The Core of the Torah
In one of the stories about Hillel and Shammai it is said that, “a gentile came to Shammai and said to him: ‘Make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.’ Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding.”
The gentile then went to Hillel with the same request and Hillel said to him, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor, this is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary, go and learn it.” (BTShabbat 31a).
According to the classic Talmud commentator Rashi (see below), Rabbi Akiba (ca. 50 to135 CE) corroborated the position of Hillel. Rashi takes recourse to an early Midrash (see below) where Akiba states, “’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18) This is a great principle of the Torah.” (JTNedarim 9:4).
In another passage we read that the school of Shammai challenged the traditional interpretation of Deut 24:1 (“Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him … so he writes her a certificate of divorce …”) and argued that a husband could not divorce his wife except for sexual immorality. The school of Hillel opposed this strict ruling and held instead that the husband need not assign any reason whatever.
Any act on the woman’s part that displeased him (“Even if she soiled his dish”) entitled him to give her a bill of divorce (mGittin 9:10).
These passages illustrate two major concerns of Rabbinic Judaism. The first is a concern with the core of the Torah, or the question as to what is the greatest of the commandments. The second concern is with the fence (geder) around the law, i.e. how to prevent accidental or unintentional violation. 7
As is clear from the above case, lenience is not necessarily the
same as kindness, especially if one considers the issue from the perspective of the woman.
For comparison we may recall Jesus’ assertion of the so-called Golden Rule (Matt 7:12 “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.”) and the incident when he was asked about which is the greatest commandment. Jesus responded by quoting Deut 6:4-5 and then added, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt 22: 37-39; par.).
In these two cases Jesus seems to comply with the Hillel school. In the case of reasons for divorce, on the other hand, Jesus seems to apply a ruling that is compatible with the House of Shammai (Matt 19:3-9).
Tikkun olam “repair the world” also overcoming all forms of idolatry
From The Complete Jewish Bible
The Lord's Room 
Jewish avoda zarah during the Middle Ages
The distinction between the Book of Commandments, published by the earliest Reshonim scholars to how modern scholarship understands Torah precedents, which establish Torah Common Law. The Books of Torah commandments made by Jewish scholars after Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina sealed the Talmud, beginning with a code published by Rabbi Saadia Gaon, and further developed by the B’hag and followed by the Rambam’s code of the commandments impacted and shaped lesser rabbinic authorities something like a ירידות הדורות “domino effect”.
Rabbi Saadia Gaon organized his theory of commandments something like the concentric cone made by water going down a tub drain. His theory prioritized the 10 commandments as the Av commandments. All other Torah commandments function as toldot/off spring\ commandments to the 10 commandments of Sinai.
The difficulty with this legal theory, the Talmud teaches that Israel in hysteria and panic following the revelation of the opening first two revelation Commandments at Sinai, that our forefathers thereafter, in fear of their lives, demanded from Moshe that he make aliya upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah.
Another apparent flaw in this early Gaonic commandment Biblical codification, the failure to identify T’NaCH prophesy “Commandments” as mussar. Mussar, by definition does not exist as some ossified or petrified fossils, turned unto stone box thinking or pigeon-holed classifications. The Written Torah like the Talmud exists, at least to some Talmudic and Reshonim opinions argue that both exist as highly edited texts. A dispute within the Talmud itself, concerning the authorship of the concluding verses of the Book of דברים\משנה תורה. It appears to me that Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi favours the opinion that Moshe did not write the Book of דברים, but rather taught this Book baal peh/orally to Israel. That Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi based his common law codification, the Mishneh, upon the Oral Torah משנה תורה Book דברים.
The later assimilated Books of Commandments codifications, published in the early Middle Ages, they all fundamentally erred. Their failure to grasp, that all T’NaCH prophets command mussar. That the vision of T’NaCH prophesy applies equally, across the board, to all generations of Israel. The division of the Talmud into two main branches: Halacha & Aggadita supports this thesis. That the sages both Tannaim and Amoraim viewed the T’NaCH prophets as teachers of mussar aggadita. Rather than physical historical predictions of future events, as the New Testament claims.
