Rabbi Moshe ben Chaim Series - Zohar's Deviation from Torah

In this post, Rabbi Ben Chaim blasts the Zohar, the central forgery of the Kabbalah.  This intellectual honesty is very healthy.  The article is posted without permission ;)

Introduction

"Listen Israel, Adonai is our God, Adonai is One (Deut. 6:4)."

God is perfectly clear: God is one. He is not many. There is a single, indivisible cause of the universe. Yet, despite this clarity, and as demonstrated by the Golden Calf worshippers, man has difficulty worshipping a metaphysical God. His insecurities catapult him towards idol creation, worship, and the invention of theories and practices that conflict with God's words. Trinitarianism, polytheism and all forms of idolatry are additional expressions of man's fantasies; not the Torah's words. 

Even when God tells Moses to His attributes of mercy (Exod. 34:6,7) these attributes are not independent beings, God forbid. God refers to His "mercy, appeasement, long-suffering, abundant kindness and truth…etc."  as attributes, not as "separate beings." God holds no discourse with these attributes, for in fact, He is One. These references to acts that man calls "mercy" and "kindness" are merely concessions to man's feeble nature. We need to know that God is not cruel, so He tells us He is "kind." We need to understand that God does not seek quick punishment, so He tells us He is long-suffering, offering man time to repent prior to punishment. And we must know that these are not positive traits, "for man cannot know God while alive (Exod. 33:20)." There is nothing positive we can understand about God. Maimonides and other great minds have discussed this.

In contrast, Zohar attempts to describe God, despite God's words to Moses above that He is unknowable. Zohar pays no attention to God's warning, and corruptly invents "sephiroth" (godly emanations) and views them as independent beings: "The king (Abba) said to Imma: 'Did I not say to you that Adam is destined to sin?' At that time he (Abba) drove man away, and he drove away Imma with him (Zohar, Genesis 22)." Here, Zohar depicts God's emanations or sephiroth as both Abba and Imma, two distinct beings with their own opposing wills. But sephiroth are not found in God's words, or in the words of His Prophets. Therefore, sephiroth is an invention of human fantasy, with no reflection on Torah or on reality. 

Kabbalists attempt to gain credibility for the Zohar by attributing it to Rav Shimon bar Yochai, as if anything any Rabbi says is a validation of reality. In fact, the Rabbis themselves argue throughout the Talmud, admitting the errors of their peers. Therefore, the tactic of attribution is of no value, as truths must be proven based on their own merit, and fallacy rejected by the same token. Furthermore, the attribution to Rav Shimon bar Yochai has already been rejected. Chassam Sofer, who was not an anti-kabbalist, said the following to the students of his Yeshiva:

"Of the vast Zohar, only a small portion that would make up a very small book of few pages, is attributable to R. Shimon ben Yohai." (Quoted by talmidim of the Chassam Sofer, as stated by Gaon haRav Eliezer Lippman Nizetz, "Mei Menachot", daf 43 ammud 2)

An even stronger statement is found by Rav Eliezer Pilklush, the outstanding talmid of the Nodeh BeYehudah,  and subsequently the Rav of Prague:

"I swear by Hashem's Torah that in the Zohar there are many forgeries and destructive statements that have been added. One page of the Talmud Bavli [containing] the discussions of Abaye and Rava is more holy than the entire Zohar -- the [authenticating] seal of R. Shimon ben Yohai is not affixed to them (i.e., to the words of the Zohar). ... Anyone with half a mind must admit this, for a number of Tannaim and Amoraim are mentioned who lived many years after R. Shimon ben Yohai ... [This has been] explained by the Gaon Rabbi Yaakov Emden who declared that [unidentified] hands have been at work on it (i.e., the Zohar)."

