One of the central criticisms of Rabbinic
Judaism, is their violation of the Torah prohibition against adding. This is repeated in several forms, especially
in Deut 4:
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which
I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
And Deut 13:
1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do;
thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
For some further sources to the prohibition, see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/im-sorry-but-its-called-adding.html
The purpose of this post is to look at how the rabbinical commentators
on the Torah reacted specifically to the above verses in Deuteronomy.
Most famous of all rabbis is Rashi. He repeats his own claim for both
verses, saying that the Torah speaks of adding modules to individual mitzvoth,
eg adding a 5th species to the Sukkot species. In doing so, he tries
to avoid culpability of the rabbis for violating this Law in all of their
Mishnaic and Talmudic prohibitions, fences etc. However, his claim if
fallacious, and is not even adhered to by the rabbis he tries to defend
(including himself). Thus, for example, adding an extra day to a Festival, such
as Sukkot or Yom HaTeruah, is what he himself defines as a violation of the
Law. Yet the rabbis do this in their practice, and he did himself. Since he has
incriminated himself as a violator of the Torah, we cannot respect him as being
an observant Jew.
It is interesting to note that none of the major commentators on the
Torah actually agreed with Rashi. First
off, is Ibn Ezra. He comments only on the Deut 4:2 statement. He explains this as saying “do not think that
your own ideas or inventions will be on a par with those of the Torah, which
does not command us to add to the Law” [my summary]. This is quite a clear rationale for not
adding, but it is uncomfortable for even
the great Abraham Ibn Ezra, after all he was a strictly observant orthodox
rabbi, and followed the laws of the Talmud in totality.
Next is Nachmanides, or RambaN. He takes issue with Rashi, and rightly
so. His position is so extremely rational, that it would put even many Karaites
to shame, let alone rabbis. He quotes
from, of all places, the Talmud, both the Babylonian and Jerusalem versions of
the tractate Megillah. These sources
state that many sages (rabbis) and Prophets opposed the institution of the
reading of the Megillat Esther, since it would be adding to the Torah. This logic would also exclude the holiday of
Purim, and all later practices, whether rabbinical blessings, especially those
on things like lighting of candles, washing of hands etc, where the formula
states “and commanded us to ..”. However, regardless of making such a
blasphemous blessing, the very acts themselves of all rabbinic laws, as found
in the Mishnah, Talmud, Shulchan Aruch etc are in blatant violation of the
Torah.
Nachmanides has created a problem for himself, which he apparently is
unable to exit from. And the problem exists for all rabbis, even Rashi. And
this is the problem of “in for a penny , in for a pound”. If adding is forbidden in a specific case,
then it is also forbidden in other contexts as well. The Torah does not say “do not add Purim”, it
says “do not add.”
The same pattern emerges in the comments of another great and
enlightened Rabbi, Obadiah Sforno. He writes that in some cases, adding may be
“annoying” to God, and cause great anger, as in the cases of the strange fire
of the sons of Aharon. This may be the
understatement of the millennium, since it is not only in some cases, but in all! Nevertheless, we must be grateful to Sforno
for bringing to the readership an awareness of the danger of adding to the
Torah.
Reading these various comments, we see that there is a serious degree of
cognitive dissonance amongst the greatest rabbinical minds. On the one had,
they are fully aware of the serious prohibition of adding, and subtracting to
the Torah. And they even give a lucid explanation for it. On the other hand,
they are still caught in the grip of their own rabbinic ideology and
indoctrination, and continue to violate the very Law that they have just
explained, in precisely the same manner as they have understood the Torah as
forbidding. So, the adage becomes “out
for a penny, but in for a pound”. When
it comes to their commentary on the Torah,
the act of adding is strictly forbidden, but when it comes to
generalised rabbinic practice, then they are all in for the violation of the
Torah, despite their own protestations
to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment