Bar Kochba – Messiah or Jesus Envy? - A Chanukah Story

The disastrous Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (132–135/6) was orchestrated Shimon bar Kochba, and backed by the leading Pharisee Rabbi – Akiva. Akiva claimed that bar Kochba was not only a good military leader, but that he is also the Messiah. He was proven wrong, certainly on the latter, but however good a fighter bar Kochba, was, he engaged a superpower, and this cost 1 million Jewish lives, and the end of the Jewish settlement in Judea.

There are several questions to be asked: whether militarily it was strategically justified? Whether there was any religious basis to Akiva's claims? And what might have occurred had the Revolt not taken place?

The answer to the first question is difficult to assess. The campaign did have a short term success, for 3 years, until Roman forces were brought in from Europe to finish off not only the revolt but to totally raze Jerusalem.

The answer to the 3^rd question is speculation – perhaps the Jews could have sat out the oppression of Hadrian, or perhaps things would have deteriorated further. It is impossible to say what would have happened, although it might have been better to live under some oppression, rather than to start a suicidal campaign.

My focus is on the 2nd question, as it is a theological one. Was there any basis to Akiva's claims that bar Kochba was the Messiah?

Rabbinic sources suggest that Akiva was actively supporting bar Kochba, and in fact 24,000 of his yeshiva students served in the army, and were subsequently killed.

To claim that someone is the messiah, it is only viable if it meets the criteria set forth by the Torah. The Torah speaks explicitly of a King, and this is somebody chosen by God (Deut 17:15), i.e. through a prophet. There was no prophet in the time of the rebellion, and hence this could not have been a King, according to Torah law. A “messiah” must first of all be an anointed king.

Next, we have to look at what authority Akiva had, and what his background was. Akiva, was the son of a convert, and later in his life became a newly-religious rabbi. His followers claimed he had oral traditions coming from Sinai that even Moses was unaware of! Nevertheless, his colleagues realized that Bar Kochba was not the Messiah and they stopped backing him. In fact, the Talmud records that  Bar Kochba was so violent that he kicked to death a leading Rabbi, Elezar haModai.   This is somewhat un-Jewish behaviour, one would think!

There is another interesting parallel, or rather lack of one – the Hasmonean revolt. Whereas the Kohanim led revolt of the Hasmoneans was successful – against a tyrannical Seleucid regime, the Phariseeic revolt of Akiva/b. Kochba was an unmitigated disaster. The Hasmoneans were Karaite in their understanding of the TNK, and did not accept the pharisee oral law. Indeed, it was their opposition to rabbinic inventions such as the water – libation that led to the Jewish civil war, in the time of Alexander Janneus. It would be safe to assume that the Hasmoneans also kept the Omer count according to the written instructions, as did the Sadducees. It is also ironic that Akiva's 24,000 students were massacred during the Omer period, which they most certainly were counting according to the erroneous Rabbinic system.

Now, going back to the man Akiva, and his judgement in backing the doomed uprising. According to Rabbinic teaching, Akiva was a gifted sage, with knowledge even greater than that of Moses! Yet on a whim, and without any basis in the Torah (which he allegedly knew better than Moses) this descendant of gentiles is nominating the “messiah” and leading the Jews into a disastrous war which leads to genocide and a final expulsion from the land of Israel.

 It shows that as wise and gifted a scholar and Sage  can be, he is still not infallible.

 The Jerusalem Talmud  points out the criticism of Akiva by his colleagues:

Rav Shimon Ben Yochai taught:

 "Akiva my master would expound the verse a star will come from Jacob as 'Koziba will come from Jacob.' When Rabbi Akiva would see Bar Koziba he would say, 'There is the King Messiah.'"

 Rav Yochanan ben Torta said: "Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and still the son of David will not come." (Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d)

However, this is not saying that today we should be critical of Rabbi Akiva, as he plays a central role within Orthodox Judaism. The Talmud itself does the criticism. Indeed, it became an accepted rabbinic custom to avoid making Messianic predictions, precisely because it is impossible to predict the future without direct Prophetic inspiration.

-------------

Some sources support my claim that the Hasmoneans were not "rabbinic" and did not have an oral law:

• proof: in 1 Maccabees 2 there is no Sanhedrin, and no oral law or halacha. "39 When Mattathias and his friends heard the news about this, they were greatly saddened 40 and said to one another, If all of us do as these other Jews have done and refuse to fight the  Gentiles to defend our lives and our religion, we will soon be wiped off the face of the earth. 41 On that day they decided that if anyone attacked them on the Sabbath, they would defend themselves, so that they would not all die as other Jews ad died in the caves." Their decision making was pragmatic and not based on halacha handed down orally.
•  1 Macc. 3: "48 The Gentiles would have consulted their idols in such a situation, but the Israelites unrolled the book of the Law to search for God's guidance.49 They brought the priests' robes, the offerings of the first grain, and the tithes, and then they brought in some Nazirites who had completed their vows." 
  
   They were Karaites, reading only the Torah. They did not have an oral law, a kabbalah or Sanhedrin to consult. The consulted, instead, the Torah.

The Book of Mormon, the Zohar, and the various “Karaites”

The book of Mormon, which is a book that was produced or discovered in America, and its followers believe to be a revelation from God, and part of the Christian Canon. The Church of Latter day Saint accept the book, and are also known as Mormons.

It is not my business to tell Christians what to believe in. There are certain patterns here that reflect what happened in the Jewish world. Firstly, most Christians reject the Mormon book. Second, it is a book that nobody had heard of until it was published by a Mr Joseph Smith, in 1830.

