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!