Sadducees vs Pharisees = the case of the false witness

Deuteronomy 19

^{16 If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him; 17 then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days. 18 And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 20 And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee. 21 And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.}

The Talmud discusses an alleged dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, on the above verses. They claim that the Sadducees ruled the death sentence for a case where the false witnesses succeeded in having an innocent man executed, whereas the Pharisees ruled that it was only in the case where the sentence was passed but the execution had not yet taken place, i.e. the framed defendant would be saved by new witnesses for example. In this case, say the rabbis, the false witnesses would suffer the fate they planned for their “brother” (v.18) who if he had been killed would no longer be referred to as their brother.

There is more than one problem here.  The first is whether or not this was actually the position of the Sadducees. Since there is no independent record of the rulings of the Sadducees, we rely on the written record of their outspoken enemies – the Talmud.

On the surface, the verses do support the claim of the Rabbis.  V18 is about the Judges enquiring, and finding the witnesses to be false. And v 19 is about the intent of the false witness not the completed deed.

However, what happens in the case of the Judge carrying out the execution, and then finding out later the witnesses to have been false? There are various rabbinic opinions on this, some say that the execution would only take place if the defendant was guilty (Divine intervention) and others refute this, saying that if such a travesty of justice takes place, then no worldly punishment is good enough for the witnesses, and let them be punished in the next world!

See: http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/chrysler/archives/shoftim72.htm

However, these contradictory positions are far fetched, and not in accordance with the purpose of the Law. V20 clearly says that punishment is carried out in this world as a deterrent to others, and 21 gives measure for measure punishments. So even if the defendant was falsely fined 10 shekels, that would be the punishment of the false witness.

So the Sadducees – if the position attributed to them is accurate – did have a point, and in the case of a wrongful execution or punishment, the same punishment should logically be applied to the false witnesses.

The whole subject of impeachment of witnesses takes up a large area of Talmudic discussion, and this is only looking at the basic debate between the two parties.

Ami Hertz's Shoftim: Rabbinical authority over Torah "interpretation"

Proposition: [The Tanakh states that the Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation:] "In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you - right or left." (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand "Judges" to refer to the Rabbis. But as I mentioned above, there is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law, from G-d to Moses, to the Elders, Aaron, his sons, and the entire Jewish nation. The Oral law teaches that this refers to the Rabbis. 

Response: 1. "Interpretation": This is a very important point to understand. The Oral Torah is often misrepresented as merely Rabbinic "interpretation". It is not! "Interpretation" implies that the Rabbis derive their rulings from the Written Torah. But this is not what they do. The Oral Torah is a separate code of law, which is not derived, and which cannot be derived using any logical means, from the Written Torah. The use of the term "interpretation" is very misleading.
Consider, for instance, the Rabbinic prohibition on eating meat and dairy together. This is often presented as an "interpretation" of the verse "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." Yet, there is no way that the Rabbinic prohibition can be derived from this verse. In fact, according to Rabbinic theory, the verse serves simply as a "mnemonic" for remembering the Rabbinical law. Yet, this fact is often not mentioned, which results in many people being misled into thinking that the Rabbinic law actually derives from the verse.

2. Here is the verse that Ben-Chaim quotes, in its context:

If a case is too baffling for you to decide, be it a controversy over homicide, civil law, or assault -- matters of dispute in your courts -- you shall promptly repair to the place that YHWH your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that YHWH chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there YHWH your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die. Thus you will sweep out evil from Israel: all the people will hear and be afraid and will not act presumptuously again. (Deut. 17:8-13)

I have discussed this passage before. Here is another take:
a. The passsage establishes a Supreme Court as the court of last resort for all legal cases, whose rulings on these cases cannot be appealed.
b. The physical location of the court is in Jerusalem ("the place that YHWH your God will have chosen").
c. The court is composed of the priests or the Judge.
d. These priests or this Judge are alive at the time of the case. How else are the parties in the case to present themselves to them? Also, "in charge at the time".

None of these things give the Rabbis the authority over Torah "interpretation". The passage gives the Supreme Court the authority to rule on cases that are brought before it. Certainly, if it so wishes, a Supreme Court may rely on precedent set by a previous Supreme Court. But nowhere does it say that it has to. Any Supreme Court can therefore decide differently than a previous Supreme Court did in a similar case. Thus, the Supreme Court is not setting any laws. Even if a previous Supreme Court set a precedent, it is not law. A new Supreme Court is free to decide a similar case differently.
The Rabbis, on the other hand, set laws, not simply precedents in legal cases. These laws are permanent, or almost permanent, as the Rabbis say that the contemporary Rabbis cannot overrule previous ones, such as the Rabbis who lived in Talmudic times.
 
Point b: the Supreme Court is to be located in Jerusalem. Yet, how many Rabbinic laws are set by Rabbis actually located in Jerusalem? Possibly the most important work of the Oral Torah, the Babylonian Talmud, was written nowhere near Jerusalem. Maimonides, who codified Talmudic law, did not live in Jerusalem either.

 Point c:
I. The court can be composed of either the priests or the Judge. Certainly, the Priesthood is not the same thing as the Rabbis. No amount of Oral Torah can change that. The Priesthood is hereditary and does not depend on ideology. Being a rabbi is not hereditary and depends on believing in the authority of the Oral Torah. 

II. What is the definition of the word shofet ("judge")? A shofet is not just someone who writes abstract responsa involving the Law; it is someone who has the ability to and actually does implement their decisions in this world. We know this from the text. Firstly, someone who does not obey the Judge is to be executed. That is, the Judge must be able to enforce his ruling on pain of death. Second, the Book of Judges describes many Shoftim of the pre-Monarchy period. All of these people were rulers with real physical power, not scholars devoid of the ability to enforce their decisions. As the JPS translation notes, the word shoftim is better rendered as "chieftains"; "the corresponding verb shaphat is usually rendered not 'judged' but 'ruled' or 'led'."

