Lord Rabbi Sacks and the Cambridge Footlights

 

One thing that the late Jonathan Sacks has in common with Monty Python, is they they all studied at Cambridge University. There is no record of Rabbi sacks having been in the Cambridge footlights, which is where the  Monty Python team began their comical career.

 

However, later on in their careers, there is another intersection between these highly successful Englishmen from Cambridge university.

 

In one of his articles, Rabbi Sacks  brings an argument to buttress the oral law,  based on a Talmudic story.

 

https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5770-mishpatim-the-meaning-of-texts/

 

 

“Hillel made no protest, and told the man to come to him for instruction. The first day, Hillel taught him he first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet: aleph, bet, gimel, dalet. The next day he taught him the same letters in reverse order: dalet, gimel, bet, aleph. “But yesterday,” protested the man, “you taught me the opposite.” “You see,” said Hillel, “you have to rely on me even to learn the alphabet. Rely on me also when it comes to the Oral Law.” (Shabbat 31a). Without agreed principles, there can be no teaching, no learning, no authority, no genuine communication.”

 

 

The argument goes that Hillel, or anyone else representing the Rabbinic tradition, does not require logical consistency.  Since a convert is relying on the teacher for x, then he must also rely on him for y.   The weakness of  this story is quite manifest. Firstly, there is no logical requirement for him to rely on the teacher Y simply because he relied on him for X.  Second,  a convert by definition will not have a large knowledge base on the subject – so he is easy prey for manipulation.  Third, this does not actually  transpire as a proof for the oral Law – it is more a  preaching to the converted  (or about to be converted).

 

If the story, as rabbi Sacks claims, supports the need for and validity of the Oral Law, then the disproof comes from his Cambridge colleagues – Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

 

One of the funniest sketches of the entire Monty Python series was the Hungarian Phrase Book.  A man had devised a phrase book for those with no knowledge of Hungarian. In it, he inserted some false translations, which would often leave the user embarrassed by what he said.

 

According the genuine holders of the Torah, the Priests (who were opposed by the Pharisees),  this was the precise method of the Pharisees – to mistranslate the Torah.

A rational analysis of the Torah will lead to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

The Prophets, the Rabbis, and Abraham Ibn Ezra

 Maimonides pushed hard to restrict interpretation of Torah laws to the hands of the ruling rabbis.  The Scriptures reject his view,  and surprisingly, so do certain other great rabbis.

 

In the Book of Zechariah, the prophet is asked a legal question regarding the new fasts which were instituted after the destruction of the 1^st Temple.   In ch.7  of Zechariah, the question is asked of the Prophet, and the answer is give directly to him from God (v.4)

In the following  verse, 5 we see an unexpected reply:

 

אֱמֹר֙ אֶל־כָּל־עַ֣ם הָאָ֔רֶץ וְאֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים לֵאמֹ֑ר כִּֽי־צַמְתֶּ֨ם וְסָפ֜וֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁ֣י וּבַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י וְזֶה֙ שִׁבְעִ֣ים שָׁנָ֔ה הֲצ֥וֹם צַמְתֻּ֖נִי אָֽנִי׃

Say to all the people of the land and to the priests: When you fasted and lamented in the fifth and seventh months all these seventy years, did you fast for my benefit?

 

This is the spoken word of God, who is asking these people  if they fasted for Him!

The great commentator, Abraham Ibn Ezra writes the following commentary:

 

על כן צמתוני –

 

צמתם בעבורי או לכבודי, כי אני לא צויתי אתכם לצום.

 

The explanation is that God did not command them to fast!

This commentary of Ibn Ezra sounds more like a Karaite commentary than a rabbinic one – it is essentially saying that the added fasts have to no basis in Torah law.

 

However, the  language he uses has even deeper implications.

Deuteronomy 18  provides a dual approach towards Prophecy and claims of prophecy. On the one hand, we must follow what a prophet says, and on the other, a false prophet who can claim  many things, is not only to be ignored, but also to be killed.

