commands that His mitzwot (commandments) be kept. This word keep is from the Hebrew “shamar” which means “to keep, to guard, to observe, to give heed to” with a strong emphasis on watching, guarding and protecting (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” and Brown, Driver and Briggs’ “Hebrew and English Dictionary of the OT”).

A Fence

Certainly, the gist of the Oral Law is a desire to build a fence around YAH’s commandments so that they can be protected and safeguarded. In an article on “Where’s Your Fence,” appearing in the “Search the Scriptures” Newsletter for February 1998 (p. 2-5), Norman A. Brumm focuses on this idea of shamar and its application in Judaism.

Norman notes how the Jews “shamar” the Sabbath. To protect it and not allow any possibility of improper encroachment upon it, they have a short ”kiddush” ceremony to set the Sabbath apart some 18 minutes before sunset (per Deut 5:12). They also keep the Sabbath past the next day until it’s dark enough to see three stars and close it then with a ceremony called “havdalah.”

The problem Norman points out is that these arbitrary time definitions and ceremonies are not Scriptural. In other words, they represent traditions which have assumed the status of laws in Judaism that have to be obeyed virtually on the level of the Torah.

A former chapter addressed Colossians 2:16 and the authority which the Body of The MESSIAH had to establish discretionary things relevant and needed in order to obey The ELOHIM. There is no need to repeat that material. But it should be recalled in this context of establishing traditions, rules, procedures and guides to obey the Torah.

The presence of this discretionary authority, clearly granted to the Apostolic Assembly (in the vein of binding and loosing, briefly cited earlier and to be further described in later comments), brings up the fact that some of YAH’s laws are very general and specifically do not reflect necessary details to allow their fulfillment.

Qumran, Revisited

On this, one can turn to the Essenes (who rejected the Talmud) and their apparent beliefs, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In order to maintain order and discipline, the Qumran people seem to have had a whole host of traditions and internal rules, just as one finds in Christendom and in the Talmud of historic Judaism. The Manual of Discipline and a number of legal texts (including those on the Sabbath) can be first mentioned. But there is more to come.

Scrolls’ scholars have found a series of documents which they have labeled as “Ordinances” that specifically focus on some laws which do not state the necessary particulars to allow their fulfillment (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 204-207). Exodus 30:13-14 and Leviticus 15:13 are examples of such a dilemma.

The Torah says that each Israelite was to pay a half-shekel to support the Tabernacle (Ex 30:13-14). The question arises, was this a one time payment or was it intended with some frequency? In NT days, the established procedure in mainline Judaism was an annual payment (which YESHUA authenticated--Matt 17:24-27). One Qumran document broached this issue and stated that the payment was a one time event.

More questions arose over the uncleanness of a man with a discharge and the needed process for him to become clean over a period of seven days (Lev 15:13).

For example, does the man bathe and wash daily during the seven days or one time only at the end of the period. And during the seven days, what is the ritual status of the man from the standpoint of eating food and having contact with others. The Qumran people fixed ordinances (laws, rules and guides) to answer these questions.

As the writers of “The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation” noted, the people believed that The EL cared about His laws and having His people obey them correctly. In this sense, there were right and wrong ways of performing His commandments and performing them precisely in a way to please and serve Him.

Obviously, the group assumed authority to specify the details and particulars. More will be said about this course in the context of binding and loosing, as is further assessed in other commentary herein.

Complicated Issues

Manifestly, it is verity that there are a number of quite complicated and difficult themes in the Word which seemingly have required extensive scholarship over many years to begin to ferret out comprehension. Some persons would argue that this is the precise situation with prophecy--which is admittedly extremely complicated to understand.

There are also profound questions which are very difficult to attempt to broach with any measure of certainty--like the purpose of life (which was addressed in a preceding chapter herein) and even the afterlife (which received some revelation in the NT).

The question of the afterlife has been one of the most important and prevalent of all in the history of Christendom for the past 2,000 years. A whole variety of teachings about heaven, hell, purgatory, resurrection, reincarnation, salvation of all, salvation of some, etc have dominated Christianity sufficiently for ages to cause whole splits and divisions in the various segments of Christendom.

Judaism has had some similar problems. But frankly, she has actually addressed the issue in a far more responsible and intelligent fashion. Jim Myers focused upon this theme in his issue Number 8, 1999, of his “Discovering the Bible” newsletter (p. 6-9). Myers correctly notes that Rabbinic Judaism (based upon Talmudic teachings) does not consider that death is the end of human existence.

But conversely, within Judaism, the focus is upon life in the here and now and not necessarily upon death and the afterlife. However, questions of the afterlife exist and there are any number of opinions around supporting the different views (just as is true within Christianity).

Some religious Jews believe that the dead spirits of righteous persons go to a place like the Christian heaven while others accept the grave as the temporary depository of people to await a future resurrection. Some Jews believe in reincarnation while others do not. Some believe that the wicked are totally destroyed at death and have no future while others do not.

The Millennial World Tomorrow

With the primary focus upon life, Rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud have focused upon living this life so that one can enjoy and participate in the afterlife. In any case, Jews place a great emphasis upon the study of Torah and the performance of good deeds to partake of the afterlife (which, in the Hebrew, is called Olam Ha-Ba, meaning the World to Come, to be discussed later).

Orthodox Jews even add a little stipulation on the good deeds requirement. They argue that those who reject the Oral Law (the Talmud) will be excluded from the afterlife or Olam Ha-Ba.

They see this Olam Ha-Ba as the place for the regathering with their righteous ancestors, in the sense that when the righteous died, the Book says that they were gathered to their people (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:33; Deut 32:50; II Kg 22:20). Many religious Jews accept these teachings as a bringing together of themselves and their righteous ancestors in the context of an event beyond physical death and burial.

Per Myers, the essence of Judaism believes in the resurrection during the Messianic age in the context of the Olam Ha-Ba (Dan 12:2; Neh 9:5).

The Demon Issue

One most interesting Jewish teaching on the afterlife concerns the Jewish approach to the question of demons in this life (as was covered in prior chapters). Some Jews believe that every sin which we commit here in the flesh creates an angel of destruction (a demon) that attaches to us. After we die, we are punished by these demons which we have created or allowed to attach to ourselves.

Some Jews believe that they are punished by these demons while in Gehenna or sheol (the grave). In this sense, they believe in a hell like existence made by our own evil deeds and actions.

Others see a future time and place when they will be resurrected to see the harm and hurt that they have done and the opportunities missed, and experience remorse for their actions. Once repentance is realized (which will occur within one year in this temporary place), the judged person can later enter into Olam Ha-Ba. This intermediate place could be thought of as a type of purgatory in terms of Christendom.

Although some of these beliefs are complex and may have some similarities to traditional Christian beliefs (which are absolutely false and pagan to the core, as will be addressed in later chapters herein), there are some extraordinarily important ideas associated with them which hold enormous truths about the future.

Previous chapters herein have assessed in some detail the whole reconciliation and redemption processes and the great punishment, trial, trouble and hurt which the election must go through in order to be granted the free gifts of faith and repentance by YHWH. While Christians have made this process extremely simple, per their false ideas on truth, the reality is that it is quite difficult.

In any event, this thinking about demons attaching themselves to us when we sin must not be ridiculed or made light of. This is a strong possibility. This Jewish thinking may contain some fantastic revelations, as was broached in the former chapters on reconciliation and redemption.

In the earlier discussion on reconciliation, the demon issue opened the door to the difficulty of true repentance--without the gift of repentance from an intervention of YHWH. These earlier chapters on reconciliation also communicated that Adamites must deal with the sin question here in this life, or they will have to deal with it in a future age, time and place--in either case, before man can truly enjoy the Olam Ha-Ba.

The point of these comments is that Talmudic scholars have wrestled with many of these very complicated questions over the centuries. The Talmud has recorded their ideas (actually opinions) for the benefit of not only the succeeding Jews, but also for each and all of us to gain from the thinking of religious people of 2,500 years ago (who lived in Ezra’s day and later in YESHUA’s day).

Of course, some of this thinking became formalized as traditions which have persisted for the centuries and still have merit for the student of truth today, just as it did for YESHUA and His followers in the first century CE.

To Avoid Confusion

Certainly, there is nothing wrong with traditions because the Apostle Shaul, himself, issued some instructions about holding fast to the traditions handed down in the Apostolic Assembly (II Thes 2:15; 3:6).

Quite often, it is the presence of traditions and customs which allow groups of people to find common ground on complicated issues and avoid a state of pandemonium and confusion in social intercourse.

Manifestly, the typical Sabbathkeeper needs to shamar the Sabbath and have a time before actual sunset when secular work and activities cease and the Sabbath actually commences.

Should one wait to the last second at sundown and expect to complete this transition? How about one minute before sundown or five minutes or the Jewish practice of 18 minutes? In fact, should there even be a ceremony or procedure to recognize the beginning and ending of the Sabbath?

The question of Sabbath ceremonies and timing will be further addressed in later chapters. Significantly, the Scriptures seem silent on these issues and evidently YHWH has seen fit to not legislate the exact time or procedure. However, all Sabbath keepers are faced with having an exact time, as a minimum, in order to keep/shamar the Sabbath and protect it and not allow a violation or infringement to occur.

It appears that the exact time becomes optional or open for different people or groups of people (in the case of a family or an assembly) to decide for their own purposes. For some, maybe 18 minutes is best while for others, maybe 5 minutes is proper. Maybe the time can vary depending upon what activity a person may be involved in as the Sabbath approaches.

The point is that we all likely need a time as a custom, practice or tradition. It’s just that this time decision evidently should not be established as law and sin on the level of the actual fourth commandment. Too often, this is what has happened in Judaism. These customs, practices and traditions became laws (causing alleged sin) on the same level as YHWH’s laws.

Christians Have Traditions

This same condition occurs in the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps all of the 32,000 different Christian denominations and a host of other worldly religions. All of them establish traditions which “must be” obeyed on the law and sin level within the denomination. It is not unusual or unique that the Jews have done this as well.

Josephus defined this practice by saying “The Pharisees have imposed upon the people many laws taken from the traditions of the fathers...which are not written in the law of Moshe” (“A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” division 2, v. ii, p. 11).

Evidently, the Shammai Pharisees and Haverim (as defined and discussed in some detail in former chapters) became quite passionate over these traditions which were on the law level. R. Eleasar of Modein said: “He who interprets Scripture in opposition to tradition has no part in the world to come” (ibid, division 2, v. ii, p. 12).

As will be shortly shown, YESHUA and members of the Apostolic Assembly did follow numerous traditions and customs outlined in the Oral Law. It’s just that they accepted them as customs and not necessarily as law on the level of the Torah. Once they were put on a law level (like the written Torah), YESHUA naturally criticized them (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:3-13).

Thus, as Norman argues, both YESHUA and Shaul were against traditions which would set aside YHWH’s laws and conflict with Deuteronomy 4:1-2 and 12:32--which specifically commands that man not add to or diminish from YHWH’s commands. More will be said about traditions shortly.

Yes, Opinion

Having mentioned that much of the Talmud is nothing but opinion, it should be noted that it is often such opinion which has led many Christians to have such a bitter hatred toward the Talmud. In other words, many Christians tend to grab hold of some “opinion” of an ancient Jewish sage and try to attach some importance to it.

If a Christian analyst disagrees with some of this opinion in the Talmud, he attacks the overall Talmud--never understanding that the particular remark is nothing but opinion and carries no weight or authority at all even in Judaism. It’s just that--opinion!

The two schools of Jewish thought--Hillel and Shammai--were cited earlier and will be discussed at length in later chapters in the context of their many differences. The Talmud lays out these differences in some detail. Interestingly, YESHUA not only agreed with Hillel (except for divorce), but He typically obeyed the Hillel positions on the issues (as they are now illustrated in the Talmud).

In “Was Jesus a Hillelite Pharisee?” (p. 7, 11), Christian writer Harold Hemenway cites a host of things which YESHUA obeyed from the Talmud and some things which He disobeyed. It appears that He typically obeyed the Hillel positions and disobeyed the Shammai positions. Manifestly, as proven from the NT, He was a Hillel Pharisee (or as Hemenway believes, He was a Hillel Pharisee in the midst of Shammai Pharisees).

Too, it is verity that in Second Temple days, much of the Oral Law was nothing but opinion; although the Shammai Pharisees were pushing their traditional views hard as authoritative halakhah/legal law, as was wrong (per Deut 4:1-2; 12:32; Josh 8:35).

But things were to subsequently transpire which motivated Jewish leaders to succumb to the Shammai mentality and change some of the former Second Temple opinions (aggadah) into authoritative laws on a level with the Torah (thus, halakhah). This reality will be broached in later chapters focusing on changes in Judaism.

