The essential difference between Judaism and Christianity

And what will happen to a person who observes the laws but believes in the same man? After all, he is a kosher Jew?

Believing in the same man is not enough. One must also be a Nazi. Then he is a kosher Jew. And he must ascend to a very high place and throw himself down to the ground. If he rises and stands up, he must ascend to a place twice as high and throw himself down to the ground again. And so on up to seven times. If he does so, then he is a righteous Jew.

What does it mean to believe in that man? Does he believe in the status of Mount Sinai and that the law is binding? If so, then he is a kosher Jew. And if he believes in that man in the sense that he was a moral model - for health. If he believes in the teachings of that man, then he is not bound by the law, and even if he does, there is no fulfillment of the law here. The law is fulfilled only if it is done from the commandment at Sinai (see Maimonides, Chapter 11, Malachim).

But it can be said that there is a law to listen to the prophet and he claimed that the commandments were abrogated, so here we have received a law without practicing the law of our day…
And so it is seemingly with every religion.

Jesus never claimed that the commandments were abolished.

Did Jesus just pick corn on the Sabbath? It's canceled for one, it's canceled for a hundred, even if he announces by tomorrow that he won't

It is possible that he interpreted the Torah in a way that would allow picking grain on the Sabbath. Even the Chazal understood the Torah in a certain way and interpreted “an eye for an eye” differently, for example. Does this mean they abolished the commandments?
Jesus understood that man preceded the Sabbath from the case of David who ate the showbread.

Islam also has a developed legal system like Judaism. What is the difference between Islam and Judaism according to the rabbi?

A beautiful commentary on the Shvulim. I received it.

Gil, look at 1 Samuel 21:1-7 and we will move on from there, in Gaza.

If I remember correctly, when picking the grain, he said something like, "Man is not for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath is for man." Then it is permissible to pick the grain.

I just now noticed Or's response; I repeated his words with a hint of place above.

The last judge, see Matthew 12:3-6.

Oh, the basketball association also has a constitution. I see no point in wasting our time on this nonsense.

Rabbi Michi, Or claimed that Islam is Halakha and that is what distinguished it from other religions. It seems that the rabbi is running away from confrontation.

Believe me, even if I wanted to escape from the competition, I would choose more difficult questions than this strange gibberish. I wrote that the basketball association also has a constitution, so is that Judaism too?
I expect you to waste my time on slightly more intelligent questions. Answer that for yourself. This doesn't require a long school day.

Not only does basketball have rules. It also has religious fervor 🙂

Best regards, Nikhal Yarden

All examples of an Epicurus are people who claim something through opinions, not actions. That is, there is a certain view from which anyone who deviates is considered to be deviating from Judaism.

Rabbi, I did not claim that Islam is obligatory or that it is equivalent to Judaism. I am simply trying to understand and get to the bottom of your point. You claimed that the uniqueness of Judaism is the halakha and this is what distinguishes it from all religions.
What I am trying to understand is what is the difference between it and Islam in this regard? After all, Islam also has halakha and is also an autopractical religion.

Or. As an outsider, I don't understand your question. Do Muslims accept and observe the Shulchan Aruch?
If so, then there is no difference. If not, then this is the difference.

To Michael.
The essential difference is that Judaism is based on the sages, and Christianity is based on Jesus and his messengers.

But you know that. So why did you ask what you asked?

Clearly Judaism != Islam. What I'm trying to understand is why the Rabbi thinks Islam falls short here.
Or maybe he meant Judaism = Jewish law, and then everything is clear because Islamic law (Sharia) != Jewish law.
But then that doesn't answer the question Michael asked.

It's possible that we simply understood the question differently.
I think Michael simply meant what the Rabbi thinks Judaism is true and other religions are not, and the Rabbi probably meant what “makes” Judaism”

Or, I really don't understand these questions. I asked you if you think every place that has a system of laws is Judaism? That's how you present my position. And do I need to explain that this is a system of laws given to us at Sinai by God to Moses? I really don't understand this strange discussion.
In short, Judaism is the halakhic system. I didn't say that every place that has a system of laws is Judaism. In other words, when there are no laws, it's not necessarily Judaism. But when there are laws, it's still not necessarily Judaism.

Rabbi, I would love to understand your opinion on whether you accept the concept of ‘epikurs’, and what it is?

Apparently you understood Chazal that there are certain beliefs that those who do not believe in are excluded from Judaism. According to you, Judaism simply includes a collection of actions that should be done and not done, regardless of whether the person practicing them believes in anything at all or not??

