Beyond the Sea

One of the first objections that will be raised by students or skeptics when engaging in discussion with the Rabbanites will be regarding the oral law. Many people will question the validity of the oral law, since it is natural to assume that the Torah in itself is adequate. The rabbis are well prepared for this kind of question, but only if it comes from those who are new to religion. It is not acceptable to ask this question once you buy into Rabbinic Orthodoxy.

Indeed, these prepared answers go back a thousand years or more, since the days of Saadia Gaon and Judah Halevi. Their foremost argument is that understanding the Torah on its own terms is beyond our grasp, and hence we need an/the Oral Law to explain it to us. I call this the “beyond the sea” argument, since we allegedly would need someone with knowledge of the oral Law to bring the Torah from beyond the sea, so that we can understand and practice it. So we are told.

There are a couple of problems with that.

1) It is not impossible to understand the Torah, as I have tried to show throughout this blog.

2) The Torah itself refutes the “beyond the sea” argument.

Hence in Deuteronomy 30 , we read:

10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

Verse 10 is speaking only about the Written Law, what is written in the Scroll of the Torah. That is the same entity that the Sadducees and Karaites held as the exclusive source of Torah law. Verses 12 & 13 are refuting the notion that the Torah is illegible on its own, and that we need external laws , e.g. the Oral law, which the Pharisees and rabbanites held as the dual Torah, the partner of the Written Torah, rejection of which they considered heretical.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon, who was a tremendous intellect and philosopher, and R' Yehuda Halevi who was a poet and anti-philosopher, both used the precise “beyond the sea” argument which the internal logic of the Torah refutes!

Pirkei Avot – A Critique

The Mishnah known as “Ethics of the Fathers” or more literally, the chapters of the fathers, forms a central part of Rabbinic ethics and thought. It is so important that it is read regularly in Synagogues  in the summer months, and is part of the standard Siddur.

It contains some interesting ideas, and is certainly reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers, who presumably had some influence on rabbinic thought. The rabbis claim that this is an endogenous part of the Torah, but this is disputable.

I would like to refer to one particular statement which is part of the rabbinic approach to economics, but also to psychology.

From Ch.3:

1. Ben Zoma would say: Who is wise? One who learns from every man. As is stated (Psalms 119:99): "From all my teachers I have grown wise, for Your testimonials are my meditation."
Who is strong? One who overpowers his inclinations. As is stated (Proverbs 16:32), "Better one who is slow to anger than one with might, one who rules his spirit than the captor of a city."
Who is rich? One who is satisfied with his lot. As is stated (Psalms 128:2): "If you eat of toil of your hands, fortunate are you, and good is to you"; "fortunate are you" in this world, "and good is to you" in the World to Come.

Whilst the first clause is logical, and the second is a discussion of Proverbs, the 3^rd clause is the problematic one.

It is claiming to be based on Psalm 128, however, it is telling an entirely different story. The psalm is saying that one who earns his own living is fortunate, and if he sustains a wife and family he will be happy, and blessed.

The Mishnah is taking this out of context, and redefining the meaning of wealth.

A quick look at an online dictionary will define “rich” as “having a lot of money or valuable possessions”

This is the common understanding of the term “rich” or “wealthy”. Indeed, the Torah , in Deut 28, included wealth , as we understand it, and as the online dictionary defines it, as part of the blessing for observing the Torah:

“11 And the LORD will make thee over-abundant for good, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, in the land which the LORD swore unto thy fathers to give thee.”

This is real economic wealth, not New Testament style denial, e.g. “ we don’t have peace, but I’ve found peace in my heart”.

The next verse is even more powerful:

12 The LORD will open unto thee His good treasure the heaven to give the rain of thy land in its season, and to bless all the work of thy hand; and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow.

This is talking about our Lord’s treasure, and not having credit card debts, rather the freedom of having no debts, and having abundant finances to live out one’s life.

