The Fast of the Firstborn – Jewish Custom or Catholic Guilt?

There is a rabbinical fast, called the The Fast of the Firstborn, which occurs on the day before Pesah, Passover, which precedes the Hag Hamatzot – festival of Matzot.

This fast is without basis in the Torah, but in fact goes against the entire spirit of the Torah, if not the Law itself. The purported purpose is to show gratitude for the Firstborn of Israel, who were not slaughtered along with the Egyptians, on the night of the 10^th plague.

A summary is given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_of_the_Firstborn

First and foremost, there is no existence of such a fast in the Torah. It is entirely of rabbinical imagination, conception, and production. However, the details of the Torah on the actual plague suggest that it is contrary to the entire purpose of the Plagues, especially the 10^th.

In Exodus we see an explanation of the plague and what it symbolizes for israel:

Ex 11:

7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

And

9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Pharaoh will not hearken unto you; that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.'

So this explanation is about the wonders carried out for Israel, and do not require a fast or any kind of guilt.

It could be argued that the blood of the Paschal lamb is symbolised by this fast, thus in Ex 12:

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

But this is a practical part of the Paschal lamb, which technically we are still required to fulfill these days as well. It is not about a fast, but a remembrance. The following verse is also pertinent:

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

The very day (14^th of the first month) is a Feast for every generation. Furthermore, we are meant to celebrate the wonders that God has bestowed upon us, not to mourn and feel regret for them. Thsi Catholic attitude of guilt is carried through to the Passover seder , where 10 drops of wine are spilt in commemoration and mourning for the 10 plagues. The very miracles for which we celebrate and have festivals ordained for us, are stealthily turned into objects of mourning, guilt and self flagellation. This attitude, whether by rabbinic or Karaites is totally false and part of the destructive nature of man made religion.

Karaites/ Rabbis - Friends or Foes?

Many of the polemics appearing on this blog have been strongly critical of certain Rabbinic concepts and practices, namely the oral law.   Also, historically, Rabbanites were highly critical of the Karaite movement, and brought in measures to ban or convert them.

However, it is worthwhile asking if they can actually be friends or is adversity an unavoidable part of their relationship?

Perhaps the problem lies in the battles fought over the Temple in the time of the last serving Priests, the Sadducees. Here, there was true enmity between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Later, the Karaite movement faced problems with the Rabbanites, and this resulted in polemics, but also on occasion, some violence.

Today, the Jewish world, as far as the religious practicing sectors, is dominated by the Rabbanites, who may also be Reform or Conservative. The Karaites are more of an endangered species, and do not pose a threat to anyone. There are thousands of yeshivot,  but very few places of Karaite study. Also, the Rabbanites of today consider the Karaites to be religiously practicing but mistaken on one fundamental issue.  The 2 groups are the only 2 Jewish denominations who accept the Divine status of the Torah.  Reform, and Conservative, which are the largest in the USA, have simply  discarded this belief.

SO to address the problem – ideologically, the Karaites are opponents to the unique concept of the oral law of the rabbanites. This, is for the Orthodox, a heretical view, and one that is scary, since it means loss of one’s investment in Olam Haba. So there is fear an enmity between the 2.

On the other hand, there is a potential for some kind of friendship.  In times of adversity, Jews should try to unite. There is much that the Rabbinic world can offer to Karaite oriented Jews, be it community, organisational, educational etc.  And one can get tired of fighting. The Karaites can contribute to Torah scholarship.  Many Rabbinical commentaries are in fact “Karaite” ie they focus on the meaning of the Torah verses.  Of course, many others bring in Talmudic and midrashic interpretations, and these are not always congruent with the Karaite view.

A great Rabbi and his wife, Eitam and Naama Henkin have been murdered by our enemies.  Rabbi Henkin was a great Torah scholar, and lover of Eretz Yisrael.  As Karaites, we mourn the righteous and innocent Jews who are murdered by terrorists, and our sympathy goes out to their families.

The Karaite Oral Law

One accusation of the Rabbis against the Karaites is that they created their own “Oral Law”, in competition with the rabbinic Oral Law.  There is a legendary accusation, quoted in Nemoy’s book, that Anan ben David offered his followers an entirely new Talmud.  

