what is the essence/core belief of judaism?

Tumah said:

I saw your original comment and after mulling it over I was about to respond that maybe I don't really understand Christianity's original sin. Then I come back and see this!

I think that this may be the discrepancy. That Judaism sees the Adam's sin as causing humanity to lose a level of perfection that requires rectification through death, but doesn't mean that man will sin as evidenced by the four mentioned above who were sinless but still died. And I guess Christianity sees it that man must sin.

Click to expand...

I'm probably not the best person to bring this up with, and maybe I shouldn't have responded at all, as I don't see the Fall narrative in any literalistic manner. To me, correct or not, I see it in symbolic terms by reading between the lines, namely that "sin" is a matter of choice and that it involves disobeying God. To view it as inherited in any way really simply doesn't resonate with me, as it would be like putting you on trial because one of your great-grandfathers committed murder.

@metis , do you see the narrative as intended allegory or as etiological lore open to rich allegorical reframing?

Jayhawker Soule said:

Briefly: Jacob Milgrom in The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers notes regarding Numbers 35:25 ...

As the High Priest atones for Israel's sis through his cultic service in his lifetime (Exod. 28:36; Lev. 16:16,21), so he atones for homicide through his death. Since the blood of the slain, although spilled accidentally, cannot be avenged through the death of the slayer, it is ransomed through the death of the High Priest, which releases all homicides from their cities of refuge.That it is not the exile of the manslayer but the death of the High Priest that expiates his crime is confirmed by the Mishnah: "If, after the slayer has been sentenced as an accidental homicide, the High Priest dies, he need not go into exile." The Talmud, in turn, comments thereon: "But is it not the the exile that expiates? It is not the exile that expiates, but the death of the High Priest." [pg. 294]​

Milgrom then refers the reader to Excursus 76 that more fully addresses the biblical concept of bloodguilt, the consequent pollution of the land, and the expiation required.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting take but I think the last Tosfos on 11b uproots that. He brings the Mechilta which says that exile is the atonement. Therefore the "atonement" here is meant to be understood as absolving him of his need for exile. The Gemarah is saying that even though his sentence is to be exiled, its not the going into exile that fulfills the requirement of his punishment (as opposed to say, receiving the sentence for 39 lashes would be fulfilled through receiving the lashes), but the death of the High Priest. But the actual atonement, is as the Mechilta says, through the exile.

metis said:

I'm probably not the best person to bring this up with, and maybe I shouldn't have responded at all, as I don't see the Fall narrative in any literalistic manner. To me, correct or not, I see it in symbolic terms by reading between the lines, namely that "sin" is a matter of choice and that it involves disobeying God. To view it as inherited in any way really simply doesn't resonate with me, as it would be like putting you on trial because one of your great-grandfathers committed murder.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised! I was only correct a misconception you seemed to have had about some Jews.

Tumah said:

That's an interesting take but I think the last Tosfos on 11b uproots that. He brings the Mechilta which says that exile is the atonement. Therefore the "atonement" here is meant to be understood as absolving him of his need for exile. The Gemarah is saying that even though his sentence is to be exiled, its not the going into exile that fulfills the requirement of his punishment (as opposed to say, receiving the sentence for 39 lashes would be fulfilled through receiving the lashes), but the death of the High Priest. But the actual atonement, is as the Mechilta says, through the exile.

Click to expand...

First of all, thanks for the dialogue.

So would it be fair to say that you see the accidental killing of a person as proof of insufficient prayer on the part of the High Priest (or High Priest in waiting) and that the death of this complicit priest should be construed as just and necessary punishment even in cases where the death occurs naturally, peacefully, and many years after the accident?

Parenthetically ...

Jayhawker Soule said:

First of all, thanks for the dialogue.

So would it be fair to say that you see the accidental killing of a person as proof of insufficient prayer on the part of the High Priest (or High Priest in waiting) and that the death of this complicit priest should be construed as just and necessary punishment even in cases where the death occurs naturally, peacefully, and many years after the accident?

Click to expand...

Sure. Death is always called an atonement, even when it occurs peacefully. I think there is somewhat of a parallel to this in the case of decapitated calf of Deut. 21:1-9 where the elders of the city are held somewhat responsible for a death that occurs within their jurisdiction. The High Priest has jurisdiction over all of Israel. And in both cases, they are not held directly responsible for the death, but culpable enough as to require some modicum of atonement.

Tumah said:

Sure. Death is always called an atonement, even when it occurs peacefully. I think there is somewhat of a parallel to this in the case of decapitated calf of Deut. 21:1-9 where the elders of the city are held somewhat responsible for a death that occurs within their jurisdiction. The High Priest has jurisdiction over all of Israel. And in both cases, they are not held directly responsible for the death, but culpable enough as to require some modicum of atonement.

Click to expand...

Thanks again.

Skywalker said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you referring to original sin and Jesus's death on the cross? I read somewhere that Judaism disagrees with the concept of original sin an the idea the Messiah atones for sins, but is that what you are referring to?

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not an expert on Christianity. That could be what those three converts were referring to. I see that other Jews have gone on discussions of sin and atonement within Judaism. Also I skimmed the Wiki article comparing Judaism to Christianity and it looked okay.

