Bar Kochba – Messiah or Jesus Envy? - A Chanukah Story

The disastrous Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (132–135/6) was orchestrated Shimon bar Kochba, and backed by the leading Pharisee Rabbi – Akiva. Akiva claimed that bar Kochba was not only a good military leader, but that he is also the Messiah. He was proven wrong, certainly on the latter, but however good a fighter bar Kochba, was, he engaged a superpower, and this cost 1 million Jewish lives, and the end of the Jewish settlement in Judea.

There are several questions to be asked: whether militarily it was strategically justified? Whether there was any religious basis to Akiva's claims? And what might have occurred had the Revolt not taken place?

The answer to the first question is difficult to assess. The campaign did have a short term success, for 3 years, until Roman forces were brought in from Europe to finish off not only the revolt but to totally raze Jerusalem.

The answer to the 3^rd question is speculation – perhaps the Jews could have sat out the oppression of Hadrian, or perhaps things would have deteriorated further. It is impossible to say what would have happened, although it might have been better to live under some oppression, rather than to start a suicidal campaign.

My focus is on the 2nd question, as it is a theological one. Was there any basis to Akiva's claims that bar Kochba was the Messiah?

Rabbinic sources suggest that Akiva was actively supporting bar Kochba, and in fact 24,000 of his yeshiva students served in the army, and were subsequently killed.

To claim that someone is the messiah, it is only viable if it meets the criteria set forth by the Torah. The Torah speaks explicitly of a King, and this is somebody chosen by God (Deut 17:15), i.e. through a prophet. There was no prophet in the time of the rebellion, and hence this could not have been a King, according to Torah law. A “messiah” must first of all be an anointed king.

Next, we have to look at what authority Akiva had, and what his background was. Akiva, was the son of a convert, and later in his life became a newly-religious rabbi. His followers claimed he had oral traditions coming from Sinai that even Moses was unaware of! Nevertheless, his colleagues realized that Bar Kochba was not the Messiah and they stopped backing him. In fact, the Talmud records that  Bar Kochba was so violent that he kicked to death a leading Rabbi, Elezar haModai.   This is somewhat un-Jewish behaviour, one would think!

There is another interesting parallel, or rather lack of one – the Hasmonean revolt. Whereas the Kohanim led revolt of the Hasmoneans was successful – against a tyrannical Seleucid regime, the Phariseeic revolt of Akiva/b. Kochba was an unmitigated disaster. The Hasmoneans were Karaite in their understanding of the TNK, and did not accept the pharisee oral law. Indeed, it was their opposition to rabbinic inventions such as the water – libation that led to the Jewish civil war, in the time of Alexander Janneus. It would be safe to assume that the Hasmoneans also kept the Omer count according to the written instructions, as did the Sadducees. It is also ironic that Akiva's 24,000 students were massacred during the Omer period, which they most certainly were counting according to the erroneous Rabbinic system.

Now, going back to the man Akiva, and his judgement in backing the doomed uprising. According to Rabbinic teaching, Akiva was a gifted sage, with knowledge even greater than that of Moses! Yet on a whim, and without any basis in the Torah (which he allegedly knew better than Moses) this descendant of gentiles is nominating the “messiah” and leading the Jews into a disastrous war which leads to genocide and a final expulsion from the land of Israel.

 It shows that as wise and gifted a scholar and Sage  can be, he is still not infallible.

 The Jerusalem Talmud  points out the criticism of Akiva by his colleagues:

Rav Shimon Ben Yochai taught:

 "Akiva my master would expound the verse a star will come from Jacob as 'Koziba will come from Jacob.' When Rabbi Akiva would see Bar Koziba he would say, 'There is the King Messiah.'"

 Rav Yochanan ben Torta said: "Akiva, grass will grow from your cheeks and still the son of David will not come." (Jerusalem Talmud, Taanit chapter 4:5 page 68d)

However, this is not saying that today we should be critical of Rabbi Akiva, as he plays a central role within Orthodox Judaism. The Talmud itself does the criticism. Indeed, it became an accepted rabbinic custom to avoid making Messianic predictions, precisely because it is impossible to predict the future without direct Prophetic inspiration.

