Mishnah Is not from Sinai – A Case Study

Sanhedrin 2:2

The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says:  “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says:  “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8).

This Mishnah, (according to the Talmud as explained by Pinchas Kehati, one of the most popular Mishnah commentators of modern times) -  refers to non Davidic Kings. In particular it was so ruled after an experience with King Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus), where he was brought to a Pharisee “Sanhedrin” and allegedly “nobbled” the Judges so as to not rule against him.  It was thus decided by the rabbis, that for this reason, a King cannot be brought, either as a witness, judge or defendant etc.

There is a certain amount of illogic in this Mishnah.  If the mishnah purports to record the Oral Law, then the original case (with Jannaeus)  was violating that law. In fact, the law was only decided after the case in question.  Thus the Mishnah is not handing down any alleged law that came from Sinai, but is stating the decisions of its Rabbinic members, during the period of their rebellion against the Priestly authorities, which was around 200 BCE – 150CE, when it was finally put to writing.

I do not wish to debate at this stage whether or not King Yannai did “nobble” the Judges. Suffice to say, that the Rabbis would also nobble the judges when it was in their own interests to do so, as was shown in http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.htmlhttp://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

What remains to be claimed by the Rabbis is one of a few options:

a)    That the Mishnah contains the system  given at Sinai, and the decisions are retroactively Torah Law. This kind of claim is also false, and it was in fact the Kohanim (whom the Rabbis warred against) who had the final authority  e.g. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/that-which-they-shall-tell-you-claim.html

b)    That some laws were given on Sinai. Again, I have shown this to be false:  http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-myth-of-halacha-lmoshe-misinai.html

Prof. Neusner points out that the first actual claim of the Oral law being from Sinai was not until the Jerusalem Talmud was written, around 450 C.E. This claim, was very much in line with Greco-Roman religions who claimed “divine” authority for their own emperor-lawmakers.

It is also revealing, that the rabbis who fought the Maccabees on the grounds that they could not be real Kings, themselves instituted the title of “Nasi” or prince for their own leaders.

Thus, the Mishnah does not even fulfill the claims of its successors in the Talmud, of being a Divine law, as it was a socio-political tool used by the rabbis to gain control of Israel.