The rabbinic version of wealth, at least as far as Avot is concerned, pays no attention to real life – because the rabbis are not concerned with real life. It is a monastic and ascetic form of denial, which they are trying to impose on their followers. Being happy with one’s lot is not always a good thing.  If one has a bad lot, then being unhappy with it might raise the chances of improving it than being in a state of denial and acceptance. And this is taught in yeshivot and by rabbis, to denounce all worldly wealth and ambition.  However, there is a duplicity in this also, since at the same time, collections are made for yeshivas, for poor families, for those yeshiva youngsters who wish to get married. I have never heard of Rabbis collecting for secular Jews who are poor and wish to get married.

There is no easy or guaranteed formula to achieve wealth. Poverty can affect all kinds of people. Being happy with poverty is a very strange and inhuman outlook. It contradicts the logic, but also contradicts the Torah.

Is Genesis Deterministic?

We see early on in Genesis that the presumption of choice is given to man, and hence he can be warned to avoid certain actions:

2 בְּרֵאשִׁית

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

Indeed what, particularly,  in  Rabbinic theology is known as “free will” is  the fundamental belief in our ability to make clear choices between good and evil.

However, this is not always so clear cut, and does not always seem to be part of God’s Homology. [Homology is God’s theory of human behaviour, just in the same way that we call our own theories of God “Theology”].

Hence, we see only a few pages later, in Genesis 6:

5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.

7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'

Not only does the species of human or Homo Sapiens lose its ability to balance good and evil, but God regrets having made us in the first place!  It seems like an experiment gone wrong rather than a planned creation.

Ch. 8 is even more radical in  its implication:

21 And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

The Creator in Genesis is not only stating that the Human programme is corrupt from its youth, but that this is reason not to  bring punishment on us again!  This seems to contradict all we know about religion in general and the Torah in particular.

The Torah later on tells us of blessings or curses for our acceptance  or  rejection of the Torah laws.  Human nature has not changed though, as we see in the frequent admonitions of the neviim.

So to the same extent that we can claim that the Torah teaches Free will, it also seems that we have not the ability to exceed our hardwired genetic programme, which is intrinsically evil, and hence should not in theory be culpable for being ourselves.

Is the Oral Law a big lie?

That is quite an insulting question to ask a rabbinic orthodox Jew  - "Is the Oral Law a big lie?".

However, I am asking it.

This  is a halachic version of wikipedia  http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Prohibition_to_Lie

Assuming the content is accurate, a very odd statement is made:

"To Prevent Sin

It is permissible to lie in order to prevent another Jew from transgressing a sin. For instance to a person who is lax in certain prohibitions that a certain rav ruled that it is forbidden even if the rav never did. <sup>[8] "





If this line of reasoning  has been established by the rabbanites, that means they will have no problem making false claims about the authority of their laws and halacha.  It is saying that when lying is expedient  to further the cause, then it is OK.  This can apply to ascribing the Zohar to being par of the Oral Law, or the Oral Law as being part of the Torah.  By simply lying  in the claim that the Oral Law was given to Moses, they create adherence to this set of man made laws.  

It also means that no credibility can be given to claims and statements by the Pharisees.</sup>

Not in Heaven - Rabbinical vs TaNaKh Interpretation part 1

Deut. 30:

יא  כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם--לֹא-נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ, וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא.	11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
יב  לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִוא:  לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲלֶה-לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה.	12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
יג  וְלֹא-מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם, הִוא:  לֵאמֹר, מִי יַעֲבָר-לָנוּ אֶל-עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ, וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ, וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה.	13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
יד  כִּי-קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר, מְאֹד:  בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ.  {ס}	14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it

לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם, הִוא  - 

or Not in Heaven have developed into a specific Rabbinic halachic motto, which has been debated for generations. A famous book by Rabbi Dr Eliezer Berkovits uses this as its title, “Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha”.

The Talmudic use of this motto in the famous story about the Oven of Akhnai, teaches that halacha is not objective in terms of heavenly signs or proofs, but one of a majority vote. Hence, even “truth” often takes this path in rabbinic thought.

A plain reading of the Torah text will lead to a completely different understanding of these passages.

