It is Not Only the Rabbis Who Threatened Israel

IN my previous post, I showed how the Rabbis threatened Israel by proclaiming a death penalty for those who do not keep the rabbinic testament and new phoney laws. 

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-rabbis-epistle-to-hebrews.html


They also blasphemed the Torah, which explicitly says  in Deut 30:9-10 that we need only keep the Written law.

However, they follow in a tradition of other blasphemers who threatened Israel and mocked the words of God.

In the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah,  Sennacherib king of Assyria besieged the fortified cities of Judah, and sent his general, RabShakeh to threaten Jerusalem and Hezekiah.

in 2 Kings 18 we see how he threatened and blasphemed:

"28 Then Rab-shakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and spoke, saying: 'Hear ye the word of the great king, the king of Assyria.
29 Thus saith the king: Let not Hezekiah beguile you; for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand; 
30 neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying: The LORD will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria."


Sennacherib and RabShakeh, like the Rabbis , also  denied the Torah and made up their own law, with threats of punishment for those who did not obey. 

The answer that God gave to the prophet Isaiah coudl also be instructional on how to deal with the threats of the rabbis:

2 Kings 19:

6 And Isaiah said unto them: 'Thus shall ye say to your master: Thus saith the LORD: Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me.

7 Behold, I will put a spirit in him, and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.



The rabbis, like Sennacherib, make violent threats against Israel to claim power. It was this violence of the Pharisees which destroyed the 2nd Temple.

The TeNaKh advises us on how to respond to the Rabbis when they make their unfounded threats against Israel.

The Rabbis' Epistle to the Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews is a New Testament letter that the Christians sent to the Jews to accept the New Testament.  The Sadducees and Pharisees opposed Christianity, and the Pharisees hated Jesus and his followers. So why have I suggested that the Rabbis also had an Epistle to the Hebrews?
Let's start by looking at what the New Testament Epistle says:


Hebrews Ch. 8

"Old and New Covenants.^* 

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one.  

8  But he finds fault with them and says:^*

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord,^g

when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."

http://www.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/8

This is from the New Testament, calling on the Hebrews to accept the New Revelation.

But the Rabbis, inspired by this methodology, also proposed the same thing, and in the Babylonian Talmud, several hundred years later,  make a very similar "Epistle"  to the Jews to accept the New Covenant (which they created).

Eirubin 21b: "Raba made the following exposition: The Scriptural text:The mandrakes give forth fragrance is an allusion to the young men of Israel who never felt the taste of sin; and at our doors are all manner of precious fruits is an allusion to the daughters of Israel who tell their husbands about their doors. Another reading: Who close their doors for their husbands.

New and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved; the congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the universe: I have imposed upon myself more restrictions than Thou hast imposed upon me, and I have observed them.’

R. Hisda asked one of the young Rabbis who was reciting aggadoth in his presence in a certain order: ‘Did you hear what [was the purport of the expression,] ‘New and old’? — ‘The former’ the other replied: ‘are the minor, and the latter are the major commandments’. ‘Was then the Torah,’ the former asked: ‘given on two different occasions? But the latter [are those derived]

from the words of the Torah while the former are those derived from the words of the Scribes."

http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Eiruvin.pdf

Here, the rabbis are talking of an "Old Testament" ,  i.e. the TeNaKh, like the Christians do, and a "New Testament", ie.. the rabbinical additions - namely the Mishnah and Talmud.  They continue to spell out their new scheme:


" Raba made the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural text: And, furthermore my son, be admonished: Of making many books etc.? My son, be more careful in [the observance of] the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah, for in the laws of the Torah there are positive and negative precepts; but, as to the laws of the Scribes, whoever transgresses

any of the enactments of the Scribes incurs the penalty of death. In case you should object: If they are of real value why were they not recorded [in the Torah]? Scripture stated: ‘Of making many books there is no end’. And much study is a weariness of flesh.R. Papa son of R. Aha b. Adda stated in the name of R. Aha b. Ulla: This teaches that he who scoffs at the words of the Sages will be condemned to boiling excrements. Raba demurred: Is it written: ‘scoffing’? The expression is ‘study’! Rather this is the exposition: He who studies them feels the taste of meat."

 

Here, the Rabbis make the astounding claim that their "New Testament" is more important than the "Old Testament",  a.k.a.   the Torah SheBiKhtav. They claim that whereas the Torah only contains positive and negative commandments, in their supreme arrogance, the rabbinic laws carry the death penalty! This penalty is not incurred by transgressing most Torah laws, e.g. Theft, wearing wool and linen, etc.    

This claim, of course is a complete violation of the Torah, which tells us quite the opposite. In  Deuteronomy 30: 9-10 we are promised that we will be beloved of God by simply keeping what is written in the Torah itself, as were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

"9 And the LORD thy God will make thee over-abundant in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good; for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers;  

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."

