Ask me anything about Torath Mosheh

[rosends]

What does this say about the support Hashem gave to David in defeating his enemies? [Post 10]

That God saw David as a great warrior who led the people and effected the state of the country as prepared for Solomon's building the temple.

 

[Redemptionsong]

1. To uproot Avodah Zara from the land of Israel.
2. To make sure that the nations who were known to culturally do Avodah Zara in the area were no longer identifiable in the immediate area.
3. Establish the Torah by leading the people of Israel in Torah.
4. To pave the way for there to be a permenant Temple.

So a justifiable war is a bit like a jihad? You make war against the perpetrators of evil, whilst rooting out the evil in your own house.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That God saw David as a great warrior who led the people and effected the state of the country as prepared for Solomon's building the temple.

Can you really wage wars without shedding 'much blood'?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So a justifiable war is a bit like a jihad? You make war against the perpetrators of evil, whilst rooting out the evil in your own house.

A bit of a different concept. See the following.

1. According to Jewish law what is called a (מלחמה מצווה) "War that is Mitzvah" took place against the Kanaanite nations.
   • This particular war was due to Hashem ruling that Avraham ben Terahh's (Abraham's) descendants inheret the land of Kenaan in order to establish the Torah in it.
   • Part of this war was seen as a judgement for the fact that Avodah Zara had been established in the area by the Kenaanites.
   • This is only relevant in the land of Israel and only when Kenaanite culture of Avodah Zara is present.
   • The Israeli king could call for this type of war, only against identifiable Kenaanite nations that did Avodah Zara in the land of Israel and nout outside of the land of Israel.
2. Later a different one called (מלחמת רשות) "War for the borders" was waged against some of the surrounding nations. This war required approval from the Mosaic court in Jerusalem.

The concept of a king in Torath Mosheh history is a political position thus it deals with the political realities that exist in the world.

 

[rosends]

Can you really wage wars without shedding 'much blood'?

Me personally? I don't know -- but there are biblical accounts of populations being driven away, so those wars had less bloodshed and more running.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Can you really wage wars without shedding 'much blood'?

Yes, but it is not always easy to do depending on your enemies tactics.

Remember, the issue is "collateral damage." That is what has to be avoided as much as possible. The other side may make it hard to avoid it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, but it is not always easy to do depending on your enemies tactics.

Remember, the issue is "collateral damage." That is what has to be avoided as much as possible. The other side may make it hard to avoid it.

If David had 'blood on his hands', why do verses 21-24 say that David was rewarded for his righteousness and 'the cleanness of my hands'? The scripture here appears to indicate that David was without iniquity.

 

[rosends]

If David had 'blood on his hands', why do verses 21-24 say that David was rewarded for his righteousness and 'the cleanness of my hands'? The scripture here appears to indicate that David was without iniquity.

that line (in both 2 Sam and Psalms) refers to David's cleanliness in terms of commiting sin, not literal shedding of blood. The following verse qualifies the statement "For I have kept the ways of the LORD
And have not been guilty before my God;"

being engaged in lawful warfare is not iniquity but it does bespeak a warrior mentality which is unsuited for building a house of peace.

 

[Redemptionsong]

that line (in both 2 Sam and Psalms) refers to David's cleanliness in terms of commiting sin, not literal shedding of blood. The following verse qualifies the statement "For I have kept the ways of the LORD
And have not been guilty before my God;"

being engaged in lawful warfare is not iniquity but it does bespeak a warrior mentality which is unsuited for building a house of peace.

Are you claiming that David was without sin?

 

[rosends]

Are you claiming that David was without sin?

No. I am explaining why the two verses you quotes are complementary and not contradictory. The question of whether David was without sin is a different discussion and involves lengthy analyses and explanations starting with the talmudic conversation about it.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

If David had 'blood on his hands', why do verses 21-24 say that David was rewarded for his righteousness and 'the cleanness of my hands'? The scripture here appears to indicate that David was without iniquity.

This is an area that can cause a lot of mistakes in translation. The Hebrew is the place one starts for something like this.

So in order to understand what I will post about this please remove the following English words from your mind - rightousness, cleanness, reward, and iniquity. Once you have removed these English words consider the following.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Are you claiming that David was without sin?

See my explaination in post 31. This is an area where it requires an understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as what said throughuot Torath Mosheh history. The challenge you will have is that in the Western world and in the Christian world the concept of a sin has different meaning than in ancient Hebrew and among Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews.

I.e. you may say the world "sin" in English and intend one thing with it while a Torath Mosheh Jew will say it in English but will mean something completely different based on the fact that ancient Hebrew didn't have one word to describe a mistep of the Torah. There are several words used that mean different types of misteps. Most translation often use the word "sin" for all of them even when they don't mean the same thing. For example, a (חטא) and an (עוון) are not the same type of trangression of the Torah. They carry different reasons as to why a person did something and what the source was for them doing it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

See my explaination in post 31. This is an area where it requires an understanding of ancient Hebrew as well as what said throughuot Torath Mosheh history. The challenge you will have is that in the Western world and in the Christian world the concept of a sin has different meaning than in ancient Hebrew and among Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews.

I.e. you may say the world "sin" in English and intend one thing with it while a Torath Mosheh Jew will say it in English but will mean something completely different based on the fact that ancient Hebrew didn't have one word to describe a mistep of the Torah. There are several words used that mean different types of misteps. Most translation often use the word "sin" for all of them even when they don't mean the same thing. For example, a (חטא) and an (עוון) are not the same type of trangression of the Torah. They carry different reasons as to why a person did something and what the source was for them doing it.