The Talmud Was a Part of Second Temple Judaism

In Second Temple Judaism, the Oral Law was a part and parcel of the life style and culture of the Jews in Palestine, in general, and particularly of major significance to religious Jews (like YESHUA and so many of His early disciples).

Thus, the NT has many, many passages which clearly link to the Oral Law (as pointed out above). Talmud haters need to appreciate that YESHUA was a Pharisaical RABBI and One much like the others of His day--certainly, in some respects, like in practice and style of teaching, etc (as was established in a former chapter).

In previous comments, the point was made that The MESSIAH’s teachings and conclusions paralleled that of the famous Rabbinic teacher Hillel. Some students of truth believe that YESHUA was a Hillel Pharisee--just as was Shaul the apostle and thousands of other believers, as discussed earlier.

As a minimum, it must be acknowledged that neither YESHUA or Shaul, or any of the other disciples for that matter, ever attacked or condemned the overall Oral Law (Talmudic) teachings, per se. In fact, and as noted in earlier chapters, Luke goes to some length to quote Shaul as saying that he was not against the law of the Jews (evidently including the Oral Law) or the Temple (Acts 25:8).

As the book of Acts was drawing to a close, Shaul spoke to the Jewish leadership in Rome. As mentioned previously, he told them that he had not committed any offense against the Jewish people or the “customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17). This word customs must include the customs outlined in the Talmud. Assuredly, Shaul never spoke against any of them!

Interestingly, as well, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 13) indicates that YESHUA did not oppose any prescriptions in the Written or Oral Mosaic Law, and that He even performed Jewish religious commandments. This fact is clearly brought out in all four of the histories of His life (Matthew to John).

Freedom of Thought and Expression

Yes, even the Talmud provides criticism for Jewish hypocrites as well as others. Over the centuries, preceding the time when the Talmud was committed to writing, Jewish sages were free to express their opinions and criticize and condemn whomsoever they wanted to--to even include each other and YESHUA The MESSIAH as well. This is called freedom of speech.

That free environment and allowance for genuine free speech and thought was far different than what one finds today in the modern world where Slick Clinton has been pushing a so-called hate crimes agenda (so that free speech and free thought will be able to send a person to jail for a long term).

Just ask any number of people (Mark Fuhrman and others) who have spoken an unspeakable, politically incorrect word (i.e. the above cited “n” word, which is unspeakable by Whites, but perfectly allowable by Blacks and in Hollywood movies made by Edomite producers and directors). Hollywood can clearly use words that are forbidden to the general public.

The careers of numerous people using politically incorrect words have been immediately wiped out. Since Luke used the politically incorrect “Niger” word in Acts (13:1), he would be in serious trouble in modern America. Even the KJV translators would be called racists in today’s culture.

Some Contrary Opinion?

Beyond a few critical remarks (some of which were briefly mentioned earlier in this chapter) about YESHUA (actually, only five references to YESHUA are in the Talmud), the Talmud seems to also have several comments critical of the Nazarene sect of Judaism, collective Christianity by allusion, and of so-called heathen goyim (in the context of non-Jewish peoples).

As one proceeds in this study at hand, he will find a number of other persons (including some Christians and non-Christian believers in YESHUA) who share some of the exact same feelings. The gist of this is that criticism and complaints about the pagan practices of the goyim and Christianity are not limited to the comments of ancient Jews in the Talmud. Some real people of faith still do it today!

Interestingly, some Christians will get all excited and will cite and complain about these “few” Talmudic references to the first century CE YESHUA, Messianic Jewish believers, Christians, or the goyim generally, which are critical, demeaning, derogatory and/or blasphemous.

In terms of the goyim (at least, the nokri/nekar/mamzer/arav peoples, which will include much of Christianity), many of these Talmudic remarks are prompted by the Torah itself and its focus upon the requirements for maintaining a kodesh state by the rea Israelites in their relationship and contact with non-Israelite outsiders. It is the Torah which spells out a distinction between Israelites and others (to be proven later herein).

Correctly, such critical remarks are few, and possibly some were formed after the fall of Jerusalem (at least, in terms of those addressing YESHUA and/or the Messianic Nazarenes). Moreover, some of them probably were expressed by evil Amalekites (like the Herodians--many of whom pretended to be Jews, though they were not Jews), and not necessarily by true (good) Jews who may not have shared in them at all.

Many Christians and philosophers all over the world would readily agree with many Talmudic presentations without dissent. Nevertheless, Christians often use those few critical remarks to support their hatred and opposition to the Talmud, never understanding that these words are opinions (meaning little or nothing) expressed by free men (to perhaps include some Amalek-Edomites who were not true Jews at all)!

Chapter 171--The Talmud II

Christian Opinion

The prior chapter discussed the huge presence of early Jewish thinking, opinion and ideas in the Talmud. But how about the Christian world?

No one would dare think it wrong if Christian writers express their opinions and criticize and condemn great Jewish sages like Hillel, Maimonides and the others. Christians don’t get excited when Christians criticize Judaism or even each other.

But let someone come along and complain about this Christian hatred and venom being spewed out on Jews and Judaism and Christians would immediately cry out about freedom of thought, expression and religion (which a free society grants them).

Of course, Jews, like Christians, have also been allowed to have opinion and to freely express that opinion. Yes, even Jewish and Christian Amalekites have been allowed freedom to express their opinions and they do so regularly even to the present era of the early 21st century, in both secular and religious literature.

While many persons may not be aware of it, but numbers of top Christian theologians are actually Amalekites (like the elsewhere mentioned Pope Paul VI). Christians frequently read their (talmudic) Christian writings and never get excited. Consequently, if some Jewish Amalekites did express some opinion which became a part of the Jewish Talmud, why do Christians go to pieces over it?

People like Robert Schuller, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Billy Graham and on and on may or may not be Amalekites (one can’t be sure since they all teach and advocate so much rebellion toward YAH’s Torah and diabolical wickedness in general), but it’s hard to imagine that any Amalek-Edomite remarks in the Jewish Talmud could be much different or worse.

Hence, one must in fairness recognize that Jewish scholars, past and present, have opinions which freedom of religion and freedom of speech allow in many existing secular states. When the millennial rule of YHWH YESHUA commences, some things “may” change on this issue. But for now, reality must be accepted as it exists.

Without this privilege of freedom of thought, words, expression and beliefs, people would quickly become robots in a “thought control” society--one much like Slick Clinton has been anxious to impose on the US with his so-called hate crimes agenda (cited earlier and to be described in later chapters).

While many people may never get the point, but if there was no freedom of thought and expression in the sinful world of man, little or no truth would ever come out--as was true when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the secular world for 1,260 years with a threat of death and persecution for anyone wanting to oppose Catholicism.

Millions died at the hands of Rome in the Protestant Reformation to allow freedom of thought and expression in religious matters. Be assured that when the beast man and false prophet of Revelation take over in the age end, they will impose speech, thought and opinion control on the world’s population--just as Slick Clinton has been trying to push in the US.

A Jewish Religious Dictatorship

In an article on “The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” William F. Dankenbring quotes scholars like Ray A. Pritz (previously quoted herein) and notes that before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Second Temple Judaism allowed different opinions in the context of freedom of religion.

While Josephus mentioned the three primary religious groups (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes), it is important to note that the Talmud suggests that there were actually 24 different sects in Second Temple days (“The Spiritual History of the Dead Sea Sect,” by David Flusser, p. 15). For example, the Pharisee definition and perhaps the other major groups must have included a number of sub-sects or components.

Thus, there were definite differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees and even among the Pharisees of the Hillel and Shammai beliefs among the various divisions. In fact, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 4, p. 738) puts the number of differences between the Shammai and Hillel people at 350 in Second Temple days.

Consequently, the NT and the Talmud itself demonstrates many of these sharp differences of opinion between these major groups. But these differences did not produce an authoritarian dictatorship over the people in Second Temple days (although the early Shammai people may have wished for such domination).

In fact, the collective people could theoretically attend the same Jewish synagogues together and enjoy common fellowship and worship (although they always didn’t commingle since the Sadducees perhaps did not attend synagogue and the Essenes were separatists).

William F. Dankenbring indicates that with the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE), all of this religious freedom and allowance for disagreement ceased (“Prophecy Flash,” Sep-Oct 1994, p. 11). This course will be broached in a later chapter.

Of course, The Anointed ONE had some problems with “some” of the Pharisees of His time (evidently, those Pharisees of the School of Shammai; and obviously, also of the wicked Amalek-Edomites, called Judeans, in the so-called Gospels--some of whom apparently identified with the Shammai beliefs).

Furthermore, YESHUA would usually disagree with the Sadducees and scribes as He apparently did not hold them in much esteem either. In fact, Yohanan specifically observed this division of religious opinion in first century Judaism (Jo 9:16). Thus, differences of opinion on Scriptural matters should not surprise anyone.

Same Today

In today’s modern world, one can find about the same thing as just alluded to above. Among the Jews, there are sharp differences between the Orthodox, the Ultra Orthodox, the Hasidic, the Conservatives, the Reform, the Reconstructionists and the Karaites (Karaim). Of course, the leaders in these different factions criticize each other and the differing beliefs.

As noted previously, the “rabbis” in Second Temple days criticized the same things in each other that YESHUA criticized in them (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 70). YESHUA was much like the other “rabbis” of his day in offering criticism for sin and hypocrisy.

As pointed out in the former chapter, the reader must take note of the reality in today’s world where people (including religious leaders) are hesitant about publicly criticizing or condemning other persons by name and specific identifications for wrong-doing or sin because of the prevalence of lawyers in today’s society and the possibilities of facing a libel trial in court. In YESHUA’s day, there was little concern over libel trials.

Moreover, as one approaches truth, it becomes manifest that worldly religious leaders (like those YESHUA criticized) are often deserving of criticism because they are frequently barriers to or enemies of truth. This problem with religious leaders is much like that of doctors, lawyers and politicians--all of whom are not held in much esteem in most of YHWH’s Word.

Christians Are Also Divided

One finds precisely the same situation throughout all of Christendom (except it is far worse). One denomination attacks the doctrines of another denomination. One leader attacks others. Some people go bonkers over the writings of Ellen White while others are obsessed with the works of Joseph Smith and on and on.

In a sense, the writings of Ellen White have come to be a talmud for the Seventh-day Adventists. Likewise, the works of Joseph Smith (i.e. the book of Mormon) are certainly a type of a talmud for Mormons.

In fact, one could put “all” Christian writings together in one production and could properly label them a “Christian talmud,” since the Hebrew word talmudh can actually mean “instruction” (“Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 690).

As bad as the Jews might be over their Talmud, there is one interesting feature that stands out in any comparison with the different Christian groups and their talmuds.

True, religious Jews do attach some authority and importance to some portions of the Talmud in the context of law. But for the rest of the Talmud, they are acutely aware of reality that it constitutes only opinion which certainly carries no authority.

More on the Ignorant Christians

Most of the different Christian groups are utterly ridiculous over their talmuds.

Many Seventh-day Adventists spend more of their time, money and resources on their talmud (the writings of Ellen G. White) than they do on the works of Moshe, Yeshayahu or Yirmeyahu. They seem to accept “all” of Ellen White as authoritative law. They study it diligently and usually quote it more often and better than the Scriptures.

The Mormons go goo-goo eyed over the talmudic book of Mormon. They actually believe that all 100% of it is inspired and authoritative. Like the Adventists, many Mormons spend far more time studying their talmud than they do the Scriptures. They may be Scripturally illiterate in terms of YHWH’s Word, but they can sure quote Joseph Smith.

This writer once had a good Mormon friend. My friend knew little about the Scriptures. But he did read and study the book of Mormon. One day, he began quoting, as authoritative and good, some remarks from the book of Mormon which this writer understood as coming from one of the Psalms in the Word.

This Scriptural link was pointed out to the Mormon man and he was surprised that it’s basis was the Word. He didn’t realize that the remark was wonderful--not because it was in the book of Mormon; but rather, because it came from the Tanakh.

What a tragedy it was that this Scripturally illiterate Mormon didn’t spend as much time and effort on learning about the Tanakh as he had with the book of Mormon. This indictment clearly pertains equally as much to Scripturally illiterate Seventh day Adventists, mentioned above, who study and adore the writings of Ellen G. White, all the while that they know little or nothing from the Word.

Ridiculous Christians

Almost all Christian denominations are about as stupid and ridiculous over the writings of their founders and leaders. A man named Herbert W. Armstrong founded the Worldwide Church of God years ago (as addressed in a previous chapter). His followers used to study, contemplate and reflect upon his writings as much or more than Moshe or David.

The Lutherans are goofy over the works of Martin Luther; the Methodists are crazy over John Wesley; the Presbyterians are insane over John Calvin; etc--all the while that virtually all denominations and groups devote themselves to reading, believing and obeying the words of their contemporary leaders in their talmudic denominational periodicals and books.