In order to test this hypothesis,  one first needs to define what the Oral Law is. The rabbinic O.L. is no longer oral, if it ever was. We only have access to the oral law by what is written, ie the Mishnah, Talmud etc.  So functionally, the oral law is a set of rules and principles outside of the Scriptures, which influence how the TNK is understood and placed into practice. These principles and modes of interpretation are not always logical, and often contradict the rational reading of the Scripture.  A most obvious example would be on how to count the Omer.

If the above is a reasonable description of the Oral Law, we have to search for a Karaite version. Certainly there are varying opinions and interpretations in Karaite literature. There are also principles of interpretation, eg Hekesh, which is also used within the Talmud.

However, there is not a systematic methodology which is able to supersede Torah law, nor is there a justification for adding new laws, either as a fence or an upgrade (Takkanah). It can, and is argued that some Karaite interpretations are erroneous. Indeed, there are some examples. And, there are also practices not found commanded in the TNK, eg the extra fasts. There also is no claim amongst Karaites to have an oral tradition from Sinai.  There are logical and pragmatic methods of interpretation, which might be described as “oral law”, but any departure from the scripture by these would be accidental.

So at best, it might be argued the Karaites have a “weak oral law” i.e. some methodology, but this is the case in any legal system. If, on the other hand, they claim to have a tradition from an earlier Sage, of interpreting the Torah contrary to its plain meaning, that would be stronger evidence of some form of oral law.  A tradition from the Sadducees might be a more interesting concept.  If the Sadducees did not have an oral law, but their positions are accepted, regardless of the logical validity, this might also be some form of shadow oral law.

On the other hand, it can be countered that the Sadducees represented the Priesthood, and the Torah commands us to accept the Priests and their judgements. The same verses, (Deut 17; 8-12) are used by the Rabbis to justify their own oral law!

This article has no final conclusion, and would welcome comments fromreaders.

The Karaite Olam Haba

The Sadducees were reputed to deny an afterlife, and this was in sharp contrast to their Pharisee rivals.  The Karaites have generally followed suit, and dismissed the notion of an afterlife. The Hebrew term Olam Haba refers to the world to come. 

If so, then what is the Karaite Olam Haba?  It can only be based on what the TNK  states about a future life or existence. There are cryptic references to possible future states of being, and this post will look at one them.

In the book of Isaiah, we see reference to something very unusual.  In Ch. 25 we see:

8 He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the earth; for the LORD hath spoken it.

This verse refers to a change of human nature. It is talking of a time when death itself will be abolished. How, where and when this will be is not clear. It is also not clear for whom this applies. Will we all have an opportunity to benefit from this?

The answers to these questions may or may not be available in the TNK, but this is a matter for further research.  However, a look at the following chapter in Isaiah gives us more detail of an after life. 

26:19 Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise--awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust--for Thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades

If the dead will live again, then there is further possibility that they may even gain eternal life.   The location, this planet, or perhaps a more permanent version (with different laws of physics perhaps?) is a matter of fine detail.

Since the Karaites accept the Neviim, and Isaiah  discusses a future life, then a Karaite Olam Haba exists. This may not be the same as the Rabbinic version, but it is also different from the Sadducee version.

Chemistry and Halacha - Rambam’s Karaite Catalyst

In the previous article, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-tao-of-karadoxy.html   we saw that there is a common space where Rabbinic Law and Karaite approaches to halacha  overlap.   There are indeed further  examples of this phenomenon.

Maimonides – The Rambam – makes a rhetorical claim about the power of the Pharisee Sanhedrin, and the irreversibility of some of their decrees. However, this is followed up by a lesser known statement, which virtually contradicts all of rabbanism.

Before I explore this, I am reminded of my chemistry classes back in school.  We were taught that whilst some chemical reactions are irreversible (as the Rambam claims for rabbinical law),  many others are reversible.   To reverse some reactions, we may need to change the conditions , eg temperature , pressure, or even use a catalyst, which will favour the reversal of the reaction which has taken place.  Hence, Rambam provides such a catalyst in the 2^nd chapter of Mamrim.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181853/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-2.htm

Halacha 5

When a court sees it necessary to issue a decree, institute an edict, or establish a custom, they must first contemplate the matter and see whether or not the majority of the community can uphold the practice. We never issue a decree on the community unless the majority of the community can uphold the practice.