The methodology of testing a prophet is an interesting subject unto itself, and beyond the scope of this article.  However, a very poignant verse appears here  in the Torah:

Deut 18: 20

 אַ֣ךְ הַנָּבִ֡יא אֲשֶׁ֣ר יָזִיד֩ לְדַבֵּ֨ר דָּבָ֜ר בִּשְׁמִ֗י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־צִוִּיתִיו֙ לְדַבֵּ֔ר וַאֲשֶׁ֣ר יְדַבֵּ֔ר בְּשֵׁ֖ם אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים וּמֵ֖ת הַנָּבִ֥יא הַהֽוּא׃

But any prophet who presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet shall die.”

 

אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־צִוִּיתִיו֙    is the phrase which is adapted and adopted by Ibn Ezra on his commentary to Zechariah 7:5 .

 

The implication is not just that the added fasts are false – it is also applying the verse from Devarim 18:20  about the false prophet, to the rabbinic claim that the Oral Law, and its additions to Torah law fall under the category of the false prophet.

 “But any prophet who presumes to speak in My name an oracle that I did not command him to utter, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet shall die.”

 

The false claims of extra scriptural prophecy by the Pharisees is akin to any other false prophecy.   This stunning admission by Ibn Ezra may be his most revealing comments on the entire Tenach – although the rest are also very informative and praiseworthy!

 
 

Hillel

 

Hillel was one of the greatest of the Talmudic rabbis, and a typical story is told in  the Talmud, Shabbat 31a,  about  one of the arguments he brings to a potential convert.  From the Sefaria translation:

 

 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוֹי אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לִפְנֵי שַׁמַּאי. אָמַר לוֹ: כַּמָּה תּוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לָכֶם? אָמַר לוֹ: שְׁתַּיִם, תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁבִּכְתָב אֲנִי מַאֲמִינְךָ, וְשֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה — אֵינִי מַאֲמִינְךָ. גַּיְּירֵנִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁתְּלַמְּדֵנִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב. גָּעַר בּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בִּנְזִיפָה. בָּא לִפְנֵי הִלֵּל, גַּיְירֵיהּ. יוֹמָא קַמָּא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: א״ב ג״ד. לִמְחַר אֲפֵיךְ לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא אֶתְמוֹל לָא אֲמַרְתְּ לִי הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו עֲלַי דִּידִי קָא סָמְכַתְּ? דְּעַל פֶּה נָמֵי סְמוֹךְ עֲלַי.

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard to the Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the Oral Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach me only the Written Torah. Shammai scolded him and cast him out with reprimand. The same gentile came before Hillel, who converted him and began teaching him Torah. On the first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and said to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he reversed the order of the letters and told him that an alef is a tav and so on. The convert said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. Hillel said to him: You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. Didn’t you rely on me? Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard to the matter of the Oral Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.

 

 

 

Firstly, it is important to note that the bold letters are the translation of the Aramaic, and the normal typeset  is the interpretation of the translators, based on rabbinic commentaries.

 

 

Shammai - Hillel’s colleague and sometime opponent is not interested in accepting the convert or answering his questions.

 

 

Hillel’s approach was to accept the convert but to firstly indoctrinate (or educate) him.

The method that Hillel uses is to teach the basics of the Hebrew aleph bet, and then reverse it.  The candidate for conversion asks him what he is doing, and the rabbi replies that since the convert is relying on him on day 1, he must also rely on him on day 2.

 

The fallacious argument has a number of flaws in it, but is also a good method of brainwashing.   The candidate is not a scholar, and has no knowledge of Hebrew. Thus, he could be easily misled.  After all, the teacher he approached is the most senior authority of the Pharisees in his generation – and I am sure he was a very distinguished personality. Also, most likely , Hillel will be highly knowledgeable on a lot of matters in Judaism.  So the “authority” figure can also skilfully mislead his student, at a whim.  And what is it that he says?  His argument about the reversal of the letters is a basic method of mind control and cult brainwashing.  It is saying that:

a)      You rely on me for your information, and nobody else can give it to you.

b)      Nothing you know about truth, or validation of truth vs falsehood  has any relevance here – you must obey me, and if I change the truth as I please, or when it is convenient, you must accept it. After all, you already accepted what I said on day 1, so therefore  you must do this on day 2 etc.

