How to Test the Sages

The following claim is made in the Talmud:

The Gemara on Bava Batra 12a writes the following:

Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet? — What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom. Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater? (Soncino translation)

R’ Yosef ibn Migash (the teacher of the Rambam), commenting on this Gemara, writes the following:

. . . a חכם is thus superior to a prophet: for a prophet only relates that which he heard and that which was placed in his mouth to repeat, while a חכם relates a tradition given to Moses at Sinai, even though he had never heard it [from anyone]! (qtd. in The Jewish Political Tradition Vol I. Ed. Walzer et al. pg. 260)

In contrast, the Ramban writes that this Gemara “means to say that although the prophecy of the prophets – by means of image and vision – was lost, the prophecy of the sages – by means of the intellect – was not lost. Rather, they know the truth from the holy spirit which [dwells] within them." (ibid).

source http://nevuah.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/and.html

The Talmud here claims that the Rabbis have been endowed with prophecy!  The commentators try to define what type of prophecy this is, and come up with unconvincing arguments.  A rabbis is  prophet through his intellect, or through having heard something from his teacher or read in a book.  So it is not clear whether they are altogether escaping from the Talmudic claims of prophecy, or trying to redefine it.

In any case, the Torah gives us license to question any person or claim of prophecy.

Deut. 18:  20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'

21 And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?'

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.

The Torah gives a methodology on how to test a claim to prophecy.  If the prophecy that the claimant prophet makes does not follow, or take place, then he is a false /presumptuous prophet. And the punishment for presumptuous prophets is very serious (v. 20).

The claims of the Talmud are variously, that there is a tradition from Sinai which was unwritten; that the rabbis themselves have a backdoor to Sinai, whereby their own ideas were given on Sinai retroactively, and that their words are also prophetic.

All of these claims are claims of prophecy, whether direct or indirect.  Incidentally, whereas the Torah provides us license to test such claims,  the rabbis deny the Torah, and threaten anyone who questions the oral law with heresy and eternal damnation.

To use the method and internal logic of the Torah, we can verify or falsify the Talmudic claims.  Any predictions made, or claims made , which do not follow  temporally or logically, can be considered as false prophecy. If in fact, no predictions are made,  then the claim that they are prophets is a false claim, and hence they are also false prophets.   If the rabbis also make statements that violate torah, and claim this was all in the oral law, these contradictions and violations also constitute false prophesy. 

In Micah 3 for example, we see the issue of false prophets:

5 Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people to err; that cry: 'Peace', when their teeth have any thing to bite; and whoso putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him:

6 Therefore it shall be night unto you, that ye shall have no vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them.

7 And the seers shall be put to shame, and the diviners confounded; yea, they shall all cover their upper lips; for there shall be no answer of God.

Once the claim to prophecy is made, it is a huge responsibility, and a double edged sword.  Just as one cannot make the claim to being the Messiah without scrutiny, so is the case for prophecy.  Thus the ridiculous claims of the rabbis that questioning the veracity of the Talmud is heretical are destroyed by the Torah itself!

Midrash – Fact, Fiction or Projection?

Midrash are rabbinical fables which are legends based around stories, events or people in the TNK.  However, these are often very tall stories, which are designed to give a new slant or justify rabbinical lore and law, rather than reflecting historical or factual truth. For the fundamentalist Rabbanites, however, these are all part and parcel of the oral law and are all true in some sense or other. The problem is that there is no supporting evidence for most midrashim,  and they often go against logic and even Torah.

A particular example is the midrashic  story of Rahab, who was saved by the 2 spies sent by Joshua to Jericho.

The rabbis make an outrageous claim, that the prostitute Rahab became Jewish and married Joshua. 

“After having engaged in prostitution for forty years, Rahab converted at the age of fifty. She said: “Master of the Universe! I have sinned with three things [with my eye, my thigh, and my stomach]. By the merit of three things pardon me: the rope, the window, and the wall [pardon me for engaging in harlotry because I endangered myself when I lowered the rope for the spies from the window in the wall]” (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Amalek, Yitro 1). Another tradition has her saying: “Pardon me by merit of the rope, the window, and the flaxen [the stalks of flax under which she concealed the spies]” (BT Zevahim loc. cit.).
Many Rabbis viewed conversion favorably, an attitude that is reflected in exegeses about Rahab. The midrash attests that Rahab married Joshua following her conversion (BT Megillah 14b). Eight kohanim who were also prophets were descended from her: Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Seraiah, Mahseiah, Baruch, Neriah, Hanamel and Shalom. According to one opinion, the prophet Huldah was also among her offspring (Sifrei on Numbers, chap. 78). Other traditions also include Ezekiel son of Buzi (Sifrei Zuta loc. cit.). In another exegesis, God showed Moses before his death, through the spirit of divine inspiration, the line of prophets that would issue from Rahab (Sifrei on Deuteronomy, Chap.338).”