This story is a very familiar one if we know about the history of the Zohar. The Zohar also came about, out of nowhere, and faced initial opposition by many rabbis, but was gradually accepted by mainstream rabbinical orthodoxy. It was rejected, however, by certain rationalist circles within Orthodoxy, however, these remained in the minority. So the first difference is that Mormon was accepted by a minority, whereas the Zohar was accepted by a larger group, which eventually became a majority. This majority persecuted the Jewish minority, which opposed it, even murdering

some of its leaders, such as Rabbi David Kapach of Yemen, and the attempted murder of his son, R' Yosef Kapach. It is ironic that the Kapach dynasty were the greatest expositors of the work of Maimonides, and the same Maimonides gave legal carte blanche to such religious bloodshed of “heretics”.

In a sense, the opponents of the Zohar and Kabbalah literature were “Karaites” vis a vis the “oral law”, which they considered only to be contained within the Talmud. Similarly, the Christian “Karaites” only accepted the New Testament, and rejected later works.

There are several ways that Mormons might, and probably do, argue for the “truth” of the book of Mormon. They claim that there were several witnesses to the founding of the book. Hence it could not be a forgery. They might also benefit from staying at a Yeshiva, such as Ohr sameach, where they will come across the “Kuzari Argument”. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/kuzari-principle-is-false-admits-its.html

With this principle, endorsed by an “orthodox rabbi”, they can claim that the acceptance of the Book of Mormon, not only by the Church, but also by the native Americans (as is testified in the book itself) would prove it to be true, since so many people would not have accepted it if it were false.

The rabbis might counter this criticism by saying that the Oral Law enjoys unanimous acceptance, and the Zohar is nearly unanimously accepted. And this is correct, just like the book of mormon is unanimously accepted, by Mormons. They can also say, as ben Chaim does, that the Sadducees were latecomers, and that the Pharisees were there all along. This is highly problematic, since Josephus states that they were only a sect of 6000 at his time, and the TNK rules out any additional body of Torah law, which is what the oral law is. Not to mention the many violations of Torah by the oral law. The common thread here is one of anachronism. The book of Mormon, as well as the oral law (and Zohar) are not historically or logically consistent with the canon they claim to be part of. The fact that each group has followers who believe it is useless, other than as a tool for psychological manipulation.

The Mishna's [In]Authenticity

Here is a discussion I had with Moshe b.Chaim, which appears on his website:

Reader: How can we be sure, that the Mishna brings us the "Torah she beal peh" that was delivered in Sinai? Maybe it was just what Rebi Yehuda Hanasi observed in his generation? Mesora: If that is the case, why didn't our Talmudic Sages suggest this? They realized that unanimous  acceptance is verified proof that the previous generation attested to this. This is our Mesora – tradition – going back to Moses. Reader: You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology. Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot  be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. Reader: However, both of these statements are false. a) there was no unanimity, and there were myriad opposition groups. The Sadducees existed prior to the Talmudic and Mishnaic period, from the beginning of the 2nd temple era. Mesora: The Talmud proves unanimity as stated above. Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at  Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.

http://www.mesora.org/mishnaauthentic.html

There are a few fallacies the reader should beware of, made by Ben Chaim.

First: “You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology.

Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. “

But this is a circular argument. The acceptance of the oral law was not unanimous, except by the Perushim, who did accept it. He claims that since the Perushim believed in it, therefore it must be true. This is nonsensical argumentation. The belief in Jesus is unanimous by the believers in Jesus, just as the belief in the Koran is unanimous by the believers in the Koran. This doesn't say anything about the truth of those beliefs. What ben Chaim is saying about mass conspiracy is a rehash of the Kuzari argument. But this again is nonsense. Many Muslims believed that it was the Jews who orchestrated the 9/11 terror atrocity. In fact, they "knew".  This is a simple example of mass conspiracy theory created by man. Another is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the blood libels etc. These examples are disproofs of the Kuzari principle, and of B Chaim's claims.

Next: “ Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.”

The Sadducee Kohanim were descended from Aaron, and were entrusted by Moses with the Torah scroll. They were the keepers of the Torah, and they were the address that the Torah tells us to turn to in Deut 17, in case of any disputes. They rejected the innovations and changes of the Pharisee law. The fallacy that ben Chaim is guilty of is “begging the question”. He assumes that the Sadducees came later than the Oral Law, but this is false. They are the house of Zadok, which was around since the time of King David. Who, on the other hand, were the Pharisees, and where did they come from? The founding fathers of Phariseeism were Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were gentiles and were the descendants of Sennacherib, the evil enemy of Israel.

All B. Chaim is doing is making a dogmatic statement that the Pharisees were right, simply because he says they were right.

His next fallacious claim is that the Sadducees could not denounce Sinai (because it was true) and hence they were unable to denounce the Oral law on the same grounds! They did denounce the oral law, and this is precisely what destroys his claim about unanimous acceptance. The oral law emerged in the time of the sadducees, and that is why they denounced it. They also denounced Jesus, when he emerged. As for christian redefinitions of the Torah, this is rather a rich claim, considering that the Pharisees were the ones who redefined the verses in the Torah left right and centre!

A claim to the historical presence of Pharisees is being made without any evidence. There is no evidence for them having existed during the 1^st Temple era. There was no rabbinic law or additions during that period, and we know that practices were kept according to Sadducean interpretation. There was no Sanhedrin; no rabbinical fences, and Omer was counted correctly (from the day after the Shabbat), etc.

