"A" Torath Mosheh View of Human Suffering and Responsibility

[YoursTrue]

Considering the following. The Mishnah and the Talmud are the earliest written dictionaries/lexicons of the Tanakh. ALL, and I mean all, dictionaries of ancient Hebrew derived their sources of ancient Hebrew starting with the Mishnah and the Talmud. Thus, the only way to understand a Hebrew text from more than 3,500 years that was transcribed with an oral dictionary/lexicon is to go to the people who received the oral dictionary/lexicon and decided to write it down.

Thus, if one wants to undrestand an ancient Hebrew word one has to use the most ancient system to do so - knowing that some concepts can't be easily translated w/o loads of commentary. Further, a person would have to get their commentary from the right place.

Ok when was the oral tradition or law written down beyond the Pentateuch? Here is how one source described it: in part...
"The Talmud is the comprehensive written version of the Jewish oral law and the subsequent commentaries on it. It originates from the 2nd century CE."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ok when was the oral tradition or law written down beyond the Pentateuch? Here is how one source described it: in part...
"The Talmud is the comprehensive written version of the Jewish oral law and the subsequent commentaries on it. It originates from the 2nd century CE."

1. The first surviving written accounts of the Oral Torah are Tehillim (what you call Psalms), Mishlei (which you call proverbs), and Qoheleth (what you call Ecclesiastes).
2. Historically speaking, the prophetic writings in the Tanakh were called Qabbalah (Kabbalah). Often when the Talmud uses the term Qabbalah (Kabbalah) it is talking about the prophets and the writings of the Tanakh. I.e. the non-Torah portions of the Tanakh were originally called Qabbalah (Kabbalah) which means "received."
3. There was other information including mathetical/scientific texts that were once developed by the tribe of Yissachar but much of it was lost in written form when the Assyrians invaded the northern kingdom. The remaining information is found in the Talmuds as well as Midrashim.
4. The Mishnah ~200 C.E.
5. The Gemara ~300-400 C.E. (Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud)

 

[YoursTrue]

1. The first surviving written accounts of the Oral Torah are Tehillim (what you call Psalms), Mishlei (which you call proverbs), and Qoheleth (what you call Ecclesiastes).
2. Historically speaking, the prophetic writings in the Tanakh were called Qabbalah (Kabbalah). Often when the Talmud uses the term Qabbalah (Kabbalah) it is talking about the prophets and the writings of the Tanakh. I.e. the non-Torah portions of the Tanakh were originally called Qabbalah (Kabbalah) which means "received."
3. There was other information including mathetical/scientific texts that were once developed by the tribe of Yissachar but much of it was lost in written form when the Assyrians invaded the northern kingdom. The remaining information is found in the Talmuds as well as Midrashim.
4. The Mishnah ~200 C.E.
5. The Gemara ~300-400 C.E. (Jerusalem Talmud and Babylonian Talmud)

OK, thanks for that. I don't understand what you mean when you say in #1 the first surviving written accounts of the Orah Torah are Tehillim, Mishlei and Qoheleth. In other words, would you say that these were written down before approximately 200 BCE and passed on?
Naturally I'm still on the point as well about the relating of Moses and the Exodus. The fact that his ancestry is related is a form of proof to me that it is real and not made up. But how do you, as an educated person in these things, figure that it really happened and is not a mythical account.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK, thanks for that. I don't understand what you mean when you say in #1 the first surviving written accounts of the Orah Torah are Tehillim, Mishlei and Qoheleth. In other words, would you say that these were written down before approximately 200 BCE and passed on?

The information in them the three texts I mentioned was Torah that was taught to the authors from their fathers and from the Prophets/Scholars of their generation. Dawith (in English often written as David) put some of the information in Tehillim in writing in his generation based on his on musings of the Oral Torah he had been taught by his father, brothers, and the prophet Shumel (in English he is often called Samuel). Dawith's son Shelomo (Solomon) put what David taught in into writing in his generation. Mishlei and Qoheleth is based on the Oral Torah that David taught Shelomo. Copies of that information was made by their students and the copies the oldest surviving copies from descendents of their students is from about 300 BCE to 200 BCE. Although, recently some additional versions was found from the Jewish community of Afganistan.

Afghan Geniza - Wikipedia

The below videos may help a bit more.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Naturally I'm still on the point as well about the relating of Moses and the Exodus. The fact that his ancestry is related is a form of proof to me that it is real and not made up. But how do you, as an educated person in these things, figure that it really happened and is not a mythical account.

The best way to determine if something is historical or mthyical is to take the original documents about said something in the language said documents were written in and go through every source of information about said documents from the actually people who composed or preserved them. Then take that information and investigate the other cultures around the areas of events, also in the languages they wrote in.

If the original people who composed said documents no longer exit then it is easy to write it off as mythical. Especially if there are claims that the original people who composed said documents were supposed to survive.