The rabbis of the early Middle Ages, like as do all g’lut generations of exiled Jewish refugee populations, who to the present-day dwell among foreign cultures and customs. That all generations of g’lut Jewry, by definition, struggle with foreign assimilation. Specifically, the assimilation wherein Goyim scholars view the T’NaCH Books as historical history rather than aggadic mussar. The New Testament promotes the narrative of a physical virgin birth Jesus, as opposed to an imaginary man mussar about a messiah.
The church views as utter heresy the idea that the Jesus gospel stories, restricted to only tell a glorified tale of a mystic mythical, fictional character. Such a possibility shatters the church ethical containment force, established early on, based upon their classic Creeds, Doctrines, and Dogmatism.
The early assimilated rabbinic authorities, influenced by how the church organized its ethical containment force religion, the power exerted by these foreign influences, they equally persuaded the Reshonim rabbis to write their rigid books of statute law Torah commandments. This statute law perversion divided the תרי”ג Commandments into a positive/negative statute code of Torah commandments.
All the later Reshon Books of Commandments, such as the ספר החינוך or how the Smag, a pro-Rambam Baali Tosafot scholar who attempted to organize Talmudic halachot around the order of the Rambam’s book of commandments. Both latter examples, highly influenced by the Rambam’s sefer ha’mitzvot, they failed to consider how aggadita interprets the T’NaCH as mussar. This tremendous error aroused the late 19th Century mussar movement lead by rabbi Israel Salanter. Most essentially that mussar serves as the common denominator which connects the Torah commandments together with all the Books of the NaCH prophets! That mussar likewise merges together with the narrative stories of Talmudic aggadah and later Midrashic sources of scholarship as a unified whole mussar instruction. That mussar simply does not compare to a rigid shaped ice-cube tray, as expressed through Roman statute law.
This channeling of the Torah into rigid religious frames of reference, it appears to me, introduced: comparable to the error made by king Shlomo, and his decision to build a catholic like cathedral Temple. This gross error, it ignored the direct mussar by which the prophet Natan instructed king David not to build a house of Cedar. Shlomo, none the less chose to build the Temple rather than establish Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courts across the States/Tribes of the Republic; the basis by which to rule the Republic through judicial justice as the Temple commanded by king David. This decision triggered a ירידות הדורות domino effect, as seen by Ezra’s efforts to build a Temple, based upon the visions of Ezekiel.
Both this and that, they triggered a tremendous error, a ירידת הדורות upon the following generations, and most especially upon g’lut Jewry. The codification of the Torah into frozen brittle commandments effectively collapsed the vision of משנה תורה common law precedents! The latter makes a fundamental distinction between Torah precedents and Torah Common Law. All the commentaries made upon the classic halachic codifications learn by statute law rather than common law which learns the halachot of the Gemara as precedents to understand the k’vanna of a given Mishna.
The writings of the New Testament apostle Paul, its impact compares to the meteor that struck the Earth and caused the dinosaurs total extinction! Paul, as a self declared agent of God, he preached to the Goyim – the freedom of Goyim from under “the Law”. Paul qualifies as an anarchist revolutionary. His religious rhetoric propaganda conveniently failed to validate the day and night distinction which separates Jewish Common Law from Roman Statute Law! All the later commentaries, as just previously mentioned above, written upon the halachic Reshon codifications, these assimilated rabbis, they too failed to make this distinct about absolutely fundamental separation between shabbat and chol … common law from statute law.
The early Middle Ages Books of Torah commandments prioritizes Commandments over Torah Oral Torah Book of דברים precedents. Therein they assimilate to the error viewpoint which perverts Torah commandments into Statute Laws. Based upon the assumption that Torah Commandments stand upon their own legs, totally independent from Oral Torah common law. This error fails to learn Oral Torah legal precedents, created with a purpose to compare Oral Torah Book of דברים middot precedent to Written Torah sugiot, based upon shared פרדס middot – as taught through the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva, with the intention to learn prophetic mussar interpretations of the k’vanna of legal Common Law halachot!
Assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs, Jewish rabbinic authorities erred and perverted the Torah into a Plato/Aristotle logic & statute law avoda zarah; a direct violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Rambam, for example, failed to discern that monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment. He erroneously thought that praying to Allah did not violate the 1st Sinai commandment! As such his avoda zarah error duplicated Aaron’s translation of the Name of HaShem unto אלהים – the sin of the Golden Calf.
