Jesus said to keep the law of Moses

Jesus said one has  to  keep all the commandments of the Written and Oral Law.
["Not one word of the Law of Moses will ever be nullified." "The Pharisees sit on Moses seat. so all they say to do one must do."]


I was never able to see in the actions or words that are recorded in the name of Jesus anything but a call to keep the holy Torah, and avoid hypocrites. There is nothing to indicate otherwise to me.

But it occurred to me  a few day ago why Christians do not see things in this way?

It depends on your starting point. If you start with Paul and  the Book of Hebrews, and then work backwards towards the four gospels, then you can see how Christians take the words of Jesus and get them to fit into the worldview of Paul.

I feel that my approach is more accurate, but I can see why Christians see things differently based on their starting point.

As my brother put it, he (Jesus) is  comparable to R. Shimon Ben Yohai.  Same message same kind of expressions. (I was thinking more along the lines of R. Hanina Ben Dosa, the miracle worker, who also was highly misunderstood.) Maybe it makes sense to go into this in detail, but I am pretty sure I am not the first person to notice this. [Daniel  Defoe also noted that Paul never said Jews need not keep the Law and he goes into great detail about that.]

I can't look anything up but perhaps I should write a drop off hand to make it clear what I mean.
(1) Heaven and Earth are still around therefore one has to keep all the Mitzvot, since "Heaven and earth will pass away but not one jot or title of the Law of Moses."

(2) Being the "son of Man" (as Jesus said he is) is not the same as being God.

(3) Nor is being the son of God the same as being God. The angels are called בני האלהים [children of God] in Job. In Genesis the בני האלהים "children of God came upon the daughters of man and gave birth." All the Jewish people are called the "children of God" in Exodus. They are called "בני בכורי" "my child, my first born" when Moses was telling Pharaoh to let them go. "Let my son, my first born Israel go!"
(4) Revival was a miracle done by the prophet Elisha in Kings and also Eliyahu the prophet and that does not indicate either Elisha or Eliyahu were God.
(5) When someone called Jesus, "good," he said, "Do not call me good. Only call God 'good.'"
(6) Contrary to the book of Hebrews, the Law of Moses is the life and the good. "These are the commandments that one should do and by doing so he will live"--Leviticus.  "I place before you this day life and the good, and death and evil. Therefore choose life to walk in the commandments of God"-Deuteronomy.

The prophets end with "Remember the Law of Moses" Malachi.

The commandments do not sound like they temporary as long as one wants "the life and the good."


I should mention that in spite of all this people that make a show of keeping the commandments and expect to get paid for doing so as the ultra religious do are also not keeping the law of God and there is good reason to run from them.

(7) The book of Hebrews makes it clear that the Law of God is a burden and bad thing. It could not be more clear even if he had wanted to be. That is in direct contradiction to everything it says in the Law of Moses about the Law being a good thing. And in contradiction to Jesus himself that the law will never pass away. Therefore you have to say that the approach of Jesus and that of the author of the book of Hebrews is not the same.--as long as words mean something.

(8) Mixing dirt and water on Shabat is subject to an argument among the rishonim. See the Rosh [Rabbainu Asher]. So there is no reason to think Jesus was violating the Shabat.

(9) Eating grains from attached sheaves on Shabat is not violating Shabat if the sheaves are ripe already are no longer getting sustenance from the ground.

(10) Swearing by the altar in the Holy Temple is an argument among the sages of the Mishna as brought in Tractate Nedarim and Jesus was going with the opinion of R. Yehuda. Not that he was disagreeing with the sages.

These are merely a small sample of what occurs to me off hand about this. But you can already see where I am going with all this. Churchianity has nothing to do with Jesus. If one wants to follow  Jesus he need to learn and keep the Law of Moses and the Oral commentary.

And just to lay my cards on the table what I am suggesting is for people to learn the whole written law in Hebrew {That is the Old Testament} word for word. Plus the Oral Law which also is very easy if you simply start at the beginning of Tractate Brachot and just say page after page as fast as possible until you have finished the two Talmuds the Sifra Sifri Mechilta Tora, Kohanim and the Midrash Raba and Midrash Tanchuma.(I personally prefer to do this kind of thing with Rashi and Tosphot but you do not have to. You can do instead just the simple basic oral law itself with no commentary if you want.)

