The Yoke of Torah

 In Rabbinical "Judaism", they speak a lot about the Yoke of burden of Torah, which one must accept.

This includes thousands or more of rabbinical acts which are contrary to or unfounded in the Torah itself.

The Torah, however, has its own view, and this disagrees with the rabbanites.

Deut 30

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. {S}
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?'

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. 

Firstly, it refers only to the laws Written in the Book of Torah - so the this is the totality of the so called "burden" of Torah - ie , no talmud, mishnah, midrash, shulchan aruch etc - which compounds the burden a thousand fold or more.

Next, the  Torah is not in heaven  or across the sea - it is not the burden that the rabbinic books and ordinances falsely impose upon their followers.

So the idea of religiosity that rabbinics hold is actually in itself a violation of the Torah.

The Talmud is the Oral Law's Greatest Disproof

Hosea 8:12 

(אכתוב) [אֶ֨כְתׇּב־]ל֔וֹ (רבו) [רֻבֵּ֖י] תּוֹרָתִ֑י כְּמוֹ־זָ֖ר נֶחְשָֽׁבוּ׃

The many teachings I wrote for him
Have been treated as something alien.

In ch 8, Hosea is castigating the Israelites in Samaria for going astray. The above verse states that many Torah laws were written for Ephraim to see, but they rejected it. 

The Talmud Yerushalmi - which is different from the standard Babylonian Talmud, (and generally more preferable) makes the following comment:

Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:4

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Hos. 8:12) “I wrote down for him most of My teaching.” But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is (only) oral tradition. Is that so? But so it is: Things derived from what is transmitted orally are preferred over those written.

They are distinguishing here between several  categories.

1) The Written Torah (and Neviim)

2) Laws "derived" rabbinically from the  Written Law

3)  Laws and teachings derived from orally transmitted material.

They go on to say that 3)  (purely oral law derivatives) are superior to Written (whether 1 or 2)

This approach and attitude of even the scholars of the Talmud Yerushalmi, which totally disregards what the Prophets say, and instead inserts its own invented category of "oral transmission" demonstrates the dishonesty and falsity of the entire rabbinic enterprise.

A critique of Bible Critics – A Deutronomic Deception

 

Dr. David Glatt-Gilad from the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and the Ancient Near East at Ben-Gurion University, writes on https://www.thetorah.com/article/deuteronomy-the-first-torah

 a claim based on the Deuteronomic theory of Bible criticism.  His claim, is a bit contorted, but he states that modern scholars believe that Deuteronomy is the actual “Torah”  mentioned in Scripture, as opposed to the first 4 books of the Pentateuch.

 

He claims, both in response to a theory of Rabbi Malbim, and as a general theory that:

 

“Malbim, like Ramban before him, insists that the laws in Deuteronomy were all made known by God to Moses at Sinai, but were only made public by Moses shortly before his death— in other words these laws were part of the larger Torah, even if the term torah in Deuteronomy refers only to a portion of the Torah. For modern critical scholars, this is an unacceptable proposition, amongst other reasons, since Deuteronomy diverges from laws found elsewhere in the Pentateuch. (Compare, for example, Deut 12:20–24 and Lev 17:1–4 on the permissibility of consuming meat outside of a sacrificial context.) It is untenable that the Deuteronomic laws were given in conjunction with the very laws that they contradict.”

 

 

 

He presents 2 sets of laws, and claims that the Laws in Deuteronomy contradict those in Leviticus.   Upon studying these two renditions of laws related to sacrifice and slaughter of animals, it becomes apparent that firstly,  Glatt-Gilad has misread or misunderstood the verses he quotes, and  secondly, that his limited citation of 4 verses in Lev and 4 in Deut do not give the whole picture of the Biblical legislation. Hence, the basis upon which he derives his conclusion is not sufficient to derive any conclusion.

 

If we look at what the texts actually say, and the expanded chapters,  they tell a different story, and do not present any contradiction whatsoever.

 

 

Lev 17:

 

3 What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp,

 

4 and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people.

 

5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they sacrifice in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest, and sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace-offerings unto the LORD.

 

 

 

 

The above is in regards to sacrifices in the Camp in the Wilderness.   However, Glatt-Gilad is saying “Compare, for example, Deut 12:20–24 and Lev 17:1–4 on the permissibility of consuming meat outside of a sacrificial context”.  Suggesting that Lev 17 forbids all meat  outside of a sacrificial context.  But, look at  the following:

 

13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

 

There is already an explicit permission to hunt animals, whether beast or fowl,  given in Lev 17.