The Rivash wrote:

"I have also informed you that my teacher Harav Rabbi Peretz Hakkohen never at all used to speak or think of those Sephiroth. I also heard from his mouth that Harav Rabbi Shimshon of Chinon (the author of Sefer HaKerithuth), who was greater than all others of his generation used to say: I pray with the intent of this child, i.e., in rejection of the opinion of the kabbalists, who pray sometimes to one Sefirah and sometimes to another Sefirah, according to the subject of the prayer ... And all this is a very bizarre thing in the eyes of those who are not kabbalists as they are, and they (i.e., the non-kabbalists) consider this a belief in dualism (i.e., belief in two or more deities). I once heard one of the philosophical (i.e., non-kabbalistic) persons denigrate the kabbalists by saying: "The Christians believe in trinity, (i.e., the union of three), and the kabbalists believe in the union of ten [Sephiroth]." (Rivash)

Kabbala cites the order of the progressive emanation of the ten Sephiroth, generally presented by the kabbalists as follows: Kether, Binah, Hokhmah, Gevurah, Hesed, Tifereth, Hod, Netzah, Yesod, and Malkhuth, also called Shekhinah. According to Zohar III, llb, 70a: "He is they, and they are He." This trinitarian/polytheistic approach does not explain sephiroth, but incoherently says a plurality equates to a singularity. However, God said, "God is one." Unlike Zohar, we have these words as part of our Mesora. And unlike Zohar, God's words make sense.

Purpose of this Essay

The purpose of this essay is to determine what God said, to make it clear that God's words are limited, and that we must accept His words over man's words. To this end, I intend to offer arguments to bolster your intellectual conviction and courage in this truth, so it overpowers your emotional need to be accepted by your peers, who may deviate. Please be sensitive to your feelings as you read on. No doubt, you will read ideas that conflict with your present views, and the views of many of your peers and perhaps teachers and Rabbis. I urge you be open to accepting that you may harbor incorrect ideas.  Torah study requires a commitment to honesty first, not to men, Rabbis, books, no matter how old or widely accepted they might be. Clearly, throughout time, Zohar and Kabbala have met with strong opposition. Both sides cannot be correct. The only method to arrive at truth, is first, to desire it and search for it until it is found, to be diligent in your search, and to follow reason and proof over emotional tendencies or following what is familiar or popular. If you can dedicate yourself to this search, to seeking a conclusion and not abandoning the search or tiring…please read on. But if you have already made up your mind, you need not waste your time.

Whats is True and What is Not

We are not bound to accept as Torah truths, any matter, except those found in Moses' Five Books (Chumash), Prophets, Writings and the Oral Law. For these alone did God give to Moses at Sinai; these alone are absolute Torah truths. Therefore, notions located in the Zohar, Kabbala or other human works, do not impose obligatory acceptance. In all works other than the four mentioned above, we must agree only to what is proven and true, regardless of its author. Everything false, or unproven, must be rejected, regardless of its author. Regarding this, Maimonides wrote: 

"Know, my masters, that it is not proper for a man to accept as trustworthy anything other than one of these three things. The first is a thing for which there is a clear proof deriving from man’s reasoning—such as arithmetic’ geometry, and astronomy. The second is a thing that a man perceives through one of the five senses—such as when he knows with certainty that this is red and this is black and the like through the sight of his eye; or as when he tastes that this is bitter and this is sweet; or as when he feels that this is hot and this is cold; or as when he hears that this sound is clear and this sound is indistinct; or as when he smells that this is a pleasing smell and this is a displeasing smell and the like. The third is a thing that a man receives from the prophets or from the righteous. Every reasonable man ought to distinguish in his mind and thought all the things that he accepts as trustworthy, and say: “This I accept as trustworthy because of tradition, and this because of sense-perception, and this on grounds of reason.” Anyone who accepts as trustworthy anything that is not of these three species, of him it is said: “The simple believes everything” (Prov. 14:15)." ("Letter to the Community of Marseilles", "Letter on Astrology")

We accept as our "Mesora" only those authentically-proved transmissions, that are traceable to Sinai. However, what is not in our Mesora from Sinai, is not obligatory. Something without proven origin from Sinai is not part of the Mesora. Zohar and Kabbala are not traceable to Sinai, and is less than 1000 years old. This of course does not mean everything in Zohar or Kabbala is false. If an idea is true, it does not matter where it is found. The same applies if the notion is false. Thus, calling an idea "part of Zohar or Kabbala", does not validate it as true. Certainly, when an idea in Zohar or Kabbala, or any work, contradicts the four works above, we reject it.

