I’m sorry, but it’s called Adding!

Deuteronomy Chapter 4

1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, giveth you.

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.

Deuteronomy Chapter 5

28 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you; ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

Deuteronomy Chapter 13

1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Josh 23;6 Therefore be ye very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;

There are many rabbinic apologetics which use chicanery and sleight of hand to argue that they are not transgressing this law. Their arguments so ludicrous that they do hardly  require serious attention.  One is reminded of the famous statement of Jesus of Nazareth who said he has come not to abrogate the Law, but to fulfill it.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/415,2093670/How-could-the-rabbis-add-laws-doesnt-the-Torah-forbid-adding-commandments.html

where Maimonides writes:

The Rabbinical Courts maintain the right to issue decrees and forbid that which is [biblically] permitted, and these prohibitions stand for perpetuity. They are also entitled to temporarily lift Torah prohibitions. So what is the meaning of the Torah's prohibition: "You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it"?

[Rather, the intent of this prohibition is that we] not add on the words of the Torah nor subtract from them, and permanently establish [the addition or subtraction] as part of the Scriptures. This [prohibition] applies both to the Written Law as well as the Oral Tradition [transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai].

The Rambam goes on and on with sophistry, claiming that adding is not really adding if you label it as rabbinic.   This is a simple nominal  fallacy.  By mis-labelling a product, it doesn’t change the product, eg serving the flesh of swine in a kosher restaurant, and labeling it as goose, does not make it any more kosher.  Rambam is dressing up the sin of the rabbis and claiming that describing it as “rabbinic law” solves the problem of adding.

He also contradicts himself in saying that permanent changes are called adding; but admits that rabbinic laws are permanent.

Rashi, the other great Rabbinic commentator, approaches this problem from a different angle. He says that adding is only concerning adding to a specific feature of a mitzvah in the Torah, e.g. 4 species of Sukkot, whereby adding would mean to add a fifth species.  Quite apart from the fact that Ezra and Nehemiah did not agree with the Rabbis on the 4 species,  this is an altogether silly argument. The Torah clearly states that adding is forbidden, and does not imply that this is only limited to adding of details.  So this is Rashi's first misrepresentation.  However, Rashi's argument does not even work with rabbinic law. Many rabbinic laws do add extra details to existing (or perceived) Torah laws. For example, adding a 2nd day to Yom HaTeruah (which they call Rosh Hashana).  By definition, many rabbinic "fences" are additions to allegedly  protect an existing law, by adding extra restrictions.  So Rashi, unintentionally  confirms that the rabbis have violated torah law, even as he uses sleight of hand to distract the reader from this violation.

I refer again to the prophetic verse in Deut 28: 58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;

It was only when the Pharisees took control of the Temple, and changed the religion of Israel (by both adding and subtracting) that the Temple was destroyed.

An Exercise in Absurdity – Christian and Islamic Claims

Successor religions to the Hebrew /Judaic religion of the Torah have gone in different directions, however they each share a common claim of succession to Judaism.  Thus, Christianity considers the Old Testament as being obsolete and the Jews as being rejected.  Their “sin” was not for example the violation of Sabbath or Idolatry laws, but the rejection of Jesus as a divine Messianic figure.  To top this, the Christian nation, if there is such a thing, has called itself the new Israel.  Islam also makes a similar claim.  The 7^th Century religion claims that Jews were rejected by God for their sins, presumably for rejecting Mohammed as a prophet, and the Koran as the ultimate prophetic work.  It also claims that the Old Testament was changed by Jewish scribes (since it does not favour Mohammedan claims).  This allegation made about the TNK, which it at the same time accepts.

The falsity of such claims is shown in the Torah itself. 

 Lev 26

44 And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.

Despite the punishments meted out to Israel – which are specifically for violation of Written Torah (and not Mishnah, new testament, Talmud or Koran)  do not result in the creation of a New Israel or a new Covenant.

New Covenant religions  have had success in terms of numbers, power, nationhood and oppression.  These criteria, however are not issues which justify the concept of a new covenant. It should also be noted that the Talmud itself, in Erubin 21b, boasts of a new Covenant, which it claims is more cherished than the Old Testament. The Talmud is in fact doing precisely what Christianity and Islam have done.