 - source: http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/rahab-midrash-and-aggadah

The midrashim are making a number of claims – that Rahab married Joshua; that her descendants included many prophets, and also Kohanim. There is not any evidence or suggestion in the TNK that supports these wild claims. There are, however, some subtle hints that suggest their falsity.

In Joshua 6, we see:

22 And Joshua said unto the two men that had spied out the land: 'Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye swore unto her.'

Joshua refers to her not by name, but by profession.  This means that he was most likely of the view that “once a harlot, always a harlot”.   Furthermore, if he was really in love and awe of this repentant harlot, he would have used some kind words in describing her.

Next:  23 And the young men the spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had, all her kindred also they brought out; and they set them without the camp of Israel.

It is important to note that the entire family were kept outside the camp of Israel. This is a very important indicator of their non-Israelite identity.  Had Joshua wished to convert her and marry her, she would have moved into the camp of Israel, which is not the case.  We see, however, that eventually they were accepted into Israel:

25 But Rahab the harlot, and her father's household, and all that she had, did Joshua save alive; and she dwelt in the midst of Israel, unto this day; because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

Even after this, she is still known as the harlot. Would it be appropriate for the leader of Israel to marry someone he himself calls a harlot, even when later generations are accepted into Israel?

There are further issues that are problematic for such a claim. Not only do the rabbis claim here descendants were Prophets, they were also allegedly Kohanim. 

In Leviticus 21 we see the rules regarding  Kohanim:

7 They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God.

Whilst it is true that the rabbis are claiming later generations were Kohanim, this is still problematic, since  matrilineal lines of Kohanim are meant also to be pure.  It could be argued that only after several generations did her descendants marry into the priesthood, but it could similarly be argued that although Joshua may not have been a Kohen, he would also have worries about marrying a defiled woman.

A more rational explanation would look at the psychological and historical context of these midrashim.   It is more likely that this story was dreamed up by a rabbi, who himself had married a prostitute. Thus, by projecting this acceptance onto a man as great as Joshua, he was justifying his own act, and lessening the social stigma of his own marital affairs.

Furthermore, we must remember that the Pharisees did everything they could to defile the Priesthood and the Temple (e.g. ref heifer, spices, anointing oil etc.). Their attempts may have also included installation of their own priests to replace the line of Zadok. It is possible some lapsed priests who had married harlots etc were recruited by the Pharisees in the process, and hence this midrash was created for political reason.

There is a third reason why this midrash is of doubtful veracity. The story is not recorded in the TNK.  If such an important part of Israelite ancestry took place, it would certainly have appeared in the Book of Chronicles or Joshua. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perfect/Imperfect

 Joshua's Altar - Mount Ebal

 

The kind of rabbinic polemics offered by those such as Kuzari, Duran, Saadia Gaon etc, in justifying the Oral Law, are based on attacks aimed at the Torah itself. These various claims, which have been refuted by Ami Hertz, and also on this blog, make allegations against the Torah on 2 fronts.  The first is that the Torah in itself is illegible.  This basically attacks the grammar, the script, punctuation etc, and falsely claims that the nikkud, or little vowels had to be created by the rabbis (or given on Sinai) in order to make the torah legible.

The second line of attack, is that the Torah, if read on its own, is imperfect, and leaves out certain details of practice, such as shechita, the 4 species of Sukkot etc.

Although there are many previous posts which destroy such atrocious claims, there are also textual proofs which show the mendacity of these rabbinic apologists. In essence, these are the strongest disproofs, since they are not philosophical  but textual.

The first of these prooftexts is from Devarim:

Deut 27:

ח  וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל-הָאֲבָנִים, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת--בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב.  {ס}

8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.'

The phrase בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב is one that destroys the allegation that the Torah is somehow illegible.  Whilst it cannot be expected of rabbis to understand Biblical Hebrew, this in itself does not make the Torah illegible.  The Torah itself says that it is legible, and hence those who claim otherwise are heretics of the torah.

