The Christian sees deep significance in the words: “her seed” referring to Eve. The argument of the missionary is that since we only have reference to the “seed of the woman” and no mention is made of the seed of a man so we have a prophetic announcement of a “virgin birth”.
This argument fails for several reasons. According to this line of reasoning; every time that the Scriptures address an individual concerning their progeny using the term: “your seed” we ought to conclude that we are talking of a virgin birth (in those situations where a female is being addressed such as Genesis 16:10) or of a birth that is achieved through a male without a female (where a male is being addressed such as in Genesis 3:15 – the serpent). If this were true then we would have many virgin births announced in the Bible.
Furthermore; how could anyone know if this prophecy was ever fulfilled?
Missionaries see another “significant prophecy” in this verse. They understand the serpent to be the devil and they read this passage as a prediction that the one who will strike the devil’s head will be born of a woman without a man.
The simple reading of the text tells us that the snake will bite the heel of Eve’s progeny while Eve’s progeny will smite snakes on the head. This is simple and straightforward. Just as the previous verse (Genesis 3:14) speaks of snakes crawling on their bellies with no reference to a specific future event so it is with this passage. It simply describes the state of enmity between snakes and humans that will endure until the Messianic era (Isaiah 11:8; 65:25).
Furthermore, even if the missionary interpretation would have a smidgen of truth to it (which it does not) – a cursory glance at history will tell us that the “devil” was not “smitten on the head” with the advent of Christianity…
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
I agree with you in part on the first point. The verse by itself does not point to a virgin birth. Other prophesies do, and when taken together the picture becomes clear. However, the verse does identify the individual.
It points to the birth of a male individual. “He” will strike first and “he” will strike the head of the snake and the snake will strike “his” heel.
“…he will strike your head and you will strike his heel.”
This fits then with other prophesies and is the first to point to the Christ who is the solution to the problem of sin which Adam (primarily) caused.
Jesus struck first at the head of the slanderer, that ancient serpent, when He called out the hypocritical chief priests, hypocritical Pharisees, etc. He said that they were “sons of the devil.” They retaliated by striking his heel, causing him to be crucified. They thought that was the end of it but God had the last laugh and raised Jesus from the dead. Death couldn’t hold him. The sons of the devil didn’t know that they were given a mortal blow (to the head). The end for the devil and his followers is just a matter of time. The age of Christianity had begun.
I have read many commections using these and other verses. Several would be mewssiahs, not only Jesus and his followers, used this method to shore up their view.
A streat reading of the text cannot have a devil in it. Main reason, only room for one self-knowing intity in the Universe-HaShem. The devil of your faith could, as “he” sees it, take the place of the creator.
Also, contraditioins with what G-d is recorded to have said, as for example; Christian theorest claim Jesus was created at the beginning.
1. If created at the beginning, then how could this creation be “born”/
2. HaShem said He is unique: “I have no father, nor do I have a son.”
So if these theorest are correct, then what do you call the created being who is born of a woman, without a man’s interaction? How can it be His son, if He said He has no son? Then, what is your Jesus?
As for the serpant? This story is written in other, pre-Abrahamic religious stories. The Serpant is considered evel, but again, where is the room in the Unbiverse for such competative beings, in the Torah version of the Universe?
Not close, but if you would dedicate yourselves to knowing about what Jesus taught, your connection would be tighter as you would not be playing with snakes.
After all, G-d said the Torah is for Eternity.
David wrote “They retaliated by striking his heel, causing him to be crucified. They thought that was the end of it but God had the last laugh and raised Jesus from the dead. Death couldn’t hold him. ”
This statement fails for a lot of reasons. Jsus was not the first to be raised from the dead. Elijah and Elisha both raised the dead. So, I could make the argument that death was defeated then. Jsus himself also allegedly raised the dead. Lazarus was even dead longer than the man from Nazareth. Wasnt that a bigger miracle?
Now, regarding “seed” the word in Hebrew is Zerah. It occurs 100+ times as a reference to offspring…descendants…and the Tanakh lists several instances where zerah (seed) applies to women. Here are two examples.