Or for beginners that do not know Hebrew what they could do is to get Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's Horev which gives  a great introduction to the Torah.

The setback to all this is that the t groups that claim to be keeping the Law of Moses are all terrible cults, and it is not my intention for people to get involved in any of those horrific, demonic cults. For this reason I have tried to mention on this blog the importance of Litvak {Lithuanian}yeshivas based on the path of the Gra and Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and to avoid all the cults. Or to learn Torah at home.

Appendix:

I should mention:I grew up in John Birch society area. It was basically WASP and very nice. I kind of had a glimpse of Old American Values, and it was a really nice world. So I have a certain degree of respect for those kinds of values. But the values of Jesus and the Talmud are exactly the same, -only Paul comes out making a different religion.
   

Where do you see this in the Talmud? Mainly in books of Musar. The Talmud itself is not concerned with the larger issues of morals and compassion but with law. It was the later Musar books that condensed the basic world view of the Torah into simple forms that you can see this. The idea of compassion being central in Torah is clear in Musar and the sermon on the mount is mainly word for word what you find in Reshit Chachma at the end where is brought ancient teachings from the second Temple period.

So even though Christians have a great deal for respect for Jesus -and that is a good thing-still their interpretations of him seem to me to be very much contrary to everything that Jesus himself thought and said.

 Mark Twain has an essay that is very favorable towards the Jewish people and his ideas are accurate  as per his time. But things nowadays seem different. As the world has changed so the situation with Jewish people.  My own impression about this kind of thing is what Reb Shmuel Berenbaum, used to say:"Learn Torah." 

That is to say there are issues that sometimes I have some idea about. and other times I don't. Lots of issues have arisen in my life in which clarity was lacking. I have found the best advice is to learn Torah. The issues facing the Jewish people today seem very different from the ones that people were asking Mark Twain about. 

On modern day issues, I have some clarity. He mentioned about Dr Herzel in his characteristic ironic way. I am basically impressed with Zionism and the State of Israel.  Today when Ultra-Religious people disparage the State of Israel, I feel they are simply anti-Semites.

 Mark Twain's ideas also relate to Jewish pride. I have encountered that a lot, and it is hard to say much about it. Some people think that being Jewish makes them morally superior or mentally superior. Maybe in Mark Twain’s days, but nowadays that seems false.

But on the subject of Jewish nationalism—the idea of nationalism is gaining nowadays momentum. That means even people that are for a kind of renewal of American nationalism see the kind of Jewish nationalism the State of Israel was built on is a good thing.

I do not have strong feelings about this. I feel what is important to a Jew is the Oral and Written Law of God. Not Jewish identity.

Still the idea (of nationalism) is not bad. Anti Zionism is a mistake that the entire Religious community shares, but is mainly embodied in the writings of the Rav of Satmer. I think he was a great man, but made a very serious error. And that error has become  a part of the Ultra Religious world—to be anti Zionist, or at least cold about the State of Israel.

 My parents supported the State of Israel.

Nationalism itself has support from Howard Bloom and Hegel. The group—the super organism is certainly important to people.  But in what way I am not sure. In the Torah itself, keeping God’s laws are what is important,-- not what group one belongs to.

Most yeshivas are part of the problem

Most yeshivas [but not all] are part of the problem, not the solution. They turn out kids barely wet behind the ears, who then expect to automatically be prepared to serve a congregation, or other people. Which they can’t. I’ve tried telling them this before, that serving God is not a career. You don’t go to school for it. They will not suffer to hear. Instead, I’m the problem.

 There are however the great Litvak yeshivas  that realize that learning Torah is not a supposed to be a business to make money from.

The Guide of the Rambam

The Guide of the Rambam states that stars have knowledge. This is rather easy to understand based on Quantum Mechanics and the two slit experiment. The electron knows when there are two slits and when there is just one. So when there are two it acts as a wave and interferes with itself producing an interference pattern.  When there is only one slit, it knows to reduce itself into a particle. Matter has Daat. This is easily explained with Neo Platonic thought.