  

Can I prove God? Did he Give the Torah?

As a "rationalist", who is critical of Rabbinic fallacies, I am often asked by my  skeptical friends, whether I can prove that God exists, and furthermore, whether the Torah was indeed given to Moses by God, and if I can prove this scientifically or not?

I've looked at various  arguments provided by Rabbis, orthodox philosophers and scientists, computer analysis, as well as counter arguments by  reformists, secularists, agnostics and scientists.

As yet, none of the "proofs"  have proven much, and the disproofs produce doubts. Indeed, I once asked Lord Jonathan sacks (before he became a Lord, and before he became Chief rabbi) if he can prove the Torah. His answer was No. But he said it is the best lifestyle he has found.  And it certainly  helped him, as he received a peerage and now gives after dinner talks for good reward.

If I cannot prove the Torah, then how can I convince others to live by it? My argument is that today, we have no prophets, and no open communication from God. Thus only in the times that this did occur (if it in fact occurred) would there be a real proof of the Torah.  However, even in those times, there were people who denied that prophecy, and may have lived lifestyles dedicated  to Baal or other idols. So, today, would an Old Testament styled prophet be accepted? Could his miracles or words persuade the skeptics?  We know that Elisha and Elijah did not have unlimited superpowers, and they both were chased down by enemies, with Elisha being imprisoned.  So, presumably today he could also be imprisoned in Gaza or Kiev.    And the miracles performed by Daniel have no independent corroboration.

So how can I argue that Tanakh is true? And of what use would this be to someone who cannot live according to the Torah, eg the many LGBTs that are prevalent today?

My only strategy is some kind of Pascalian wager.  As we get older, there is less left in this world to hold on to.  On the other hand, part of the same wager would be to reject the additional rabbinic laws, which hinder us an deny many permitted [by the Torah] pleasures, eg live music, women's voices and enjoyment of life during the Omer and 3 weeks of mourning (the rabbinic Ramadan).

I have no proofs, and it is not for me to bring any.  The "onus" is on God to bring prophecy back to Earth.

Maimonides and the many [Rabbinic] heresies

Maimonides [Rambam] is the most famous Rabbi and legal authority, post -Talmud. He calls many groups "heretics", and that includes those who reject the man-made oral law. however, he says some interesting things which, if he uses the logic he was so renowned for, would also classify the entire rabbinic enterprise as heretics.

Thus, in his Hilchot teshuva Ch.3:8 he writes:

"one who says that though the Torah came from God, the Creator has replaced one mitzvah with another one and nullified the original Torah, like the Arabs [and the Christians]."

It just so happens that this is precisely what the rabbis do throughout the Talmud, and say explicitly in Erubin 21b - with regards to their new laws.  They also do this in their rewriting of   the Torah into a new Testament, namely the Oral Law. Rambam himself is guilty of this in his slavish  assent to most of the absurdities of the Talmud - with the exception of his rejecting its astrology and superstitions.
Thus, he rewrites the laws of purity in his laws of Mikvaot, changing the meaning of the words the Torah uses, and converting them to the new concept of immersion in a Mikveh - a rabbinical invention.

It is also interesting, and tragic, that Maimonides correctly states in the previous halacha of Teshuva, that "one who accepts the concept of a ruler, but maintains that there are two or more" is  a "Min" i.e. a sectarian heretic.  The Kabbalah, which Maimonides tried nipping in the bud, has a polytheistic system of sefirot, as well as a dualism, where they claim there are 2 gods, the "god" that has the Holy name, to whom they pray, and a higher "god" with No Name, to which it is forbidden to pray. this is stated explicitly in R' Haim of Volozhin's Nefesh haChaim.  He was the primary student of the Vilna Gaon, and the founder of the Lithuanian Yeshiva Orthodoxy.

However, one does not need the intellectual prowess of Maimonides to see that Kabbala is heresy and polytheistic. And even the huge IQ of Maimonides does not give him immunity of falling into his own definition of heresy, by his assent to the New Rabbinic Testament which he calls the Oral Law.

On the Main Line: Neo-Karaism.

This is an interesting post from the Orthodox blogger - On De Mainline.



He is effectively espousing the idea of the late Dr Eliezer Berkovits z'l,  who attacked the ultra-orthodox

as being "Karaites of the Oral Law". Berkovits was the most modern Orthodox thinker of the last century, and wanted to modernize Rabbinic Halacha.







On the Main Line: Neo-Karaism.: A Karaite Godol. After the chasimas ha-talmud all Jews accepted the Talmud, right? Wrong. Many Jews did not accept the Talmud as the na...

