The Internal Logic of the Torah – A Case Study

Before I started writing this blog, and even before my essay “10 things they don't teach you in Yeshiva”, I had hoped to write a thesis or essay with the title of this post – The Internal Logic of the Torah. I have not made a great deal of progress on this, but the principle argument is that there is an internal logic within the Torah, which helps us in understanding and implementing it. That logic isn't necessarily accessible to everyone, and its total logic may not be accessible today. There are terms, language and concepts that we are unfamiliar with today. The argument is in contrast to the rabbinic claims. To put it bluntly, the rabbis use vile language towards the torah, saying it is as it stands, meaningless “nonsense” (this is the perverse language I have heard from hareidi idiot-scholars who spend all day studying Talmud and mocking any other form of knowledge, even the Torah's own wisdom).

The rabbinic game is to mock the Torah, and then create a new testament, which is a vehicle for imposing their own views onto the Torah. These types of arguments are used, for example, by polemicists such as the Kuzari, Rash/Tashbatz (Duran), etc. I have dispelled these fallacious arguments in many of my posts. I will now do a small case study on using internal logic of the Torah, to help us understand some Shabbat laws.

As I have commented previously, the rabbis consider all carrying outside of private domain, to be forbidden. This applies to a paper tissue, or a key, i.e. the lightest objects one might carry. In contrast to this, they permit carrying a donkey load as long as it is inside the “boundary” or reshut. There is a complex system of boundaries and semi-boundaries that they have to complicate matters. So, carry a paper tissue, which weighs 0.1 gramme, outside the boundaries, and you face death penalty. Carry a heavy table or rock, which weighs 1 tonne, inside the boundaries (e.g. indoors), and it is totally fine. This is the rabbinic logic.

The Torah makes certain statements, but from them we can derive or read the inner logic of the argument. So, look at the law of Shabbat from the 10 commandments – Deut 5:

12 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;

13 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.

14 And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

V12 has already been discussed in a previous post (http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/ten-commandments-series-6-days-you.html ).

V13 has certain statements and an underlying logic:

“thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou.”

Firstly, the phrase “within thy gates” totally negates the rabbinic concept of boundaries. The rabbis would permit all members of the household, including servants, labourers, and family members, to carry some furniture around the house, even if it makes them sweat. This is totally the opposite of the Torah's logic:

Torah Internal logic a = even work within a private boundary is forbidden.

Second, the nature of work and function of the prohibition are also defined in this verse: “ that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou”

Torah Internal logic b = work is the opposite of rest, hence the function of Shabbat is to refrain from work, and to rest.

Again, this is contrasted by the rabbinic approach, which does not consider resting as a real category, but prefers to invent its own categories.

More on the nature and function of shabbat in V14:

14 And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt....therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day

Torah Internal logic c = The Sabbath was commanded in order to remember that we were once slaves. The rest on Shabbat is a contrast to slavery.

Something that a slave or labourer would not consider as work, would not logically be forbidden by the Torah. Thus carrying a handkerchief or house keys, is not going to remind us or resemble slavery in any way.

There is a separate issue of fire, which is not covered in this discussion, and merits its own analysis. However, from this analysis, I believe we can deduce logically that the Torah has its own internal system of logic applied to what constitutes “work” and what doesn't. It is this internal logic of the Torah which also dispels any need for an alien “oral law”, which was not commanded by God.