All Things Talmud

mishkan said:

I don't know who this Yaron guy is, but his treatment is shoddy, from a historical perspective.

Click to expand...

He's a Karaite.

xDenax said:

He's a Karaite.

Click to expand...

Just from the little I've seen on the web about Karaite's I thought they were fairly solid. Do they have a lot of shoddy stuff like this, or is this guy an anomaly?

Dan C

dnc101 said:

Just from the little I've seen on the web about Karaite's I thought they were fairly solid. Do they have a lot of shoddy stuff like this, or is this guy an anomaly?

Click to expand...

Well, you're asking me. I think they are nutty. The only reason I am aware of their existence is through places like this forum. Otherwise, I would never have even heard of them. I'm not sure they are even Jewish. Some might be but I would bet many aren't.

mishkan said:

You need to be more careful with how you process the information you get from random sources. This guy actually calls the revelry at the Golden Calf and the Rebellion of Korach sects! To hear him tell it, every individual in Israel constituted his own separate sectarian movement.

He also treats all the various sectarian groups as though they are equal in numbers and influence. They were not, by any stretch. The Pharisees were far and away the most significant in influence and popularity. Why, even the Sadducean priests were mandated by Rome to perform sacrifices according to the Pharisaic rite! The Pharisees were normative, with Sadducees representing the wealthy and powerful class. The other groups were minority, to the point of being negligible fringies.

I don't know who this Yaron guy is, but his treatment is shoddy, from a historical perspective.

Click to expand...

What is so shoddy about the guys article? He simply listed the sects is all. I thought nothing wrong of him likening the rebellion of Korah etc, to short lived sects?

pat34lee said:

The rabbinic Jews, which are the majority today. The Karaites never followed it, nor the Essenes or Sadducees. I don't know about the zealots. The Jews in Ethiopia followed a pre-rabbinic form of Judaism.

Click to expand...

You might find of interest Wolff Abrahams site: reflecting on Judaism.

Reflecting on Judaism

• Home
• About
• Contact

Essays

• Introduction
• About the author
• Where was God when…?
• The Book of Job
• Conflicting advice on Yizkor
• The Status & Authority of the Rabbi
• United Synagogue
• What is Ultra Orthodox?
• Shabbat Candles
• On Prayer, Predetermination & Freewill
• Petitional Prayer, Determination & Freewill. Are they compatible?
• To Pray or not to Pray
• The Sadducees/Pharisees Conflict 1