In the same Lev 26 we read:

15 and if ye shall reject My statutes, and if your soul abhor Mine ordinances, so that ye will not do all My commandments, but break My covenant;

The rabbis teach in the said Talmud Erubin that we should be more scrupulous in the observance of rabbinic laws than of Torah law.  Furthermore, the violation of torah law is on 2 fronts.  1) The violation of the law against adding  (Deut ch. 4, and 13) and 2) the changing and violation of many other laws throughout the torah, including but not limited to the Temple service and Priestly garments.  Thus the permission to consume tail fat; the changing of the Omer counting  etc are still practiced even without a Temple.

This constitutes a rejection of the Torah statutes and an abhorrence of ordinances, as in Lev 26:15.

The Rambam’s Circular Argument

In an earlier post, I pointed out the contradictions in Maimonides’  dogma, and his calls of heresy.  http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/maimonides-and-many-rabbinici-heresies.html

It is worthwhile revisiting these claims of Maimonides, or Rambam, as it is highly illogical.

So here are some of his calls of heresy:

 Hilchot Teshuva Ch. 3

Halacha 6

The following individuals do not have a portion in the world to come. Rather, their [souls] are cut off and they are judged for their great wickedness and sins, forever:

the Minim,

the Epicursim,

those who deny the Torah,

those who rebel [against God],

those who cause the many to sin,

those who proudly commit sins in public as Jehoyakim did,

those who betray Jews to gentile authorities,

those who cast fear upon the people for reasons other than the service of God,

murderers

Let us analyse the selected claims above (some have been omitted).

Those who deny the Torah:  Since the Torah in Deut 4, and Deut 13 forbids adding, then the entire rabbinic enterprise of adding laws, i.e. the Talmud, Rambam, shulchan Aruch etc are all denying this prohibition of the Torah.  Dr Maimonides, that is an own-goal.

Those who rebel against God:  The Temple purity and sacrificial system was entirely uprooted and perverted by the Pharisees.  This was the case with the Spices, the Red heifer and impurity of the dead, Tail fat, water Libation and every other dispute with the Priestly administrators  of the house of Zadok. It was also  later written in the oral law (kind of ironic) that the Priests must wear Shaatnez.  And other temple practices were abolished by the Rabbis, notably  Yochanan ben Zakkai.  Hence, the rebellion against God and torah was part and parcel of the oral law, which Maimonides perpetuates.

Those who cause the many to sin – the creation of new laws, and imposing these on people, is making the people complicit in the sin of adding to the Torah.

Those who proudly commit sins in public as Jehoyakim did.  This was done by the Rabbis in their defiling the Temple with impurity of the dead; attack on the High Priest who refused to commit the trespass of the water offering in the Temple, and who was almost murdered by the attack of the etrog. Ben Zakkai was behind this as well.

those who betray Jews to gentile authorities – this is what the Pharisees did in their war against Alexander Janneus, when they sided with Demetrius, and connived to kill Israelites. Also, Ben Zakkai, the leader of the Pharisee sect, according to the Talmud, had the opportunity to negotiate the survival of the Temple and Jerusalem with the Romans, but he instead asked them to set up a new Rabbinic colony in Yavne, and by implication, to continue with the destruction of the Temple.

Those who cast fear upon the people for reasons other than the service of God – this is very interesting.  The rabbinic oral law, and its threats upon Israel, ie non –acceptance of rabbinic law will lead to death is precisely such a form of terror.

Deut Ch 30 makes the following statement regarding the Written Torah:

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.

This quite clearly sets out the parameters for Torah observance,  namely to keep what is clearly written down in the Torah.  It also negates the Oral law, since we are only enjoined to keep what God commanded, and this is all in the Written Law. Thus Rambam, and his rabbinic colleagues are violating the Torah, and are also imposing fear upon the people for reasons of their own personal and political interests, and not to do with God in any way.

Finally: murderers – see the points regarding Ben Zakkai.