-------------

Some sources support my claim that the Hasmoneans were not "rabbinic" and did not have an oral law:

• proof: in 1 Maccabees 2 there is no Sanhedrin, and no oral law or halacha. "39 When Mattathias and his friends heard the news about this, they were greatly saddened 40 and said to one another, If all of us do as these other Jews have done and refuse to fight the  Gentiles to defend our lives and our religion, we will soon be wiped off the face of the earth. 41 On that day they decided that if anyone attacked them on the Sabbath, they would defend themselves, so that they would not all die as other Jews ad died in the caves." Their decision making was pragmatic and not based on halacha handed down orally.
•  1 Macc. 3: "48 The Gentiles would have consulted their idols in such a situation, but the Israelites unrolled the book of the Law to search for God's guidance.49 They brought the priests' robes, the offerings of the first grain, and the tithes, and then they brought in some Nazirites who had completed their vows." 
  
   They were Karaites, reading only the Torah. They did not have an oral law, a kabbalah or Sanhedrin to consult. The consulted, instead, the Torah.

The Book of Mormon, the Zohar, and the various “Karaites”

The book of Mormon, which is a book that was produced or discovered in America, and its followers believe to be a revelation from God, and part of the Christian Canon. The Church of Latter day Saint accept the book, and are also known as Mormons.

It is not my business to tell Christians what to believe in. There are certain patterns here that reflect what happened in the Jewish world. Firstly, most Christians reject the Mormon book. Second, it is a book that nobody had heard of until it was published by a Mr Joseph Smith, in 1830.

This story is a very familiar one if we know about the history of the Zohar. The Zohar also came about, out of nowhere, and faced initial opposition by many rabbis, but was gradually accepted by mainstream rabbinical orthodoxy. It was rejected, however, by certain rationalist circles within Orthodoxy, however, these remained in the minority. So the first difference is that Mormon was accepted by a minority, whereas the Zohar was accepted by a larger group, which eventually became a majority. This majority persecuted the Jewish minority, which opposed it, even murdering

some of its leaders, such as Rabbi David Kapach of Yemen, and the attempted murder of his son, R' Yosef Kapach. It is ironic that the Kapach dynasty were the greatest expositors of the work of Maimonides, and the same Maimonides gave legal carte blanche to such religious bloodshed of “heretics”.

In a sense, the opponents of the Zohar and Kabbalah literature were “Karaites” vis a vis the “oral law”, which they considered only to be contained within the Talmud. Similarly, the Christian “Karaites” only accepted the New Testament, and rejected later works.

There are several ways that Mormons might, and probably do, argue for the “truth” of the book of Mormon. They claim that there were several witnesses to the founding of the book. Hence it could not be a forgery. They might also benefit from staying at a Yeshiva, such as Ohr sameach, where they will come across the “Kuzari Argument”. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/kuzari-principle-is-false-admits-its.html

With this principle, endorsed by an “orthodox rabbi”, they can claim that the acceptance of the Book of Mormon, not only by the Church, but also by the native Americans (as is testified in the book itself) would prove it to be true, since so many people would not have accepted it if it were false.

The rabbis might counter this criticism by saying that the Oral Law enjoys unanimous acceptance, and the Zohar is nearly unanimously accepted. And this is correct, just like the book of mormon is unanimously accepted, by Mormons. They can also say, as ben Chaim does, that the Sadducees were latecomers, and that the Pharisees were there all along. This is highly problematic, since Josephus states that they were only a sect of 6000 at his time, and the TNK rules out any additional body of Torah law, which is what the oral law is. Not to mention the many violations of Torah by the oral law. The common thread here is one of anachronism. The book of Mormon, as well as the oral law (and Zohar) are not historically or logically consistent with the canon they claim to be part of. The fact that each group has followers who believe it is useless, other than as a tool for psychological manipulation.

The Mishna's [In]Authenticity

Here is a discussion I had with Moshe b.Chaim, which appears on his website:

Reader: How can we be sure, that the Mishna brings us the "Torah she beal peh" that was delivered in Sinai? Maybe it was just what Rebi Yehuda Hanasi observed in his generation? Mesora: If that is the case, why didn't our Talmudic Sages suggest this? They realized that unanimous  acceptance is verified proof that the previous generation attested to this. This is our Mesora – tradition – going back to Moses. Reader: You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology. Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot  be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. Reader: However, both of these statements are false. a) there was no unanimity, and there were myriad opposition groups. The Sadducees existed prior to the Talmudic and Mishnaic period, from the beginning of the 2nd temple era. Mesora: The Talmud proves unanimity as stated above. Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at  Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.

http://www.mesora.org/mishnaauthentic.html

There are a few fallacies the reader should beware of, made by Ben Chaim.

