simchat_torah
April 2nd 2003, 06:55 AM
A recent Email Correspondence
Recently I recieved this letter via Email and I have posted it for others to read and comment on. What follows is the letter:
=========================================
"...We have been praying about going to Israel, as I think my wife told you. We contacted a religious kibbutz over there and they wanted to talk to me. I talked with one of them today, he called me from Israel. I'm supposed to call the Rabbi tomorrow who has more questions for me. But this is not totally my problem. It is as follows:
In desiring to go to Israel we decided that we needed to study the various prophecies about Moshiach. We've been talking about it lately anyway, so we found a website that has information on Messiah ben Yosef and ben David. It sights Talmud, Mishna, Midrash etc to show that there has always been the idea of two moshiachim. I decided at the same time I needed to look into some of the objections, to be fair to myself. If I want to find truth, I need to be willing to look on both sides and not try to prove my side without being objective.
I came across some information that has really been bothering me. There are many reasons according to Torah that Yeshua doesn't qualify as a "sin" sacrifice. One of which, and a smaller of them, is that a sacrifice had to be unbruised etc. The Romans brutally beat him before they crucified him.
Another is that the sacrifice had to be made by the person who sinned, not someone else. So how does his "sacrifice" qualify there, the Romans nailed him up, I didn't. Was the Messiah just the Passover lamb? What are the implications of that? If so, then there needed to be one sacrifice per household and not one that's done for everyone.
So I'm really struggling here. On one hand, I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah because there are so many prophecies that he's fulfilled, but on the other, there are too many questions that arise from the technicalities.
We know that HaShem is a G-d of details and particulars. So how then does Yeshua qualify as Messiah?
A friend of mine was talking to Avi ben Mordechai the other day and Avi told him that it's very difficult to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah from scriptures alone. One must have a deep understanding of the two Messiah theory. However, this brings up another point, How is it that Paul believed that Yeshua was a sin sacrifice? Paul was a great Rabbi in his day, learning from the best in his time, Gamliel.
I know that there was a time when you denied that Yeshua was the Messiah and I recall that in a vision during meditation you saw that he was. I can understand how that might make you come back around, but what can you tell me to help me out. I'm sort of in a limbo here"
==============================================
Here was my reply:
"Well, you have asked me enough questions to fill a novel in the attempt to answer. Nonetheless, I will attempt to give you a brief synopsis of what I believe and perhaps ask you a few questions that may get you started on the right track to understanding this matter better.
Here we go:
First let me say Mazel tov on your connection with the Kibbutz - I hope everything works out well for you.
Yes, the Gemara does frequently discuss the two midos of Moshiach Tzidkeynu.
First let's discuss the beating of Y'shua: The Torah is very specific on what it says about the conditions of a sacrifice, and the Talmud goes into even deeper detail about this. The sacrifice must be pure, without blemish and without any of it's bones broken. When we look at Y'shua as a sacrifice can we say that he was pure, without blemish (naturally, that is) and had none of his bones out of joint (broken) - Yes we can. While it is true that
the Romans soldiers beat him severely it is not the condition that he was in in his natural or born state. Now, is it kosher to bring a sacrifice that has been abused? The difficult answer here is- No - not normally, but as I will expain in a moment this wasn't a normal sacrifice. Was Y'shua in his "thrashed" state impure or unfit to be a sacrifice? It appears that he was, according to the Halachic rulings as we understand them. So we need to look
into the Mishna and Gemora and see what Rabbinical ruling made offering a posul korban acceptible. In Mas. Zeyachin 85b it says: "Come and hear:
R.AKIVA DECLARED BLEMISHED ANIMALS FIT." While what he was actually doing is declaring certain birds that were NIRBA fit for sacrifice, it goes to show you that there is some room for understanding the idea that a Korban may actually be acceptible in an otherwise Posul state. Scriptures in D'varim 17:1 talks about the condition of the korban., it says "You shall not
sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God" The word used here for blemish is ME'UMAH which can be translated "FAULT". This word is derived from the word M'UHM and is translated best as STAIN or SPOT but
can be either PHYSICAL or MORAL (e.g., SPIRITUAL). So you see, if we look at the literal (P'shat) meaning of the scriptures as we look at Moshiach, we can affirm what G-d said about His own son, (i.e., This is Him, in whom there is NO FAULT). However, this interpretation does little to answer the problem as a JEW looks at it. So back to the Talmud we go, In the Tractate MAS. Bechoroth, specifically around folios 36, 37, and 38 we find much discussion about what a 'BLEMISH' is. In fact, much of the arguments are over what can and cannot be offered as KORBAN. (There is an interesting sidenote I want to tell you about, but not to get off course...In MAS.
