Jesus a Hasid?

[muffler dragon]

To All:

I have seen this mentioned a few times, I was hoping that someone would give some clarity as to what a Hasid is, how this label is given to Christ, and what can it mean in looking at Him?

Just basically (as always), I'm looking for anything and everything that people would like to share.

p.s. - I did not see anything in the FAQ, so that's why I posted.

Thanks,

Nathan

 

[The Thadman]

To All:

I have seen this mentioned a few times, I was hoping that someone would give some clarity as to what a Hasid is, how this label is given to Christ, and what can it mean in looking at Him?

Just basically (as always), I'm looking for anything and everything that people would like to share.

p.s. - I did not see anything in the FAQ, so that's why I posted.

Thanks,

Nathan

A Hasid, in the 1st Century sense is one who is able to dispense the mercy of God. Jesus is labeled as such because of his healing miracles and declaration of forgiveness of sins.

Hasids in the modern sense are quite different

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

 

[koilias]

Yes. Hasidim in the first century were pious workers of good deeds. They were very poor because they were devoted to acts of Lovingkindness.

G-d would answer the Hasid's prayer unlike most. He would grant them their requests as a father grants the requests of a child. Hasids therefore had a reputation for being miracle workers, for they had a very intimate relationship with HaShem. They were considered to be in G-d's own household.

Yeshua and Peter were both Hasids. Even being in their shadow would cause miracles. Yeshua told Peter they did not have to pay the temple tax, because they were in the household of G-d (they spent all their efforts instead on helping the sick and the poor), nonetheless to honor the Oral Torah, HaShem provided the temple tax in the fish's mouth.

 

[koilias]

Also, the Talmud records differences between the halakha of the Rabbis and the halakha of the Hasidim.

For example, the halakha of the Rabbis allowed a town to hand over a Jew to the (Roman) authorities, if it would spare the town from destruction. But the halakha of the Hasidim forbid it. The Hasidim were of the opinion that in such a case the people should instead look for G-d's deliverance. The Hasidim always stressed that one should have Faith in G-d. Yeshua always stressed Faith above all.

Another example:

The Rabbis forbid the drinking of water from open containers discovered along a path, in order to prevent one from being poisoned. The Hasidim allowed it, since they declared that it was sin that killed not poison. They assumed that HaShem would look out for them and take away the poison if there was anything ill in the water.

Another example:

The Rabbis said it was allowed to stop the recitation of prayer if a snake began curling around one's leg. The Hasidim said keep praying!

The Hasidim were radicals! No matter what, the choice was always "Have More Faith!" They never forced G-d's hand, except under duress (such as in praying for rain during a drought) but if caught in a situation were one needed to respond with Faith, so much the better!

 

[sojeru]

Koilias,

Quote:
For example, the halakha of the Rabbis allowed a town to hand over a Jew to the (Roman) authorities, if it would spare the town from destruction. But the halakha of the Hasidim forbid it. The Hasidim were of the opinion that in such a case the people should instead look for G-d's deliverance. The Hasidim always stressed that one should have Faith in G-d. Yeshua always stressed Faith above all.

You have this completely wrong.
COMPLETELY!
It was the Rabbis that held the position of which you claim the Hassidim have.
And it is the sadducees that have the position that you give the pharisees.

So, the Sadducees are the ones that would hand over a Jew to save the town
while the Pharisees(Rabbis) would never do such a thing.

please be very careful in what you say- where did you learn that from anyway?

shalom u'brachot

 

[sojeru]

The Hassidim were very near to the Pharisees.

They both held on to the Oral tradition.
They only interpreted it differently than the Prushim.
However, the Hassidim were exterminated just before the Maccabean revolt.
Their death inspired the Maccabees to fight.

The Hassidim died because of the way they interpreted the halacha for shabbat.
That they are not to fight on shabbat- no raising of weapons at all.
They knew that they were going to be under-seige yet they remained.

The Maccabees cried out to Israel and said to the people- let us not be like our brothers the Hassidim though they died in good cause- we will fight on shabbat!
Obviously, the Hassidim did not interpret scripture well.
Even Joshua himself fought on shabbat and so do the pharisees.
I believe the push for more faith is awesome however, the Keeping of Life takes precedence and one is only allowed to die for 3 things.

shalom u'brachot

 

[Henaynei]

So, the Sadducees are the ones that would hand over a Jew to save the town
while the Pharisees(Rabbis) would never do such a thing.