A Taste of Karaite Judaism in 30 Minutes or Less (Part 2)

A Taste of Karaite Judaism In 30 Minutes or Less (Part 1)

A Taste of Karaite Judaism In 30 Minutes or Less (Part 1)

A video of Shawn Lichaa giving a lecture on Karaism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8

"That Which They Shall Tell You" - the claim for authority.

The Rabbis of the Talmud, and their followers, make a claim that their power, their right to add to the Torah, and to give it what interpretation they so choose, is allegedly supported by the Torah.

It is important to see what the verses they refer to actually say, and then determine if it supports their claims.

 Deut: 17:

8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. 9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. 10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee. 11 According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.



V.8 speaks of a legal dispute that cannot be resolved at a local level, between disputants or local Judges.

V.9 tells the disputants to come to a place that God will choose - which eventually  became Jerusalem, but was previously where Judges sat, eg where Devorah would sit; where Yiftach would sit, etc. It tells the people to go to the Kohanim, Levites and the Judge.  Of the Biblical Judges we have a Book of Judges, including a woman named Devorah - obviously not an Orthodox rabbi.  But who are the Kohanim?   The Priests were the highest legal authority for religious matters. The Priestly clans we know of during the 2nd Temple period were the Maccabeeans and the Sadducees. These 2 groups were hated by the Pharisee rabbis, and were in fact murdered when they disagreed with the Rabbis.
So the entire basis of the rabbinic claim of "Divine Authority" is completely false, and opposed to the explicit statements of the Torah.

What these verses require of the litigants is to accept the verdict of the Kohanim, who were the Sadducees, and not the rabbis.  And that is only when we take a dispute to them to resolve. The Rabbis further manipulate these verses to claim that we must accept all the customs and new testament laws that they dream up, to further embezzle and enslave Israel.

Thus the claims of the Talmud, Maimonides, Shulchan Aruch etc are based on lies and perversions of the Torah of Moses.

Lo Tosiphu: Does the Oral contradict the Written?

Lo Tosiphu: Does the Oral contradict the Written? [ Disproofs ]

(This article originally appeared on Ami Hertz's website, but I am including it here because it is still relevant.

Any discussion with the orthodox Jew will reveal a fundamental dogma of belief in the Oral Law- Tora She b’Al Peh. This is the beginning of faith, of practice, and of understanding the Written scriptures.

Unfortunately, no coherent proof is available for the claims of the Oral Torah. It is not derived from the text, nor is there any scientific evidence for it. That aspect has been dealt with on amhaaretz. The question I wish to raise is “does the oral Law contradict and conflict with the Torah she Bi’Khtav?”.
However, I will not take the standard blindfolded Orthodox route, which says you can only understand the Written Torah if you assume the oral law is true. Nor will I accept the irrational argument that “great rabbis of the past, such as Maimonides accepted the Oral Law, so who am I to disagree.” These are simple logical fallacies, but are used in the brainwashing process of religion.

The most problematic verse in the Torah for adherents of the oral law must be:
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
“Now, Israel, listen to the rules and laws that I am teaching you to do, so that you will remain alive and come to occupy the land that God, Lord of your fathers, is giving you. Do not add to the word that I am commanding you, and do not subtract from it. You must keep all the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am instructing you. “
Having studied the major Rabbinic commentaries to this Law, one notices that the rabbis are really unable to justify their own additions in the form of rabbinic “fences”, which are part of the Oral law.
The rabbinic responses are also an enlightening study in human psychology, and in particular, Cognitive dissonance.

At one end of the spectrum, there are Rabbis who make the most far fetched claims to justify the legitimacy of rabbinic laws, and on the other end, there are some examples of rabbis who more or less concede that rabbinic law is illegal, but cannot make such a clear statement, since it would mean for them a departure from orthodoxy.

Somewhere in the middle lies the position of Maimonides, the Rambam, who as we know is the strongest formulator of dogma, and supporter of Oral Law.
Rambam brings a position which is quite sophisticated, and is predicated on the knowledge that adding new laws is a transgression of the Torah. He cleverly argues that we can add new laws as long as we don’t call them “D’Oraita” or biblical. As long as we make the distinction between rabbinical and Biblical law, that is fine.