The Rabbis, in their capacity as Rabbis, do not have such powers. In other words, a rabbi might happen to have these powers, but they do not derive from him being a rabbi. Certainly, none of today's Rabbis have any such powers.

Point d: The Supreme Court must be alive at the time of the trial. This means that if we have a dispute today that we cannot resolve, we must go to someone alive today, not to ancient books. Rashi on this verse says as much:

Even if he is not comparable to the other judges who preceded him, you must obey him --- you have no one but the judge in your day. {Otherwise, "during those days" is redundant --- is it possible to approach a judge from another day? (Rosh Hashanah, 25:b)} (Rashi Yomi)

If the Supreme Court is "interpreted" to mean the Rabbis, it must be today's Rabbis. Yet, they do not have nearly enough power to qualify them as Shoftim, as pointed out above.

If this passage refers to any entity in existence today, that entity is the Government of Israel (or a part thereof), not the Rabbis. The Government of Israel decides legal cases (through its court system) and, for Israelis, it is the court of last resort. The Government of Israel rules from Jerusalem. The Government of Israel has the power to enforce its decisions (again, only on Israelis, not on all Jews). And, finally, the Government of Israel exists today. 

3. One of the ancient Shoftim was Deborah (Judges 4:4), a woman. Yet, Rabbinical law forbids women to become rabbis. (Although, if we assume that the Oral Torah is true, it is theoretically changeable, and it is possible that at the time no prohibition against women rabbis existed. In that case, however, I'd like to know the circumstances under which this law changed. Also, if Deborah was such a great rabbi, why do the Orthodox powers that be of today refuse to allow women to become rabbis?

4. Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis: This is yet another case of circular reasoning:
a. The passage gives certain powers to the Shoftim.
b. The Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis.
c. Thus, Rabbis have these powers.
d. Rabbis having these powers means that the Oral Torah is true.
First, as already discussed, the passage does not grant the powers claimed by the Rabbis to anyone. Second, the purpose here is to prove the veracity of the Oral Torah. Yet, Ben-Chaim has to assume the Oral Torah in step (b) in order to "prove" it in (d). 

5. There is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law among those who do not dispute this. And there is no dispute that the Earth is flat among those who believe that the Earth is flat.

6. All of this raises another interesting question. Who are the Rabbis? If I get the appropriate degree from Yeshiva University, will I become a rabbi? Smicha has been lost, remember? How then can the rabbis of today claim to have the tradition of the former Rabbis, who did have smicha?
 
Posted by Ami at August 20, 2004 02:36 AM 

Mesora Blasts the Pantheism of Chabad's "Tanya"

Sefer HaTanya, written by the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, is replete with heresies of normative Judaic thought, including Pantheism and Sefirotic Polytheism.

The excellent rationalist website, Mesora.org has done much good work to bring rationalism back on the agenda.

In several articles, he points out the pantheism of  the Tanya.  Here is a good example:

Tanya and Pantheism

Another reader wrote in with a very different tone, adding that not only does Tanya include heresy, but also pantheism - the view that G-d permeates all parts of the universe - that He and the universe are but one and the same. Again, this is a view that contradicts G-d’s very words - that He ‘created’ the universe, and from nothing. Thus, He did not make the universe by taking a part of Himself and mold it. According to this dangerous view, G-d is not only in man, but also in all parts of the physical world. He quoted other sections in Tanya in support:

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 7

“Now, although G‑d transcends space and time, He is nevertheless also found below, within space and time.”

“and there is no closeness in the four elements of which this corporeal world is comprised except through the Holy One, blessed be He, when He is within them.”

Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Chapter 8

“and likewise with respect to His will, [as it is written,3] “G‑d desires those who fear Him,” and4 “He wishes to do kindness,” and5 “He desires the repentance of the wicked and does not desire their death and wickedness,” — thus we have verses indicating both what He finds desirable and undesirable; [so, too,6] “Your eyes are too pure to behold evil” — yet another thing that He does not desire. From the above verses, then, we see that emotions, wisdom and will are all ascribed to G‑d.”

This pantheistic view is but a further corruption of their first heretical mistake, that G-d partakes of physicality. This was also the view of certain, early Chassidic sects that maintained, “Even inside of sin, G-d exists, as He permeates everything - even sin.” Again, these views contradict the Torah, which states that “man cannot know G-d while alive”, and that “nothing equates to G-d”. 

As Tanya makes positive statements about G-d not found in G-d’s own owrds, it violates these two Torah verses. This last quote, “emotions, wisdom and will are all ascribed to G‑d” again violates the Torah, and reason: G-d is not governed by His creations, i.e., emotions.

source: http://www.mesora.org/TanyaandHeresyII.htm

Spinoza, Rav Kook, and Pantheism

Pantheism, the view that holds the physical world and God to be one and the same, goes against Monotheism, Torah, and Judaism. There was a time when great Rabbis such as Maimonides, Ibn Ezra Saadia Gaon etc, would decry Pantheism, and at least agree with the Karaites on this issue. However, due to the forgery known as the Zohar, and further “revelations” to false prophets and dreamers known as “kabbalists”, the trajectory of rabbinic Orthodoxy has entered the world of idol worship and pantheism. They sometimes try to muddy the water, by calling it “panentheism”, which is like saying being gay and monogamous is forbidden, but having a gay orgy is a mitzvah.