All Commands are not Equally Vital

You must understand that Torah ideas are not all on the same level of importance. This explains the different levels of punishment for violations, and the varying levels of sacrifices. Truths about monetary damages are not as vital as our idea of what God is. This explains why the Ten Commandments commence with the command to know God, and why monetary laws are towards the end. Observing all the commands while possessing an incorrect notion of God, we might forfeit our souls. 

It is not as we think, that all God asks is that we attend shul, daven three times daily, give tzedaka, celebrate holidays, send kids to yeshiva and attend simchas. Without the diligent search to understand God's Torah, to learn what we can and cannot know about God, we miss the core of Judaism, and no other act can compensate for this loss. I understand this is rarely discussed, and why you must be thinking, "Does this really matter?" since it is unpopular. However, Torah says this is both central and vital. This explains why our greatest minds like Maimonides and Rabbi Bachya (Duties of the Heart) wrote extensively on our notions of God: what He is, and what He is not. And they derived their ideas of God from God's words, not man's words. They adhered to the four works stated above, Chumash, Prophets, Writings and the Oral Law. 

Today, unfortunately, Judaism has been steered off the focus of God's four only works, towards the popularity of a man-made work called Zohar and Kabbala, 2500 years after God's complete Torah was given at Sinai and accepted as His undisputed, entire transmission to mankind. Until the invention of Zohar, no Prophet, Rabbi or Sage would heretically suggested God's Torah was incomplete. Until Zohar, no mention of "sephiroth" was ever heard, the notion that God has ten "emanations." But like all movements, with enough followers, the remaining members of that culture feel obligated to accept the movement, lest they be ostracized and lose popularity, as if personal fame outweighs following God. 

Many Rabbis, from Zohar's rise, and throughout time, vocalized opposition to its writings, and for good reason. Here are Zoharic quotes, and I will follow by quoting God's words to illustrate the deviant nature of these portions of Zohar:

Zohar: Genesis 22

"When coming to the world of separation which is the world of separated things, the builder said to the master of the edifice: Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness. The master of the edifice said: 'Indeed it would be good to make him, but he is destined to sin before you, for he is a foolish son,' as it is written (Proverbs 10:1): A wise son maketh glad a father, but a foolish son is the grief of his mother. Whereupon she (Imma) said: "Since his sin relates to Imma, and not to Abba, I want to create him in my image," as it is written: And God created man in His image; but Abba did not want to participate in man's creation. At the time that man sinned what is written: and for your transgression was your mother sent away (Isaiah 50:1). The king (Abba) said to Imma: "Did I not say to you that he is destined to sin?" At that time he (Abba) drove him (man) away, and he drove away Imma with him."

The portion of Zohar quoted above "Let us make" surely was said of two beings, and goes on to explain that Imma said to Abba "Let us make man", and she did as she wished and created man without the agreement of Abba. This is the heretical view that there are multiple divinities, and each does as he/she wishes. Zohar includes additional corruptions stemming from it's author's inability to extricate himself from a physical understanding of God, the source of all idolatry. Zohar's author rejects Maimonides clear explanation in his 13 Principles, that God is not comparable to His creations. His creations are subject to division and parts, while He is not: "To what shall you equate Me, so that I shall be similar  (Isaiah 40:25)". Yet, Zohar suggest God has ten parts, which sinfully equates God to His creations. 

Philosophy: Willfully Accepted, Not Coerced or Mandated

"Majority rule" (the halachik mechanism of following the majority of Rabbinic opinion; "rove") cannot serve to render some philosophy part of the Mesora. Majority rule does not apply to historical verification, since majority rule is a principle applicable only to the sphere of halacha - Jewish law - not historical fact or philosophical ideas. Based on a vote, the Torah never says something is historically true, or imposes acceptance of philosophical principles. 