Thus, as the older leaders die off, new ones take over and impose their talmuds on the dumb sheep people under their charge. Too often, the sheep followers accept and obey the new talmuds (of the new leaders)--just as readily as they did the previous talmuds of the old leaders.

Most Christians lack sufficient awareness to discern between dogmatic doctrines in these Christian talmuds and meaningless opinion which they accept as authoritative as well. Hence, not only are most Christians grossly lacking and weak on the Word, but they misunderstand some of their talmudic opinions from their leaders and interpret them as being authoritative law.

Jews Are Far More Informed

Jews are far more informed and sensible over the Jewish Talmud. Yes, Jews do acknowledge some of it as authoritative law. But they generally have sufficient brains to realize that a lot of it is opinion which means little or nothing. They know that the Talmud represents differences in doctrinal opinions of the different Jewish factions in Second Temple days.

Most observers are cognizant of the huge number of splits and divisions in the historic Baptist Churches as well as in the entire Sardis Church of God and Sacred Name movements (described in other chapters herein). Most of these people disagree among themselves--sometimes on important issues, but more often on petty things of little or no importance (except questions of who will be the boss running things).

Subsequent chapters in this work will focus on denominationalism in modern Christendom. Actually, there are some 32,000 different Christian groups with all kinds of different beliefs, opinions and interpretations. Not only does Christendom have all of these differences; but sometimes, there is open hostility among the different factions.

Christians don’t seem to get upset over all of these disagreements and conflicts in Christian writings (in the different, denominational, Christian talmuds). Why should they criticize or be surprised over different beliefs in Judaism and the Jewish Talmud?

Differences Between the Jews and Christians

The above comments broached the issue of the huge popularity of a host of different and conflicting talmuds within Christianity. However, on this theme, there are several fantastic truths which distinguish or differentiate Judaism from Christianity. This point is awesome to think about--but it is categorically true as revealed in the Talmud.

As pointed out, above, individual Christian denominations and collective Christianity at large all have their own Christian talmuds. With this prevalence of numbers of Christian talmuds in existence, how is it and why is that Christians go to pieces to complain and criticize Jews because they have the Jewish Talmud. Yes, Christians habitually play the hypocrite on this issue.

But there are some differences between the Christian talmuds (plural since there are so many different ones in existence) and the Jewish Talmuds (which only exist in two forms, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and even these two are compatible and have many similarities).

Christianity literally has thousands and thousands of Christian talmuds (most of which profoundly disagree and represent a mass of Babylonian confusion).

On the surface, the honest student of truth, of course, would immediately recognize the difference in timing between the Christian and Jewish talmuds. The Jewish Talmud is very ancient and was contemporary with the life and times of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly. Most of the Christian talmuds are very recent compilations with a Greek religious heritage far removed from Second Temple Judaism.

With the Jewish Talmud, one is reading the opinions and ideas of people who were contemporaries of YESHUA and the Apostolic Assembly. Yes, the Jewish Talmud reflects the culture and mentality of the relatives, friends and acquaintances (and enemies) of YESHUA, Shaul, Kefa and so forth.

With modern Christian talmuds, the reader gets none of this background data.

Christian Talmuds Are Selfish and Biased

However, as utterly important as the dating reality is, this is not the big issue in comparing the two talmuds.

Almost without exception, virtually all Christian denominational talmuds present only the view of the denomination. They expressly will not allow into print any other views. There are no disagreements, dissents or differences of opinion in most Christian denominational talmuds. Christian editors will not permit anything into their denominational talmuds, but their own, approved, denominational beliefs.

When one reads the Ellen G. White talmud, the Herbert W. Armstrong talmud or the Joseph Smith talmud, he can only read the ideas and opinions of these Christian big shots. None of these persons would have ever allowed any contrary opinion to enter their talmudic productions. They were very exclusive, prejudiced and arrogant on keeping other views out!

Therefore, each Christian talmud individually keeps out all dissent and disagreement so that readers can never question the presentation.

The reader must accept the denominational pitch (which is confused because there are vast differences between the different, Christian, denominational talmuds. Obviously, the Herbert W. Armstrong talmud is considerably different from the Joseph Smith or the Ellen White talmuds and so forth).

Now, here comes the greatness and the real point of demarcation between the Jewish Talmud and the Christian ones. The Jewish Talmud always allowed dissenting and disagreeing opinions to be presented, though they may have differed from the majority position and the position of the later editors. This is absolutely remarkable!

It is because of this factor that the Jewish Talmud has so much of an incredible amount of opinion (yes, even opponents of YESHUA were allowed to express their hatred and opinions about Him). It is said that whenever two “rabbis” got together, there would be three different opinions. This is sometimes true in generic Christendom.

But Christian denominations do not allow these differences to be expressed typically in their denominational talmuds (Christian Church leaders will seldom allow them in print).

The Jewish Talmud lays out the differences. The majority beliefs never had the privilege of hiding and covering up dissenting positions. It is because of this reality that some amazing presentations appear in the Jewish Talmud.

Some Examples

So, despite the fact that Jews historically don’t believe that the first century YESHUA was The MESSIAH (and there are some few criticisms of Him, just as there are criticisms of almost everybody and everything else, in the context of opinion), the Jews have allowed contrasting opinion to become a part of their Talmud.

For example, Dr Harris Brady has an article on “Who is a Jew?... Who is a Rabbi” in the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 37), which reflects upon Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53 in the Talmud.

Zechariah 12:10 reports a coming time when Jews will look upon YESHUA, Whom they have pierced. The Talmud says that “It must be granted him that says, for Messiah the Son of Joseph that shall be slain as it is written, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced” (Succah 52).

The Talmud also reports the view of one R. Alschech who said “They shall lift up their eyes to me in perfect repentance when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph.” Historic Judaism has fought and argued against Isaiah 53 for 2,000 years. Yet, the Talmud has these remarks of ancient “rabbis” who acknowledged that Isaiah 53 pertained to The MESSIAH.

Having mentioned this reference, it could offer some confusion because elsewhere the Talmud predicts the coming of two Messiahs--one, the son of Joseph; and another, the son of David (Jan-Feb 2001 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 7). The son of Joseph is to die in battle and prepare the way for the Son of David who would come later and conquer the heathen nations and rule the world.

This Talmudic thinking is interesting in view of the Scriptural evidence that The MESSIAH does come in two presentations. In the first century CE, He came as A LAMB (fulfilling Isaiah 53 and other texts--which the Talmud seems to associate with The SON OF YOSEF). Now, in the future age end, He will come again, but as A KING and LION (Isa 34; Dan 2:44 and Rev 19:16--which the Talmud sees as A SON OF DAVID).

Manifestly, the Jews have allowed dissenting opinion to enter their own doctrinal source--the Talmud. This would never happen within Christianity, at least in most denominations.

Incidentally, while allowing in some dissenting remarks into the Talmud, editor Rick Chaimberlin, in answer to a reader’s question, notes in the Jan-Mar 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 50) that while the Talmud does give significant space to dissenting views, it always makes the winning or prevailing position plain and the one to be followed.

First Century Differences in Interpretations

With the background on interpretations and the need for them in prior comments, YESHUA (correctly) took exception to “some” (certainly not all) of the Talmudic ideas (of the Shammai and/or Haverim people) which truly were inconsistent or in conflict with the Tanakh (as some of them were)

For example, on the ritualistic (ceremonially) washings of hands, on wrong treatment of parents and possibly the improper restrictions on the Sabbath (all of which were points of controversy in Second Temple Judaism), YESHUA seemingly labeled them traditions and commandments of men (Matt 15; Mk 7).

Likewise, the Apostle Shaul may have had these School of Shammai or Haverim teachings in mind when he wrote to the Colossians about the commandments and doctrines of men--on the level of ordinances about touching not, tasting not, etc. He said they would all perish (Col 2:20-23). But clearly, he would have never said that about the mitzwot of YHWH which he loved and served.

In mentioning this reality, the point must be made that YESHUA did not have any problem (nor Shaul--Acts 28:17), per se, with Jewish customs and traditions. His mention of some of them were in the context that some set aside, nullified or “transgressed the commandments” of The ELOHIM (Matt 15:3-6).

Of course, He would say that about any custom or tradition which acted against any portion of the Torah. He was totally dedicated to the righteousness of the Torah. Never would He have stood by and allowed anyone to nullify or set aside the Torah and its righteousness through tradition.

If He was walking the streets of modern America and found people observing the traditions of their fathers (in Christmas and Easter celebrations and a whole host of common Christian acts made on the basis of custom and tradition), what do you think He would say?

YESHUA would never stand by and accept the acts of people to follow customs which set aside YHWH’s commandments.

Ignorant and uninformed Christians who believe that they are saved and have salvation (all the while that they are in rebellion and contempt toward YHWH’s Torah) are due for a shock one day when they learn that His Torah takes precedence over their unscriptural, false traditions and customs.

Differences Highlighted

Beyond the differences in opinion and belief between the Pharisees and the Sadducees over hand washing procedures (per the Talmud, Yadaim 4:6-7), there was also conflict between the Pharisee Schools of Shammai and Hillel over the same ceremonial hand washing questions (per the Talmud, Berakhoth 8).

If the School of Shammai Pharisees had its way, a person would have had to ceremonially wash and dip his hands in water often every day by a definitely established, long, ceremonial procedure. These dippings had nothing to do with hygiene or cleanliness. They were pushed for ritualistic reasons.

Importantly, they were not commanded as a mitzwah in the Torah (though the Torah did define certain, similar, ritual-cleaning practices for the priesthood, who would officiate in the Temple--Ex 30:18-20). But these Torah requirements for the priests had absolutely nothing to do with the common people. Yet, the Shammai Pharisees were trying to extend them to the public at large. No wonder YESHUA opposed their ideas.

Hillel Versus Shammai

Similar differences of opinion existed between the Shammai and Hillel people over interpreting “how” to keep the Sabbath and not on whether to keep the Sabbath. For example, the Shammai Pharisees would not start an extended trip over the Mediterranean Sea after the fourth day of the week if it would take them over the Sabbath day.

Otherwise, “The Mishnah” (p. 100-121) has a whole host of statements illustrating the differences between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel on how to keep the Sabbath. There simply is insufficient space to begin to cover these differences. But a few more will be highlighted to demonstrate the point.

Thus, Shammai would say that ink, dyestuff, or vetches may not be soaked on a sixth day of the week unless there is time for them to be wholly soaked before the start of the Sabbath (the point here is that the persons dying cloth or soaking cloth or something must complete the process before the Sabbath commences and not allow the operation to continue over the Sabbath). Hillel permits it.

Shammai would say that bundles of flax were not to be baked in an oven on the sixth day unless there is time for them to bake that day. Hillel would allow it. Shammai would say that fishing nets should not be spread on a sixth day unless there is time to catch fish that day (in other words, don’t leave the nets out over the Sabbath). Hillel would allow it.

Shammai would say that one should not help a goy (non-believer) place a burden or pack on an animal on the sixth day unless there is time for the pack animal to reach its destination that day. Hillel would permit it as long as it was before the Sabbath.

Shammai would not give hides to a goy (non-believing) tanner on a sixth day unless the work could be completed that day (the point here is to not give work to non Sabbathkeepers on a sixth day on the premise that they will do or might do the work on the Sabbath). Hillel would allow it. Thus, the Shammai people were very strict on how to keep the Sabbath (“The Temple Its Ministry and Services,” p. 137).

In reciting the shema (Deut 6:4-5, which YESHUA recited in the NT--Mk 12:28-33), Shammai said to stand in the morning and recline in the evening (to fulfill Deut 6:7) while Hillel said “Everyone recites in his own way: one may stand, recline, walk, and even work during the recital.”

Thus, Shammai stressed the formal act (the ceremony during the recital) and Hillel ignored altogether the ceremony and stressed instead the intentions of the heart (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 67).

In the NT

In the NT, YESHUA had some conflicts with the Pharisees (evidently, of the strict School of Shammai) over plucking of grain to immediately eat on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Mk 2:23-28; Lu 6:1-5) and over healing of sick people on the Sabbath (Matt 12:9-13; Mk 3:1-5; Lu 6:6-10). None of these confrontations were over keeping the Sabbath. Both involved questions on how to keep the Sabbath.

Moreover, the Torah provided that farmers were to leave grain in the fields for the poor to glean (Lev 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 24:19-20).

So, on one Sabbath, YESHUA and His disciples were walking through a grain field. The disciples were hungry and pulled a few ears of grain to munch on as they walked. The Pharisees (Shammai?) cried “sin,” believing that it was work to pull a few ears of grain (per the Mishnah, Shabbath 7:2).

The healings fit into the same category. The Mishnah defines any treatment for the relief of discomfort, pain or slight ailments as being a form of grinding or preparing medicines; thus constituting prohibited work on the Sabbath (Shabbath 7:2).

