Only Torah - A Karaite Revival: 2023

Sunday, 3 September 2023

The Mishnah seems to be at odds with the Torah and Prophets

UPDATE - see below:

As previously shown:

https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2023/08/shatnez-achilles-heel-of-oral-law.html

The Torah forbids wool and linen mixtures . In Deuteronomy, Shatnez is clearly defined as wool and linen.

Leviticus Chapter 19 וַיִּקְרָא

אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֙יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ׃

19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 דְּבָרִים

לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}

11. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}

12. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

and

Ezekiel

17 וְהָיָ֗ה בְּבוֹאָם֙ אֶֽל־שַׁעֲרֵי֙ הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַפְּנִימִ֔ית בִּגְדֵ֥י פִשְׁתִּ֖ים יִלְבָּ֑שׁוּ וְלֹֽא־יַעֲלֶ֤ה עֲלֵיהֶם֙ צֶ֔מֶר בְּשָׁרְתָ֗ם בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֛י הֶחָצֵ֥ר הַפְּנִימִ֖ית וָבָֽיְתָה׃

And when they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments: they shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner court.

18פַּאֲרֵ֤י פִשְׁתִּים֙ יִהְי֣וּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔ם וּמִכְנְסֵ֣י פִשְׁתִּ֔ים יִֽהְי֖וּ עַל־מׇתְנֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א יַחְגְּר֖וּ בַּיָּֽזַע׃

They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen breeches on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat.

The Mishnah, which is the basis of the oral law dedicates an entire volume to “kilayim”. And in Ch. 9:1 makes the following statement:

אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בִנְגָעִים אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים לוֹבְשִׁין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְצֶמֶר רְחֵלִים שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בָזֶה, אִם רֹב מִן הַגְּמַלִּים, מֻתָּר, וְאִם רֹב מִן הָרְחֵלִים, אָסוּר. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה, אָסוּר. וְכֵן הַפִּשְׁתָּן וְהַקַּנְבּוֹס שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בָזֶה:

Nothing is forbidden on account of kilayim except [a mixture of] wool and linen. No [clothing material] is subject to uncleanness by scale disease except wool or linen. Priests do not wear any materials to serve in the Temple except for wool and linen. Camel’s wool with sheep’s wool, that have been mixed together: if the greater part is camel’s wool, it is permitted [to mix it with linen], but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden; if it is half and half, it is forbidden. The same applies to hemp and linen mixed together.

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Kilayim.9.1?lang=bi

Despite the outright prohibition in the Torah, and the explicit statement by Yechezkel outlawing wool with the linen in the Temple service, the Mishnah appears to claims the opposite – i.e. the Kohanim can only wear shaatnez – wool and linen mixtures in the Temple.

This raises the question of belief in the Oral law, and the stepwise reasoning for accepting or rejecting it.

Depending on how one is raised, one may be familiar with, or totally immersed in the mishnah way of seeing things, or in some cases not at all aware of its existence.

The oral law – Mishnah and Talmud (plus various midrashim, Sifrei, baraitas etc.) is presented by Perushi Rabbis as part and parcel of the written Torah , and indispensable in understanding the Torah!

However, a rational and stepwise approach would be to read the Torah in historical / chronological order. That means starting with the Torah and then the Nakh. The Mishna was written some 600-700 years after the end of Chronicles, and the Talmud almost 1000 years after Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles).

Contrary to the claim of many rabbis, the oral law is not required to understand the Tanakh. In fact the very opposite is true. The oral law is a deliberate misunderstanding of the Tanakh, or mistranslation. It is not easy for the layman to know the entire Talmud or both talmuds, and I certainly make no claim to have such knowledge. Hence I am offering spot tests on various Torah laws, and how they are violated by the oral law of the Perushim.

UPDATE:

Most rabbis claim, that the verses from Ezekiel ch 44 (17-19) refer only to the Yom Kippur service.