In my opinion, there is no point in this. You can't demand that a person believe in something other than what he believes. So why is he called an apocryphal? It is clear that he doesn't deserve sanctions either because he is a heretic. So these are just words.
It is clear that anyone who does not believe in the status of Mount Sinai and the halakhic obligation to the commandments given there is not a Jew (ethnically yes, substantively no).

I wasn't talking about Nefk”m, I just proved that Judaism includes something more than a set of laws. [The sanctions are not as a punishment, but because he doesn't deserve it anymore (he's not a club member), or so that he doesn't have a negative impact].
There are principles of thought that whoever doesn't agree with them is out, Michael's question [probably] was one of them.

It's interesting to hear your answer.

I do not believe in the status of Mount Sinai and halakhic commitment, and I am Jewish both ethnically and substantively. Substantiveness does not belong only to the Torah and its commandments, it is only a certain part of the Jewish essence. Judaism is made up of other cultural characteristics.

Someone who rejects idolatry is called a Jew.

This question has also fascinated me for some time - is there a concept of ‘Epicurus’.

The rabbi reiterates that even if I am an Epicurus, it is of no use for me to change my mind,
but the question here is whether there is a halachic Epicurus, is it forbidden to eat from the slaughter of anyone who believes in the ’Torah of the Testimonies’ to fish’, and if he himself is allowed to eat from his own slaughter?!?! Or perhaps he is completely exempt from all the commandments, because it was ruled that he is a heretic, and a ’infidel’ is not punished for the offenses he commits.

Furthermore, Ibn Ezra is also supposed to be a ‘infidel’, because he writes that not all of the Torah was written by this Rabbi [I don't remember from where, but it's about the words ‘to this day’ That it was not possible that it was written in those days ‘to this day’,
and the opinion that the Book of Deuteronomy ‘Moses himself said’ Those who believe in it should not be included in the Minyan [see Tori’d where he interpreted it literally that God did not tell him what exactly to write], and R’ Hillel as above.

It seems that there is some kind of fence that only those who have not examined the issue and decided so because of the inclination of their heart not to keep the commandments, or out of a complete lack of trust in the sages, or some other explanation.
I would be happy if the Rabbi would express his opinion on the matter.

And so the Epicureans of Israel are not like Israel in any way, and no one accepts them in the eternal return, as it is said (Proverbs 2:19): "None of those who enter her will return nor attain to the land of life." And the Epicureans are those who, after thinking in their hearts about the folly of things that we have said, until they are found to be transgressors of the Torah, to be angry with the destruction of a soul by the hand of Rama, and they say that there is no such thing as evil. And it is forbidden to speak of them and to return a rebuke to them, as it is said (Proverbs 5:8): “And do not go near the door of her house.”

As I wrote, if a person is of unsound mind, no sanctions should be imposed on him. Obviously, if there is concern about the consequences of his actions, one should be concerned about that. In other words, it is not advisable to eat something that he claims to be kosher because it is not certain that his testimony is worth anything.

The question was what are the requirements of Judaism that those who do not hold them should be considered whether to apply sanctions to them. What are the principles of thought that a Jew must hold on to, and if he deviates from them, he is outside according to the law.
It is accepted that the three principles of Maimonides delimit this definition, but does the rabbi accept this?

The first two requirements that immediately come to mind are:
He must reject idolatry.
He must reject a false god, one that would try to act according to the laws of logic that he learned in a logic course.

What is meant by ‘forbidding idolatry’, the Torah does not deny them [if indeed the opposite – which is part etc.], it only forbids worshipping them.
However, this is a halakhic prohibition, the question is what ideological principle is there in Judaism that is at the foundation of its definition, that whoever does not hold to it is outside.

You shall have no other gods before me – If this is not to deny, then what is to deny.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image | or any form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: You shall not bow down to them or serve them – This comes to warn those who make physical statues and those who make spiritual statues. Like those who believe in and worship a god who is subject to the laws of logic.

And it is written that anyone who renounces idolatry is already called a Jew.
That is, this is the most fundamental separating principle there is. Not circumcision or someone born to a Jewish mother.

As I wrote, this is a practical warning, but not a negative statement [that there is no external force apart from God].

Of course there is an external force apart from God. There is gravity. There is electricity. There is the power of faith and so on.
The negation concerns turning these forces into God.