Good for you.
Beware of Karaites though. They are not Torah-centric. They believe in Tanach, not Torah. They are adding to the Torah just like Orthodox Jews.
You both need to do the right thing and switch to being Torah-centric like God intended. There is absolutely no need to add anything else to the Torah.
I understand that it may be hard after years of religious programming. However, if you truly want to be close to God, you need to make this step.
This is why there are so few Torah-centric people. Not a lot of people today get it and can make necessary steps to become Torah-centric.
I am so glad you told me! I have had this feeling too. I discovered Judaism when we lived in Darwin, 2010. We converted almost a year ago, and soon after that I said to the head of Beit din that I had started to study Torah by myself. He became scared and said that I had to ask a rabbi about everything, not to become self made. I intend to start asking soon. Can I get back to you for help and support if I get difficult answers?
You can see my blog for contact info and for useful articles.
Here are some posts you may be interested in:
There is more so you are more than welcome to check it out.
Thank you. I really appreciate it.
I do not claim to know everything nor am I a Priest to judge Torah matters, however, I do what I can to help people understand the Torah from rational, logical and more or less scientific perspective.
You do not have to agree with me on everything, just please give my articles a chance 😉
If you want to discuss further, feel free to start a new thread and I will join you there. We need some activity on the forum.
Agree, I have started a question in the Written Torah forum about Sabbath, it is a grammatical question, and I do not know if I have been clear enough in my question. I do have a background in linguistics.
Do you mind if I reflect on something you wrote in your articles, that I do not understand yet?
Interesting discussion! I just came back here to see what was new and read through this.
I’m with Alex regarding rabbinic Judaism, but it sounds like you’ve previously converted so you’re in a touchy situation.
On the one hand, part of being in an orthodox community entails traditions that aren’t necessary derived from Torah, but also don’t go against it. Tradition will be a part of any community, and is okay (in my view) as long as it doesn’t go against the Torah. But, there is so much about orthodoxy that does in fact violate Torah. Many of the blessings require you to say that YHWH commanded you to do something that he did not command. Rosh Hashanah is six months out of place. The Mishnah micro manages every aspect of life (if you allow it to) and can be very oppresive. For example, do you know that per the Mishna you should only deficate while facing east or west? North or south is a no-no.
However, if you’ve converted to Orthodox judaism there are some benefits as well, such as making Aliyah, if you were converted by an “approved” rabbi that is. You’re probably not thinking about Aliyah though if your husband is being treated for cancer. (I wish him a speedy and complete recovery!)
Do you read the written Torah with your husband? If so, perhaps you could arrange to read some passages that relate to either things rabbinical Judaism has changed or that suggest they don’t have authority. Exodus 12 declares the month of the new year, which doesn’t line up with Rosh Hashanah. Deuteronomy 17 I think shows that it is the Priesthood which is ultimately in charge of making judgements, and though I, like Alex, am Torah-only, you could look at 1 Chronicles 23 for an example showing that Levites were appointed as judges.
I have written a few articles on my website, nowhere near as many as Alex, but I have a short post about why the Mishnah (the “oral torah” portion of the Talmud) is NOT divine, which may be useful:
One thing that helped me see that the Nakh (Tanakh beyond the Torah) is problematic was my study of the “chosen place” of Deuteronomy. My opinion about the chosen place differs from Alex, but we both agree that Jerusalem and the temple was never authorized by the Torah. I wrote about my conclusions regarding the chosen place here:
Once you realize that Jerusalem is/was NOT the chosen place, it calls the rest of the Judean writings into serious question. This is why I am Torah only at this point in my study/research.
I agree with you that Mt. Gerizim is the chosen place too. However, the main chosen place seems to be the Tabernacle when it is present of'course.
I think one way to resolve the contradiction is to assume that Mt.Gerizim altar is only for peace and/or free-will offerings. We can't have two altars for main burnt/sin-offerings like the text seem to suggest.
And it is very clear from the text that the Tabernacle can be located anywhere among all of the tribes. See Deut 12:5, 12:14, 18:5.
I guess I assumed from what I’ve read at your site that you simply believed the location of the tent of meeting, wherever it happened to be, was the chosen place. Glad to know you agree on Mount Gerizim, to an extent.
