On Jan 27, 12:19Â pm, Dannyil
gmail.com> wrote:> On Jan 27, 9:31 pm, cactus
nonespam.com> wrote:
>>> Dannyilwrote:
>>>> Is the use of the term "Torah" to all teaching literal, or a metaphor?
>
>>> I don't understand what you mean.
>
>>> Danny.
>
>> I regard "Torah" as the first five books of Tanakh, yet I hear that
>> "Torah" refers to all Jewish learning. I've seen antisemites here claim
>> that Torah (the five books) is the same as Talmud for this reason. Â Now
>> that is, of course, ridiculous, but I don't see anything in legitimate
>> sources saying that Torah is a metaphor for Jewish learning.
>
> Torah has a dual root. Â It comes from the root Horah, to teach or it
> can mean Law - I.e. set of rules or instructions.
> Both teachings are understood See Numbers 15:16, Isaiah 9:14.
> Hebrew is a semitic language and as such behaves differently to
> English and Indo-European languages. Â In Hebrew, a single root has
> many forms and meanings, that form the 'picture' Â of the variance the
> root can suggest.
> On the other hand, English, has no root system and therefore you have
> one definition for one word.
> In Hebrew you can have multiple, and often exclusionary meanings for
> the same root. Â The Torah is usually defined as the five-books of
> Moses. Â Torah, can also refer to the Teaching - meaning anything that
> was taught, (usually, referring to the written and oral law combined)
> Torah can also refer to the corpus of all Jewish classical
> literature. Â Since this is in essence, one teaching. Â Talmud comes
> from the root - to learn. Â meaning the Talmud is really the by-product
> of Torah - Torah is the teaching, we receive the teaching and learn.
> The Talmud is therefore the embodiment of the teaching (both oral and
> written), as one would learn it. Â Therefore, often Torah refers to the
> Talmud as the product of understanding, and applying the teaching of
> the written and oral Torah.
>
> In the final analysis, it is true that G-d had to have given an Oral
> Torah to complement the written Torah, without which it doesn't make
> any sense. Â This is true of any of the texts of the Tanakh, not just
> the Torah. Â When G-d gave a prophecy to say, Isaiah, the
> interpretation of that prophecy was also included. Â (Its logical that
> if G-d wants a certain message conveyed accurately, the interpretation
> also has to be given, since people can interpret it differently).
>
> Danny
The difference between a root that can have many meanings and a word
that has a specific meaning is the difference between a symbol and a
sign. The unconscious speaks primarily in terms of symbols, while
consciousness prefers signs. That is why the translation from Hebrew
to English is progressive and allows a further specification of God's
Will that is not available through the Hebrew alone. English is close
to an angelic tongue, contrary to the racist bias of false Jews.
Hebrew alone will tend to get lost in circular reasoning that never
reaches the threshold of consciousness. That is why Jews who cling to
a three thousand year old document seem primitive to the rest of us.
They are primitive, and the essential development of conscience and
consciousness, which Moshiach brought, has never occurred in them.
