Conference taveng::bagels

    According to the ancient rabbis, the first Messianic passage is Genesis 
    3:14-15.  They clearly understood that the spiritual battle between Satan 
    and mankind would be waged by the Messiah, the seed of the woman.  In the 
    commentary on this passage in the Targum Jerusalem it states: "And it 
    shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and 
    obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you (Satan) on 
    the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the 
    commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will 
    direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them.  However, 
    there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, 
    there will be no remedy.  They shall make peace with one another in the 
    end, in the very end of days, in the days of King Messiah."  The Messiah 
    is the great hope of Israel, because He will provide the remedy for man's 
    sin and reconcile man back to God.  This view was critical to all the 
    writers God used to give us the Tanakh, as well as to ancient rabbis.  In 
    the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a we read, "All the prophets prophesied 
    only of the days of the Messiah."   From Sanhedrin 98b we read,   "The 
    World was not Created but only for the Messiah."
    
    Mike

    So, it's a pretty widely circulated teaching among Jews that Genesis
    3:15 represents a Messianic prophesy?
    
    Richard
    

	Richard, do you think that the argument from silence means
	anything more than the fact that not very many participants in
	this conference are students of the writings of the early rabbis?

	This is no different from the fact that if you ask a group
	of non-scholarly Catholics about the Immaculate Conception,
	most of them would not know the correct teaching, and would
	answer that it occurred 9 months before Jesus's birth.

	Their lack of knowledge doesn't change the teaching that the
	the Immaculate Conception happened approximately 15 years
	earlier, in Anna's womb.

	Similarly, the lack of knowledge here does not change the
	teaching of the ancient rabbis concerning Genesis 3:15.

/john

    .8
    
    Please excuse me, then.
    
    But it does seem to me that it says a lot if a group of non-scholarly
    Catholics (your example) does not know the correct teaching in what
    might be considered a central matter of faith.
    
    Richard
    

    I don't think any religion has a monopoly on followers who have
    failed to learn important teachings.  I gave a well-known example of
    a problem where there is a major misconception about a Catholic
    teaching because I wanted to show that the people you are quizzing
    here aren't unique.  I could have used the example a few years ago
    when Fred Goldstein (no longer at DEC) had to be told by Gerald Sacks
    that Judaism does, indeed, teach that there will be a resurrection of
    the dead.  I'm sure we could find many examples from almost every
    religion represented at DEC.

    .10
    
    Yes, I realize.  And I thank you for elucidating.
    
    Richard
    

One of the "games" the Rabbis play is to find multiple hidden
meaning in passages from Tanach. There is no central requirement
in Judaism to know all the hidden meanings that all the Rabbis
have found. "Targum" means "translation" in Aramaic. (At one time
the Jewish people were in danger of losing Hebrew in favor of
Aramaic and so Tanach was translated for the common man; like an
English language Tanach today in the USA. The Jeruselami is Talmud,
an ancient compilation of commentary and debates concerning all
aspects of Judaism. The more-widely studied Talmud is the Babli
(Babylon) Talmud. What we have here is an obscure commentary from
an obscure volume of Talmud. I'll check with some of the standard
English Chumashes (5-Books of Moses) in our synagugue's library
to see if any of the major commentators saw fit to include this
reference.

Please don't misunderstand me. Belief in the eventual arrival of a
Messiah IS central to Judaism. But belief that this particular verse
has that particular meaning is (I claim) almost irrelevant.

Dave

    .12
    
    I appreciate your willingness to look into it, Dave.
    
    Richard
    

>                                          The Jeruselami is Talmud,
>an ancient compilation of commentary and debates concerning all
>aspects of Judaism. The more-widely studied Talmud is the Babli
>(Babylon) Talmud. What we have here is an obscure commentary from
>an obscure volume of Talmud.

The reference wasn't to the Jerusalem Talmud, but to the Targum Jerusalem.
It's one of several Aramaic translations of the T'nach.  Other targumim
are Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan.