The second text is in Tehillim 19:

Ps 19;8 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

This disproves the claims that the Torah is imperfect.  If it was imperfect, as the rabbis claim this would make King David a liar.  Since the rabbis are now denying the words of David, it makes them illegitimate in terms of Israelite citizenship, as it is a rebellion against King David.

I’m sorry, but it’s called Adding!

Deuteronomy Chapter 4

1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, giveth you.

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy Chapter 5

28 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you; ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Josh 23;6 Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;

There are many rabbinic apologetics which use chicanery and sleight of hand to argue that they are not transgressing this law. Their arguments so ludicrous that they do hardly  require serious attention.  One is reminded of the famous statement of Jesus of Nazareth who said he has come not to abrogate the Law, but to fulfill it.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/415,2093670/How-could-the-rabbis-add-laws-doesnt-the-Torah-forbid-adding-commandments.html

where Maimonides writes:

The Rabbinical Courts maintain the right to issue decrees and forbid that which is [biblically] permitted, and these prohibitions stand for perpetuity. They are also entitled to temporarily lift Torah prohibitions. So what is the meaning of the Torah's prohibition: "You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it"?

[Rather, the intent of this prohibition is that we] not add on the words of the Torah nor subtract from them, and permanently establish [the addition or subtraction] as part of the Scriptures. This [prohibition] applies both to the Written Law as well as the Oral Tradition [transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai].

The Rambam goes on and on with sophistry, claiming that adding is not really adding if you label it as rabbinic.   This is a simple nominal  fallacy.  By mis-labelling a product, it doesn’t change the product, eg serving the flesh of swine in a kosher restaurant, and labeling it as goose, does not make it any more kosher.  Rambam is dressing up the sin of the rabbis and claiming that describing it as “rabbinic law” solves the problem of adding.

He also contradicts himself in saying that permanent changes are called adding; but admits that rabbinic laws are permanent.

Rashi, the other great Rabbinic commentator, approaches this problem from a different angle. He says that adding is only concerning adding to a specific feature of a mitzvah in the Torah, e.g. 4 species of Sukkot, whereby adding would mean to add a fifth species.  Quite apart from the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah did not agree with the Rabbis on the 4 species,  this is an altogether silly argument. The Torah clearly states that adding is forbidden, and does not imply that this is only limited to adding of details.  So this is Rashi's first misrepresentation.  However, Rashi's argument does not even work with rabbinic law. Many rabbinic laws do add extra details to existing (or perceived) Torah laws. For example, adding a 2nd day to Yom HaTeruah (which they call Rosh Hashana).  By definition, many rabbinic "fences" are additions to allegedly  protect an existing law, by adding extra restrictions.  So Rashi, unintentionally  confirms that the rabbis have violated torah law, even as he uses sleight of hand to distract the reader from this violation.

I refer again to the prophetic verse in 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;

It was only when the Pharisees took control of the Temple, and changed the religion of Israel (by both adding and subtracting) that the Temple was destroyed.

An Exercise in Absurdity – Christian and Islamic Claims

Successor religions to the Hebrew /Judaic religion of the Torah have gone in different directions, however they each share a common claim of succession to Judaism.  Thus, Christianity considers the Old Testament as being obsolete and the Jews as being rejected.  Their “sin” was not for example the violation of Sabbath or Idolatry laws, but the rejection of Jesus as a divine Messianic figure.  To top this, the Christian nation, if there is such a thing, has called itself the new Israel.  Islam also makes a similar claim.  The 7^th Century religion claims that Jews were rejected by God for their sins, presumably for rejecting Mohammed as a prophet, and the Koran as the ultimate prophetic work.  It also claims that the Old Testament was changed by Jewish scribes (since it does not favour Mohammedan claims).  This allegation made about the TNK, which it at the same time accepts.

The falsity of such claims is shown in the Torah itself. 

 Lev 26

44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.

Despite the punishments meted out to Israel – which are specifically for violation of Written Torah (and not Mishnah, new testament, Talmud or Koran)  do not result in the creation of a New Israel or a new Covenant.

New Covenant religions  have had success in terms of numbers, power, nationhood and oppression.  These criteria, however are not issues which justify the concept of a new covenant. It should also be noted that the Talmud itself, in Erubin 21b, boasts of a new Covenant, which it claims is more cherished than the Old Testament. The Talmud is in fact doing precisely what Christianity and Islam have done.

