Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Maimonides vs Raavad – Modern Orthodox revolutionary?

The 2 great Rabbinic scholars of the 12th century were known as Maimonides (Rambam) and his frequent controversialist, Abraham ben David (RABaD or Raavad). Whereas Maimonides is well known throughout the Jewish (and non-Jewish) world, with hundreds of books about him, hospitals, and schools named after him and is a celebrated figure of Jewish intellect in areas of philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. Rabad is scarcely known outside of rabbinical scholarship and the experts in halacha (and Kabbala) who study his original critiques of Maimonides.

Maimonides is known as a towering intellect, who was esteemed by surrounding Muslim and Christian cultures; as a philosopher whose magnum opus The Guide for the Perplexed is still the mainstay of Jewish philosophy and theology, and whose original 13 principles of faith have become a declaration of faith for the rabbinical orthodox world. Rabad was known as a great talmudist, who had the entire Talmud deeply ensconced in his memory, and he was reputed to be able to access any part of it on demand. He was the major rabbinic authority for France and Ashkenaz, whereas Maimonides was the authority for Spain and Sepharad.

Maimonides is considered a “Modern” orthodox proponent, because of his philosophical and rational thinking, his use of science and rejection of mysticism and superstition. Rabad, on the other hand, is largely claimed as a model for Ultra-Orthodoxy precisely because of his espousal of and expertise in Kabbalah, and his alleged disregard of science. However, neither of these stereotypes are necessarily true. I will argue quite the opposite.

A statement I have often heard from the Yeshiva world is that they follow Maimonides in halacha (legal interpretation) but not in philosophy. Indeed, the relatively modern Shulchan Aruch is largely based on Rambam's legal works. This statement, however, is problematic, because the one authority who is supposedly authentically Orthodox – Rabad – was also the chief critic of Maimonides' halacha, and not philosophy. Rabad leveled severe criticism against the “Mishneh Torah” of Maimonides, both methodological and substantive. The main methodological criticisms were that Maimonides was not providing sources for his statements, and that a text book of halacha is a bad thing, rather it should be derived through consideration of the various opinions in the Talmud. Indeed certain of Maimonides' statements seem to be in error (or fabricated) and Rabad will show that there is in fact much evidence to support the opposite conclusion.

The key problem with Maimonides is that he tends to present a strict position, when in fact the Talmud suggests a lenient or permissive position on many matters. He also seems to be aloof and unconcerned by the real world burden he is imposing on people, whereas Rabad is very concerned by the increasing burden of rabbinically added extras. In one famous controversy, Rambam is suggesting that a rabbinic Gezeira (added restriction) cannot be undone by a later generation. Here, the Rabad presents a case where this was precisely occurred since the reasons for that restriction were no longer relevant.

So whilst it may be claimed that Rambam was a Modern orthodox revolutionary, he was in practice an extreme conservative, who often presents halachic views which are impractical and unwarranted, whereas Rabad was the true revolutionary. Revolutionary is a relative term, since our impression of Rabbinic law is one of strictness and ascetism. Rambam, the philosopher was the ascetic, and he imposed an ascetic halacha, whereas Rabad, the Kabbalist was the most open minded thinker in the past 1000 years. His vision of Talmud was not one that strangles a person's humanity, happiness of enjoyment in this world – this was the conclusion that Rambam reached. Rabad viewed the Talmud as a way of living and allowing people to fulfil there lives in this world, and not to wait for the next. Hence, it is my view that Abraham ben David was the true Modern Orthodox revolutionary.

Wednesday, 10 January 2018

The Single Lineage Theory

As previously discussed, the mainstream Rabbinic concept of Matrilineal descent is a single lineage theory. That means the woman can conceive by any man, or anonymous donor, and the child will still be considered Jewish.  In fact even in the case of adultery, if the male cohabiter is not Jewish, the child will (according to Rabbinic halacha) be both Jewish and kasher, ie  without the taint of mamzerut. (Mamzerut is a complex matter and is not supported by the textual reading of the Torah).

