February 14, 2010

• More on Jesus the Pharisee

  Washing hands: clean and unclean:

   

  Did Jesus break Torah law concerning the washing of hands?Not if he was consistent in the concepts of Bet Hillel that he apparently taught to people. Here is more proof that Jesus was a student of Bet Hillel as opposed to Bet Shammai.
  
       The Gospel according to Matthew (ch. 15) has the Pharisees complaining to Jesus that his disciples do not wash their hands before eating.  Luke (I 1:37) relates that a Pharisee invited Jesus for a meal, and was surprised that Jesus didn't wash his hands first.  Jesus replied, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup...."   and this leads into an attack on the Pharisees similar to Matthew 23.  Washing hands before meals has its source in the eighteen measures (Shabbat 13B-15A), and would have no relationship to Jesus' remark concerning the "outside of the cup."
  
       Jesus is clearly referring here to the dispute between the two Schools over when the washing should take place (Mishnah, Berakhot 5 1 B).  According to the Talmud (ibid. 43A), meals of the Pharisees would begin with the drinking of a cup of wine, after which they would break bread together.  Bet Shammai held that the hands must be washed before filling the cup of wine, whereas Bet Hillel ruled that the washing should take place later, before partaking of the bread.  The Talmud (ibid., 52A-B) explains that Bet Shammai were concerned that the cup of wine might become ritually unclean from the hands, whereas Bet Hillel held that it is permitted to use a cup which had become unclean from the outside.  The passage in Luke is therefore telling us that Jesus upheld Bet Hillel's ruling concerning the outside of the cup, and wished to wash later, before the bread.  The Talmud further makes clear that Bet Shammai considered those following Bet Hillel's ruling as eating with unclean hands (as the unclean cup could defile the hands), and this explains the accusation against the disciples. 

   

  Did Jesus break the Sabbath laws?

   

  Theologians  have generally assumed, primarily on the basis of specific references by Jesus to Jewish law contained in the Gospels, that the founder of Christianity was anti traditionalist.
  

  It may be noted that when the Pharisees complained to Jesus about his disciples' desecration of the Sabbath, he first quoted from Hosea (6:6), where the Prophet represents God as desiring mercy (hesed), then refers to his disciples as "innocent," and then concludes: "The son of man is master of the Sabbath." I would suggest that since the alleged work was not intended for its usual purpose, but rather for an ulterior result, it would be classified as "a labor not required on its own account" (see Shabbat 73B et al.), for which there is no liability. A similar thesis is advanced by the sixteenth century Talmudist R. Samuel Edels in a parallel case involving a biblical personality (Maharsha, Bava Batra 119A, Aggadot). The Tosafists (Betsah 8A, second paragraph) have pointed out that such labor would be completely permissible if necessary for a constructive religious purpose, even according to Bet Shammai (see Maharsha ad loc.).
  The Gospel (Matthew 12:9-14) then relates that Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, and was criticized by the Pharisees for doing so. Since Jesus evidently healed through prayer, this incident appears to refer to a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over whether it is permitted to pray for the sick on the Sabbath (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14); Bet Hillel permitted such prayer, and Bet Shammai forbade it. In the Gospel according to Mark (2:27), Jesus concludes his argument with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath by stating, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."(Yoma 85b) In addition to prayer for the sick, this would allude to other disputes between the two schools, such as where Bet Shammai rule that it is forbidden on the Sabbath to promise charity for the poor in the synagogue, even for the marriage of orphans, nor may betrothals be arranged, nor may discussion be held for a youngster's education, nor may mourners be comforted or the sick visited, while Bet Hillel permit all of these (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14 and Shabbat 12A).More proof that he was a follower of Bet Hillel.

   

  Jesus in the Talmud?

  
  We should also point out here that, contrary to many Christians' thinking, the Talmudic literature does not contain criticism of Jesus.  Some have sought to link him with a Yeshua Hanotzri, who is said to have practiced magic and sought to lead Israel astray (Sotah 47A and Sanhedrin 107B, but censored in contemporary texts).  But a foremost historian of the rabbinate, the twelfth century Abraham ibn Daud, wrote (Sefer Ha-Kabbalah, Jewish Publication Society Edition, p. 15) that we possess a true tradition (Kabalat Emet) that this Yeshua Hanotzri lived during the reign of Alexander Yannai (died 76 B.C.E.), and had been a disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah,thus making it impossible for him to have been the founder of Christianity.  This tradition is also given by Nahmanides (Vikuakh Ha-Ramban, Mossad edition, p. 306).  R. Jehiel Heilprin, the seventeenth century rabbinic historian, lists two Yeshua Hanotzris, the first being the earlier controversial disciple of Joshua ben Perachiah who lived during Yannai's reign, and the second as the founder of Christianity (Seder Hadorot, pp. 147, 148 and 15 1).
  
  Some have tried to linkjesus with a magician named Ben Stada, but R. Jacob Tam-the eminent Tosafist and grandson of Rashi-dismissed this (Shabbat 104B), as he had lived during the second century.
  
     Unfortunately, many people-and especially those possessing an anti-Semitic frame of mind-have had a field-day with Jesus' attack on the Pharisees.  One can only guess at how many pogroms and persecutions were instigated against Jews because of this misinterpretation.  Such actions have not only caused terrible harm to innocent men, women and children, but also maligned the memory of the Founder of Christianity amongst his own people .
  

  • 7:52 am
  • 2 Comments