 

 

This is actually not an argument at all, but is a fallacy. He may have told the truth , or at least partial truth on day 1. That is no guarantee that he will tell the truth on day 2 or day 3.

 

This story, ironically, I have heard a few times from one of the most sophisticated Orthodox thinkers of our generation,  Lord Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks.   It is all the more surprising that he is dishonest enough to use this approach.

 

 

Rambam’s Secret Wager

I am going to make a suggestion which is my interpretation of things, and might upset some hardcore Rabbanites. However,  pursuant to a previous article published here

https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2019/04/was-rambam-karaite.html

there seems to be a recurring pattern of statements, and hints that even in his legal writings, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon was alluding to something outside of his rabbinical beliefs.

Whilst Rambam is quite harsh at those who deny the oral law, or rabbinic injunctions,  he makes a point of emphasising that adding to the Torah is forbidden, and those who claim that rabbinic injunctions are from the Torah are guilty of adding.

He opens several of his chapters by distinguishing the Torah Law from what is rabbinic. In this area, I might disagree with his classification of what Torah law is, but it is still an important observation to note his distinctions.

Moving from his so called “Mishneh Torah”  to his philosophical magnum opus,  the Guide for the Perplexed, here there appear many allusions and hints at certain secret doctrines and ideologies that are too dangerous for him to state explicitly. Thus on the topic of  Lex Talionis - an eye for an eye  - he interprets it in a way that is contrary to the rabbinic version, and congruent with the Karaite or plain reading of the Torah,  i.e. that it really was a physical eye for an eye, as opposed to financial compensation.  The same also goes for Shaatnez of the high priest’s tunic.  In his Guide he points out that idolaters would wear a tunic made of shaatnez as part of their idolatry.  This statement would also be going against the Rabbinic claim that the Torah command the High priest to wear a wool and linen mix in the Temple – which is a total lie.

Some rabbis make the statement that they agree with the Rambam’s halacha, but don’t accept his philosophy. However, even within his halacha, there are already some rudimentary allusions to his disapproval of certain Talmudic claims.  Notwithstanding this,  we are speaking of the man and not of later rabbis with less capacity of logical thought.

I would therefore wish to put forward that Maimonides is indeed making a secret wager, something akin to Pascal’s wager.  He is, in his final years of life, writing an alternative religious theology to that which he has lived most of his life as a rabbi and leader. An alternative to the fame and authority his name conjures up for countless generations to follow.  He has reached a point where his time on Earth is winnowing, and he believes he will be giving account to his Master at the great bet Din in the Sky.  He is just now writing his secret wager, which he will use as evidence, should be brought task for spreading what he has realised could be pure fantasy – the claim that an Oral Torah was given in addition to the Written One.

Advice from a Sadducee King – in the Talmud!

One of the most remarkable pieces of self-criticism in Rabbinic Judaism appears in the Talmud, in Tractate Sotah 22b. 

The Talmud is built around around the earlier text of the Mishnah, although not covering the entire Mishnah, thus certain Mishna tractates have no Talmudic commentary.  Sotah, is a complete Talmud on the Mishnah.  The criticism appears in a lesser form in the Mishnah itself, but is expanded by the Talmud.  It worthwhile reproducing from the Talmud the paragraphs which attack the Pharisees themselves:

מכות פרושין וכו' ת"ר שבעה פרושין הן פרוש שיכמי פרוש נקפי פרוש קיזאי פרוש מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה

§ It states in the mishna: And those who injure themselves out of false abstinence [perushin] are people who erode the world. The Sages taught: There are seven pseudo-righteous people who erode the world: The righteous of Shechem, the self-flagellating righteous, the bloodletting righteous, the pestle-like righteous, the righteous who say: Tell me what my obligation is and I will perform it, those who are righteous due to love, and those who are righteous due to fear.