There is evidence that refutes the matrilineal theory.  Today’s evidence is from the Mitzvah of Levirate marriage or Yibum.

Deut 25:

ה  כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר:  יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
ו  וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.
ז  וְאִם-לֹא יַחְפֹּץ הָאִישׁ, לָקַחַת אֶת-יְבִמְתּוֹ; וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל-הַזְּקֵנִים, וְאָמְרָה מֵאֵן יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל--לֹא אָבָה, יַבְּמִי.
7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: 'My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me.'
ח  וְקָרְאוּ-לוֹ זִקְנֵי-עִירוֹ, וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו; וְעָמַד וְאָמַר, לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ.
8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand, and say: 'I like not to take her';
ט  וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו, לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ, וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו; וְעָנְתָה, וְאָמְרָה, כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִבְנֶה אֶת-בֵּית אָחִיו.
9 then shall his brother's wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.'
י  וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:  בֵּית, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל.  {ס}
10 And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that had his shoe loosed. {S}

According to rabbinic thought, the father of a child has no bearing whatsoever of the identity of the child, i.e. being part of Israel or being a “Jew”.  This is entirely from
the mother. Thus the father could be a Chinese Buddhist,  an African tribesman, or a native American, and the child would still be Jewish.  However, the Torah refutes this claim.  

In the case given in the Torah above, the problem with the husband dying childless is that his name is blotted from Israel:  6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.”

From here, we can deduce that for a person born to be considered an Israelite, he must have his father’s name, i.e. identity.  This sounds like the mirror image of the rabbinic claim.  It doesn’t tell us whether both parents need to be Israelites. However, the  Yibum does not apply to a wife who dies childless, i.e.  her sister is not obligated to marry the husband  whose wife dies (assuming the sister is not already married). This means that the name of the mother is not passed on to the child, and hence the Israelite identity is passed on from the father.

The Yibum procedure has a single function, which is to perpetuate the name of a deceased man, should he be childless.  One might ask, what would be the purpose of this mitzvah if the Israelite identity were passed on from the mother?

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Israelites, Jews and Matrilineal Descent. Jews or Shoes?

The question used both rhetorically and also legally, is “Who is a Jew?”.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, which in its orthodox manifestation controls many Batei Din around the world, and dominates the Israeli scene, this is something which is passed on by the mother and not the father. A Jewish woman who intermarried with person of non Jewish heritage still gives birth to “Jewish” children, whereas the favour is not returned to the Jewish man who takes a wife of non Jewish heritage.

This is the well known story. Apart from conversion, which is the only other option, there is not much of an alternative. The Karaites do not have a clear position on this, although some will make a claim that Patrilineal descent is valid, whereas others insist on both parents being Jewish.

To try to understand this issue, it might help to define what “Jewish” actually means. In fact, there is something that preceeds “Jewishness”, and that is being an Israelite. Israel was a given name to Jacob. His descendants are Israelites. Israelites are the people to whom the Torah was given. Before we can discuss Jews we need to understand who the Israelites are.

Genesis Chapter 29

16 Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.' 19 And Laban said: 'It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man; abide with me.' 20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. 21 And Jacob said unto Laban: 'Give me my wife, for my days are filled, that I may go in unto her.' 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. 24 And Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid unto his daughter Leah for a handmaid. 25 And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban: 'What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?' 26 And Laban said: 'It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the first-born. 27 Fulfil the week of this one, and we will give thee the other also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.' 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week; and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife. 29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her handmaid. 30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And the LORD saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said: 'Because the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.' 33 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: 'Because the LORD hath heard that I am hated, He hath therefore given me this son also.' And she called his name Simeon. 34 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: 'Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons.' Therefore was his name called Levi. 35 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she said: 'This time will I praise the LORD.' Therefore she called his name Judah; and she left off bearing.