Furthermore, the Mishnah I have quoted above, is interpreted differently to how I have understood it, and how the plain translation is - they say that the garments of the priests may be pure linen, or wool, or a mixture, depending on the occasion.

the above are difficult to accept, unless one presupposes that everything the oral law presents is true, whilst the plain meaning of the TNK essentially does not exist. Firstly, Yechezkel does not state that this restriction is only for Yom Kippur. It is a general rule. Later on in chapter 45, there are specified times, such as the first month (Aviv), and the 7th month. There are also specifics of Shabbat and new moon stated explicitly, e.g. in Ch. 46:1.

Wednesday, 30 August 2023

Shatnez – the Achilles Heel of the Oral Law

The Torah forbids wool and linen mixtures . The translation given below in Leviticus 19 of the word Shatnez is not accurate. In Deuteronomy, Shatnez is clearly defined as wool and linen.

The rabbis of the oral law looked at the verse 12 of Devarim 22, which commands the mitzvah of Tzitzit. They somehow managed to confound this with the previous verse, and arrived at the conclusion that whereas Shatnez is an outright prohibition, in the case of Tzitzit it is permitted, namely the techelet thread should be made of wool, with the rest of linen. From here they also projected this synthesis of the forbidden and the permitted onto the garments of the Kohanim in the Temple service. Whether the sequence was in this order, or in reverse is not clear – although my guess would be that they started with the perversion of temple service, which was their methodology of desecrating as much of the Temple purity as possible. From there, they tried to retrofit their justification onto the verses in Devarim.

Leviticus Chapter 19 וַיִּקְרָא

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 דְּבָרִים

לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}

11. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}

12. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

Yechezkel – Ezekiel, reiterates the laws pertaining to the Priestly garments, as if he prophetically foresees the abuse of this Law by the Pharisees. Interestingly, he states that it is the Priests of Tzadok who will maintain the Temple service:

Ezekiel

And when they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments: they shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner court.

They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen breeches on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat.

19 וּ֠בְצֵאתָ֠ם אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֨ר הַחִיצוֹנָ֜ה אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַחִיצוֹנָה֮ אֶל־הָעָם֒ יִפְשְׁט֣וּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵיהֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֙מָּה֙ מְשָׁרְתִ֣ם בָּ֔ם וְהִנִּ֥יחוּ אוֹתָ֖ם בְּלִֽשְׁכֹ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וְלָֽבְשׁוּ֙ בְּגָדִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְלֹא־יְקַדְּשׁ֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם בְּבִגְדֵיהֶֽם׃

When they go out to the outer court—the outer court where the people are—they shall remove the vestments in which they minister and shall deposit them in the sacred chambers; they shall put on other garments, lest they make the people consecrated by [contact with] their vestments.

In contrast to the claim of the Pharisees, no wool is permitted on/in any of the priestly garments. The rabbinic commentators try all kinds of pretzel logic to weave their way out of this – some say that it is only on Yom Kippur, and no shatnez was worn on that day (which is contrary to their own sources); Others say it was not Yom Kippur, and that these verses do not apply to the High Priest (although all priests would wear tekhelet according to the rabbis this would be wool woven with linen garments).

The absurdity of the zig zagging by the Pharisees is indicative that this matter is an Achilles heel for the oral law.

Rambam also has some difficulty in trying to solve this problem. Despite his protestations in his legal Mishneh Tora, that the priests' garments and also tzitzit were made of shatnez, in his Guide for the Perplexed he makes an interesting insinuation – pointing out that the ancient priests of Idolatry would wear shatnez tunics, and this is the reason why it is forbidden!

Thursday, 17 August 2023

Freud on Monotheism, and the sublimation of the Talmud

The great psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud attempted to deal with Religion in his final book “Moses and Montheism”. This was not received very well - not by the Orthodox Jews, and not by secular academics. Briefly, his thesis was that the Israelites rose up in the wilderness, against Moses, and killed him. But because of this guilt, they established a monotheistic religion, which became Judaism. Moses was then possibly replaced by a Midianite priest, who also took on the name Moses.

Whilst this appears as sheer fantasy, it is in fact not a novel theory, but perhaps a distorted or displaced theory of statements in the Talmud, and maybe even the Torah.

In the Talmud Yerushalmi (the less commonly studied version) Sanhedrin 2:6 , a remarkable story is told. It claims that King Solomon was deposed from his throne, by an angel, who then replaced him on the throne!