I have already shown that the evil man posing as a “rabbi”, Aryeh Kaplan, was an explicit pantheist and a deplorable heretic. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/aryeh-kaplan-blasphemer.html

However, greater people, who were known for their righteousness and good deeds, and love of Israel, have sadly been seduced by the evil of the Kabbalah, and the lies of the idolaters. The rabbis on the one hand preach the 13 principles of faith of Maimonides, whilst on the other they deny them.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who is the closest thing to a Tzaddik that Orthodoxy has produced, was nevertheless a purveyor of “panentheism”. The rationalist writer, R. Shlomo Moshe Scheinman, who passionately fights idolatry within Orthodoxy, quotes the tragic-coming statements of our would be tzaddik, Rav Kook:

“I will not hide the fact that Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook who founded Mercaz HaRav Kook Yeshiva  in 5684 (1924), considered both "the monotheistic view" as well as the "Monotheistic outlook that leans towards Pantheism, when it is refined from its dross" as Kosher [Orot Hakodesh volume 2 pages 399, 400]. And seemingly he himself, held more or less in accordance with the view of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin {Rabbi Tzuriel brought a proof to this (Kvatzim, Kovetz 1, Piska 65)}. Now perhaps Rabbi Kook gave validity to the "second outlook" that I recounted, for many of his legal rulings clearly have Kabbala and Agada integrated within them, which is a method that deviates from the classic Ashkenazic responsa [ thus wrote Rabbi Neriya Gutel in a general  appraisal of Rabbi Kook's rulings]. Now one should note that also Rabbi Kook admits [in his article in Orot Hakodesh] that the viewpoint that is more famous in Israel is the monotheistic viewpoint. And elsewhere Rabbi Kook strongly hints that the "Monotheistic outlook that leans towards Pantheism", just became accepted by a community of significance in Israel after the time of the apostate, Spinoza. For behold, Rabbi Kook wrote regarding Spinoza:

Within an inner layer of his thought there is a fundamental principal that after much refining enters into the camp. RMBM"N (someone said here this is an abbreviation, for Mendolsohn) began the process but did not complete his rectification, However the Baal Shem Tov refined him without knowing who he is refining... however the process was not completed"...

source - http://www.vilnagaon.org/monotheism.htm

Kook is being quoted as supporting Spinozan pan-en-theism, after it is refined. The refinement is not of any use, just like making an idol of a calf with refined gold doesn't make it any more kosher.

In a sense, the springboard into pantheism and idolatry, which is what Kabbalah teaches, was only a matter of time. The rabbinic departure from the Torah could not contain itself to stick to specific sins of Lo Tosiphu for example. Nor could the appetite for new fictions be satisfied even by the Talmud and midrashim. Eventually, new books, such as the Zohar, and new revelations would enter the fray. The number of monotheistic rabbis today is very few, since the majority have been baptised into the Kabbalah. It is also dangerous to express monotheism, as the saintly Rabbi Yosef Kapach tragically learned as a child, when fanatic Rabbis murdered his father and betrayed him into the hands of Muslims, to be raised as a Muslim!

Reincarnation and the Karaite Kabbalah

Mention Kabbalah, and you will be sure to get mixed reactions. The rationalists, whether secular or orthodox will trash it, whilst the traditionalists and the cultists will take it very seriously.

For the Rabbis, the kabbalah is the hidden part of the “oral law£ which was only revealed after the Talmud. For the skeptic or Karaite this is quite preposterous, it is not enough that they fabricate the oral law, but then some guy called Moses De Leon dreams up the Zohar, and it becomes the hidden book of splendor (much like the book of Mormon is in Christianity).

There is, however, the rub. One of the most central themes in Kabbalah – that of reincarnation (which is found nowhere in the Talmud) is also the most hotly disputed. Such was the novelty and absurdity of it, that no less a Rabbinical icon than Saadia Gaon, rejected this as being false!
http://www.mesora.org/SaadiaGaon-Reincarnation.htm


But the first mention of this idea came not from the Rabbis, but from Anan Ben David – one of the early Karaite leaders. For the rabbis, he was the quintessential founder of karaism, whilst for the Karaites, he was a great unifier, although not strictly a TNK only Jew. He was a great Phariseeic Rabbi and sage who left the Talmudic world, to start or accelerate a new movement, which eventually merged with karaism.

Anan introduced the idea of reincarnation to Judaism. This was before the Zohar, before the Arizal, and before Hassidism. It is not clear where he sourced the idea from, since Buddhism and Hinduism would have been known to him. Whether he had early rabbinic teachings or other sources is not known.

Later Karaites unanimously rejected this idea, whilst later Rabbanites embedded it in their “canon”. Today, holding a Saadian view in the orthodox world would be at best frowned upon, whilst holding an Ananite view in the karaite world would also be rejected.

Whether the source is Talmudic or Buddhist, it is still an interesting but unknowable claim. We have no memory of previous lives, and now knowledge of what happens to our minds after death. But, it is counter-intuitive to see how one of the most imaginative rabbinical doctrines was first written about by a proto- or pre- Karaite.

Rashi – Controversy

                                                     

One of the most iconic rabbinical statements is that cited by Rashi from a Sifrei, and is also in the Midrash, makes an Orwellian statement, which would be fit to fall into the Newspeak rules.

Regarding the alleged authority of the Sanhedrin, it claims:

“Even if they tell you that right is left and that left is right (you should listen to the sages) certainly if they tell you right is right and left is left. (Rashi, Deut. 17:11)”

This is repeated in Midrash:

“You shall not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare to you to the right hand nor to the left. If they tell you that the right hand is right and the left hand left, listen to them, and even if they shall tell you that the right hand is left and the left hand right.(Midrash Rabbah - The Song of Songs 1:18)”

source: http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48915687.html

Firstly, this is a misrepresentation of the Torah , Deut 17:

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.