Home
The Sadducees/Pharisees Conflict 1

In an article by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, published in the Jewish Chronicle in June 1999, he discussed, in conventional terms, the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees regarding their approach to Judaism and made a number of points which I will now try to summarise. He wrote: -
‘’Both groups valued Torah. Both cherished the land of Israel. The Pharisees believed in the oral law; the Sadducees did not. The Sadducees interpreted the words of the Torah literally. The Pharisees relied on ancient tradition to teach that since there were gaps and ambiguities in the written text, the written text was not always to be taken literally. From the outset it had been supplemented by a set of unwritten traditions, passed down from teacher to disciple, since the days of Moses.
For the Pharisees, Jews were the people of the Torah. For the Sadducees they were the people of the land and of the State of Israel. To be sure, their differences were a matter of emphasis rather than exclusion. The Sadducees dominated the priesthood and controlled most of the positions of political power. For the Pharisees Jewish life rested on quite a different institution—the synagogue, the school and the Bet Midrash, the house of study.
The Sadducees disappeared, almost without trace. They had made their wager and lost. Had it not been for the Pharisees, their belief in the oral law and their dedication to Torah, there would be no Jewish people today.’’
This summary raises a number or questions.
Both the Sadducees and the Pharisees were Jewish Sects active in Israel during the two centuries around the time of the destruction of the second temple. The Chief Rabbi observed that the Sadducees were strongly connected to the Priests and it is believed that they were descendants of the House of Zadok, who anointed Solomon as King. What was the standing of the Pharisees?
In his book ‘The Three Crowns’ Prof. Stuart Cohen of the Bar Ilan University, discusses the Centres of power and Authority in Israel before the destruction of the Second Temple. He suggested that there were two such Centres; the first being the Malchut Authority (The State) exercised by the Kings of Israel, and the even older Priestly Authority which was derived from Moses at Sinai. I understood the theme of his book to be that the Third Crown belongs to the Pharisees (Rabbinate) who took the opportunity to usurp the Authority of the other two during the troubled period through which they lived.
In his book ‘The Ancient Jewish Mysticism’, Prof. Joseph Dan of the Hebrew University discusses the end of the Second Temple era and the era shortly thereafter and wrote. ‘In this short period of time, in a backwood corner of a single Roman province, religious ferment took place which gave birth to Rabbinical Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, and the concepts and feelings which were born during that period shaped human culture for a very long time thereafter.
Neither of these two professors (and they are not alone) credit the Rabbinate with a long antecedence. The Rabbinate (Pharisees) do not accept this assessment of themselves for they set out the entitlement to their Authority in the ‘Pirkay Avot’. ‘Moses received the Torah at Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly.
In Deut. xxx1, verse 7 it states “And Moses called unto Joshua and said to him in the sight of all Israel: ‘Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt go with this people into the land which the Lord hath sworn unto their fathers to give them; and thou shalt cause them to inherit it.’ Verse 9 states ‘And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of covenant of the Lord, and unto all the Elders of Israel’ From these quotations from the Torah it would appear that the ‘Pirkay Avot’ does not reflect events accurately.
We see that Moses did not hand down the tradition to Joshua; Joshua was appointed as the Leader of the people. The tradition was, in fact, handed down directly by Moses to both the Priests (the Kohanim) and to the Elders – not through Joshua. Why does the Pirkay Avot not accurately record these clearly documented facts?
In his commentary to the Chumash, (page 826) the late Chief Rabbi Hertz writes, “Modern writers seldom do justice to the priesthood. They exalt the Prophet, and almost invariably depreciate the priest. …….. . The priests indispensable function was to conserve the spiritual discoveries of the past by means of religious institutions."
The function of the prophets was to emphasise moral values and a Just Society as the main content of the Covenant, sometimes above its more formal and religious aspects, as and when required. They were not part of the chain of transmission of the law. Why were they included as such in the Pirkay Avot?
The Great Assembly, to which the Pirkay Avot refers, dates back only to the time of Ezra, circa 460 BCE. who was also a Cohen and scribe, and a descendant of Zadok. It must have been the Priests, of whom Ezra was one, who fulfilled the chain of transmission, as stated by the late Chief Rabbi Hertz. This fact is acknowledged by Chief Rabbi Sacks in his book ‘Will we have Jewish Grandchildren’ (page 42) where he writes about Ezra and says ‘’A group of Levites acted as instructors to the people, reading from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving meaning so that people could understand what was being read.…. Ezra was the prototype of the teacher as hero’’. The Priests including Ezra were also actively involved in rebuilding and rededicating the Second Temple.
It has been established that the Sadducees had a very long antecedence going back through the Priesthood, via the era of Ezra the Priest, to Zadok the Priest, descendant of Eleazar son of Aaron, a period of some 1300 years. The antecedence of the Rabbinate goes back no further than the Men of the Great Assembly; a period of some 200/300 years and possibly not even that far.
It is therefore difficult to accept without reservation the statement by Chief Rabbi Sacks that the Sadducees believed in no Oral Law. During the course of these 1300 years, from the time of the Exodus to the destruction of the Second Temple they must have transmitted the tradition and an Oral Law although different from the Oral Law subsequently developed by the Pharisees. It is said that the Saducees held to a strict interpretation of the Torah whilst the Pharisees were more lenient, which enabled them to formulate biblical precepts with greater detail as well as to apply the Torah to varied and changing economic, social and political circumstances. They (The Pharisees) represented a revolt against the Establishment and won. Although at the time they could not have known of the forthcoming destruction of the Second Temple, it might well be that their interpretation of the Oral Law preserved Judaism during its period in exile. But problems still exists; just one example: -
When the Pharisees say that by tradition we start counting the Omer on the second day of Pesach, whilst the Sadducees said that by tradition we should start from the Sunday after Pesach, which tradition is likely to be the older? Could this explain the aggadah which relates that when Moses looked into the future and saw into Rabbi Akivah’s Academy he could not understand the teachings of Rabbi Akiva until they were accredited to him. This accreditation made him happy but was he also confused?
June 1999

Annie, that wall of text is really difficult to read.

xDenax said:

Annie, that wall of text is really difficult to read.

Click to expand...

why?

mishkan said:

You need to be more careful with how you process the information you get from random sources. This guy actually calls the revelry at the Golden Calf and the Rebellion of Korach sects! To hear him tell it, every individual in Israel constituted his own separate sectarian movement.

