igod’s “response” to your articles

Excellent.
Their ”response” is simply pathetic and so typical of their style, to the point that their answer 2 made me laugh out loud.

Can you link this answer to the video reference? It would be very helpful for readers to see the attempt to respond to your words.

I asked Oren to do this. Apparently it wasn't enough yet.

For the sake of their treatment, their nonsense gives them some kind of legitimacy, and it is unnecessary.
See how on the website they emphasize with great emphasis “Rabbis attack - Messianics respond”
This creates a feeling that there is a real threat here that the rabbis are being called upon to attack them

Can the Rabbi respond regarding the mitzvot of learned people,
in a slightly more concrete way. Assuming that the literal meaning of the verses is, according to them, something that is not at all clear…

I also caught them in a lie a few weeks ago, I decided not to publish it because I thought it was of no interest to the public, but anyway...
(We emphasize, the argument itself is not interesting. What is interesting is the lie).

The Messianic Jews claimed that a certain scholar claimed that the Gemara is from the 12th century. It really sounded strange to me (after all, there are manuscripts from the 9th century, etc.), it was clear to me that there was a lie somewhere in the background. The problem is, unlike what they expected, (and as I usually do in such cases) I personally contacted that scholar and asked him about his opinion firsthand.

And wonder of wonders!
He does believe that the *basis* of the Gemara was put into writing later than the accepted view, but that too is *hundreds* of years earlier than they claimed. Don't worry, it's only by 300 years, at the very least. (To be fair, he does believe that additional sections were added in the centuries that followed, but as mentioned, this was not their claim.)

As mentioned, these are experienced liars, they simply hope that no one is able or will bother to check their lies. They are unable to deal with intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Again, the argument itself is not interesting. For my part, according to one researcher, the Mishnah was written in the 19th century. I simply had the feeling that they were lying and putting words into people's mouths. That is indeed how it turned out.)

Avi Shalom.
I don't know what I should comment on. Indeed, the commandment of learned people is a disadvantage. Does anyone disagree with that? But what does it have to do with tradition? Or with the Tosheva”P?

Honestly, I don't know exactly what it is for me. I thought it was tradition, but a tradition that was invented because it says people and not someone with authority. But it says people in the plural, so apparently there is anger from the prophet here if this is a drawback. My problem is that if you study the Torah because it says "learned" and there are the teachers of halakhah. So if these people are outside the "Great Assembly and the Sages", then it seems that they have instilled something in the people. Maybe this also speaks of the Sadducees, and perhaps the rabbi will explain... the exact meaning of the verse.

The commandments of men are learned, the observance of the commandments is only because God commanded and because it is dark to teach us.
And God does not want this!

Come on. How much can one be fooled by this nonsense.
The commandment of learned people is existence without thinking. But tradition is not existence without thinking. And is it that someone who receives testimony from someone else is lacking in thinking? When you have not been somewhere, you feed on witnesses or tradition. You can argue about whether tradition is reliable or not, but the identification of tradition with learned people is just the desired assumption.

The missionaries' words are poor in one place and rich in another.
In another video they explained their intention, saying that the Bible always refers to the traditions and commandments of people or sages in a negative way.
Like in this verse, God complains that the people follow the learned men, and not His true commandments.
Clearly, the conclusion is foolish, but I'm not sure that this is not the literal interpretation of the verse.
In Judaism, the phrase "commandments of learned men" is used to mean the fulfillment of a commandment without a heart, but it is possible that the literal interpretation is a commandment of the learned men (and not the commandments of God), namely "rabbinical laws".

I would not understand alone like you Rabbi because from not for her sake comes for her sake, and also prayer without intention is like a body without a soul - it is clear that intention is required.
Rabbi, when you say that they observed without thinking, do you mean that they observed without intention and understanding?
And also “learned” is a word that actually reminds of study and in-depth study. Rabbi N”l, in your opinion, it should have been written “the mitzvahs of unlearned people”
(I am not coming from a novice and I am not disagreeing with you, I was just saying what I would think or what I would not think, Honorable Rabbi)

Dear Rabbi - I think you are wrong – There is no such thing as rabbinical laws, because they are allowed “do not deviate”, “and do whatever they direct” so you are certainly wrong. And I said that we are not talking about sages or ruling rabbis, but rather simple people. By the way, the Sages did not add any commandments from the Torah at all, I think. (This is a different matter, but (=it seems to me) you have gone into the matter, you will not add to it or subtract from it - Irbabat).