Halacha 6

If a court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to accept it.

Halacha 7

Sages issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time, another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community, it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.

The rabbinic halachot above are really quite astounding, considering the seriousness with which the rabbis generally impose on their own rules.

#5 is  saying that the majority of the community has to accept a rabbinic addition, in order for it to be acceptable.    This raises 2 points: first what if a community , such as the Karaites, or others simply  reject the rabbis and their decrees?  Second, even if the majority of an orthodox or otherwise community accept the addition, what logical bearing does this have on the minority? An individual  has no religious obligation to follow the majority, and if a particular law can be practiced by some, that doesn’t mean the minority are also able to follow it.   Maimonides does in fact address the first point I raise (He does this in the following halachot), but not the second.

#6  Is very interesting, since it states that the court cannot impose its law on an unwilling population.   Again, this is predicated on the idea of a majority, but this is a self serving argument. Which community and which majority?  And of course, so what if the majority in Bnei Brak accepts an addition? Why should I limit my freedom for others?

#7 This adds an additional element of reversibility to the equation.  If after a long time a new court carries out  a survey, and finds that a law is not practiced  as once though, the law can be reversed, regardless of the status of the court!  This may be very rare in terms of actual practice, for a Rabbinic Bet Din to reverse a Talmudic addition. However, in principle, it means anyone can reverse a law, once the practice is not accepted by the current majority of Jews.  Since today there is no longer an orthodox majority, then rabbinic law is not valid, or at least can be reversed, using this catalyst of the Rambam.

Of course, no rabbi would accept this in practice, but it does show that rabbinic law is not written in stone, and can be reversed if it is no longer deemed relevant by the population.

The Tao of Karadoxy

To explain the title of this article, I have to explain what I mean by Karadoxy. It is a hybrid word, perhaps even an oxymoron, or perhaps not. It refers to a hybrid form of Karaism and rabbinic Orthodoxy, or at least a way of reconciling the differences in some areas. This paradox, and concurrent solution, I call the “Tao”.

Let me explain this by citing a rabbinic law written by Rabbanism's greatest individual, Maimonides.

In his Laws of Rebels or Mamrim, he writes:

Ch1: Halacha 5

The following rules apply when there are two sages or two courts that have differing opinions in an age when there was no Supreme Sanhedrin or during the time when the Supreme Sanhedrin was still undecided concerning the matter - whether in one age or in two different ages - one rules that an article is pure and one rules that it is impure, one forbids an article's use and one permits it. If one does not know in which direction the law tends, should the matter involve a question of Scriptural Law, follow the more severe opinion. If it involve a question of Rabbinic Law, follow the more lenient opinion.

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181852/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-1.htm

accessed today :)

He speaks of a difference of opinion between sages or courts, outside of the scope of the Sanhedrin. That poses a problem, but we know that the Sanhedrin was not always purely rabbinic, and sometimes it was not existent at all. Suffice to say, there were always times when a dispute existed, whether within the rabbinic structure or with it.

In a case of doubt, the individual is allowed to differentiate between Torah law and Rabbinic law.

As far as torah law goes, he should go with the stricter opinion. However, the dispute might not always be about strictness per se. For example, counting the Omer is a dispute between the 2 sides, which is not about one opinion being harder to keep than the other (except for the fact that counting the rabbinic way is illogical and hence harder to reconcile). It could also be said that keeping in line with the strict interpretation of the Torah is also “stricter”. However, what is very interesting is the second part of this statement, is the question of rabbinic law. If there is a doubt regarding rabbinic law, one is entitled to be lenient , ie to ignore the rabbinic law.

This provides, in fact a double whammy for Karaites. Firstly, there is always doubt as to the status of rabbinic law, since we know that the Prophets and Priests opposed rabbinic law, and adding to the Torah. Second, the very act of adding to the Torah is something to be taken strictly. Since the strict interpretation of this law excludes any extra-scriptural laws, then by choosing to be strict on the Torah law, we can refuse to accept any rabbinic law.

Whilst this won't persuade the rabbis, the logic at least works. They do not recognize the authority of anyone else, but we are not forced to recognize their either.

Maimonides, Shabbat, and the Karaites – a Persuasive Critique

An interesting argument is brought by Maimonides in his Hilchot Shabbat, which he uses as an interesting critique of his Karaite rivals.

