Which “Torah”? https://archive.is/El82qNote: If links are broken due to CathInfo character substitutions, go to the archive page above for the original link.
navigate this page
Judaism defines 6 components as “Torah”:- 1)“Written Torah” (Torah she bich tav, תורה שבכתב ), what we call the Old Testament, derided by the rabbis as suitable only for women and children, superseded by the “Oral Torah”;
- 2)“Oral Torah” (Torah she beal peh, תורה שבעל פה), even though it was committed to writing in the centuries after Christ, includes the тαℓмυd and even the Kabbalistic books like the Zohar and Sefer Yetzirah. These man-made oral traditions were committed to writing, first as the Mishnah in the Tannaitic era after the Crucifixion of Our Lord, then additional commentary in Aramaic was added as the Gemara during the Amoraim era (roughly 300-450 A.D.). In Judaism, the man-made opinions in this “Oral Torah” supersede the Word of God in the Written Torah (Bava Metzia 59b);
- 3)Aggadah (non-legalistic folklore and fables) and Haggadah (the тαℓмυdic, hence anti-Biblical, liturgy for Passover);
- 4)Responsa, including the latest rabbinical opinions;
- 5)the rabbis themselves; and
- 6)the totemic scroll paraded about in the ѕуηαgσgυє.
Most (uninformed) Catholics think that “Torah” means the Pentateuch, but that is not so. When the rabbis want to refer to the Pentateuch, they call it “Torah Mosheh” or by the acronym “Tanakh.” Almost always when the rabbis refer to “Torah” without qualification, they are referring to the “Oral Torah” (тαℓмυd and Kabbala).
True support from the Old Testament would lend legitimacy to rabbinical opinions, but a reference to the man-made traditions damned by Jesus (Mark 7:8-9) de-legitimizes the rabbis opinions in the eyes of Catholics. The rabbis are happy to let listeners mistakenly think the rabbis are claiming wise support from the Old Testament for their diabolical opinions, support that just is not there.
So, in the parlance of Judaism, it is 100% correct to refer to the тαℓмυd as “Torah,” but that is not the Old Testament Word of God. To understand Judaism you must understand how the megalomaniacal rabbis have nullified the Word of God—by switching their “Oral” Torah for the actual Written Torah.
“…the time has come to shatter the myth and explicitly address the most open secret which we all have known for a while now – Haredi [Orthodox] education in its various yeshivas only focuses on one thing, while creating ignorant students on every other front. An important clarification: I am not referring, like secular critics, to the Haredi disregard for subjects such as math, science, English literature, etc…This is a different problem.
“The issue I have is with the fact that the vast majority of yeshivas only teach тαℓмυd and related questions and answers. That’s it.
“What about the Bible? I am not disparaging, Heaven forbid, the importance of the тαℓмυd. Yet for once let’s talk about the religious people who strictly adhere to the mitzvahs (blessed deeds), yet are unfamiliar with the Bible…And this is not an anomaly – this is the norm. The only Biblical verses familiar to yeshiva students are those quoted by тαℓмυd sages, and that’s that. The Bible is seen as a sort of inferior genre that is appropriate for young children (or for women)…”
Time to face haredi secret
by Efrat Shapira-Rosenberg, Ynet News, February 10, 2010
This highlights another rabbinical deception, a deception that has completely gulled “evangelicals.” By the time of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, there was no complete “Hebrew Bible.” Many of the authentic Hebrew texts had been lost. The only complete Old Testament was in Greek, the Septuagint, a completely authentic text authorized and translated by the official Jєωιѕн Court, the Sanhedrin, in about 250 B.C.
The much-vaunted “Hebrew Bible” is a fraud perpetrated by the Masoretes and was not completed until about 1000 A.D. Sure it is in Hebrew, but it is not original, not authentic. The mere mention of “Hebrew” is supposed to convince you that the texts are ancient and authentic, but the Masoretic texts are a bowdlerized post-Christian reaction against Jesus Christ, edited to dethrone Him and blaspheme His Mother. A salient example of their agenda is the Masoretes’ substitution of “almah” (young girl) in Isaias 7:14 instead of the original “virgin.” The children of the Father of Lies and Murder at work. Many more details exposing the fraud are found in the Big Lies page on this site. The Babylonian тαℓмυd (Bavli) is divided into topical sections (seder) that are subdivided into chapters (tractates) with facing pages (folio) designated “a” or “b.”