And yet that was *exactly* the stated reason of the P'rushim for turning Yeshua over to the Romans, a reason they later washed up for the Romans by saying he had committed a sin worthy of dead by Israel's laws..

Yochanan18:13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Yochanan 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees at council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

 

[koilias]

And yet that was *exactly* the stated reason of the P'rushim for turning Yeshua over to the Romans, a reason they later washed up for the Romans by saying he had committed a sin worthy of dead by Israel's laws..

Yochanan18:13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Yochanan 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

One should observe here, however, that it was debated among the Pharisees, not all Pharisees could readily accept the halakha of the Sadducees, as Sojeru has noted, they considered the act of "handing over" a Jew very grievious. No Pharisee would have easily agreed with Caiaphas's statement here. Caiaphas knew this and that is why he convened Yeshua's trial at night, so that the Pharisees would not be in attendance and per chance derail the proceedings.

Sojeru, you may be confusing the opinion of some of the Hasidim with those of the Pharisaic sages. I quote here from Professor Shmuel Safrai's article "Jesus and the Hasidim" in the Jerusalem Perspective, Jan/Jun 1994:


...An interesting story...is that of Ulla bar Kosher. It is related that the Roman authorities tried to arrest himand that he fled to Lod. Soldiers surrounded the city and gave an ultimatum: unless Ulla were handed over to them, they would destroy the entire city. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, convinced Ulla to surrender himself, and the city was saved. However, the prophet Elijah, who used to appear to Rabbi Yehoshua on a regular basis, ceased at this point to appear to him.62 When Elijah finally did appear to him again, after Rabbi Yehoshua had fasted many times, Rabbi Yehoshua asked him why he had stopped coming to him. Elijah answered: "Do I appear to informers?" Rabbi Yehoshua responded by saying that he had acted in accordance with halachah and with the mishnah which state that if non-Jews demand that a specific person be handed over, "he should be handed over in order that they [the rest] not be killed."63 The prophet Elijah, however, was angered by this view and said: "Is this the teaching (literally, 'mishnah') of the Hasidim?" According to the teaching of the Hasidim, the residents of the city would not have been harmed had they refused to hand Ulla over to the authorities. Elijah blamed Rabbi Yehoshua for not trusting in God's intervention.


Footnotes:

62. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi numbered among the sages and headed the academy at Lod. However, he also was a Hasid and God performed miracles for him. According to a number of sources, he entered the Garden of Eden without having tasted death (BT Sanhedrin 98a; Makkot lla; Ketubot 77b; Derech Eretz Zuta 1 [end], et al.).

63. This statement (found in JT Terumot VIII, 46b and T Terumot 7:20) is not really a mishnah, but rather a baraita that explains a mishnah.

 

[Henaynei]

chapter 18 events were @ night, true

chapter 11 events were in the daylight and were the Sanhedrin - "Kohen Gadolim v'P'rushim"

while the Pharisees(Rabbis) would never do such a thing.

obviously a bit of an overstatement

 

[koilias]

For the link to the entire article by Shmuel Safrai:

http://articles.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1669

I consider this article the most important I've ever read in discovering the world of Yeshua.

I highly, highly recommend it.

Shmuel Safrai is a Professor of Early Rabbinic Judaism at Hebrew U.

By the way, there may have been a debate on halakhic issues between the Sages and the Hasidim, but this does not mean that they were "separate" traditions. Many Hasids were Rabbis also! Think of the Hasids as an "order", not a different group. One can choose to follow the halakha of one and the other...Not all people have the courage required to live like a Hasid, nor can their model of poverty be accepted by the many.

 

[Henaynei]

For the link to the entire article by Shmuel Safrai:

http://articles.jerusalemperspective.com/articles/DisplayArticle.aspx?ArticleID=1669

I consider this article the most important I've ever read in discovering the world of Yeshua.

I highly, highly recommend it.

Shmuel Safrai is a Professor of Early Rabbinic Judaism at Hebrew U.

Thanks for the link!!!

 

[koilias]

By the way, just an interesting legend passed down to me by my teachers concerning Shmuel Safrai's command of Early Rabbinism. His knowledge on Halakhic texts was such, that he once gave away his copy of the Talmud to a student who needed one, because he no longer used it...He had it all in his head! More than anyone probably in academia today, he knows how to discern the various strands of Halakhic rulings in their historical context and periods.