The context of these verses is the practice of the Written law as per verse 10: “to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law”

Thus, we see in the following verse “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.” The phrase “Not in heaven” is referring to the sky, i.e. the practical, mental and physical requirements of keeping the Written Torah are not sky high. They are not a cinch, but they are largely attainable without having to give up one's ordinary life. For example, there is one day of Atonement and fasting in the Written Torah, whereas the rabbinic Oral Law requires an additional 5 fast days, and an extra 3 weeks of mourning between the fast of “Tammuz” and the fast of “Av”, plus 33 days of mourning within the Omer period, although some will mourn the entire 49 days. Similarly, Islam was originally mimicking the Torah, but then decided an entire month of fasting is better than just the 1 day of Yom Kippur.

The Torah seems to be ruling out these exaggerated man-made religions, which are bent on ascetism and self harm in the name of religion.

The Torah is not up in the sky, but as we shall see, this has been misinterpreted by others.

To be continued…..

The Karaite Position

Deut 28:

יד  וְלֹא תָסוּר, מִכָּל-הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם--יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול:  לָלֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--לְעָבְדָם.  {פ} 14 and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.


The Torah sets out a condition for observance of the Torah, and this is mentioned several times, including in the Blessing of Devarim 28.


Turning aside from the Mitzvah of the Torah  - to the right or the left - is forbidden.

It suggests that the Karaite position is precisely on the line of the written torah, and should not veer to  the right or the left.

The "right" is implying stronger, and thus the Rabbinic type movements who added many "fences" and strictures to "strengthen" the observance, whilst the "left" implies weakening, so it could mean secularism, Reform, or Reconstructionism.   Karaism  should therefore maintain its position on the correct path of the written torah, without adding extra laws ans strictures, and also to avoid reformist tendencies who permit anything that is fashionable.

Revivalist Orthodox Movements - Oral Law Project

There are several revivalist movements within Rabbinic Orthodoxy, to return to earlier forms of Judaism, i.e. to be as authentic as is possible.  These can be viewed sometimes in specific  groups, rather than universally.   Some examples include:

Zionism:  Returning to Israel after exile. This includes various Mitzvot that can only be fulfilled in Israel, e.g. Shemitta.   

The Sanhedrin: There is a group who have set up a Sanhedrin, which is the name given to the Rabbinic high court that existed some 2000 years ago.

Tekhelet: The use of a special blue dye on one strand of tzittzit, according to the Talmudic identification of particular mollusc from which the dye is taken.

Army: Whilst the Ultra-orthodox do not wish to participate in the Israeli army, some Zionist orthodox see it as a Mitzvah from the Torah.

Temple Mount:   Again, disputed by Ultra_Orthodoxy, but many in the modern and Zionist orthodox  will want to go up to Temple mount  to begin the process of prayer and potentially the temple.


These are now physically possible, some will still need more development, e.g. sacrifices and building the Temple.

There is one particular movement which, according to my manifestation, can never be revived. That is the Oral Law.  This needs clarification, after all, do not all Rabbanites accept , study, and practice the oral Law?  Actually, they do not.  They have a second written law in the form of the Talmud. It is encoded on paper, and hence is not "oral" in the sense of how the actual Oral Law is claimed to have been transmitted.

Of all the revival movements, why are they unable to revive the oral law as they claim it was originally?  After all, the Talmud says one who puts the Oral Law on paper is as if he has burned it.
So what is preventing them from practicing, teaching, and transmitting the oral law orally?

I challenge the Rabbanites to try this, and see  how successfully they can transmit the oral law orally.
Could a yeshiva  educate students in this fashion, without resort to books?

Sukkot - Added Extras

"In addition to the Biblical commandment of taking the four species to rejoice on Sukkot, there are also two other commandments that were fulfilled in the Holy Temple during this festival. However, these two practices are not mandated by a verse in the Scriptures; they are included in that body of custom called halacha l'moshe mi'sinai - details of religious observance that G-d taught to Moses at the Sinai Revelation. Moses subsequently related these to Joshua, and on to the Elders of Israel, and likewise throughout all the generations they were transmitted orally. These two items are the "special commandment of the willow," and the water libation, which we will discuss further on."