This is in the case of a local dispute that cannot be resolved, and is taken to the Kohen in the Temple. Thus, for example, I have a publishing dispute with my friend Shawn, who wants a 50/50 royalty deal, and I am greedy, asking for 51/49 in my favour. We can resolve this between ourselves, or go to the High Priest. The High Priest might say something that is to my benefit or to my friend's, or something that is perfectly just. It is a risk we take that we do not like the final judgement, but it is ultimately our own choice to take this risk. Thus, the Torah commands us not to veer left or right from the decision of the Priest or Judge.

What the Sifrei/Talmudic rabbis did was to transmute the meaning of the Priestly authority, to their own advantage. And not only in matters of High court appeals, but every pronouncement made by rabbis at any time or place.

There was a dissenting voice to this, and it came, surprisingly, from the Jerusalem Talmud.

“Is it possible that if they told you right is left and left is right you would have to listen to them? The verse teaches we must follow [the sages] "left and right" only when they tell you right is right, and left is left. (Yerushalmi Horiot 2b)”

This is interesting because the Rabbis of the Yerushalmi were the inheritors of the Mishnah, and were not in receipt of such an alleged tradition. This is further evidence of the controversy of the mainstream Babylonian Talmud, in that they differed even from the Yerushalmi. Unsurprisingly, this dissenting view is not accepted by the rabbis, who follow the Babylonian Talmud.

In Deut 13, the law of not adding or subtracting to the Torah is followed immediately by the law of the false prophet, implying that one who adds to the Torah, claiming he has heard it from Moses or God, is a false prophet. In Deut 18, we are told how to test a prophet, or one who claims to have Divine law (eg an unknown revelation from Sinai).

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him.

These very powerful and rational Torah commands have application in both Torah law and in science.

Korach, Jesus, and Karl Marx

Rebellion is a common theme in Jewish history, and Korach, Jesus, and Marx are prime examples. I see a common thread in their style of rebellion, and it comprises of 2 general tactics. The first is the call for populism, and the second is the threat of violence. Populism is most often used where there is some form of elitism, either legitimate, as in the case of Moses and Aaron the priest, or less than legitimate, as in the case of the Russian Tzars.

Korach uses populism in Numbers 16:3

and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them: 'Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?'

Jesus uses a mix of populism, and also a threat of divine retribution. In fact, Jesus was rebelling against a divided Jewish leadership, the elitist Priestly Sadducees, who were the rightful heirs to Aaron, and also the Pharisees, who themselves were engaged in a violent battle with the Sadducees. He thus uses polemics of the Sadducees to justify his argument against the Pharisees, and vice versa.

Thus in Matthew 10, he makes the following absurd, cult-like threats:

37 He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me. And he that loveth son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross and followeth after Me, is not worthy of Me.

39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for My sake, shall find it.

For all his use of populism, he also uses the threat, and quite effectively intimidates his potential followers.

Marx was also the populist, but for his system to take a practical stronghold, it also needed the threat of violence, which was provided by Lenin and Stalin. The German (and possibly anti-Semitic) economist Schumpeter, called Marxism the only religion where salvation was to be found on this side of the grave.

In most of my posts there is a critique of Phariseeism, in one form or other. Historically, the Pharisees used both populism and the threat (as well as implementation) of violence to seize power from the Sadducees.

A few examples of this are in previous posts:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-time-to-kill-misprepresentation.html

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

The rabbis used populism in their rebellion against the elitist Kohanim, just like Korach did, but combined the violence of Lenin-Stalin to achieve their goals.

The False Assumption of Matrilineal Descent

It is a well known Rabbinical exegesis on the verses in Deut 7:

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.

Based on the phrase “For he will turn away thy son from following Me”, the rabbis errantly claimed that the “he” refers to the husband of the Israelite woman, and hence the son of this marriage will be turned away. The rabbis deduce from here, that the other way round, i.e. an Israelite male marrying one of the daughters of the heathen nations, will not have “Jewish” offspring, and hence there is matrilineal descent.

This claim is false for a number of reasons.

a) The “he” that is mentioned in v.4, is referring the same “he” in v.3, i.e. the Nation, who has daughters and sons (both forbidden). In fact, v.1 specifies these as 7 nations “Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations”. Read correctly, the Nation will turn away your son of offspring. If the rabbis claim that the “son” is the produce of intermarriage, then it logically proves both matrilineal and patrilineal descent. The Torah is not referring to the offspring, but to the son or daughter who intermarries.

b) Based on the logic of the Rabbis, if we look at the same concept when expressed in Exodus 34, we see something very interesting:

“6 and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods.“

If the “son” is referring to offspring of an intermarriage, as the rabbis claim, then this verse would suggest that the offspring of a heathen woman is also “your son”, and therefore Jewish.

However, the argument of the rabbis is taking the verses out of context. Both Exodus and Deuteronomy are referring to the foreign spouse's influence on the Israelite spouse.

Another argument is made, based on Ezra Ch. 9-10. In a situation of intermarriage with daugters of the 7 nations (who were Idolaters), Ezra said in 10:

“3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of the LORD, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.”

Not only the wives were to be put away, but also the offspring! This seems very cruel. However, they were idolaters, and even Israelite idolaters must be put away. Hence it is not making a statement on the Jewishness of the offspring. Rabbi Goren wrote that the wives did not wish to convert to Judaism, but that would have been a solution if they had so chosen.

The argument of matrilineal descent is further demolished if we look at King Solomon. Although the marriage itself was forbidden, Solomon's Ammonitess wife Naama, was the mother of King Rehaboam. Thus 1 Kings 14: 21 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put His name there; and his mother's name was Naamah the Ammonitess.