Gen 16:10 Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, “I will greatly multiply your [fn]descendants so that [fn]they will be too many to count.” (16:10) Literally: seed
1Sa 2:20 Then Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife and say, “May the LORD give you [fn]children from this woman in place of [fn]the one she dedicated to the LORD.” And they went to their own [fn]home. (2:20) Literally: seed (Source Blue Letter Bible)
So, as you can see, women do in fact have “seed” zerah…they are called children and descendants in English…but over 100+ times in Hebrew, they are called “zerah” . The hebrew does not parse it out into separate words, like children..descendants…it only uses zerah.. Genesis 3:15 could have just as easily been translated “descendants” instead of seed.
Hi, Im sure you would agree that only God Himself can create and give life. Form nations by His divine will?!
That isnt the point. The point is that the church says that Jsus’ resurrection was a unique event that ended death. You wrote ” God had the last laugh and raised Jesus from the dead. Death couldn’t hold him. ”
Fact is, it was not a unique event. People had been brought back from the dead before…didnt they have victory over death? And so what if “God” raised “God” (the god-man) from the dead? That is certainly no big accomplishment for a deity.. It is meaningless.
Jesus called people “sons of the devil” – doesn’t make them sons of the devil – read the books of the people Jesus criticised – and read the Christian Scriptures – look at the history of the followers of Jesus and look at the history of the followers of the Pharisees
You said: “The Christian sees deep significance in the words: “her seed” referring to Eve. The argument of the missionary is that since we only have reference to the “seed of the woman” and no mention is made of the seed of a man so we have a prophetic announcement of a ‘virgin birth’.”
May I ask which Christians see such deep significance in these words? I know many, many Christians (and many Jews), and I have heard anything at all about this verse from only very few.
I would certainly agree with you that many individuals do read into Scripture, or claim some verse as “proof” of this and that, often out of context. That applies not only to many Christians but also to many Jews as well as many people who do not claim to be either. But – and forgive me if this seems disrespectful, because I do not mean it that way – it seems a little slanderous to say “Christians” do the things you mention, because many Christian do not at all do those things.
While we certainly do see G-d speak through symbols and dreams multiple times throughout the Tanakh – several of which we see in the book of Daniel, and in many instances of the prophets either foretelling the future or describing sin and man’s failure – not everything is a symbol, and I certainly agree that all of us do need to be careful about declaring that something G-d said is a clear symbol or picture of something else, or of pulling a verse out here and there to use as a “proof” text. G-d gave His entire Word for us to read, and all of it in its context. And He desired that we come to know and love Him through His Word, not use it as a means of dissention.
I do also think it is important to not lump people together and claim a certain group says or does things that quite possibly many within that given group may also find offensive. I disagree with many Christians and with many Jews about a number of topics, but I would not feel comfortable making a broad categorization about either one just to prove my own point.
Freedom, you asked::
“May I ask which Christians see such deep significance in these words?”
yourphariseefriends appraisal of it having great significance to “the christian” is entirely appropriate, even if it is not every christian.
In case you were not aware, citing Gen 3:15 as a christian proof text is standard missionary fare and can be found in numerous missionary tracts.(Try Googling “genesis 3:15”.)
When I Google Genesis 3:15, I come up with numerous Bible translations of the verse. However, as I said in my earlier post, I do know a few who have commented on the verse and what they believe is a link to a prophecy.
In any case, I do not personally agree with saying things like “Jews believe…” or “Christians believe” because, first, the statement is usually inaccurate at least on quite a number of counts, and, second, no one likes to be put in a box. The bottom line, though, that I think we would all agree on is that G-d gave His Word primarily as a means to know Him throughout His comprehensive Word and to learn to love Him there.
When I google Genesis 3:15 the first page of results has ten hits on my screen. The 3rd (a wiki article), 8th (angelfire.com) and 9th (jesus.org) all make reference to this interpretation. It is not hard to find.
You need to remember, this is blog is primarily a countermissionary site and as such it is understood by most of its readers that when its author refers to Christians he means Christian missionaries and I sincerely hope you are not claiming that Gen 3:15 is not to be routinely found among lists of Christian missionary proof texts.In point of fact it is.
You seem to have a problem with a general sweeping statement like “missionaries believe” – what do you say to Matthew 23 which throws out some general statements about the Pharisees – without distinguishing between one and another – this chapter came to define Judaism for so many people – with devastating results – do you have any criticism there?
