Wednesday, 13 August 2014

A Debate with a Rabbi

  1. The notion that you can have a written Torah without any oral explanation is utter nonsense. I don't have the space or time to write out why, but among the reasons are; a) vowels to letters, grammar, syntax, etc can only be known through the oral law. b) The Torah gives no details of its laws and is often contradictory. How do we reconcile these problems without an oral law? c)The Torah hints to an oral law in a number of places as do the prophets. This requires a long article and now isn't the time or place but the need for the oral law is as obvious as the written Torah itself
  2. Karaite
    No, sonny boy you are talking rubbish that you have been spoonfed. If you don't have the time, it is your problem, it is not an excuse.

    But you repeat false notions.

    a) vowels did not exist in ancient Israel, as i already mentioned. They also did not exist in Phoenecian; canaanite; old arabic. You are too dumb to grasp this. If you say vowels are part of the oral law, then you are saying that the Koran also had an Oral law.. Today a secular Arab in Israel can read a Hebrew newspaper without vowels. Did he on the quiet go to yeshiva to study Talmud? You are thick!

    b) The Torah gives all the details we need. A few terms we are not clear, they are species that we have lost due to lack of continuity in hebrew language. hebrew was not a spoken language for 2000 years or so. In any case this assumption f yours is entirely false, since the Tzaddikim (Saducees) kept only the Torah and they kept it all.
    c) the Torah does not hint at any oral law. This is just chicanery made up buy Kuzari et al. The torah says explicitly we should keep what is written in the Book, and not add to it.

    Finally, if you say you cannot follwo the Torah, then I cannot rely on you for anything else.
  3. One of the fallacious claims of the Rabbis is that where in Det 12 it says:

    "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. "

    the rabbis say that this means there is a method of slaughter but not mentioned in the Torah. They infer from this that it is in the oral law.

    Firstly, the verse does not say "as I have commanded you". it says כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ, = "that which" .

    Now it is most likely referring to the permission to slaughter in a domain ourtside of the temple: A few verse earlier it says:

    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.

    But if you are looking for the Torah prescription for slaughter, it is given in the next verse:

    16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.

    So the torah does tell us what its requirements are for slaughter. To spill the blood on the floor like water.
    All the other examples are also disprovable.
  4. If there were no oral law to help us with vowels, then how do you know, for example that one shouldn't cook a kid in it's mothers milk (chalav), maybe it means in it's mother's fat (chaylev, still spelled the same though). There are many such examples.

    Where does the Torah give us details regarding which work is forbidden on Shabbat? How do we know which species to shake on Sukkot? All it says is to take a 'nice fruit (pri etz hadar)'. Why shake an etrog? I find watermelons to be nicer? What are totafot? What are tzitzit? no definitions given.

    Spilling blood on the floor isn't a prescription for slaughter, it is a prescription for what you do after slaughter. Clearly the verse was referring to slaughter, for which one needs oral law to know how to do it.

    Sorry, the truth is inconvenient for you.
  5. Meir - only point of agreement is to cease insults. Now let's look at the arguments you bring . These are largely suffering from the "begging the question" fallacy". I hope you are not insulted by that.

    Chalav Eim is a well known phrase. Thus it is obvious that the term used in referring to mother's milk. Next, we know Chelev is forbidden anyway, so it is bringing a new concept to us.

    Torah says Kol Malacha - all work. It also mentions work done by your servant, maidservant, animals etc. Do you not know the difference between work and leisure? The rabbinic 39 melachos are artificial. Do you think God forbids taking a bone out of your fish, that you must do it the other way round?

    Sukkot - thanks for this one, you got this right out of the rambam, and it is a fallacy. First fallacy is begging the question. The Torah doesn't say "shake". So you are conflating your assumption with your conclusion, which is fallacious. Next, in Nechemiah 8 we see that the people you claim to have handed down She b'al peh, were really only following Mikre.

    14 And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;

    15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: 'Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.'


    So from the text of the Torah, Nechemiah, and Ezra deduce that these species are good fruit, and they choose the good fruit of the land - olives. But more than this, they say that they are doing it as it is written, and nto to shake, but to build sukkot.

    Totafot: Exodus 13 uses the term Zichronot (v9) and totafot (v16) interchangeably. This chapter in Exidus is referring to 2 -3 ceremonies, and asking us to keep them as reminders between our eyes.
    The ceremonies are matzoh/and Haggadah; and pidyon rechem (behemos). I have seen no orthodox jew, not even Lubavitch, wearing matzah on his teffiliin. I have not seen and Rabbi wearing a Pidyon Chamor (donkey) on his forehead.

    If you consider totafot as being a physical object, then you should do this with matzah and with firstborn cattle.

    The Torah is speaking figuratively.

    Slaughter: again, you are begging the question. The exact method of shechita is not prescribed in the torah. The only requirement is that it involves spilling the blood. The most common way of slaughter in the ancient world was to use a blade to the neck. This will make the act of slaughter most efficient, and since in those days, everyone had cattle, and everyone did their own slaughter, it was a common skill. The industrialization of shechita and Kashrut , means that only specialists can do it. Thus people have lost the skill, jsut liek they have lost the skill to build their own houses.