The empty claims of the historical primacy of the Pharisees, when looked into in detail and reference to the 1^st Temple literature (TNK) actually disproves the entire oral law.

Kuzari Principle is False – Admits Its Main Proponent

The alleged “Kuzari Principle” has been used by rabbi D. Gottlieb, , as “proof” of not only the Torah, but of Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism. Indeed, he has been using this argument in bringing  Jews to join Orthodoxy. However, when it appeared in written form, in a book he published called “Living up to the Truth”, it began to receive attention and scrutiny from academics and intellectuals who were more capable of demolishing Gottlieb's claims than were his more usual 18 year old victims.

One such critique came from a Mr Ephraim Rubin. Rubin's critique was so devastating, that Gottlieb was forced to admit that the entire Kuzari principle he was espousing for 20 years prior, is false!

“ Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Ephraim Rubin for the care and effort he took to write this review. My only regret is that he did not spend more time on the Kuzari Principle. In fact, as it is formulated in the text he reviewed, it is false. A professor of classics pointed this out to me, and the necessary changes have been made in the new version.”

http://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/living_up_to_the_truth/the_controversy/1011

He magically claims that his new version is now somehow “correct”.

But let us just analyze what this startling admission really implies and demonstrates.

Firstly, it shows that what he has himself been saying for the majority of his orthodox rabbinic career is entirely false. This is not just a minor error, but the basis for his claims to Orthodoxy have been demolished.

Next, it reveals the psychological state of the fundamentalist and fanatic religious believer. A man can claim to have the truth, and convince many others that he has the truth, as long as he shows the facade of confidence in his own claims – no matter how false and egregious they may be. The argument for Orthodox Judaism is a prime example. But many other false beliefs can be disseminated in this way.

Third, it is not only the Ultra-Orthodox who grasp onto fallacies such as the Kuzari argument, but also modern, rational thinkers such as R' Moshe ben Chaim. Some people even claim that their entire religious beliefs rest on this [false] principle.

Fourth, we can derive another conclusion from this. If it takes someone 20 years to admit what he was teaching was wrong, how can anything else they teach be reliable? What if the proprietor of the Kuzari fallacy knew all along he was deceiving his audience (which is more than likely). The reason this came to light was that he was caught out by intellectuals in the public domain, including one of his own colleagues.

Fifth, Gottlieb then claims that he has made corrections to his formulation of the principle. But this has already been rebutted by the late Professor Mark Perakh.

Finally, the false nature of the Kuzari argument is so detrimental, that it in fact also “proves” other falsehoods, such as the Koran and Islam. Gottlieb writes:

“A false story of a national revelation that creates a national religion will not be believed…. Suppose a nation believes that its ancestors experienced a national revelation. Since such a story cannot be invented we have good reason to accept the story as true. For, if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

source: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm

Now there are many miracles that the Islamic Ummah – nation – claim to have occurred. Here are a list of them: http://www.discoveringislam.org/mohammad_miracles.htm

Since, according to Gottlieb, “if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

So the miracles of Muhammed (and his Koran) must therefore be true!

Thus Gottlieb has also proven Islam to be true!

In conclusion, when someone claims to hold the truth, one should avoid him, especially when he is caught in a lie.

Shabbetai Zvi, The Rebbe, and the Kuzari

Shabbetai Zvi was a charismatic false messiah, who proclaimed his Messiah status in 1665/6. He was backed by a leading Kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza. Zvi was accepted by a very large part of world Jewry as the Messiah, and a “baal teshuva” movement took place in order to welcome and hasten the redemption. Zvi was manic depressive, and started strange acts, and religious absurdities, eg permitting forbidden fats. This shouldn't be seen as too much of a departure from Talmudic Judaism, which itself permits the forbidden “alya” fat tail of the Sheep, despite it being explicitly forbidden in the Torah. Zvi simply took this to its logical conclusion, and permitted all forbidden fats.

Professor Gershom Scholem has written the definitive history on the Zvi movement, and has published a facsimile copy of the “100 Rabbis” declaration of Zvi's messianic status. Many of these were recognized orthodox rabbis. It is also interesting that Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna backed another false messiah, Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba was a warrior, but his doomed rebellion ended the Jewish settlement of Israel. Akiva was himself of non-Jewish lineage, and his innovations in Judaism were largely from his alien background (as were many of the Mishnaic rabbis).

More recently, the Rebbe or leader of the Lubavitch-Chabad Hassidic movement started a messianic campaign, which pushed his followers into declaring him as the King messiah. This has already been discussed in a previous post http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/hes-not-messiah-hes-very-naughty-boy.html.

The Kuzari himself was not a false messiah, but the so-called Kuzari “argument” http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-kuzari-fallacy.html unwittingly supports these movements. The main proprietor of the Kuzari fallacy is a hassidic rabbi called Gottlieb, who once was a university lecturer. As we have seen, he writes:

“A false story of a national revelation that creates a national religion will not be believed….Suppose a nation believes that its ancestors experienced a national revelation. Since such a story cannot be invented we have good reason to accept the story as true. For, if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

Of course, a “nation” is not measurably defined, and as in the post above, we have seen that the nascent “nation” of Israel worshipped a golden calf, which according to this Kuzari principle, would make the golden calf true. But it also means that the false prophets, and false messiahs, including Shabbetai Zvi would also be “true” messiahs. For if he was not true, he would not be believed! And historical records show that a large portion of the then Jewish nation believed in him. Thus, according to ultra-orthodox propaganda, i.e. those who espouse the Kuzari principle, Shabbetai Zvi was the Messiah. The Kuzari fallacy is based on the ridiculous notion that whilst an individual can err, a large mass of people cannot err. This argument is also used to prove that the Rabbis of the Talmud are correct, or that the Ultra orthodox rabbis are correct. We are fortunate to have the Torah, which warns us against such falsehoods.