LikeLike
It appears that in essence your saying the Gentile written Bible is a lie. This is the 2nd time you have posted this. The difference is this time I’m leaving it up. I want people to see your view. Next time comment in plain English or not at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dan wrote in English. (A reference to: Jewish avoda zarah during the Middle Ages). The T’NaCH, an abreviation for Torah, Prophets and Holy Writings, the 3-divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures which the church mislabels as ‘old testament’. Yes in point of fact, do refer to the Xtian bible as totally corrupt.
First: It duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf by translating the 1st Commandment Name, not a word, into other words, such as Lord for example.
It has so many errors of translations – across the board in all biblical translations. ברית, transliterated as brit, does not mean covenant. The first word of the Torah contains the words ברית אש. Transliterated to: brit fire. Brit, the Torah defines as alliance NOT covenant.
To cut a Torah “alliance” requires swearing a Torah oath. The NT and all old testament Xtian translations never bring the Name as found in the revelation of the Torah 1st Sinai commandment.
In the Creation story this Spirit Name – breathed into Adam making him a living man. This Spirit Name – not a word. Aaron the brother of Moshe, erred at the Golden Calf when he translated this Spirit Name into a word אלהים/Gods.
The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the basis by which the Torah defines avoda zarah. Avoda zarah/strange worship\ does not translate into “idolatry”. Why? The 2nd Sinai commandment, the negative commandment not to worship other Gods, obviously rejects the Muslim error known as Monotheism.
The plagues of Egypt judged the Gods of Egypt. The brit sworn at Gilgal in the days of the prophet Jehoshua, prior to the beginning of the wars by which Israel conquered the lands of Canaan. This Gilgal brit, recorded through the mitzva of Rashi order of tefillen (the 2 black boxes Jews strap upon our bodies), [Rashi a rabbi of the Middle Ages famous for writing commentaries upon the Torah, Talmud, and Midrashim], Jehoshua cut a sworn oath brit with the 1st Sinai commandment Name, that just as this Name warred against the Gods of Egypt, so too this Name would war against the Gods of Canaan.
This concept of calling upon this Name to precede acts of physical war, a reference found in the Song of Moshe which recounts the destruction of Par’o’s Army and chariots in the Sea of Reeds. This reference, found in the Book of Sh’mot, translated as Exodus in Xtian bible mistranslations, (Sh’mot: plural for Names) refers to the Spirit Name by the metaphor: Eish HaMilchamah. Meaning – “Man of War”. At Horev, following the Golden Calf, a set of pronouns revealed to Moshe which serve like unto the Spirit Name. This revelation of pronouns known as the revelation of the 13 tohor middot.
Avoda Zarah, the 2nd Sinai commandment, the Torah common law legal system learns by means of the Torah precedents located in the 5th Book of the Torah(/Oral Torah\משנה תורה) which means repetition of the Law. The Torah common law legal system employs mitzvot precedents, found in the 5th Book of the Torah, precedents to understand and interpret other sections of the Written Torah located in the other 4 Books of the Written Torah.
If you examine the closing of the Book of דברים, mistranslated unto Deuteronomy, this Book refers to Moshe in the 3rd person, Moshe did not write this closing Torah, at least to some opinions. The Talmud teaches that Moshe delivered over, this closing Book of the Torah “Baal Peh”. The translation of Baal Peh – Orally. Hence the term Torah sh’baal peh or Oral Torah. The church throughout its history denies the Oral Torah.
The confusion of the church authorities stems from the משנה/Mishna written by rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi, the last chief justice of the Great Sanhedrin court. His work, the Mishna, Jewish scholars refer to as the codification of the Oral Torah.
This obvious over implication of the 5th Book of Torah common law, rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna reflected through its Case/Rule organization of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings written and codified prior to the Roman expulsion of the Jewish people from Judea. Rabbi’s Mishna written before & after three crushed Jewish revolts against Rome. The last of which occurred in Alexandria Egypt in 332. As a point of reference, the famous Xtian Nicene Council occurred in 325!