When YESHUA healed the sick on the Sabbath, the Pharisees (evidently Shammai) alleged that he was practicing medicine and working which would have been contrary to the Mishnah.

This writer does not have all of the details on this issue of possible Shammai and Hillel conflict, other than noting that the prohibitions are outlined in the Mishnah, Section 7 of the Shabbath tract (“The Mishnah,” p. 106).

Based upon YESHUA’s confrontation with some Pharisees (apparently Shammai Pharisees), it seems evident that Hillel allowed healings on the Sabbath while Shammai held to the literal words of the Mishnah.

In any case, modern Rabbinic Judaism now allows doctors to practice their healing arts on the Sabbath. Since Rabbinic Judaism more often follows the dictates of Hillel, it is very likely that this was the historic Hillel position.

In the Number 8 issue 1999, of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 1-4), Jim Myers discussed the Rabbinic position on life which is that all of the commandments in the Torah can be violated in order to preserve human life except for four of them--murder, idolatry, incest and adultery. Thus, the other recognized 609 mitzwot can all be violated to preserve life (per Judaism).

This reality in Second Temple Judaism apparently had some support among certain classes of Jews. For example, the Torah said that the shew bread in the Temple could be eaten only by the priests (Lev 24:5-9). Yet, David, who was not a priest, ate the shew bread (I Sam 21:1-6; 22:10, 15).

Some hypocritical Pharisees (evidently Shammai) supported David’s action on the premise that David needed the food to stay alive. However, these same Pharisees condemned YESHUA for healing sick people on the Sabbath and the disciples for eating a little grain on the Sabbath. So YESHUA pointed out their hypocrisy (Matt 12:3-6).

More From Rabbinic Judaism

Obviously, the issue of healings was eventually settled within Judaism when doctors were allowed to practice medicine on the Sabbath day (as is now the Jewish procedure). In modern Israel, it can be awful quiet on the Sabbath in some areas and especially on Yom Kippur--except for one thing. Even on Yom Kippur, the sound of sirens and ambulances can be heard.

In the NT Talmud conflicts, The MESSIAH was not criticizing observance of YHWH’s Sabbath, honor to parents or of the washing of hands for hygienic purposes.

Obviously, YHWH YESHUA always obeyed His Own Sabbath laws and showed honor to His parents. Otherwise, He would have been a sinner Himself. You can just about bank on it that He washed His hands (and His feet as well) on occasion, if they were dirty.

The Divorce Controversy

The Talmud has a record of a long controversy between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel over the interpretation of the word “unclean,” in Moshe’s law governing divorce at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (“Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica,” by John Lightfoot, v. 2, p. 119-123).

The Shammai people said it must be limited to adultery “only” while the Hillel School argued for a more liberal position, allowing other causes (“Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica,” v. 2, p. 120-122).

YESHUA seems to have chosen a middle ground position limiting divorce to fornication (Greek porneia--Matt 5:32), which includes all sexual uncleanness (both before and after marriage, to be further discussed in a later chapter). It appears that this might be the only case where YESHUA did not categorically side with the School of Hillel in its conflicts with the School of Shammai.

Obviously too, the Apostle Shaul seems to have mentioned desertion as an allowable reason for divorce (I Cor 7:15)--which might have been just Shaul’s personal belief and not necessarily the position of YESHUA (I Cor 7:12). Despite the fact that the source of Shaul’s conclusion seems obscure, one can be sure that it was compatible and consistent with YESHUA’s teachings--if Shaul and the NT were inspired.

More Differences

Comments in other chapters herein have or will focus upon the concepts of binding and loosing (or put another way, of forbidding or permitting)--the authority of which was granted to the scribes and Pharisees, in the sense of them sitting in Moshe’s seat (Deut 17:8-13; Matt 23:3). Reportedly, the School of Shammai tended to interpret the Torah in a fashion of forbidding things (more than it actually said).

Conversely, the School of Hillel tended to permit or loose things which the School of Shammai would forbid. “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 13) called the Pharisaical School of Hillel “liberal” in its beliefs and attitudes. This is why the ritualistic hand-washings, mentioned above, were such an issue in first century CE Judaism.

In terms of the basic philosophies governing the two schools, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 4, p. 741) suggests that Shammai has its origin in “gevurah” (might), as opposed to Hillel’s “hesed” (loyalty).

Supposedly, Hillel was gentle and kind--in contrast to Shammai, who was stern and short tempered (ibid, v. 4, p. 740).

Shammai adopted the stricter view on issues while Hillel chose the more lenient approaches (ibid, v. 4, p. 740). There is an ancient Jewish proverb which illustrates the difference between the two.

The story is that a heathen came to Shammai and said “Convert me provided that you teach me the entire Torah while I stand on one foot.” Shammai drove him away with the builder’s cubit which was in his hand. The heathen went to Hillel and asked him. Hillel said “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor (rea). This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go and learn it” (Jan-Mar 2000 “Hebrew Roots,” p. 24).

Where’s Your Fence, Revisited

The previously mentioned Norman A. Brumm, in his article on “Where’s Your Fence,” suggests that the School of Shammai Pharisees taught that in order to be saved, a person had to perform (on the level of commandments and laws) a host of traditions which they accepted and taught.

Hence, their concept of salvation was of one of works, as established by them (which is what is taught in most Christian Churches).

Conversely, Norman notes that while the School of Hillel people believed and taught obedience of YAH’s mitzwot, their position was that salvation occurred based on faith by the grace of YHWH (Feb 1998 “Search the Scriptures,” p. 4).

Significantly, the Hillel position was precisely the one taught in the NT.

William F. Dankenbring writes that Hillel believed in teaching the spirit of the law and that “God should be understood as being perfect from the viewpoint of His mitigating the written Torah or law with the qualities of forgiveness, mercy, compassion and love” (“The Pharisees, Hasidim, and the Early Jewish Church,” Aug 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 6).

Dankenbring also reports that the Hasidim (of the School of Hillel persuasion, as was defined and discussed in preceding chapters) were distinguished for their love of people--in contrast to the Shammai “parush,” who were recognized for their separation from those considered to be sinful or irreligious (“Prophecy Flash,” Aug 1994, p. 6-7).

The Scriptures outline a number of Shammai parush who came into contact with YESHUA, as the context of the New Testament verses clearly illustrate.

Many of YESHUA’s rebukes were directed at them for their proud, self righteous and exclusive attitudes. Again, as noted above and in the prior chapter, there are a host of teachings and beliefs in the NT which either come from or directly link to teachings in the Talmud.

The Talmud and NT Link

The Jewish Talmud and NT are inexorably linked together. Any person who claims that he can understand the teachings of the NT, apart from the Talmud, is simply lost in terms of the real world.

Some understanding of what the Talmud is and where its main focus is directed is crucial for an understanding of the NT. The two writings are absolutely linked together in hundreds of ways (as will be proven in the following chapters).

Chapter 172--The Talmud and the NT I

Two Talmuds

In any discussion on the Jews (yes, both good and/or bad Jews, as was covered in former chapters), some focus must inevitably be directed at the Talmud (which was briefly addressed in former chapters as being essentially opinion in the form of oral traditions handed down from generation to generation).

There are actually two Jewish Talmuds--the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud (both reduced to writing largely in the third to fifth centuries CE, long after the fall of Jerusalem). Both Talmuds are made up of two divisions--the Mishnah (which is clearly quite ancient) and the Gemara.

The Mishnah is an interpretation of or commentary on the Torah (the Pentateuch--Genesis through Deuteronomy) and the Gemara is effectively an interpretation of the Mishnah. However, some Jews recognize the Mishnah as a separate and independent work and the Gemara as actually constituting the Talmud

The Jerusalem Talmud was a product of Palestine while the Babylonian Talmud evolved in Babylon from the time of the Jewish exile. Both were handed down orally in ancient times--apparently by melodized rendition (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 755). As noted earlier, some Jews try to date this oral tradition to the time of Moshe.

But as noted in a former chapter, this is impossible in view of Joshua 8:35 where Yehoshua read the Torah to the people. As Daniel Botkin of East Peoria, Illinois notes, Yehoshua had to have read the Torah in a written form, and not involving any attempt to merely quote oral tradition.

Moreover, the implications of Deuteronomy 4:1-2 come into play--where Moshe decreed that nothing further can be added to the Torah, beyond the Words recorded by Moshe. This reference is plain enough that the laws found in the Talmud have no legal basis from the Scriptures. Talmudic writers (like later NT and Christian writers) could interpret and give their ideas/opinions. But they could not state laws/mitzwot.

Hence, this Jewish view of dating the Talmud to Moshe simply won’t hold water. Regardless of when the oral tradition started (probably after the exile), it is quite ancient.

More

In terms of the actual writing and editing of the two, the Jerusalem Talmud is the oldest with the Babylonian Talmud being compiled a century later.

The Babylonian Talmud is written in Eastern Aramaic with a considerable portion in Hebrew while the Jerusalem Talmud is written in Western Aramaic with an admixture of Greek words or loan words (many of them “hopelessly corrupt,” per “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” p. 774, v. 15).

The two works are very similar in many ways. However, there are important differences both in context from the standpoint of what subjects are addressed and also in interpretations and conclusions (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 15, p. 750-779). Judaica even suggests that there are numerous variants between the two texts of “The Mishnah” (ibid, p. 758).

The Babylonian Talmud is by far the much larger one with some 2 1/2 million words in 5,894 pages while the Jerusalem Talmud is substantially smaller. Modern Judaism recognizes the Babylonian Talmud as being more authoritative than the Jerusalem Talmud.

Findings and comments in the Talmud are essentially halakhah (legal laws, which carry authority and should be obeyed) and/or haggadah (or aggadah--nonlegal opinions, comments and interpretations, often in the form of stories and parables).

A Word on Opinion

The above comments and previous chapters have established that much of the Talmud is nothing but opinion. There is no need to repeat those presentations. But one important facet of those remarks has not been covered as needed.

The presence of opinion in the Talmud brings up a most fascinating example of one of the prime differences between Judaism and Christianity. Both the Tanakh and the Talmud (and even the NT) offer an abundance of mitzwot, instructions and teachings along the line that there is to be a point of separation, distinction and demarcation between racial Israelites (to include racial gerim) and other humans/humanoids.

The Word does not treat all so-called humans the same. People in the “rea” context (in the vein of Yisrael and the Covenant) have a moral duty and obligation to help, assist, support and treat each other far differently than what one finds in the general sense of other people (yes, they show favoritism to each other. This concept is unheard of in Christianity and among White people--who rarely ever show favoritism to each other).

The Talmud always recognizes this distinction--in the vein of fellow Jews, as opposed to non-Jews (goyim). “Everyman’s Talmud” (p. 212-213) notes that the law of love in the Talmud is limited to members of the Israelite community and that loving deeds are to be practiced, one to another, in that community. In the Talmud, the Jews are always referred to or thought of as Yisrael and all other people as goyim.

Since the Scriptures themselves differentiate between Israelites and others, the Talmud does the same thing. While some remarks are cast in the vein of halakhah (law), most are rendered in the sense of aggadah (opinion). For sure, they carry much weight because they are totally Scriptural (in the vein of Israelites showing favoritism to other Israelites).

Christians Don’t Get It

This ethnic or racial distinction makes ignorant and Scripturally uninformed Christians mad--because Christianity sees no difference whatsoever between persons of any class (which goes back to Grecian sun worship, in the sense of the brotherhood of man, as noted earlier and to be further discussed in later presentations).

Since all people are the same in Christendom, Christians clearly hate the very ideas of differentiation and favoritism (as are found in the Talmud--and the Scriptures).

Thus, Christian theologians incorrectly read the Greek thinking and philosophy (on “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man”) into everything (and certainly, into both the OT and NT). With the Talmud, they respond by outrightly hating it--over the racial/ethnic distinctions.

What a shame it has been that Christians do not read and study the Talmud and Tanakh and particularly in the vein of this racial differentiation. Christians could learn some things from the Talmud (and the Word).

Some More Views on Hillel and Shammai

The previously mentioned school of Hillel preached loving kindness and the study of the Torah while the school of Shammai had a twist on this historic Jewish teaching. Per Shammai, “Make thy (study of the) Law a fixed habit; say little and do much, and receive all men with a cheerful countenance” (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 40).

There is no need to attempt to cover the multitude of powerful and wonderful statements of the great Jewish sage Hillel. But since YESHUA The MESSIAH and the Apostolic Assembly had so many linkages to Hillel, a few of his teachings should be looked at herein. Of course, his words and teachings have been preserved in the Talmud.

In one case, Hillel made a reference to a time and said “In the time when men scatter, gather” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 523). This text compares with YESHUA’s words “he who does not gather with me, scattereth” (Matt 12:30; Lu 11:23).