- http://www.templeinstitute.org/sukkot.htm

It is claimed, and practiced by the Pharisees, that unwritten laws exist, outside of the Torah. In the festival of Sukkot,  2 ceremonies, one of the "willows" and the other of the "water libation"  have no basis in the Written Torah.  However, the Rabbis believe these to have been Oral Tradition from Moses.   In the days of the Sadducee High Priesthood , this led to physical violence, and according to Josephus, the civil war between King Alexander Yannai (Janneus) and the Pharisees.  The Sadducees, then led by  Alexander Yannai - the High Priest, - rejected the water libation, and was pelted by the Pharisees with Etrogim.

The water libation is naturalistically an interesting concept. It resembles a pagan rain prayer or sacrifice, for there to be rainfall during the upcoming winter.  the only problem is, that it is not included in the Torah.  And there is, unfortunately, no evidence that it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. If it were, the practice would not have been forgotten by the serving Kohanim so easily.  And there are no records in the later books of the TNK of it having been practiced.

As previously mentioned,  in Devarim Ch. 30 it tells us that keeping to the written law will be rewarded and we will be loved by God.

9 And the LORD thy God will make thee over-abundant in all the work of thy hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good; for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as He rejoiced over thy fathers; 

10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-myth-of-halacha-lmoshe-misinai.html


 One additional argument is brought, namely that keeping extra rabbinic laws will make us more on guard about torah laws, since the rabbinic laws seem to act as some kind of buffer zone in transgression of Torah Law.

This is a possibility, but it also carries dangers.  A pre-occupation with non essential, and indeed unlawful  religious rites can cause a lot of harm.
 

Yom Kippur and Fasting – A Biblical Exegesis*

* The opinions or possible understandings here are entirely my own, and they do not represent normative Orthodox or Karaite Judaism.

In an online discussion with a Rabbinical student, I was asked how the Karaites derived from the Torah that a fast is required on Yom HaKippurim?

My answer was twofold – either there was an understanding of Biblical Hebrew at the time, that וְעִנִּיתֶם אֶת-נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם means to afflict one's soul by fasting (perhaps)was an expression understood by speakers of Hebrew, or that the Torah does not specify how to afflict one's soul. And hence it is down to the individual to decide an appropriate method. The Rabbinical student was unable to understand my point. So it might be appropriate to look at how this question has been addressed by Karaites and how it is addressed by the Tanakh.

Certainly, Karaites agree that this refers to a fast, i.e. abstaining form food and drink. If anything,

the Karaites are stricter than the rabbanites, since there are less leniencies (e.g. for the frail , for children, pregnant women etc.)

The Karaite Korner website https://www.nehemiaswall.com/yom-kippur-day-atonement

also stresses the various references in the TaNaKh where people would afflict their souls by fasting.

But is this proof sufficient? Is refraining from food and drink alone, what is required?

In answer to the Rabbanite's question, it seems to me, that the Rabbanites have their tradition, which is the Oral Law, to rely on, and that defines what the Torah means for them; whereas, the Karaites have the kind of passages cited in the above website, where in the Tanach, afflicting one's soul was associated by fasting, i.e. this was the understanding of fasting by the Neviim. Hence, we don't need an oral tradition to tell us this, when the Written tradition provides enough clues!

And the use of the word Nefesh to describe appetite or throat is not totally convincing. There are other uses and meanings of this word:

For example - Leviticus 17:11

כִּ֣י נֶ֣פֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר֮ בַּדָּ֣ם הִוא֒ וַאֲנִ֞י נְתַתִּ֤יו לָכֶם֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ לְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶ֑ם כִּֽי־הַדָּ֥ם ה֖וּא בַּנֶּ֥פֶשׁ יְכַפֵּֽר׃

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation.

Here, Nefesh is blood and also the life force. So perhaps this verse indicates that the Nefesh of Yom Kippur is the blood, and that we should make a blood sacrifice?

Also, reading of Isaiah 58 in context reveals, at least to this reader, a different perspective altogether.