To me, it seems that the tent of meeting was mobile only for the duration of their journey TO their ancestral land. I see the chosen place after they entered the land as a fixed location, for a couple reasons:
1. I believe the “will choose” of the MT was originally “has chosen” as the SP reads. As scholar Stefan Schorch pointed out:
“Adrian Schenker has pointed out in two recent articles that the reading “has chosen” is not only found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, but is attested by some Greek Septuagint manuscripts, too, as well as by the Coptic and the Latin secondary translations of the Old Greek text of the Pentateuch. This indicates that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek translation of Deuteronomy read “has chosen”, and in terms of textual criticism “has chosen” is therefore certainly the original reading, while the Masoretic reading “will choose” is secondary, being an ideological and maybe even an anti-Samaritan correction.”
This would, for example, change the reading of Deut 12:5 to say “the place hes chosen from all your tribes to establish his name as his place of residence”, which no longer seems variable.
2. Exodus 15:17, part of the song of the sea, reads:
You will bring them in and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, in the place you made for your residence, O YHWH, the sanctuary, O Adonai, that your hands have established. (Exodus 15:17 NET)
This indicates the place of his residence had already been chosen. The hebrew word “makon” translated as place here has a meaning of “fixed our established place, foundation”, further pointing (IMO) to a non-changing location. I believe the tent of meeting would have been established at this location permanently. It seems to me it would have been a logistical nightmare to keep an entire country informed of where a mobile chosen place was at any given time.
With “has chosen” as the reading throughout Deuteronomy, everything lines up nicely with Exodus 15:17 which indicates his place of residence was already chosen, and it lines up nicely with Jacob having named the location “Beit El” (House of God).
Anyway, this is probably going far beyond the scope of the OP’s original question. Sorry @Hannah!
You are most certainly mistaken. You do not seem to understand a paramount importance and symbolism of the mobility of the Tabernacle.
Tabernacle is a Tent of the Living God, real God. The God that can feel, speak, breathe, walk and do the very same things we can do. This is why our God also likes to travel and this is why the Tabernacle was designed to be mobile.
Only pagan temples for gods were permanent and fixed in one place. This is where the Tabernacle is significantly different from pagan temples as it was designed to move.
Also, Tabernacle is said to be FOREVER, so it would be very unwise to downplay its role. See Exodus 27:20-21, Leviticus 16:32-34, Leviticus 24:2-4, Numbers 18:20-24, Numbers 18:31 and Leviticus 26:11.
This is why I disagree with you about "have chosen" and I consider MT reading the original one.
Here is the article I wrote about it: https://www.thedeserttabernacle.com/2017/04/will-choose-or-have-chosen-place.html
I think our host agrees with me on this one.
I don’t de-emphasize the tent of meeting. I simply think it would be permanently established at the chosen place. Not as a temple of stone, but as it was designed.
And I fail to see how the fact that the tabernacle was able to be moved proves the MT has the correct reading? The sources we have that preserve “has chosen” are all from sources much older than the MT.
And Exodus 15:17? It does not imply a future choice but once that has already been made.
It all fits very nicely together, IMO.
No. This is where you are very very wrong.
While I agree that the Tabernacle will be in Cannan, I disagree that it is not going to move around. My understanding that once in Canaan, the Tabernacle would move from tribe to tribe. There is nothing difficult about this, especially if we account for the communications and logistics technology that we already have today.
The sources you cite to support SP position are not primary sources. You cite either translations or vorlage, none of which is a primary source. The only primary sources we have are SP and MT, and maybe DSS to some extent. So we have to go with what we have.
So the only way to resolve this issue is to use logic, and logic dictates that since the Tabernacle was mobile, the reading should be "shall choose" because this is what is being implied by the mobility of the Tabernacle.
Exodus 15:17 talks about Hebrews, not Tabernacle. The verse says that God will establish them (Hebrews) in the land of his sanctuary (Tabernacle). This verse most certainly does not imply that the Tabernacle will stay in one particular place forever. In Cannan - maybe, in one place - absolutely not.
We even have an example in the Torah when Tabernacle articles sent into a battle.
And yes, feel free to start a new thread...