In Halacha 8, Maimonides makes some further claims:

“There are three individuals who are considered as one "who denies the Torah":

a) one who says Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God. If he says: "Moses made these statements independently," he is denying the Torah.
b) one who denies the Torah's interpretation, the oral law, or disputes [the authority of] its spokesmen as did Tzadok and Beitus.
c) one who says that though the Torah came from God, the Creator has replaced one mitzvah with another one and nullified the original Torah, like the Arabs [and the Christians].”

 These claims must be investigated logically.

a)    What the rabbis actually do is very similar to the deniers of Torah. When they change the meaning of verses, so as to differentiate from the established Priesthood, this makes them deniers of the Torah.  This was the case, for example, on the impurity of the Red heifer preparation. The Torah says that the person processing these ashes is unclean until evening. The rabbis changed this to make the clean in the daytime, by dipping in a mikveh.   This is tantamount to denying the Torah.

b)    The only people who claim that the Oral Law is the correct interpretation are the rabbis. Rambam offers no proof of the alleged divine origin of the oral law. As pointed out above, Deut 30  rejects any extra-scriptural law, as do Ch 4 and 13.   Thus Rambam is making a circular argument here.  Furthermore, the spokesmen in the Torah are the Prophets and the Kohanim, and it was the Pharisees who rejected both of these, especially in their violent assault upon the Kohanim in the 2^nd temple period.

c)    This applies to the Talmud, just as it does to the Koran or NT. Furthermore, in the Mishnah Sotah, the terrorist rabbi Yochanan b. Zakkai abolished several laws of the Torah, as part of his campaign to exterminate the Priesthood. This included the Sotah ceremony, and the Eglah Arufah, as well as the levitical ceremony  - see: http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/more-orthodox-reform-after-kohanim-were.html

And http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/destruction-of-levites-rationale-of.html

 The Rambam might not be completely consistent  between logic and his halachic rulings.

 

 

 

It's Irrational to Add

The Torah not only forbids adding (Deut 4:2), but it also gives a rationale for a steady state Torah. In the same chapter, only a few verses later, we see:

6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'

8 And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

It was Maimonides who famously commented on v. 6 that a Torah law must , by virtue of this verse, be rational, and not conflict with the intellect. Now, it is true that Maimonides goes on to blaspheme the Torah and make a pig's ear of a justification for the oral law. He is also notably silent on the irrationality of the rabbinical fairy tales called “halacha”. However, his bounded rationality was demonstrated in his attack on astrology and superstition that was rife in Talmudic lore. He even takes issue with the astrologers of the Talmud.

Had the Rambam been logically consistent, and pointed out the various contradictions between the Talmud and the Torah, he would effectively be a Karaite. This far, he did not go. But the logic is still valid. The Torah says that these Torah laws are our wisdom in the eyes of the world. How then, can the rabbis flout almost every word of the Torah, and get away with it?

There are some empirical facts which are inescapable:

The entrance of Pharisees on the world stage, around 150-200BCE led to the greatest disaster in Jewish history. They ransacked the Temple and its practices, and introduced their own bastardised version. This inevitably led to the destruction of the Temple and a 2000 year exile. It is also ironic that the Torah itself has been widely accepted by the nations of the world, whereas the Talmud has largely been viewed with derision. Would the Talmud have been so vilified if it was really part of the Torah? The Torah itself claims that the Written Law is “ your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people”.

So adding to the Torah is both forbidden, and also irrational, by the internal logic of the Torah itself.

Sukkot and Hoshana Rabba

The Sukkot festival is one where we have to separate fact from fiction. What is practiced in Synagogues today, whether Orthodox, Conservative or reform are follow-ons from manufactured traditions. The structure of the festival had been tampered with by the Rabbis, Talmudic and post talmudic.

First of all, the Hoshana Rabba concept is nowhere to found in the TeNach, and is a rabbinical creation, as far as I know.