The topical sections are:
- •Seder Zeraim (agriculture)
- •Seder Moed (holidays)
- •Seder Nashim (family law)
- •Seder Nezikin (damages)
- •Seder Kodashim (sacrifices)
- •Seder Tahorot (purity)
- •Minor tractates (various)
There are five main parts of a folio (page) of the тαℓмυd:
1. Mishnah • מִשְׁנָה • “study by repetition”
3rd century A.D., the Tannaitic era
The man-made “traditions” (baraita) of the Pharisees were damned by Jesus for “making void the Commandments of God” (Mark 7:7-9). Those damned traditions were eventually compiled in written form as the Mishnah of the тαℓмυd. 2. Gemara • גמרא • “completion”
4-5th centuries A.D., the Amoraim era
Further elaboration of the Mishnaic traditions. The Gemara is written in Aramaic and lacks punctuation. There are two versions: The Jerusalem or Palestinian тαℓмυd (тαℓмυd Yerushalmi) and the Babylonian тαℓмυd (тαℓмυd Bavli).
3. Rashi • רש”י • an acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki: רבי שלמה יצחקי
11th Century A.D.
Commentary on the fraudulent post-Christian and anti-Christian Masoretic Texts, the so-called “Hebrew Bible,” and the derivative тαℓмυd. Rashi’s commentaries depart ever further from the plain meaning (pshat) to exegetical extrapolations (drash) that nullify the unmistakeable Word of God. Rashi’s words are usually rendered in a Sephardic cursive font known as Rashi script, ketav Rashi (כתב רש”י), and always appear on the inside margin of the folio. 4. Tosafot • תוספות • “additions”
12-13th centuries A.D.
Commentaries printed, in almost all тαℓмυd editions, on the outer margin and opposite Rashi’s notes. “Tosephta is the name of compilation of halakhic-haggadic character, which judged by its contents belongs essentially to the era of the Tanna’im (Teachers), and which is modeled on the plan of the Mishna”
5. Tractates and Folios
The тαℓмυd has six topical volumes that are further divided into 63 tractates (chapters).
The first folio (page) of a tractate will be named “a” and the facing page will be “b.”
Chapter names are taken from the first word of the Mishnah shown in large font in an illustrated box.
Judaism teaches that their тαℓмυd and Kabbalah (Oral Torah, Torah she beal peh, תורה שבעל פה) supersede the Word of God (Written Torah, Torah she bich tav, תורה שבכתב ). The rabbis boast that they “defeat” God (Bava Metzia 59b).
sanitizing the vernacular editions of the тαℓмυd
For a millennium following Christ, Christians mistakenly believed that Jєωs were just people of the Old Testament who had rejected and murdered their Messiah. That bubble of innocence burst when sincere converts from Judaism revealed the foundational teachings of Judaism. Those shocking revelations—the non-human status of Gentiles, genocidal and other imprecations against Christians, blasphemies, perversions, and megalomaniacal presumptions—warranted confirmation. Due to the revelations of sincere converts such as Nicholas Donin, St. Vincent Ferrer, Jerónimo de Santa Fe, Johannes (Josef) Pfefferkorn, et al., further investigations were ordered, including the Disputations of Paris (1240 A.D.) and Tortosa (1413-1414 A.D.). Having no serious defense against the substantiated accusations, the rabbis involved slinked away humiliated.
Disputation between Jєωιѕн and Christian scholars. Johann von Armssheim, 1483. Woodcut
You are invited to examine the usual hasbara excuses about the Disputations in Jєωιѕн-owned Wikipedia and elsewhere, but suffice it to say that the rabbis have spent the centuries since the Disputations contriving a defense, but not an honest defense, only denial and concealment.
In the centuries since the Disputations, the rabbis have invested much effort in sanitizing and expurgating vernacular translations of the тαℓмυd. When confronted with the evidence, the Jєωs have tried many tricks to explain away and conceal their supremacist, genocidal, perverse, and blasphemous creed. These sanitized editions are useful to the rabbis: “See it’s not there.” Or “The tractate is about ‘Balaam.’” In the sanitized тαℓмυd editions numerous code word substitutions are used for Christians (min, Cuthean, Egyptian, Epicurean, etc.) and Jesus of Nazareth (“that man,” “the carpenter,” “Balaam,” “ben Pandera, a reference to the тαℓмυd’s teaching that Jesus was the bastard of a whore who committed adultery with a Roman soldier named Pandera, and even blank spaces).
Consider this representative example from the online Davidson тαℓмυd English edition.
Note the softened English translation of Soferim 15(10): “Kill the best of the heathens…”
What English speaker would bristle at killing “heathens”?
Here's the rub. The word for “gentiles” is the same as the word for “heathens”: גויים (goyim).
