The notion of there being ten commandments — that is, the Ten Commandments — permeates Judeo-Christian religious philosophy, despite the fact that the Old Testament is, for the most part, full of many more directives. In addition to the Jewish opinion that, like the rest of the laws of the Old Testament, these Ten Commandments do not apply to gentiles, we also maintain a fair degree of ambivalence when it comes to declaring a special status for these ten commandments for Jews themselves.
For to say that the Ten Commandments are special is to say that either everything else, or at the very least, something else, is less special. If the Ten Commandments are central and primary in any sort of manner, everything else, in that manner, is peripheral and secondary.
Maimonides ruled that “the entire Torah given via Moses, our master, may he rest in peace, is from on high in its entirety…and there is no distinction to be made between the verses — so that “v’Timna haisa pilegesh” (“And Timna was a concubine,” Genesis 36:12, a seemingly superfluous, unimportant comment) and “anochi Hashem Elokecha” (“I am the Lord your God,” Exodus 20:2, the opening line of the Ten Commandments, a seemingly monumentally consequential comment) are equally as impressive and holy.
It was for this reason that Maimonides faults those whose custom it is to stand during the recitation of the Ten Commandments during the Torah reading, for one who does so shows that what he or she is now listening to deserves a greater degree of veneration than what came before and what is to come later. This approach is grounded in the Akivan perspective of Torah min hashamayim (lit. “Torah from Heaven”) — that even the very crowns of the letters of the Torah offer mounds and mounds of legal, ethical and ritual derivation. The Torah, perfect and true and particularly extraordinary in all of its facets, is not to be gerrymandered into that which is substantially meaningful and that which is not, and certainly not by humans who only their intellectual yardstick with which to measure things.
R’ Ishmael, on the other hand, placed boundaries on the exegetical potential of the verses themselves and the manner in which they appear. This word appears here, he’d maintain, because that’s the manner in which humans speak…and those two verses appear adjacent to one another for no reason that can be described as profound, and so it would be wrong to misconstrue a lesson from their textual proximity. And it is therefore quite appropriate that it was the School of R’ Ishmael that asked, “Why were the Ten Commandments not placed first in the Torah?’ For the Akivan, this question would be odd, for with equal footing given to all verses, it would make just as much sense to ask, “Why were the verses related to Timna not placed first?”
But the question was asked, and Maimonides did attempt to quash what he referred to as the sectarian practice of standing during some portions of the Torah reading and not others — suggesting that such a notion does exist, despite the ever popular pseudo-mainstream-ity of the Akivan view that the entire Torah is on equal footing in respect to magnitude of importance and level of divine inspiration.
It is thus interesting to note that R’ Eliezer ben Hurcanus, the rebbe of R’ Akiva, was asked by King Agrippa: “If circumcision is such a beloved commandment, why is it not included in the Ten Commandments at the giving of the Torah?”, thus presupposing that the Ten Commandments hold a unique significance over that of the rest of the commandments found in the Old Testament.
Perhaps, though, from a purely philosophical perspective, it was not included so that a physical distinction remained between Jew and gentile even when the latter decides to apply the Ten Commandments to himself.
It is interesting to note that according to the Kli Yakar (in Yitro), the Ten Commandments were meant for the whole world, at least in theory.
I couldn’t find that comment — could you please provide the verse?
What I find interested in your point is the notion that Judaism perceives itself as authoritative for lawful unbelievers. It’s one thing to say that those who are Jewish are obligated even when they become heretics, and an entirely different thing to say that gentiles are inherently subject to the laws of Judaism.
It’s like Islam demanding that Jews do such-and-such and Muslims attempting to compel Jews to comply when Jews don’t see Islam as valid and authoritative — if they did, they’d be Muslims, not Jews (or at least Muslim-minded, which is sort of against Judaism just the same).
It’s not different at all. If Judaism is the Truth, then everyone is subject to its laws. “You may not worship idols” is as much a universal law as “A body at rest remains at rest…” Whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant.
> It’s like Islam demanding that Jews do such-and-such and Muslims attempting to compel Jews to comply when Jews don’t see Islam as valid and authoritative
That’s been done. As long as you don’t see Islam as valid, compelling others to follow it’s laws is abhorrent. If you believe that Islam – or Judaism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, etc. – is the Truth, then your actions are sanctioned boy God(s), and it’s really in the compelee’s and the world’s best interests anyway. That’s the danger of someone believing with absolute certainty that he has the Truth and everyone else is wrong.
It’s in 20:8. It’s a long one, the first relevant paragraph begins “beshek’var.”
Apparently you are unaware that Dr. Rosenbach’s opinion of the Kli Yakar is not exactly a very complimentary one to say the least.Just in case you missed it here it is in his own words.
“I find it strange when the things R’ Luntschitz (Kli Yakar) says appear to have nothing to do with what he’s really ascribing them to, and everything to do with what he wants to bring out of the words of the text. Which is fine — it’s all very philosophical and at times exquisitely mystical and if that’s what you like, by all means, keep with it. But I don’t like it. He sounds like a shul rabbis who wants to say X and looks for a point in the Torah to plant in so that he can reap it 5 seconds later”
His opinion about Rashi is not much better for the being a,gasp, mystic.
His “lofty” apraisel about Rashi can be found here.
https://www.frumsatire.net/2012/01/05/dvar-torah-vayechi-jacob-immortal/
Rashi died in 1105. Do you know how little they understood about the universe in 1105? You can check out the Wikipedia article for a more thorough overview, but key points are the original understanding of the pulmonary and circulatory systems in 1242 and the refutation of spontaneous generation in 1668. Last year, a neighbor of mine who’s a high school rebbe knocked on my door to ask if I could give him an example of any animals that have actually gone extinct because he had always thought that it doesn’t actually happen and his students had sort of laughed at him — and that’s on the list as having been discovered by Baron Cuvier in 1796, more than 650 years after Rashi died.
So as insightful and mathematical and halachic as Rashi can be, he lived in the age of belief. People of all sorts believed the strangest and weirdest things about the way the world works and, as a member of that time, Rashi was no different. If life can spring from dirt, is it really any different to say that life can remain in what seems like a dead body, only for vitality to pop back on and then off again and perhaps even on again? I’d venture to say no. But we know better now.
Your sensationalism is disappointing — quit arguing with me and argue the data. Just because the Lubavitcher Rebbe and R’ Meiselman are learned Torah scholars doesn’t make them authorities on the universe — in fact, they are far from authorities on the workings of the universe, as one can tell from their writings. And Rashi is in the same boat and perhaps at an even greater disadvantage, seeing how long ago he left this world. But I don’t hold him guilty of saying what we now know amounts to ridiculous things, just like we can’t hold Jean-Baptiste Lamarck liable for saying ridiculous things about the universe when he died in 1898 — I do, however, hold you responsible for saying ridiculous things in 2012.