T'MURAH 7a (if my memory serves me), it talks about the fact that the Noachide's animals MAY be blemished when they (if they) offer them as KORBAN.
But back to Bechoroth.) In the discussions that take place in this portion of the Talmud the Sages make a clear distinction between a hereditary blemish, an aquired blemish, and something that they call a "TRANSITORY" blemish. In folio 38 a(I think), it even poses the question 'WHY wait until a transitory blemish has healed?' - You see even a transitory blemish prohibits the
animal from being an acceptable KORBAN.
Now that you have a deeper understanding of what is and what is not a blemish, after all this it seems that we may be in the same place that we started. If we assume that the conditions of Y'shua's state of purity lie in his physical appearance and that it is not, in actuality, a spiritual blemish in which we may refer to; we have to agree with the Rabbi's of today that Y'shua WAS NOT an acceptable sacrifice due to his physical state of being. We must, that is, until we read in Bechoroth that "IF THE KORBAN
RECIEVED IT'S BLEMISH IN THE TEMPLE AND WAS BROUGHT UP [meaning prepared for sacrifice] THAT IT MUST NOT BE BROUGHT DOWN." - It is acceptible. Y'shua,
firstly being without blemish in the spirit was born without physical defect as well. And that he recieved his beating in front of the Zugot while standing in the courtyard of the High Priest we wasn't invalidated or made Posul as a sacrifice - according to Halachic Standards. EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT
APPEAR THAT WAY!
Now the next question:
You asked about the fact that a sacrifice must be made by the person who sinned, not someone else.
This might be a little easier to answer. If this is, in fact, the case and the only instance of sacrifical proper then we have a dilema on our hands with the sacrifice of the 70 bulls. Just last week we celebrated Succos, and it was during this time when (when the Temple stood) the nation of Israel offered 70 bulls as a sacrifice for the 70 nations. If it is "ALWAYS" the case that a sacrifice be offered by "ONLY" the one who needs atonement, then this "COMMANDMENT" of G-d makes absolutely NO SENSE. The 70 Nations oftentimes (MOST oftentimes) didn't even KNOW about the sacrifices, but Israel stood in "PROXY" for them. How many times do we perform Kiddush and only see the Rabbi or Father of the house drink the wine. If what we believe is true, in that, prayer, good deeds, and charity have replaced sacrifices
then this would fall into the same catagory, and ONLY the Rabbi or Father would be making the bracha (sacrifice) over the wine - but we know that, according to Halacha, if we, by observing and participating in the prayer have followed along, then it is as if we ourselves have fulfilled the Kiddush (e.g., Sacrifice). We now can understand this problem as we realize that Y'shua (Acting as OUR PROXY) layed down His OWN life FOR US - NOT JUST ONE OR TWO - BUT ALL, FROM AND FOR, ALLTIME!
You write that you are really struggling here: Well my friend, relax and realize that while it is true that G-d is a G-d of details and particulars, it is true as well that Y'shua is our Messiah and that any doubting of that is simply the beginning of a journey that I would like to spare you from.
Messiah Y'shua fulfilled many many messsianic prophecies - MORE than any other person in all of time - The proof leans in HIS direction. Through these "COMPLETED" prophecies he qualifies as Messiah!
As for Avi's statement - I am sorry to disagree with him. It isn't hard to prove that Y'shua was the messiah from scriptures - It's hard to prove that he WASN'T the messiah from scriptures. When you study more and learn deeper it becomes easier and easier to see this truth.
Paul knew it because he was steeped in "ORIGINAL" Jewish thought - NOT contemporary confusion.
Finally, you asked about my vision - All I can tell you of that is that it was more about understanding then it was about knowledge. I finally comprehended what and who Y'shua is - without all the other commentaries.
Tell your wife that I am proud of her and her spiritual discernment, and as for you, my friend, stay the road - keep studying and never submit to the temptation to believe that Y'shua was not your messiah. You may seek, you may question, and you may argue - but always KNOW!
Shalom,
Yafet.