Ezra was trying to stave off the ingress of idolatry into Israel, which occurred as a result of Solomon's intermarriages. The issue of matrilineal descent is not raised in Ezra. However, the case of King Rehavam proves the validity of patrilineal descent.

Matthew and Maimonides – Parallel Lies Sometimes Meet

It may seem a rather extreme statement to compare the greatest Rabbi, Moses Maimonides, who is respected in all quarters of Judaism, to Matthew of the New Testament, who is certainly not well regarded by Jews, Orthodox or otherwise.

However, asides from the personality cult it would be helpful to compare the arguments they bring for their respective causes, and judge their credibility. Each one brings a chronology of an alleged chain of transmission, whether of genes of memes, i.e. genealogy in the former and transmission of oral law in the latter.

Let us start with the earlier book, from the NT:

Matthew 1

21st Century King James Version

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.

2 Abraham begot Isaac, and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brethren.

3 And Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Aram,

4 and Aram begot Aminadab, and Aminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon,

5 and Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, and Obed begot Jesse,

6 and Jesse begot David the king. And David the king begot Solomon by her that had been the wife of Uriah,

7 and Solomon begot Rehoboam, and Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa,

8 and Asa begot Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah,

9 and Uzziah begot Jotham, and Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah,

10 and Hezekiah begot Manasseh, and Manasseh begot Amon, and Amon begot Josiah,

11 and Josiah begot Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon.

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel, and Salathiel begot Zerubbabel,

13 and Zerubbabel begot Abiud, and Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor,

14 and Azor begot Zadok, and Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud,

15 and Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob,

16 and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

There are several fallacies to this alleged chain, since we have no reliable record of who came after Zerubavel, and even if Joseph was the husband of Mary, Matthew claims that Jesus was in fact fathered by God – something outside of the TNK theology. Quite apart from that, Jesus did not fulfil the prophecies of what the Messiah would do, i.e. bring Peace on earth, and peace for Israel.

Nevertheless, it seems that the rabbis saw quite a few good tactics in the Book of Matthew. (Incidentally, the alleged Kuzari argument which has been popularized by Orthodox outreach groups would also prove the veracity of Jesus. In Matthew 17, the disciples witnessed Moses and Elijah talking to Jesus. According to the Kuzari principle, witnesses to an event prove the event).

Finally, In Jeremiah 22:24-30, the line of Coniah (Jeconiah) is excluded from gaining the throne of Judah, and this rules out the entire NT  genealogy!

Maimonides proposes an argument by alleged transmission of Oral Law. 

Introduction

1  All the commandments that were given to Moshe at Sinai were given together with their interpretation, as it is written "and I will give thee the Tables of Stone, and the Law, and the Commandment" (Exodus 24,12).  "Law" is the Written Law; and "Commandment" is its interpretation:  We were commanded to fulfill the Law, according to the Commandment.  And this Commandment is what is called the Oral Law.
2  The whole of the Law was written down by Moshe Our Teacher before he died, in his own hand.  He gave a scroll of the Law to each tribe; and he put another scroll by the Ark for a witness, as it is written "take this book of the Law, and put it by the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee" (Deuteronomy 31,26).
3  But the Commandment, which is the interpretation of the Law--he did not write it down, but gave orders concerning it to the elders, to Yehoshua, and to all the rest of Israel, as it is written "all this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do . . ." (Deuteronomy 13,1).  For this reason, it is called the Oral Law.
4  Although the Oral Law was not written down, Moshe Our Teacher taught all of it in his court to the seventy elders; and El`azar, Pinehas, and Yehoshua, all three received it from Moshe.  And to his student Yehoshua, Moshe Our Teacher passed on the Oral Law and ordered him concerning it.  And so Yehoshua throughout his life taught it orally.
5  Many elders received it from Yehoshua, and Eli received it from the elders and from Pinehas; Shemuel received it from Eli and his court, and David received it from Shemuel and his court.  Ahiyah the Shilonite was among those who had come out of Egypt, and was a Levite, and had heard it from Moshe, but was young in Moshe's time; and he received it from David and his court.
6  Eliyahu received it from Ahiyah the Shilonite and his court, Elisha received it from Eliyahu and his court, Yehoyada the Priest received it from Elisha and his court, Zecharyahu received it from Yehoyada and his court, Hoshea received it from Zecharyah and his court, Amos received it from Hoshea and his court, Yeshayahu received it from Amos and his court, Michah received it from Yeshayah and his court, Yoel received it from Michah and his court, Nahum received it from Yoel and his court, Havaqquq received it from Nahum and his court, Tsefanyah received it from Havaqquq and his court, Yirmiyah received it from Tsefanyah and his court, Baruch son of Neriyah received it from Yirmiyah and his court, and Ezra and his court received it from Baruch and his court.
7  Ezra's court is called the Men of the Great Assembly, and they were Haggai, Zecharyah, and Mal'achi, and Daniyel Hananyah Mishael and Azaryah, and Nehemyah son of Hachalyah, and Mordochai, and Zerubavel; and many other sages were with them, numbering altogether one hundred twenty elders.  The last of them was Shim`on the Righteous, who was included among the one hundred twenty, and received the Oral Law from all of them; and he was High Priest after Ezra.
8  Antignos of Socho and his court received it from Shim`on the Righteous and his court, Yosef son of Yoezer of Tseredah and Yosef son of Yohanan of Jerusalem and their court received it from Antignos and his court, Yehoshua son of Perahyah and Nittai the Arbelite and their court received it from Yosef and Yosef and their court, Yehudah son of Tabbai and Shim`on son of Shatah and their court received it from Yehoshua and Nittai and their court.  Shemayah and Avtalyon, righteous converts, and their court received it from Yehudah and Shim`on and their court.  Hillel and Shammai and their court received it from Shemayah and Avtalyon and their court, and Rabban Yohanan son of Zakkai and Rabban Shim`on the son of Hillel received it from Hillel and his court.
9  Rabban Yohanan son of Zakkai had five students, and they were the greatest among the sages who received it from him; they were Ribbi Eliezer the Great, Ribbi Yehoshua, Ribbi Yose the Priest, Ribbi Shim`on son of Netan'el, and Ribbi El`azar son of Arach.  Ribbi Aqivah son of Yosef received it from Ribbi Eliezer the Great, and his father, Yosef, was a righteous convert.  Ribbi Yishmael and Ribbi Meir, the son of a righteous convert, received it from Ribbi Aqivah.  Ribbi Meir and his colleagues also received it from Ribbi Yishmael.
10  Ribbi Meir's colleagues were Ribbi Yehudah, Ribbi Yose, Ribbi Shim`on, Ribbi Nehemyah, Ribbi El`azar son of Shammua, Ribbi Yohanan the sandal maker, Shim`on son of Azzai, and Ribbi Hananya son of Teradyon.  Ribbi Aqivah's colleagues also received it from Ribbi Eliezer the Great; and Ribbi Aqivah's colleagues were Ribbi Tarfon, the teacher of Ribbi Yose the Galilean, Ribbi Shim`on son of El`azar, and Ribbi Yohanan son of Nuri.
11  Rabban Gamliel the Elder received it from his father, Rabban Shim`on son of Hillel; his son, Rabban Shim`on, received it from him; his son, Rabban Gamliel, received it from him; and his son, Rabban Shim`on, received it from him.  Ribbi Yehudah son of Rabban Shim`on is called Our Holy Teacher, and he received it from his father, and from Ribbi El`azar son of Shammua, and from Ribbi Shim`on, his colleague.
12  Our Holy Teacher wrote the Mishnah.  From the time of Moshe until Our Holy Teacher, no one had written a work from which the Oral Law was publicly taught.  Rather, in each generation, the head of the court or the prophet of the time wrote down for his private use notes on the traditions he had heard from his teachers, but he taught in public from memory.
13  So too, each individual wrote down, according to his ability, parts of the explanation of the Torah and of its laws that he had heard, as well as the new matters that developed in each generation, which had not been received by tradition, but had been deduced by applying the Thirteen Principles for Interpreting the Torah, and had been agreed upon by the Great Rabbinical Court.  Such had always been done, until the time of Our Holy Teacher.