Verses 1-4 are criticisms of the people, who have atoned by keeping halachic fasts – similar to the Rabbanites and Karaites. They have not eaten or drunk water.

V.5 is a criticism of the very halachic fasting that is understood by both Rabbinic and Karaite yeshiva students:

5 Is such the fast that I have chosen? the day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

The use of sackcloth and ashes were a typical mode of fasting, and are still in use by some ultra-religious people, e.g. on the Fast of Av. Why then, is Isaiah critical of the halacha? He is claimed to be either a Rabbanite or a Karaite, but he is critical of what is common between both sects!

Verse 6-10 actually provide an alternative reality, or understanding of the “fast” - presumably Yom HaKippurim.

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

If Yom Kippur is about abstaining from food, then what is the point of giving food to the hungry?

י  וְתָפֵק לָרָעֵב נַפְשֶׁךָ, וְנֶפֶשׁ נַעֲנָה תַּשְׂבִּיעַ; וְזָרַח בַּחֹשֶׁךְ אוֹרֶךָ, וַאֲפֵלָתְךָ כַּצָּהֳרָיִם.

10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in darkness, and thy gloom be as the noon-day;

Here, Isaiah uses the word Nefesh-soul, in a totally different context from the halachic understanding. i.e. we have to use our means to help the ones afflicted. This is not about fasting, quite the opposite, it is about providing food and welfare to the needy.

These arguments presented by Isaiah provide a valid interpretation, and counter-interpretation to traditional halacha of fasting and self affliction, putting the context of self affliction into another dimension altogether.

Again, these are my personal views and I do not claim to have a binding halachic knowledge of what the correct thing to do on Yom Kippur is.

Karaism is the True Teshuvah

Devarim - Deuteronomy - Chapter 30

10:  when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe His commandments and His statutes written in this Torah scroll, [and] when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.



 The Orthodox Phariseeic world  speaks of, and has created a teshuva movement, where hitherto non-observant Jews become observant of Written  and Oral Torah, halacha - in the form of the Shulchan Aruch and Talmud. This teshuva will, they believe hasten the process of Moshiach.

The text of the Torah, however,   does not have these requirements. Instead, it asks us to observe what is Written in the Torah Scroll.  The many rabbinic laws, which are not written in the Torah - and they do not claim that these are written, are therefore not a requirement to fulfill Teshuva.

The Torah is asking us only to keep what is Written in the Torah - this is the true teshuvah.

Why was the Exile in Egypt Necessary?

This is a great article on the possible reasons for the exile in Egypt - is largely textually based.


http://etzion.org.il/en/exile-egypt-process-or-punishment

Amalek is Alive and Kicking

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/704644/jewish/Remember-What-Amalek-Did-to-You.htm

9th of Av – a Radical TaNaKh Interpretation

The Fasts which are outside of Yom HaKippurim are observed widely across Rabbinic Orthodoxy and Karaite Orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, these are not prescribed in the Torah, and do not have status of a Torah commandment.

Furthermore, there is some discussion in the Book of Zechariah regarding the nature and status of these fasts.

Let us start with the problem – there are 4 fasts, plus the additional fast of Esther (which is not addressed by Zechariah, presumably because it had not been instituted in his day).

Ch.7 of Zechariah describes a Judaism that is unfamiliar to any practicing Jew of today, especially Rabbinic Orthodoxy.

2 When Bethel-sarezer, and Regem-melech and his men, had sent to entreat the favour of the LORD,

3 and to speak unto the priests of the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying: 'Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?'

Contrary to the Rabbinic myth of the Sanhedrin, there is no Sanhedrin or collection of Rabbinic sages who are asked a legal / practical halachic question. The question is asked of the Kohanim הַכֹּהֲנִים and the Prophets. There are no Rabbis or Sanhedrin Sages. This is because the Sanhedrin is a Greco-Roman institution, and not part of the TaNaKh. There was no Oral Law, but Divine inspiration, the Kohanim and the prophets would consult to receive Divine inspiration -

4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying:

5 'Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying: When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?