Jacob's first 4 sons were:


These were born from Leah. His 2nd wife, Rachel, was infertile at this stage, so she offered him her handmaid, Bilhah, to bear children for him. Bilhah bore:


Then Leah gave Jacob her handmaid called Zilpah, and she bore 2 sons:


Then Leah bore him 2 further sons:


And a daughter called Dinah

Finally, Rachel was successful in bearing a son named Joseph. And again later she bore Benjamin.

These 12 sons of Jacob, through 4 wives, become the 12 tribes of Israel. They are referred to throughout the Torah as Bnei Israel - “sons of Israel”.

If they are sons of Israel, from 4 different wives, 2 of whom are handmaids, then the Torah attaches more importance to their patrilineal lineage than their matrilineal lineage. That doesn't denigrate the matriarchs in any way, but they are descended from Laban, who was not the most “pure” or honest of people.

It is important to note that one of the tribes of Israel is called Judah, after the son of Leah and Israel.

So far, the only determining factor of identifying an Israelite is that he is one of the sons of Israel = Bnei Israel. Israel has 4 wives, 2 of whom are sisters, the other 2 are unknown handmaids. Hence the identity of the sons are by definition, after father. If it were otherwise, they would not be Israelites, but Leahites and Rachelites. The promise was made to Abraham, and not Laban. Laban was the grandson of Nahor, who was Abraham's brother. Again, it was Abraham, and not his brother Nahor who was chosen as the progenitor of Israel (nation) who would inherit the land of Israel.

Any suggestion that Israelite identity is matrilineal is both logically absurd, and contradictory tot he Torah. We have no idea who Laban's magical wife was, and why she should determine who is a Jew! BY what merits should she determine the future of Israel, when this was already promised to be the speciality of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? So far, matrilinealism is a parallel universe, or alternate narrative , divorced from reality, history or the text of the Torah.

So what of Judah and the Jews?

As far as the Torah is concerned, Judah is only one of the 12 tribes of Israel. There is nothing more Israelitish about Judah than there is about Gad, Reuven, Dan, Naphtali, Benjamin etc. Technically speaking the other tribes are non-Jews. Because Jews are Yehudim, who are descended from Yehudah (Judah). Indeed, Jacob blesses all his sons, who will inherit the land of Israel and each get a portion of Israel.

Yehudah's family is also interesting. In Genesis 38, we see that Judah marries the daughter of a Canaanite. They have 3 sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er marries an unknown woman named Tamar.
Er dies, and so Onan must perform a levirate marriage to continue his brother's seed. The levirate marriage is predicated on a patrilineal inheritance. By definition, only a male from the deceased's family, (usually brother) can continue his name. Onan gets buyer’s remorse, and is punished for refusing to bring up his brother's name. He dies as a result of this sin. So to continue with the Levirate marriage, which is Torah commandment, the youngest son of Yehudah – Shelah must marry Tamar. Yehudah is scared that the bad luck will go on to kill his 3rd and last son. So he puts this on hold. Even if Shelah does sire a son for Tamar, it is only to continue Er's name, not Tamar's.
Er, Onan, and Shelah were the first sons of Yehudah, and were Yehudim – the very first Jews in history. Their Jewishness was not from his Canaanite wife, but from himself. His wife's father was called Shua, a Canaanite. According to Rabbinic thought, since Judaism is matrilineal, then the inheritance was from Mr or Mrs Shua. In other words, Jews are not descended from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but from Shua, and Canaan. Therefore, the new religion is in fact Shuism, and the descendants should be called Shoes not Jews.

Yehudah then ends up with what he thinks is a prostitute, but turns out to be Tamar. By this, she is continuing the name of Er, and not Yehudah per se. Yehudah becomes an unwitting Levirate for his son Er. The sons born to Yehudah and Tamar are called Perez and Zerah. These are now , along with Shelah, the 3 living Jews, because their father was Yehudah. If we follow the rabbinic argument, they are not Jews at all, but Tamarites. In fact, their religion would be Tamarism and not Judaism, but they are actually legally descended from Er.