Hi Friend. 🙂
Well, my honest response would be that I don’t prefer to discuss Christian Scriptures on a Jewish blog (just as I would be unlikely to discuss Jewish differences or arguments on a Christian blog…). However, it is a fair question regarding why I might see something that could seem similar at face value very differently. It’s this:
1. The “general statements” about the Pharisees were about a particular group of leaders who were, according to the same book and the same context, self-serving and oppressive in their leadership (just as, quite frankly, a number of religious leaders are today – regardless of what faith they call themselves). Given that Israel was already in exile at the time, it is safe to assume that in fact the Israelite leadership of that day was indeed oppressive and sinful – because G-d’s very general statements about Israel and her sin when Israel had been in exile at previous times indicated all of those same general statements about Israel’s sin and even much, much worse (very strong statements all throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and many more…I am sure you are aware of them, so I won’t list the very long list of biblical references). G-d had already stated that if Israel was following Him with a good heart that He desired (sharing bread with the hungry, breaking every yoke, letting the oppressed go free, taking the poor into her home), rather than oppressing all her laborers, engaging in strife and contention, and making her voice “heard on high,” then she would be very clearly blessed and not cursed (Isaiah 58:3-14). Israel was in exile at the time of Matthew 23 (NOT blessed but rather cursed) and thus obviously was doing the opposite of what G-d desired in these things – so I would have to honestly say that, objectively, the general statements in Matthew 23 do not list anything new that G-d had not already previously stated as a reason for Israel’s condition of exile, under the curse, in many, many places throughout the Tanakh. Wouldn’t you agree?
2. Although G-d did, in the Tanakh, certainly list very general statements about Israel while she was in sin (and very harsh, from a human perspective – much more so than anything that appears in Matthew 23), and without distinguishing between one and another, I see that as G-d’s right to judge. G-d in fact went much further, not only addressing a certain group of leaders but Israel in general (and through many prophets), even going so far as to outline the terrible destruction that would occur to Israel, calling her a murderer, harlot, rebel, defiled, one who taught the worst of women her ways (Jeremiah chapters 2 and 3) and who gave no thought to G-d and practiced idolatry (Isaiah 57), one who acquired ill-gotten gains and whose priests profaned what was sacred (Ezekiel 22) even saying that Israel on the same day slaughtered her very children to her fetishes and then entered His Sanctuary (Ezekiel 23:39), all of which is far more than is ever said in the Christian New Testament. And the list above is only the beginning of the judgments G-d pronounced as general statements through many prophets, as I’m sure you know…do you not agree?
In any case, as I think I’ve mentioned before, I do prefer to discuss only Jewish Scriptures on Jewish blogs (and in my discussions with Jewish friends), but out of respect for you and because I am the one who made the protest in the first place, I wanted to respond this once to the query about what was said in the Christian New Testament. (I really do not want to engage in discussions about the Christian Bible in general, though.)
In any case, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I personally would not feel comfortable listing issues as “the Jews believe…” or “Christians believe…” because I have friends I love who are both, and I prefer to keep our discussions between us. What I read in the quote above was a comment about “Christians” in general and not a particular group of Christian leaders, so that was what I was protesting.
I wish you peace, health, and blessings today, Friend.
No, I am not claiming anything about it, actually, although I have to honestly say I don’t really review proof texts. I think it is unwise for anyone (not just Christians, but anyone) to pull out a biblical verse here and there as a “proof text” – as I think we have already discussed and agreed on in the past. 🙂 G-d gave us His comprehensive Word for us to know, love, and worship Him, and I do find it truly unfortunate that some who claim to worship Him seem to use it not as a means to humbly know Him better but rather for a personal agenda.
G-d listed harsh punishments for digressing from His teachings on not only Who and What He is, also from the Torahic teachings, as in how we should treat all humans.
What I did not see in your posting is the reference to His compassion for those who T’Shuva (return) to Hhis way. He made sure we know how to behave and why, as in the first 3 or four commandments, and in His telling us to take to heart all He said (Deut.4: 39)
39 know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else. 40 And thou shalt keep His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.