Exodus Chapter 23

2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice

see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-torah-tells-us-not-to-follow.html

Thus, not only does the Torah disprove the Talmud, it also disproves the Kuzari fallacies.

Modern Orthodoxy

 

The Modern Orthodox (MO) movement is something I knew well, since I was part of it for some time. It is different from ultra-orthodoxy, since it welcomes the combination of academic studies in any field, and Torah + Talmud studies. It does not object to modern dress, although rabbis would frown on the wearing of denim for example.

It claims to adhere to the oral law - talmud, shulchan aruch etc, and many of its proponents are believers in the Kabbalah.

Here lies the first paradox of Modern orthodoxy. Unlike the rationalist rabbis such as Maimonides and Saadia Gaon, who blasted kabbalah and mysticism, most modern orthodox rabbis are not rational, other than in a very limited boundary. They prefer to model themselves upon Rav Kook, who was a genius and a great thinker, but also a kabbalist. The Yeshiva University rabbis in general are Zoharists, and this is not the same as the Dor Deah movement of Rav Yachye Kapach, which rejected the falsehoods of kabbalah.

The next issue is that there is greater emphasis on individuals, and on possible lenient views on certain halachic issues. This might involve for example, the permission to consume dairy products that are not from kosher supervised dairies (chalav Yisroel).

However, MO is still faithful to the Shulchan Aruch. They do not question the absurdities or the contradictions of rabbinic law. They keep the mourning period associated with the Omer, as well as the false notion of counting it from the 2nd day of Hag Hamatzot. Within MO, there have been some radical thinkers, who wish to modernize halacha, and have even discussed abolishing certain rabbinic laws which are no longer “relevant” such as the observance of an extra day for every holiday outside of Israel. However, the basis for this kind of leniency, which is never practical, but only a theoretical discussion, is that there may be some rabbinic sources that would support such a move.

Some of the radicals, such as the late Chief rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren suggested that building the Temple and setting up sacrifices would be possible today. He also was open to questioning certain statements of rabbis, based on contradictions with empirical reality. Thus, for example, the rabbinic blessing for the new moon includes a verse which suggests that man cannot touch the moon. Maimonides said the moon was not physical matter but an intelligent essence. Rabbi Goren argued that since the moon landings of NASA, these notions have been proven wrong, and hence are obsolete and require change or updating. It should not come as a surprise that the MO are despised by the Ultra orthodox, and they save their greatest hatred for people like Goren.

The logic of great thinkers like Goren and Kapach is very healthy. It is also a threat to real phariseeism, since it exposes the fallacies of infallibility, and omniscience ascribed to the rabbis. Once the door is opened, then it threatens all the fallacies of the Talmud to be exposed. Unfortunately, no MO rabbi has ever done this and remained orthodox. Some have instead gone the way of reform, and deconstructed the Written law instead.

Another good example is Jonathan Sacks, who whilst he held the position of Chief Rabbi was to afraid to do anything radical, but now that he is no longer in any position of authority, he occasionally writes something that sounds remotely rational.

The MO are too afraid of Hareidi Ultra orthodox, and do not wish to be totally banned from orthodoxy. It is quite possible to find professors of secular subjects, who are MO, but they do not and cannot question Talmudic Judaism.

A positive characteristic of many MO people is they are less judgemental than their ultra- brothers. This may well be because many of them have secular friends and relatives, and they are involved in the secular world on a daily basis. Whilst, for example, they might take leniencies with certain things, eg wearing a kippa all the time, there still seems to be an inability to question whether the rabbis have got it right or not.

Despite these positive attributes, it should be noted that a MO Yeshiva is still an oppressive and dishonest place, where they present what they intellectually know to be false, as facts. One interesting little caveat, is a recording I heard of Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet, who is from Yeshiva University and now heads the Gruss Kollel in Jerusalem. In a training session for young rabbis, they discussed the presentation of Talmud/Halacha as a great humane body of work. This is often the promotion that Talmud and halachic lifestyle is given by the marketing men of orthodoxy. Rakeffet said to his young rabbinic students, that there are a lot of things in the Talmud which are not so nice or humane! This is a valuable admission. However, it was not said in a manner of openness or a desire for true representation. He was not suggesting that the dark side of the Talmud is also presented to congregations where the Rabbis will serve. It was rather his fear that the cat may be let out of the bag, if they were to present the Talmud as a perfect and just law, when in fact it is a tyrannical mind control system, whose brutal proprietors would stop at nothing to dispose of the rightful leaders of Israel – The Sadducee Priests.

Disproof of the Day - no Oral Law Here!

There are many isolated statements throughout the Torah which individually disprove the rabbinic claims of an oral law.

In Exodus 24, we see that the Torah from Sinai was a written document, and this - and only this -  was taught to Israel. Thus:

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said: 'All the words which the LORD hath spoken will we do.'

4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

and

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.'

12 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.'



All of these verses make clear that they are referring to the entire Law, hence it was all written down.  Nothing was given by God that was not written down. Therefore, a claim for oral law or tradition is a fraudulent one. 

Shammai, Hillel and the Three Converts

This may sound like the title of a joke, but it is a serious story. The Talmud tells several stories of Shammai, Hillel and the three converts (Shabbat 31a). This one is the most revealing of all:

 
 

“A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth  have you?' 'Two,' he replied: 'the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.'  'I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].  [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;  the following day he reversed [them] to him. 'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must you then not rely upon me?  Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.'”