First: “You are arguing that: 1) There was unanimous acceptance. 2) Unanimous acceptance by an ideological group proves their ideology.

Mesora: Yes, mass conspiracy to the event of Sinai where we learned the Oral and Written Law cannot be fabricated. Man cannot create a mass conspiracy. “

But this is a circular argument. The acceptance of the oral law was not unanimous, except by the Perushim, who did accept it. He claims that since the Perushim believed in it, therefore it must be true. This is nonsensical argumentation. The belief in Jesus is unanimous by the believers in Jesus, just as the belief in the Koran is unanimous by the believers in the Koran. This doesn't say anything about the truth of those beliefs. What ben Chaim is saying about mass conspiracy is a rehash of the Kuzari argument. But this again is nonsense. Many Muslims believed that it was the Jews who orchestrated the 9/11 terror atrocity. In fact, they "knew".  This is a simple example of mass conspiracy theory created by man. Another is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; the blood libels etc. These examples are disproofs of the Kuzari principle, and of B Chaim's claims.

Next: “ Sadducees confirm the truth of the law given at Sinai. Why didn't they simply state Sinai never occurred? They couldn't, because it did, and their attempt to denounce Oral Law meant they perceived the Oral law. One cannot denounce what does not exist. But you must ask, who determines the truth of a system: the original recipients, or those who come later? This is the very same argument against Christians attempting to redefine various verses in our Torah. They oppose Rabbinical interpretations, which preceded them. To determine the truth of any system, we look to those who received it initially.”

The Sadducee Kohanim were descended from Aaron, and were entrusted by Moses with the Torah scroll. They were the keepers of the Torah, and they were the address that the Torah tells us to turn to in Deut 17, in case of any disputes. They rejected the innovations and changes of the Pharisee law. The fallacy that ben Chaim is guilty of is “begging the question”. He assumes that the Sadducees came later than the Oral Law, but this is false. They are the house of Zadok, which was around since the time of King David. Who, on the other hand, were the Pharisees, and where did they come from? The founding fathers of Phariseeism were Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were gentiles and were the descendants of Sennacherib, the evil enemy of Israel.

All B. Chaim is doing is making a dogmatic statement that the Pharisees were right, simply because he says they were right.

His next fallacious claim is that the Sadducees could not denounce Sinai (because it was true) and hence they were unable to denounce the Oral law on the same grounds! They did denounce the oral law, and this is precisely what destroys his claim about unanimous acceptance. The oral law emerged in the time of the sadducees, and that is why they denounced it. They also denounced Jesus, when he emerged. As for christian redefinitions of the Torah, this is rather a rich claim, considering that the Pharisees were the ones who redefined the verses in the Torah left right and centre!

A claim to the historical presence of Pharisees is being made without any evidence. There is no evidence for them having existed during the 1^st Temple era. There was no rabbinic law or additions during that period, and we know that practices were kept according to Sadducean interpretation. There was no Sanhedrin; no rabbinical fences, and Omer was counted correctly (from the day after the Shabbat), etc.

The empty claims of the historical primacy of the Pharisees, when looked into in detail and reference to the 1^st Temple literature (TNK) actually disproves the entire oral law.

Kuzari Principle is False – Admits Its Main Proponent

The alleged “Kuzari Principle” has been used by rabbi D. Gottlieb, , as “proof” of not only the Torah, but of Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism. Indeed, he has been using this argument in bringing  Jews to join Orthodoxy. However, when it appeared in written form, in a book he published called “Living up to the Truth”, it began to receive attention and scrutiny from academics and intellectuals who were more capable of demolishing Gottlieb's claims than were his more usual 18 year old victims.

One such critique came from a Mr Ephraim Rubin. Rubin's critique was so devastating, that Gottlieb was forced to admit that the entire Kuzari principle he was espousing for 20 years prior, is false!

“ Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Ephraim Rubin for the care and effort he took to write this review. My only regret is that he did not spend more time on the Kuzari Principle. In fact, as it is formulated in the text he reviewed, it is false. A professor of classics pointed this out to me, and the necessary changes have been made in the new version.”

http://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/living_up_to_the_truth/the_controversy/1011

He magically claims that his new version is now somehow “correct”.