This is the whole of His teaching about Him; the rest is commentary, and why we cannot accpt one whom we know to not be either the messiah, nor divine anymore than you or I.
You interpert the parts of His words which support your view; we live and die by His Word, as He told us.
I do indeed read and love the many Scriptures about G-d’s great Compassion, Mercy, and Love throughout the Tanakh, and I am sorry if my response above somehow indicated that I see these as lesser in importance than the Scriptures I quoted about His judgments. I quoted those Scriptures only because of the particular question I was asked (i.e., quoting them in parallel with the particular New Testament quote). There are certainly also many, many quotes in which great love for Israel has been expressed, but that was not what I was responding to. I was merely pointing out the many, many Scriptures in the Tanakh that said the exact same thing (and actually much more strongly) as was said in the NT Scripture quoted.
This is why I do not like to discuss anything other than the Tanakh on my Jewish friends’ blogs – because there tends to be misunderstandings. I thought it surely would have been clear from my previous posts how much I do deeply appreciate and love G-d’s immense love for and choosing of Israel as his bride – and His utter devotion to her even in His anger at Israel’s sin – but perhaps in my effort to explain why I do not see the Matthew quote as being anything new, I miscommunicated. I am truly sorry for that.
Believe me that I do indeed know and believe in and love G-d’s great and everlasting Compassion; I was merely attempting to respond to the question. Forgive me if I did a poor job of that.
“he will strike your head and you will strike his heel”
Bad translation it should read they or them instead of him,his,or he read the link below please.
Click to access Gen315.pdf
Thanks, but disagree with your source. You can google it and find plenty of contrary opinions to what you cited.
A couple of items; the translatioins used by many Christian leaders is not even the Septuagent! It is a Greek version by Marcion’s followers, to have a more consistant reading with what they wanted to put out. One reason he was decleared an apostate.
In the Hebrew, the endings are what gives the game away. Or, as there have been many applicants for messiahship, would you say that the plural endings go with the history?
You claim many examples that tie together, see a later-day son of god messiah. It is a claim, unconsistant with the whole and the language (Hebrew) of the Sacred Scriptures. Khrushna and others before the 1st century CE had a semilar life and message.
I have a book that shows how consistant Buddah and Jesus were.Jesus & Buddha; the parallel Sayings, by Marcus Borg. This does shar up a Rabbainic teaching; that the sons of Noah, when they became to numberous to stay in one place, spread out around the world. Each took some of what G-d taught them, and we see this in the teachings of many people. Taoest are a good exmple, even though they are far away from Israel, there are many semalarities between us.
So accept that the Tanach to support the Gospel would have to have contradictory verses, making G-d’s word less than consistant. Could you accept a god who says different things at different times?
So, then as I’ve mentioned above, Gen. 3:15 doesn’t point to a virgin birth by itself. Coupled with other verses it gives us great insight into God’s plan for the salvation of man, and a better understanding of who God is.
Just 5 verses later in Gen. 3:20, God provides us another indicator. By themselves 3:15 and 3:20 don’t prove the Christ but coupled with other verses it begins the formation of a picture of what God has planned.
When Adam named the woman Eve, was it because “she was the mother of all living.” But Adam is living is he not? Eve is not Adam’s mother. So how can this be? As I see it (in hind sight) knowing the Christ and the NT, the following is a possible explanation.
First, we know from the NT that Christ is life and the source of all life because God gave his Son Jesus that authority to grant eternal life. This is explained in the NT. I’m talking life in the age to come. If anyone is to have life in the age to come it is through Jesus. And I’m including ALL people: past, present and future (from the first man Adam to the last person and all those in-between). Therefore if Adam is to have life in the age to come, it will be because of the work Jesus did who himself was given life (the first of fruits), and the grantor of life as received, authorized and empowered from God his father and our father. The mother of Jesus is Mary; the mother of Mary is Eve. So indirectly Eve is the mother of ALL living, meaning all living eternally, because if you are not living eternally you’re dead.
As a side note I do think that our earthly father Adam will have life in age to come because he had a contrite and repentant heart immediately following the awarding of his punishment/discipline. His first thought was of someone other than himself and the harm he had caused. He thought of his wife and gave her the name Eve. His behavior is contrasted with that of Cain who thought of no one but himself immediately following his punishment/discipline and did nothing but complain to God. Cain didn’t give a second thought to his victim Able.