In the same Lev 26 we read:

15 and if ye shall reject My statutes, and if your soul abhor Mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but break My covenant;

The rabbis teach in the said Talmud Erubin that we should be more scrupulous in the observance of rabbinic laws than of Torah law.  Furthermore, the violation of torah law is on 2 fronts.  1) The violation of the law against adding  (Deut ch. 4, and 13) and 2) the changing and violation of many other laws throughout the torah, including but not limited to the Temple service and Priestly garments.  Thus the permission to consume tail fat; the changing of the Omer counting  etc are still practiced even without a Temple.

This constitutes a rejection of the Torah statutes and an abhorrence of ordinances, as in Lev 26:15.

The Rambam’s Circular Argument

In an earlier post, I pointed out the contradictions in Maimonides’  dogma, and his calls of heresy.  http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/maimonides-and-many-rabbinici-heresies.html

It is worthwhile revisiting these claims of Maimonides, or Rambam, as it is highly illogical.

So here are some of his calls of heresy:

 Hilchot Teshuva Ch. 3

Halacha 6

The following individuals do not have a portion in the world to come. Rather, their [souls] are cut off and they are judged for their great wickedness and sins, forever:

the Minim,

the Epicursim,

those who deny the Torah,

those who rebel [against God],

those who cause the many to sin,

those who proudly commit sins in public as Jehoyakim did,

those who betray Jews to gentile authorities,

those who cast fear upon the people for reasons other than the service of God,

murderers

Let us analyse the selected claims above (some have been omitted).

Those who deny the Torah:  Since the Torah in Deut 4, and Deut 13 forbids adding, then the entire rabbinic enterprise of adding laws, i.e. the Talmud, Rambam, shulchan Aruch etc are all denying this prohibition of the Torah.  Dr Maimonides, that is an own-goal.

Those who rebel against God:  The Temple purity and sacrificial system was entirely uprooted and perverted by the Pharisees.  This was the case with the Spices, the Red heifer and impurity of the dead, Tail fat, water Libation and every other dispute with the Priestly administrators  of the house of Zadok. It was also  later written in the oral law (kind of ironic) that the Priests must wear Shaatnez.  And other temple practices were abolished by the Rabbis, notably  Yochanan ben Zakkai.  Hence, the rebellion against God and torah was part and parcel of the oral law, which Maimonides perpetuates.

Those who cause the many to sin – the creation of new laws, and imposing these on people, is making the people complicit in the sin of adding to the Torah.

Those who proudly commit sins in public as Jehoyakim did.  This was done by the Rabbis in their defiling the Temple with impurity of the dead; attack on the High Priest who refused to commit the trespass of the water offering in the Temple, and who was almost murdered by the attack of the etrog. Ben Zakkai was behind this as well.

those who betray Jews to gentile authorities – this is what the Pharisees did in their war against Alexander Janneus, when they sided with Demetrius, and connived to kill Israelites. Also, Ben Zakkai, the leader of the Pharisee sect, according to the Talmud, had the opportunity to negotiate the survival of the Temple and Jerusalem with the Romans, but he instead asked them to set up a new Rabbinic colony in Yavne, and by implication, to continue with the destruction of the Temple.

Those who cast fear upon the people for reasons other than the service of God – this is very interesting.  The rabbinic oral law, and its threats upon Israel, ie non –acceptance of rabbinic law will lead to death is precisely such a form of terror.

Deut Ch 30 makes the following statement regarding the Written Torah:

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.

This quite clearly sets out the parameters for Torah observance,  namely to keep what is clearly written down in the Torah.  It also negates the Oral law, since we are only enjoined to keep what God commanded, and this is all in the Written Law. Thus Rambam, and his rabbinic colleagues are violating the Torah, and are also imposing fear upon the people for reasons of their own personal and political interests, and not to do with God in any way.

Finally: murderers – see the points regarding Ben Zakkai.

In Halacha 8, Maimonides makes some further claims:

“There are three individuals who are considered as one "who denies the Torah":

a) one who says Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God. If he says: "Moses made these statements independently," he is denying the Torah.
b) one who denies the Torah's interpretation, the oral law, or disputes [the authority of] its spokesmen as did Tzadok and Beitus.
c) 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].”