Have you read following linked linked article and comments about the very points you make in your above response to me?
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2012/03/15/trembling-before-rashi-redux/#comments
I didn’t, but now I have — thank you.
But Shaul Gold cites as indisputable fact what ought to be understood as beleaguered opinion and confuses the two numerous times — see the many comments that follow, and I point to Slifkin’s in particular (it’s the first one).
And for people who accuse me of dispensing more than my fair share of über-vocabulary words, Shaul Gold puts me to shame, and it’s rather annoying (reading it, not being put to shame).
Another placid, one dimensional Akivian/Yishmaelian article. It must be fun to live in Rosenbach’s mind where everything is packaged so black and white. Where verything Rosenbach agrees to is considered rational and inserted in the Yishmaelian box.
To explain things along the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide is enlightening to me and to others — if you’re not interested, don’t read my posts.
I would assume that Judaism would *want* to believe that at least some of its teachings had universal applicability (and that God intended them to be spread universally) or else you would kind of wonder about the universality of God himself. He creates the whole universe, he creates man and woman, he tells them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” They do so. He then restricts all further interest/relationship to aproximately .2 of the worlds inhabitants?? It makes God seem not like the God of the universe, but the God of a small middle eastern tribe.
God tells the Jews (Isaiah 49:46) that “I will make you a light unto the nations that my salvation shall spread to the ends of the earth.” Ritual law (what you eat, how you eat it, etc.) obviously has little to do with being a “light unto the nations” but clearly the 10 commandments do.
It goes without saying that Christian teaching is that the spread of this “light” and “salvation” to the nations is through Christianity but , of course, that is not the only possible interpretation.
> He then restricts all further interest/relationship to aproximately .2 of the worlds inhabitants??
Why is that more surprising than God restricting His interest to a single species on a single planet in all the cosmos?
I’m arguing entirely from the internal logic of the Bible. God creates the universe, but he shows no interest in any part of it except the earth (or at least the Bible shows no interest in telling us of any other interest that he has). He creates every living thing on earth — of which man is clearly “the crown of creation” because he alone of all created things is made “in the image” of God and all other living things are put there in the service of man and man has “dominion” over them.) So the entire premise of Genesis is that man is unique in the divine creation of the entire universe.
Of course, this is pretty much the basis for all religions and even philosophies (“man is the measure of all things”) so so far there is nothing here which is more illogical than any other religion.
That God wants a certain type of relationship with man and/or that God has a plan to restore his original relationsip with man is also not illogical or hard to grasp. That God blows off 99.8% of his unique creation for the rest of eternity (not to say that Judaism necessarily teaches that there is no part in “the world to come” for non-Jews but that after Abraham God shows no more interest in teaching or requiring anything (or anything much) of anybody but the Jews) would seem to be a problematic belief.
Of course, in Christianity, the belief is that “salvation [for all mankind] comes from the Jews” (St. Paul) so God’s special relationship with the Jews is part of a larger plan for restoring his relationship with all mankind.
Catholic Mom – Traditional Judaism actually teaches that God was ready to give the Torah to all of the nations, but they blew him off, and therefore he refocused his attention mainly on the Jewish People. In the same context, however, it is said that a non-Jew who indeed studies Torah, can achieve the same closeness with God as the High Priest in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur (Talmud A.Z. 2b-3a).
>>Traditional Judaism actually teaches that God was ready to give the Torah to all of the nations, but they blew him off
Of course, it doesn’t actually say that in the Bible. A guy with the handle you have should be very wary of any non-scripturally-based theology, no? 🙂 I mean, the Catholic Church lost half of Europe over that kind of stuff. 🙂
What do you mean by “non-scripturally-based theology”? If you mean to discount the Talmud and its methods of exegesis, then you’ve basically thrown Judaism out the window.
Catholic Mom – Bear something in mind here: not that this is an exact comparison, it isn’t, but conceptually it can be said that we see the Talmud as “scripture” much as you do the NT.
But you don’t hold that it was, essentially “written” by God word-for-word (that is, the authors wrote exactly what God wanted them to write) — this is, after all, part of the discussion about the 10 commandments here. That every “word” of God in the Bible is equally holy. But (correct me) it is not the case that Judaism teaches that the words of the Talmud are the direct “word” of God and all equally holy.
The comparison, it seems to me, would not be with the NT but with the “infallible” teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. The rejection of the infallibility of the magisterium (especially when it taught doctrines not found in either the OT or NT) was the basic cause of the Reformation. So the question is this — can the Talmud teach theological doctrines which are no where to be found or supported in the Bible and can belief in extra-Biblical doctrines (not laws but doctrines) be required of Orthodox Jews?
Theoretically the Talmud can say that something is a tradition from Moses at Sinai, and that will make it binding even if there is no hint of it in the Bible. But that is rare. Usually the Talmud derives laws and ideas from the Bible via its method of exegesis. Anything else is never considered on the level of Biblical Law. The rabbis do not have the power to conjure up their own idea and make it a necessary belief.
OK, so that was my point. The idea that the Torah was offered to the gentiles and rejected by them would indeed be an idea made up by the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Therefore it cannot be a definitive teaching of Judaism. Therefore you’re still left with what “I will make you a light unto the nations that my salvation shall spread to the ends of the earth” means if it EXCLUDES the spread of the moral teachings of the OT (e.g., the 10 commandments) to the “the nations.” God clearly intends that “my salvation whall spread to the ends of the earth” and he intends to use the Jews as the instrument by which that will be accomplished.
I think you have a mistaken perception of Judaism. In general, the ideas it teaches aren?t a ?doctrine? which one must accept or be branded a heretic (with the exception of a number of specific things). Yet they are the essence of Judaism. Judaism is not about doctrines, but about teachings. That is why there is so much arguing within the Talmudic canon itself ? because there is nothing wrong with challenging a teaching. At the end of the day though, all of it ? the teachings, the debates; they?re all the essence of traditional Judaism. If someone should inquire what Judaism has to say about something, we will answer by citing a relevant rabbinic teaching. It makes no difference that we won?t consider someone who denies the teaching a heretic. The teaching is still a representation of authentic traditional Judaism.
With regard to our case: If someone wishes to deny that God presented the Torah to all of the nations, they are certainly not a heretic. But the fact remains that this is a very well-known teaching of the Talmud (which, while surely not derived from, is the rabbinic interpretation of the verse ?He said: ?The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.? ? Deut. 33:2). It is therefore an accurate representation of the viewpoint of Judaism.
