Before I started writing
this blog, and even before my essay “10 things they don't teach you
in Yeshiva”, I had hoped to write a thesis or essay with the title
of this post – The Internal Logic of the Torah. I have not made a
great deal of progress on this, but the principle argument is that
there is an internal logic within the Torah, which helps us in
understanding and implementing it. That logic isn't necessarily
accessible to everyone, and its total logic may not be accessible
today. There are terms, language and concepts that we are unfamiliar
with today. The argument is in contrast to the rabbinic claims. To
put it bluntly, the rabbis use vile language towards the torah,
saying it is as it stands, meaningless “nonsense” (this is the
perverse language I have heard from hareidi idiot-scholars who spend
all day studying Talmud and mocking any other form of knowledge, even
the Torah's own wisdom).
The rabbinic game is to
mock the Torah, and then create a new testament, which is a vehicle
for imposing their own views onto the Torah. These types of
arguments are used, for example, by polemicists such as the Kuzari,
Rash/Tashbatz (Duran), etc. I have dispelled these fallacious
arguments in many of my posts. I will now do a small case study on
using internal logic of the Torah, to help us understand some Shabbat
laws.
As I have commented
previously, the rabbis consider all carrying outside of private
domain, to be forbidden. This applies to a paper tissue, or a key,
i.e. the lightest objects one might carry. In contrast to this, they
permit carrying a donkey load as long as it is inside the “boundary”
or reshut. There is a complex system of boundaries and
semi-boundaries that they have to complicate matters. So, carry a
paper tissue, which weighs 0.1 gramme, outside the boundaries, and you
face death penalty. Carry a heavy table or rock, which weighs 1
tonne, inside the boundaries (e.g. indoors), and it is totally fine.
This is the rabbinic logic.
The Torah makes certain
statements, but from them we can derive or read the inner logic of
the argument. So, look at the law of Shabbat from the 10 commandments
– Deut 5:
12 Six days shalt
thou labour, and do all thy work;
13 but the seventh
day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any
manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor
any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that
thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.
14 And thou shalt
remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD
thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an
outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep
the sabbath day.
V12 has already been
discussed in a previous post
(http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/ten-commandments-series-6-days-you.html
).
V13 has certain statements
and an underlying logic:
“thou shalt not do any
manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor
any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that
thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.”
Firstly, the phrase
“within thy gates” totally negates the rabbinic concept of
boundaries. The rabbis would permit all
members of the household, including servants, labourers, and family
members, to carry some furniture around the house, even if it makes
them sweat. This is totally the
opposite of the Torah's logic:
Torah
Internal logic a = even work within a private boundary is forbidden.
Second, the nature of work
and function of the prohibition are also defined in this verse: “
that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou”
Torah
Internal logic b = work is the opposite of rest, hence the function
of Shabbat is to refrain from work, and to rest.
Again, this is contrasted
by the rabbinic approach, which does not consider resting as a real
category, but prefers to invent its own categories.
More on the nature and
function of shabbat in V14:
14
And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of
Egypt....therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the
sabbath day
Torah
Internal logic c = The Sabbath was commanded in order to remember
that we were once slaves. The rest on Shabbat is a contrast to
slavery.
Something
that a slave or labourer would not consider as work, would not
logically be forbidden by the Torah. Thus carrying a handkerchief or
house keys, is not going to remind us or resemble slavery in any way.
There
is a separate issue of fire, which is not covered in this discussion,
and merits its own analysis. However, from this analysis, I believe
we can deduce logically that the Torah has its own internal system of
logic applied to what constitutes “work” and what doesn't. It is
this internal logic of the Torah which also dispels any need for an
alien “oral law”, which was not commanded by God.
No comments:
Post a Comment