The approach to marriage that seems best to me is the way that it basically worked for me. I put off going to university for some years and instead decided to go to a Lithuanian kind of Yeshiva. In yeshiva things were on the fast track to lead to marriage. Every week there was at least one "Vort." [announcement] I felt left out but from many indications the Rosh Yeshiva was planning on me for his son in law. So other offers were dried up. In the meantime I kept up a friendship with a girl I knew in Beverly Hills High school.  I explained to her on the phone a few times what Torah is about and she got all excited about it, and started herself implying she was interested in a shiduch [marriage] with me. Eventually I took the second girl -the one from California. But marriage then was of a different nature than it is today. Though this is hard to explain. The basic idea is you have two people going into a relationship in which the rules and obligations are clear and accepted by them and by everyone around them.
This is very difficult to explain in a modern context.

I am not saying this is better or worse than Marriage in the modern world. But my point is that it is "Rule Based." where the rules are very well spelled out.


It is not just that you and your wife accept the rules of the Torah. It is that the whole world around you also does.



What are the rules? Mainly you have to spend  about a year on each major tractate in Nashim [Mishna] to get an idea. That is one year on Ketubot, one year on Kidushin, another on Gittin, etc.

There is also I have to mention the invaluable Sidur of Yaakov Emden which has a part in it which goes into marriage in detail.


The main reason why I emphasis a Lithuanian yeshiva is that that is the kind of place where as a rule the Sitra Achra is excluded. That is they go mainly with the Gra and Rav Shach and keep out the Dark Side. I mean to say in the large context of the Religious world, the Sitra Achra is in control. (This is why people that become religious in general become bad people and lose whatever good character they may have had beforehand.) So in terms of those who try to keep Torah most are infected by the virus of the Sitra Achra without their being aware of it. So to get any benefit out of Torah in a way that one does not lose more by becoming an agent of the Dark Side, this is only possible in a Litvak environment.

[I should mention that Reb Nachman himself was very aware of this problem and warned about it. But the only group that got his point is the Na Nach people.]

The Rambam (Maimonides) has a V shaped approach to history.

The Rambam (Maimonides) has a V shaped approach to history. That is Adam Harishon [אדם הראשון] starts out on top and then falls with his descendants. Then starts the slow climb. The first step in the climb is נימוסי היוונים the laws of Ancient Greece, [Sparta and Athens]. The Rambam says these were revealed to Avraham Avinu (אברהם אבינו Abraham the patriarch).  Natural Law. This step he says is necessary for the next step -Matan Torah.
Maimonides in part III chapter 34 of the Guide: concerning the Natural Law discovered by Avraham: "Indeed all things proceed from one deity and one agent and "have been given from one shepherd" (Prov. 30:12-13) ...In view of this consideration, it also will not be possible that the laws be dependent on changes in the circumstances of the individuals and of the times, as is the case with regard to medical treatment, which is particularized for every individual in conformity with his present temperament. On the contrary governance of the Law ought to be absolute and universal, including everyone..." 

The Rambam also gives reasons for the commandments. To him many of the commandments are to bring to natural law.

This seems like a contradiction. I noticed this before but the way I approach this is thus: There are two levels objective morality [that exists separately from the observer], and numinous value (luminous, holy value).
Both exist in each command of the Torah. Not one kind of value in one command and another in a different command.

So in doing a command like learning Torah there is one aspect of value ones gains, but the higher level of value only comes with proper attitude. To learn "Torah Lishma," for its own sake and not for money. 

So when we have the argument between rabbi shimon ben yochai and the sages about דורשין טעמא דקרא that means to r. shimon we go by the known reason for the command and when that does not apply then the command does not apply and nor is there any higher reason of numinous value in such a case. But the sages say we are not דורשין טעמא דקרא meaning that though the reason for the command based on natural law does not apply still the numinous value still applies

________________________________________________________________________________


The רמב''ם has a ט shaped approach to history. That is אדם הראשון starts out on top and then falls with his descendants. Then starts the slow climb. The first step in the climb is נימוסי היוונים  that is the laws of Ancient Greece, Sparta and Athens. The רמב''ם says these were revealed to אברהם אבינו .  Natural Law. This step he says is necessary for the next step מתן תורה.
The רמב''ם also gives reasons for the commandments. To him many of the commandments are to bring to natural law.