The Apostle Paul famously declares that the Goyim are not under the law. Paul a student of Rabban Gamliel, the previous Nassi of the Great Sanhedrin prior to Rabbi Yechuda. Paul could not have learned Torah judicial law totally oblivious that this legal system based itself upon common law principles of learning law by means of precedents.
Yet the Xtian writings of Paul obscures this most obvious distinction which separates Jewish common law from Roman statute law. Why did Paul consciously choose to blur the distinction between two completely different legal systems? (Something like the difference between statute law practiced in Germany and France contrasted by British common law.) This causes many Jews, me included, to conclude that Paul functioned as a concealed agent provocateur, sent by Rabban Gamliel to promote Civil War in Rome, as Yechuda Maccabee did by swearing alliance to a pretender King of the Syrian Greek empire in the war known as Hannukah, most recently remembered and celebrated.
When Jews light the Hannukah lights, we dedicate to only interpret the Written Torah by total reliance upon Oral Torah legal precedents. This Oral Torah logic, totally different than the logic system employed by the Syrian Greek empire. The latter stood upon the logic format developed by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. The Jewish revolt against the Syrian Greek empire rejected the logic format of the ancient Greeks as a tool to interpret the Torah.
Another fundamental lie of the Xtian bible, the perversion of tohor and tumah mistranslated as clean and unclean. The term ‘chosen people’/’first born son’ refers to Israel as a ‘nation of priests’.
After the Golden Calf avoda zara, (which the Oral Torah defines as assimilation to pursue after and embrace how Goyim worship their Gods; which extends to copying and embracing the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim societies and/or intermarriage), the Tribe of Levi would supplant and replace the first-born sons of Israel as Cohenim, translated as priests. Hence this term chosen first-born, has much broader implications. The Talmud as a precedent, teaches that tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot. Often roughly translated as “Prayer stands in the place of sacrifices”. Tefillah dedicates tohor middot as revealed to Moshe at Horev following the golden calf. The description of the Name passing before Moshe and declaring a 13 set of attributes which Jews call middot.
Obviously, a person can hardly dedicate a tohor middah, if that person cannot distinctly discern and separate one tohor middah from the other tohor middot!
The Torah has 54 weekly portion divisions call Parshiot. The Sinai Name employs 4 letters. 4 X 13 = 52. The two Crowns of the Torah, the 2 Parshiot which teach the blessing/curse responsibility for accepting the oath brit Torah faith.
Jewish tefillah, also known as the Amidah, translated as standing prayer. To swear a Torah oath requires that a person stands before a Sefer Torah. Ideally Jews dedicate their tefillot tohor middot while standing before a Sefer Torah in a synagogue. Hence the common mistranslation of tefillah into the English word prayer, totally misses the intent of the action verb tefillah – the dedication of tohor “spirits” which influence how a Jew behaves with his fellow bnai brit people in the future.
The false biblical corruption of the key terms tohor and tumah as clean and unclean totally corrupts and perverts the dedication of the soul to defined tohor middot as opposed to and contrasted by tumah middot dedication of future born behavior.
Tefillah, a matter of the heart. Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi teaches the Oral Torah precedent of “you shall love the Name, with all your heart etc”, located in the 5th Book or Oral Torah. The Hebrew misspells heart as לבב. Heart correctly spelled לב. Rabbi Yechuda introduced a unique interpretation: that service to the Name לשמה, requires the dedication of both tohor and tumah middot which wrestle within the heart, something like as did Esau & Yaacov in Rivka’s womb.
The struggle between tohor and tumah middot defines all prophetic mussar. Mussar understood as a rebuke. The sages of the Talmud teach, that they lacked the wisdom to teach mussar!
Why? Any person can criticize another. But it takes special wisdom to plant mussar seeds from within the heart of others and have those “seeds” spout as an original idea within the person so rebuked by prophetic mussar! The church abomination failed to grasp such subtle distinctions; hence it defined the prophesy of T’NaCH prophets as predictions of the future! JeZeus fulfilled this or that biblical prophecy etc. This corruption totally perverts, on the order of homosexuality, prophetic mussar. So yes, most definitely say that “the Gentile written Bible is a lie”.
LikeLike
I am impressed by your knowledge, but I don’t agree with your claim. “Satan’s greatest weapon is man’s ignorance of God’s Word.” AW Tozer
LikeLike
LikeLike