Next, there is another ritual that is nowhere in the Torah, that was created by the rabbis also. This is the Water Libation. The Talmud records a false prophecy (which was never uttered in any of the Prophetic books) , which alleges God to have said “Pour water before me so that your yearly rain be blessed” (T.B. Taanit 2a)

The Torah specifies what the sacrificial offering are in Numbers 29:12 – 39. There is no mention of any Water libation here, or anywhere else in the TNK. The fact that Pharisees invented this (possibly a Greek or Babylonian pagan ritual). Judith Hauptman suggests that this innovation was similar to the dispute over the Omer (barley) offering between the Sadducees and Pharisees. The rivalry (as in competitor religions, supermarkets, etc.) involves the innovator producing a product differentiation, so as to take a different position in the market from competitors. As has already been seen, this led to a violent dispute between the Sadducee leaning King Janneus, and the Pharisees, which culminated in the Pharisees siding with Demetrius, which is typical of their treacherous nature.

But there is an additional feature of the new festivals of the rabbis, and that is the special mystical nature of Hoshana Rabba. In the Torah, this is the 7^th day of the Sukkot festival, and is not a day where work is forbidden. For the post-talmudic rabbis, it acquired a new meaning – it became a second Yom Kippur. That is not for fasting, but an second opportunity to have one's sins forgiven! Ordinarily I would criticise anything which is an addition to the Torah, and thus I must also criticise this one. However, the idea behind it, is not altogether wrong, or stemming from a bad place. This is because Teshuva/repentance is not limited only to Yom HaKippurim.

Thus, repentance can be done on any day of the year.

One additional point. Although I am highly critical of Phariseeic religion, that is not the same as Orthodox people of today. In general, they are hospitable and ethical people, although in some extremist circles that may not be the case. If the rabbis had ordained that people dress like Disney characters on Sukkot, then that is what Orthodox people would generally do. So it is a case of them being faithful to their sages, rather than knowingly violate the Torah.

Will Observance of the Shabbat Bring Moshiach?

 

There is an oft quoted statement that if all Israel were to observe Shabbat once, this would result in the coming of the Messiah.  According to the Chabad website, this is a rabbinic midrashic statement.

“Shemot Rabba 25:121; Yerushalmi, Ta’anit 1:10 “Though I have set a limit to ‘the end,’ that it will happen in its time regardless of whether they will do teshuvah or not… the scion of David (Mashiach) will come if they keep just one Shabbat, because the Shabbat is equivalent to all the mitzvot.”

source: http://www.chabad.org/library/moshiach/article_cdo/aid/101681/jewish/Hastening-Mashiach.htm#footnote5a101681

Firstly, I am very sceptical of any such midrashic statements, especially when they have no basis in the Torah.  Second, the statement is a logical fallacy. There never has been a time when everybody will keep the Torah in its entirety, or Shabbat for that matter.   Shortly after the 10 commandments were given, people started dancing around a golden calf.   The statement as a prediction  is something that is impossible to test.  If it fails, it can easily be said that some person in Uruguay secretly smoked a cigar.  Third, the idea that the fate of the entire nation depends on every action of each individual is also fallacious.  In the desert, individuals were punished for their own crimes, e.g. Korach, and even Aaron.  This didn’t stop the people from entering Israel. 

There are also questions about what “Moshiach” or Messiah actually represents.  The word simply means anointed, which was done for Kings, as well as Priests. Each king of Israel would be anointed, and was therefore a “Moshiach”.  This even applies to the less than righteous kings.   The Prophecies about a Messiah in the TNK are few and unclear –  although there is an idea of redemption, and one of restoration of the Temple.  So far, the ingathering of the exiles of the past 2000 years has been going on for the last century, as part of the secular Zionist enterprise.  This has not been associated with Shabbat observance. In fact, the people who enabled the State of Israel,  e.g. Theodore Herzl , David Ben Gurion etc. were not Sabbath observant.  They were also reviled by Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis and their followers, and to this day, that hatred for Zionism continues.  A lone exception was the genius Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who actually implied that Herzl was the Messiah  son of Joseph (a rabbinic concept, distinct from the scion of David).

However, one needs to be more sceptical about precise formulae of how to bring about the Redemption of Israel, through religious means.  The speaks of a general repentance:

 

Deut 30:

 

2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;

3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

 

There are no specifications though, of what this entails, and if it requires a majority, or absolutely every Israelite to do so. Also, there may be millions of people who are Israelites, who are not even known or recognised as Jews today.