Skywalker said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you referring to original sin and Jesus's death on the cross? I read somewhere that Judaism disagrees with the concept of original sin an the idea the Messiah atones for sins, but is that what you are referring to?

Click to expand...

The view I've usually heard from Christians, especially Protestant Christians, is that God is a one-strike-you're-out God, where if you sin even once in your whole life, you'll be tortured in Hell forever. Not only that, but because of their concept of Original Sin, it means that you literally cannot avoid being deemed Hellbound, that God will definitely torture you in Hell forever even if you've never done or thought any bad things ever. Unless you believe that Jesus died in your place to atone for those sins, Christianity says, and if you believe that, then you'll definitely 100% be assured you'll go to Heaven when you die. The idea of a one-strike-you're-out God seems bizarre to Judaism, and the idea of being sure you know you'll be going to Heaven or not, and I would say seems immoral of God to judge that way. Judaism generally states that God weighs good things and bad things you do in your life--"sins" are "bad things you do," not an infection from Adam's time--and will use His divine judging-abilities to decide whether you've lived a mostly good life or mostly sinful life. That's based on "God-level" knowledge which mortals cannot know, but can guess based on God's Torah (Law/Pentateuch).

Plus, most Jews don't believe in a Hell where God has you tortured forever, either, but there is punishment for sinful behavior.

And yes, it's statistically likely that at some point in any human's life, he or she will sin, but it's statistically likely that he or she will also do good deeds, and as I said, it's bizarre to Jews to think that if you sin even just once, you'll never get to Heaven.

It seems unfair and strange to think that if you believe a certain thing (such as Jesus' death), you are free from ever being punished by God for your sins, no matter what you do. Where is the accountability for your actions? Good and bad no longer matter in the world, only Messiah or not-Messiah? It's bizarre to Jewish ears. It is claimed by Christians and Jews that God is the ultimate judge of good vs. evil....

metis said:

The issue of "the Messiah" in our faith is relatively minor when compared to the Covenant and the Law. Even if there's no messiah coming because we screwed up on our interpretations, Judaism still stands well on it's own.

However, the same is not true with Christianity, whereas Jesus supposedly being "the Messiah" and the literal "son of God", who's supposedly needed for "salvation" is of paramount importance.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between the Covenant and the Law? Arent they basically the same thing, since Jewish law is all in the Covenant of Moses (eve later rabbinical law is based on it)? Or I could be wrong, since may Jewish festivals and holidays come out of the Covenant, and nonreligious Jews who dont believe/follow the law practice them.

Skywalker said:

What's the difference between the Covenant and the Law? Arent they basically the same thing, since Jewish law is all in the Covenant of Moses (eve later rabbinical law is based on it)? Or I could be wrong, since may Jewish festivals and holidays come out of the Covenant, and nonreligious Jews who dont believe/follow the law practice them.

Click to expand...

The covenant is the relationship between God and man while the law is the codification of behavior and obligations on man.

Skywalker said:

What's the difference between the Covenant and the Law? Arent they basically the same thing, since Jewish law is all in the Covenant of Moses (eve later rabbinical law is based on it)? Or I could be wrong, since may Jewish festivals and holidays come out of the Covenant, and nonreligious Jews who dont believe/follow the law practice them.

Click to expand...

Most of what we do, including the festivals, are not found in the Covenant but come from the Law, although the both do eventually intertwine. Remember that the Covenant came out of God's promise to Abraham, commemorated by the circumcision of boys eight days after birth, which long predated the giving of the Mosaiic Law.

rosends said:

The covenant is the relationship between God and man while the law is the codification of behavior and obligations on man.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the law in Judaism all come from the Mosaic Covenant, though?

Skywalker said:

Doesn't the law in Judaism all come from the Mosaic Covenant, though?

Click to expand...

The covenant is what established the responsibility of the people to keep the law.

Skywalker said:

Doesn't the law in Judaism all come from the Mosaic Covenant, though?

Click to expand...

Oops, when I read your previous post and saw "Covenant", I thought you were confusing the Abrahamic Covenant with the Mosaiic Law, but now I notice that it was I who misread your post. Sorry about that.

rosends said:

The covenant is what established the responsibility of the people to keep the law.

Click to expand...

Are there any things included in the Covenant that arent considered Jewish law, and vice versa? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the essence mostly Old Testament (or Torah) laws?

Skywalker said:

Are there any things included in the Covenant that arent considered Jewish law, and vice versa? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the essence mostly Old Testament (or Torah) laws?

Click to expand...

The covenant includes the promises and the details of the blessings (and curses) which result from (non)compliance with the laws. They aren't laws themselves, but are essential components of the covenant. The Torah is a combination of narrative, heritage and laws. While there are many laws, there is also a whole lot besides that. In fact, the first prescriptive law doesn't show up until right before the exodus.

rosends said:

In fact, the first prescriptive law doesn't show up until right before the exodus.

Click to expand...

The third. You forgot pru u'rvu and milah.

Tumah said:

The third. You forgot pru u'rvu and milah.

Click to expand...

true and I could list a couple of other maybes, but I meant as a people under the auspices of Moshe (hachodesh hazeh lachem).