In another instance, Hillel interpreted Exodus 20:24 as saying that “In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 521). Compare this with YESHUA’s words that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He will be in the midst of them (Matt 18:20).

Moreover, Hillel taught that “One should not...weep in the presence of those who laugh, nor laugh in the presence of those who weep” (“Judaism and the Origins of Christianity,” p. 522). This interpretation was offered by Hillel for Shlomo’s words about “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” (Eccl 3:4).

Per Hillel, one who trusts in YHWH becomes immune to bad news (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 74). It does not matter whether the bad news is true or false. This belief surfaces in YESHUA’s words about not being anxious about tomorrow (Matt 6:34).

In “Hillel and Jesus” (p. 85, 90), Professor David Flusser, formerly of Hebrew University, outlined a series of NT texts quoting YESHUA which Flusser claimed had their origin from Hillel--like Matthew 20:12-14, and the above cited Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. Flusser said that YESHUA saw those teachings of Hillel, as speaking of Himself (evidently as The MESSIAH).

Hillel on the Torah

As outlined in former chapters on the Torah, YESHUA, Shaul and the other NT personalities were strong on the Torah (Matt 5:17-19).

As might be expected, Hillel was a powerful teacher of the righteousness in the Torah. For example, the Talmud records these sayings from Hillel (all taken from “Hillel and Jesus”), as follows:

Per Hillel-- “The more Torah, the more life; the more study, the more wisdom; the more counsel, the more discernment; the more righteousness, the more peace” (m.Ab 2:8). Again, Hillel said-- “Be of the disciples of Aaron: love peace and pursue peace, love fellow-creatures, and bring them near to the Torah” (m.Ab 1:12). YESHUA had some similar words (Matt 5:9).

Finally, Hillel taught that “If a man has gained a good name he has gained (something valuable) for himself; if he has gained for himself words of the Torah he has gained for himself life in the world to come” (m.Ab 2:7).

Love and Good Deeds in Judaism

Moreover, Luke wrote an interesting little comment in saying that “devout men” buried the great martyr Stephen (Acts 8:2). William F. Dankenbring ties this devout men description to the Hasidim, who were known for love and good deeds, and who evidently, disapproved of the murder of Stephen (“Prophecy Flash,” Aug 1994, p. 6-10).

Is it possible that Stephen was a Hasid? It appears that the first century Hasidim were Pharisees of the School of Hillel and probably had much in common with the sect of the Nazarenes, evidently also of the school of Hillel (as suggested by Shmuel Safrai, cited earlier).

According to Dankenbring, these two sects (the Nazarenes and the Hasidim) were looked down upon (as they were often the poor, humble and downtrodden of the secular society), particularly by the Judean Shammai Pharisees with their super righteous arrogance and big shot attitudes (which perhaps resembled what one would find today in the arrogant, self righteous congregations of many Christian churches).

The Hypocrite

From the Talmud and the New Testament, it is possible to draw a profile of the Shammai Pharisee. It would seem that he would be the type of person who likes to be a public spectacle when fasting, and/or he would advertise and tell others about his fastings. He would tend to offer long, drawn out prayers in the synagogues and other public gatherings--before men.

When he does works of charity, he does so publicly and often sounds drums and cymbals, so that observers can understand what all he is doing. He assuredly obeys the Torah in terms of phylacteries and wearing a tallith with fringes. But he makes the borders and fringes large--where other people can see and behold his obedience (yes, it was the Shammai Pharisees who made their tzitzityot or fringes large).

He likes the important seats at feasts, worship sites and meetings where everybody can see him and see how important he is. He likes to be addressed with titles of respect and authority. He likes religious rituals and ceremonies which allow him to shine and show off before men. Anytime he can be seen by men, he appears to be very religious.

In a word, he is a classic hypocritical fraud whose heart is far removed from The ELOHIM. His works and faith are only for show purposes to receive the acclamations of men. He is like a cup which looks clean and good from the outside; but inside, it is dirty, depraved and pathetic.

Sound Familiar?

Does any of this Shammai Pharisee stuff sound familiar in terms of any Christians? Has the reader ever seen Christians who are as bad or worse than the most hypocritical Pharisee? This possibility was assessed in some detail in former chapters on pride and vanity.

This whole situation brings to mind a famous saying--People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones (as mentioned elsewhere herein).

Christians are anxious to condemn the Jews for the pride and hypocrisy of some of them (as outlined in Matthew 23), but then to lose sight of the fact that the same pride and hypocrisy is prevalent throughout Christendom. In fact, it is present in all people all over the world.

Conversely, the Hillel Pharisee (and particularly the Hasid and the Nazarene) would tend to do his fastings, prayers and works of giving and charity in private and in secret.

No one will know or should know about his good deeds--except YHWH.

The Hillel Pharisee is humble and little in his own eyes (and typically very poor in terms of worldly goods). He takes the unimportant seats at meetings and shuns trying to be a big shot.

Chapter 173--The Talmud and the NT II

Traditions of the Elders, Revisited

Clearly, YESHUA did on occasion condemn certain practices which He called traditions of the elders--principally, in connection with hand washings, as elsewhere mentioned herein (Matt 15:2-6; Mk 7:3-13); but also, by allusion to the ways the Sabbaths were to be kept, fastings and on and on.

Many Christians ignorantly take these remarks to mean a condemnation of the overall Talmud. This is not true at all. As mentioned in the previous chapters, the Talmud has an abundance of information that carries no weight at all, but represents the opinions of free men in the context of free speech.

In the conflicts between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel and between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the reality is merely a presentation of the different opinions between the factions. As noted earlier, YESHUA sided with the Hillel position (except possibly over the divorce issue, as discussed earlier).

It would appear that His condemnation of the traditions of the elders must be referring to the positions of the Shammai people and the Sadducees--and certainly not to the Hillel people or even the overall Oral Law (Talmud) that broached these issues in the dialogue and controversy.

The Apostle Kefa (also a likely Hillel Pharisee) may have had these same traditions in mind when he described a yoke of some sort which certain Jews were trying to force on new converts to the Nazarene sect followers of YESHUA (Acts 15:10). Could this yoke have included some of the traditions of the elders taught by the School of Shammai Pharisees which conflicted with YHWH’s law?

Colossians 2:8

The Hillel Pharisee Shaul came along years later and also wrote a condemnation about the “traditions of men” and linked them to the rudiments (Greek “stoich-stoicheion,” as discussed earlier) of the world (Col 2:8). Two features of Shaul’s remark stand out.

First, the traditions of all men which set aside YHWH’s laws are to be condemned.

Apparently, all Christian Churches, from mother Rome on down to all that can be named, have a number of traditions which they follow and subscribe to as doctrine. Go into any Christian Church and one will find a host of traditions--none of which have any basis whatsoever in the Word (like with Peter Peters, as noted in a prior chapter). This statement will be conclusively proven in later chapters herein.

The second feature of Shaul’s remark was commented upon earlier. It concerns the meaning of the Greek word “stoich/stoicheion,” which “Young’s Analytical Concordance” (p. 293, 826) says is an element, first step or principle. As used in the context of the world, it probably means the early or beginning influence of demonic elements, doctrines or principles upon unconverted persons (Gal 4:3, 9; Col 2:8, 20).

In any case, it is true that all of man’s religions, including Christianity, incorporates traditions into their religion, and particularly into their rituals and rites. Why do churches have steeples, stained glass windows and so forth? Well partly, because of tradition, although there is another sinister reason operating behind the scenes, as will be elaborated upon in later chapters.

The Right Perspective

The point of this is that one must be careful to not try to read something into YESHUA’s remarks about traditions of the elders which is just not there. True, He condemned the Amalekite bankers.

True, He condemned the Judean Shammai Pharisees (Amalekites?) who were hypocrites. True, He condemned some remarks of the Oral Talmud which were likely attributable to the Shammai leadership.

But overall, He certainly did not condemn the free speech and religious expressions in a free society which is what millions of Protestants died for in the Protestant Reformation. Assuredly, He was not against the overall Talmud--just those opinions which represented handed down traditions that were contrary to YHWH’s laws.

Just like the Talmud’s “few” critical comments about YESHUA, the Nazarenes and goyim, the controversial subjects (hand washings, how to keep the Sabbaths, etc) represent a very minor and insignificant portion of the Talmud. There are thousands of other subjects in it as well with thousands of teachings which many Christians would find no fault with at all.

Even in the New Testament, this reference to “traditions of the elders” concerns one short discourse of a handful of verses in the entire NT. There is absolutely no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill, as some Christians try to do because of their ignorance and basic hatred of Judaism.

The Sabbath Dilemma

Having mentioned Jewish attempts to define and legislate specific aspects of keeping the Sabbath in the prior chapters, some attention should be focused on Christian groups and their observance of either Sunday or the Seventh day Sabbath.

Most all of these Christian groups try to develop and perpetuate man-made interpretations on “how” they keep their so-called Sabbaths. Of course, this is true with real Sabbatarians who keep the Seventh day Sabbath.

Perhaps all of these Sabbatarian groups promulgate talmudic laws for their church members on how to keep the Sabbath. As noted in previous remarks, questions always arise in people’s minds on what can be properly done and what cannot be done on the Sabbath.

So it makes sense that both Christian and Jewish groups would attempt to come to some conclusions and dogmatize them for their followers. In fact, if they were not established as custom or doctrine, many people would be constantly running to their teachers and denominational leaders with questions and concern over what they can do or cannot do on the Sabbath day.

Background on the Sabbath

Manifestly, any presentation on Judaism, the Talmud and the Apostolic Assembly must eventually broach the keeping of the Seventh day Sabbath.

It seems that of all of YHWH’s commandments, the Sabbath one assumed a primary role in Second Temple Judaism; and hence raised a number of questions within the different segments or parts of that Judaism--to include the people of the Apostolic Assembly.

In the first place, the Seventh day Sabbath commandment is extremely important to the true believer because the Sabbath is a sign or mark of identification that sets the believer apart from non-believing peoples (Ex 31:13-17; Ezek 20:12, 20). It is a part of the first five commandments in the Decalogue which show love of YHWH The ELOHIM (Ex 20:8-11).

With this background, the student of truth must understand that both the House of Yisrael and the House of Yehudah were judged and condemned by The ELOHIM to captivity and slavery for their many sins and particularly for their sins of Sabbath breaking (Neh 13:15-18; Ezek 20:12-24; 22:8, 26; 23:38).

Of all of the evil which both Yisrael and Yehudah did over the years in the promise land, the one thing that stood out as deserving judgment the most was their continued Sabbath breaking; which, by the way, made the people forget The ELOHIM since they were breaking and ignoring His sign of identification.

Certainly, the Northern kingdom of Yisrael introduced sun worship at an early time, which must have included Sunday worship instead of the Seventh day Sabbath worship (to be discussed at length in later chapters herein). But Sabbath breaking was equally as bad in the Southern kingdom.

Thus

In short, the peoples in both kingdoms generally ignored the fourth commandment--just as most Israelites still ignore and rebel against it in modern times. The Book repeatedly says that the Sabbath is to be a joy, a delight and a blessing for Adam, and that the Sabbath was made for Adam (Ps 92:1-15; 118:24; Matt 12:7-12; Mk 2:27).

For some strange reason, the one commandment which YHWH gave Yisrael as a blessing, the people chose to ignore and bypass the most flagrantly. It is the one commandment that Israelites have historically been utterly opposed to and have tragically disobeyed the most.

In the Israelite exile by the Assyrians, YHWH elected to divorce the rebellious harlot Yisrael and terminate His marriage covenant with her. As pointed out previously, she lost the Hebrew language, her identity, the ineffable name and the Sabbaths--all in the divorce.

The Jews Learned the Hard Way

Conversely, YHWH chose to not divorce the sinning Yehudah. Instead, He brought her back from Babylonian captivity at the end of seventy years to resume the covenant relationship. He used Ezra, Nechemyah, Haggai, Zekharyah, Yeshua and a number of other faithful people to restore true worship among the returning Jews.

The emphasis by them on the importance of the Sabbath after the exile is amply illustrated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Perhaps it was this focus by the early leadership of the Jewish returnees that finally got the message across to the Jewish Israelites that YHWH means business on the subject of the Sabbath. Nechemyah makes it clear that the Sabbath became important (Neh 9:14; 10:31-33; 13:15-22).

The Sabbath and its proper observance are nothing to sneer at or ridicule, as Churchianity tends to do. However good or bad the Jews were or ever would be, the one thing that they learned in the Babylonian exile was the need to begin keeping the Sabbath (which they had ignored and rebelled against in their prior presence in Canaan land).

It was this factor which surely prompted them to put many Talmudic hedges, protections, fences and safeguards around the Sabbath, in the context of “shamar,” as discussed earlier. Likely, they had a certain fear or concern over Sabbath breaking and wanted to take steps to go to all lengths, to be sure that they did not transgress it, as they had done formerly.