What is striking, is that Maimonides is using the same structure of argument as Matthew. First, he makes the fallacious and false statement about the “Torah and the Mitzvah”, where he repeats the misrepresentation of Saadia Gaon, where he claimed that the Mitzvah refers to the Oral Law. This is despite the fact that the verse states “and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written,”.  This has already been demonstrated in my earlier post:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/saadia-gaons-textual-proof-crumbles.html

Next, he writes a purported chain of transmission of the “oral law” (which did not exist) despite the fact that the TeNaCh figures did not keep the oral law, or even have it.

For example, Ezra is part of Maimonides’ chain, despite the fact that Ezra and Nechemiah did not have the Etrog, which is an essential part of the alleged oral law. See http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/nehemiah-they-found-written-in-law.html

He refers to Shemaiah and Avtalyon as righteous converts, however, they were not even considered righteous by some rabbis.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html  As converts, they brought their own Greco-Roman philosophy, which accounts for the Greco-Roman terminology, weights and measures and other perversions of the Torah, in the Mishnah. Thenm he uses similar language about the redactor of the Mishnah, Judah HaNasi, as Matthew does about Jesus.  This is to add the same dramatic and emotive effect on the reader.

Another fallacy is to impose the idea of Rabbinical courts onto he Prophet and Kings, who judged Israel in the Bible.  The Sanhedrin is a Greek word, and an Athenian concept. The Judges of Israel acted through Divine inspiration, and did not sit on a court of Elders to reach their judgements.

Thus deception is the mode of operation of both Matthew and Maimonides – Parallel lies sometimes meet.

Great Rabbis Series - Rabbi Eliezer Shach

In the days when I was Modern Orthodox, I suddenly came across the Lithuanian Ultra-Orthodox leader, Rabbi Shach.  Shach was strongly opposed to all of the Orthodoxy I was familiar with, Modern Orthodoxy, Zionist Orthodoxy, Chabad, etc.  Prior to my discovering the corruptness of Chabad, this all came as a shock, and I disregarded R' Shach.  I am still not a follower of his, but I wish to point out some interesting things he said. 

Firstly, he helped stem the tide of the Messianic movement of Chabad, at great personal cost, as the Lubavitcher Rebbe up to that point was universally respected in orthodoxy.

Second, he also opposed Steinsaltz, who again, I only realised later was misrepresenting Judaism, as per my previous post. However, he added something which shows tremendous insight. He said that - for his followers - it is forbidden to debate with Steinsaltz.  I now understand, in psychological terms, what Shach was saying.  He was saying that writers like Steinsaltz are intellectually dishonest - but they use their great knowledge to deceive people, and are really pushing a false ideology.  I agree with that statement, and it applies to many other walks of life as well. He also made a very interesting, and maybe embarrassing speech.  In a speech he gave in 1991, he said the following:

"Many decrees were issued against Klal Yisroel. Throughout the time of the second Bayis and thereafter, there were many decrees against Am Yisroel. Despite this, rabosai, they managed to create things that were unprecedented. Their creations were bigger than anything that ever was or will be. I mean the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi.
Where and when was such a thing done? When was it all established? When was all this created? In the time of the Second Temple and thereafter. Davka then, when we were in golus, when they oppressed Klal Yisroel and decreed shmad, when they killed people for learning Torah, then they made all that, then they learned Torah. They created the Talmud Bavli, than which there is no greater intellectual creation. There never has been nor will be such an achievement of chochmah."

