The Talmud on Logos Bible Software

Jacob Neusner

I recently read in an article by Michael Brown,

According to b. Yoma 39b, God did not accept the sacrifices that were offered on the Day of Atonement for the last forty years before the destruction of the [Second] Temple (this was known to the people by means of a series of special signs, all of which turned up negative for those forty years; see b. Yoma 39a). The Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e., so from 30 to 70 c.e., a period of forty years, the annual atonement sacrifices were not accepted. What great event happened in the year 30? Jesus was rejected and nailed to a cross! Is it possible that God no longer accepted the atonement sacrifices because the Messiah had offered himself as the perfect, final sacrifice? [1]

He cites a couple of references to the Babylonian Talmud as a source for point.  In the past, I couldn't quickly and conveniently look up his source to read it firsthand.  But with Logos recently releasing Neusner's translation of both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, this problem is no more.  A quick look up and I was able to read:

He said to them, "Every Day of Atonement, appears to me an old man dressed in white and cloaked in white, who enters with me and goes forth with me [to and from the Holy of Holies], while this year an old man appeared to me dressed in black and cloaked in black, who went in with me but did not come out with me."

E. After the Festival of Tabernacles, he fell ill for seven days, and then he died. His brothers the priests refused to pronounce the divine name when bestowing the priestly benediction.

II.5

A.

Our rabbis have taught on Tannaite authority:

B. Forty years before the destruction of the sanctuary, the lot did not come up in the right hand, and the thread of crimson never turned white, and the westernmost light never shone, and the doors of the courtyard would open by themselves,

C. until Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai rebuked them. He said, "Temple, Temple, why will you yourself give the alarm [that you are going to be destroyed? You don’t have to, because] I know that in the end you are destined to be destroyed. For Zechariah b. EIdo has already prophesied concerning you: ‘Open your doors, Lebanon, that fire may devour your cedars’ (Zech. 11:1)." [2]

Yay.

[1] Brown, M. L. (2000). Answering Jewish objections to Jesus, Volume 1: General and historical objections. (74). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
[2]  Neusner, J. (2011). Vol. 5a: The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (141–142). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

The 3 Giants

In deciding to become Torah observant, especially in an OT sense of the phrase, I've come to identify at least three theological Giants that require overcoming (i.e. developing defensible answers for):

1. What is Legalism, and how is Torah observance not Legalism?


2. Who is a Jew, and what implications does the answer to this question have on me as a Christian?


3. What to do with the Oral Traditions such as Halachah, the Midrashic writings and the Talmudic writings?

Written Torah and Oral Torah

In most legal systems, there is a written code of law and an accompany body of regulation that deals with situations not envisaged by the original statutes.

The English Common Law system is a good example. Parliament sets out the Statutes and the Judges develop common law principles and precedents that guide real-life application.

The Torah is structured in a similar way. It too has a written component, being the Pentateuch and establishes a hierarchy of courts of elders for adjudicating real-life situations, by applying the commandments. Over time, a system of rulings, precedents, and principles were developed. This has been captured by the Oral Torah and preserved in the Talmudic writings. The highest court of elders became known as the Sanhedrin in Christ's day.

As time passed, a system of principles were developed to resolve contradictions between different commandments; between commandments and Oral Torah rulings; and between different Oral Torah rulings.

For example, Oral Torah could never abrogate Written Torah. This principle is applied by Jesus in the dispute over Corban and the Commandment to honour one's father and mother (which had come to mean to provide for them in their old age). Another is the principle of preserving life as taking precedence over any other commandment. Jesus applies this principle when healing on the Sabbath. A third principle involves the infrequent taking precedence over the frequent. An example of this is illustrated when Yom Kippur (a fast) falls on a Sabbath (a feast). Since a Sabbath can be celebrated next week then the fast should be observed as it won't roll around for another year. Interestingly this principle was applied in attempting to rebut Jesus over Sabbath healing: "Why couldn't you have done it tomorrow?"

Thus many of the disputes between the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees and other religious leaders can be understood once this framework is grasped.

Unfortunately, the Oral Torah (idiomatically called the "yoke") became elaborate and complex. Rulings were made for almost every part of the minutiae of life. Jesus proclaimed a revisionist view of the Oral Torah (or Halachah), disputing with the Hebrew authorities that its complexity had created a barrier to salvation (Matthew 23.4, 13). This is what he meant in Matthew 11.28. His "Yoke" was light compared to the conventional "Yoke" of the day.

Interestingly, Jesus never disputed the Sanhedrin's right to make rulings (idiomatically called "binding and loosing"), in fact, he encouraged obedience to them (Matthew 23.1-3) but debated with them from within the framework of principles for resolving contradictions between the Commandments and/or Oral Torah rulings.

Thus if we believe in observing the Written Torah and the Written Torah establshes the authority of the hierarchy of courts and the creation of Oral Torah then we have to recognise the authority of Oral Torah. However Jesus' example shows us that we can abrogate the Oral Torah when it contravenes the framework for assessing how or if it should be applied.