Recently I recieved this letter via Email and I have posted it for others to read and comment on. What follows is the letter:
=========================================
"...We have been praying about going to Israel, as I think my wife told you. We contacted a religious kibbutz over there and they wanted to talk to me. I talked with one of them today, he called me from Israel. I'm supposed to call the Rabbi tomorrow who has more questions for me. But this is not totally my problem. It is as follows:
In desiring to go to Israel we decided that we needed to study the various prophecies about Moshiach. We've been talking about it lately anyway, so we found a website that has information on Messiah ben Yosef and ben David. It sights Talmud, Mishna, Midrash etc to show that there has always been the idea of two moshiachim. I decided at the same time I needed to look into some of the objections, to be fair to myself. If I want to find truth, I need to be willing to look on both sides and not try to prove my side without being objective.
I came across some information that has really been bothering me. There are many reasons according to Torah that Yeshua doesn't qualify as a "sin" sacrifice. One of which, and a smaller of them, is that a sacrifice had to be unbruised etc. The Romans brutally beat him before they crucified him.
Another is that the sacrifice had to be made by the person who sinned, not someone else. So how does his "sacrifice" qualify there, the Romans nailed him up, I didn't. Was the Messiah just the Passover lamb? What are the implications of that? If so, then there needed to be one sacrifice per household and not one that's done for everyone.
So I'm really struggling here. On one hand, I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah because there are so many prophecies that he's fulfilled, but on the other, there are too many questions that arise from the technicalities.
We know that HaShem is a G-d of details and particulars. So how then does Yeshua qualify as Messiah?
A friend of mine was talking to Avi ben Mordechai the other day and Avi told him that it's very difficult to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah from scriptures alone. One must have a deep understanding of the two Messiah theory. However, this brings up another point, How is it that Paul believed that Yeshua was a sin sacrifice? Paul was a great Rabbi in his day, learning from the best in his time, Gamliel.
I know that there was a time when you denied that Yeshua was the Messiah and I recall that in a vision during meditation you saw that he was. I can understand how that might make you come back around, but what can you tell me to help me out. I'm sort of in a limbo here"
==============================================
Here was my reply:
"Well, you have asked me enough questions to fill a novel in the attempt to answer. Nonetheless, I will attempt to give you a brief synopsis of what I believe and perhaps ask you a few questions that may get you started on the right track to understanding this matter better.
Here we go:
First let me say Mazel tov on your connection with the Kibbutz - I hope everything works out well for you.
Yes, the Gemara does frequently discuss the two midos of Moshiach Tzidkeynu.
First let's discuss the beating of Y'shua: The Torah is very specific on what it says about the conditions of a sacrifice, and the Talmud goes into even deeper detail about this. The sacrifice must be pure, without blemish and without any of it's bones broken. When we look at Y'shua as a sacrifice can we say that he was pure, without blemish (naturally, that is) and had none of his bones out of joint (broken) - Yes we can. While it is true that
the Romans soldiers beat him severely it is not the condition that he was in in his natural or born state. Now, is it kosher to bring a sacrifice that has been abused? The difficult answer here is- No - not normally, but as I will expain in a moment this wasn't a normal sacrifice. Was Y'shua in his "thrashed" state impure or unfit to be a sacrifice? It appears that he was, according to the Halachic rulings as we understand them. So we need to look
into the Mishna and Gemora and see what Rabbinical ruling made offering a posul korban acceptible. In Mas. Zeyachin 85b it says: "Come and hear:
R.AKIVA DECLARED BLEMISHED ANIMALS FIT." While what he was actually doing is declaring certain birds that were NIRBA fit for sacrifice, it goes to show you that there is some room for understanding the idea that a Korban may actually be acceptible in an otherwise Posul state. Scriptures in D'varim 17:1 talks about the condition of the korban., it says "You shall not
sacrifice to the LORD your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever; for that is an abomination to the LORD your God" The word used here for blemish is ME'UMAH which can be translated "FAULT". This word is derived from the word M'UHM and is translated best as STAIN or SPOT but
can be either PHYSICAL or MORAL (e.g., SPIRITUAL). So you see, if we look at the literal (P'shat) meaning of the scriptures as we look at Moshiach, we can affirm what G-d said about His own son, (i.e., This is Him, in whom there is NO FAULT). However, this interpretation does little to answer the problem as a JEW looks at it. So back to the Talmud we go, In the Tractate MAS. Bechoroth, specifically around folios 36, 37, and 38 we find much discussion about what a 'BLEMISH' is. In fact, much of the arguments are over what can and cannot be offered as KORBAN. (There is an interesting sidenote I want to tell you about, but not to get off course...In MAS.