But let us just analyze what this startling admission really implies and demonstrates.

Firstly, it shows that what he has himself been saying for the majority of his orthodox rabbinic career is entirely false. This is not just a minor error, but the basis for his claims to Orthodoxy have been demolished.

Next, it reveals the psychological state of the fundamentalist and fanatic religious believer. A man can claim to have the truth, and convince many others that he has the truth, as long as he shows the facade of confidence in his own claims – no matter how false and egregious they may be. The argument for Orthodox Judaism is a prime example. But many other false beliefs can be disseminated in this way.

Third, it is not only the Ultra-Orthodox who grasp onto fallacies such as the Kuzari argument, but also modern, rational thinkers such as R' Moshe ben Chaim. Some people even claim that their entire religious beliefs rest on this [false] principle.

Fourth, we can derive another conclusion from this. If it takes someone 20 years to admit what he was teaching was wrong, how can anything else they teach be reliable? What if the proprietor of the Kuzari fallacy knew all along he was deceiving his audience (which is more than likely). The reason this came to light was that he was caught out by intellectuals in the public domain, including one of his own colleagues.

Fifth, Gottlieb then claims that he has made corrections to his formulation of the principle. But this has already been rebutted by the late Professor Mark Perakh.

Finally, the false nature of the Kuzari argument is so detrimental, that it in fact also “proves” other falsehoods, such as the Koran and Islam. Gottlieb writes:

“A false story of a national revelation that creates a national religion will not be believed…. Suppose a nation believes that its ancestors experienced a national revelation. Since such a story cannot be invented we have good reason to accept the story as true. For, if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

source: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm

Now there are many miracles that the Islamic Ummah – nation – claim to have occurred. Here are a list of them: http://www.discoveringislam.org/mohammad_miracles.htm

Since, according to Gottlieb, “if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

So the miracles of Muhammed (and his Koran) must therefore be true!

Thus Gottlieb has also proven Islam to be true!

In conclusion, when someone claims to hold the truth, one should avoid him, especially when he is caught in a lie.

Shabbetai Zvi, The Rebbe, and the Kuzari

Shabbetai Zvi was a charismatic false messiah, who proclaimed his Messiah status in 1665/6. He was backed by a leading Kabbalist, Nathan of Gaza. Zvi was accepted by a very large part of world Jewry as the Messiah, and a “baal teshuva” movement took place in order to welcome and hasten the redemption. Zvi was manic depressive, and started strange acts, and religious absurdities, eg permitting forbidden fats. This shouldn't be seen as too much of a departure from Talmudic Judaism, which itself permits the forbidden “alya” fat tail of the Sheep, despite it being explicitly forbidden in the Torah. Zvi simply took this to its logical conclusion, and permitted all forbidden fats.

Professor Gershom Scholem has written the definitive history on the Zvi movement, and has published a facsimile copy of the “100 Rabbis” declaration of Zvi's messianic status. Many of these were recognized orthodox rabbis. It is also interesting that Rabbi Akiva of the Mishna backed another false messiah, Bar Kochba. Bar Kochba was a warrior, but his doomed rebellion ended the Jewish settlement of Israel. Akiva was himself of non-Jewish lineage, and his innovations in Judaism were largely from his alien background (as were many of the Mishnaic rabbis).

More recently, the Rebbe or leader of the Lubavitch-Chabad Hassidic movement started a messianic campaign, which pushed his followers into declaring him as the King messiah. This has already been discussed in a previous post http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/hes-not-messiah-hes-very-naughty-boy.html.

The Kuzari himself was not a false messiah, but the so-called Kuzari “argument” http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-kuzari-fallacy.html unwittingly supports these movements. The main proprietor of the Kuzari fallacy is a hassidic rabbi called Gottlieb, who once was a university lecturer. As we have seen, he writes:

“A false story of a national revelation that creates a national religion will not be believed….Suppose a nation believes that its ancestors experienced a national revelation. Since such a story cannot be invented we have good reason to accept the story as true. For, if it were not true, it would not be believed!”