As for your interpretation of Isaiah 49:6 (NIV ? ?I will also make you a light for the Gentiles; that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth?), I don?t see why you would say that it refers to the Ten Commandments. Maybe it refers to the entire Torah. Maybe it refers believing in God and abandoning idol-worship. Where does it say anything about the Ten Commandments? Also, if your intention with the Ten Commandments is not specifically them, but all of the moral teachings of the Bible (which should exclude the fourth of the Ten but probably include the rest), I?m fine with that. There is a very significant opinion (Nahmanides) which holds that all of the moral teachings of the Bible are meant for Gentiles as well, so you just hold like that opinion.
1) Of course she has a poor perception of Judaism — as an outsider, she’s necessarily looking at it through the lenses of an outsider and can’t appreciate Judaism from Judaism, just as we cannot appreciate Christianity from Christianity and my patients cannot appreciate dentistry from dentistry, only from the patients’ perspective.
2) I don’t understand exactly what you mean to say by splitting doctrine from teachings — from Wikipedia, doctrine is “a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system,” which pretty much seems to sum up the core teaching, as you call them, of Judaism.
3) You’re comments about teachings make for a very superficial review, but I suppose that’s intended and to be expected, seeing how you’re commenting on a blog and not giving a seminar on the topic — but in its simplicity, you’ve managed to give Catholic Mom a warped sense of how the Talmud is looked at, which I suppose is fine, because anything explained in 3 minutes of typing would have to do that. Suffice it to say, though, that the midrashic literature maintaining that God offered the Torah to the gentile nations is just as fluffy as the midrashic literature claiming that the letter aleph (first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was despondent over the Torah having been started with the letter beis (second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and not himself, and that God approached him (Mr. Aleph) to comfort him and promise him that everything would be alright. So I wouldn’t say that it’s an “accurate representation of the viewpoint of Judaism” but, rather, a “popular legend that’s taught to every yeshiva and day-school child,” much in the same way that children are frequently taught that gentiles are somehow inherently morally inferior (or, perhaps lack a soul completely — I’ve heard that one) when really, all it’s meant to convey is that Judaism thinks its ethical codes are superior to those of others and that anyone not subscribing to the Jewish view on ethics is less ethical than the Jew. In that sense, the unlearned Jew would similarly have no soul and the gentile familiar with and in line with the Jewish code of ethics would be, according to Jewish tradition, far superior to him — but the kids are too young and immature to give them that information; but surprisingly, they’re never too young to instill anti-gentile elitism. It’s sort of as silly as what Australia’s archbishop recently said here.
But have no fear, if you stick with me, I’ll do my best to debrief you, even if I never move on from the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide.
4) I wonder — isn’t it funny to say to a gentile who maintains a certain perspective on things that “Nachmanides says like that, so you’re just holding like that,” when she might not even know who Nachmanides was and probably never heard his opinion on the matter.
Dr. Rosenbach –
1) I wasn?t trying to one-up her by saying she has a mistaken perception. So I don?t see the point of your comment.
2) The distinction is between a) doctrine ? i.e. dogma; and b) what we would call hashkafa ? i.e. a way of thinking, a teaching, something which can be said about it that ?Judaism professes it? but it is not a ?tenet? of the religion in any way.
3) I don?t get your point. You seem to take me for someone who doesn?t know much. I have a pretty well-rounded grasp of traditional Jewish literature and don?t need to be patronized. Obviously I am simplifying, as you yourself note these are just comments on a blog. If anyone wants to discuss anything with me at length they are free to email me. And if you have a specific issue with anything I have said, by all means, refute me.
4) I wrote Nahmanides in parentheses for anyone who might be reading and wondering who might hold that way. My main point was that the notion she had, if I represented it properly, is actually correct according to one very mainstream opinion. I thought that was pretty clear.
No need to freak out — we’re on the same side. I was merely stepping in to explain that what may clearly seem like a subtle distinction or a major difference to those within the Jewish faith may be easily confused for one another or something else to those outside the religion looking in.
And there are those who’ve been branded heretics for far less than what you’ve explained.
Shavua tov!
Notwithstanding my utter ignorance of the Talmud, my point was that what it teaches is NOT considered “doctrine” or divine revelation but rather , as Dr. Rosenbach points out, stories, opinions, interpretations, etc. with which one is free to disagree and remain within mainstream Judaism.
So Lex Luthor says BOTH that there is no real “doctrine” in Judaism, just teachings that if you disgree with put you outside mainstream Judaism, and that, by the way, there are different opinions on exactly the point I was discussing and that Nahmanides (I actually have heard of the Ramban but not enough to get credit for it) for example, agrees with my position.
So we come full circle. I say “logically the Bible itself must mean X.” Lex Luthor says “no, because there is a relevant fact you’re leaving out which is stated in the Talmud.” I say “but the Talmud is not scrupture so that “fact” is just a story that one writer in the writer alludes to. Lex Luthor says “the Talmud has the same “scriptural” significance for us as the NT does for you. ” I say, “I don’t think so. I think it has the same significance as the mageristerium does for us.” Luthor then does a 180 and says “actually there are multiple arguments and interpretations in the Talmud. You’re conclusion is shared by a famous Rabbi.”
Rosenbach says “well, of course she doesn’t understand the significance of the Talmud to us, she’s not a Jew.” But it would seem that I DO understand the significance, at least for the purposes of this argument.
You are not less of an orthodox Jew because you do not believe a story told in the Talmud (even if the author derives the story from a Bible verse) when that story is not explicitly supported by the Bible. So actually the magisterium is MORE binding on us than the Talmud is on you. At least for the leadership. Find me two cardinals who have opposing views on something taught by the magisterium and I’ll show you one cardinal who will be out of a job soon.
BTW, the thing about the Austrialian archbishop makes him sound seriously one can shy of a six pack. I have to read about this guy. I’m going to hope he was serious misquoted or else had actually just drunk a six pack.
Catholic Mom –
I didn?t retract anything. My original point was a response to a point you made ? why would God concern himself only with a tiny percentage of the world? Whatever way you cut the cake, Judaism preaches that idea, in some sense. After all, there is no one who says that the prohibition of working on the Sabbath applies to non-Jews. To that, my response is that the Talmud teaches that God offered it to them, and they blew him off. Then there is the more general point you are making, of whether the moral teachings in the Bible are meant for everyone, and to that I am saying there is a legitimate view which accords with your own, that indeed, they are.