What he  is actually saying or implying is that the Talmud (including the Mishnah) is an entirely human creation.  It may or may not be the greatest intellectual creation, but it is a creation nonetheless. Had it really been oral law,  then it would not be a creation, anymore than the editors who wrote down his speech are creating the ideas in his speech (assuming they did not falsify and embellish his words).

Now of course, Rav Shach was Ultra- haredi, he rejected even  Rabbis J B Soloveichik and Shlomo Goren. He would not agree with any of my views, or with Karaism. However, he was a "karaite" of Lithuanian orthodoxy, i.e. he considered the Halacha of 100 or 200 years ago  to still be valid in every detail.  He was, however, wrong, and destructive in several areas. He opposed all types of secular learning, and the study for a profession.  Not only did this leave many destitute and unable to raise families, a grave sin which he perpetuated. He was also hypocritical, as his wife had studied medicine and supported him financially when he was learning in Yeshiva.  Thus it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He also opposed the Entebbe operation, perhaps on the grounds of risking life to save lives, and preferred negotiating with terrorists.

Rabbi Shach's only son became a Modern Zionist Orthodox professor.  After his passing, the yeshiva that Shach had led was divided in the all too familiar civil war, with a battle over who will succeed him. On one occasion, an explosive device was left on the doorstep of one of the rival Rosh Yeshivas.  Shach's theological skills, and even Israeli political savvy  did not give him clear insight into security matters. He spent the years after the 6 day war arguing "land for peace" , only to do a U-turn when the Oslo accords were signed, forbidding returning any Holy Land to the Arabs. May this act of righteous repentance be an example to his many colleagues who still spend their lives trapped in false notions and self destructive beliefs.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz - Misrepresenter of Judaism, even Orthodoxy

In reading an interview with Steinsaltz, (of steinsaltz Talmud fame), I am reminded of some encounter I had with him 20 years ago. Here is the quote:

"It was a big mistake to make the education in Israel based so much on the Bible,” Steinsaltz says, in between puffs of his pipe. “Because the Bible was written by prophets. If you read the Bible, you somehow become in your mind a little prophet. That’s the way in which Israelis speak to each other they don’t have conversations, they all have complete and unlimited knowledge. Learning Talmud would bring a big change to the Israeli mind, because it deals with and is connected to dialectic.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/never-mind-the-bible-its-the-sanity-of-the-talmud-you-need-to-understand-the-world-and-yourself-adin-steinsaltz/#ixzz34jiheNh7

Typical of anti-Torah rabbinics, he is putting the Talmud above the TeNach.

However, in the days I was Orthodox, I challenged him on the Chabad Messianism, of which he played a big part, since they were misrepresenting the Rambam, which they claimed supported their "Messiah". Maimonides in his Hilchot Melachim (Kings and Wars) writes in Ch.11:


Halacha 4


If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.
If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1188356/jewish/Melachim-uMilchamot-Chapter-11.htm


At the time, Chabad were claiming that their wheelchair-bound rebbe was this presumptive Moshiach. This was despite the Rabbinical Halacha requiring satisfaction of certain conditions, namely a King arises; he compels all Israel to keep the Torah and fight the Wars (wars in the Land of Israel).
Since the Rebbe was not a King, had not compelled all Israel to keep the Torah (whether Written or also oral law), and had not fought any wars, or even fired a shot - in fact he never even visited Israel as a solider, let alone fight in the army - I said they are mistaken. Steinsaltz said that it doesn't matter what these criteria are or whether they are fulfilled partially or fully, rather they are characteristics.
This is nonsense, from both a logical and halachic perspective. It is like saying a pig is kosher, because it has certain characteristics of a kosher animal, eg it produces leather, like a cow does; it suckles its young like a goat does, and has cloven hooves like a sheep. The characteristics statement was the final straw. It shows that Steinsaltz, although a prolific scholar, is misrepresenting Judaism to suit his own ideological goals and fantasies.

On the Main Line: The Karaite ikkarim, or principles of the faith.

On the Main Line: The Karaite ikkarim, or principles of the faith.: This is the list of 10 principles of faith for Karaites printed in the book Petah Tikva (Constantinople 1831), which you can read or downl...

The Gospel of Rashi - How the Mishnah was Manufactured

With a background on how the President of the Sanhedrin narrowly kept his autocratic role, we can now progress and see how this document was produced. It is claimed by the rabbis that the “oral law” was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, together with the Torah. That alleged “oral law” is supposedly the Mishnah, or contained therein. It is the main purpose of these posts to demonstrate the fallacy of the rabbinic claims.

Rashi's commentary on the Talmud is regarded as canonical, so that is how the Talmud is generally understood. The following is a description by Rashi of how the Patriarch, Judah, composed or redacted the Mishnah.

Rashi In Bava Metzia 33b

“When the students of Shammai and Hillel multiplied…
disputes in Torah also multiplied, and it appeared as if there
were two different Torahs. This was a consequence of the
oppressive decrees of the empire. As a result it became
impossible to have the clarity to understand the underlying
reasons for halachic disputes. Then, when God showed favor
to Rebbi in the eyes of Antoninus, the Jewish people were
able to take respite from their oppression. Rebbi then sent
for, and gathered, all the scholars in the land of Israel. Up
until that time the laws were not arranged according to
tractates, but rather each student heard laws orally from
someone greater than him, would repeat it, and would label
it; halachot A and B I heard from Rabbi C. When all of the
scholars were gathered by Rebbi everyone recited what he
had heard. Then, they took the effort to understand the
underlying reasons for each opinion in each dispute and
decided which opinions to preserve. These were then ordered
and arranges according to separate tractates… [In addition]
Rebbi would anonymously quote the halacha of an individual
sage which he approved of in order to establish the Halacha
according to him.”