 These claims must be investigated logically.

a)    What the rabbis actually do is very similar to the deniers of Torah. When they change the meaning of verses, so as to differentiate from the established Priesthood, this makes them deniers of the Torah.  This was the case, for example, on the impurity of the Red heifer preparation. The Torah says that the person processing these ashes is unclean until evening. The rabbis changed this to make the clean in the daytime, by dipping in a mikveh.   This is tantamount to denying the Torah.

b)    The only people who claim that the Oral Law is the correct interpretation are the rabbis. Rambam offers no proof of the alleged divine origin of the oral law. As pointed out above, Deut 30  rejects any extra-scriptural law, as do Ch 4 and 13.   Thus Rambam is making a circular argument here.  Furthermore, the spokesmen in the Torah are the Prophets and the Kohanim, and it was the Pharisees who rejected both of these, especially in their violent assault upon the Kohanim in the 2^nd temple period.

c)    This applies to the Talmud, just as it does to the Koran or NT. Furthermore, in the Mishnah Sotah, the terrorist rabbi Yochanan b. Zakkai abolished several laws of the Torah, as part of his campaign to exterminate the Priesthood. This included the Sotah ceremony, and the Eglah Arufah, as well as the levitical ceremony  - see: http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/more-orthodox-reform-after-kohanim-were.html

And http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/destruction-of-levites-rationale-of.html

 The Rambam might not be completely consistent  between logic and his halachic rulings.

 

 

 

It's Irrational to Add

The Torah not only forbids adding (Deut 4:2), but it also gives a rationale for a steady state Torah. In the same chapter, only a few verses later, we see:

6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'

8 And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

It was Maimonides who famously commented on v. 6 that a Torah law must , by virtue of this verse, be rational, and not conflict with the intellect. Now, it is true that Maimonides goes on to blaspheme the Torah and make a pig's ear of a justification for the oral law. He is also notably silent on the irrationality of the rabbinical fairy tales called “halacha”. However, his bounded rationality was demonstrated in his attack on astrology and superstition that was rife in Talmudic lore. He even takes issue with the astrologers of the Talmud.

Had the Rambam been logically consistent, and pointed out the various contradictions between the Talmud and the Torah, he would effectively be a Karaite. This far, he did not go. But the logic is still valid. The Torah says that these Torah laws are our wisdom in the eyes of the world. How then, can the rabbis flout almost every word of the Torah, and get away with it?

There are some empirical facts which are inescapable:

The entrance of Pharisees on the world stage, around 150-200BCE led to the greatest disaster in Jewish history. They ransacked the Temple and its practices, and introduced their own bastardised version. This inevitably led to the destruction of the Temple and a 2000 year exile. It is also ironic that the Torah itself has been widely accepted by the nations of the world, whereas the Talmud has largely been viewed with derision. Would the Talmud have been so vilified if it was really part of the Torah? The Torah itself claims that the Written Law is “ your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”.

So adding to the Torah is both forbidden, and also irrational, by the internal logic of the Torah itself.

Sukkot and Hoshana Rabba

The Sukkot festival is one where we have to separate fact from fiction. What is practiced in Synagogues today, whether Orthodox, Conservative or reform are follow-ons from manufactured traditions. The structure of the festival had been tampered with by the Rabbis, Talmudic and post talmudic.

First of all, the Hoshana Rabba concept is nowhere to found in the TeNach, and is a rabbinical creation, as far as I know.

Next, there is another ritual that is nowhere in the Torah, that was created by the rabbis also. This is the Water Libation. The Talmud records a false prophecy (which was never uttered in any of the Prophetic books) , which alleges God to have said “Pour water before me so that your yearly rain be blessed” (T.B. Taanit 2a)

The Torah specifies what the sacrificial offering are in Numbers 29:12 – 39. There is no mention of any Water libation here, or anywhere else in the TNK. The fact that Pharisees invented this (possibly a Greek or Babylonian pagan ritual). Judith Hauptman suggests that this innovation was similar to the dispute over the Omer (barley) offering between the Sadducees and Pharisees. The rivalry (as in competitor religions, supermarkets, etc.) involves the innovator producing a product differentiation, so as to take a different position in the market from competitors. As has already been seen, this led to a violent dispute between the Sadducee leaning King Janneus, and the Pharisees, which culminated in the Pharisees siding with Demetrius, which is typical of their treacherous nature.

But there is an additional feature of the new festivals of the rabbis, and that is the special mystical nature of Hoshana Rabba. In the Torah, this is the 7^th day of the Sukkot festival, and is not a day where work is forbidden. For the post-talmudic rabbis, it acquired a new meaning – it became a second Yom Kippur. That is not for fasting, but an second opportunity to have one's sins forgiven! Ordinarily I would criticise anything which is an addition to the Torah, and thus I must also criticise this one. However, the idea behind it, is not altogether wrong, or stemming from a bad place. This is because Teshuva/repentance is not limited only to Yom HaKippurim.