  6. You still haven't answered the question regarding Shabbat. How does one avoid work? How is it defined? Why was the stick gatherer executed? Maybe he was gathering sticks to play stickball?

    How did the people before Nechemia define Sukkot? You cannot bring a proof from a book written almost 1000 years after the Torah if there is not oral law.

    Why does the Torah use Totafo altogether? What does it mean? How do you know it is figurative?

    What is the law with abortion? Euthanasia? Self defense?

    In the end of the day, you guys also interpret, only, you guys didn't want to be beholden to oral law, so you made up some poppycock about staying loyal to mikre and then interpreted it the way that you wanted anyway.
  7. My friend Ami Hertz deduced all the verses where work is forbidden, and came up with these:

    "The forbidden activities are:
    business- or work- related activity: anything by which the person earns money or sustains his livelihood;
    commerce;
    sowing, pruning, reaping, and gathering (but see below);
    cooking; and
    lighting a fire. "

    If you avoid work, in the field, carrying a load with your mule, having your servant do chores for you; or your daily grind, eg being a postman, then you avoid work. Te guy gathering sticks was doing heavy work, presumably to build a fire.

    Nechemiah is a very interesting point, because it demolishes the myth of the mesora and oral law, as is claimed in Pirkei Avot. how did they deduce it before him? In exactly the same way! They read the Torah and they saw what was written. Remember, their proficiency in Ivrit was greater than ours. they knew the slang, the accents etc.

    A few words are unknown to us today. Just like the tribes are unknown to us. But we can reverse engineer what totafot means by looking at the verse. It is interchangeable with zichronot. It is figurative becasue we see the entire chapter is telling us of ceremonies to remember. We do not have a dictionary of idioms used in those days. How do you circumcise your heart? It is also figurative.


    Abortion euthanasia etc That is more complex. it requires a deeper search, perhaps we can visit those discussions later. BTW, did I mention that the talmud gives a blank cheque to pedophiles, as long as the boy is under 9 years old? That even goes for incest. Do you think God gave such perverse laws?

    Good Shabbes
  8. I have no problem with interpretation as long as it doesn't contradict the text.
    The Kohanim knew how to slaughter animals, and how to administer the Law. The Perushim, like Korach before them, were jealous and wanted power, and would stop at nothing to get it. Thus they invented things like Simchas beit Shoevah, which has not basis in the Torah. they murdered the Kohen Gadol who objected to their bal tosif. This was and is the nature of Perushim.
  9. In any case, Sir, you asked about Sukkot and etrog - and you ignored the evidence of Nechemiah. We know for a fact that Nechemiah did not have an "oral law", that he did not keep Etrog; that he learned directy from the Torah itself. We can also deduce from this that there was no so-called Anshei Kneset Gdolah, that there was no Mesora of Oral law, and that the claims of the MIshna are manufactured in their own time and political landscape.

    Now you misdirect from there and ask about "abortion? Euthanasia? Self defense? " . But there is no longer any pretense that there was a historical transmission of the Mishne and Oral law. There are questions that Torah authorities will have to rule on. The Torah say we go to the Cohen and the Levi in the Place that Hashem will choose. That place, was the Beit Mikdash or the lishkat Gazit. There is evidence in the Neviim that people would enquire of the Kohen or the Shofet or the Navi.
    The biggest irony is that the Perushim did not accept this authority, and they acted to undermine it.
  10. So basically you reject the Oral law interpretation but accept Ami Hertz. Very convenient.

    How do you know why the stick gatherer was gathering sticks? Maybe he was cold? So put the guy to death because of some vague interpretation you made up? Huh?

    How do you know Nechemia had no oral law? Maybe they deduced it before him the same way as always - the oral law transmitted through the generations. Otherwise how did Nechemia know about a citron? How was a citron deduced from 'a nice fruit'? What is nice about a citron? Because it looks like a lemon on steroids? Does Barry Bonds use a citron?

  11. I reject Oral law because it contradicts the Written. Regarding your next comments, I think you are confused about the facts.

    1) The stick gatherer - he was seen gathering sticks by witnesses, and Moses inquired of the punishment. A) What has cold got to do with it? b) Even if it is not exactly clear to us, it was clear to Moses what his crime was, and this had been a type of work. c) Why did Moses need to ask what the punishment is, if he had been given an oral law?

    Your comment about Nechemia is either a "convenient" slip of the memory, or I hate to say, misdirection. You ask " how did Nechemia know about a citron?" But the text says he didnt bring a Citron, he read fromt eh Torah and told us to bring Olives and oil fruit. It says nothing about a citron, anymore than it says watermelon. So you comments about barry bond on steroids are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Please read the source again, as i think you are [conveniently] misreading what it says.
  12. The same chapter - Num 15, says about those who sin with a high hand:

    30 But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

    This was chazal's specialty, to add(and subtract0 to the Torah with a high hand. Why else was the Temple destroyed under YBZ's watch?
  13. Another example of Rabbinic departure form torah law:

    Lev 3: 17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.


    a few verses earlier, it mentions the fat tail (olia) 9 And he shall present of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire unto the LORD: the fat thereof, the fat tail entire, which he shall take away hard by the rump-bone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards,

    The entire fat tail is considered heleve, yet the rabbis permit the tasty parts of the fat tail to be eaten - how convenient!
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)