"If," writes Rambam, "one forbids [the consumption of] poultry on the grounds that it similar to the meat of goat and is therefore forbidden by the Torah, he is [guilty of] adding [onto the Torah]. Yet, if one were to say that while poultry is permissible in the eyes of the Torah, we are forbidding it and informing the masses that this [prohibition] is a rabbinical enactment...[he is not guilty of adding]" (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9)

The great Rambam was too wise to deny outright that such a transgression exists (unlike some of his colleagues). So he puts a spin of sophistry on it, to distract the sceptical reader. There are some basic flaws though:

1) There is anyways a belief that these laws are d'Oraita; we even say asher kideshanu b'mitzvatav on rabbinical mitzvot. And it is also claimed that even these laws were given on sinai, so effectively they are also d'oraita.
2) The whole argument is actually quite meaningless philosophically. It falls in the category of nominalism. Eg can somebody say that Chazir is only unkosher if one calls it chazir, but if you call it tofu or fish, then it is permitted? If i sell pork (ie flesh derived from a pig) but label it as Kosher steak, would that have any bearing on its halachic status? Would the dishes used to cook and serve that meat be unaffected since i am labelling it a kosher?

Similarly, if I wanted to kill someone, but was aware that it is forbidden, I could call it something else, other than murder. That doesn’t exonerate me from the crime.

What Rambam is really saying, is that there is a category of people, named Rabbis, who are above the Law, and as long as they maintain that their laws are of rabbinic status, they do not actually transgress anything. In any case, this position has not been adopted by mainstream orthodoxy, who claim that every word and nuance in the rabbinic imagination was all retroactively given at Sinai.
Unfortunately, the problems that Rambam create for himself do not end here. It seems that it is not only the writer of this article who is sceptical of Rambam’s construct, but also Rambam himself is!
In Hilchot Brachot 11:3 Rambam deals with the conundrum posed by the blessings over rabbinical Mitzvot, which have the formula “Asher Kiddushanu b’Mitzvotav, V’Tzivanu ……..” ie [G-d] who has sanctified us with his commandments, and commanded us to….”
He asks where we are commanded to perform rabbinical commandments (eg washing hands, lighting candles etc), and quotes “That they tell you, you shall do..”


For informational purposes, the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides is not a philosophical work in the sense that his Guide was, ie it does not attempt to prove anything philosophically to the skeptic. It is a codification of the 2 talmuds, and a legal text. If a logical problem does arise, therefore, we must understand the context in which it is written, and it is not Rambam’s own creation.
A logical problem with citing the verse above for rabbinical authority, is that anyone can cite it as a text for his authority. Why can’t the Mormons use it as proof of their true leadership, or the Imams, or any other sect or cult? After all, the Talmud see this verse as an absolute authority for those in Power to claim Divine power for whatever they innovate!
But this isn’t the only problem the rambam is faced with. Let us recall what he writes in Hilchot Mamrim: "If," writes Rambam, "one forbids [the consumption of] poultry on the grounds that it similar to the meat of goat and is therefore forbidden by the Torah, he is [guilty of] adding [onto the Torah]”.
So by claiming Torah status for Rabbinical decrees, one is guilty of Adding. By making both of the claims (Brachot and mamrim), he inadvertently betrays the whole rabbinical enterprise as one in transgression of the Torah!
Rambam’s contemporary, and controversialist, Rabbi Avraham ben David, a.k.a. Rabad, takes a more radical position than the Rambam, on the road towards denial of the value of the mitzvah of Lo Tosiphu. In his gloss on the Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9) , the Rabad writes:
"Any prohibition enacted by the Rabbis in order to safeguard and protect the Torah is not a violation of the commandment 'You shall not add [to it nor diminish from it]' even if it is enacted permanently, made like a Torah law, and based upon a Scriptural passage. Temporary [rabbinical] suspension of any Biblical commandment is also considered Torah for, 'It is time to act on God's behalf, suspend your Torah' (Psalms 119:126); such is not a violation of the commandment, 'You shall not add [to it nor diminish from it].'"
Effectively, then, the commandment of not adding is thrown out of the Torah, and the rabbis can add to their heart’s content. As long as they do not add to the number of parchments in teffillin, or species in arba minim. This is a counter example to the claim that without the Oral Law, the Torah cannot be understood or practised. At least in this case, the Oral Law does the opposite, it renders the Torah meaningless and obsolete.

The Torah Refutes the Oral Law

In several places, the Torah is self -referential. Now, this might normally be a problem in logic, but in terms of religious debate, since the premise is that God gave the Torah, then presumably God can be self-referential. In these references, God advises us of what it takes to be a a proper Israelite. And it is explicitly to be a Karaite:

Deut 28: 58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;

Deut 30: 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.



The Torah rejects any extra scriptural religion, and that includes the Talmud , Shulchan Aruch etc.

What is Karaism?

My view of Karaism is the religion of Israel, i.e. the 12 tribes of Yisrael, who lived in the Land of Israel and descended from Avraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The Torah was written by Moses, who was a Prophet. The rest of the TeNaKh was written by later prophets and scribes.    What Orthodox and Conservative as well as reform rabbis and Jews alike base their religion on - the "oral law" is not always logically consistent with the Written law. And this is the basis of the debate.