NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/messiani/3458

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 4.0 KB | 85 lines

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!walter!att-out!cbfsb!maverick!hem
From: [e-mail] (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Hillel, Shammai & the Oral Torah (was Re: An Old Question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: gmav
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:29:44 GMT
Lines: 71

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laura Johanna Manninen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (hillel.e.markowitz) writes:
>  I wrote:
>> >>  And there were different opinions about it. R. Hillel accepted
>> >> a ger without the "Oral Torah", whereas R. Shammai didn't.
>
>> Hillel took a different approach.  He quoted the pasuk "veahavta
>> leraiacha kamocha" (You shall love your neighbor as yourself).  He
>> then said, "This is the basis for all the Torah, the rest is
>> commentary.  *NOW GO AND STUDY*".
>
>Actually I took it from another story.
>
>Shabbat 31,a: "Our Rabbis taught: A certain heathen once came before
>Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth have you ?' 'Two', he replied:
>'The Written Torah and the Oral Torah.' 'I believe you with respect to
>the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte
>on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].' [But] he
>scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, HE
>ACCEPTED HIM AS A PROSELYTE. On the first day he taught him, Alef,
>beth, gimmel, daleth; the following day he reversed [them] to him.
>'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must
>you then not rely upon me ? Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral
>[Torah] too.'"

Thus we see that he did not accept the gentile as a ger without
the oral torah.  He felt that the person was ignorant but willing
to learn.  He made the point that the oral torah was required as
well.  Thus the prospective ger would indeed have to accept both
the written and the oral torah.

>
>And the story you told:
>
>Shabbat 31,a: "On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen
>came before Shammai and said to him, 'Make me a proselyte, on condition
>that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.' Thereupon
>he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he
>went before Hillel, he said to him, 'What is hateful to you, do not to
>your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary
>thereof; go and learn it.'"
>
>
>I think that the last sentence can be understood also just as a final
>comment, not as a command to study the whole [sic[ Torah. But I agree

Since it is part of the same sentence, it can't be an off hand
statement.  It is an instruction on what to do.

>that R. Hillel did consider also the Oral Torah significant. However
>we must remember that there really are things added to it afterwards,
>like the idea that sacrifices are no longer needed for atonement, but
>somehow the Day of Atonement has become the central factor in it, and
>repentance is enough. That's R. Yochanan ben Zakkai's invention and
>was not the original Jewish view.

As posted in the past, this last segment is an invention of the
missionaries and has nothing to do with Judaism.  Once the temple
is rebuilt, the sacrifices could be reestablished.  Until then
proper tshuvah (see RMBM on what is proper tshuva) is what we can
do.

_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz        |    Im ain ani li mi li             |
| [e-mail]     |    Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha      |
|_________________________|____________________________________|
--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| [e-mail] | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|