You can also compare the written forms:
Now examine Soferim 15(10) in the online Davidson тαℓмυd English translation. The Hebrew word for “gentiles” is substituted by the Hebrew word for “boys” but the printed word is not translated into English as“boys” and the translation uses the muted “heathens” to avoid indicating that non-Jєωs (gentiles, goyim) are the ones to be killed.
A feature of the Sefaria website—you can click on a Hebrew word to obtain a pop-up definition. When you click on the word for “boys, sons,” you get this result:
Give us a break! The word for ‘boy, son” (singular ben, plural benim) is so common that it is used in names like David ben Gurion (an early Zionist terrorist), but Sefaria can find “no definition” for such a common word. To be sure, there are rare instances of frank translations. For example, consider this discussion of Maimonides teaching on Soferim 15(10) in his Mishneh Torah. Chabad presented the discussion on their website, but, when it captured the attention of Gentiles, the page was deleted, archived only on screen captures. Chabad is faithfully transmitting the authentic teaching of Soferim 15(10) in the тαℓмυd as explained by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah. The Davidson edition of the тαℓмυd softens and conceals the teaching.
The gravamen of all this esoterica is simple:
Nothing the rabbis claim or deny can be taken at face value. Their every utterance must be examined with diligent skepticism.
Code words, word substitutions, deletions, blank spaces, and ambiguous footnotes have all been used to hide what sincere converts have revealed about the supremacist, genocidal, malevolent, perverse, and blasphemous tenets of Judaism.
Judaism is anti-Biblical
“My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [sofarim] even more than the words of the Torah.”
Eruvin 21b (Davidson edition)
“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jєωs as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.”
Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159
“The Jєωιѕн religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees. Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The тαℓмυd is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.”
Universal Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474
“Pharisaism became тαℓмυdism, тαℓмυdism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.”
Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, The Jєωιѕн Publication Society of America (1946) p. xxi
“The тαℓмυd is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” *
Michael L. Rodkinson, The History of the тαℓмυd: From The Time Of Its Formation About 200 B. C. Up To The Present Time, Kessinger Publishing, LLC (June 8, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1428631366, p.70
* “Allusions”? Yes, Jesus damned those man-made traditions for voiding the commandment of God. Mark 7:8-9
“The complex of rabbinically ordained practices ... including most of the rules for the treatment of Scripture itself--do not derive from Scripture at all. Rabbinic Judaism’s initial concern was with the elaboration and refinement of it’s own system. Attaching the system to scripture was secondary. It therefore is misleading to depict rabbinic Judaism primarily as a consequence of an exegetical process or the organic unfolding of Scripture. Rather, rabbinic Judaism began as the work of a small, ambitious, and homogeneous group of pseudo-priests ...By the third century (A.D.) the rabbis expressed their self-conception in the ideology of “Oral Torah” which held that a comprehensive body of teachings and practices (halachot) not included in Scripture had been given by God and through Moses only to the rabbinic establishment.”
Rabbi Jacob Nuesner, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, pp. 31-34
“On the surface, Scripture plays little role in the Mishanaic system, The Mishnah [of the тαℓмυd] rarely cites a verse of Scripture, refers to Scripture as an entity, links its own ideas to those of Scripture, or lays claim to originate in what Scripture has said, even by indirect or remote allusion to a Scriptural verse of teaching... Formally, redactionally, and linguistically the Mishnah stands in splendid isolation from Scripture....the Mishnah constitutes Torah. It too is a statement of revelation, ‘Torah revealed to Moses at Sinai.’ But this part of revelation has come down in a form different from the well-known, written part, the Scripture. This tradition truly deserves the name ‘tradition,’ because for a long time it was handed down orally, not in writing, until given the written formulation now before us in the Mishnah.... Since some of the named authorities in the chain of tradition appear throughout the materials of the Mishnah, the claim is that what these people say comes to them from Sinai through the processes of qabbalah and massoret --handing down ‘traditioning.’ So the reason... that the Mishnah does not cite Scripture is that it does not have to.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1988. pp. xxxv-xxxvi.
Note the casual admission that both “qabbalah and massoret [the vaunted, but bowdlerized, ‘Hebrew Bible’]” change Scripture through “process,” “traditioning.” In Judaism tradition is not fixed or faithful, but is an ever-changing “process” that is described as “traditioning.” This is why “the latest Responsa and homiletical interpretations of the rabbis” are Torah, hence authoritative in Judaism. Thus, the rabbis “bury Moses” and “defeat God.”