To analyze this, we see that a prospective convert  only had belief in the Written Torah. Shammai told him to go away, since this was not sufficient for a Rabbinic version of Judaism, hence conversion would not be possible. 

Hillel, on the other hand, plays tricks on the potential convert, which are dishonest and fallacious tactics. The tactics are, firstly to teach the Hebrew alphabet in the correct order. Then to confuse the candidate, who does not know Hebrew, by teaching it backwards!  Imagine being taught a foreign alphabet, only to be confused the next day by having the teacher teach it backwards!

But Hillel’s statements are also logically fallacious.  This can be called the nominalist fallacy. This means that Hillel is simply presenting an arbitrary standard of proof, and then using that as a proof for his argument. It can also be formally described as a circular argument.  It is also a non-sequitor.   Since the candidate did not know Hebrew, and could not independently study the Torah to critically examine whether the Torah mentions any oral law, Hillel’s claim is false. It is making use of the candidate’s ignorance of both the Hebrew language, and the Torah’s content.

Had the potential convert first become acquainted with Hebrew language, and then studied the Torah independently, he would not have fallen for the fallacies of the Rabbi.  This applies to many today, who seek religion, and are misled by the rabbis.

There is another element to this story, which is equally repugnant.  By reversing the alphabet, Hillel is suggesting that nothing in the Torah is fixed, in meaning or logic.  According to this proposal of Hillel, there are no rules in logic, grammar or meaning. What is black today can be white tomorrow, what is sweet today can be bitter tomorrow. And this is the crux of the rabbinical fallacy. It has no adherence to the meaning of the Torah. Truth is something that has no value and infinite elasticity, depending on the agenda of the rabbis, and their political interests.

Isaiah 5:20 condemned this approach many years before Hillel was born:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that change darkness into light, and light into darkness; that change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!”

He also, in v. 24, attacks Hillel’s approach as rejecting the Torah:

24 Therefore as the tongue of fire devoureth the stubble, and as the chaff is consumed in the flame, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust; because they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and contemned the word of the Holy One of Israel

An honest appraisal of the written Torah, and its internal logic, will arrive at the conclusion that there was no Oral Law given with the Torah.

Joshua and the "Oral" Law

It is a central tenet of Orthodox Judaism that Moses transmitted the "oral law" to Joshua.   However, the Karaites reject this claim.  There is a very simple way to determine the validity or falsity of this claim. It can be done by reading the Book of Joshua. In the very first chapter we see:

7 Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses My servant commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest.

8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy ways prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. 



V. 7 speaks of "all the Law", and that we (Israel) should not turn to the right (Orthodoxy) or the left (Reform) of it.    V. 8  speaks of the same law, and clarifies it is talking of the Book of Law, and that we should do according to what is Written in it!   Had there been the fictional oral law of the rabbis, then the instruction would be quite different.   Rabbis make a song and dance of the use of the word "mouth" to  suggest that it refers to an oral law. But the only "Oral" law is the written Law when we read it! 

Thus, Joshua held by Written law only.

Out for a Penny, in for a Pound – The Issur of “Lo Tosiphu” (Do Not Add)

One of the central criticisms of Rabbinic Judaism, is their violation of the Torah prohibition against adding.  This is repeated in several forms, especially in Deut 4:

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

And Deut 13:

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

For some further sources to the prohibition, see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/im-sorry-but-its-called-adding.html

The purpose of this post is to look at how the rabbinical commentators on the Torah reacted specifically to the above verses in Deuteronomy.

Most famous of all rabbis is Rashi. He repeats his own claim for both verses, saying that the Torah speaks of adding modules to individual mitzvoth, eg adding a 5^th species to the Sukkot species. In doing so, he tries to avoid culpability of the rabbis for violating this Law in all of their Mishnaic and Talmudic prohibitions, fences etc. However, his claim if fallacious, and is not even adhered to by the rabbis he tries to defend (including himself). Thus, for example, adding an extra day to a Festival, such as Sukkot or Yom HaTeruah, is what he himself defines as a violation of the Law. Yet the rabbis do this in their practice, and he did himself. Since he has incriminated himself as a violator of the Torah, we cannot respect him as being an observant Jew.

It is interesting to note that none of the major commentators on the Torah actually agreed with Rashi.  First off, is Ibn Ezra. He comments only on the Deut 4:2 statement.  He explains this as saying “do not think that your own ideas or inventions will be on a par with those of the Torah, which does not command us to add to the Law” [my summary].  This is quite a clear rationale for not adding,  but it is uncomfortable for even the great Abraham Ibn Ezra, after all he was a strictly observant orthodox rabbi, and followed the laws of the Talmud in totality.

Next is Nachmanides, or RambaN. He takes issue with Rashi, and rightly so. His position is so extremely rational, that it would put even many Karaites to shame, let alone rabbis.  He quotes from, of all places, the Talmud, both the Babylonian and Jerusalem versions of the tractate Megillah.  These sources state that many sages (rabbis) and Prophets opposed the institution of the reading of the Megillat Esther, since it would be adding to the Torah.  This logic would also exclude the holiday of Purim, and all later practices, whether rabbinical blessings, especially those on things like lighting of candles, washing of hands etc, where the formula states “and commanded us to ..”. However, regardless of making such a blasphemous blessing, the very acts themselves of all rabbinic laws, as found in the Mishnah, Talmud, Shulchan Aruch etc are in blatant violation of the Torah.