For there to be evidence from the verse, it is not enough to say that you are not sure that it is not a simplified version of the verse. What's more, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with the simplified version of the verse.

To everyone who wrote here about the commandments of learned people, I think you misunderstood the meaning of the verse.
It does not say “the commandments of learned people,” but “learned,” meaning that the word “learned” corresponds in gender and meaning to the word “mitzvah,” and therefore it refers to it. It says, “And you shall fear me, the commandments of learned people.” That is, the fear that they fear me is like a decree. Just as the authorities decree some law upon us and we only keep the law because we have to. And this is the meaning of the word “learned,” from the word “learned,” like “teaching” the cattle. For example, “And Ephraim, a learned heifer, loved to be trodden” or “The calf does not learn.” What is a calf that does not learn? An untamed calf, that has not been beaten by a teacher. And a mocking calf, that is, a learner, does what its owners tell it just to avoid being hit by the teacher of the cattle. And this is the criticism of the people of Israel. They fulfill the mitzvot without intention, without the heart, only because of the teacher. A calf learns in the face of a learned mitzvah. Of course, the criticism is not directed at the entire people of Israel, they have always been righteous.

It is also said:
All of them hold the sword, skilled in war, each with his sword on his thigh for fear by night. (Song of Songs 3:8 / Mikraot Gedolot)
And they were numbered with their brothers, skilled in song to the LORD, all who were skilled in understanding, eighty and eighty. (1 Chronicles 25:7)
And also, “which their fathers taught” and as it is mentioned in Malbai”which is a learned language.

In any case, the claim is not about the act of keeping the commandments, which they did keep well, and no one mentioned that it was a reproach to them that they kept the commandments. The whole claim is about fear/(intention?) as it is said, “And if I had departed from Me, then they would have feared the commandments of men taught.” That is, they lacked the intention of the heart in keeping the commandments. That is, the dissonance between keeping the commandments and the intention is the problem. Not the observance, but rather the lack of intention.
(See Rabbi Belganzi renews an interesting understanding there)
In any case, even among the Sages there is a dispute as to whether commandments require intention or not. And even for a method that is not yet simple, this does not mean that perfection in the observance of the commandments is not to be directed.
The prophet's claim is of course addressed to the people, not to the rabbis, etc., as stated at the beginning of the verse, "And the Lord will answer, 'For this people has come near with their mouths and with their lips, and their hearts are far from me.'"
And the things are simple and clear. The criticism is addressed to those who need to hear it. (And perhaps everyone needs to be strengthened?)
As it is said in Hosea, “Who is wise and understands these, and who understands them, and who knows them, that the ways of the LORD are upright, and the righteous will walk in them, but the transgressors will stumble in them. “

To Yochai and Safi

You tried to whitewash things, but it's not like that, my brother.

This verse comes and says: The people, which includes the leaders of the people, are going and being led by wrong leadership, this is the meaning of “approached” .
And it says “and their hearts were far from me” meaning that they ignored the correct interpretation that’ commanded them to obey. It gives the impression that they are doing the will of ’ but no - rather they are doing the will of people who taught them commandments in a way that is wrong from the interpretation. The word learned does not refer to people but to the commandment.

And this is an explanation that implies only one direction.

Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded at Horeb. And nothing else.

Lesfi.
I did not claim that the root מדד does not appear in the Bible in the sense of knowledge. But I did claim that it is unlikely, as Eitan and Moti claimed, that the interpretation of the verse is a commandment of learned people, since the word “מלומדה” does not correspond in name and number to the word “אנשים” but to the word “מטובה”.
And this is the answer to the plain text. In any case, we have no disagreement about the interpretation of the verse as a whole.