My point in comparing the Talmud to the NT was not in regards to infallibility. It was in regards to it being a canonized book of the religion. There is nothing that is written in there which you can say is not a teaching of Judaism. The fact that the religion does not obligate one to accept every word of every Midrash does not preclude this and isn?t really relevant.
Also, Judaism does have some doctrines. They are very specific though, and this is not included.
>>My point in comparing the Talmud to the NT was not in regards to infallibility. It was in regards to it being a canonized book of the religion
You have “fallible” canonized books? 🙂 You are saying “everything in the Talmud is an authentic teaching of Judaism but we acknowledge that these may actually be wrong”?? Hmm..I’m starting to understand why orthodox Jews rely so much on their own personal Rabbi.
>>After all, there is no one who says that the prohibition of working on the Sabbath applies to non-Jews.
You mean no Jews who say that. Of course the Christians have said exactly that for the last 2,000 years. They reject the “ritual” part of the law as 1) only binding on the Jewish people and 2) only binding until the coming of the Messiah (checked off) but they acknowledge the moral law as applying to all people (except as where made explicitly more stringent — e.g. divorce — by Jesus). Thus the Sabbath requirement (as interpreted by the Christians) relates primarily to the need to set the day apart as dedicated to the worship of God, which requires abstaining from “workaday’ activities. But the degree of “Sabbatarianism” found in different Christian sects at different periods of history has varied widely. The Puritans were just about as obsessive about what you couldn’t do on the Sabbath as any orthodox Jew. And of course, the “blue laws” are still in the memory of extremely old people such as myself.
PS Re: Hebrew. I probably speak Hebrew better than most of the folks on the list. But that’s irrelevant because 1) unless you’re a native speaker, you are still only experiencing it “in translation” as it were. You see some word, you don’t know what it means, you ask somebody, they tell you in English. Now you think you know what it means and 2) we are still only guessing what a word written 3,000 years ago means today. What people have *said* about that word in the intervening 3,000 words certainly gives a hint, but, as far as that goes, a Christian scholar has as much access to the informatio as a Jewish scholar, and an uneducated Christian is no worse off than an uneducated Jew. All Christian seminaries (Catholic and Protestant) require the study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
As I said, Lex and CM, it’s very difficult to have a discussion about this when each of assume we understand where the other one is coming from but, as we can see clearly from what has been said thus far, the Jewish perspective of Christianity is just as inaccurate as the Christian perspective of Judaism. It’s like trying to conjecture about life in the Secret Service by reading about it but never actually being in it.
And you, CM, are a rarity. Most Christians are unfamiliar with the original Hebrew text.
Catholic Mom –
I will quote to you from Nahmanides about the relevance of our books (my translation):
?[Know that] we have three kinds of books. The first is the Bible, which we all believe in with complete faith. The second is called the Talmud, and it is the explanation of the commandments of the Pentateuch; for in the Pentateuch there are 613 commandments and there is not one of them which are not explained in the Talmud, and we believe in its explanation of the commandments. We also have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. Just as if the bishop were to deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners would find it good in his eyes and he would write it down. This book, if one believes in it fine, and if not it won?t hurt.?
What he refers to as Midrash also refers to the Aggadic/homiletic passages of the Talmud (I can back this up with other sources). My claim that one is not required by Jewish tradition to accept everything was referring to this area of teachings, which includes most of the non-technical, non-legalistic ideas not explicit in the Bible.
You mean no Jews who say that.
Obviously. That was my point, wasn?t it? To elaborate on the Jewish tradition. I don?t know why this discussion should have to evolve into just another debate over which religion has it right.
I didn?t say anything about Hebrew. And I don?t know who you are referring to by ?most of the people on the list.?
Nice!
>>We also have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. Just as if the bishop were to deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners would find it good in his eyes and he would write it down. This book, if one believes in it fine, and if not it won?t hurt.?
BTW, no offense to Nahmanides, but this is another examples of what Dr. Rosenbach points out is two religions unability to understand how the other thinks about things.
This is a terrible analogy. It wouldn’t be a great analogy if he said “a priest” but a *bishop* is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. He is a consecrated successor to the Apostles, in direct line from those appointed by Jesus himself. (A lot of them can actually trace the line.) He is not ever under any circumstances to say ANYTHING de fide (with regards to the faith) that is not settled doctrine of the Catholic Church. For a bishop to toss off a line like “God once offered the Torah to the gentiles” (or “one day Jesus said or did the following which was never actually recorded in the Gospels”) would be utterly unthinkable.
I’d say it’s time we put this to rest before we proceed down the sliding pond of no return bashing each others views of one another — that wasn’t the point of the article and so even if it were something we would commit to doing, it’s far off topic.
So thanks to all contributors to this thread — it was educational and interesting while it lasted, but in the name of maintaining civility, let’s not only agree to disagree but also agree to agree that we can never even hope to disagree with enough perspective as necessary to see see things as the other does.
And let’s pretend that makes lot’s of sense, too. 🙂
Nice!
I know you didn’t say anything about Hebrew. It was Dr. Rosenbach who said that. I was just trying to sneak in two responses in one post.
OK, good explanation of the levels of the Talmud. Not sure then why you responded to my saying that your comment re: the gentiles supposedly rejecting the Torah was “extra Biblical” by saying that I didn’t understand that the Talmud was “scripture” (in the sense of being canonical) too, when you then go on to explain (or let Nahmanides explain) that certain parts of the Talmud are no more than good sermons which you may take or leave alone at your discretion.
To summarize your point: “someone once dealt with this question (of why the Torah is restricted to the Jews) by stating that the Torah was first offered to the gentiles but no one is required to believe this” to which I might add “against the plain words of the Bible itself” which says, in so many words that “salvation (for the whole world) comes from the Jews” and it is hard to see how this could not involve the moral teachings of the OT.
I have no idea what a bishop was like in Nahmanides’s society. And perhaps my translation is off (hegmon – a word that could also mean governor but I don’t know why a governor would be delivering sermons). This comment was made by him to a crowd of Christians; scholars and laymen alike, in a highly publicized debate which he was ordered to partake in by King James I of Aragon. They debated a lot of things, this usage not being one of them. So I’m sure he didn’t use it incorrectly.