The Torah, and the law of Levirate marriage therein offer strong proof that Israelite identity in general and Yehudish (Jewish) identity in particular is patrilineal. It cannot be otherwise. There is no Shuism, or Tamarism or Canaanite Torah. The promise of Israel was made to the forefathers, and not to Canaan or Tamar. The rabbinical question of “who is a Jew” and its answer, in fact is claiming that a Shuite (Shoe) is a Jew. This is absurd and meaningless.

Whilst is true that we later see in the book of Ruth that Perez is the ancestor of King David, this is patrilineal. It is from his line via Er and Yehudah that David becomes King and not from Tamar.
As far as the Torah is concerned , Israelite and Jewish identity is patrilineal, even where there is intermarriage with Canaanites, as was the case with Yehudah himself.

Wednesday, 27 December 2017

Beyond the Sea

One of the first objections that will be raised by students or skeptics when engaging in discussion with the Rabbanites will be regarding the oral law. Many people will question the validity of the oral law, since it is natural to assume that the Torah in itself is adequate. The rabbis are well prepared for this kind of question, but only if it comes from those who are new to religion. It is not acceptable to ask this question once you buy into Rabbinic Orthodoxy.

Indeed, these prepared answers go back a thousand years or more, since the days of Saadia Gaon and Judah Halevi. Their foremost argument is that understanding the Torah on its own terms is beyond our grasp, and hence we need an/the Oral Law to explain it to us. I call this the “beyond the sea” argument, since we allegedly would need someone with knowledge of the oral Law to bring the Torah from beyond the sea, so that we can understand and practice it. So we are told.

There are a couple of problems with that.

1) It is not impossible to understand the Torah, as I have tried to show throughout this blog.

2) The Torah itself refutes the “beyond the sea” argument.

Hence in Deuteronomy 30 , we read:

10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

Verse 10 is speaking only about the Written Law, what is written in the Scroll of the Torah. That is the same entity that the Sadducees and Karaites held as the exclusive source of Torah law. Verses 12 & 13 are refuting the notion that the Torah is illegible on its own, and that we need external laws , e.g. the Oral law, which the Pharisees and rabbanites held as the dual Torah, the partner of the Written Torah, rejection of which they considered heretical.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon, who was a tremendous intellect and philosopher, and R' Yehuda Halevi who was a poet and anti-philosopher, both used the precise “beyond the sea” argument which the internal logic of the Torah refutes!

Thursday, 21 December 2017

Pirkei Avot – A Critique

The Mishnah known as “Ethics of the Fathers” or more literally, the chapters of the fathers, forms a central part of Rabbinic ethics and thought. It is so important that it is read regularly in Synagogues  in the summer months, and is part of the standard Siddur.

It contains some interesting ideas, and is certainly reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers, who presumably had some influence on rabbinic thought. The rabbis claim that this is an endogenous part of the Torah, but this is disputable.

I would like to refer to one particular statement which is part of the rabbinic approach to economics, but also to psychology.

From Ch.3:

1. Ben Zoma would say: Who is wise? One who learns from every man. As is stated (Psalms 119:99): "From all my teachers I have grown wise, for Your testimonials are my meditation."
Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations. As is stated (Proverbs 16:32), "Better one who is slow to anger than one with might, one who rules his spirit than the captor of a city."
Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his lot. As is stated (Psalms 128:2): "If you eat of toil of your hands, fortunate are you, and good is to you"; "fortunate are you" in this world, "and good is to you" in the World to Come.

Whilst the first clause is logical, and the second is a discussion of Proverbs, the 3rd clause is the problematic one.

It is claiming to be based on Psalm 128, however, it is telling an entirely different story. The psalm is saying that one who earns his own living is fortunate, and if he sustains a wife and family he will be happy, and blessed.

The Mishnah is taking this out of context, and redefining the meaning of wealth.
A quick look at an online dictionary will define “rich” as “having a lot of money or valuable possessions”

This is the common understanding of the term “rich” or “wealthy”. Indeed, the Torah , in Deut 28, included wealth , as we understand it, and as the online dictionary defines it, as part of the blessing for observing the Torah:

“11 And the LORD will make thee over-abundant for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers to give thee.”