The Mishnah already attacks the Pharisees /Perushin whose behaviours causes self-injury.  Although this is appears to be physical self injury,  it also implies psychological, mental  or psychological as well as monetary injury. These traits are still practiced and taught by Rabbis of yeshivas and orthodox communities today. The Talmud states that such extremist behaviour destroys the world.

The next paragraph continues:

פרוש שיכמי זה העושה מעשה שכם פרוש נקפי זה המנקיף את רגליו פרוש קיזאי א"ר נחמן בר יצחק זה המקיז דם לכתלים פרוש מדוכיא אמר רבה בר שילא דמשפע כי מדוכיא

The Gemara explains: The righteous of Shechem [shikhmi]; this is one who performs actions comparable to the action of the people of Shechem, who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self-flagellating righteous; this is one who injures his feet, as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says that this is one who lets blood by banging his head against the walls because he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The pestle-like righteous; Rabba bar Sheila says that this is one who walks bent over like the pestle of a mortar. 

This again gives further cases – which presumably were observed and then classified as varying acts of piety, Incidentally, within the Talmud itself, which is quite vast, there are many cases where the rabbis themselves act in such ways and incur self damage, and of course they preach such behaviour to their disciples.

Jumping a few lines, we get to the most exciting of these paragraphs and what is most surprising is that the Talmud is quoting none other than King Alexander Yannai (Janeus), who was a Sadducee High Priest and also a King.  He had many clashes with the Pharisee  rabbis and their followers.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דמטמרא מטמרא ודמגליא מגליא בי דינא רבה ליתפרע מהני דחפו גונדי אמר לה ינאי מלכא לדביתיה אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין אלא מן הצבועין שדומין לפרושין שמעשיהן כמעשה זמרי ומבקשין שכר כפנחס

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That which is hidden is hidden, and that which is revealed is revealed, but in Heaven everything is known, and the great court in Heaven will exact payment from those who wear the cloak of the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: King Yannai said to his wife before he died: Do not be afraid of the Pharisees [perushin], and neither should you fear from those who are not Pharisees, i.e., the Sadducees; rather, beware of the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act of the wicked Zimri and they request a reward like that of the righteous Pinehas (see Numbers, chapter 25).

What is quite amazing, and also true, are King Yannai’s incisive advice.  It seems that he had already penetrated the mind and behaviour of the Pharisees, his enemies, in the advice he is quoted as giving.

He is apparently not attacking the entire Pharisee cult, but only certain sub-types. These appear as Pharisees , i.e. they are card carrying members, and may even be rabbis,  but they behave in a most indecent and perverse way.

What his specific intent was, we cannot accurately know.  I have experienced this kind of Pharisee many a time myself – including many rabbis in the yeshiva system.

Assuming this is a faithful reproduction of what Yannai did say, it is quite remarkable that it appears in the Talmud.  Elsewhere we learn, for example, that Yannai refused to accept the rabbinic invention of the Water libation during the festival of Sukkot.  (Water Libation is not commanded anywhere in the Torah, or mentioned in the Tenach .  When he did refuse, the Pharisee masses pelted him with Etrogim, nearly killing him. This occurred in the Holy Temple of all places.  So it is almost as if his statement was inspired by this and other such incidents. It suggests that the hypocritical Pharisees who profess to uphold the Torah, have no compunction at murdering an innocent man - a High Priest -  even in the Temple, while he is performing his sacrificial rites.

But the implication goes much further.  Now and then, the editors of the Talmud allow some damning information to be recorded , which go against the grain of the Pharisee and Oral Law project.  This is such an example, albeit a rare one.

Source:

https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.22b.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en