Thank you very much for your commentary, Jim Brule. It was useful for me in my Jewish Studies. You speak slowly and articulate. I like your views, I don't expel it :) Greetings from Hungary.
Spiritually ambiguous theological scholar here. I am very grateful to my Baptist Torah professor for expressing the beauty of Judaism to me. Now I can digest wonderful content like this for my thesis on christian theology :)
I encourage you to reach out to Jewish scholars to understand Judaism. My dear Baptist minister brother and my dear Muslim scholar brother have been studying this way for many years, and our appreciation of our own traditions has grown deeply as a result.
You sir claim to be christian from baptist church and your pastor thinks this is wisdom? It’s a pure blasphemy in its core. What a shame, belittling the Lord God of Israel. This story is precise reason why Israel placed veil on their eyes and did not recognize the Day of their visitation by Mashiach Yeshua. Rabbinical invention of false pagan “oral law”, led the whole nation astray from Torah of Moshe, prophets and eventually from God. Some rejoiced over the destruction of Temple and kohanim for wolves like Akiva, Rashi etc. to kidnap people of Israel. Dear Father in Heaven, let Your people, my brethren in flesh, see the salvation in Yeshua haMashiach, Ben David.
Speaking as a Gentile who arrived here after some sort of Wikipedia journey or another research rabbithole of that sort, this was a fantastic and engaging telling of this tale. The bit about the contrast between the two versions of the Talmud was especially interesting. I am wondering, though, why the coda for the story was not explained more elaborately. The way I'd read it, the world was almost destroyed except that a younger fellow was able to speak to the powerful dude and tell him that the rest of the community had chosen to distance themselves from him (rather than phrasing it as an excommunication), and this act of respect or clever diplomatic phrasing was able to mitigate the wrath such that only part of the world was destroyed instead of all of it. Seems like that's certainly worth mentioning, also. Could've just been vandalism on the Wikipedia article, though, lol. This is still the internet, after all.
Thanks for the question, Shaun! The "coda" actually goes on for a while longer, adding even more rich detail to the context. To have undertaken it in this video would have added a lot more time... Basically, the head of the Sanhedrin who was responsible for the excommunication, is married to Eliezer's sister. A series of events ensues which calls into question the responsibilities of leaders who, while they may not preside at a decision, nonetheless carry the responsibility for it and its aftermaths. Perhaps this will find its way into another video! Again, thanks and blessings...
Rabbi Eliezer was very sage like with a deep understanding of the world. He knew the oven was pure, because he just knew. Not because it was written. I feel like having Rabbi Eliezer in your community would be a very valuable asset. One of the morals of the story is that the opinion of the community is preferred above the experience of the individual. This seems to be the case even when the individual is a sage like rabbi Eliezer. The miracles that happen during and after the incident surrounding Rabbi Eliezer signify his connection to the Lord. The oven was pure, the world around them as well as the Lord agreed to that, yet the oven was deemed impure by the community, based on their interpretation of the Torah. I just feel bad for Eliezer. Im not sure what the Talmud is trying to teach in this matter. Should we not heed individuals like Rabbi Eliezer, people with a deep understanding of the world and of the nature of the divine?
Thank you for your comment! Just as there are two versions of this story, one for each of the two written versions of the Talmud, so there are many lessons that can be learned - some of them contradictory. The common understanding of the Bavel version (G!d laughed) is that we must take ownership of Torah and make it our own - only then can it live in us. The common understanding of the Yerushalami version (G!d wept) is that we should never force another to believe as we do - that requiring consensus stifles the voice of the minority, who is most often the oppressed. Each side in this debate (subject to the laws of purity, or not) are both right and wrong at the same time. It is only when we can hold these views simultaneously that the deeper meanings can begin to emerge.
@@JimBrule Beautiful. Thank you for the reply. While in bed I also thought of the following meaning: it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's about how we act (with compassion).
What differences, aside from the fact that I am telling it orally and not reading it, do you notice? I take my version from both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds...
@@JimBrule A major difference is your reading in of the conflict between the spirit and letter of the law. For Rabbi Yehoshua and others, this story was told to assert Rabbinical authority over Divine Revelation and to start the 2000 year tradition of concocting arbitrary rules not found in the Torah. This was during the 1st century AD when the Jewish groups were scattered from the destruction of the Temple and the rise of Christianity.