This statement is quite contrary to the marketing and flashy advertising of the so-called oral law! It is making several statements which seriously undermine the veracity and authenticity of the rabbinic claims. Here are some of the reasons why:

1) The “Mishnah” is not something that existed in oral form, and was simply put down on paper. It is a collection of disparate statements or claims made by a group of rabbis in a specific time.

2) The alleged oral law was not known to any individual or group of people, in its entirety. There was no mass tradition, not even in the period immediately before the Mishnah was written.

3) Yehudah HaNasi, or “Rebbe” did not know the “oral law”, he had some things he had learned or recorded. He sent out to collect statements from the rabbis as to what they knew or had allegedly heard.

4) There is no proof or even reasonable probability that each of the “gospels” (gospel is used in the New Testament in precisely the same manner, i.e. what each of the authors recalled about the Jesus event) faithfully transmitted what he heard. Perhaps he embellished the story or added his own creations, for personal reasons.

5) Even if the collection of stories did reflect what they had heard from their teachers, this is no proof that it came from Sinai. The Gospels told their recollections of Jesus, but that is not a proof to their claim that Jesus was the Messiah etc. Similarly, the various Hadiths tell of their stories about Mohammed, but this is not a proof that Mohammed was a prophet or that the Koran was a God given successor to the Torah. These are various collections of discussions, stories etc. To sell such a story, giving it a “divine” claim will help in gaining adherents.

6) The rabbis tell us that to practice Judaism, we need the oral law, and that it is not possible to do so without it. Thus the general public would have had to have known the oral law, just like today the orthodox public know the Shulchan Aruch. But this is not the case, and never was. The public who were Torah observant, did not know the oral law, even at time of writing, and certainly not during the 2^nd temple period. Thus, if the claim of the rabbis was indeed true, the public would also know all the various laws, yet they were not approached to refresh the memory of the rabbis.

However, there were certain practices which went back to the early Pharisees, and these would have been known, eg the Omer, the Etrog etc. These only go back to the emergence of the Pharisees, which is around 150 BCE, or at the time of their conflict with the Maccabees. In the early 2^nd Temple period, even these were not known, and Ezra was not a party to the Oral law.

7) Rashi states “When the students of Shammai and Hillel multiplied…disputes in Torah also multiplied, and it appeared as if there were two different Torahs.” The rabbis claim that the Oral Law was handed down by the Prophets, for over 1000 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. They claim that Torah practice is simply not possible without the Oral Law. If there was an uninterrupted transmission, as they claim, and the people were all practicing the Torah according to the oral law, how could disputes arise among the greatest rabbis in history? If the written Law is ambiguous, and the oral law is clear, why were the sages unclear about what the actual oral law was? And had the practice of the masses been changing or divided? It is ironic that the very people who allege the Torah is ambiguous, are suddenly saying the oral law was ambiguous and in danger of being lost!

Furthermore, the same problem occurred even before Hillel vs. Shammai – when the Pharisees emerged, they made a 2^nd Torah, to buttress their dispute with the Kohanim.

8) He further attributes this alleged loss of oral law to “This was a consequence of the oppressive decrees of the empire.” How then, did it supposedly survive when the Torah itself was lost and then found by Josiah? Or during the Babylonian exile?

9) A classic argument of the Karaites is that if the oral law was meant to be orally transmitted, why then did it have to be written down? And there is not evidence of its existence in the time of the TNK. The reason given by the rabbins is that it was at risk of being forgotten! But the rabbis state that it was given in such as way that it wouldn’t be forgotten! And once written, it did not solve the disputes it was purportedly going to resolve. Thus every few years even more is written: the Talmud; the Rif; Rambam, Zohar, Shulchan Aruch etc. What is the point of having had an oral law if it has been in writing for the past 200o years?

10) The Rabbis claim a chain of transmission from Moses to the redactors of the Mishnah and Talmud, for example Maimonides does this in his introduction to his legal work “Mishneh Torah”. This claimed transmission can be shown to be false in a number of ways, but the statement of Rashi disproves this claim internally. It is saying that Yehuda HaNasi did not receive the Oral Tradition, but had a limited set of data. He had to gather various contradictory sets of data from a few dozen other rabbis, and then create a book called the Mishnah.

11) Just like an oral contract isn't worth the paper it is written on, so a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This particular link is already broken, hence there is no way to verify the authenticity of the oral tradition. There are many other weak links, which are being explored on this blog. However, going back in time, you cannot make the argument of an unbroken chain of transmission, when in fact the texts that rabbis rely on describe a broken link.

12) [new]  Rashi states that "Rebbi would anonymously quote the halacha of an individual sage which he approved of in order to establish the Halacha according to him"
So Yehuda Hanasi is not faithfully transcribing the tradition, he is inserting unnamed sources that he favours, and setting them up as being "halacha". In other words,  the claim of an unchanged tradition is false, since the power-broker can make whatever changes he likes, and he will not be challenged because of his political position. This comment by Rashi further undermines the credibility of the Rabbis.

To conclude, there is a serious credibility problem surrounding the authenticity of the oral tradition and the veracity of the claims made by rabbis regarding its nature and origins. The statements made by a limited group of rabbis, who were eager to have their names externalised, are nothing more than gospels of a newish rabbinical testament.