God was clearly not happy with aspects of David's life, such as his lust for Bathsheba, and treatment of Uriah [2 Samuel 11:15]. He was also unhappy at David for the unnecessary shedding of blood [1 Chronicles 22:6-8].

It is not hard to reach the conclusion that David had not achieved God's level of righteousness, which is perfect in every way.

Having said this, did David, nevertheless, achieve righteousness under the law? By this l mean, did David do everything that was written in the law of Moses?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

There are some issues here that do not revolve around language!

It is 100% language based and knowing what the termonology means in Hebrew. You don't have to take my word for it though.

God was clearly not happy with aspects of David's life, such as his lust for Bathsheba, and treatment of Uriah [2 Samuel 11:15]. He was also unhappy at David for the unnecessary shedding of blood [1 Chronicles 22:6-8].

It is not hard to reach the conclusion that David had not achieved God's level of righteousness, which is perfect in every way.

The challenge you will have is that you are reading a translation, which all translations are commentary. Christians commentaries are subject to Christian concepts which are not not derived from the Hebrew Tanakh but instead from post new testament concept and theology. Your concept of "sin" and "rightousness" is not dervied from the Hebrew text nor from the authors of the Hebrew text.

Thus, as I stated Westerners and Christians mean something different when they use these terms than what Jews who know Hebrew who chose to engage in English mean when they use them.

Having said this, did David, nevertheless, achieve righteousness under the law. By this l mean, did David do everything that was written in the law of Moses?

As mentioned before if you want to understand that you will need to remove/put to the side the words/statements "rightousness" "law" and "law of Moses." If you are willing to put these terms away and undrestand the Torath Mosheh position on the core of your questions I can explain it to you from what the Hebrew Tanakh states. Would you be willing?

 

[Redemptionsong]

It is 100% language based and knowing what the termonology means in Hebrew. You don't have to take my word for it though.



The challenge you will have is that you are reading a translation, which all translations are commentary. Christians commentaries are subject to Christian concepts which are not not derived from the Hebrew Tanakh but instead from post new testament concept and theology. Your concept of "sin" and "rightousness" is not dervied from the Hebrew text nor from the authors of the Hebrew text.

Thus, as I stated Westerners and Christians mean something different when they use these terms than what Jews who know Hebrew who chose to engage in English mean when they use them.



As mentioned before if you want to understand that you will need to remove/put to the side the words/statements "rightousness" "law" and "law of Moses." If you are willing to put these terms away and undrestand the Torath Mosheh position on the core of your questions I can explain it to you from what the Hebrew Tanakh states. Would you be willing?

I am happy to use words found in an acceptable English translation.

I have a copy of the 1985 JPS Tanakh, which is not based on the KJV. Will you accept their transliteration?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am happy to use words found in an acceptable English translation.

If you look at the title of the Thread and the OP this is not about an English translation. This thread is about Torath Mosheh. English translations are not valid sources for understanding the Hebrew Tanakh for Torath Mosheh Jews.

I have a copy of the 1985 JPS Tanakh, which is not based on the KJV. Will you accept their transliteration?

No. If you look at the JPS introduction it explains what method they used to render thier English. Further, the thread are questions to Torath Mosheh. The Hebrew Text in the language it was written in is THE official source for all Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. The JPS is not an official source or an accepted source for Torath Mosheh Jews. Thus, if you have a question I will answer from accepted an autoratative Torath Mosheh sources.

So, are you interested in a Torah Mosheh answer to your question?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I am happy to use words found in an acceptable English translation.

I have a copy of the 1985 JPS Tanakh, which is not based on the KJV. Will you accept their transliteration?

In case you missed it, the following two points were made in the OP.

Ehav Ever stated in the OP:

2. In all questions I will try to provide what the source material actually says, in the language we Torath Mosheh consider authoratative, then I will explain what it means.

3. Be prepared that I will provide sources for what I explain. Details are important to Torath Mosheh Jews.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you look at the title of the Thread and the OP this is not about an English translation. This thread is about Torath Mosheh. English translations are not valid sources for understanding the Hebrew Tanakh for Torath Mosheh Jews.



No. If you look at the JPS introduction it explains what method they used to render thier English. Further, the thread are questions to Torath Mosheh. The Hebrew Text in the language it was written in is THE official source for all Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews. The JPS is not an official source or an accepted source for Torath Mosheh Jews. Thus, if you have a question I will answer from accepted an autoratative Torath Mosheh sources.

So, are you interested in a Torah Mosheh answer to your question?

Maybe you should stick to communicating in Hebrew with Hebrew speakers, and not attempt to explain anything in English.

It's a pretty pointless thread if you are unable to explain anything without resort to Hebrew!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Maybe you should stick to communicating in Hebrew with Hebrew speakers, and not attempt to explain anything in English.

It's a pretty pointless thread if you are unable to explain anything without resort to Hebrew!

Everything was clearly written in the OP.

Besides, I translated for you exactly what the original text says.

Maybe it is possible that you don't have a question about Torath Mosheh.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Everything was clearly written in the OP.

Besides, I translated for you exactly what the original text says.

Maybe it is possible that you don't have a question about Torath Mosheh.

I worded my question as plainly as possible!

Let me try a different avenue.

Is the 'rock' of 2 Samuel 22:3 the same 'rock' as mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:4? Is 'the way of God' perfect?