He also treats all the various sectarian groups as though they are equal in numbers and influence. They were not, by any stretch. The Pharisees were far and away the most significant in influence and popularity. Why, even the Sadducean priests were mandated by Rome to perform sacrifices according to the Pharisaic rite! The Pharisees were normative, with Sadducees representing the wealthy and powerful class. The other groups were minority, to the point of being negligible fringies.

I don't know who this Yaron guy is, but his treatment is shoddy, from a historical perspective.

Click to expand...

The Pharisees were not that large a group. They probably held little, if any, influence outside of Jerusalem during the second temple period.

From My Jewish Learning website:

The small size of these groups is attested by the fact that even during Herod's rule [37-4 BCE] the Pharisees numbered only some six thousand, and in the first century there were approximately four thousand Essenes. The Essene communal site at Qumran, specifically its dining area, could accommodate perhaps as many as two hundred members at any one time and roughly indicates the sect's size. The Sadducees, for their part, were even fewer in number, if a comment by Josephus regarding the first century C.E. may be considered relevant to the Hasmonean era.
Jewish Sects? - My Jewish Learning

pat34lee said:

The Pharisees were not that large a group. They probably held little, if any, influence outside of Jerusalem during the second temple period.

From My Jewish Learning website:

The small size of these groups is attested by the fact that even during Herod's rule [37-4 BCE] the Pharisees numbered only some six thousand, and in the first century there were approximately four thousand Essenes. The Essene communal site at Qumran, specifically its dining area, could accommodate perhaps as many as two hundred members at any one time and roughly indicates the sect's size. The Sadducees, for their part, were even fewer in number, if a comment by Josephus regarding the first century C.E. may be considered relevant to the Hasmonean era.
Jewish Sects? - My Jewish Learning

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you have to also factor in their "political" and spiritual following? For a small percentage of the Jewish population these people certainly held a lot of power in both the secular and religious arenas.

Dan C

Torah Lishmah said:

I have noticed that there are many misconceptions, as well as a general lack of knowledge regarding the Talmud [Oral Torah] here at CF. So, I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread entitled "All Things Talmud." I have personally had many experiences with people who have a very strong, and negative opinion about the Oral Torah, but had not even read a single word of it. As strange as that might sound, it is actually a common occurence, for whatever reason. So, I have uploaded The Complete Babylonian Talmud [Soncino Edition] for your covenience. This way, we will all have the text book on hand in order to study, and quote from. The book is currently in the .pdf format, which requires Adobe Reader if you want to read it offline. If you don't already have the latest version of Adobe Reader, you can download it for free right here: Adobe Reader

If you need to have the book in a different format just let me know, and I'll take care of it for you. To read, or download the book simply click on this link: The Complete Babylonian Talmud.pdf

It may take a little bit to load, because it's an extremely large document with over ten thousand pages. If you cannot get it to load at all then simply download it as described below.

You can read the book online by saving that page in your favorites, but I strongly recommend that you download it, so you can save it on your computer. To download the book, look at the top right corner of the page, and click on the arrow button to the right, positioned next to the login form. It looks like this...



If you have any problems whatsoever with the above directions, just comment in this thread and I'll help you.

Click to expand...

I down loaded the Babylonian Talmud about a year ago onto my android, I believe it's still available at the Google play store/market;

I haven't read one page, it's more a matter of having time, than anything else, my studies branch out in many areas in which I already feel like I'm behind in, I'm always trying to play catch up, notwithstanding the Talmud is an important part of history I would like to experience first hand, perhaps you or someone can start us off with a list of misconceptions, throw in a couple of Jew'cy tid-bits, Give me a reason to make time for the Talmud, and I will make time for the Talmud.

I look forward to seeing how this thread progresses in line with the topic.

annier said:

why?

Click to expand...

You can't see it? Walls of text without paragraphs are difficult to read. Many people (including myself) will skip right over them.

pat34lee said:

The Pharisees were not that large a group. They probably held little, if any, influence outside of Jerusalem during the second temple period.

From My Jewish Learning website:

The small size of these groups is attested by the fact that even during Herod's rule [37-4 BCE] the Pharisees numbered only some six thousand, and in the first century there were approximately four thousand Essenes. The Essene communal site at Qumran, specifically its dining area, could accommodate perhaps as many as two hundred members at any one time and roughly indicates the sect's size. The Sadducees, for their part, were even fewer in number, if a comment by Josephus regarding the first century C.E. may be considered relevant to the Hasmonean era.
Jewish Sects? - My Jewish Learning

Click to expand...