One could make the argument that many of these shamar protections were actually good measures--designed to express love toward The ELOHIM and facilitate obedience. It’s hard to fault a man for going the extra mile to obey and please The MOST HIGH.

The freedom of religion present in Second Temple Judaism allowed these safeguards to develop, but correctly, in the context of interpretations and opinions and not on the level of halakhah law (although the School of Shammai Pharisees were trying hard to make some of their interpretations mandatory law on the level of the Torah).

Beginning and Ending the Sabbath

The previous chapters mentioned the need to have a time to start and end the Sabbath and the Talmudic position on this need in the context of some brief ceremonies. Actually, this whole issue involves several questions which divided Second Temple Judaism and still allow some differences of opinion.

The case or support for these opening and ending ceremonies was stated by Isaac Klein, in “A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice” (p. 54), when he wrote that the loss of the Sabbath in Jewish life has been one of the great tragedies in modern America.

Klein (p. 54) notes that people today neglect the Sabbath not because economic conditions force them to do so, but by habit and because of the increasing secularization of life. While the secular world recognizes the need to have a day of rest weekly, it has turned the Sabbath into a weekend of pleasure--actually crime, drunkenness, lewdness and accidental deaths.

The need is to obey the Scriptures and make the Sabbath a delight and joy and as Klein says--a day of “rest and holiness” to praise and worship The MOST HIGH. To experience the Sabbath properly, there must be a transfiguration from the secular to the set apart or kodesh nature of the Sabbath.

Consequently, one can make the case for preparations for the Sabbath and for a proper commencement of the Sabbath. Judaism has done this since the days of Ezra and Nechemyah.

The Oral Law developed a teaching that a family marks the occasion of the start of the Sabbath with the lighting of some two to seven candles or lamps (usually, by the women of a household) and the saying of a short benediction or blessing (kiddush).

Author Roger Walkwitz makes a good case that in the first century CE, olive oil in lamps were used and not candles. This seems to be the actual process in early Judaism. Maybe the candles came along in later years and in the Diaspora. This question will be discussed in a later chapter.

Almost all of Judaism agrees on the basic Sabbath opening and closing ceremonies, which are assuredly quite ancient. Since they are so historically old, there is some certainty that they were procedurally observed in the first century; and likely, by YESHUA, Shaul and the other members of the Apostolic Assembly.

Complex Issues Subject to Opinion

Although the Talmud was to seemingly specify the start of the Sabbath at 18 minutes before sunset and the ending of it when three stars are visible, there have been differences of opinion on this time schedule and particularly on the closing factor.

As Isaac Klein noted, the precise times to start and end the Sabbath are complex, but the outline on the 18 minutes before rule would suggest something in the range of 18 to 25 minutes after the closing sunset (ibid, p. 56-58).

Beyond the initial candle or lamp lighting ceremony and blessing, there is a more formal ushering in of the Sabbath--usually, at the synagogue or at home involving prayers and certain worship procedures. At home, a glass of wine is enjoyed to start the Sabbath.

At the havdalah service, concluding the Sabbath, a glass of wine is enjoyed with certain blessings and prayers. Finally, the Sabbath ends with the candles or lamps being extinguished. The beginning opening ceremony can be the first part of the Sabbath eve meal and the ending ceremony can be the concluding portion of the late Sabbath afternoon meal.

In whatever case, it is important to note that there were serious differences in these procedures between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai in Second Temple days. For example, the two schools differed over whether the kiddush benediction over the sanctification of the day or of the wine was said first (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 10, p. 974).

It is obvious that the many little intricate features of the opening and closing ceremonies have been subjects of interpretation and controversy over the years in Judaism. Likely, YESHUA and the other Hillel people, in the Apostolic Assembly, kept the basic ceremonies, but not on the level of required law, as the Jews later developed it (to be discussed in the following chapters).

Sabbath Day’s Journey

Without the Talmud, one could never understand major portions of the New Testament (certainly the culture and setting). For example, Luke wrote about a defined distance as being a “Sabbath day’s journey” (Acts 1:12). One can understand that to be 2,000 cubits from the Talmud.

Is it important to know and understand this Talmudic teaching? Well, for the person hoping to perhaps have deliverance to safety, just before the future coming great tribulation, the answer seems to be an empathic yes!

Just before His death, The MESSIAH shared some profound revelations of the coming future with His disciples. He went to great length to tell about the coming great tribulation and how certain individuals (obviously, of the very elect classification) would flee quickly from Judea to certain mountains at a given signal and/or moment in time (Matt 24:16).

Going on, YESHUA described in some detail where those mountains are in terms of geography from Judea. For example, those mountains will contain the body of The MESSIAH (the Assembly of the very elect, called the carcase in the KJV--Matt 24:28) and will be where the eagles gather together.

Fleeing on the Sabbath?

Moreover, He observed that a person fleeing to those mountains should not be fleeing in the winter (Matt 24:20). Obviously, the time to flee will be some other season of the year rather than winter. And in this context, YESHUA was careful to say that the escapee should pray to avoid having to flee on a Sabbath day (Matt 24:20).

This single reference plainly suggests two things. First, it implies that this place of safety in the mountains can be reached within six days from Jerusalem--presumably, on foot or by other slow means of travel. Otherwise, it would take seven or more days and extend over a Sabbath day.

Secondly, there is another very subtle message in that reference. It possibly could be communicating that a true believer should not be fleeing on the Sabbath day. If this statement is true, is it possible that it is implying a limitation in the distance that a believer can travel on the Sabbath day?

If there is a restriction, what is it? The only conceivable limitation appears to be the one outlined in the Talmud of about 2,000 cubits (Acts 1:12). Evidently, the Scriptures do not address this point, per se, except in the generic context of requiring rest and prohibiting work on the Sabbath.

If an individual in the very elect category failed to flee at the right time, it is manifest that he or she may try to flee at the wrong time and in a manner to produce the flight over the Sabbath day. Yet, YESHUA commands the very elect to pray that their flight not be over a Sabbath day. There has to be a reason for this injunction.

Dr Ernest Martin, formerly of Portland, Oregon, elsewhere discussed, believed the above possibility; and further that the Mosaic law will be enforced in the age end. Accordingly, he argued that any such flights on a Sabbath day would be prohibited by secular authorities. In other words, the ruling state would arrest a person trying to travel an unallowable distance on the Sabbath day.

If this flight is to take place before the age ending beast ruler enters Jerusalem to set up the abomination of desolation and impose the great tribulation, it could theoretically have to occur while the Israelis are in secular authority over Palestine (as they are right now in the early 21st century).

If the Israeli government adopts any Sabbath observance laws, it seems fairly certain that they will legislate the Talmudic definition of a Sabbath day’s journey into those laws. In other words, if the Orthodox Jews are in charge, when it comes time for the very elect to flee Judea to the mountains, there is a strong likelihood that traveling will be limited to 2,000 cubits on the Sabbath day.

Shimon

The writer Luke mentions a faithful man named Shimon who was waiting for the consolation of Yisrael and was privileged to see YESHUA as SALVATION before he died (Lu 2:25-30). While the New Testament doesn’t present much information on this Shimon, the Talmud may help.

John Lightfoot, in his “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica” (v. 3, p. 40), asks who was this just and devout man? Going on, Lightfoot offers the likely answer as being “Rabban Simeon, the son of Hillel” who was alive and in Jerusalem at that time.

This Simeon (correctly Shimon) was prominent in the School of Hillel movement at the turn of the first century and eventually succeeded his father. Shimon evidently died in the early years of the first century CE. Shimon was the father of Gamaliel, who taught Shaul the apostle, as described previously herein.

If Luke’s Shimon can be successfully linked to Shimon, son of Hillel, as Lightfoot suggests, then it is just one more extraordinary reason why YESHUA and His disciples all would have been Hillel Pharisees. The evidence for this linkage is quite persuasive and most NT commentators agree with it.

The Amidah

The Talmud has a record of the Amidah from Second Temple days which must be associated with YESHUA and the early Apostolic Assembly. “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 2, p. 838) says that the Hebrew amidah means “standing” and that it came to refer to the popular daily Jewish prayer, also called Shemoneh-Esreh among the Ashkenazim.

In the Talmud, it is called Ha-Tefillah or the prayer “par excellence.” The prayer is a part of apparently all daily worship services. It must be recited standing with the worshipper facing Jerusalem. As a congregational prayer, it is sometimes recited by all of the worshippers; and sometimes it is repeated aloud by the reader with the congregation saying “amen” after each benediction.

Judaica says that the Amidah originally comprised 18 benedictions, but was later changed to 19 (with the addition of number 15). Evidently, all 19 benedictions are not always recited at all services. For example, at Sabbath eve services, one abbreviated version is recited.

The Talmud gives these Amidah benedictions: (1) Extols The ELOHIM as Great, Mighty and Awesome; (2) Praises The ELOHIM for His deeds and powers; (3) Refers to the set apart nature of The ELOHIM; (4) Petitions for wisdom and understanding; (5) Entreats for repentance; (6) Beseeches for forgiveness of sin; (7) Implores for redemption; and (8) Requests healing;

Going on--(9) Supplicates for a blessing of produce and a fertile year; (10) Request for the ingathering of the exiles to Palestine; (11) Appeals for righteous judges and justice to prevail; (12) Asks The ELOHIM to destroy slanderers, informers, His enemies and to shatter the kingdom of arrogance; and (13) Supplicates for mercy;

More--(14) Solicits The ELOHIM to rebuild Jerusalem, to dwell there and to restore the kingdom; (15) Seeks the establishment of the kingdom of David; (16) Pleas that our prayers be heard; (17) Begs for the re-establishment of the Temple services and for the return of the “Divine Presence;” (18) Gives thanks; and (19) Pleads for peace.

A perusal of these benedictions suggests that there probably were some modifications of these petitions after the fall of the Temple to the Romans in 70 CE, beyond the addition of number 15. Actually, Judaica (v. 2, p. 841) allows that one Samuel Ha-Katan did modify some of them at Jabneh, as late Talmudic sources.

YESHUA and the Amidah

The point of this wonderful prayer is that YESHUA and probably most all of the Apostolic Assembly people said this prayer more than one time in their lives. The failure of the NT to mention it, per se, won’t alter its credibility and ancient origin.

In fact, the previously mentioned Christian scholar, John Lightfoot, in his “A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica” (v. II, p. 147), argues that YESHUA “condemned not those prayers altogether, nor esteemed them of no account; yea, on the contrary, he joined himself to the public liturgy in the synagogues, and in the Temple.”

Nor should a believer necessarily believe that the so-called NT model prayer replaces the Amidah or anything else (Matt 6:9-13; Lu 11:1-4). Actually, a perusal of the model prayer strikes one at once as being merely a condensed version of the Amidah. Lightfoot (v. II, p. 147) noted a teaching from the Talmud that a free prayer from the mouth should include the 18 benedictions or at least a summary of them.

With the background of this Talmudic teaching, Lightfoot (v. II, p. 147) concluded that YESHUA’s model prayer “comprised the sum of all prayers.” It seems to have been a common practice by various “rabbis;” and indeed, even at synagogue services, to condense and summarize the Amidah on appropriate occasions--as noted above at Sabbath Eve services.

Problems with the Amidah and Other Fixed Prayers

There are some points of possible criticism in using this Amidah prayer or anything else to include YESHUA’s Own model prayer. He obviously was not a big advocate of public prayers (for show purposes) or of vain repetitious prayers (Matt 6:1-7).

Thus, one would have to pause and wonder about the propriety of saying the exact same Amidah at weekly synagogue services or saying the exact same NT “model prayer” at weekly Christian services (as many Christian Churches do with their so-called “Lord’s prayer”).

Also, item 12 appears somewhat questionable in the context of YESHUA’s teachings about praying for enemies and for those who curse you and hate you (Matt 5:44). Number 12 presents some additional problems from other viewpoints, as will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter.

It is quite manifest that the purpose or value of the Amidah, and indeed YESHUA’s model prayer as well, lies in having an outline of important points that need to be covered in prayer. Perhaps prayers should be made in private and not be repetitive in terms of reading petitions.

Hence, while one may not wish to publicly read or recite the Amidah or the NT model prayer weekly in public, the point is that both of them are generally good in raising some issues which a true believer would wish to remember, address and focus upon in private and public prayers, whenever rendered.

Meals and Eating

YHWH’s law prescribes that His people are to say a prayer after eating a meal (Deut 8:10). Obviously, YESHUA obeyed this law, although the NT does not describe this action (it didn’t need to always describe each and every thing He did since it automatically was recognized that He fully obeyed the law). Yet, the Scriptures do offer that He sometimes prayed before eating (Matt 15:36-38; Mk 6:41-44; 14:22-23).