@@samuelnuzbrokh3027 Ah, you are the one with a bias, my friend. What you are saying is an interpretation, not the story. And a particularly non-Jewish interpretation at that.
@@JimBrule Read Isaiah 29:13. Is not the Talmud precisely a continuation of this tendency? To "create a fence around the Torah" when in reality just promulgating dictates from this or that rabbi
@@samuelnuzbrokh3027 Respectfully, you actually have it backwards. Religions / traditions / cultures must be dynamic if they are to survive. Judaism - like all religions - has evolved over time. To say that any one moment in time is the only true manifestation of a religion is to kill the spirit. That being said, a tradition must also remain faithful to its roots, and not just wander aimlessly. This is the dynamic tension - I prefer the term "dance" - that keeps the tradition vibrantly alive.
In all due respect to the religion and its culture, I will always have a hard time grasping how such banalities like what's pure/impure, can cause such havoc or discorse in communities/heavens. Of course maybe i'm taking it too literaly and it has orehaps more to do with conveyed messages, but to think that so much things are impure since everything(imo) is created by Him, to me is irrational. I might just be ignorant but such trivialities to be fought over are too strange.
Thank you for your respectful reply and question. Unfortunately, "pure" and "impure" are not great translations out of context, they more accurately mean " a state of being usable for a particular (usually ritual) purpose" or not. So it is indeed to use these more metaphorically, which gets us to the deeper issue: how can opposites be simultaneously true? And what relationship are we invited to have with the Eternal? Again, thanks for your question.
There is more than one way of understanding this story, which is perhaps the most important point. One can both be defeated and victorious, injured and proud, etc., etc. We get ourselves into the most trouble when we insist that we have the only answer.
Thank you very much for your commentary, Jim Brule. It was useful for me in my Jewish Studies. You speak slowly and articulate. I like your views, I don't expel it :) Greetings from Hungary.
Thank you! This is an old video... I'm glad it was helpful! Are there other subjects you would be interested in?
Spiritually ambiguous theological scholar here. I am very grateful to my Baptist Torah professor for expressing the beauty of Judaism to me. Now I can digest wonderful content like this for my thesis on christian theology :)
I encourage you to reach out to Jewish scholars to understand Judaism. My dear Baptist minister brother and my dear Muslim scholar brother have been studying this way for many years, and our appreciation of our own traditions has grown deeply as a result.
@@JimBrule thank you very much for the reply! I intend to
You sir claim to be christian from baptist church and your pastor thinks this is wisdom? It’s a pure blasphemy in its core. What a shame, belittling the Lord God of Israel. This story is precise reason why Israel placed veil on their eyes and did not recognize the Day of their visitation by Mashiach Yeshua. Rabbinical invention of false pagan “oral law”, led the whole nation astray from Torah of Moshe, prophets and eventually from God. Some rejoiced over the destruction of Temple and kohanim for wolves like Akiva, Rashi etc. to kidnap people of Israel. Dear Father in Heaven, let Your people, my brethren in flesh, see the salvation in Yeshua haMashiach, Ben David.
Speaking as a Gentile who arrived here after some sort of Wikipedia journey or another research rabbithole of that sort, this was a fantastic and engaging telling of this tale. The bit about the contrast between the two versions of the Talmud was especially interesting.
I am wondering, though, why the coda for the story was not explained more elaborately. The way I'd read it, the world was almost destroyed except that a younger fellow was able to speak to the powerful dude and tell him that the rest of the community had chosen to distance themselves from him (rather than phrasing it as an excommunication), and this act of respect or clever diplomatic phrasing was able to mitigate the wrath such that only part of the world was destroyed instead of all of it. Seems like that's certainly worth mentioning, also. Could've just been vandalism on the Wikipedia article, though, lol. This is still the internet, after all.
Thanks for the question, Shaun! The "coda" actually goes on for a while longer, adding even more rich detail to the context. To have undertaken it in this video would have added a lot more time...
Basically, the head of the Sanhedrin who was responsible for the excommunication, is married to Eliezer's sister. A series of events ensues which calls into question the responsibilities of leaders who, while they may not preside at a decision, nonetheless carry the responsibility for it and its aftermaths. Perhaps this will find its way into another video!
