Duran’s Failure – Unravelling Haggai’s Riddle

Rabbi Gil Student has a list of “proofs “ of the oral law, which were concocted Judah  HaLevi  and    Duran, the Rashbatz. Here is another of Duran's claims:

“19. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity.  He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?...  If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?"  The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah.  How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.] ”

There are 2 questions that Haggai – through prophetic instruction - asks the Priests to test their knowledge.   The Priests give presumably correct answers.  2000 years later, a well known Rabbi who is not well versed in Hebrew or the Bible alleges that from knowledge of the Bible alone, the priests would not have been able to answer these questions, and therefore, he claims, they must have relied on the Oral Law! With my limited knowledge of  Biblical Hebrew, and limited knowledge of the Bible,  I am able to demonstrate that even today somebody can answer these questions without resort to the Oral Law. Indeed, the fact that this is possible, is a disproof of the Oral Law, for which we must thank  Rabbi Duran  for providing!

Question 1 asks if holiness of a holy object, such as sacrificial flesh can be transferred to a neutral item of food, rendering the other item also holy.   The Priests say no.  There are 3 possible cases for answering this question.

1)  That the Torah also says No.

2)  That the Torah says that it can.

3) That the Torah  doesn’t say anything at all on the transfer of Holiness.

If 1), then we do not need the Oral law, since somewhere in the Torah  it is written.

If 2), then the priests were wrong, so their view is disqualified.  However, there is no evidence of 2) , and even Duran says there is no statement like this in the Torah.

If 3), i.e. the Torah doesn’t say it one way or another, then we cannot deduce something that is NOT said in the Torah.  It would be fictional to imagine that Holiness can be transferred to a neutral object, if there is no verse attesting to this.  So we can deduce from the lack of a verse, that there is no concept of transfer of holiness.

That is not the case for the 2^nd question, which deals with the transfer of impurity.  Here, Duran is seriously mistaken in claiming that the transfer of impurity cannot be sourced in the Written Torah. He thus demonstrates his own intellectual and moral failure, and exposes the overall ignorance and dilettantism of the rabbis when it comes to the field of Bible study.

 

We see in the following verses the general case of how impurity of all kinds can be transferred to a person:

Lev 5

ב  אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בְּכָל-דָּבָר טָמֵא, אוֹ בְנִבְלַת חַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת שֶׁרֶץ טָמֵא; וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא טָמֵא וְאָשֵׁם.	2 or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean swarming things, and be guilty, it being hidden from him that he is unclean;
ג  אוֹ כִי יִגַּע, בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם, לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא בָּהּ; וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם.	3 or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty;

In Numbers we see the specific case of how impurity of the dead can a)  be transferred to a living person.  And b)  this newly infected person can transfer the impurity to anything he touches.

Numbers 19:

11 He that toucheth the dead, even any man's dead body, shall be unclean seven days;

And

22 And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth him shall be unclean until even.

The Written law is all that the priests required to answer Haggai's questions.

So we now have a disproof of the Oral Law, and we must now see the various attempts of the rabbis as actually being further disproof of that which they attempt to prove.