This is real economic wealth, not New Testament style denial, e.g. “ we don’t have peace, but I’ve found peace in my heart”.

The next verse is even more powerful:

12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow.

This is talking about our Lord’s treasure, and not having credit card debts, rather the freedom of having no debts, and having abundant finances to live out one’s life.

The rabbinic version of wealth, at least as far as Avot is concerned, pays no attention to real life – because the rabbis are not concerned with real life. It is a monastic and ascetic form of denial, which they are trying to impose on their followers. Being happy with one’s lot is not always a good thing.  If one has a bad lot, then being unhappy with it might raise the chances of improving it than being in a state of denial and acceptance. And this is taught in yeshivot and by rabbis, to denounce all worldly wealth and ambition.  However, there is a duplicity in this also, since at the same time, collections are made for yeshivas, for poor families, for those yeshiva youngsters who wish to get married. I have never heard of Rabbis collecting for secular Jews who are poor and wish to get married.

There is no easy or guaranteed formula to achieve wealth. Poverty can affect all kinds of people. Being happy with poverty is a very strange and inhuman outlook. It contradicts the logic, but also contradicts the Torah.

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

Is Genesis Deterministic?

We see early on in Genesis that the presumption of choice is given to man, and hence he can be warned to avoid certain actions:

2 בְּרֵאשִׁית

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Indeed what, particularly,  in  Rabbinic theology is known as “free will” is  the fundamental belief in our ability to make clear choices between good and evil.

However, this is not always so clear cut, and does not always seem to be part of God’s Homology. [Homology is God’s theory of human behaviour, just in the same way that we call our own theories of God “Theology”].

Hence, we see only a few pages later, in Genesis 6:

5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.
7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'

Not only does the species of human or Homo Sapiens lose its ability to balance good and evil, but God regrets having made us in the first place!  It seems like an experiment gone wrong rather than a planned creation.

Ch. 8 is even more radical in  its implication:

21 And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

The Creator in Genesis is not only stating that the Human programme is corrupt from its youth, but that this is reason not to  bring punishment on us again!  This seems to contradict all we know about religion in general and the Torah in particular.

The Torah later on tells us of blessings or curses for our acceptance  or  rejection of the Torah laws.  Human nature has not changed though, as we see in the frequent admonitions of the neviim.
So to the same extent that we can claim that the Torah teaches Free will, it also seems that we have not the ability to exceed our hardwired genetic programme, which is intrinsically evil, and hence should not in theory be culpable for being ourselves.

Sunday, 19 November 2017

Is the Oral Law a big lie?

That is quite an insulting question to ask a rabbinic orthodox Jew  - "Is the Oral Law a big lie?".

However, I am asking it.

This  is a halachic version of wikipedia

Assuming the content is accurate, a very odd statement is made:

"To Prevent Sin

It is permissible to lie in order to prevent another Jew from transgressing a sin. For instance to a person who is lax in certain prohibitions that a certain rav ruled that it is forbidden even if the rav never did. [8] "

If this line of reasoning  has been established by the rabbanites, that means they will have no problem making false claims about the authority of their laws and halacha.  It is saying that when lying is expedient  to further the cause, then it is OK.  This can apply to ascribing the Zohar to being par of the Oral Law, or the Oral Law as being part of the Torah.  By simply lying  in the claim that the Oral Law was given to Moses, they create adherence to this set of man made laws.  

It also means that no credibility can be given to claims and statements by the Pharisees.

Saturday, 11 November 2017

Not in Heaven - Rabbinical vs TaNaKh Interpretation part 1

Deut. 30:

יא  כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
יב  לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִואלֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲלֶה-לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
יג  וְלֹא-מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם, הִואלֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲבָר-לָנוּ אֶל-עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה.
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
יד  כִּי-קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר, מְאֹדבְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ.  {ס}
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it

לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִוא  - 

or Not in Heaven have developed into a specific Rabbinic halachic motto, which has been debated for generations. A famous book by Rabbi Dr Eliezer Berkovits uses this as its title, “Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha”.