Nachmanides has created a problem for himself, which he apparently is unable to exit from. And the problem exists for all rabbis, even Rashi. And this is the problem of “in for a penny , in for a pound”.  If adding is forbidden in a specific case, then it is also forbidden in other contexts as well.  The Torah does not say “do not add Purim”, it says “do not add.”

The same pattern emerges in the comments of another great and enlightened Rabbi, Obadiah  Sforno.  He writes that in some cases, adding may be “annoying” to God, and cause great anger, as in the cases of the strange fire of the sons of Aharon.  This may be the understatement of the millennium, since it is not only in some cases, but in all! Nevertheless, we must be grateful to Sforno for bringing to the readership an awareness of the danger of adding to the Torah.

Reading these various comments, we see that there is a serious degree of cognitive dissonance amongst the greatest rabbinical minds. On the one had, they are fully aware of the serious prohibition of adding, and subtracting to the Torah. And they even give a lucid explanation for it. On the other hand, they are still caught in the grip of their own rabbinic ideology and indoctrination, and continue to violate the very Law that they have just explained, in precisely the same manner as they have understood the Torah as forbidding.  So, the adage becomes “out for a penny, but in for a pound”.  When it comes to their commentary on the Torah,  the act of adding is strictly forbidden, but when it comes to generalised rabbinic practice, then they are all in for the violation of the Torah, despite their own protestations  to the contrary.

How to Dismantle a Propaganda Bomb

This article is a polemic from the Sadducean perspective.  Of course the Pharisee oppinents may must counter-arguments (and they did) against the Sadducees.  It is not an attack on Orthodox rabbis, but  a defence against the Pharisees of 2200 years ago who oppsoed the Kohanim.

A series of claims are made by the Pharisees to justify their authority, and their power to add new laws to the Torah.  To the untutored, it is sometimes difficult to effectively counter these arguments.  So here is a guide to dismantle the bomb.

1) The first claim that they make is that the Torah tells us to follow the Pharisees,  or Sanhedrin.  This is based on their false reading of verses in Deut 17.   see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/that-which-they-shall-tell-you-claim.html

The Torah actually says that in case of a legal dispute, to “come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days” (Deut 17:9)

However, historical sources, including the rabbinical Talmud clearly state that the Priesthood were opponents to rabbinic laws.  Thus fulfillment of Deut 17 requires us to reject rabbinic law, the Talmud etc.  Furthermore, the founding fathers of Perushim were not Jews, but in fact descendants of Sennacherib. It was Shemaya and Avtalyon who opposed the Kohanim, and created a culture of rebellion against the Torah and elimination of the priesthood. The rabbis claim that they were converts to Judaism, but our claim is that they converted Judaism to something  which violates the Torah. See http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

2) The next claim that is  made is that they are in fact not violating the Torah’s injunction (Deut 4, and 13) to not add to the Torah.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/im-sorry-but-its-called-adding.html

They try to argue their way out of this, with sophistry, eg that adding is not adding if you call it something else; or adding is only prohibited when it applies to the details of specific mitzvah,  but not when creating an entirely new one.  This is so irrational, that it  only further disproves rabbanism.

3) Another series of arguments are that without the Oral Law, the Torah cannot be understood or practiced.  Much of this blog is dedicated to destroying those claims. But the general disproof to these arguments is that the Priesthood, ie the Sadducees, were able to practice the Written Torah without resort to an oral law, e.g. they were obviously able to sacrifice animals – and did not need a Talmud to tell them how to do so.

With these 3 general steps, and the many specific posts on this blog, the bomb of rabbinical warfare can be dismantled.

Naftali Zeligman’s Illogic

The Talk Reason website has a number of interesting articles, and challenges all aspects of Judaism, including the Written Torah. Most of the articles are aimed at orthodox “outreach” type rabbis, as well as the Intelligent Design movement.

One of the writers, a Mr Naphtali Zeligman, is an ex – Orthodox  yeshiva student, who raises many allegedly problematic issues for the Torah. I do not have a definitive set of answers to all of his points, but here is one where he seems to err in his zeal  to criticise the Torah.

The verse from Exodus 16 states:

35 And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.

Zeligman claims that Moses could not have written this, and he cites a Talmudic statement that suggests the manna stopped falling on the day Moses died, but they had reserves for another month or so.   However, Joshua 5 suggests that the Manna stopped falling the day after the Pesah –

“12 And the manna ceased on the morrow, after they had eaten of the produce of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.”

Even if the Talmud is contradicted by Joshua, which it most likely is, Zeligman’s question has not yet been resolved.  But, upon closer scrutiny of the verse in Exodus, we see that there is not really a problem at all.

Zeligman claims that since Moses writes in the past tense, this verse could only have been written after the Israelites entered Israel.  And he claims, that this is proof of Moses’ non-authorship, of at least the verse in question. This claim is flawed logically and textually.

Moses is only stating that up to the point where they reached the border of Israel/Canaan, the Israelites had eaten manna. He is not saying that it stopped at that point. Moses had time to view the Land of Israel, from the border, before his death, thus he had the opportunity to write this verse, before his death, and make a statement of what they had been eating.  Hence, Zeligman has misunderstood the text itself.  But his argument is also illogical. The claim that the verse is in the past tense and hence was doctored later on, is logically false.  It is in the past tense and is correct up to the point in time when it was written. It makes no statement about the future, i.e. what occurs in the period immediately after Moses’ death. He does not state whether they will continue to eat manna beyond the border, or if it will be Canaanite pizza. In fact, had the verse been written later on, it may well have concurred with the verse in Joshua 5. Hence, the evidence from Exodus 16:35 gives stronger support for its Mosaic authorship than of a later authorship.