The question is concerning the suspension of Shabbat laws in the case of a danger to life or illness.

The Rabbis generally give dispensation to violate the regular shabbat laws to save a life or even to reduce the risk of death. Apparently this was frowned upon by Karaites of the time.

We see in Hilchot Shabbat ch 2:

Halacha 1

The [laws of] the Sabbath are suspended1 in the face of a danger to life,2 as are [the obligations of] the other mitzvot. Therefore, we may perform - according to the directives of a professional physician3 of that locale4 - everything that is necessary for the benefit of a sick person whose life is in danger.

When there is a doubt whether or not the Sabbath laws must be violated on a person's behalf, one should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, for the Sabbath laws are suspended even when there is merely a question of danger to a person's life. [The same principles apply] when one physician says the Sabbath laws should be violated on a person's behalf and another physician states that this is not necessary.5

Halacha 2

[The following laws apply when physicians] determine on the Sabbath that a person needs [a treatment to be administered] for eight days. We do not say that we should wait until the evening so that it will not be necessary to violate two Sabbaths on his behalf.6 Instead, the treatment is begun immediately, on the Sabbath, and even one hundred Sabbaths may be violated on his behalf.

As long as a person is dangerously [ill] - or even if there is a question whether or not he is dangerously [ill] - and requires treatment, [the Sabbath] should be violated [on his behalf]. A lamp may be lit on his behalf and extinguished on his behalf.7 [Animals] may be slaughtered on his behalf, [food] baked and cooked on his behalf, and water heated for him, whether to drink or to use for bathing.

The general principle for a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs.8

Halacha 3

When such treatment is administered, it should not be administered by gentiles,9 by children,10 by servants, or by women,11 so that they will not view the Sabbath flippantly.12 Instead, the treatment should be administered by the leaders of Israel13 and the wise.

It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,14 as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."

This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden,15 one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."16

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/935201/jewish/Shabbos-Chapter-Two.htm#footnote16a935201

The argument is that saving a life overrides the observance of strict Shabbat rules, and that one is fulfilling a mitzvah in violating the Sabbath by saving a life. His critique of the Karaites is that they did not allow such a dispensation. Whether this is factually correct or not, is a matter of historical research. The implication is that without the “oral law”, we would be unable to determine whether we can override shabbat in such cases. This is an interesting and somewhat persuasive argument. However, through historical and textual research, we can find evidence that would blunt Rambam's claim.

Firstly, throughout the TNK, we see that Israel was engaged in warfare with our brutal enemies. This includes even Moses, who would lead us in war. The siege of Jericho was at least 7 days long. Thus warfare was carried out on Shabbat, whether it is mentioned explicitly or not. This is not something that we need to refer to oral law to verify. Furthermore, the first book of Maccabees shows that the Maccabee priests, who were opposed by the Pharisees, also faced such a dilemma. When they refrained form fighting on shabbat, they were killed, and hence decided to violate the Shabbat in order to defend themselves. The Maccabees were not known to be adherents of oral law. Had they been, then such experimentation would not have been necessary, since they would have already received the tradition.

Thus, what Maimonides states about Shabbat is certainly humane, and can be derived from the texts, without resorting to oral law. It may also be true the historic Karaites were very strict on such matters. But this in itself is not a proof or disproof of oral law vs. TNK only. Rather it shows lack of imagination of some Karaite scholars during a certain period.

Isaiah’s Inferno

There was classically a debate between the Sadducee sect and the Pharisees regarding the existence of Heaven and Hell, and the fate of the body or soul after death.  Apparently (according to Josephus and the Talmud) the Sadducees said that this is our one chance in this world, beyond which we simply  disappear.

Indeed, I have argued that the Torah does not speak of a Hell, in the sense of the Judeo-Christian concept http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/torah-no-reincarnation-no-hell.html .

However, there is some support for the idea of an eternal damnation.  The very last line of Isaiah, Ch. 66 refers to some sort of eternal flame:

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

This is an interesting point and should be viewed by both sides of the debate. This is not a place outside of this world, but inside. In other words, it is referring to Sheol, which is the underworld, where worms and fires abound.  That is where the rotting carcasses of the rebels will remain, according to Isaiah. On the other hand, there is also the possibility of a resurrection of the dead, for the righteous.  This will be the topic of further discussion…

An Appreciation To the Rabbis

Whilst many posts here have been distinctly critical of Talmudic/Rabbinic interpretations of Judaism, the time has come to write an appreciation of the many positive things we can learn from the Rabbis who are guided by Talmudic and Rabbinic texts.

