Judaism

[Senator Ben]

I really don't know what to say. I've studied the Talmud since I was 8 years old, and all I can say is that to really understand what the Talmud is can take quite some time and intensive studying. It's not as simple as just opening up somewhere and reading through a few lines. Of course, you can do that, but I have no idea what you should go for.

Thanks anyway.

For a line-by-line translation of the Talmud a good company is ArtScroll. It includes the literal translation along with the way it should be read to make sense using commentaries. It is slightly confusing at first to follow what is what, but if you are really interested that would be your best bet. I've used it to help me study the Talmud and it's put together very comprehensively.

Hope this isn't too late.

Thanks; of course not   What denomination are you in?

[memphis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud seems a reasonable place to start.

[Purple State]

I consider myself Conserva-dox, combination between the two. I went to Jewish private school through high school but I am not the most religious. Granted, there are many things I feel guilty about doing still and cannot bring myself to do, while others I am more comfortable breaking. In short, it's complicated.

But I've had my fair share of experience learning the Torah and Talmud with commentaries and all. I'd say for almost any Jewish scripture ArtScroll would be the way to go. But I should warn you, very expensive. Like, I don't know how they get away with charging that much but, hey, it's religion. Can't do anything about it.

There is also a vast wealth of information online. It may be to your benefit to go to Torah.org and check around there for information on sources for learning. I'm sure they have something up there or you can contact them for information. I know they have an "Ask a Rabbi" email thing to get information about laws and learning.

[Senator Ben]

I have the ArtScrool Tanakh, which is a great edition.  Torah.org is pretty impressive, and I look forward to using it.  Thanks for your help

[Yamor]

The Schottenstein Edition I mentioned earlier is from Artscroll (Mesorah). It is extremely good, but very big (75 volumes, I think). Each normal sized tractate is like 3 volumes. It's also very expensive, like purple state said (over $35 a volume, I think).

[Yamor]

Fast day today. One of six in the year.

[Purple State]

Fast day today. One of six in the year.

And what a joyous one it is.

[Yamor]

Why?

[Yamor]

But isn't that the point? It's not a fast day because of something happy. The opposite, it's a fast day because of sad events that happened  today.

[© Tweed the Younger]

are you "allowed" to drink water?

[Senator Ben]

Bump.

What are the remaining fast days?

[Yamor]

Till when? There's Ta'anit Esther on the 13th of Adar, i.e. under 2 months. After that, not including Ta'anit Bechorot, the next one is in 6 months.

[Senator Ben]

On the English calendar for the year 2009, the dates are:

Fast of Esther = March 9
[Fast of the Firstborns (only matters if you are a firstborn and opt out of attending a siyum in the morning) = April 9]
The 17th of Tammuz = July 9
The 9th of Av = July 30
Fast of Gedaliah = September 21
Yom Kippur = September 28
The 10th of Tevet = December 27

Explanations of each can be provided if you're interested.

That would be great, thank you

[Senator Ben]

Thank you   Being Reform, the only time fasting is really followed is on Yom Kippur, so I didn't know about the others.

[Yamor]

Not all ultra-orthodox are so careful about the other fasts. People who follow the ways of the Brisker Rav are usually very lenient when it comes to fasts other then Yom Kippur and Tisha'a B'Av.

[Yamor]

Well, Briskers would definitely label themselves ultra-orthodox.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This is a copy of Xahar's thread on Islam.  Anyone who has any questions about Judaism is welcome to come here and ask questions, hopefully I'll have the answer or another fellow Jew will answer for me

How is the following prophecy, which combines the kingship and the priesthood under a single person, going to be fulfilled under the Law of Moses when Moses stated the king must be from the line of David and the priest from the line of Levi?

Zech 6:12 Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.'

[Yamor]

It's actually not so simple it's talking about the Messiah. Rashi (the 'king' of Jewish commentators on the Bible and Talmud) and others bring two explanations for these verses. They say the simple way of understanding the prophecy is that it's talking about the second Temple, and referring to Zerubabel (sp?). However, they do also bring the way you've understood it, that it's referring to the Messiah.

This has nothing to do with your question, though. The answer to your problem is simple: Verse 13 is clearly speaking about two separate people, as can be seen from the last part of the verse 'between the two'. Your problem stems from the fact that the translation from the Hebrew you have is inexact. The correct translation of the part referring to the priest is "and the priest will be on his throne" - i.e. referring to a second person, and this explains the ending of the verse.
Basically, the earlier descriptions in the verse start off with "V'hu" which translates as "it is he" or "and he will". However the description about the priest starts off with "V'haya" which translates as "and there will be".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It's actually not so simple it's talking about the Messiah. Rashi (the 'king' of Jewish commentators on the Bible and Talmud) and others bring two explanations for these verses. They say the simple way of understanding the prophecy is that it's talking about the second Temple, and referring to Zerubabel (sp?). However, they do also bring the way you've understood it, that it's referring to the Messiah.