Let me clarify: I am most certainly not saying that the sages “tossed off a line,” and I resent that whole idea. Rather I am saying that it is a personal interpretation as opposed to a tradition or a prophecy, and that such interpretations are not doctrines which must be accepted. They still represent the opinions of sages whom we accord the greatest respect. Traditional Judaism would see it as quite audacious for a Jew to dismiss their words in any place without any new information or perspective whatsoever. That is why I call this a Jewish teaching. It is an interpretation of a verse, made by the one of the greatest rabbis of the Talmud (Rabbi Johanan) which is not – in my opinion – more or less reasonable today than it was then. Your only issue is a verse in Isaiah, which he was most definitely aware of (which I already explained, you seemed to have overlooked that; Dr. Rosenbach also posted an explanation below which sounds sufficient to me). So what I am saying is simply that it isn’t black and white. There isn’t just doctrine and foolishness, with nothing in between. The two are miles apart. And yes, if for whatever reason someone wishes to respectfully dismiss the teaching that God offered the Torah to the nations, I am okay with that. But it is still a valid Jewish teaching.
Catholic Mom – Bear something in mind here: not that this is an exact comparison, it isn’t, but conceptually it can be said that we see the Talmud as “scripture” much as you do the NT.
But you don’t hold that it was, essentially “written” by God word-for-word (that is, the authors wrote exactly what God wanted them to write) — this is, after all, part of the discussion about the 10 commandments here. That every “word” of God in the Bible is equally holy. But (correct me) it is not the case that Judaism teaches that the words of the Talmud are the direct “word” of God and all equally holy.
The comparison, it seems to me, would not be with the NT but with the “infallible” teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. The rejection of the infallibility of the magisterium (especially when it taught doctrines not found in either the OT or NT) was the basic cause of the Reformation. So the question is this — can the Talmud teach theological doctrines which are no where to be found or supported in the Bible and can belief in extra-Biblical doctrines (not laws but doctrines) be required of Orthodox Jews?
Theoretically the Talmud can say that something is a tradition from Moses at Sinai, and that will make it binding even if there is no hint of it in the Bible. But that is rare. Usually the Talmud derives laws and ideas from the Bible via its method of exegesis. Anything else is never considered on the level of Biblical Law. The rabbis do not have the power to conjure up their own idea and make it a necessary belief.
OK, so that was my point. The idea that the Torah was offered to the gentiles and rejected by them would indeed be an idea made up by the rabbis who wrote the Talmud. Therefore it cannot be a definitive teaching of Judaism. Therefore you’re still left with what “I will make you a light unto the nations that my salvation shall spread to the ends of the earth” means if it EXCLUDES the spread of the moral teachings of the OT (e.g., the 10 commandments) to the “the nations.” God clearly intends that “my salvation whall spread to the ends of the earth” and he intends to use the Jews as the instrument by which that will be accomplished.
I think you have a mistaken perception of Judaism. In general, the ideas it teaches aren’t a “doctrine” which one must accept or be branded a heretic (with the exception of a number of specific things). Yet they are the essence of Judaism. Judaism is not about doctrines, but about teachings. That is why there is so much arguing within the Talmudic canon itself – because there is nothing wrong with challenging a teaching. At the end of the day though, all of it – the teachings, the debates; they’re all the essence of traditional Judaism. If someone should inquire what Judaism has to say about something, we will answer by citing a relevant rabbinic teaching. It makes no difference that we won’t consider someone who denies the teaching a heretic. The teaching is still a representation of authentic traditional Judaism.
With regard to our case: If someone wishes to deny that God presented the Torah to all of the nations, they are certainly not a heretic. But the fact remains that this is a very well-known teaching of the Talmud (which, while surely not derived from, is the rabbinic interpretation of the verse “He said: “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones from the south, from his mountain slopes.” – Deut. 33:2). It is therefore an accurate representation of the viewpoint of Judaism.
As for your interpretation of Isaiah 49:6 (NIV – “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles; that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth”), I don’t see why you would say that it refers to the Ten Commandments. Maybe it refers to the entire Torah. Maybe it refers believing in God and abandoning idol-worship. Where does it say anything about the Ten Commandments? Also, if your intention with the Ten Commandments is not specifically them, but all of the moral teachings of the Bible (which should exclude the fourth of the Ten but probably include the rest), I’m fine with that. There is a very significant opinion (Nahmanides) which holds that all of the moral teachings of the Bible are meant for Gentiles as well, so you just hold like that opinion.
1) Of course she has a poor perception of Judaism — as an outsider, she’s necessarily looking at it through the lenses of an outsider and can’t appreciate Judaism from Judaism, just as we cannot appreciate Christianity from Christianity and my patients cannot appreciate dentistry from dentistry, only from the patients’ perspective.
2) I don’t understand exactly what you mean to say by splitting doctrine from teachings — from Wikipedia, doctrine is “a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system,” which pretty much seems to sum up the core teaching, as you call them, of Judaism.
3) You’re comments about teachings make for a very superficial review, but I suppose that’s intended and to be expected, seeing how you’re commenting on a blog and not giving a seminar on the topic — but in its simplicity, you’ve managed to give Catholic Mom a warped sense of how the Talmud is looked at, which I suppose is fine, because anything explained in 3 minutes of typing would have to do that. Suffice it to say, though, that the midrashic literature maintaining that God offered the Torah to the gentile nations is just as fluffy as the midrashic literature claiming that the letter aleph (first letter of the Hebrew alphabet) was despondent over the Torah having been started with the letter beis (second letter of the Hebrew alphabet) and not himself, and that God approached him (Mr. Aleph) to comfort him and promise him that everything would be alright. So I wouldn’t say that it’s an “accurate representation of the viewpoint of Judaism” but, rather, a “popular legend that’s taught to every yeshiva and day-school child,” much in the same way that children are frequently taught that gentiles are somehow inherently morally inferior (or, perhaps lack a soul completely — I’ve heard that one) when really, all it’s meant to convey is that Judaism thinks its ethical codes are superior to those of others and that anyone not subscribing to the Jewish view on ethics is less ethical than the Jew. In that sense, the unlearned Jew would similarly have no soul and the gentile familiar with and in line with the Jewish code of ethics would be, according to Jewish tradition, far superior to him — but the kids are too young and immature to give them that information; but surprisingly, they’re never too young to instill anti-gentile elitism. It’s sort of as silly as what Australia’s archbishop recently said here.
But have no fear, if you stick with me, I’ll do my best to debrief you, even if I never move on from the Akivan/Ishmaelian divide.
4) I wonder — isn’t it funny to say to a gentile who maintains a certain perspective on things that “Nachmanides says like that, so you’re just holding like that,” when she might not even know who Nachmanides was and probably never heard his opinion on the matter.
Dr. Rosenbach –
1) I wasn’t trying to one-up her by saying she has a mistaken perception. So I don’t see the point of your comment.
2) The distinction is between a) doctrine – i.e. dogma; and b) what we would call hashkafa – i.e. a way of thinking, a teaching, something which can be said about it that “Judaism professes it” but it is not a “tenet” of the religion in any way.
