Tefillin - commanded by the Torah? Am Haaretz post

AmHaaretz  posted an article by  Josiah Draper, on Tefillin. I think it is very educational to question the basis of this Rabbinic artefact:

One common practice cited as proof the Oral Law is Tefillin. And I have to admit, you absolutely need the Oral Law for this one. There's no way to sugarcoat a way around it. Without the Oral Law, we would not know how to use Tefillin.... because Tefillin is not biblical!
Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:16, Deuteronomy 6:8, and Deuteronomy 11:18 are the verses cited for proof of Tefillin. Let's take a closer look at them. Read these, the other passages I will cite, and their sorrounding verses after each explantion after each explanation, please.

Exodus 13:9 reads "And this shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead - in order that the teaching of YHVH may be in your mouth - that with a might hand YHVH freed you from Egypt."  Now the question is - what is "this"?
It is the observance of the Days of the Unleavened Bread. We read about the festival in the previous verses, Exodus 13:6-8, and then we come to verse 9 which says "and this...."; There hasn't been a change of subject indicated. So why should we believe otherwise? Verse 10 reaffirms that it indeed is talking about the feast of Unleavened Bread, as it says:
"You shall keep this institution at its set time from year to year."

Obviously, Tefillin isn't something that has a set date for it's use. The verses before the passage, and after the passage, both talk of observing the days of unleavened bread. With no indication of a subject change, there is absolutely no reason to believe it is talking about something different.

Next we come to Exodus 13:16. It reads:
"And so it shall be as a sign upon your hand and as a symbol on your forehead that with a mighty hand YHVH freed us from Egypt." Again, the question is thus : What is "it"?
The answer is Redemption of the Firstborn. The previous verses, verses 11 through 15, are all talking about Redemption of the Firstborns. Just like the last verse, there is no indication of a subject change, and no reason to believe it is talking about something new.
Now we come to Deuteronomy 6:8 & 11:18. The language and context of the latter is extremely close to that of the former, so I'll just be covering the first one. Let's read the verse and it's context.

"4 Hear, O Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH alone! 5 You shall love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your should and with all your might. 6 Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. 7 Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; 9 inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Now, let's isolate the verses cited for Tefillin & Mezuzah.
"Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."  First things first - what are we supposed to bind on our hands, put on our foreheads, our houses, and gates? What are the instructions being reffered to earlier, in verse 6?   We see at the beginning of Deuteronomy that Moses was teaching "all Israel on the other side of the Jordan." (Deut. 1:1). When we get to chapter 6 of the book, they are still there, as the first verse (6:1) tells us that they "are about to cross into" Eretz Yisrael - the land of Israel. Thus, the instruction being reffered to is everything that was written before it.[1]
Now ask yourself this - do the Tefillin ever include this entire instruction? The answer is no. The text in the Tefillin boxes are the scriptures that are claimed as the support for the practice.  If these verses refer to Tefillin, I must ask: Where does it say the Tefillin are to be used in prayer? And where does it say that they are ever to be taken off? It doesn't. We are supposed to be living these commandments 24/7. In fact, the Vilna Gaon [2] taught that Tefillin should be worn the entire day.

Next we must ask : How is the type of language used in these verses used in the rest of the Bible? Does it refer to Tefillin there, also? The answer, again, is that it does not.
In the Book of Proverbs, we see this type of language used 4 times.
"Listen my son to the teaching of your father and do not abandon the Torah of your mother; because it is a beautiful wreath for your head and a necklace upon your throat." (Proverbs 1:8-9).  "Do not let truth and righteousness leave you; tie them upon your throat, write them upon the tablet of your heart.(Proverbs 3:3)
"Keep my son the commandments of your father and do not abandon the Torah of your mother; Tie them upon your heart always, don them upon your throat. (Proverbs 6:20-21).  "Keep my commandments and live, and my Torah as the pupil of your eye. Bind them on your finger, write them upon the tablet of your heart. (Proverbs 7:3).
To this, we add the word of our prophet Jeremiah[4]: "I will place my Torah in their inward parts and upon their hearts I will write it." (Jeremiah 31:32)

The Torah is to be like a fine bracelet or necklace which we are to wear proudly. In other words, the Torah is supposed to be precious to us and be remembered always.[3] This is what the verse is talking about.

Rashi's grandson, Rashbam, realized this also. Commenting on “And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and a remembrance between your eyes” he writes the following:
"As a sign on your arm": According to the plain meaning [of the verse, it means that] it shall be a constant remembrance to you as though it were written on your arm. It is like [Song of Songs 8:6, which reads] "Place me like a seal upon your heart.", like a piece of jewelry or gold chain which people put on the forehead for decoration.
In modern times, Rabbi Leo Trepp notes that “taken literally, the Commandment bids us to make the Love of God and the teachings of the Torah our motto, in order that our home may become a small sanctuary.”[5], as Karaites have always taught.
Submitted by Josiah Draper http://www.ancient-paths.net/
[1] Some argue that the instructions are the ones starting at 5:1
[2] http://www.tefillin.co.il/english/faq/index.htm
[3] http://www.karaite-korner.org/tefillin.shtml
[4] The moderator of KJD provided the quote from Jeremiah and the next footnote
[5] The Complete Guide to Jewish Observance p. 36

Wigs and Sheitels

 

One of the strictures of Orthodox rabbinical Judaism is the alleged requirement for a married woman to cover her hair.

Whilst married women in Synagogues will wear a hat or hair covering, the rabbis demand that the hair remains covered whenever they leave the house. A further twist to this is the European invention of a wig, or “sheitel”,  which is an imitation of hair but still can be quite fashionable.