This flies in the face of the Rabbinic myth, which is most widely distributed in the famous story of the Oven of Akhnai. In that myth, the rabbis attack Rabbi Eliezer for getting Divine answers to legal questions, and they propel the new concept of “Not in heaven” regarding the Torah. The rabbinic concept of majority is introduced as the means of achieving legal truth. There is no evidence for it in the TaNaKh, and is refuted by our very own chapter 7 of Zechariah.

In any case, the Prophet answers Bethel-Sarezer and Regem-melech, asking whether in fact they fasted for God? This was the 70 years without the Temple. That is an important distinction, since

some would argue that in post 2^nd temple times, the fasts would still apply. However, this is clearly questioned by Zechariah, and is in fact refuted. These fasts have not record of being instituted by Prophets. It is important to reiterate that it was the prophets and the Kohanim who were arbiters of the Law and not a Rabbinic Sanhedrin type institution.

Contrary to the false practice of Bethel-Sarezer et al, Zechariah says:

7 Should ye not hearken to the words which the LORD hath proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, and the South and the Lowland were inhabited?'

This is because the response to the destruction of the temple was incorrect – instead of listening to the prophets of the previous generation, e.g. Jeremiah, they instituted fasts and self-mortification, which was not part of the Torah. Indeed, one of the greatest Rabbinical commentators , Ibn Ezra, remarks on v.5 “ did ye at all fast unto Me” , “I did not command”, i.e. God did not command these man made fasts.

So, according to this interpretation of Zechariah, the fasts were never valid, and are not valid today.

The response to the temple's destruction is to see where the underlying error was. Fasting will rectify nothing.

The question of why the Temple was destroyed, remains the topic of further discussion.

The Stones of Mount Ebal

In Deut. 27, Moses is commanded to set up an altar on Mount Ebal, and to write the Torah on plastered stones.

3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over; that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of thy fathers, hath promised thee.

We see in Joshua 8, that this is precisely what Joshua does when he enters the Land of Israel.

32 And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote before the children of Israel.

34 And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law.
לה  לֹא-הָיָה דָבָר, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה--אֲשֶׁר לֹא-קָרָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, נֶגֶד כָּל-קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף, וְהַגֵּר, הַהֹלֵךְ בְּקִרְבָּם.	35 There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.

There is some dispute as to what was written on these stones, at least as far as Rabbinical exegetes are concerned. Saadiah Gaon – the great rationalist and also one of the fiercest opponents of Karaites claims that this was in fact a summary of the Laws, in the format of his own book of Mitzvoth! Others claim that the term מִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה refers to the Book of Devarim.

Nachmanides, who was one of the greatest rabbis of all time, and also one of the greatest friends of the Karaites (along with Ibn Ezra) brings a source that says the entire Torah was written on the stones, which were every large stones.

The ideological nature of these rabbis are quite predictive of their comments. Saadia is of course fighting anything that has Mikra only implications, whilst at the same time self-promoting his own book. Nachmanides, is being intellectually honest and promoting the truth regardless of implications.

The last few verses of Joshua Ch. 8 state that he read all the words of the Torah of Moses.

It is not clear if he read from the stones or from the Torah scroll. Although it is possible that v. 34 is suggesting that what Joshua read from the stones was 100% in accordance with what was written in the Torah scroll.

Verse 35 tells us that everything that Moses commanded was read by Joshua. Nothing was left out.

This statement explains why Rabbi Saadia Gaon, the president of the Babylonian Gaonate, was trying very hard to degrade what is written in the Book of Joshua. Being a great philosopher and logician himself, Saadiah was well aware of the logical implications of this verse. It is saying the precise opposite of what he himself believes. It is saying there is no Torah outside of what is written in the book of Moses. Thus there is no oral law. This makes Saadia's entire world view redundant.

On the other hand, Nachmanides, who was a perfect model of Rabbinic Judaism at its best, has the trait of rigorous intellectual honesty (which is why he often disagrees with Rashi). Hence he accepts that the entire Torah was written on the stones, and by implication, the entire Torah is written in the Torah.