Of course, a “nation” is not measurably defined, and as in the post above, we have seen that the nascent “nation” of Israel worshipped a golden calf, which according to this Kuzari principle, would make the golden calf true. But it also means that the false prophets, and false messiahs, including Shabbetai Zvi would also be “true” messiahs. For if he was not true, he would not be believed! And historical records show that a large portion of the then Jewish nation believed in him. Thus, according to ultra-orthodox propaganda, i.e. those who espouse the Kuzari principle, Shabbetai Zvi was the Messiah. The Kuzari fallacy is based on the ridiculous notion that whilst an individual can err, a large mass of people cannot err. This argument is also used to prove that the Rabbis of the Talmud are correct, or that the Ultra orthodox rabbis are correct. We are fortunate to have the Torah, which warns us against such falsehoods.

Exodus Chapter 23

2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice

see http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-torah-tells-us-not-to-follow.html

Thus, not only does the Torah disprove the Talmud, it also disproves the Kuzari fallacies.

Modern Orthodoxy

 

The Modern Orthodox (MO) movement is something I knew well, since I was part of it for some time. It is different from ultra-orthodoxy, since it welcomes the combination of academic studies in any field, and Torah + Talmud studies. It does not object to modern dress, although rabbis would frown on the wearing of denim for example.

It claims to adhere to the oral law - talmud, shulchan aruch etc, and many of its proponents are believers in the Kabbalah.

Here lies the first paradox of Modern orthodoxy. Unlike the rationalist rabbis such as Maimonides and Saadia Gaon, who blasted kabbalah and mysticism, most modern orthodox rabbis are not rational, other than in a very limited boundary. They prefer to model themselves upon Rav Kook, who was a genius and a great thinker, but also a kabbalist. The Yeshiva University rabbis in general are Zoharists, and this is not the same as the Dor Deah movement of Rav Yachye Kapach, which rejected the falsehoods of kabbalah.

The next issue is that there is greater emphasis on individuals, and on possible lenient views on certain halachic issues. This might involve for example, the permission to consume dairy products that are not from kosher supervised dairies (chalav Yisroel).

However, MO is still faithful to the Shulchan Aruch. They do not question the absurdities or the contradictions of rabbinic law. They keep the mourning period associated with the Omer, as well as the false notion of counting it from the 2nd day of Hag Hamatzot. Within MO, there have been some radical thinkers, who wish to modernize halacha, and have even discussed abolishing certain rabbinic laws which are no longer “relevant” such as the observance of an extra day for every holiday outside of Israel. However, the basis for this kind of leniency, which is never practical, but only a theoretical discussion, is that there may be some rabbinic sources that would support such a move.

Some of the radicals, such as the late Chief rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren suggested that building the Temple and setting up sacrifices would be possible today. He also was open to questioning certain statements of rabbis, based on contradictions with empirical reality. Thus, for example, the rabbinic blessing for the new moon includes a verse which suggests that man cannot touch the moon. Maimonides said the moon was not physical matter but an intelligent essence. Rabbi Goren argued that since the moon landings of NASA, these notions have been proven wrong, and hence are obsolete and require change or updating. It should not come as a surprise that the MO are despised by the Ultra orthodox, and they save their greatest hatred for people like Goren.

The logic of great thinkers like Goren and Kapach is very healthy. It is also a threat to real phariseeism, since it exposes the fallacies of infallibility, and omniscience ascribed to the rabbis. Once the door is opened, then it threatens all the fallacies of the Talmud to be exposed. Unfortunately, no MO rabbi has ever done this and remained orthodox. Some have instead gone the way of reform, and deconstructed the Written law instead.

Another good example is Jonathan Sacks, who whilst he held the position of Chief Rabbi was to afraid to do anything radical, but now that he is no longer in any position of authority, he occasionally writes something that sounds remotely rational.

The MO are too afraid of Hareidi Ultra orthodox, and do not wish to be totally banned from orthodoxy. It is quite possible to find professors of secular subjects, who are MO, but they do not and cannot question Talmudic Judaism.

A positive characteristic of many MO people is they are less judgemental than their ultra- brothers. This may well be because many of them have secular friends and relatives, and they are involved in the secular world on a daily basis. Whilst, for example, they might take leniencies with certain things, eg wearing a kippa all the time, there still seems to be an inability to question whether the rabbis have got it right or not.

