Rabbi Gil Student brings another alleged “proof “ of the oral law made by Rabbi Duran, the Rashbatz.
“17. Similarly, R. Duran points out that Elijah
offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38]. However, the Torah
forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14]. From
where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew
from an oral law that in his case it was permitted [Rashbatz, ibid.]”
This argument is
fallacious for a number of reasons.
Firstly, it uses
the fallacy of the false dilemma. This
means, he sets up a question, and then proposes that the only possible answer
is from “an oral law”, implying that it can only be the rabbinic oral law.
However, Elijah was a prophet and receiving prophecy is quite the opposite of
oral law. In fact, the Rabbis go so far
as to suggest that prophecy is not permitted in
deciding religious law, as per the famous fable of the Oven of
Akhnai. So, assuming that there was a
prohibition in place, any actions that Elijah took were guided by Prophetic
instruction, and not oral law.
Second, even the
premise that there was a prohibition is misleading.
Deut 12 states: 13 Take heed to thyself that
thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest;
However, Elijah
did not make burnt offerings, as is clear in 1 Kings 18:
23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them
choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on the
wood, and put no fire under; and I will dress the other bullock, and lay
it on the wood, and put no fire under.
Since he gave explicit instructions to
put no fire under the wood, he was not in violation of the law in Deut 12. It was only God who decided whether to
intervene in this event, and God can
send fire at any time and place He so chooses.
Even so, should he claim that there was
still some violation of the Biblical law, the rabbis themselves do not actually
argue that this decision was based on oral law, but they point to a verse in
psalms
“It is the time to act for Hashem since Your Torah is
being uprooted," (Tehillim 119:126) as the basis for this decision.
So the entire polemic of Duran is based on
non existent facts.
The last verse quoted – (Itis the time to
act for Hashem since Your Torah is being uprooted) is also used by the rabbis
to justify the alleged prohibition to write down the “oral law”. This will be the subject of a future post…
No comments:
Post a Comment