Why the “before” the meal prayers? Because they are prescribed in the Talmud (Mishnah, Berakoth 7). Consequently, when Christians say a prayer before their meals, they are obeying an “Oral Law” from the Talmud whether they realize it or not. By the way, religious Jews (and this would have included YESHUA) say a prayer both before and after eating.

The Talmud has another interesting report on the matter of food which YESHUA obviously was cognizant of. For example, when He fed the multitude with the five loaves and two fish, He told His disciples to gather up the leftovers so that nothing would be lost (Jo 6:12).

Why? The Talmud dictated that food (even leftovers) was not to be wasted or destroyed (Shabbath, 50b, 147b). This is a good rule that modern Americans need to place into practice in their lives.

Monogamy

Of particular relevance to modern Christendom, it is appropriate to note that polygyny is allowable in the Scriptures (as will be elaborated upon in a later chapter).

Yet, Christianity has largely adopted monogamy for its moral code. Likewise, Judaism prescribes monogamy for religious Jews because of Talmudic dictates.

Is there a connection between Christendom’s advocacy of monogamy and Judaism’s practice of monogamy? If there was such a connection, then it would mean that Christianity has adopted its marriage standards from the Talmud whether Christians understand it or not (since the issue is not a Scriptural dictate).

Though this writer has allowed the question of monogamy to surface and to draw the parallel between Christendom and Judaism on this issue, the truth is probably that the Christian belief and practice in this instance have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or the Talmud.

Probably, the Christian position on monogamy developed from other sources which will be addressed in a future chapter.

Prove Truth

The NT has a wonderful remark from Shaul along the line of a mitzwah to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (I Thes 5:21). This is a profoundly wonderful instruction on righteousness (and it parallels many other Scriptures, like Yohanan’s advice to “try the spirits” before believing, as in I John 4:1-4).

Since the Apostle Shaul was a Talmudic scholar and well knew the contents of the Talmud, it is highly possible that he framed those ideas from the Talmud which declare that in Talmudic debate, one must prove a point and not just assert it, no matter how smart one is (Mar 10, 2000, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 13).

One of the great tragedies in Christendom is that Christian preachers and leaders say things (by assertion) and never bother to prove them (from the Scriptures).

This shortcoming in Christianity is only enhanced because Christian people collectively never hold their leaders’ feet to the fire in terms of making them prove things (nor do Christians hold their political leaders accountable for words spoken).

Banking Practices

Later chapters will focus on the banking operations on-going at the Temple. There is no need to go into any detail on them at this time. However, the Talmud has some interesting remarks on these practices which should whet the appetite of the student of truth.

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” reports that Talmudic references show that the standards of an agrarian economy were dominant in Second Temple days and that gamblers and usurers were not thought to be trustworthy witnesses (Sanh. 3:3, “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 4, p. 166).

Chapter 174--The Talmud and the NT III

Prophetic Significance of Fasts to the House of Yisrael

The book of Zechariah mentions fasts in the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months (Zech 8:19). Students of the Book can know and understand these fasts from one source only--the Talmud. These fasts are not commanded occurrences in the Tanakh. Yet, all four of them will have extraordinary prophetic implications for the age end. Thus, true believers should know and understand them thoroughly.

Take the fast of the fourth month. Second Temple Judaism identifies it as being on the 17th day as a memorial for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Why the 17th day--since the Tanakh only reflects the 9th day when the famine was in the city and the city was broken up, as the king fled with the Chaldeans in pursuit (II Kg 25:3-5; Jer 39:2-4).

The importance of the 17th day lies in the fact that the city actually was secured or formally conquered by the Babylonians on that day (per “Encyclopaedia Judaica”). It might be that from the 9th day to the 17th day, the Chaldeans were dealing with Tzidkiyahu and his soldiers with only some limited presence in Jerusalem. But on the 17th, the city was in the hands of Babylon. For sure, they ran their flag up that day.

In the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the attacking Roman Army was in the city and approaching the Temple by the 17th day of the fourth month. Consequently, the priests stopped the daily sacrifice at the Temple on the 17th day of the fourth month. The daily sacrifice has remained stopped until the present time of the early 21st century. Maybe that situation is about to change, however.

Beyond these fulfillments, the 17th day of the fourth month is profoundly important otherwise. In the year 1776, the 17th day of the fourth month fell on July 4th. Christian Identity people should take note that the 17th day of the fourth month will apparently be the day that the age end Ephraim Yisrael nation formally falls to her conquerors, following a siege of some 390 days (which starts in the preceding year).

Regarding the fast of the tenth month (on the 10th day), it falls on or near Christmas--exactly 55 days after Jeroboam’s act of setting up Baal worship in the House of Yisrael on the 15th day of the 8th month (on or near Halloween). In terms of Yehudah, it commemorates the initial siege on Jerusalem by Babylon in Tzidkiyahu’s 9th year (II Kg 25:1; Jer 52:4; Ezek 24:1).

Will it have an age end application to Israelites of the House of Yisrael? Probably yes! Perhaps the first signs of trouble erupt on Yisrael around the 10th day of the 10th month of one year. Yes, Christian Israelites will likely have some disastrous days thereafter, with much sadness instead of happiness and joy!

Otherwise, the other fasts mentioned by Zekharyah include the 9th day of the fifth and 3rd day of the seventh months (both of which also will have an application to the House of Yisrael in the age end). What a paradox it is that religious Jews (but not Christian Israelites) have been fasting on these days which spell prophetic disaster for the House of Yisrael in the age end.

Assuredly, House of Yisrael Israelites should have read the Talmud long ago and found out about these fasts (and perhaps started fasting on those days as well). All of these events, now on the immediate horizon for the House of Yisrael nations, will be broached in some detail in later chapters herein and in Appendices D and E, dealing with the age end chronology.

Alfred Edersheim

Besides Balaam’s famous advice on how to destroy Yisrael (commented upon in a prior chapter), he uttered several prophecies--one of which was a classic promise of The MESSIAH (Num 24:17). He spoke of a coming star of Yakov which was to do certain things.

In an article on “What Was the Christmas Star”? in the Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 5), William F. Dankenbring asks if the star (not in the East, but correctly “rising” per the Greek “anatole”) of Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-16) might be the star of Yakov?

So the question comes up on what this sign or star might be. Some evidence comes from Ivor Bulmer-Thomas of the Royal Astronomical Society. He indicates a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in May 7 BCE, and a near conjunction of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn in September 6 BCE (p. 21).

Interestingly, the Talmud and Jewish Rabbinic writings focus on this issue as well (just as they do on thousands of other Tanakh statements). For this, Dankenbring turned to Dr Alfred Edersheim. This Jewish Christian writer was extremely knowledgeable on the ancient Jewish teachings and he mentions some of them in his book on the “Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.”

For example, Alfred (ibid, p. 211) quoted a Jewish commentator (on Daniel) named Abarbanel (or Abrabanel) as saying that the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces betokened not only the most important events, but especially to Yisrael.

The Jewish position was that this sign occurred three years before the birth of Moshe and was to precede the coming of The MESSIAH and the final deliverance of Yisrael.

Edersheim (ibid, p. 211-213) quoted other Jewish Midrashim which tie the star of Yakov to the coming of (or return of--however one may view it) The MESSIAH and the deliverance of Yisrael. Some of this material is very explicit giving details of the chronology of age ending events (in the context of a seven-year cut off of time--perhaps per Dan 9:24-27) to precede The MESSIAH.

Significantly, this conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn occurs once every several hundred years and rarely in the sign of Pisces. Its most recent occurrence happened on May 31, 2000.

Dankenbring asked if it would signal the return of The MESSIAH and the deliverance of Yisrael--as taught by ancient Jewish sages (which Dankenbring then allowed to be in 2004)? This writer would alternatively ask--could it suggest that YESHUA’s return happens much later--possibly in Yechezkel’s 37th year?

Sukkot in the Talmud

The Talmud has a host of information on the annual feasts of Yisrael, as commanded in the Torah, and particularly in the context of how those feasts were observed in Palestine in Second Temple days. This is very important information since YESHUA routinely kept those feasts in Jerusalem. It is absolutely certain that He kept them the Pharisaical way or there would have been an outcry from the Shammai Pharisees.

The just mentioned William F. Dankenbring also had an article on “A New Look at the Deep Meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles” in his Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 23-45); wherein, he extensively quoted from Dr Alfred Edersheim’s book on “The Temple: It’s Ministry and Services.”

This book, like Edersheim’s other works, offered an abundance of Talmudic and other Jewish writings to communicate the life and times of YESHUA The MESSIAH.

YHWH’s law commands Israel’s observance of Sukkot (or the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths). Specifically, the Word says that at the end of every seven years, the Torah is to be read to the people (Deut 31:11-12) and for Israelites to take some branches of palm trees and boughs and willows of others along with some fruit from “goodly trees” and rejoice before YHWH for seven days annually at Sukkot (Lev 23:40).

Another remark also expresses the need for Israelites to observe Sukkot as a festival of joy or rejoicing (Deut 16:14-15). Aside from the palm trees, the Torah does not seem to express precisely what kind of fruit, boughs and willow trees are to be used, nor does it seem to say how these items are to be used in rejoicing, although there is a clear command to dwell in booths for seven days (Lev 23:42).

The Word suggests that Sukkot was observed in Shlomo’s day (I Kg 8:2, 65-66) and Hizkiyahu’s time (II Chron 31:3). But it doesn’t say how.

However, there is some clarification on Sukkot in the time of Ezra and Nechemyah, when the Book gives some details (Ezra 3:3-6; Neh 8:1-18). There, one seems to find some precise instructions on using the boughs and branches of certain trees to build the booths to dwell in, as written in the Torah (Lev 23:42).

But there seems to be some confusion between the two references (Lev 23:40-42; Neh 8:14-16), although enough material was presented to make the believer realize that branches, boughs, willows and fruits of certain trees are to be used to rejoice before YHWH and/or to build booths to dwell in at Sukkot.

Significantly, an attempt to reconcile these two Scriptural references became a point of controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees in Second Temple days (per the Talmud, as described by Alfred Edersheim, “The Temple: It’s Ministry and Services,” p. 273). The Sadducees maintained that the boughs, branches and fruits in Lev 23:40 were to be used to make the booths mentioned by Nechemyah.

Incidentally, the Pharisees said that the two references were not exactly the same (which by the way, they are not). Accordingly, the Pharisees argued that the issue in Leviticus 23:40 was to take those branches and boughs and wave them before YHWH in a spirit of happiness and joy. In terms of Nechemyah’s words, the Pharisees concluded that the noted trees should be used to build booths to dwell in.

NT Sukkot

But what about the NT? What did YESHUA do? Well, there seems to have been a certain process or practice (actually custom) the people followed to observe each of the feasts (Lu 2:42). Did they follow the Pharisee position or did they opt for the Sadducee teaching?

Of course, the Talmud has the answer. As Edersheim (ibid, p. 273) explains, the Pharisee position won out and prevailed by the first century (which position still exists today in Orthodox Judaism). YESHUA clearly kept the feasts and He must have followed the prevailing pharisaical customs or any defiance on His part would have made Him stand out like a sore thumb.

In fact, at one occurrence of Sukkot, He was in Jerusalem and was able to blend in secretly with the rest of the people--obviously doing as they were doing or He would have been detected and arrested by the authorities (Jo 7:2, 10-13).

So, how did the Jews keep Sukkot in Second Temple days? Well, the Talmud has the answer. Quoting Dankenbring’s article, which quoted Edersheim and others, one finds that the trees are specified.

In essence, the people took these specific trees (per Moshe’s words) and wove or bound them together to form a “lulav” to wave on appropriate occasions as expressions of joy (like when singing/reciting the Hallel and Hoshanas, to be discussed in a later chapter).

For example, the priests would wave them before the altar and the people would wave them in six directions (East, West, North, South, Up and Down) at meetings and other appropriate occasions. Otherwise, the people also built booths, again using certain trees, and dwelt in them for seven days, as Nechemyah outlined.

The importance of each tree, each event and each custom is closely tied to enormous symbolism and teaching--some of which is explained in the Scriptures and most all of which is described in the Talmud.

The whole feast and the booths symbolize Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness when Yisrael dwelt in booths. Moreover, Sukkot was a harvest festival of joy and was prophetic about the coming millennium (when all nations will come to Jerusalem to worship YHWH and keep Sukkot--Zech 14:16-19) and the ultimate salvation of Adam (as discussed in prior chapters).

Of course, it is important to obey each and every commandment (Hebrew mitzwah) to include the very least of them as YESHUA stated (Matt 5:18-20). The Talmud tells us that “The Shekinah (The RUACH HA KODESH) comes upon us neither out of sadness nor out of raucous laughter...but out of the joy of mitswoth” (Nov-Dec 1997 “Prophetic Flash,” p. 40).