The attached paper I wrote may help.

 

[YoursTrue]

The information in them the three texts I mentioned was Torah that was taught to the authors from their fathers and from the Prophets/Scholars of their generation. Dawith (in English often written as David) put some of the information in Tehillim in writing in his generation based on his on musings of the Oral Torah he had been taught by his father, brothers, and the prophet Shumel (in English he is often called Samuel). Dawith's son Shelomo (Solomon) put what David taught in into writing in his generation. Mishlei and Qoheleth is based on the Oral Torah that David taught Shelomo. Copies of that information was made by their students and the copies the oldest surviving copies from descendents of their students is from about 300 BCE to 200 BCE. Although, recently some additional versions was found from the Jewish community of Afganistan.

Afghan Geniza - Wikipedia

The below videos may help a bit more.

ok thanks. I have other questions, but suffice it to say that is it for now. I take that back. I do have another question. or two.
I know there are the Babylonian Talmud and another Talmud., I forget the name. I actualIy went to a library in NYC and saw an English version of one of the Talmuds, I forget, but it was probably the shorter one, the Babylonian, I believe it was. It was very, very detailed and required yes -- a long time to even read through it. I did not read through it but I did learn a few things. So the question is: what are the basic differences between the two? When were they put in their final form?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So the question is: what are the basic differences between the two? When were they put in their final form?

Jewish Virtual Library
Jerusalem Talmud
Bavli and Yerushalmi – Similarities and Differences
In comparing the Bavli to the Yerushalmi, scholars have frequently pointed out that the discussions in the Bavli are more long-winded and discursive, involving extensive explanation and abstract conceptualization, forced interpretations of early sources, and so on. The sugyot of the Yerushalmi by comparison are more focused, concrete, and succinct. This comparison, while true insofar as the final texts of these two works are concerned, is nevertheless extremely misleading. As later critical scholarship has pointed out, the Bavli is composed of several distinct literary levels – (1) tannaitic; (2) amoraic; (3) stam ha-talmud – i.e. the literary work of several generations of anonymous redactors (cf. Talmud, Babylonian, The Babylonian Talmud as a Literary Work). Nearly all of the most prominent features which differentiate the Bavli from the Yerushalmi belong to the largely post-amoraic stam ha-talmud stratum of the Bavli. As scholars have pointed out, if one isolates the tannaitic and amoraic strata of the Bavli from the literary embellishments of the stam ha-talmud, the Bavli turns out to be remarkably similar to the Yerushalmi. A comparison of these two works as they stand, therefore, cannot contribute much to an understanding of the difference between two different, but contemporary, talmudic traditions, one in Babylonia and the other in Ereẓ Israel. Rather, such a comparison would primarily serve to highlight the difference between two different stages in the development of a single shared talmudic tradition, which was preserved both in Babylonia and in Ereẓ Israel. Since the Yerushalmi was redacted at least one hundred years before the Bavli, it preserves (by and large) a more original form of this shared talmudic tradition, closer in time and in form to the Talmud of the early and middle amoraim (both Babylonian and Palestinian). The Bavli, on the other hand, represents a later version of this same shared talmudic tradition, one which has incorporated later (mostly Babylonian) amoraic traditions and interpretations, as well as additions, interpretations, and revisions of the stam ha-talmud – all of which stem from the period following the redaction of the Yerushalmi (see Talmud, Babylonian, The Place of the Babylonian Talmud in Rabbinic Literature).

There are, nevertheless, a number of real differences between these two talmudim. First of all, the textual tradition of the Mishnah which is presupposed by the sugyot of the Bavli is often different from that presupposed by the Yerushalmi (see: Mishnah: The Later Development of the Text of the Mishnah; and cf. Epstein, Mishnah, 18–25, 195). Second, the Aramaic language of the Yerushalmi differs from that of the Bavli. The language of the Bavli, which is familiar to most Talmud students, belongs to the eastern branch of Aramaic (which includes Mandaic and Syriac). The language of the Yerushalmi, on the other hand, belongs to the western branch of Aramaic (which includes Samaritan and Palestinian Christian Aramaic), and is unfamiliar to most students trained in the Bavli. This dialect was thoroughly investigated by Dalman, whose work was criticized by Kutscher. However, given the fragmentary nature of Kutscher's own contributions in this field, it would seem that his criticism of Dalman was somewhat exaggerated (Macuch, xxxvii). Stevenson's popular grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic is largely based on Dalman's work, and though it too was dismissed by Kutscher, his judgment is relevant primarily for the professional linguistic scholar, and does not relate to the value of this small book for teachers and students. In the field of lexicography, the situation has been vastly improved by the publication of M. Sokoloff 's Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (1990). Third, the technical terminology of the Yerushalmi is very different from the far more familiar and well-documented terminology of the Bavli. L. Moscovitz has already made a significant contribution toward the clarification of the technical terminology of the Yerushalmi, and it is to be hoped that his continued efforts in this field will soon become available to a wider community of Talmud students.