“So, then as I’ve mentioned above, Gen. 3:15 doesn’t point to a virgin birth by itself.”
We are all now in agreement.
On Cain, you made a good point. He married a woman from the other tribes, so we do not know how ethical his background was. I have seen this split in behavior in families, though, and we do not have a valid view how it was, where Cain lived.
If you are searching for tie-ins of verses from early to later times, we see this in nations, where there are those who care and show it for others, and in the same commuity, it is “ME”! If we stop trying to re-do the language and accept the validity of all humans, what do you think the consequences would be?
Yup; I accept you have your view, and you live by it, You accept that I have my view, and I live by it?
Remember, G-d is infinante and He shall accept your best effort to live a moral and ethical life, as finante as you and I are.
I wish that were the case. But we just have to go by what God says.
You commented; “I wish that were the case. But we just have to go by what God says.”
I agree, where it is what G-d says. We have learned to be careful of where, in the Tanach, it is G-d speaking/quoted, or a Prophet or exponder of text. A good example is the census David had done. In ll Samuel, G-d commanded; In l Commentary, Satan provoked. Which was it?
I think you understand better that it is often what the writter understood. The contradictions in both the Tanach and the Gospel show this.
One reason we depend on the Talmud so much; the discussion digs out the truth, and the truth shall set us free from error.
By the way, did you know that the Oral Law is 38 years older than the written Torah? We were given the 10 Commandments when we arrived at Sinai, but it was two years before Moses left us, when G-d told him to “Write the words which I shall tell you.”
This is one reason Jews as a whole, do not jump on a given track anymore. Frustrating for Missionaries, I know, but knowledgable Jews go by what we can read of G-d, not what frequently proves contradictory to the Tanach.
On another blog, I asked the question; which Protestant sect is correct? i answered-all of them, they each see the whole from a different point of view. So it is here, the issue is not correctness, but respect for the viewpoints of others.
The more you look into some Christian “proof texts” or the Biblical foundations for common doctrine, the less convincing those arguments are. On Gen 3:15, some Christians Old Testament theologians take sharp issue with the popular messianic interpretation. In his “Commentary on Genesis”, Gerhard von Rad says, “The exegesis of the early church which found a messianic prophecy here, a reference to a final victory of the woman’s seed (Protevangelium), does not agree with the sense of the passage….” Part of the problem is that the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate and the Hebrew Bible don’t always agree on the meanings or context or “tenses” or “gender of certain words. And part of the problem is that some English translations are poor in some areas and some are biased and theologically driven. So the “messiah” could be offspring, “the human race”, “they” or even an “It” (as in the King James) or, because the Latin puts the “she” before the serpent, it could make the woman (or Mary, mother of Jesus) as the first ‘enemy’ of the prince of darkness.”
One of the better analysis of the text and problems of interpretation with Gen 3:15 is a Pdf file of about 10 pages named “RECENT TRANSLATIONS OF GENESIS 3:15” by Marten H. Woudstra in the Calvin Theological Journal 6 (1971) 194-203 (Calvin Theological Seminary). Another briefer and less scholarly study is an online article reviewing the “Common English Bible” version in May 2011, called “Translating Genesis 3:15 – Part 1” (and “…Part 2”) by Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary. Although both are by Christian scholars, Jews or anyone who does not view Gen 3:15 as “messianic”, will find much there to agree with or that can be useful in arguing against popular interpretations of the verse.
we don’t all speak with one voice of course. Jews don’t speak with one voice. You can get opinions all over the map whether Jew or other. Most Christians disagree with me on the issue of the Trinity. Does that mean that they are right? Does it mean they’re wrong? Right or wrong is not a matter of how many or how few say this or that. I learned that a long time ago.
You are right that we do not speak with one voice, but we do speak from one source.
So are you saying that subjective opinions are more important than a more objective study of the texts? Or that the context and the plain meaning of text is less important than trying to “read your belief into” a few words or sentences here and there and although the result contradicts other verses or just “plain don’t make no sense”?