And this kind of logical fallacy does occur often in such diatribes.  They are very frequently copies of previous such essays, and the authors rely on arguments that they have not thought through very carefully.

 

Erdogan's Islamo-Centrism

 


In today's news we read  the outrageous claim by Turkey's Islamist President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, that it was Muslims who in fact discovered America, prior to Columbus. This Islamo- centrism is an ugly feature of fundamentalism, and the rejection of fact or reason.  Another example is the Palestinian claim that there was never an Israelite Temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem, where the current occupier happens to be a mosque.

However, this post is not intended to take on Islam or even the Palestinians. It is only using them as an example to compare with the Talmudist rabbis.  The problem being, that the rabbis have a very similar pathology, and it is Talmudo-centrism. Any contradiction between facts and the Talmud, and the talmud must be right. Any contradiction between the Torah /Neviim and the Talmud, and of course their position is with the Talmud.  Thus, just like the Palestinian Islamists are unable to grasp the fact that a Temple pre-existed their religion and mosque, so the rabbis cannot grasp the fact that Hebrew was a spoken language before the invention of the niqqud vowels,  or that the Kohanim knew how to slaughter animals before the invention of the Oral Law.

An awareness of this kind of bias, before engaging the rabbis in debate, will be very useful, and effecive.

New Source for Joshua Myth?

Previously, I mentioned the rabbinic claim that Joshua married the harlot, Rahab:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/midrash-fact-fiction-or-projection.html

There are many myths that find their way into Talmud and Midrash from a variety of sources. It is possible that this myth may have a connection to a claim made about another Yeshua - Jesus.
According to a new book, Jesus married Mary Magdalene, who was also a prostitute.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827310/Jesus-married-prostitute-Mary-Magdalene-two-children-lost-gospel-reveals.html

It is very easy for such myths to crossover into Jewish Midrash, since the common market of new religions 2000 years ago shared many ideas and stories. Thus several myths which have no basis in the TNK but were in external works such as the Dead Sea scrolls or the Alphabet of ben Sira, find their way into rabbinic midrash.

Mikveh Scandal

The latest in an unending series of rabbinic scandals, involves a prominent American Orthodox rabbi, Barry Freundel, who set up voyeuristic cameras in the Mikveh of his synagogue, and filmed women - both married Jewish members,  and converting to Judaism - as they immersed naked into this mikveh.
http://forward.com/articles/207652/rabbis-barry-freundel-and-leib-tropper-ensnared-in/?p=all

This is a scandal about rabbinic power, perversion and complacency. About how power corrupts , and absolute (religious power) corrupts absolutely.

However, there is a bigger picture scandal in all of this. this is the scandal of the "mikveh".  In Lev 15, it gives the laws relating to menstruant women.  There is no explicit requirement for a woman to "immerse"  in a mikveh. In fact, it does not explicitly state that she even needs to bath in water. We may  infer, from the fact that a man who has come into contact with her needs to bathe in water, that she can do the same. But this is not specifically a rabbinically constructed mikveh.  The scandal is that rabbis have legislated to control and dehumanize the population with their additions.  The ongoing violations of human dignity are part and parcel of this rabbinic offensive on human dignity.

The Primacy of Torah Law

Actually, the title may be a bit misleading, since it is the name of a chapter written by someone I have previously featured in my “Great Rabbis” series – Rabbi Emanuel Rackman. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/great-rabbis-series-prof-emanuel-rackman.html

However, this article makes a common rabbinic claim about various groups who have rejected Orthodox Judaism. He bunches together Christianity, Reform Judaism, Sadducees and Karaites. This is despite the fact that the sadducees rejected Christianity, and the Karaites reject Reform Judaism. Furthermore, the Pharisees rejected the Torah centred Sadduceees.

Alas, Rackman, who for many years was my mentor, writes that there is a simple reason why all these groups rejected Rabbinic Judaism, and that is because the Torah is a “yoke” i.e. a burden, and it is easier to reject than to accept a burden.

This argument is false for several reasons. As already mentioned, each of the different groups took on a different view to religion. It might be the case that Reform considered many rites outdated or too difficult, but they actually gave up believing altogether. Christianity, which I am not defending, did reject many laws, but they also adopted new ones. Whether or not the argument applies to these deviant groups, the charge made against the Sadducees and the Karaites are nonsensical.

The Sadducees, ie the priesthood from Zadok, rejected the Oral Testament of the rabbis, because they considered it alien and false. The Pharisees rejected the clear meaning of the Torah on many counts, as a way to create a new religion, and expel the Priesthood from the Temple. This is illustrated in Mishnah Sotah, where terrorist rabbis such as ben Zakkai abolish wholesale the Torah Law. This is in fact verified by the rabbi Akavya ben Mehalelel, who accused the alien convert rabbis, Shemaya and Avtalyon of falsifying Torah practice to suit their own personal needs. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

It is rather ironic, since Emanuel Rackman was the Akavya of orthodoxy in his own time, and I once told him that he had revived the roll of his historic predecessor.

The actual claim that Torah is a burden, and rejection of the Torah is because of the burden is also a fallacious claim. The Torah puts limitations on the scope of religious restrictions, by clearly forbidding adding and subtracting. This was the self-justified practice of the Rabbis. The reason behind the rabbinical rejection of Torah law is complex, but part of it is their arrogance and competition with the Priesthood, whom they wished to destroy. Just as Korach tried to rebel against Moses and Aaron of the tribe of Levi, so the Pharisees did against the Zadokite descendants of Aaron.