This seems like a contradiction. The way I approach this is thus. There are two levels objective morality , that exists separately from the observer, and   luminous, holy value.
Both exist in each command of the Torah. Not one kind of value in one command and another in a different command.

So in doing a command like learning Torah there is one aspect of value ones gains, but the higher level of value only comes with proper attitude. To learn "Torah Lishma," for its own sake and not for money. 

So when we have the argument between ר. שמעון בן יוחאי and the sages about דורשין טעמא דקרא that means to ר.  שמעון בן יוחאי we go by the known reason for the command and when that does not apply then the command does not apply and nor is there any higher reason of numinous value in such a case. But the sages say we are not דורשין טעמא דקרא meaning that though the reason for the command based on natural law does not apply still the numinous value still applies

________________________________________________________________________________



 לרמב''ם יש גישה  להיסטוריה בצורת ט. כלומר אדם הראשון מתחיל על גבי ההר ואז נופל עם צאצאיו לגבעה. ואז מתחיל בטיפוס האיטי. הצעד הראשון בטיפוס הוא נימוסי היוונים היינו  חוקי יוון העתיקה, ספרטה ואתונה. רמב''ם אומר אלה נגלו לאברהם אבינו. חוק הטבע. הרמב''ם אומר יש צורך לצעד הזה  לשלב הבא של מתן תורה. הרמב''ם גם נותן טעמי המצוות. לו רבים מן המצוות הם להביא את לחוקי טבע. זה נראה כמו סתירה. הדרך שאני מתקרב לזה כך. ישנן שתי רמות. מטרה מוסרית, שקיים בנפרד מן הצופה, וערך זורח, ערך קדוש. שניהם קיימות בכל פקודה של התורה. לא שיש סוג אחד של ערך בפקודה אחת, ואחת בפקודה שונה. אז לעשות פקודה כמו ללמוד תורה יש עליות מוסרית, אבל הרמה הגבוהה יותר של הערך מגיעה רק עם גישה נכונה היינו ללמוד "תורה לשמה" לשמה ולא עבור כסף.  עכשיו יש לנו את הויכוח בין ר. שמעון בן יוחאי והחכמים על דורשין טעמא דקרא. זה אומר  ר. שמעון בן יוחאי  אומר  הולכים לפי הסיבה הידועה עבור הפקודה, וכשזה אינו חל אז הפקודה אינה חלה.  והסיבה הגבוהה של המצווה אינה שייכת במצב כזה. אך החז"ל אומרים שאנחנו לא דורשין טעמא דקרא, כלומר אם הסיבה הפקודה המבוססת על חוקי טבע אינה חלה, עדיין הערך הגבוה עדיין חל.

There is kind of Achilles heel in yeshivas. Some trip wire that people fall for. I am not sure what it is exactly but it perhaps is  a kind of superiority complex.

It is hard for me to recommend yeshivas.The reason is they purposely try to recruit people from university and say to come to the yeshiva to learn Torah all day. Then when one does this, and things are not working out for him as well as he expected, they treat him like dirt.
It is like the just want to recruit the beautiful people [college students with rich parents] because it gives them a good image, so as to be able to con and scam more people in giving them charity. Because after all is said and done, that is all it is about. They pretend it is a living, but all it really is is charity.


The idea of learning Torah is to come to two things objective morality and numinosity. But this does not happen if on learns for money. That is why the yeshivas are not effective any more in creating good character.

Torah is only effective in bringing to objective morality when it is learned for its own sake--not as a means to make money.

When people learn Torah for money that creates a kind of vicious personality. They have a need to show that somehow they are more deserving of people's charity than others. So if others are also learning Torah, the first groups has to show they are somehow superior. And if someone comes along that also wants to learn Torah that creates a situation where the first groups feels the need to put down and be rid of the second guy. It is rare to find much god in this system.

The only yeshivas I can truly recommend and think they are learning Torah for its own sake are the well known Litvak yeshivas Ponovitch, Mir, Brisk,Chaim Berlin, Torah VeDaat.