3) I don’t get your point. You seem to take me for someone who doesn’t know much. I have a pretty well-rounded grasp of traditional Jewish literature and don’t need to be patronized. Obviously I am simplifying, as you yourself note these are just comments on a blog. If anyone wants to discuss anything with me at length they are free to email me. And if you have a specific issue with anything I have said, by all means, refute me.
4) I wrote Nahmanides in parentheses for anyone who might be reading and wondering who might hold that way. My main point was that the notion she had, if I represented it properly, is actually correct according to one very mainstream opinion. I thought that was pretty clear.
No need to freak out — we’re on the same side. I was merely stepping in to explain that what may clearly seem like a subtle distinction or a major difference to those within the Jewish faith may be easily confused for one another or something else to those outside the religion looking in.
And there are those who’ve been branded heretics for far less than what you’ve explained.
Shavua tov!
Notwithstanding my utter ignorance of the Talmud, my point was that what it teaches is NOT considered “doctrine” or divine revelation but rather , as Dr. Rosenbach points out, stories, opinions, interpretations, etc. with which one is free to disagree and remain within mainstream Judaism.
So Lex Luthor says BOTH that there is no real “doctrine” in Judaism, just teachings that if you disgree with put you outside mainstream Judaism, and that, by the way, there are different opinions on exactly the point I was discussing and that Nahmanides (I actually have heard of the Ramban but not enough to get credit for it) for example, agrees with my position.
So we come full circle. I say “logically the Bible itself must mean X.” Lex Luthor says “no, because there is a relevant fact you’re leaving out which is stated in the Talmud.” I say “but the Talmud is not scrupture so that “fact” is just a story that one writer in the writer alludes to. Lex Luthor says “the Talmud has the same “scriptural” significance for us as the NT does for you. ” I say, “I don’t think so. I think it has the same significance as the mageristerium does for us.” Luthor then does a 180 and says “actually there are multiple arguments and interpretations in the Talmud. You’re conclusion is shared by a famous Rabbi.”
Rosenbach says “well, of course she doesn’t understand the significance of the Talmud to us, she’s not a Jew.” But it would seem that I DO understand the significance, at least for the purposes of this argument.
You are not less of an orthodox Jew because you do not believe a story told in the Talmud (even if the author derives the story from a Bible verse) when that story is not explicitly supported by the Bible. So actually the magisterium is MORE binding on us than the Talmud is on you. At least for the leadership. Find me two cardinals who have opposing views on something taught by the magisterium and I’ll show you one cardinal who will be out of a job soon.
BTW, the thing about the Austrialian archbishop makes him sound seriously one can shy of a six pack. I have to read about this guy. I’m going to hope he was serious misquoted or else had actually just drunk a six pack.
Catholic Mom –
I didn’t retract anything. My original point was a response to a point you made – why would God concern himself only with a tiny percentage of the world? Whatever way you cut the cake, Judaism preaches that idea, in some sense. After all, there is no one who says that the prohibition of working on the Sabbath applies to non-Jews. To that, my response is that the Talmud teaches that God offered it to them, and they blew him off. Then there is the more general point you are making, of whether the moral teachings in the Bible are meant for everyone, and to that I am saying there is a legitimate view which accords with your own, that indeed, they are.
My point in comparing the Talmud to the NT was not in regards to infallibility. It was in regards to it being a canonized book of the religion. There is nothing that is written in there which you can say is not a teaching of Judaism. The fact that the religion does not obligate one to accept every word of every Midrash does not preclude this and isn’t really relevant.
Also, Judaism does have some doctrines. They are very specific though, and this is not included.
>>My point in comparing the Talmud to the NT was not in regards to infallibility. It was in regards to it being a canonized book of the religion
You have “fallible” canonized books? 🙂 You are saying “everything in the Talmud is an authentic teaching of Judaism but we acknowledge that these may actually be wrong”?? Hmm..I’m starting to understand why orthodox Jews rely so much on their own personal Rabbi.
>>After all, there is no one who says that the prohibition of working on the Sabbath applies to non-Jews.
You mean no Jews who say that. Of course the Christians have said exactly that for the last 2,000 years. They reject the “ritual” part of the law as 1) only binding on the Jewish people and 2) only binding until the coming of the Messiah (checked off) but they acknowledge the moral law as applying to all people (except as where made explicitly more stringent — e.g. divorce — by Jesus). Thus the Sabbath requirement (as interpreted by the Christians) relates primarily to the need to set the day apart as dedicated to the worship of God, which requires abstaining from “workaday’ activities. But the degree of “Sabbatarianism” found in different Christian sects at different periods of history has varied widely. The Puritans were just about as obsessive about what you couldn’t do on the Sabbath as any orthodox Jew. And of course, the “blue laws” are still in the memory of extremely old people such as myself.
PS Re: Hebrew. I probably speak Hebrew better than most of the folks on the list. But that’s irrelevant because 1) unless you’re a native speaker, you are still only experiencing it “in translation” as it were. You see some word, you don’t know what it means, you ask somebody, they tell you in English. Now you think you know what it means and 2) we are still only guessing what a word written 3,000 years ago means today. What people have *said* about that word in the intervening 3,000 words certainly gives a hint, but, as far as that goes, a Christian scholar has as much access to the informatio as a Jewish scholar, and an uneducated Christian is no worse off than an uneducated Jew. All Christian seminaries (Catholic and Protestant) require the study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
As I said, Lex and CM, it’s very difficult to have a discussion about this when each of assume we understand where the other one is coming from but, as we can see clearly from what has been said thus far, the Jewish perspective of Christianity is just as inaccurate as the Christian perspective of Judaism. It’s like trying to conjecture about life in the Secret Service by reading about it but never actually being in it.
And you, CM, are a rarity. Most Christians are unfamiliar with the original Hebrew text.
Catholic Mom –
I will quote to you from Nahmanides about the relevance of our books (my translation):
“[Know that] we have three kinds of books. The first is the Bible, which we all believe in with complete faith. The second is called the Talmud, and it is the explanation of the commandments of the Pentateuch; for in the Pentateuch there are 613 commandments and there is not one of them which are not explained in the Talmud, and we believe in its explanation of the commandments. We also have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. Just as if the bishop were to deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners would find it good in his eyes and he would write it down. This book, if one believes in it fine, and if not it won’t hurt.”
What he refers to as Midrash also refers to the Aggadic/homiletic passages of the Talmud (I can back this up with other sources). My claim that one is not required by Jewish tradition to accept everything was referring to this area of teachings, which includes most of the non-technical, non-legalistic ideas not explicit in the Bible.