 

 

 

In Deut 12, we need to see the expanse of the chapter before drawing any conclusions about possible contradictions.

 

Whilst Glatt-Gilad  only picks four verses, he ignores the setting of the chapter itself, which makes the opening statement:

 

1 These are the statutes and the ordinances, which ye shall observe to do in the land which the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.

 

The laws are now pertaining to the Land of Israel, and no longer the desert encampment in the Wilderness of Sinai. This is explicitly stated, and differentiated in Deuteronomy – so there is no contradiction:

 

8 Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes;

9 for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the LORD your God giveth thee.

10 But when ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God causeth you to inherit, and He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

 

 

15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.

 

 

The verse he does refer to, again brings a new condition, and it is not contradicting Leviticus.

 

21 If the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to put His name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat within thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul.

 

 

In the desert camp,  the Altar and the Tent were accessible to all, because they were all in the camp together.   In the Land of Israel,  the tribes split up across the land, and hence may not all have easy access to the Altar.  Hence Devarim is speaking of a new situation in Israel. Hence there is no contradiction whatsoever.

 

It is possible that the Rabbinical interpretation may add some different distinctions, but that is not pertinent to my argument.

 

Glatt-Gilad, despite his suggestive name, has given a rather unkosher, and dishonest rendering of what is written in the Torah.

A critique of Bible Critics – Wellhausen

 

A critique of Bible Critics – Wellhausen

 

 

Prof. John Barton, writing on  https://www.thetorah.com/article/biblical-criticism-a-common-sense-approach-to-the-bible  

presents the claims of the German Bible critic Julius Wellhausen:

 

“But Wellhausen did a simple and obvious thing, which had enormous implications. He examined the historical books of the Bible, and the books of the pre-exilic prophets (Amos, Hosea, First Isaiah, and so on), for evidence that the priestly system was in force in the early days of Israel, and he found none. On the contrary, it is only in post-exilic texts (Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles, Daniel) that we find clear allusions to it.”

 

Wellhausen was trying to prove that there were sections of the Torah which were retroactively written in by Priests in the 2^nd Temple era. He arrives at this conclusion by having searched through the TNK,  as mentioned above by Barton.

 

However, a simple search of an early book, eg 1 Samuel  finds the existence of Kohanim:

 

לה  וַהֲקִימֹתִי לִי כֹּהֵן נֶאֱמָן, כַּאֲשֶׁר בִּלְבָבִי וּבְנַפְשִׁי יַעֲשֶׂה; וּבָנִיתִי לוֹ בַּיִת נֶאֱמָן, וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי-מְשִׁיחִי כָּל-הַיָּמִים.	35 And I will raise Me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in My heart and in My mind; and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before Mine anointed for ever.
לו  וְהָיָה, כָּל-הַנּוֹתָר בְּבֵיתְךָ, יָבוֹא לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺת לוֹ, לַאֲגוֹרַת כֶּסֶף וְכִכַּר-לָחֶם; וְאָמַר, סְפָחֵנִי נָא אֶל-אַחַת הַכְּהֻנּוֹת--לֶאֱכֹל פַּת-לָחֶם.  {פ}	36 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thy house shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say: Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests' offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread.' {P}

 

 

This shatters the assumption, and hypothesis of Wellhausen, as he has neglected to carry out a careful survey of the TNK, contrary to his claims.

 

Barton, with great arrogance, continues to spout Wellhausen’s disproven claims:

 

 

 

 

“So Wellhausen found himself in agreement with Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) that “the law was later than the prophets” (lex post prophetas). P was not the foundation document of ancient Israel, but of Judaism after the exile. Not only did it not go back to Moses, it did not go back much before Ezra: it was a work of the sixth or fifth century B.C.E. at the earliest.

Ancient Israel, characterized by the prophets, and the legalistic Priestly religion of the Second Temple period, were two distinct things, and Judaism, which developed from the latter, could not claim to have truly ancient roots. It had been invented, we might almost say, by postexilic thinkers.”

 

 

The alleged “invention”, in fact, is  Wellhausen’s theory, which is contradicted by his own methodology, if applied honestly to the texts he claims to have read.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon - Talmudic Rabbi or Islamic Heretic?