The mainstay of Judaic practice for the last 2 millenia has been rabbinical. Whilst I have disagreements on how they read the Torah and practice certain elements, they deserve respect for building communities, engaging in serious Torah study and meticulous observance of Mitzvoth.

The practice of writing, reading Torah and prayers, of communal work, practice of gemillat chessed (kindness), charity is all to be lauded.

Education, kashrut, Batei Din (courts of Jewish Law), and generally respectful behaviour is also to be appreciated and emulated. In general practicing Orthodox families inculcate strong moral values and speak respectfully to others.

There is also much positive content to rabbinical literature, including even the Kabbalah, which has some interesting ideas and interpretations. Disagreeing with certain views does not mean rejecting all. Interpretations can often be biased and self-serving. Thus the narrative of causes for the 2^nd temple's destruction serve the rabbinic system, whereas my narrative lays the blame at those who opposed the Kohanim.

The Karaite movement was successful in the middle-ages but has since dwindled. The Rabbinic movement has fluctuated, collapsing in the 19^th/20^th centuries and even now only has a minor resurgence. However, most synagogues, especially in Israel and UK are nominally orthodox. The services provided from cradle to grave, are prescribed and regulated by rabbinic teachings, and circumcision if generally followed according to rabbinic prescription, even by non-orthodox communities. Indeed, the comforting of mourners is something that the rabbis do for the entire spectrum of people, regardless of their level of religious observance. Maimonides, the great intellectual giant wrote a responsum on the relationship towards Karaites, who were his main opponents within Judaism of the time. In it he said that Karaites should be spoken to respectfully when seen in public, and not to be attacked (unless like me, they attack the rabbinical ideology) for their beliefs. Also, that wine produced by Karaites is kosher (rabbinically), and that rabbanites should comfort the mourners of the Karaite community.

There is a certain amount of method within rabbinical literature and exegesis. This is also a welcome approach, although at times I have been critical of some of these methods. The sadducee – pharisee debate, and later the karaite – rabbanite polemics fall into a debate which is outside of the talmudic canon. What I mean by that is that the debates amongst the talmudists themselves are somehow all “valid” opinions (in that framework). The rival and opposing views of the 2 groups are not in the same framework, and hence they are generally mutually exclusive. But that isn't always the case. Sometimes commentators such as Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides give the game away, and admit that the Karaites are right. This could be because the 2 named above were closest to Karaites, and had discussions and study with them.

What I would like to see is a return to the mutual respect, and occasional sharp debates that Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides had with the karaites. This year, the Rabbanites will be counting the Omer correctly, because the day after the Shabbat will fall on a sunday! Thus, even inadvertently, it is possible to have agreement on some things.

The Kaddish and the Undercover Karaite

Although I have previously been critical of the rabbinic Kaddish prayer, some interesting details emerge from further analysis.  I should reiterate that it is a rabbinically produced prayer, in Aramaic, which was written some time after the destruction of the 2^nd Temple.

A full text appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaddish

The prayer can only be dated back to c.900 CE, and its first use as a mourner's prayer was in the 13^th century. As such, it has little force even in terms of Rabbinic halacha.

Its contents do not mention the dead, but the living. The word “Kaddish” comes from the opening line - יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא.    This calls to sanctify the great Name of God.  It is rather ironic, since the Name YHWH  has been banned from use by the rabbi, even though it is a commandment for all Israel to call on this Name.

What is even more surprising is the extra section known as the Kaddish D’Rabbanan or Al Yisrael. This extra section is read in the synagogue service after a recital of a Talmudic passage.  However, it does not itself refer to the Talmud, but calls for blessings of al Israel, including the rabbis and their students.  There is a caveat:

“וְעַל כָּל מָאן דְּעָסְקִין בְּאוֹרַיְתָא.”

This refers to those who study “Orayta”, which is the Aramaic word for Torah (written). This is agreeable, since it does not actually ask for blessings for people who study Talmud.  We must encourage the rabbis and their students to study only the Written Torah.  So perhaps the composer of this prayer was an undercover Karaite, after all.