This has nothing to do with your question, though. The answer to your problem is simple: Verse 13 is clearly speaking about two separate people, as can be seen from the last part of the verse 'between the two'. Your problem stems from the fact that the translation from the Hebrew you have is inexact. The correct translation of the part referring to the priest is "and the priest will be on his throne" - i.e. referring to a second person, and this explains the ending of the verse.
Basically, the earlier descriptions in the verse start off with "V'hu" which translates as "it is he" or "and he will". However the description about the priest starts off with "V'haya" which translates as "and there will be".

ok, accepting your translation for V'haya...and keeping with the Messiah timeframe...

Zech 6:12 Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.'

what is a priest doing sitting on a "throne"?  and why is a priest sitting on a throne being connectted with the Messiah?

[Yamor]

Rashi explains the 'throne' here means the 'throne of the priestship' (i.e. it's referring to the high priest). This could be understood literally, but more likely means the "position", and not an actual throne. The prophecy is saying that the most powerful man after the king, which is the high priest will not fight with the Messiah, that there will be harmony between them.
Other early Jewish commentators (from 500+ years ago) explain that the translation here is not that the priest will sit 'on' his throne, but it means will sit 'in front' of his throne (the Jewish word "Al" used in this verse can have either meaning). They go on to explain that the high priest will see himself as subservient to the Messiah, and therefore there will be peace - i.e. the high priest won't try to fight the Messiah.

I'd just like to stress, that if you look through the whole prophecy it's clear it's not referring to the Messiah, but to Zerubabel. Even the commentators who say the alternative explanation of it referring to the Messiah qualify it by saying that it's not the real meaning of the verse, but is just another 'hidden' meaning behind the words. A bit similar to what Jews believe about all prophecies given in the bible - that even prophecies given about those times can all have other, hidden, meanings, and can all refer to later events.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Rashi explains the 'throne' here means the 'throne of the priestship' (i.e. it's referring to the high priest). This could be understood literally, but more likely means the "position", and not an actual throne. The prophecy is saying that the most powerful man after the king, which is the high priest will not fight with the Messiah, that there will be harmony between them.
Other early Jewish commentators (from 500+ years ago) explain that the translation here is not that the priest will sit 'on' his throne, but it means will sit 'in front' of his throne (the Jewish word "Al" used in this verse can have either meaning). They go on to explain that the high priest will see himself as subservient to the Messiah, and therefore there will be peace - i.e. the high priest won't try to fight the Messiah.

thanks for the input...

I agree it is referring to the High Priest

is there any other place in scripture which ties the High Priest to a throne, whether literally or symbolically?

---

I'd just like to stress, that if you look through the whole prophecy it's clear it's not referring to the Messiah, but to Zerubabel. Even the commentators who say the alternative explanation of it referring to the Messiah qualify it by saying that it's not the real meaning of the verse, but is just another 'hidden' meaning behind the words. A bit similar to what Jews believe about all prophecies given in the bible - that even prophecies given about those times can all have other, hidden, meanings, and can all refer to later events.

agreed, prophecies can be literally applied to one person and symbolically applied to the overall plan of God

[Yamor]

I can't think of any other place off-hand. I'll have a think about it, and ask some others better-versed then me in scripture.

Out of interest, as a Christian, how do you understand the prophecy? When was the part about the priest (whether you understand it as being the same person as the Messiah or not) ever fulfilled? Or is it only going to be fulfilled by the second coming of Jesus?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see you posted through a cell phone, which I sometimes do....

I can't think of any other place off-hand. I'll have a think about it, and ask some others better-versed then me in scripture.

Out of interest, as a Christian, how do you understand the prophecy? When was the part about the priest (whether you understand it as being the same person as the Messiah or not) ever fulfilled? Or is it only going to be fulfilled by the second coming of Jesus?

It goes back to the supremacy of the book of Genesis, the blueprint of God’s plan, and the time period predating the Law of Moses (covenant of Mt. Sinai).

The original biblical precedent for the King of Jerusalem, and the original biblical precedent for a priest of God, is one in the same person, Melchizedek (Gen 14:8 ).  In Melchizedek is the precedent, and the only example, of a priest sitting on a throne:

Zech 6:12 Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.'

Judaism understands that Messiah will rebuild the temple of God, for even the whole tabernacle Moses introduced was merely a copy of the origin pattern: “See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Ex 25:40)

And, yes, I believe Christ has already been handed the high-priesthood, not on the requirement that he be descended through Levi, but on the Genesis precedent that he has no genealogy, just as Melchizedek, the biblical precedent, had no recorded genealogy yet was greater than Abraham.

And Jesus didn’t enter into only a pattern of the true tabernacle, rather he entered into the true tabernacle that is in Heaven…and offered not the blood of a lamb, but his own blood, and not once a year, but once and for all, for the forgiveness of sins.

[Yamor]

I see. But if Jesus has both positions, what does the last part of the verse, about harmony between the two, mean?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I see. But if Jesus has both positions, what does the last part of the verse, about harmony between the two, mean?

I don't understand your question...how could there not be harmony between the High Priest and King if Jesus holds both positions?

basically, both the king and high priest are forerunners of the one messiah