Indeed all this oral “traditioning” is precisely what Jesus fingered as “make void the commandments of God for the traditions of men.” (Mark 7:9). Since the rabbis are free to “alter even the very content of Mosaic revelation” with impunity, we begin to understand why Jesus said, “there is one that accuseth you, Moses” (John 5:45-47).
Do not be misled by a rabbi’s mere mention of the word “Torah.” You must pin him down: “Which ‘Torah’?” Then watch out for the pilpul, mental reservations, and Kol Nidre deceit that will inevitably follow. pilpul • weapon of the rabbis, lawyers, and other liars
How do the “sages” turn God’s clear commands inside out? How do lawyers deny the plain text of the US Constitution and find non-existent “rights,” such as the “right” to kill unborn babies? By pilpul, a quintessentially Jєωιѕн form of lying and self-deception.
What Is Pilpul , And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?
by David Sasha, May 22, 2010, updated May 25, 2011
Pilpul for Beginners
by Gilad Atzmon, Mayt 18, 2020
“Pilpul, as described, is not about understanding of the law and its meaning but about the deliberate miss- interpretation of the law so it fits with one’s core interests.
Shasha points out that ‘even though many contemporary Jєωs are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to ‘prove’ his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.’
Pilpul is basically a legalistic exercise that is removed from truthfulness, ethical thinking or even logic.”
whatever the rabbis say is “Torah”
Don’t get suckered into one of the oldest rabbinical tricks, the claim that the тαℓмυd is based on “Torah.” A Christian assumes that “Torah” means the Pentateuch, but there’s the trick. In Judaism there are at least FIVE definitions of Torah. Here’s the proof:
Please note four definitions of Torah in the Jєωιѕн Encyclopedia’s entry on Torah:
“Originally, in order to maintain the distinction between the written Torah (see written law) and various traditional interpretations, customs and practices, the rabbis forbade the commitment to writing of the additional material. However, when it became too voluminous and chaotic conditions made oral transmission too uncertain, the ban was lifted and the material organized and transcribed in the form of the Mishnah, the тαℓмυd, and other rabbinic works. The rabbis expressed their view that ‘two Torahs’ were given at Sinai, a Written Torah [Torah She Bich Tav, DEFINITION #1] and an Oral Torah [Torah SheBeal Peh, DEFINITION #2] (see oral law) and that at least some of the oral traditions relating to the meaning of basic biblical concepts were as authoritative as the written text (see halakah le-mosheh mi-sinai) In a sense the Oral Torah came to be regarded as more important than the Written Torah inasmuch as the explanations and understanding of the latter depended upon the former. A third meaning of the word ‘Torah’ therefore includes elements of the Oral Torah, which are considered authoritative or deoraita ---‘from the Torah.’ Finally in its broadest sense, the word ‘Torah’ is sometimes used to refer to the entire corpus of Halacha and Aggadah, [DEFINITION #3] Written and Oral, from the Bible up to and including the latest Responsa and homiletical interpretations of the rabbis [DEFINITION #4]....”
The New Encyclopedia of Judaism, Geoffrey Wigoder editor in Chief, New York: New York University Press, 2002, ISBN 0814793996, page 778
Please note a fifth definition of Torah according to the most prolific contemporary rabbi:
“... The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah [DEFINITION #5], not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself.” [Rabbi Jacob Neusner, “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1., Feb., 1970, pp.3-4]
A sixth definition is the scroll [DEFINITION #6] treated as a totem in the ѕуηαgσgυє.
It gets worse because these “Torah” are on an ever-widening trajectory from God. Consider explicit corollaries of the great scholar’s presumption that, because the rabbis are divine, they can “alter the very content of Mosaic revelation.”
“...the Babylonian тαℓмυd represents God in the flesh...” Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Judaism, Minneapolis MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1995. p. 62
“The Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks Torah out of the mouths of all rabbis.” Haggadah 15b
“The Bavli [Babylonian тαℓмυd] has formed the definitive statement of Judaism from the time of its closure to the present day.”
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, quoted by Norman F. Cantor, The Sacred Chain: A History of the Jєωs, page 112)
“the definitive statement”—not “a series of debates”
Though this 14-part series of childish animations on the тαℓмυd is unmitigated propaganda, the series is useful for an overview of the rabbis’ highly-sanitized and self-promoting narrative, especially the “series of debates” shibboleth. The series is also useful to penetrate the тαℓмυdic jargon with which the rabbis often try to baffle critics of evil тαℓмυdic content.
Topic: "Torah"—a key Jєωιѕн Lie (Read 190 times)