Despite these positive attributes, it should be noted that a MO Yeshiva is still an oppressive and dishonest place, where they present what they intellectually know to be false, as facts. One interesting little caveat, is a recording I heard of Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet, who is from Yeshiva University and now heads the Gruss Kollel in Jerusalem. In a training session for young rabbis, they discussed the presentation of Talmud/Halacha as a great humane body of work. This is often the promotion that Talmud and halachic lifestyle is given by the marketing men of orthodoxy. Rakeffet said to his young rabbinic students, that there are a lot of things in the Talmud which are not so nice or humane! This is a valuable admission. However, it was not said in a manner of openness or a desire for true representation. He was not suggesting that the dark side of the Talmud is also presented to congregations where the Rabbis will serve. It was rather his fear that the cat may be let out of the bag, if they were to present the Talmud as a perfect and just law, when in fact it is a tyrannical mind control system, whose brutal proprietors would stop at nothing to dispose of the rightful leaders of Israel – The Sadducee Priests.

Disproof of the Day - no Oral Law Here!

There are many isolated statements throughout the Torah which individually disprove the rabbinic claims of an oral law.

In Exodus 24, we see that the Torah from Sinai was a written document, and this - and only this -  was taught to Israel. Thus:

3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said: 'All the words which the LORD hath spoken will we do.'

4 And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the mount, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

and

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.'

12 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.'



All of these verses make clear that they are referring to the entire Law, hence it was all written down.  Nothing was given by God that was not written down. Therefore, a claim for oral law or tradition is a fraudulent one. 

Shammai, Hillel and the Three Converts

This may sound like the title of a joke, but it is a serious story. The Talmud tells several stories of Shammai, Hillel and the three converts (Shabbat 31a). This one is the most revealing of all:

 
 

“A certain heathen once came before Shammai and asked him, 'How many Toroth  have you?' 'Two,' he replied: 'the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.'  'I believe you with respect to the Written, but not with respect to the Oral Torah; make me a proselyte on condition that you teach me the Written Torah [only].  [But] he scolded and repulsed him in anger. When he went before Hillel, he accepted him as a proselyte. On the first day, he taught him, Alef, beth, gimmel, daleth;  the following day he reversed [them] to him. 'But yesterday you did not teach them to me thus,' he protested. 'Must you then not rely upon me?  Then rely upon me with respect to the Oral [Torah] too.'”

To analyze this, we see that a prospective convert  only had belief in the Written Torah. Shammai told him to go away, since this was not sufficient for a Rabbinic version of Judaism, hence conversion would not be possible. 

Hillel, on the other hand, plays tricks on the potential convert, which are dishonest and fallacious tactics. The tactics are, firstly to teach the Hebrew alphabet in the correct order. Then to confuse the candidate, who does not know Hebrew, by teaching it backwards!  Imagine being taught a foreign alphabet, only to be confused the next day by having the teacher teach it backwards!

But Hillel’s statements are also logically fallacious.  This can be called the nominalist fallacy. This means that Hillel is simply presenting an arbitrary standard of proof, and then using that as a proof for his argument. It can also be formally described as a circular argument.  It is also a non-sequitor.   Since the candidate did not know Hebrew, and could not independently study the Torah to critically examine whether the Torah mentions any oral law, Hillel’s claim is false. It is making use of the candidate’s ignorance of both the Hebrew language, and the Torah’s content.

Had the potential convert first become acquainted with Hebrew language, and then studied the Torah independently, he would not have fallen for the fallacies of the Rabbi.  This applies to many today, who seek religion, and are misled by the rabbis.

There is another element to this story, which is equally repugnant.  By reversing the alphabet, Hillel is suggesting that nothing in the Torah is fixed, in meaning or logic.  According to this proposal of Hillel, there are no rules in logic, grammar or meaning. What is black today can be white tomorrow, what is sweet today can be bitter tomorrow. And this is the crux of the rabbinical fallacy. It has no adherence to the meaning of the Torah. Truth is something that has no value and infinite elasticity, depending on the agenda of the rabbis, and their political interests.

Isaiah 5:20 condemned this approach many years before Hillel was born:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that change darkness into light, and light into darkness; that change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!”

He also, in v. 24, attacks Hillel’s approach as rejecting the Torah:

24 Therefore as the tongue of fire devoureth the stubble, and as the chaff is consumed in the flame, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust; because they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and contemned the word of the Holy One of Israel

An honest appraisal of the written Torah, and its internal logic, will arrive at the conclusion that there was no Oral Law given with the Torah.