The Water Ceremony

Yeshayahu prophesied of a coming day when the faithful will draw waters out of the well of salvation (Isa 12:3). Dankenbring’s article, quoting Edersheim and others, focused on this prophecy in the context of Sukkot. As Edersheim mentions (ibid, p. 213-214), this ceremony was covered in the Talmud and it became a point of controversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

Based upon the words of Yeshayahu, the Pharisees believed that a particular water ceremony had to take place at Sukkot. The Sadducees said no! Which position prevailed by the first century? Yes, the Pharisee teaching became the custom, as the Talmud confirms.

Consequently, there was a daily water ritual during Sukkot, whereby the priests ceremonially drew water from the pool of Siloah (the healing waters of Siloam--Jo 9:7-11) and poured them over the altar in a ritual before the people in linkage to Yeshayahu’s words.

This theme of salvation from living waters was so profound that there was extraordinary joy and happiness among the people when the custom (Water Drawing Ceremony--Bet Hasho’evah) took place. The Talmud says that “If you have not seen the rejoicing of Bet Hasho’evah you have not witnessed joy in all your life” (Sukkah 53a).

William Dankenbring suggests that this water drawing practice was the highlight of Sukkot. The occasion involved a torch-light parade with all participants marching to the Temple at night, as the whole city of Jerusalem was lit up by giant torches and the light of giant menorahs to the sound of lyres, drums, cymbals, trumpets and horns.

YESHUA

The point of these various remarks on Sukkot is that there was a certain procedure or practice (custom) in effect which the people followed during YESHUA’s life (in the context of Second Temple Judaism). YESHUA followed these customs, as clearly suggested in the NT records of His life.

It seems that surely His followers would want to know what those customs were, as a minimum, and perhaps put them into effect in their lives, where possible. Besides the few, limited references in the Scriptures, there is only one other primary source of information on these practices. Yes, it is the Talmud.

Manifestly, YESHUA must have recognized these practices because one year at Sukkot He spoke of the living waters of The RUACH HA KODESH to be given to believers (Jo 7:37-39). Since this happened at Sukkot, one must suppose that there was a connection.

Overall Contents

Having now outlined many of the extremely important themes broached in the Talmud, the point must be made that only the surface has been touched. In the thousands and thousands of pages of Talmudic presentations, one will find a host of Scriptural subjects broached primarily from the perspective of Second Temple Judaism.

Thus, the first two orders of one or both Talmuds address Benedictions, Gleanings, Doubtfully tithed produce, Diverse kinds, Sabbatical year, Heave offering, Tithes, Second tithe, Dough offering, Fruit of young trees, Firstfruits, Sabbath, Fusion of Sabbath limits, Passover, Shekel dues, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles, Festival laws, Various new years (especially Rosh HaShanah), Fast days, Purim, Intermediate days of festivals, and Festival offerings.

The next two orders offer information on Levirate marriage, Marriage contracts, Vows, The Nazirite, Suspected adulteress, Divorce, Marriage, Torts, Civil law, Property law, Judges, Flagellation, Oaths, Traditional testimonies, Idolatry, Ethical maxims and Erroneous ruling of the court.

The last two orders cover Animal offerings, Meal offerings, Animals slaughtered for food, Firstlings, Vows of valuation, Substituted offering, Extirpation, Sacrileges, Daily sacrifice, Measurements of the Temple, Bird offering, Uncleanness through overshadowing, Leprosy, Red heifer, Ritual cleanness, Ritual ablution, Menstruant, Liquid that predisposes food to become ritually unclean, Fluxes, Ritual uncleanness between immersion and sunset, Ritual uncleanness of the hands and “Stalks” parts of plants susceptible to uncleanness.

The point of this outline of Talmudic subjects, as taken from “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 751), is that the two Talmuds cover a host of important subjects which should be of considerable concern to any student of the Scriptures--whether Jew or Christian.

Even the remarks communicating a distinction between Jews and non-Jews (goyim), as noted earlier, offer ideas on the practice of true brotherhood in a fellowship. For sure, the true believer would gain much by studying the words of the Talmud in the vein of how religious Jews looked upon goyim outsiders 2,000 years ago. This is a big clue on how believers should treat their rea brethren (as opposed to others).

The Greatest Value

However, the greatest value of Talmudic study probably is because the Talmud is essentially a commentary on the Torah made by religious Jews, perhaps from the days of Ezra to the third century CE, as noted earlier.

This reality is quite profound to think about. A reader of the Talmud is getting the thinking and Scriptural interpretations of many great students of the Word from 2,500 years ago and up to and immediately past YESHUA’s time.

Most uninformed Christians would never bat an eye about reading and using Christian commentaries prepared in the last few years. Go into any religious bookstore and one can find Christian commentaries by the thousands. All of these commentaries do the same thing.

In a sense, the argument can be advanced that these Christian commentaries, Christian writings and Christian doctrinal manuals all represent the Christian Talmud, as noted earlier. They present the thinking and interpretations of the various compilers. They are good or bad depending upon the writers (and most are mixtures of good and bad).

The same thing is true with the Jewish Talmud. A modern student of this compilation is reading the thinking and interpretations of people of thousands of years ago. Some of these persons were very dedicated students of the Book and knew YESHUA personally.

A classic illustration of this is the great Jewish sage Hillel who lived in the late first century BCE. Years later, The MESSIAH came along and echoed his teachings repeatedly. Many have been quoted or set forth herein. Should students of truth read Hillel? You’d better believe it!

A chapter heretofore discussed the Scriptural teachings on justification by faith. Actually, this doctrine started with Avraham in the Torah (Gen 12:1; Heb 11:8-9). And of course, it was repeated by Shaul in the NT (Rom 4:1-13; Gal 2:16; 3:1-11). In fact, Shaul’s remarks in Galatians 3:11-12, on the faith of the righteous being equal to the whole of the law, seem to come precisely from the Talmud (“Hillel and Jesus,” p. 62).

Thus, Shaul’s teaching was not unique with him since it was also in the Talmud--although Judaism primarily stressed the works of circumcision, baptism and the offering of a sacrifice at the Temple for reconciliation (discussed in an earlier chapter). Yes, the Talmud did record differences of opinion on Scriptural interpretations (as noted elsewhere herein).

Study to Learn and Obey

Having mentioned all of the great value and importance that the Talmud offers for the student of truth, several more clarifying remarks are in order. The objective of the student of truth and/or follower of YHWH YESHUA The MESSIAH is to learn His way and will.

The primary textbook for this study and contemplation is the Scriptures (both the OT and NT) in their original “Hebrew” language (and the Greek will not suffice in this regard). There should never be an attempt to study the Jewish Talmud for the purpose of learning Talmudic theories, doctrines and teachings, in order to obey them as law on the level of the Torah.

But there should be an attempt by all honest students of truth to study the Talmud to learn from it about the prevailing thinking, attitude and beliefs in first century Palestine and Second Temple Judaism which profoundly affected the work of the Apostolic Assembly and the production of the NT.

The New Testament is a rich, wonderful production when it can be legitimately restored to its original Hebrew language and studied and contemplated in the context of Second Temple Judaism and the Oral Law which religious Jews generally followed. Should people obey the halakhic decisions in the Talmud?

Well, if they properly interpret the Scriptures and/or properly reflect the teachings of the New Testament, in the context of correctly interpreting the Torah, the answer is assuredly yes! Maybe some of those Talmudic decisions have merit and properly reflect the meaning and interpretation of certain Scriptures. With this presentation on the Talmud, it is appropriate to link those writings to modern Judaism.

The Talmud in Modern Judaism

Certainly, all of the main factions of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) recognize the Talmud and at least theoretically support it. The most respectful and obedient group of Talmud teachers and students is found among Orthodox Jews (to particularly include Ultra Orthodox and Hasidim factions). Conservative Jews also support the Talmud, but not quite as fanatical as do the Orthodox.

As outlined earlier, Reform Jews are very much secularists (resembling the Hellenistic Jews of Second Temple days and much of modern, liberal Christianity). They may give some lip service to the Torah/Talmud, but not much in terms of obedience. The newly developing Reconstructionist movement is even more depraved and evil than the Reform motion and evidently supports neither the Torah or the Talmud.

Thus, the Reform and Reconstructionist Jews don’t really obey much of anything (Talmud or Tanakh). Most are assuredly racially and ethnically evil and deceitful Amalekites, secretly serving Satan. They would naturally be attracted to the Reform or Reconstructionist motions to carry out their plans for the destruction of Yisrael.

Other Jews

There is another group of Jews called Karaites/Karaim (Bene Mikra or Sons of the Book), mentioned earlier. They are an eighth century CE sect from Babylon which accepts the OT Scriptures, but rejects the Talmud (“Concise Dictionary of Judaism” by Dagobert D. Runes, p. 144). Some scholars believe that the Karaites are an outgrowth of the old Essene movement.

Hershel Shanks quoted Jerome Murphy O’Connor that “A direct relationship (between the Essenes and the Karaites seems undeniable” (“Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 83). A hypothesis was broached by O’Connor that some members of the Essene movement lived in Babylon and later evolved into the Karaites/Karaim.

Shanks notes that both the Essenes and Karaites believed that their teachings represented the original Mosaic faith, free of later distortions and corruptions (ibid, p. 83). Both rejected Talmudic authority. Some of their other doctrines are similar as well.

Of course, most modern Jews are so-called “secularists.” They largely could care less about the Torah or the Talmud. Many of them are Amalekite workers of evil or children of Satan who are thought to be atheists or agnostics.

Also, there is some presence in modern Israel of some persons who probably can be classified as secularists, but are not in the real profile of the Amalekite Satanists and atheists. The Jun 17, 2002, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 20-22) had a story by Netty C. Gross on “The Heretic” which addressed Yaron Yadan, who was a Sephardi Jew and former Rav of an Ultra Orthodox group.

Yadan was born in a largely secularist Sephardic family. As a 17-year-old boy, Yadan became a member of an Ultra Orthodox yeshivah (school) and stayed with the Ultra Orthodox until he was 33 in 1994. By 1994, Yadan had studied with maverick Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz who taught that “the Talmud was not the word of God.”

In time, Yadan came to believe that Talmudic laws “were based on error, or shaped by the biases and attitudes of Jews who lived in ancient times.” By 1994, Yadan took the position that Jewish Halakhah was “based on man-made ‘nonsense’ marked by profound dislike for non-Jews...and misogyny.” Still later, Yadan ultimately rejected the authority and status of the Torah itself.

In any case, following his departure from the Ultra Orthodox world, Yadan founded in 1998 an organization called “Da’at Emet” (meaning True Wisdom) trying to put his views over to Ultra Orthodox people and encourage them to abandon their faith. It is unclear how much success Yadan is having, but the point is that here is another group of modern Israelis who certainly do not believe in the Talmud.

The last and most important group to be acknowledged is the Messianic Jews (to be addressed in a later chapter), some of whom are nothing but watered down Christians. However, a few of them are very obedient and certainly dedicated to all of the words in both the OT and NT (in a properly restored Hebrew presentation). However, most of them are not necessarily duty bound to obey the Talmud.

The Nazarene Sect

William F. Dankenbring quoted Ray Pritz’s excellent work on early Judaism which noted that the early Nazarene believers in YESHUA did not accept as binding the Oral Law, as embodied in the Mishnah (“The Early Nazarene Christians and Rabbinic Judaism,” in the Sep-Oct 1994 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 6).

As Dankenbring correctly noted, these early believers did not “reject” the Oral Law, per se. But rather, they did not accept it as then embodied in the Mishnah. Thus, they never did reject it in principle. Without this rejection, one can make the case that they accepted it in principle; albeit, without attaching authority to it in the context of the Tanakh.

Surely, these early Messianic believers respected the Oral Law, studied it, referred to it, and in many instances, did obey it (as outlined herein, in the context of accepting its definitions or things to be done as a custom of the people). It’s just that they did not accept it as authoritative in the context of law requiring obedience, as the Torah stipulates.

Actually, the student of truth can readily tell what was happening in Judaism and among the Jews of the first century CE with a study of the NT and the many conflicts YESHUA had with the ruling authorities and especially the School of Shammai Pharisees.

Clearly, the Shammai Pharisees were trying to place the Talmud on the same level as the Torah--which was wrong! This was the situation which gave rise to many of the conflicts that YESHUA had with the Shammai Pharisees. They were trying to define their traditions and customs on a law basis.

This reality caused hundreds of differences in interpretations between the School of Shammai, as opposed to the School of Hillel, in terms of even what was supposed to be law or halakhah (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 7, p. 1162). This condition will be further discussed in a later chapter.

Obviously, the Oral Law was not authoritative, as was the Torah and/or the Tanakh. While the Shammai people did not succeed in this endeavor in YESHUA’s day, they did reach that plateau after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, as will be subsequently shown.