Historically, there have been righteous Kings, such as Hezekiah and Josiah, who compelled the public to repent and observe the Torah.  However, even these figures were unable to turn the tide, and for failures of their own, or accumulated sins of past generations, they were amongst the last Kings of Israel, and after the Babylonian exile, there was no resumption of a Davidic monarchy.  It is also interesting to note that the Deuteronomy passage does not speak of any king or Messianic figure.

The next question to ask is what do we expect from the Messianic era?  Of course, the famous prophecy of Isaiah 11 speaks of the wolf coexisting with the lamb – but these statements are allegorical, and could already have been fulfilled, or simply mean an Arab-Israeli peace treaty.

The State of Israel has fulfilled, or is in the process of fulfilling the prophecies of the Tanakh.   It is no coincidence, to me at least, to note that characteristically, the majority of  Ultra-Orthodox rabbis (with a few notable exceptions) opposed Zionism and the modern State,  based on their own Talmudic myth of 3 oaths. On the other hand, the Karaites fully accepted the State of Israel. In fact the Karaite call to return to Israel began a thousand years prior to the Zionist movement.  The author of the Kuzari admits begrudgingly in his book, that the rabbanites have neglected this call.

So if and when the monarchy is ultimately restored, we may see the Kings anointed again.  But the time has already begin, and Jews everywhere around the world  should return to Israel. Keeping Shabbat would be most appropriate.

 

 

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.

Jeremiah Refutes the Rabbinic Narrative

We have shown previously that the rabbis  claim their own  rules were more important than the Laws of the Torah

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-rabbis-epistle-to-hebrews.html

The rabbinic narrative makes the following claim:

“New and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved; the congregation of Israel said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Lord of the universe: I have imposed upon myself more restrictions than Thou hast imposed upon me, and I have observed them.’”

Jeremiah 32 makes a very interesting prophetic statement:

“35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to set apart their sons and their daughters unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind, that they should do this abomination; to cause Judah to sin.”

Baal worship is of course forbidden, but the phrase “which I commanded them not”

is telling a story quite different to the wild claim of the rabbis. Not only is it independently forbidden, this phrase is also forbidding the making up of new laws even if they might have some “religious” content.

But the next step to this argument is quite chilling. The Babylonian exile was a result of the self-made laws and rituals of that era. It could be argued that the Roman destruction of the Temple was caused by the self-made laws of the late 2^nd Temple period. However, this is speculation and not proof. What we should take note of is the phrase
“which I commanded them not"

This phrase also appears elsewhere. it appears in the commentary of Ibn Ezra on Zechariah 7:5.
He writes that God did not command these fasts!   This is a wonderful comment from a leading Rabbi, who understands the Prophets as refuting the concept of added fasts!

Ten Commandments Series – 6 days You Shall Work

By studying the 10 Commandments, there are some clear departures we see in traditional Rabbinic understanding, and practice. The views expressed by the rabbis are in violation of Torah, and destructive of society.

A good example is the commandment to observe Shabbat.

Deut 5:

11 Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD thy God commanded thee.

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.

V.12 is very important, since a) it says we are to labour 6 days of the week, and b) this is the labour which we refrain from on Shabbat. The rabbis allege that work is not labour, but 39 forms of action, which then have derivatives. For example, separating grain is a real labour, but they extend this as applying to anything resembling this action, eg removing a bone from food we eat on shabbat. This microscopic and obsessive fixation with small details has no bearing on what the Torah says. The labour which people undertake for 6 days is not the same as tearing sheets of toiler paper for example. The proof is in v12, which refers to one's working animals, e.g. an ox or donkey, which also rest. The use of a donkey is to pull a workload, which is not the type of exertion required to remove a fishbone for example. The rabbis actually propose the complete opposite to the Torah's train of thought. To carry a handkerchief or key outdoors is utterly “forbidden” and they claim is subject to death penalty. On the other hand, they claim it is perfectly permissible to carry a heavy table indoors, even if it was the work of an ox to do so.