Livni.
Your interpretation is unclear.
The plain text does not really say that someone taught them incorrectly to keep the commandments. Where did you get that from? What is the evidence for this? Even if I were to say that the word מלומדה here really means the word ידדה, what is the implication here that someone taught them incorrectly the commandments?
His heart is spitting on me. Does it mean that they have strayed from the plain text of the Scriptures?? Explanation. Really far. It seems that you already have a preconceived opinion and are trying to impose it on the verse.
“With his mouth and lips he honors me, but his heart is far from me”
What does it mean? They only honor me outwardly. And this is precisely the death of learned people according to the interpretation.
There is no hint here that the people of Israel strayed from the plain text of the commandments.
Of course, the criticism was also directed at the leaders of the people. No one said otherwise. There have always been corrupt leaders, but never all of them were corrupt. In general, it seems that God was very harsh in his criticism of the people of Israel, probably to bring them back to the straight path, and it is reasonable to assume that much of the criticism is exaggerated language. For example, Jeremiah prophesied during the time of Josiah, among other things. In the entire book of Jeremiah, one hardly finds a single good word about Israel, even though during the time of Josiah the people were righteous following the king. The point is that there were always righteous and there were always wicked people, both among the common people and among the leaders.

I assume that my son's argument is that part of the chapter speaks of the prophets of Yavinu and later of the sages.

Well, I disagree with him. The mitzvah of learned people. What does that mean? That the mitzvah is learned? Learned, a verb construction, meaning passive. The mitzvah receives the action, the mitzvah is learned? What does that mean? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Even if I accept this interpretation, it certainly doesn't mean that the mitzvah of learned is wrong, in the Torah is wrong. Note that this is about the way the people fear the Lord, how they fear Him. To me, it makes much more sense to say that they fear the Lord in a tame way, like a calf that is tamed, doing it without thinking, without intending. This is the basis for the criticism of the people.

Yochi – (I don't understand why you have the letter A in your name)
You say beautiful things but listen if “with his mouth and lips he honored me but his heart was far from me” this is an explanation for ”and you feared me from the commandments of learned people” then please think a little without being fixed. In your death. And you will discover that they honored the ’ without the right way and without the simple. And about this the scripture screamed and said because the people approached and all and all will answer that they listen to things that are not from the simple commandments then this brought them trouble…

It's natural that the average reader can't read like you, son. It's probably a different mindset if you do understand it that way.
In any case, from a verse that is so vague as yours and has several other interpretations, there is no reason to see it as evidence against the tradition…

This is the point, Sephi

Tradition is always correct as long as it does not contradict the Tanakh

For example, in Parashat Amor it is written that a priest is forbidden to marry a woman who is not of his people, but the Samaritans “suddenly” decided that their priest is allowed to marry a Gentile and so they did. Is this the tradition because that is how they “suddenly” behaved?! No and no.

By the way, the Torah has seventy faces, and therefore there is no such thing as a different pattern of thinking. Connect every stone in the sentence with the context and the intention of the text and you will understand that the prophet is rebuking the people because they blindly followed a “tradition” that had changed for some reason and it is clear that they were opposed to that tradition, including the prophet himself

1. Have you ever seen someone write the name Yochai without the letter Aleph? And the answer is simple. The name originates from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai Dahi in the Land of Israel during the Tannaim period. At that time, to write the vowel sound א (ay), they wrote the letter Aleph before the letter Yochai, so in the Land of Israel in Babylon they wrote Dani Yochai. My name is Yochai and not Yochai.

2. I did not understand your answer. Actually, nothing else except, do not be fixed, think and discover. I am not fixed, I thought and discovered. Your argument is real, but things are really not that simple. This could be an interesting statement, do not simplify. Actually, you did not bring any evidence from the verse for anything. A commandment from learned people. Explain according to the verse how it means that they did not fulfill the simplification. If you do not have a convincing explanation beyond “Do not be fixed, think and discover”, it is a waste of time. Again, I'm not saying that your interpretation can't be interesting or even beautiful, it's simply not the verse to answer.

“By the way, the Torah has seventy faces, and therefore there is no such thing as a different pattern of thinking. Connect each stone in the sentence with the context and the intention of the scripture and you will understand that the prophet is rebuking the people because they blindly followed a “tradition” that had changed for some reason and it is clear that that tradition was opposed by those people, including the prophet himself”

It seems that we connected the stones of the sentence and immediately did not understand as you do. You are again repeating the strange argument of “think, open your eyes, discover, connect the cornerstones, understand, etc.’.
This is not a serious argument. Explain your position according to the plainness of the verse. You cannot simply say something like “not from your fixation and you will understand”, I can also argue that against you, but it is an argument that has nothing to do with it.

By the way, do you have any evidence that Samaritan priests married Gentiles? It seems to me that at least today the Samaritans really don't claim that they witnessed this in the past, and they certainly don't do so today.