You mean no Jews who say that.
Obviously. That was my point, wasn’t it? To elaborate on the Jewish tradition. I don’t know why this discussion should have to evolve into just another debate over which religion has it right.
I didn’t say anything about Hebrew. And I don’t know who you are referring to by “most of the people on the list.”
Nice!
>>We also have a third book called Midrash, meaning sermons. Just as if the bishop were to deliver a sermon, and one of the listeners would find it good in his eyes and he would write it down. This book, if one believes in it fine, and if not it won’t hurt.”
BTW, no offense to Nahmanides, but this is another examples of what Dr. Rosenbach points out is two religions unability to understand how the other thinks about things.
This is a terrible analogy. It wouldn’t be a great analogy if he said “a priest” but a *bishop* is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. He is a consecrated successor to the Apostles, in direct line from those appointed by Jesus himself. (A lot of them can actually trace the line.) He is not ever under any circumstances to say ANYTHING de fide (with regards to the faith) that is not settled doctrine of the Catholic Church. For a bishop to toss off a line like “God once offered the Torah to the gentiles” (or “one day Jesus said or did the following which was never actually recorded in the Gospels”) would be utterly unthinkable.
I’d say it’s time we put this to rest before we proceed down the sliding pond of no return bashing each others views of one another — that wasn’t the point of the article and so even if it were something we would commit to doing, it’s far off topic.
So thanks to all contributors to this thread — it was educational and interesting while it lasted, but in the name of maintaining civility, let’s not only agree to disagree but also agree to agree that we can never even hope to disagree with enough perspective as necessary to see see things as the other does.
And let’s pretend that makes lot’s of sense, too. 🙂
Nice!
I know you didn’t say anything about Hebrew. It was Dr. Rosenbach who said that. I was just trying to sneak in two responses in one post.
OK, good explanation of the levels of the Talmud. Not sure then why you responded to my saying that your comment re: the gentiles supposedly rejecting the Torah was “extra Biblical” by saying that I didn’t understand that the Talmud was “scripture” (in the sense of being canonical) too, when you then go on to explain (or let Nahmanides explain) that certain parts of the Talmud are no more than good sermons which you may take or leave alone at your discretion.
To summarize your point: “someone once dealt with this question (of why the Torah is restricted to the Jews) by stating that the Torah was first offered to the gentiles but no one is required to believe this” to which I might add “against the plain words of the Bible itself” which says, in so many words that “salvation (for the whole world) comes from the Jews” and it is hard to see how this could not involve the moral teachings of the OT.
I have no idea what a bishop was like in Nahmanides’s society. And perhaps my translation is off (hegmon – a word that could also mean governor but I don’t know why a governor would be delivering sermons). This comment was made by him to a crowd of Christians; scholars and laymen alike, in a highly publicized debate which he was ordered to partake in by King James I of Aragon. They debated a lot of things, this usage not being one of them. So I’m sure he didn’t use it incorrectly.
Let me clarify: I am most certainly not saying that the sages “tossed off a line,” and I resent that whole idea. Rather I am saying that it is a personal interpretation as opposed to a tradition or a prophecy, and that such interpretations are not doctrines which must be accepted. They still represent the opinions of sages whom we accord the greatest respect. Traditional Judaism would see it as quite audacious for a Jew to dismiss their words in any place without any new information or perspective whatsoever. That is why I call this a Jewish teaching. It is an interpretation of a verse, made by the one of the greatest rabbis of the Talmud (Rabbi Johanan) which is not – in my opinion – more or less reasonable today than it was then. Your only issue is a verse in Isaiah, which he was most definitely aware of (which I already explained, you seemed to have overlooked that; Dr. Rosenbach also posted an explanation below which sounds sufficient to me). So what I am saying is simply that it isn’t black and white. There isn’t just doctrine and foolishness, with nothing in between. The two are miles apart. And yes, if for whatever reason someone wishes to respectfully dismiss the teaching that God offered the Torah to the nations, I am okay with that. But it is still a valid Jewish teaching.
Just as the Bible makes it clear that God is uniquely interested in Earth, it also makes it clear that God is uniquely interested in Abraham and his progeny. There is an unfortunate but widespread belief in traditional Judaism that Just as man is, as you say, “the crown of creation,” the Jewish people is the crown of mankind.
My point was that it is merely a difference of scale, not of kind, and a pretty insignificant difference in the big picture.
You may consider Jewish theology unfortunate in its existence, but if you don’t contest that, I don’t see why you’d contest its stance on Judaism being the ultimate.
If God gave us the Torah and the guidance of the Torah makes the nation to which it was bequethed the am segulah (treasured nation) by virtue of that fact (which you might also contest), then Jews are favored. For those who contest none of these premises, though, I suppose it’s not all that unfortunate. 🙂
It is also worth pointing out that at least nine out of ten of the Ten Commandments promote values that are represented by the seven laws of Noah.
(which are considered universal)
And which are also extra-Biblical appearing (correct me if I’m wrong) only in the Talmud which (correct me if I am wrong) non-Jews have approximately .00001 proablility of knowing anything whatsoever about.
If God cares about the souls of the gentile nations it would seem to be more probable that he would try to reach them via the most widely published and read book in the history of the world than via materials which the vast majority of the world doesn’t even know exist.
Oh, I do think much of Scripture has universal message.
All of it has universal message. The question is, did God intend that message to be directed solely at the Jewish people? Or does at least part of it form the basis for the “light of salvation” to the rest of the world?
I believe the universal messages were intended for everyone. I was kind of saying that in my first comment.
It appears to be that Judaism’s “light unto the nations” teaching (or doctrine) is meant to be conveyed more through action than through direct transmission of textual or extra-textual content.
Well, if the special status of the Jewish people as a “light unto the nations” is derived from the fact that the Torah has been given to them, it’s hard to see how “actions” could “spread my salvation throughout the world” when those actions exclude any transmission of the Torah or its teachings. What “actions” would those be?
In the OT, the “actions” of the Jewish people are consistently and regularly to be found wanting. The story of the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people, not their faithfulness to God. (Please note that I am not distinguishing the Jewish people from anybody else here. Just that this is one of regular themes of the OT.)
To begin, I must say that it’s very difficult to have a conversation between a Jew and a Christian when each are trained to take scripture in quite different ways.
For starters, there’s the issue of translation — the Hebrew can always be retranslated into a better English (or French, if that’s your spoken language) but if you don’t speak or understand Hebrew you’re stuck using the English (or French) as though it’s the primary source when really it’s somewhat of a derivation. Not that gets in the way here, but in general, it’s very possible for it to.