This perversion of the law goes further, at least in part of the rabbinic world. Their attitude towards earning an honest living is very negative.

“Rabbi Yishmael teaches that the study of Torah is to be accompanied by earning a livelihood, as in the verse "And you shall gather your grain". Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, however, contends that when Israel is sincerely dedicated to learning Torah, G-d sees to it that others will do their work. Abaye remarks that many did like Rav Yishmael and succeeded in both working and learning, while most of those who did like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai did not succeed in either.” - Talmud, Berachot 35b

source: http://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/ask_the_rabbi/ask_the_rabbi/1350

The Talmud at least provides an empirical observation, that the ultra orthodox way of life espoused by Bar Yochai was an almost complete failure. Maimonides, who at one point scoffs at those who choose to live off charity, remarks elsewhere:

Halacha 13

Not only the tribe of Levi, but any one of the inhabitants of the world whose spirit generously motivates him and he understands with his wisdom to set himself aside and stand before God to serve Him and minister to Him and to know God, proceeding justly as God made him, removing from his neck the yoke of the many reckonings which people seek, he is sanctified as holy of holies. God will be His portion and heritage forever and will provide what is sufficient for him in this world like He provides for the priests and the Levites. And thus David declared [Psalms 16:5]: "God is the lot of my portion; You are my cup, You support my lot." - Hilchot Shemita - Chapter 13

Maimonides is suggesting that the privileges given to the tribe of Levi apply to anyone else who wishes to study in Yeshiva. The Torah does command us to give tithes to the Levites, but to promote a pseudo- Levite group , and extract tithes from Israel to support them is clearly theft (which is another violation of the 10 commandments). This is apparent in Israel where the hareidi population with to receive government support for all their activities, in the name of Torah, when in fact they are actually in violation of the commandment “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work”.

Overruling Torah Law

Mishnah Makkot 1:10

...A Sanhedrin that would execute somebody once every seven years would be considered a violent Beit Din. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah says: "Once every 70 years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi 'Akiva said: "If we were on the Sanhedrin we would never have killed anyone!" Rabban Shim'on Ben Gamliel said: "They would have increased violence in Israel."

The above quote from the Mishnah is often used to show how humanistic the rabbis were, especially Akiva, and that capital punishment is not the ideal of Judaism. The opinion of Shim'on Ben Gamliel, which points out the effect of ceasing capital punishment, is not usually mentioned in rabbinic discourse, and they tend to support Akiva, who was the supreme rabbinic leader.

There is a serious problem with this discussion, and this is aside from one's personal views on capital punishment today. Capital punishment is part of the Torah law, for murder and some other crimes. Ben Gamliel's perception of this is its deterrent effect. By allowing people to get away with murder, he opines, the deterrence is lost and society becomes more violent.

But Akiva, and colleagues have a different view, in that they can bend and manipulate the Torah law to suite the modern temperament. It is also no coincidence that Akiva was not of Jewish descent, his father was a non Jew or convert. Ben Gamliel, although a Pharisee, was a conservative and steeped in an important rabbinic family.

The discussion in the Mishnah is theoretical, since the death penalty (under rabbinic law) was not always available, i.e. there had to be fully functional Temple, and this took place after the destruction of the temple. It also betrays the anachronistic fallacy of the Mishnah. If Oral Law supposedly was given on Sinai, then this discussion is out of place. Was Moses having this discussion on Sinai and disagreeing with the Torah he just received? No, it is a revisionist text which is simply imposing Greco-Roman and Hellenistic ideas onto the Hebrew bible.

This Hellenist influence in the mishnah is characterised by new recruits to the religion, driving its direction away from the Bible. Although this is not quite the Christian New Testament itself, it certainly takes a similar path. For the New Testament, the Old Testament (Torah) was too strict and a modernised religion was founded. Whilst the Mishnah and Talmud certainly contain thousands of new laws, they also make the same statement as the New testament, ie that the Torah is old fashioned and needs updating. It is also no coincidence that these two new religious literatures, i.e. Mishnah and NT emerged at very much the same time. It was also perhaps more than coincidence that the Talmud and the Koran also emerged within a century of each other.