Opuscula מצווה is not a "good deed" And צדקה is not "charity"

 

I WAS WATCHING a very good PBS program, The Story Of The Jews With Simon Schama. I know most of the story from other readings, but it still would be a "must see" recommendation.
(The book's ISBNs are: ISBN9780060539184 and ISBN 10: 00605391860)

As with most things PBS, there was a pitch for donations to keep similar programs on the air. That's OK; I get it. PBS has fewer commercials than most tv stations - but contrary to what PBS claims, it DOES have commercials.

In any event, during a house ad - that's a commercial for the "house" - one of two Jewish co-hostesses said that a mitzvah is a "good deed."

She needs to go back to Hebrew school.

A mitzvah is a commandment.

Hebrew is a verb-based language - as are most, it seems.

The root, the "shoresh," for מצווה is צו. (In English, the root for commandment is command.)

So "mitzvah" is NOT "good deed" no matter how many times some ignoramus says it; a "mitzvah" is a commandment, and in most cases, it is not to be ignored. There are, as we all know, 613 mitzvoth (commandments) but no one, no matter HOW religious - not even the most haredi in Beni Brak or Mea Sharim (100 Gates) - can perform all of the commandments. Many apply only to certain classes (kohanim, levim), some apply only to certain jobs (farmers, merchants), some are determined by - dare I write it? - the person's sex. I'm only considering the commandments from Torah Biktav, the written Torah, a/k/a the "Five Books of Moses."

Mitzvah = "good deed" is almost as aggravating as tzdekah = "charity."

The shoresh for צדקה is not (Neil) Sedaka, but צדק.

צדק is defined in my 501 Hebrew Verbs as be right, be just. (Neil may well be descended from righteous people, ergo the transliterated צדקה to Sedaka.)

In only one of its four forms does it carry a connotation other than vindicate/justify. The one exception to the rule is הצטדק = "apologize."

As long as ignorant Jews insist that "mitzvah" is a "good deed" and that "tzdekah" means "charity" they can ignore the negative commandments and feel good about themselves when they drop a dime in the charity box, never being concerned about justice - to their fellow Jews, to their fellow humans, even to animals.

That is not to suggest that these ignoramuses will commit any serious "negative" social commandments, i.e., murder, theft, etc. or that they might knowingly allow a criminal to remain free while an innocent person languishes in gaol.

But ignoring the true meaning of the words can lead to an averah, a sin.

The Jewish talking heads on tv don't need to know Hebrew to the level of Eliezer Ben-Yehuda or even Abba Eban, but they SHOULD know the meaning such common words as mitzvah and tzdekah.

Opuscula Was Jesus A pacifistic, Ignorant Jew?

 According to those followers of Paul's Jesus, the man was mild mannered and passive ("turn the other cheek").

AND THEN they tell the story of Jesus taking a whip to "the money changers in the Temple."

As with most half-truths, much is not reported.

THERE ARE MANY STORIES about Paul's Jesus that would leave all but the most naïve wondering "Is this man really a god?"

Jesus was supposed to be a Jew. No matter what religio-political party he may have favored (Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees) he would have known WHY the money changers were in the Temple COURT - not the Temple proper.

Even Jesus' disciple, Matthew (21:12–13) reports that The shulhanim (money changers) in Jerusalem used to set up their "tables" in the outer court of the Temple for the convenience of the numerous worshipers, especially those from foreign countries

The Torah portion for the 8th day of Passover, when it falls, as it did, on Shabat (for those outside Israel) - דברים 14: 22-דברים 26: 17 - explains, plainly, why there were money changers in the Temple court. (Same reason there are money changers in every air and seaport around the world.)

The subject is tithing (עשר תעשר) and we are told to bring our tithes to the Temple. HOWEVER the Torah goes on to tell us that (V.24) if the way is too long for you (to shelp your tithe, be it animal or from the field), because the place is too far … (V.25) then you shall turn it (the tithe) into money (V.26) and you shall buy what your soul desires and you shall eat there before the Lord, you and your household.

The above, slightly modernized, is adapted from the Hertz/Soncino humash.

That same portion (ראה) in V. 21 has one of the three occasions when - usually out of context -
לא-תהשל גדח בהלב אמו (Don't seethe a kid in its mother's milk) appears, from which the rabbis of the Talmuds determined mixing any meat with any dairy is forbidden.

The Encyclopedia Judaica: Money Changers has a fairly lengthy article on the role of money changers during the time Jesus was said to live. The article cites, among others, Paul (Acts) and Matthew (multiple occurrences).

Beyond the facts - authorized by Torah and admitted to by Matthew (ibid.) - where did Jesus get the authority to take a whip to ANYONE.

There were courts to which he could have turned - both Jewish/religious and Roman government. Rather than "turn the other cheek," he apparently lost his temper and decided he could put an end to something already well established.

Even if, as they do today, many bankers behave badly, Jesus HAD places to complain, but he had no authority - Jewish or Roman - to act as he allegedly did. Perhaps he thought he was above the law.