 

[koilias]

chapter 18 events were @ night, true

chapter 11 events were in the daylight and were the Sanhedrin - "Kohen Gadolim v'P'rushim"

I can agree that some Pharisees (esp. school of Shammai) may have agreed with Caiaphas...but notice the spirit of Caiaphas' statement. It is stated as an arrogant rebuttal:

"You know nothing at all!"...Is that a way to address the Fathers of all Israel!??! Caiaphas sees the argument as even useless to discuss! He is obviously reacting to the obvious reservation of the greater part of the Sanhedrin, the P'rushim, some of whom were arguing for Yeshua's sake (not just Nicodemus). The burden of the proof is on Caiaphas to show that the nation is indeed in danger. The P'rushim want a halakhic basis, which Caiaphas is impudently brushing off!..."It is expendient..." Well, the P'rushim would have needed a lot more than "expedience"!

 

[sojeru]

I like when you say that the Hassids should not be seperate but only an order.
As in, A mission or tradition- such as we see today in Orthodox Judaism.

In fact, I see thatthe Hassidim were an "order"/mission/tradition of what was considered to be JUDAISM, unlike the saddusaic belief systems.
The Nazarean(babylonian) sect was of the same However all of these were under the guidance of what was known as "Pharisaism".

Again, like we have today- in Rabbinical Judaism (pharisaism) there are the sefardics and ashkenazim and the different colors of practices that are contained within.
They will only Marry to those of their tradition yet find that all are one in the same people and are inseperable.

However, according to the statement quoted above concerning the Hasidim and Prushim

QUOTE:
62. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi numbered among the sages and headed the academy at Lod. However, he also was a Hasid and God performed miracles for him. According to a number of sources, he entered the Garden of Eden without having tasted death (BT Sanhedrin 98a; Makkot lla; Ketubot 77b; Derech Eretz Zuta 1 [end], et al.).
---
By the way, just an interesting legend passed down to me by my teachers concerning Shmuel Safrai's command of Early Rabbinism.
******************************

This was obviously not a fault within the normative of the Prushim but specifically with the Hassidim.
But, that depends on what Portion in the Talmud this portion concerning Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is located. IS it Mishna? Or is it Gemara?
If it is Mishna, it is to be taken literally, if it is Gemara, that means it didnt really happen (nor does it matter if it did happen or if it didn't) but the story is expounding on how to interpret Mishna.
That is the purpose of Gemara.

And if you say "legend" passed down by Adon Shmuel Safrai then it is obvious that this is Gemara, and thus must not be taken literally. One has to have a great amount of knowledge of the Literal the Pshat to understand the Remez- the Gemara.
Thus the way that you have applied it here is not in its entirety correct.

Also, the Perushim were known to be from the poor to the lowest middle class of the people. This would include Ebiyonim- who were once in accordance to the way of the Prushim but then deviated after the destruction of the Temple. The Hassidim were also known to be poor, however, not to the point of being deprived which should also be merited to them that they were well within the lower-middle class aswell.
So the Prushim were from the Ebiyonim to the Hassidim

Also, notice to all here
The Pharisees could not have been there during the capture of His Majesty Yeshuah nor during his trial with the sadducees- remember that their search for chametz was that very night- while His Majesty ate the Pesach of the Sadducees.
The sadducees killed His Majesty on the Pesach of the Prushim- the same exact time the Prushim had just killed their Pesach lamb.

A person must stick to the literal - the mishna (mark) to correctly interpret everything else.
none of the other books are literal. So if a person wants some truth in the history- dont look into Luke, Matthew and John--one must look at Mark for the history accounts. Every other book only expounds on a teaching of the Mishna- Mark being the Mishna in this case.

So the portion in John with the Pharisees and Sadducees having a council together to determine what should be done about His Majesty probably never existed- However, what is the teaching there?
The Pharisees had found no where in the Torah nor the Mishna nor in Gemara to subject His Majesty to the gentile authorities. While the Sadducees found it very much the opposite since they interpret the Torah to their own manner.
This is partially what John is saying.

Shalom u'brachot

 

[koilias]

This was obviously not a fault within the normative of the Prushim but specifically with the Hassidim.
But, that depends on what Portion in the Talmud this portion concerning Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi is located. IS it Mishna? Or is it Gemara?

No, your excellecy Sojeru, no Hasid would have allowed a "handing over". Remember these are the same guys who refused to fight on Shabbat! Obviously (following Eliyahu's rebuke) Yehoshua ben Levi had comprimised his Hasidic principles on the matter of Ulla...That is why Eliyahu stopped visiting him!