If asked for a source to support this requirement, they point to the Sotah ceremony mentioned in Numbers 5.  This is the ordeal of the suspected adulteress.  The woman alleged to have committed adultery is brought to or near the temple, and made to take an oath of her innocence.

18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse.

It is the phrase וּפָרַע אֶת-רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה

which is translated as letting her head (hair) go loose, that the rabbis see as justification for this law.  They infer that the normal state would be for her hair to be covered.  And that it is a case of modesty that a woman’s hair be covered, and in fact that a man cannot pray  in the presence of a married woman with uncovered hair.

This interpretation is problematic, since the Torah does not state that her hair is uncovered, but that it is let loose.  This could mean her hair is tied or platted. Moreover, the logic of the rabbis is entirely the opposite of what the Torah is suggesting.  If having uncovered hair is a severe breach of modesty, and prevents a person from praying, how could the Priest conduct this service in the presence of an immodest woman? Furthermore, how can she utter an oath to God whilst her hair is uncovered? She is in the Temple itself with her hair uncovered - quite the opposite of Orthodox halacha!

Incidentally, we have already seen how this Sotah ceremony was corrupted by the "rabbis" (who were in fact non Israelite converts to Rabbanism) http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

It seems that the custom was for women to tie or even cover their hair in the outdoors as a protection from the element, eg the Jerusalem sun.  This does not mean there was a commandment to do so. Furthermore, in Genesis 29, we see that:

1 Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the children of the east.

Later on, Jacob is deceived into marrying Leah in place of Rachel. This could only be achieved by her wearing a veil, as is the custom in the land of the Arabs, which is where the East was.  Thus “26 And Laban said: 'It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the first-born.”

This also refutes the other absurd  claim of the rabbis that Jacob observed the entire Torah and Talmud, when in fact he is forced to observe local custom.

The most that can be derived from the above is that women might tie or cover their hair outdoors, but this is a secular and environmental custom, rather than a religious one.  As for the sheitel, it is a completely meaningless product of orthodoxy. It is not connected to modesty but to arrogance.

Unholy Cow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9nE894ORAs

The fast of the 5^th month (colloquially known as the 9^th of Av in Rabbinical circles) mourns the destruction of the temple. However, the reasons for its destruction and continuance of this state are not widely understood.

In the late 2^nd temple period, the Pharisee sect were battling the Temple and the priests to take over the Temple services, and enforce their new religion on the majority of Israel. The greatest foe of the Sadducees Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, was leader of the Perushim.

The Torah prescribes several steps in the preparation of the Red heifer ashes. At each step, the Priest becomes impure until nightfall, e.g.:

B’Midbar - Num:19

7 Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he may come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the even.

8 And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even.

This practice had been kept by the Priests since Eleazar, mentioned in the book of Numbers. The rabbis  wished to challenge the priesthood, in order to take power for themselves (or vice versa depending on one's allegiance). Thus, they devised a new law, which said that – contrary to the Torah – the Priest becomes pure in the day, simply from dipping in a mikveh. This is in violation of the plain meaning of the Torah, but that is no problem for the rabbis, as they claimed to have a tradition from their fathers! This later evolved into an alternative unwritten book they claimed was given on Sinai, and they called it the oral Law. Of course, this was to be written as the Mishnah, and the  claim to its origins used buttress their new religion.

The following mishna and the Tosefta (addition to the Mishnah) describe what tactics he used to destroy the priesthood, and eventually the Temple.

Mishna Parah 3: 7

MISHNAH 7. IF THE COW REFUSED TO GO OUT, THEY MAY NOT TAKE OUT WITH IT A BLACK ONE LEST IT BE SAID, ‘A BLACK (COW] HAS BEEN SLAIN’ NOR ANOTHER RED [COW] LEST IT BE SAID, ‘TWO HAVE BEEN SLAIN’. R. JOSE STATED: IT WAS NOT FOR THIS REASON BUT BECAUSE IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE AND HE SHALL BRING HER FORTH, BY HERSELF. THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL USED TO PRECEDE THEM ON FOOT TO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES, WHERE THERE WAS A PLACE OF IMMERSION. THE PRIEST THAT WAS TO BURN THE COW WAS (DELIBERATELY] MADE UNCLEAN ON ACCOUNT OF THE SEDDUCEES: IN ORDER THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SAY, ‘ONLY BY THOSE ON WHOM THE SUN HAS SET MUST IT BE PREPARED

Tosefta Parah 3:7 /2:8

So the Perushim would intentionally sabotage the purity of the High Priest in order to eliminate the priesthood and install their own cronies. All of this based on a mistaken  reading of the Torah.

However, the story does not end here. In the Tosefta, it quotes the Priest complaining to ben Zakkai, and then saying that the Priest was buried 3 days later. This formula repeats itself several times throughout the Mishna and Talmud. What it means is that the "curse" of rabbis resulted in the death of the Kohanim. The method here is not specified - it may have been a real curse or something less heavenly.  It would certainly be a good idea to avoid such curses.

 During the festival of Sukkoth, there was a similar battle over the non Biblical feast of “Simchat Beit Shoevah”. There, the Pharisees encouraged the masses to pelt the Priest with Etrogim. The Talmud does not consider group murder as being punishable as murder, so this loophole, created by the Tannaim [rabbis of the mishnah] served them well in assassinating the Priesthood.

This High Priest was possibly King Alexander Janneus, who did not take well to this attack, and it resulted in a brutal civil war between Janneus and the Pharisees. 

This war in Israel's holy space, the temple and its priests, was the internal destruction of the Temple.
Furthermore, the internal hatred and civil war led to the spiritual and physical weakening of the Israelite state.

Take home lesson: keep disputes civil and do not turn them into wars - this only strengthens the enemy.