 Saadia Gaon has a number of different hats, and is seen in different ways across the Jewish world.

For Talmudic Rabbanites, and also Philosophical Orthodox, he is a giant figure, who was a sort of precursor to Maimonides.

To Karaites, of course he is a bitter enemy, who was the greatest opponent of Karaim. 

Indeed, he also had huge controversies with other Rabbanite leaders on all sorts of things.

However, his malfeasance and violation of the Torah has now been exposed, in that he presents the Islamic falsification of the Parah Adumah - Red Heifer -  in his own Arabic  "translation" [falsification] of the Torah.   This is because the Quran misinterprets the Torah, and instead  claims that the Heifer in question was not Red but yellow!  Saadia Al  Fayyumi  repeats this false interpretation of the Torah in his  tragic-comic Bible commentary:

see https://www.kotzkblog.com/2018/11/202-rav-saadia-gaon-and-his-road-to.html

In the Qur’an, a parallel to the ‘Red Heifer’ is described[19]: The Children of Israel ask Moses to clarify details of the cow to be sacrificed. Moses responds that it should be middle-aged, unblemished, never used for work and the pleasing colour of 'tsafra', yellow (not red).

Freidenreich writes:

“There is, however, one significant departure from the [Hebrew[20]] biblical text: according to every manuscript and edition of the Tafsir which I have been able to examine, the color of the cow is safra [yellow[21]], the qur’anic word used to describe the cow’s color. It appears that Saadiah considers the red heifer to be yellow.”

Bamidbar 19

Thus the great Rabbinic anti-Karaite figure is indeed not even an "Orthodox" Rabbi, but sadly an Islamised syncretic heretic.

Pirkei Avot, Psychology, and the Personal Boundaries of Giving

  

The Mishnah Avot  is also referred to as the Ethics of the Fathers, and  contains many ethical concepts, in some ways reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers.

 

One particular Mishnah  I learnt as a child made quite an impression, and it is valuable to review this in light of psychological concepts, to see how valid it is today.

 

 

Avot 5:10

 

There are four types of character in human beings:
a) One that says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours”: this is a commonplace type; and some say this is a sodom-type of character.
b) [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is mine”: is an unlearned person ;
c) [One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person.
d) [One that says:] “mine is mine, and yours is mine” is a wicked person.

 

 

 

The four types are evaluated in moral terms, each different from the other.  They do certainly provide 4 types of personal boundaries in relation to others, and how the traits of giving and taking are distributed. For the sake of analysis, I have prefixed each type with a letter notation, from a –d.

 

 

a)      is a strict relationship with essentially closed boundaries between all parties.  It is neither exploitative, nor is it charitable. Interestingly, the rabbis alternate between calling it a normal type, verses a trait of “Sodom” i.e. wicked.  And if society had no charity or empathy at all,  that is what it would descend into.

 

b)      is total openness between both parties, and it is referred to as unlearned.  Interestingly, this can be looked at as co dependency, which is not a healthy psychological relationship.

 

c) and d)  are opposites,  where c is “pious” and d is wicked.   It seems that the only good feedback given is for type c,  but how does this play in real terms?

 

A “mine is yours and yours is yours” type can only interact with the opposite, the wicked or pathological narcissist who behaves in a  “mine is mine, and yours is mine” type.  So d) is feeding off the open, uncritical generosity of c.  c) , therefore, is enabling and perpetuating d) the wicked.   Which means that even the pious c) can be self destructive, and enabling of the wicked, which should not be the aim of the Mishnah.

 

What if 2 c)’s interact?  Does it become b (mine is yours and yours is mine)?  If both parties accept what the other gives, then they are no longer c.  If  they don’t accept what the other gives, then there can be no c.  So c can only work with its opposite, and this leads to enabling the narcissism.

 

The psychologist Dr Paul Dobransky has presented a typology of having strong boundaries, which are closed, and having doors to open to others at one’s own choice. Furthermore, instead of co-dependency, which coincides with the Mishnah’s b), he proposes inter-dependency, where a measure of closed boundaries, and then opening when  it  is beneficial to all.  This more mature and durable typology avoids the problems of narcissism, and co-dependency. he refers to it as inter-dependency, which is open but also allows closing boundaries for one’s own personal space. 

 

 

 

 

 

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

44

 

 

 

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.  

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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

44

 

 

 

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.

 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!

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.

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!