Thus, repentance can be done on any day of the year.

One additional point. Although I am highly critical of Phariseeic religion, that is not the same as Orthodox people of today. In general, they are hospitable and ethical people, although in some extremist circles that may not be the case. If the rabbis had ordained that people dress like Disney characters on Sukkot, then that is what Orthodox people would generally do. So it is a case of them being faithful to their sages, rather than knowingly violate the Torah.

Will Observance of the Shabbat Bring Moshiach?

 

There is an oft quoted statement that if all Israel were to observe Shabbat once, this would result in the coming of the Messiah.  According to the Chabad website, this is a rabbinic midrashic statement.

“Shemot Rabba 25:121; Yerushalmi, Ta’anit 1:10 “Though I have set a limit to ‘the end,’ that it will happen in its time regardless of whether they will do teshuvah or not… the scion of David (Mashiach) will come if they keep just one Shabbat, because the Shabbat is equivalent to all the mitzvot.”

source: http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101681/jewish/Hastening-Mashiach.htm#footnote5a101681

Firstly, I am very sceptical of any such midrashic statements, especially when they have no basis in the Torah.  Second, the statement is a logical fallacy. There never has been a time when everybody will keep the Torah in its entirety, or Shabbat for that matter.   Shortly after the 10 commandments were given, people started dancing around a golden calf.   The statement as a prediction  is something that is impossible to test.  If it fails, it can easily be said that some person in Uruguay secretly smoked a cigar.  Third, the idea that the fate of the entire nation depends on every action of each individual is also fallacious.  In the desert, individuals were punished for their own crimes, e.g. Korach, and even Aaron.  This didn’t stop the people from entering Israel. 

There are also questions about what “Moshiach” or Messiah actually represents.  The word simply means anointed, which was done for Kings, as well as Priests. Each king of Israel would be anointed, and was therefore a “Moshiach”.  This even applies to the less than righteous kings.   The Prophecies about a Messiah in the TNK are few and unclear –  although there is an idea of redemption, and one of restoration of the Temple.  So far, the ingathering of the exiles of the past 2000 years has been going on for the last century, as part of the secular Zionist enterprise.  This has not been associated with Shabbat observance. In fact, the people who enabled the State of Israel,  e.g. Theodore Herzl , David Ben Gurion etc. were not Sabbath observant.  They were also reviled by Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis and their followers, and to this day, that hatred for Zionism continues.  A lone exception was the genius Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who actually implied that Herzl was the Messiah  son of Joseph (a rabbinic concept, distinct from the scion of David).

However, one needs to be more sceptical about precise formulae of how to bring about the Redemption of Israel, through religious means.  The speaks of a general repentance:

 

Deut 30:

 

2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;

3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

 

There are no specifications though, of what this entails, and if it requires a majority, or absolutely every Israelite to do so. Also, there may be millions of people who are Israelites, who are not even known or recognised as Jews today.

Historically, there have been righteous Kings, such as Hezekiah and Josiah, who compelled the public to repent and observe the Torah.  However, even these figures were unable to turn the tide, and for failures of their own, or accumulated sins of past generations, they were amongst the last Kings of Israel, and after the Babylonian exile, there was no resumption of a Davidic monarchy.  It is also interesting to note that the Deuteronomy passage does not speak of any king or Messianic figure.

The next question to ask is what do we expect from the Messianic era?  Of course, the famous prophecy of Isaiah 11 speaks of the wolf coexisting with the lamb – but these statements are allegorical, and could already have been fulfilled, or simply mean an Arab-Israeli peace treaty.

The State of Israel has fulfilled, or is in the process of fulfilling the prophecies of the Tanakh.   It is no coincidence, to me at least, to note that characteristically, the majority of  Ultra-Orthodox rabbis (with a few notable exceptions) opposed Zionism and the modern State,  based on their own Talmudic myth of 3 oaths. On the other hand, the Karaites fully accepted the State of Israel. In fact the Karaite call to return to Israel began a thousand years prior to the Zionist movement.  The author of the Kuzari admits begrudgingly in his book, that the rabbanites have neglected this call.

So if and when the monarchy is ultimately restored, we may see the Kings anointed again.  But the time has already begin, and Jews everywhere around the world  should return to Israel. Keeping Shabbat would be most appropriate.