You confuse numbers with influence and popular acceptance.

As that article also mentions, all these groups had stringent membership standards, making it understandable that most people wouldn't want to get involved in an official capacity. But, like today, the small numbers of the Haredi belies their influence as standard-bearers for all Torah observance.

Don't forget that overall planetary population was much lower back then. Six thousand sounds small to us today, but it was a sizable number back then.

Yeshua's approach clearly aligned with the Pharisees. That alone should make it a no-brainer that they represent the branch of Jewish teaching that he considered worth refining and developing. He worked within the Pharisaic establishment--not the Sadducean or Essene communities. And he sure didn't start his own independent thing.

xDenax said:

You can't see it? Walls of text without paragraphs are difficult to read. Many people (including myself) will skip right over them.

Click to expand...

I see paragraphs there.

annier said:

I see paragraphs there.

Click to expand...

Perhaps It Is A Matter Of Font Size Or Screen Resolution. I Agree With Dena That The Text You Pasted Looks Pretty Forboding.

There are paragraphs but there is not the usual double space between each paragraph to make it obvious, though I'm sure the poster could insert extra space. However, you can always cut and paste the article into Word, or some other word processor program, change the text size and read it in comfort! Or, you can click on the link and read it on the web site!

Lots of options if you really want to read it!

mishkan said:

You need to be more careful with how you process the information you get from random sources. This guy actually calls the revelry at the Golden Calf and the Rebellion of Korach sects! To hear him tell it, every individual in Israel constituted his own separate sectarian movement.

He also treats all the various sectarian groups as though they are equal in numbers and influence. They were not, by any stretch. The Pharisees were far and away the most significant in influence and popularity. Why, even the Sadducean priests were mandated by Rome to perform sacrifices according to the Pharisaic rite! The Pharisees were normative, with Sadducees representing the wealthy and powerful class. The other groups were minority, to the point of being negligible fringies.

I don't know who this Yaron guy is, but his treatment is shoddy, from a historical perspective.

Click to expand...

The Sadducees (I've read) weren't even really a sect, they were Secularists, and their particular "religion" / religious tendencies were simply that. In a religious country like Israel, as is also the case in the Islamic countries, Secularists have to masquerade as an actual "religious interpretation".

mishkan said:

You confuse numbers with influence and popular acceptance.

As that article also mentions, all these groups had stringent membership standards, making it understandable that most people wouldn't want to get involved in an official capacity. But, like today, the small numbers of the Haredi belies their influence as standard-bearers for all Torah observance.

Don't forget that overall planetary population was much lower back then. Six thousand sounds small to us today, but it was a sizable number back then.

Yeshua's approach clearly aligned with the Pharisees. That alone should make it a no-brainer that they represent the branch of Jewish teaching that he considered worth refining and developing. He worked within the Pharisaic establishment--not the Sadducean or Essene communities. And he sure didn't start his own independent thing.

Click to expand...

He worked within the Pharisaic establishment--not the Sadducean or Essene communities.

True. I'm getting really tired of all this Essene, Ebionite, Nazarene stuff, etc.


And he sure didn't start his own independent thing.

Well in a sense he did, didn't he?
It's called "The Way" - Haderek, Hodon - in Acts.

The article says:

From Josephus, we know of five major sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots and Sicarii. Josephus divides those sects into three groups: Philosophical (religious), nationalist, and criminal.

It seems to redefine "sect" at some point to mean something other than a religious sect. Josephus himself notes that the Zealots like the Sadducees were simply using a religious front. Not sure he distinguishes Zealots and Sicarii (the latter is maybe just the Roman name for the former?)
The author of the article seems to have an interest in portraying as many divisions within the Jewish people as possible.
The sad thing is that if another word had been used, and if presented differently, legitimate historical exegesis might have resulted.
There clearly was a "calf-cult" but not a calf-sect (up until perhaps the time of Jeroboam or even a bit earlier, when such cults may've become sectarian.)

mishkan said:

Perhaps It Is A Matter Of Font Size Or Screen Resolution. I Agree With Dena That The Text You Pasted Looks Pretty Forboding.

Click to expand...

I have no clue what screen resolution means, but a person only needs to hit the link to read site.