Only about one-sixth of the Jerusalem Talmud consists of *aggadah, compared with one-third of the Babylonian. This may be due to the fact that in Ereẓ Israel the aggadic element was assembled in special collections, out of which the later Midrashim evolved. There are in fact many aggadic passages in the Yerushalmi which closely resemble parallel passages found in the classic aggadic collections – *Genesis Rabbah, *Leviticus Rabbah, *Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, etc. – though the precise literary and historical relationship between these parallel texts is not always clear (see *Genesis Rabbah). For the relative originality and historical reliability of the Palestinian aggadic tradition as a whole, in comparison with the aggadah of the Bavli, see: Talmud, Babylonian – The Aggadah of the Babylonian Talmud. In the Yerushalmi there is a marked lack of demonology or angelology which looms so large in the Babylonian Talmud, although, contrary to the statement of Ginzburg, shedim ("devils") are mentioned (TJ, Shab. 1:3, 3b; Git. 6:8, 48b). There are many references to sorcery (cf. Sanh. 7:13, 25c and even in a halakhic context, Naz. 7:1, 57a); magic (Shab. 6:9, 8d; cf. TB, Shab. 66b) and astrology (Shab. 6:9, 8d) are also mentioned. There is reference only to the two biblical angels Michael and Gabriel.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jewish Virtual Library
Jerusalem Talmud
Bavli and Yerushalmi – Similarities and Differences
In comparing the Bavli to the Yerushalmi, scholars have frequently pointed out that the discussions in the Bavli are more long-winded and discursive, involving extensive explanation and abstract conceptualization, forced interpretations of early sources, and so on. The sugyot of the Yerushalmi by comparison are more focused, concrete, and succinct. This comparison, while true insofar as the final texts of these two works are concerned, is nevertheless extremely misleading. As later critical scholarship has pointed out, the Bavli is composed of several distinct literary levels – (1) tannaitic; (2) amoraic; (3) stam ha-talmud – i.e. the literary work of several generations of anonymous redactors (cf. Talmud, Babylonian, The Babylonian Talmud as a Literary Work). Nearly all of the most prominent features which differentiate the Bavli from the Yerushalmi belong to the largely post-amoraic stam ha-talmud stratum of the Bavli. As scholars have pointed out, if one isolates the tannaitic and amoraic strata of the Bavli from the literary embellishments of the stam ha-talmud, the Bavli turns out to be remarkably similar to the Yerushalmi. A comparison of these two works as they stand, therefore, cannot contribute much to an understanding of the difference between two different, but contemporary, talmudic traditions, one in Babylonia and the other in Ereẓ Israel. Rather, such a comparison would primarily serve to highlight the difference between two different stages in the development of a single shared talmudic tradition, which was preserved both in Babylonia and in Ereẓ Israel. Since the Yerushalmi was redacted at least one hundred years before the Bavli, it preserves (by and large) a more original form of this shared talmudic tradition, closer in time and in form to the Talmud of the early and middle amoraim (both Babylonian and Palestinian). The Bavli, on the other hand, represents a later version of this same shared talmudic tradition, one which has incorporated later (mostly Babylonian) amoraic traditions and interpretations, as well as additions, interpretations, and revisions of the stam ha-talmud – all of which stem from the period following the redaction of the Yerushalmi (see Talmud, Babylonian, The Place of the Babylonian Talmud in Rabbinic Literature).

There are, nevertheless, a number of real differences between these two talmudim. First of all, the textual tradition of the Mishnah which is presupposed by the sugyot of the Bavli is often different from that presupposed by the Yerushalmi (see: Mishnah: The Later Development of the Text of the Mishnah; and cf. Epstein, Mishnah, 18–25, 195). Second, the Aramaic language of the Yerushalmi differs from that of the Bavli. The language of the Bavli, which is familiar to most Talmud students, belongs to the eastern branch of Aramaic (which includes Mandaic and Syriac). The language of the Yerushalmi, on the other hand, belongs to the western branch of Aramaic (which includes Samaritan and Palestinian Christian Aramaic), and is unfamiliar to most students trained in the Bavli. This dialect was thoroughly investigated by Dalman, whose work was criticized by Kutscher. However, given the fragmentary nature of Kutscher's own contributions in this field, it would seem that his criticism of Dalman was somewhat exaggerated (Macuch, xxxvii). Stevenson's popular grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic is largely based on Dalman's work, and though it too was dismissed by Kutscher, his judgment is relevant primarily for the professional linguistic scholar, and does not relate to the value of this small book for teachers and students. In the field of lexicography, the situation has been vastly improved by the publication of M. Sokoloff 's Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (1990). Third, the technical terminology of the Yerushalmi is very different from the far more familiar and well-documented terminology of the Bavli. L. Moscovitz has already made a significant contribution toward the clarification of the technical terminology of the Yerushalmi, and it is to be hoped that his continued efforts in this field will soon become available to a wider community of Talmud students.