“It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.”

https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.2.6.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

This story is sheer fantasy, and has no basis in the Tanakh. For a more detailed analysis see Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz’s excellent essay:

https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/wisdom-and-human-pretention-the-riddle-of-shlomo-and-its-resolution/

So far, we have seen a theory about Moses, written by Freud in the 20^th century, which is remarkably similar to the story told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, which was written about 1500 years earlier. The displacement of the story is that whereas the Yerushalmi is talking about King Solomon, Freud has applied the core concept to Moses. The further distortion is that the Yerushalmi speaks of an “angel” who ousted Solomon, and took his throne, whereas for Freud, it was the people who arose and ousted (murdered) Moses.

Is there any basis in the Torah itself for Freud’s assertions regarding Moses?

The Torah tells us a course of events, which lead to Moses being prevented from Entering Israel, and sadly dying outside of the Land. But Moses in turn blames the people for this, as they were ultimately responsible for his ownpuishment:

Deuteronomy Chapter 1 דְּבָרִים

37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying: Thou also shalt not go in thither;

38 Joshua the son of Nun, who standeth before thee, he shall go in thither; encourage thou him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

Deuteronomy Chapter 3 דְּבָרִים

25 Let me go over, I pray Thee, and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill-country, and Lebanon.'

26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me; and the LORD said unto me: 'Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.

28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.

So Moses himself sees this as a punishment, which was due to the behaviour of the people, although indirect. And his replacement is Joshua.

Freud was aware of the Torah’s own narrative, and presumably also of the Talmud.

There is some basis for his claims, although it does take a different course from what the Torah says, and is somewhat in line with the Talmudic formulation regarding Solomon. Freud is projecting his own theories of the subconscious and trying to derive a new theory about religion. Moses would not agree with Freud, but he did place the punishment he suffers on the shoulders of the people, who caused this in the first place. In fact their rebellious nature , against Moses, led to his receiving a punishment and dying before reaching Israel. He was replaced by another leader, Joshua.

Tuesday, 27 June 2023

A Warning and an Omission

In the Torah – Devarim ch.28, we see a warning , to avoid all the plagues and curses in the Torah –

58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;

This is referring to the words written in the Torah.

The problem this raises for proponents of the alleged oral Law is that it makes no reference to the words in the Talmud or mishnah. Thus, for example, the claimed festival of Nisuch Hamayim – Water Libation, which the Pharisees imposed during the Sukkot festival, is not mentioned in the Torah. As is the case with all other rabbinic and supposed non-written Laws.

Had there been a contemporaneous oral law, at the time of the giving of the Torah, the Torah would also be warning us to observe those extra laws as well, which it clearly doesn’t. This omission is very significant, since it exposes the absence of the oral law from Sinai.

Now, what if the Pharisees were to claim that although this verse relates only to what is written, there is still an oral law, which is not mentioned specifically here?

There is an earlier verse in the chapter which can refute such claims -

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.

In v.15, it refers to all of the commandments - meaning there is no extra commandment that was given to Moses. Thus, v.58 is referring to the same commandments as v.15, and therefore, v.15 is excluding any possibility of the Oral law!

Tuesday, 18 April 2023

The Tree of Life ?

In Bereishit, we come across a very obscure passage, regarding the Tree of Life and immortality:

Genesis 3;

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

No further mention of this specific Tree of Life is made in the Torah, to my limited knowledge, and the prospect for Mankind is to remain mortal. It is used in a slightly different context in Mishlei – Proverbs : https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov+3%3A18%3B+11%3A30%3B+13%3A12%3B+15%3A4&version=NRSVUE

Later on we come across another obscure verse in Isaiah, where the prospect of immortality is prophesied, as a future event. It is unbelievable, to mere mortals, and as such it seems to have not become a prominent concept in Judaism (unlike resurrection, or Olam Haba):

Isaiah Chapter 25; 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.

Isaiah is prophesying, at the very least, a termination of the expulsion in Genesis 3, namely preventing us from immortality. But Isaiah does not mention the Tree of Life itself?

The question I have, is whether he is referring to the Tree, is the prophecy indeed the immortality conferred by the Tree of Life?