I agree to disagree...As always, I enjoy learning Torah from you. Please read the article! That covers the whole reasoning behind Adon Safrai's research on the Hasidic layers of Halakha (his research is historical). I believe many of the Rabbis adopted Hasidic doctrine on this specific matter.

 

[sojeru]

Hi Koilias,

my only point is that this is the same reasoning of the Pharisees- and this is what the pharisees were trying to teach their disciples, that it is bad to hand over a Jew, that is why it is in the talmud, especially in the Gemara.
Thus, what I am saying applies- the Pharisees were the ones that stood against the handing over of a Jew, while the sadducees were the ones that would do it because it is "expedient" as the ancient caiaphas had said.

This is in no way speaking against our ancient brothers the Hassidim- but this example was used with a Hassid, for this never happened- but was used to explain Mishna to the pharisaic talmidim.

I dont see how this could be disagreed with.
Only if you say that it actually happened- i guess that is where our disagreement lies- however again- with everything else- i dont see how- the teaching of "not handing over a Jew" to the gentile authorities is pharisaic- if it wasnt, it would be spoken against directly in the Talmud, would it not?
It would support the saddusaic view that His Eminence Caiaphas had supported if the sadducees would hand him over.
The Pharisees have their own beit din and would deal with him as they see fit, as such, this is the position that Hacham Shaul had held when he rebuked the noachites of Corinth telling them " Why do you go to the gentile authorities to settle your disputes? Do you not have a Hacham (wise one-Rabbi) amoungst you?"

Again, the Pharisaic position on handing over a Jew to gentile authorities is as the Hassidim, despite whoever originated it- the pharisees held it as halachah.

shalom u'brachot

 

[koilias]

Hi Koilias,

my only point is that this is the same reasoning of the Pharisees- and this is what the pharisees were trying to teach their disciples, that it is bad to hand over a Jew, that is why it is in the talmud, especially in the Gemara.
Thus, what I am saying applies- the Pharisees were the ones that stood against the handing over of a Jew, while the sadducees were the ones that would do it because it is "expedient" as the ancient caiaphas had said.

This is in no way speaking against our ancient brothers the Hassidim- but this example was used with a Hassid, for this never happened- but was used to explain Mishna to the pharisaic talmidim.

I dont see how this could be disagreed with.
Only if you say that it actually happened- i guess that is where our disagreement lies- however again- with everything else- i dont see how- the teaching of "not handing over a Jew" to the gentile authorities is pharisaic- if it wasnt, it would be spoken against directly in the Talmud, would it not?
It would support the saddusaic view that His Eminence Caiaphas had supported if the sadducees would hand him over.
The Pharisees have their own beit din and would deal with him as they see fit, as such, this is the position that Hacham Shaul had held when he rebuked the noachites of Corinth telling them " Why do you go to the gentile authorities to settle your disputes? Do you not have a Hacham (wise one-Rabbi) amoungst you?"

Again, the Pharisaic position on handing over a Jew to gentile authorities is as the Hassidim, despite whoever originated it- the pharisees held it as halachah.

shalom u'brachot

Thanks for clarifying. While I don't agree completely, I accept your argument as reasonable.

I follow Safrai's argumentation, however, because he has a highly nuanced view of the state of Rabbinic halakhic development. There was still halakhic diversity in the Tannaic period that had not narrowed down. This halakha was hashed out in the later Talmudic period (Gemara stage) and it is here where the Hasidic opinion prevailed. That is why, I believe, this account is reintroduced from Hasidic sources (the Tanna of Eliyahu). If you read Safrai's article notice how he is so good at picking up the subtle friction within the Talmudic sources between the mishnah of Hasidim and that of the Rabbis. Safrai's argument is especially apparent in the teachings refered to in the anti-Hasidic traditions and how much they square with the teachings of Yeshua (as well as Yacob, Markus and Yohannan)...It is one of the most ingenious pieces of scholarship I've ever seen. Essentially, the Notzrim where a Hasidic group.

While the P'rushim did not like the Tzadukim, the Tzadukim were close to the school of Shammai. What we may be seeing here is a left over from the mishnah of the Shammai school. The friction may be between the Hillel school (which favored the Hasidim) and Shammai school (which did not).

Also, an important point, R. Yehoshua ben Levi did not technically break the teaching of the Hassidim. Notice that he CONVINCED Ullah to turn himself over, he did not "hand him over" to the Romans. Eliyahu however still punished R. Yehoshua for even that...shows how serious the matter was among ALL Pharisaic circles.

Shalom u'brakhot.