I've been watching this discussion and waiting for the other shoe to drop.
When a Christian asks about Messianic prophecies in the T'nach, there's
frequently a Christological follow-up.

    I'd be surprised if G-d waited until the last book of the Torah 
    to refer to the Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:18-19).
    
18:18  I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto
 thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all
 that I shall command him.
18:19  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words
 which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

.14

>I've been watching this discussion and waiting for the other shoe to drop.
>When a Christian asks about Messianic prophecies in the T'nach, there's
>frequently a Christological follow-up.

I just wanted to get a feel for how wide-spread the notion was.  If there's
another shoe to drop, it's from someone else's foot. :-)

Richard

I checked with three Chumashes: the Soncino, Hertz, and Plaut (JPS
Reform). None mentioned anything about a Messianic interpretation
for that verse. They all said the serpent sinned by trying to
seduce the woman and his punishment was to receive exactly the
opposite of what he expected. Period.

It is my opinion that it is not mainstream Judiasm to interpret
this verse as a Messianic prophesy. What we have is a "far out"
interpretation in a relatively obscure source. Even a large
Hebrew bible, such as appears on a rabbi's desk, has only the
original Hebrew, the Targum Jonathan, and the Targum Onkelos.
I'm sorry to say, I never heard of the Targum Yarushelami prior
to this.

I was at the synagogue last night. I would have checked more sources
but the board of directors was meeting in the library and I don't
have the chutzpah to interrupt.

Dave

    It seems the moderns disagree with the ancients on a few things, at
    least where Messianic prophecies and characteristics are concerned.
    
    >I've been watching this discussion and waiting for the other shoe to drop.
    >When a Christian asks about Messianic prophecies in the T'nach, there's
    >frequently a Christological follow-up.
    
    Richard just likes to ask clarifying questions about information discussed
    in another conference.  I think any Christian well-versed in the Tanakh
    can maturely discuss the Messianic portrait without offending.
    
    regards,
    Mike

I went to the synagogue library last night and checked with more extensive
commentaries. Rashi, Ramban, Hirsch (5 volume set), and Midrash. None mentions
a messianic interpretation for this verse. Hirsch managed to write 1.5 pages
on this one particular verse.

If these sources don't mention a messianic interpretation, then it is at best
a minority opinion.

Dave

    What approximate date were these references written?  1000 CE?  400
    BCE?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    .19
    
    Thank you.
    
    Richard
    

All dates are off the top of my head and I'm notoriously bad at dates.
The references I used are all modern English translations.

Midrash is a pre-talmudic compilation of older sources (say circa 200CE).
Rashi is 11th century France. Ramban is the son of Rambam (Moses Maimonides)
which puts him in roughly the 14th century. Hertz and Hirsch I believe were
pre-holocaust German. Plaut is very recent. Not sure about the Soncino edition,
but I think it's 20th century.

Rashi is the "big gun" among all these. If Rashi doesn't mention it, it probably
isn't so.

Dave

    The Targums, including the Targum Jerusalem, are Aramaic commentaries
    compiled from 200 BCE to 200 CE (i.e., closer to the source).  The
    quote I entered earlier in the topic was from Samson H. Levy discussing
    the Messianic implications of this Genesis passage in his book "The
    Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; The Messianic Exegesis of the
    Targum," published by Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion
    in 1974 (p. 2).
    
    Mike

I looked in Mikraos Gedolos, which is a standard chumash with lots of
commentaries, including Targum Jerusalem.  Unfortunately, my Aramaic
is inadequate to say much more than that it mentions the Messianic era.
I'll try to get someone to help me with the translation.

According to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's "The Living Torah" and according to
Meam Lo'ez, there is another Messianic connection in the prior verse.  In
the Messianic era, all creatures except the snake will be cured of their
ills.  This is derived "all the days of your life," which here (as in the
Haggadah) refers to the World to Come.  One of the sources for this is
the Targum Y'honasan.