The Talmudic use of this motto in the famous story about the Oven of Akhnai, teaches that halacha is not objective in terms of heavenly signs or proofs, but one of a majority vote. Hence, even “truth” often takes this path in rabbinic thought.

A plain reading of the Torah text will lead to a completely different understanding of these passages.

The context of these verses is the practice of the Written law as per verse 10: “to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law”

Thus, we see in the following verse “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.” The phrase “Not in heaven” is referring to the sky, i.e. the practical, mental and physical requirements of keeping the Written Torah are not sky high. They are not a cinch, but they are largely attainable without having to give up one's ordinary life. For example, there is one day of Atonement and fasting in the Written Torah, whereas the rabbinic Oral Law requires an additional 5 fast days, and an extra 3 weeks of mourning between the fast of “Tammuz” and the fast of “Av”, plus 33 days of mourning within the Omer period, although some will mourn the entire 49 days. Similarly, Islam was originally mimicking the Torah, but then decided an entire month of fasting is better than just the 1 day of Yom Kippur.

The Torah seems to be ruling out these exaggerated man-made religions, which are bent on ascetism and self harm in the name of religion.

The Torah is not up in the sky, but as we shall see, this has been misinterpreted by others.

To be continued…..

Thursday, 9 November 2017

The Karaite Position

Deut 28:

יד  וְלֹא תָסוּר, מִכָּל-הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול:  לָלֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--לְעָבְדָם.  {פ} 14 and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

The Torah sets out a condition for observance of the Torah, and this is mentioned several times, including in the Blessing of Devarim 28.

Turning aside from the Mitzvah of the Torah  - to the right or the left - is forbidden.

It suggests that the Karaite position is precisely on the line of the written torah, and should not veer to  the right or the left.

The "right" is implying stronger, and thus the Rabbinic type movements who added many "fences" and strictures to "strengthen" the observance, whilst the "left" implies weakening, so it could mean secularism, Reform, or Reconstructionism.   Karaism  should therefore maintain its position on the correct path of the written torah, without adding extra laws ans strictures, and also to avoid reformist tendencies who permit anything that is fashionable.

Saturday, 21 October 2017

Revivalist Orthodox Movements - Oral Law Project

There are several revivalist movements within Rabbinic Orthodoxy, to return to earlier forms of Judaism, i.e. to be as authentic as is possible.  These can be viewed sometimes in specific  groups, rather than universally.   Some examples include:

Zionism:  Returning to Israel after exile. This includes various Mitzvot that can only be fulfilled in Israel, e.g. Shemitta.   

The Sanhedrin: There is a group who have set up a Sanhedrin, which is the name given to the Rabbinic high court that existed some 2000 years ago.

Tekhelet: The use of a special blue dye on one strand of tzittzit, according to the Talmudic identification of particular mollusc from which the dye is taken.

Army: Whilst the Ultra-orthodox do not wish to participate in the Israeli army, some Zionist orthodox see it as a Mitzvah from the Torah.

Temple Mount:   Again, disputed by Ultra_Orthodoxy, but many in the modern and Zionist orthodox  will want to go up to Temple mount  to begin the process of prayer and potentially the temple.

These are now physically possible, some will still need more development, e.g. sacrifices and building the Temple.

There is one particular movement which, according to my manifestation, can never be revived. That is the Oral Law.  This needs clarification, after all, do not all Rabbanites accept , study, and practice the oral Law?  Actually, they do not.  They have a second written law in the form of the Talmud. It is encoded on paper, and hence is not "oral" in the sense of how the actual Oral Law is claimed to have been transmitted.

Of all the revival movements, why are they unable to revive the oral law as they claim it was originally?  After all, the Talmud says one who puts the Oral Law on paper is as if he has burned it.
So what is preventing them from practicing, teaching, and transmitting the oral law orally?

I challenge the Rabbanites to try this, and see  how successfully they can transmit the oral law orally.
Could a yeshiva  educate students in this fashion, without resort to books?