T'MURAH 7a (if my memory serves me), it talks about the fact that the Noachide's animals MAY be blemished when they (if they) offer them as KORBAN.
But back to Bechoroth.) In the discussions that take place in this portion of the Talmud the Sages make a clear distinction between a hereditary blemish, an aquired blemish, and something that they call a "TRANSITORY" blemish. In folio 38 a(I think), it even poses the question 'WHY wait until a transitory blemish has healed?' - You see even a transitory blemish prohibits the
animal from being an acceptable KORBAN.
Now that you have a deeper understanding of what is and what is not a blemish, after all this it seems that we may be in the same place that we started. If we assume that the conditions of Y'shua's state of purity lie in his physical appearance and that it is not, in actuality, a spiritual blemish in which we may refer to; we have to agree with the Rabbi's of today that Y'shua WAS NOT an acceptable sacrifice due to his physical state of being. We must, that is, until we read in Bechoroth that "IF THE KORBAN
RECIEVED IT'S BLEMISH IN THE TEMPLE AND WAS BROUGHT UP [meaning prepared for sacrifice] THAT IT MUST NOT BE BROUGHT DOWN." - It is acceptible. Y'shua,
firstly being without blemish in the spirit was born without physical defect as well. And that he recieved his beating in front of the Zugot while standing in the courtyard of the High Priest we wasn't invalidated or made Posul as a sacrifice - according to Halachic Standards. EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT
APPEAR THAT WAY!
Now the next question:
You asked about the fact that a sacrifice must be made by the person who sinned, not someone else.
This might be a little easier to answer. If this is, in fact, the case and the only instance of sacrifical proper then we have a dilema on our hands with the sacrifice of the 70 bulls. Just last week we celebrated Succos, and it was during this time when (when the Temple stood) the nation of Israel offered 70 bulls as a sacrifice for the 70 nations. If it is "ALWAYS" the case that a sacrifice be offered by "ONLY" the one who needs atonement, then this "COMMANDMENT" of G-d makes absolutely NO SENSE. The 70 Nations oftentimes (MOST oftentimes) didn't even KNOW about the sacrifices, but Israel stood in "PROXY" for them. How many times do we perform Kiddush and only see the Rabbi or Father of the house drink the wine. If what we believe is true, in that, prayer, good deeds, and charity have replaced sacrifices
then this would fall into the same catagory, and ONLY the Rabbi or Father would be making the bracha (sacrifice) over the wine - but we know that, according to Halacha, if we, by observing and participating in the prayer have followed along, then it is as if we ourselves have fulfilled the Kiddush (e.g., Sacrifice). We now can understand this problem as we realize that Y'shua (Acting as OUR PROXY) layed down His OWN life FOR US - NOT JUST ONE OR TWO - BUT ALL, FROM AND FOR, ALLTIME!
You write that you are really struggling here: Well my friend, relax and realize that while it is true that G-d is a G-d of details and particulars, it is true as well that Y'shua is our Messiah and that any doubting of that is simply the beginning of a journey that I would like to spare you from.
Messiah Y'shua fulfilled many many messsianic prophecies - MORE than any other person in all of time - The proof leans in HIS direction. Through these "COMPLETED" prophecies he qualifies as Messiah!
As for Avi's statement - I am sorry to disagree with him. It isn't hard to prove that Y'shua was the messiah from scriptures - It's hard to prove that he WASN'T the messiah from scriptures. When you study more and learn deeper it becomes easier and easier to see this truth.
Paul knew it because he was steeped in "ORIGINAL" Jewish thought - NOT contemporary confusion.
Finally, you asked about my vision - All I can tell you of that is that it was more about understanding then it was about knowledge. I finally comprehended what and who Y'shua is - without all the other commentaries.
Tell your wife that I am proud of her and her spiritual discernment, and as for you, my friend, stay the road - keep studying and never submit to the temptation to believe that Y'shua was not your messiah. You may seek, you may question, and you may argue - but always KNOW!
Shalom,
Yafet.