Unknown to Moses

  

From the Torah’s own narrative, we can derive certain facts about the scope of Torah Law, and who were the true successors to Moses.  Of course, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can claim to be the heir to Moses’ Torah, and also to have in possession some books or laws unknown to Moses himself.

We see in Deut 31 some very precise statements regarding the scope of the Torah law, and its rightful guardians:

9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

10 And Moses commanded them, saying: 'At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,

11 when all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

12 Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law;

13 and that their children, who have not known, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.'

V.9 Is a clear and pure disproof of any claims to additional legal works, be they the Mishnah, the New Testament, or the Koran.  Moses wrote this Torah in question.  If there was a dual or parallel part of the Torah, the oral law, as claimed by the rabbis, why is not mentioned here? And why is it not mentioned that he handed it to certain successors in oral form?   Furthermore, we see that the Law was entrusted to the Kohanim and the Levites.  This is quite an embarrassment for the Rabbis, since they opposed both the Kohanim and the Levites, who upheld the Written Law. 
See http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/destruction-of-levites-rationale-of.html

V.11-12 teach us the Hakhel gathering, every 7 years, when the whole written Torah is read.   The people will learn from this to fear God and also to keep the Torah.  It specifically states “and observe to do all the words of this law”.    In other words, the purpose of the Hakhel is to bring people to observe the Written law, as it is written, not anything other than this. The oral law is contradictory to the written law.   When I raised this point to an Orthodox rabbi he claimed this is only to get people to fear God.  This is necessary, but not sufficient, since the  Torah says it is specifically to observe the written law.

We see further on, again, that the Torah was completed in writing:

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying

26 'Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Again, no additional law could exist or be separate from this law.  The witness function of the Torah will reject something that is not Torah – and the oral law is outside of the Torah.

As already said, anyone can claim that Moses also gave another law to another group of people, but this is fictional, and precluded by these verses.   The oral law was unknown to Moses.  The rabbis themselves hint at this, in one of their fantasy stories about  rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b), who allegedly was foreseen by Moses, teaching things that Moses did not know.  This single aspect of the myth is in accordance with my analysis above – namely that the oral law was unknown to Moses.

The Science of Talmud – What's at Stake?

 

Within the orthodox rabbinic world, there is an ongoing debate around the statements made in the Talmudic literature about science. Many of the Talmudic statements are outdated and/or false, and reflect ideas that were floating around millennia ago.

The modern Orthodox tend to view these statements as plain wrong, and argue that the Talmud is only there for Torah matters, not scientific. The Ultra-Orthodox are fundamentalists, and claim that every statement in the Talmud is true, and hence the science of today must be wrong if it contradicts the talmud.

One such claim appears in the Talmud and the Mishnah, and is about spontaneous generation, of lice, mice, and salamanders. A very modernist thinker, Rabbi Slifkin, has written extensively on these matters, and suffered the wrath of his Hareidi brethren.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/dongchong.html

Theories of spontaneous generation have long been dismissed and disproven by scientists. See for example http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

So why are the hareidi rabbis taking an atavistic step back and making this into a new fundamentalism?

I would suggest several reasons.

1) Science is a threat to talmudism, since the acquisition of scientific knowledge can do away with reliance on rabbis, and hence they will lose adherents and income.

2) There is an internal political interest here as well. Despite earlier generations of rabbis such as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, who were not fundamentalist on scientific claims of the Talmud, the ultra-orthodox of today wish to insulate themselves from both the outside world, and from the modern orthodox. Part of this is simple rivalry. If modern orthodox is “correct”, then big earning concepts such as Glatt Kosher (where food can be twice the price or more of regular kosher food) can also be questioned.

3) From a Karaite point of view, and this maybe of fundamental importance to the rabbis – if part of the Mishnah (and Talmud) is proven to be false, then their claim that the whole oral law was “divine” will collapse. Thus they have to retort to obscurantism and fallacious arguments, in order to avoid reaching such a conclusion.

The fact is that many or all of the pseudo-scientific statements made by the Talmudic rabbis had their origins in the theories of their contemporary neighbours, whether Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Hindu etc. Admitting this will not help their claims for their oral testament.