It is interesting to note that Shemaya and Avtalyon, were students of Shimon ben Shetach, he was the brother in law of Alexander Janneus, the High priest and sadducee king. Thus, it appears that ben Shetach had begun his program of destroying the priesthood (and the temple) by appointing gentile converts to the head of the Pharisees Sanhedrin. It is also a true and telling irony, that by the Rabbis' own admission (Gittin 57b), Shemaya and Avtalyon were both descendants of Sennacherib, the Assyrian King who besieged Jerusalem, and exiled the Northern tribes of Israel.

We now see an alternative narrative of history. Sennacherib attempted to destroy Jerusalem, but was stopped by an angel. He did succeed, however, in destroying the Northern parts of Israel, and causing exile. His descendants, Shemaya and Avtalyon, as is explicitly stated by Akavya ben Mehalelel (who cited a tradition he had heard from his teachers) falsified Torah law to suit their Sennacheribean heritage. It should be noted that Shemaya and Avtalyon were major founders and creators of the oral law. Their project was completed by ben Zakkai, who abolished the priestly functions such as the Bitter water ceremony, and the breaking of the neck of Eglah Arufah ceremony.This spiritual destruction of the Temple by the line of Shemaya + Avtalyon through to ben Zakkai led to its physical destruction. Where Shemaya and Avtalyon's ancestor, Sennacherib, failed, they and their followers succeeded in destroying the Temple.

Before Rabbis start accusing Sadducees and Karaites, they should try to study the Torah itself, and to make it their primal focus. In this way, they may see how their ancestors have led to destruction of Judaism, and perhaps if they are bold enough, can rebuild it. The Torah does not impose a yoke that is as oppressive as the Talmud, so rejecting the Talmud is not about convenience, but about honour for the Torah.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin - Jewish Illiteracy

The author, Joseph Telushkin has written a book on  “Jewish Literacy”, and an extract is used in Jewish Virtual Library’s page on the oral Law.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html

In that piece, Telushkin begs the question, trying to use common sense to show the need for some sort of oral law.  He raises some common points, but they are worth refuting here:

1) “Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy?”

The above statement is fallacious, but it is also false. The fallacy is that it is begging the question, i.e. since he claims (mistakenly) that these are the only forbidden things in the Torah, it is means other things must also be forbidden!   It is factually false, because there are other general prohibitions. Thus, in Deut 5, the restatement of the 10 commandments, we see:

12 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work

13 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

Verse 12 already sets the scene by saying what is permitted, i.e. all our regular work.  The Torah is not a Dept of Employment Handbook, to classify every single type of work or occupation.  Cement mixing, carpet weaving, computer programming, etc are all types of work that would be permitted for 6 days and forbidden on the 7^th.

2) “the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.”

Another circular argument. These rituals are all rabbinically created, so why would one expect them to be found in the Torah?

3) Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible. In the Shema's first paragraph, the Bible instructs: "And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart.…. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." "Bind them for a sign upon your hand," the last verse instructs. Bind what? The Torah doesn't say. "And they shall be for frontlets between your eyes." What are frontlets? The Hebrew word for frontlets, totafot is used three times in the Torah — always in this context (Exodus 13:16; Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) — and is as obscure as is the English. Only in the Oral Law do we learn that what a Jewish male should bind upon his hand and between his eyes are tefillin (phylacteries).”

Here is a classic argument of rabbinic polemicists. The solution to the alleged problem raised by Telushkin, and his predecessors, is already found within the texts he cites.  He focuses on the word טוֹטָפֹת , which he claims means “teffilin”. He also claims that this word has no uncoding without the Oral law.  However, one only has to go back a few verses from Ex 13:16 to unravel the problem.

In v 9 it says the following:

ט  וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְךָ, וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ, לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה, בְּפִיךָ:  כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה, הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.

9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt.

The word used in Hebrew is “zikaron”, a memorial or reminder.

In v16 it says:

טז  וְהָיָה לְאוֹת עַל-יָדְכָה, וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ:  כִּי בְּחֹזֶק יָד, הוֹצִיאָנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם.

16 And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.'

The word in 16 is “totafot”. Since the meaning, form, context and structure of these verses are equivalent, we can confidently say that the 2 words,  zikaron and totafot are synonyms – they mean the same thing. Hence, we need look no further than the Torah itself to interpret the word totafot.   Now, what exactly are the memorials in the 13^th Chapter of Exodus, that remind us of the exodus from Egypt?

The first one is in v7. Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders.

The second is in v 13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break its neck; and all the first-born of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem.

The Matzah, and the redemption of the firstborn are the reminders/totafot.

There is no requirement to bind matzah or a firstborn ass on our foreheads.  And the same is true of the Shema, in Deut 6. It is referring to the 10 commandments of the previous chapter, which shall be reminders of our daily lives. The irony is that Rabbinic tefillin do not even contain the 10 commandments.  Indeed, the rabbis made sure we forget the 10 commandments, by abolishing them from the traditional daily prayer.  The reason was, allegedly, that Christians made them a central tenet of their religion, hence the rabbis wished to differentiate their religion form Christianity.

If rabbis encouraged people to study the Torah objectively, there would be more Jewish literacy. However, the insistence on learning Talmud, which distorts the Torah’s meaning as often as it amplifies it, renders the torah to a secondary and less important source of Jewish literacy.