Secondly, how one goes about assessing the authoritative nature, such that the level of literalism to be applies, will differ vastly based on how one is taught to derive information from verses. So whereas Judaism maintains a very strict method of exegetical interpretation in almost the entire FBoM but a less strict degree within the prophets and writings (for laws are, for the most part, derived only from the FBoM and there is less restrictiveness on the part of the author of the Nach portion of Tanach), while Christians, among others, who read the verses do so through a different lense.
So “spreading salvation” may very well be taken to a lesser sense of literal interpretation than you are making it out to be — but I don’t know right now. But you certainly make a good point and ask a good question and I’ll see if I can find a good answer for you before tonight.
Well, if the special status of the Jewish people as a “light unto the nations” is derived from the fact that the Torah has been given to them, it’s hard to see how mere “actions” could “spread my salvation throughout the world” when those actions exclude any transmission of the Torah or its teachings. What actions would those be?
In the OT, the “actions” of the Jewish people are consistently and regularly to be found wanting. The story of the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people, not their faithfulness to God. (Please note that I am not distinguishing the Jewish people from anybody else here. Just that this is one of regular themes of the OT.)
It appears to be that Judaism’s “light unto the nations” teaching (or doctrine) is meant to be conveyed more through action than through direct transmission of textual or extra-textual content.
Well, if the special status of the Jewish people as a “light unto the nations” is derived from the fact that the Torah has been given to them, it’s hard to see how “actions” could “spread my salvation throughout the world” when those actions exclude any transmission of the Torah or its teachings. What “actions” would those be?
In the OT, the “actions” of the Jewish people are consistently and regularly to be found wanting. The story of the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people, not their faithfulness to God. (Please note that I am not distinguishing the Jewish people from anybody else here. Just that this is one of regular themes of the OT.)
To begin, I must say that it’s very difficult to have a conversation between a Jew and a Christian when each are trained to take scripture in quite different ways.
For starters, there’s the issue of translation — the Hebrew can always be retranslated into a better English (or French, if that’s your spoken language) but if you don’t speak or understand Hebrew you’re stuck using the English (or French) as though it’s the primary source when really it’s somewhat of a derivation. Not that gets in the way here, but in general, it’s very possible for it to.
Secondly, how one goes about assessing the authoritative nature, such that the level of literalism to be applies, will differ vastly based on how one is taught to derive information from verses. So whereas Judaism maintains a very strict method of exegetical interpretation in almost the entire FBoM but a less strict degree within the prophets and writings (for laws are, for the most part, derived only from the FBoM and there is less restrictiveness on the part of the author of the Nach portion of Tanach), while Christians, among others, who read the verses do so through a different lense.
So “spreading salvation” may very well be taken to a lesser sense of literal interpretation than you are making it out to be — but I don’t know right now. But you certainly make a good point and ask a good question and I’ll see if I can find a good answer for you before tonight.
Well, if the special status of the Jewish people as a “light unto the nations” is derived from the fact that the Torah has been given to them, it’s hard to see how mere “actions” could “spread my salvation throughout the world” when those actions exclude any transmission of the Torah or its teachings. What actions would those be?
In the OT, the “actions” of the Jewish people are consistently and regularly to be found wanting. The story of the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness to the Jewish people, not their faithfulness to God. (Please note that I am not distinguishing the Jewish people from anybody else here. Just that this is one of regular themes of the OT.)
What do you make of the continued discussion of the R’ Akivian vs R’ Ishmaelian ideas with the generally accepted idea that we do in fact stand when the ten commandments are read and not 100% of the time the torah is being read? It should be noted that I am aware that some people do in fact stand for the entire reading of the torah all the time and others stand for only the brachos. And I am also aware that to somehow answer this problem in many places people stand for the entire aliaya when the ten commandments are read. I do not understand how this corrects the problem since as you state, if you hold the entire torah is equal, how does making a distinction of any kind, at any time, answer the question?
I believe the standing done for the entire aliyah within which the Ten Commandments are read is done to avoid the starkness of everyone sitting for verse X and immediately rising for verse Y.
The reality is that we are none Akivan or Ishmaelian, but a fusion of both — the emphasis, however, remains one’s choice. I stand for all of the Torah reading because my rebbe does so. Others sit and that’s their business.
We may, as a congregation of Israel, stand for the Ten Commandments in line with the Akivan philosophy but we recite the Ten Commandments with the liturgical cantillation according to the Ishmaelian view, adopted by both Philo and Josephus, that “Anochi Hashem Elokecha” (“I am the Lord your God,” Exodus 20:2) and “Lo yihiyeh licha elohim acheirim” (“You shall have no other gods,” 20:3) are both part of the same first commandment.
When there is the end of one of the five books we stand up for the last few sentences. No one says this is a problem of the starkness of sitting for verse X verses standing for verse Y.
We don’t do that either. We always sit through the entire reading.
Maimonides would criticize such a thing as well. In the past few years, a compromise has been reached in many communities that people stand up but there is no announcement to that end.
In my shul we sit straight through it.
some stand throughout all the laining. This is how I was taught.
To Catholic Mom and others~
Your question about the Jews being “a light unto the nations” stirred me into thinking about exactly what that could mean, that that ought to mean. So, I called my rebbe.
He said, perhaps along the lines of your earlier inquisitiveness, that the focus was not to be placed on a ritual here or a seemingly odd directive there, but rather, that the verse is meant to imply that Jews should bring monotheism to the nations of the world.
Now whether one might counter this with a claim of a previously existing monotheism is immaterial — this is not to say that it was the Jews who necessarily said it first, but that they said it best.
In reference to Christianity and Islam, both offshoots of Judaism from the Jewish perspective, Maimonides makes the claim that being the origin for these daughter belief systems that focus on the one and only true God, as opposed to the multiple gods or god-like entities of Greece, Rome or of Hinduism and Taoism is a fulfillment of being “a light unto the nations.”
Perhaps that solves your problem of how to read these verses while wondering how refraining from working with fire on the Sabbath serves to bring light to any nation whatsoever.
Going back to the original question, if God chose certain laws to put on the tablets, doesn’t that alone mean they are different in some way than the others. God’s action alone establishes that they are different. That may not mean specifically more important, but it has to mean something. If they were great enough for God to highlight, then why should we handle them differently than He did? Why can’t we stand for them, when He obviously felt they needed to be presented in a special way?
On the topic of the Ten Commandments being universal. My understanding is that they may be universally sensible or useful, but not required, the way the Sheva Mitvos Bnei Noach are for non-Jews that believe in the Jewish religion.