Then why base your beliefs on select verses anyhow? Be original and write your own narrative based on your theories. Actually I feel part of your feeling about what one verse in Genesis means started from accepting it as a common and popular teaching.
“Thanks, but disagree with your source. You can google it and find plenty of contrary opinions to what you cited.”
Do any of these contrary opinions know the Hebrew language?
Do you care? If a give you a reference will you read it?
Yes I will read it.
If you google “Genesis 3:15 zera” this is first on the list. Following that, there is a seemingly endless list of commentary on whether 3:15 refers to the collective (plural), singular, or both.
Click to access TynBull_1997_48_1_07_Collins_Gen3_15WomansSeed.pdf
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.
My favorite line: “a cursory glance at history will tell us that the “devil” was not “smitten on the head” with the advent of Christianity…”
It seems like our Pharisee Friend has opened up a can of worms. Yes and what are worms but very little snakes. Rabbi’s paper answers the arguments of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians on Genesis 315. As far as other verses (Proving) a virgin birth. There are none. Oh yes another like the snake verse. “A root out of dry ground” I heard that as a proof text but Since when is water likened to germinating a seed. Pretty strong water :). But like it or not that is Christian commentary for you. And you want me to stake my Eternal life on such wanton thievery of our sacred text? Forget about it!
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
Even their own scriptures say it did not happen yet. 🙂
While I agree with R’B; Christian midrash goes to far in seeing a virgin birth in Genesis 3:15 it must be pointed out two can play at such things. For example; suppose I was to write a blog on a Christian site using Rashi’s commentary on this verse. ‘7 year gestation peroid for snakes? ‘ ‘The serpent wanted to marry Eve?’
If the virgin birth is out in left field, its not alone.
Should Christianity be held to account for one interpretation of Scripture any more than Judaism?
14And the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed be you more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field; you shall walk on your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.
Rashi: Because you have done this: From here [we learn] that we may not intercede in favor of one who entices people [to idolatry], for had He asked him, “Why did you do this?” he could have answered, “The words of the master and the words of the pupil-whose words do we obey?” [i.e., Adam and Eve should have obeyed God rather than the serpent!]- [from Sanh. 29a]
more than all the cattle and more than all the beasts of the field: If he was cursed more than the cattle [whose gestation period is long], he was surely cursed more than the beasts [whose gestation period is comparatively shorter]. Our Rabbis established this midrash in Tractate Bechoroth (8a) to teach that the gestation period of a serpent is seven years.
you shall walk on your belly: It had legs, but they were cut off. — [from Gen. Rabbah 20:5]
15And I shall place hatred between you and between the woman, and between your seed and between her seed. He will crush your head, and you will bite his heel.”
Rashi: And I shall place hatred: You intended that the man should die when he would eat first, and you would marry Eve, and you came to Eve first only because women are easily enticed, and they know how to entice their husbands. Therefore, “I shall place hatred.”
He will crush your head: יְשׁוּפְךָ רֹאשׁ, lit. he will crush you the head. He will crush you, like (Deut. 9:21): “And I crushed it,” which is translated by the Targum as וְשָׁפִית יָתֵיהּ
and you will bite his heel: Heb. תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ. You will not stand upright and you will bite him on the heel, and even from there you will kill him. The expression תְּשׁוּפֶנוּ is like (Isa. 40:24): “He blew (נָשַׁף) on them.” When a snake comes to bite, it blows with a sort of hiss, and since the two expressions coincide [i.e., they sound alike], Scripture used the expression of נְשִׁיפָה in both cases.
CP The difference is that Christians don’t find Rashi’s interpretation in their mailboxes and then find themselves being called blind for not seeing it in the verse 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
Agreed, but is that a condemnation or a commendation?
The more I study about Beit Shammia vs Hillel certain things are coming to light, such as Shammia’s attitude of isolationism vs Hillel desire to take Torah to the Nations.
CP You say you are “studying” about Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Are you doing this studying from original sources?
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
I don’t read Aramic, nor do I have my own personal copies of the Talmud.
Please don’t take it as rude; but if I’m wrong about stuff such as “Shammia’s attitude of isolationism vs Hillel desire to take Torah to the Nations.”, then please correct me.
Pingback: Genesis (Part 16) – Dusty Reviews