Beyond the Sea

One of the first objections that will be raised by students or skeptics when engaging in discussion with the Rabbanites will be regarding the oral law. Many people will question the validity of the oral law, since it is natural to assume that the Torah in itself is adequate. The rabbis are well prepared for this kind of question, but only if it comes from those who are new to religion. It is not acceptable to ask this question once you buy into Rabbinic Orthodoxy.

Indeed, these prepared answers go back a thousand years or more, since the days of Saadia Gaon and Judah Halevi. Their foremost argument is that understanding the Torah on its own terms is beyond our grasp, and hence we need an/the Oral Law to explain it to us. I call this the “beyond the sea” argument, since we allegedly would need someone with knowledge of the oral Law to bring the Torah from beyond the sea, so that we can understand and practice it. So we are told.

There are a couple of problems with that.

1) It is not impossible to understand the Torah, as I have tried to show throughout this blog.

2) The Torah itself refutes the “beyond the sea” argument.

Hence in Deuteronomy 30 , we read:

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.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

Verse 10 is speaking only about the Written Law, what is written in the Scroll of the Torah. That is the same entity that the Sadducees and Karaites held as the exclusive source of Torah law. Verses 12 & 13 are refuting the notion that the Torah is illegible on its own, and that we need external laws , e.g. the Oral law, which the Pharisees and rabbanites held as the dual Torah, the partner of the Written Torah, rejection of which they considered heretical.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon, who was a tremendous intellect and philosopher, and R' Yehuda Halevi who was a poet and anti-philosopher, both used the precise “beyond the sea” argument which the internal logic of the Torah refutes!

Pirkei Avot – A Critique

The Mishnah known as “Ethics of the Fathers” or more literally, the chapters of the fathers, forms a central part of Rabbinic ethics and thought. It is so important that it is read regularly in Synagogues  in the summer months, and is part of the standard Siddur.

It contains some interesting ideas, and is certainly reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers, who presumably had some influence on rabbinic thought. The rabbis claim that this is an endogenous part of the Torah, but this is disputable.

I would like to refer to one particular statement which is part of the rabbinic approach to economics, but also to psychology.

From Ch.3:

1. Ben Zoma would say: Who is wise? One who learns from every man. As is stated (Psalms 119:99): "From all my teachers I have grown wise, for Your testimonials are my meditation."
Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations. As is stated (Proverbs 16:32), "Better one who is slow to anger than one with might, one who rules his spirit than the captor of a city."
Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his lot. As is stated (Psalms 128:2): "If you eat of toil of your hands, fortunate are you, and good is to you"; "fortunate are you" in this world, "and good is to you" in the World to Come.

Whilst the first clause is logical, and the second is a discussion of Proverbs, the 3^rd clause is the problematic one.

It is claiming to be based on Psalm 128, however, it is telling an entirely different story. The psalm is saying that one who earns his own living is fortunate, and if he sustains a wife and family he will be happy, and blessed.

The Mishnah is taking this out of context, and redefining the meaning of wealth.

A quick look at an online dictionary will define “rich” as “having a lot of money or valuable possessions”

This is the common understanding of the term “rich” or “wealthy”. Indeed, the Torah , in Deut 28, included wealth , as we understand it, and as the online dictionary defines it, as part of the blessing for observing the Torah:

“11 And the LORD will make thee over-abundant for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers to give thee.”

This is real economic wealth, not New Testament style denial, e.g. “ we don’t have peace, but I’ve found peace in my heart”.

The next verse is even more powerful:

12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow.

This is talking about our Lord’s treasure, and not having credit card debts, rather the freedom of having no debts, and having abundant finances to live out one’s life.

The rabbinic version of wealth, at least as far as Avot is concerned, pays no attention to real life – because the rabbis are not concerned with real life. It is a monastic and ascetic form of denial, which they are trying to impose on their followers. Being happy with one’s lot is not always a good thing.  If one has a bad lot, then being unhappy with it might raise the chances of improving it than being in a state of denial and acceptance. And this is taught in yeshivot and by rabbis, to denounce all worldly wealth and ambition.  However, there is a duplicity in this also, since at the same time, collections are made for yeshivas, for poor families, for those yeshiva youngsters who wish to get married. I have never heard of Rabbis collecting for secular Jews who are poor and wish to get married.

There is no easy or guaranteed formula to achieve wealth. Poverty can affect all kinds of people. Being happy with poverty is a very strange and inhuman outlook. It contradicts the logic, but also contradicts the Torah.

Is Genesis Deterministic?

We see early on in Genesis that the presumption of choice is given to man, and hence he can be warned to avoid certain actions:

2 בְּרֵאשִׁית

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Indeed what, particularly,  in  Rabbinic theology is known as “free will” is  the fundamental belief in our ability to make clear choices between good and evil.

However, this is not always so clear cut, and does not always seem to be part of God’s Homology. [Homology is God’s theory of human behaviour, just in the same way that we call our own theories of God “Theology”].

Hence, we see only a few pages later, in Genesis 6:

5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'

Not only does the species of human or Homo Sapiens lose its ability to balance good and evil, but God regrets having made us in the first place!  It seems like an experiment gone wrong rather than a planned creation.

Ch. 8 is even more radical in  its implication:

21 And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

The Creator in Genesis is not only stating that the Human programme is corrupt from its youth, but that this is reason not to  bring punishment on us again!  This seems to contradict all we know about religion in general and the Torah in particular.

The Torah later on tells us of blessings or curses for our acceptance  or  rejection of the Torah laws.  Human nature has not changed though, as we see in the frequent admonitions of the neviim.

So to the same extent that we can claim that the Torah teaches Free will, it also seems that we have not the ability to exceed our hardwired genetic programme, which is intrinsically evil, and hence should not in theory be culpable for being ourselves.