Only about one-sixth of the Jerusalem Talmud consists of *aggadah, compared with one-third of the Babylonian. This may be due to the fact that in Ereẓ Israel the aggadic element was assembled in special collections, out of which the later Midrashim evolved. There are in fact many aggadic passages in the Yerushalmi which closely resemble parallel passages found in the classic aggadic collections – *Genesis Rabbah, *Leviticus Rabbah, *Pesikta de-Rav Kahana, etc. – though the precise literary and historical relationship between these parallel texts is not always clear (see *Genesis Rabbah). For the relative originality and historical reliability of the Palestinian aggadic tradition as a whole, in comparison with the aggadah of the Bavli, see: Talmud, Babylonian – The Aggadah of the Babylonian Talmud. In the Yerushalmi there is a marked lack of demonology or angelology which looms so large in the Babylonian Talmud, although, contrary to the statement of Ginzburg, shedim ("devils") are mentioned (TJ, Shab. 1:3, 3b; Git. 6:8, 48b). There are many references to sorcery (cf. Sanh. 7:13, 25c and even in a halakhic context, Naz. 7:1, 57a); magic (Shab. 6:9, 8d; cf. TB, Shab. 66b) and astrology (Shab. 6:9, 8d) are also mentioned. There is reference only to the two biblical angels Michael and Gabriel.

OK, thanks for that. I am quite certain I looked at the Babylonian Talmud (much shorter than the Jerusalem Talmud, if I remember correctly). And there were opinions of rabbis about various subjects. (If I remember correctly, it was many years ago that I looked, and did not read the entire volumes.) As I was reading your comments I thought it's not like modern day publishing houses which put dated copyrights on their editions.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

OK, thanks for that. I am quite certain I looked at the Babylonian Talmud (much shorter than the Jerusalem Talmud, if I remember correctly). And there were opinions of rabbis about various subjects. (If I remember correctly, it was many years ago that I looked, and did not read the entire volumes.) As I was reading your comments I thought it's not like modern day publishing houses which put dated copyrights on their editions.

1. The Jerusalem Talmud is shorter than the Babylonian Talmud.
2. The Talmuds are not just 'opinions" of rabbis.
   • It includes judicial rulings from various Beith Din/Sanhedrin/Supreme Torah Court starting from the time of Mosheh ben-Amram's Beith Din/Sanhedrin/Supreme Torah Court.
   • Definitions of words and statements from the Tanakh.
   • Definitions of weights, lengths, monatary types, animal species, etc. mentioned in the Tanakh.
   • Descriptions of various historical events such as who wrote/composed each of the texts in the Tanakh, and post Tanakh histories.
   • How to perform various mitzvoth from the Torah - from information received starting from the time when Mosheh ben-Amram led Am Yisrael.
   • Investigations into astromony, biology, botony, and other disciplines of science using the science available to each generation.
   • Debates about the Tanakh - including views that were known to right and wrong.
   • Commentaries and Opinions of all of the above.
   • Sermons of the day.

 

[YoursTrue]

1. The Jerusalem Talmud is shorter than the Babylonian Talmud.

OK, I can't remember which one I read...but thanks. I'm changing that -- I didn't 'read' it, I read a couple of pages.

1. The Talmuds are not just 'opinions" of rabbis.
   • It includes judicial rulings from various Beith Din/Sanhedrin/Supreme Torah Court starting from the time of Mosheh ben-Amram's Beith Din/Sanhedrin/Supreme Torah Court.
   • Definitions of words and statements from the Tanakh.
   • Definitions of weights, lengths, monatary types, animal species, etc. mentioned in the Tanakh.
   • Descriptions of various historical events such as who wrote/composed each of the texts in the Tanakh, and post Tanakh histories.
   • How to perform various mitzvoth from the Torah - from information received starting from the time when Mosheh ben-Amram led Am Yisrael.
   • Investigations into astromony, biology, botony, and other disciplines of science using the science available to each generation.
   • Debates about the Tanakh - including views that were known to right and wrong.
   • Commentaries and Opinions of all of the above.
   • Sermons of the day.

OK, not just opinions. I only read a few pages and figured it was a bit too complicated for me to go through it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Getting back to the OP, here are a few thougths I once recorded on this topic.

 

[Link]

Through God's Name, and if it's applied (God's Name) to hardship, it becomes ease. To curses, and they become blessings. To pain, and it becomes tolerable. Patience is the head of faith.