Again, thanks and blessings...
I've always thought that we don't tell enough stories from the Talmud. Thanks so much for this video..
Thank you so much!
My children have triumphed over me
This story has always confused me. But I had never heard the full end.
Thank you for sharing
My pleasure! Thanks!
Rabbi Eliezer was very sage like with a deep understanding of the world. He knew the oven was pure, because he just knew. Not because it was written.
I feel like having Rabbi Eliezer in your community would be a very valuable asset.
One of the morals of the story is that the opinion of the community is preferred above the experience of the individual. This seems to be the case even when the individual is a sage like rabbi Eliezer. The miracles that happen during and after the incident surrounding Rabbi Eliezer signify his connection to the Lord. The oven was pure, the world around them as well as the Lord agreed to that, yet the oven was deemed impure by the community, based on their interpretation of the Torah.
I just feel bad for Eliezer.
Im not sure what the Talmud is trying to teach in this matter. Should we not heed individuals like Rabbi Eliezer, people with a deep understanding of the world and of the nature of the divine?
Thank you for your comment!
Just as there are two versions of this story, one for each of the two written versions of the Talmud, so there are many lessons that can be learned - some of them contradictory.
The common understanding of the Bavel version (G!d laughed) is that we must take ownership of Torah and make it our own - only then can it live in us.
The common understanding of the Yerushalami version (G!d wept) is that we should never force another to believe as we do - that requiring consensus stifles the voice of the minority, who is most often the oppressed.
Each side in this debate (subject to the laws of purity, or not) are both right and wrong at the same time. It is only when we can hold these views simultaneously that the deeper meanings can begin to emerge.
@@JimBrule Beautiful. Thank you for the reply. While in bed I also thought of the following meaning: it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, it's about how we act (with compassion).
chazzak! very well explained!
Todah rabbah!
this is not the actual story - where are you getting this version?
What differences, aside from the fact that I am telling it orally and not reading it, do you notice? I take my version from both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds...
@@JimBrule A major difference is your reading in of the conflict between the spirit and letter of the law. For Rabbi Yehoshua and others, this story was told to assert Rabbinical authority over Divine Revelation and to start the 2000 year tradition of concocting arbitrary rules not found in the Torah. This was during the 1st century AD when the Jewish groups were scattered from the destruction of the Temple and the rise of Christianity.
@@samuelnuzbrokh3027 Ah, you are the one with a bias, my friend. What you are saying is an interpretation, not the story. And a particularly non-Jewish interpretation at that.
@@JimBrule Read Isaiah 29:13. Is not the Talmud precisely a continuation of this tendency? To "create a fence around the Torah" when in reality just promulgating dictates from this or that rabbi
@@samuelnuzbrokh3027 Respectfully, you actually have it backwards. Religions / traditions / cultures must be dynamic if they are to survive. Judaism - like all religions - has evolved over time. To say that any one moment in time is the only true manifestation of a religion is to kill the spirit. That being said, a tradition must also remain faithful to its roots, and not just wander aimlessly. This is the dynamic tension - I prefer the term "dance" - that keeps the tradition vibrantly alive.
In all due respect to the religion and its culture, I will always have a hard time grasping how such banalities like what's pure/impure, can cause such havoc or discorse in communities/heavens. Of course maybe i'm taking it too literaly and it has orehaps more to do with conveyed messages, but to think that so much things are impure since everything(imo) is created by Him, to me is irrational. I might just be ignorant but such trivialities to be fought over are too strange.
Thank you for your respectful reply and question. Unfortunately, "pure" and "impure" are not great translations out of context, they more accurately mean " a state of being usable for a particular (usually ritual) purpose" or not. So it is indeed to use these more metaphorically, which gets us to the deeper issue: how can opposites be simultaneously true? And what relationship are we invited to have with the Eternal?
Again, thanks for your question.
What's the meaning of this story? Was God admitting defeat? Was he being Rhetorical?
There is more than one way of understanding this story, which is perhaps the most important point. One can both be defeated and victorious, injured and proud, etc., etc. We get ourselves into the most trouble when we insist that we have the only answer.
Sorry sir. For some personal reasons I deleted my comments. But I would like to restart our conversation. Only if you want to.
Happy to. Where would you like to continue?
Not palestine