Jews and Rabbis have erred when applying rules of Halacha – how to act – to one's beliefs, or "philosophy." In Halacha, we follow the majority opinion. But this cannot be applied to one's beliefs.  And belief in the notion of sephiroth are "beliefs". Beliefs can only be accepted on our own, and not through a majority rule. A majority rule cannot coerce one to "believe" he is standing in Ashkelon, when in fact he stands in Jerusalem. Majority rule cannot make a person believe in sephiroth, if his mind tells him otherwise, or if he fails to comprehend how God being One, can simultaneously be 10 sephiroth. Therefore majority rule or "rove", cannot be applied to philosophical matters. It is therefore incorrect to say, "Since many Rabbis yesteryear or today accept Zohar or Kabbala, Zohar becomes Torah or Judaism." Majority rule does not apply.

Some wish to claim that Meilli, Rivash, Ran, R. Alkafih who rejected Zoharic Kabbala as heresy, have been "overruled by a majority."  This claim is equally inapplicable, as we said, majority rule plays no role in belief. Majority cannot render ideas, to suddenly become false. Ideas of truths and falsehoods are not subject to how many people accept or deny them. Truths and falsehoods are determined, as Maimonides accurately said above:  1) you realize a truth with your mind; 2) you witnessed some phenomenon; 3) the Mesora includes the idea. But a philosophical truth cannot be mandated, certainly not by a rule of Halacha, i.e., majority rule.

In philosophy, anything any Rabbi says is not binding, as we see the Rabbis argued on each other. Now, if every Rabbinic statement was binding, how could one Rabbi oppose another? We never see any Rabbi throughout time, waiting for a "majority rule" (rove) to agree with him before he voiced his opinion! In the Chumash, for example, Ramban argues on Maimonides, who argued on others. Ibn Ezra constantly voices opposition to many Rabbis. The same applies to all thinkers. Had majority rule  been obligatory in philosophy, no Rabbi would have been able to voice his "sole" opinion. But, they all do. Majority rule applies only to Halacha. 

Agreement can only take place by an individual who actually agrees, and this cannot be coerced. Halacha can be coerced, since the courts and Bet Din can coerce men to act. But force is inapplicable to one's convictions. And while one thinking God is physical, can have Halachik ramifications, the "belief" of any notion is outside Halachik jurisdiction. 

God Desires we Each Think for Ourselves

It is for this very reason, that God gave each human being an intellect. God clearly desires that each person engage his/her intellect, so as to arrive at truths independently. Rabbi Bachya, author of Duties of the hear says the following:

"If, however, you possess intelligence and insight, and through these faculties you are capable of verifying the fundamentals of the religion and the foundations of the commandments which you have received from the sages in the name of the prophets, then it is your duty to use these faculties until you understand the subject, so that you are certain of it - both by tradition and by force of reason. If you disregard and neglect this duty, you fall short in the fulfillment of what you owe your Creator." 

Devarim 17:8-10 states: "If a case should prove too difficult for you in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between (leprous) mark and mark, or other matters of dispute in your courts, ....you must act in accordance with what they tell you."

Regarding this passage, Rabbi Bachya states: "the verse does not say,.....simply accept them on the authority of Torah sages,...and rely exclusively on their tradition. Rather, (Scripture) says that you should reflect on your own mind, and use your intellect in these matters. First learn them from tradition - which covers all the commandments in the Torah, their principles and details - and then examine them with your own mind, understanding, and judgment, until the truth become clear to you, and falsehood rejected, as it is written: "Understand today and reflect on it in your heart, Hashem is the G-d in the heavens above, and on the Earth below, there is no other". (Ibid, 4:39)"

Again,  "…examine them with your own mind, understanding, and judgment, until the truth become clear to you, and falsehood rejected." Therefore, when confronted with that which the mind cannot explain, and which has not been proven to form part of the Mesora, we do not accept such a notion, but we reject it. Suggesting an imposed acceptance of Zohar, contradicts this self-evident reasoning that God desires each person to apply their mind and reject falsehood. Even when about to give His Torah, God first gave Moses a number of laws, of which the Jews accepted. God wished the Jews accept the Torah system, but only after reviewing it. This does not mean Torah was optional. It means God wished the Jews' minds be engaged in what they were to accept.

Zohar & Kabbala: Notions Alien to Torah 

It is clear; Zohar presented new notions not found in Tanach. For had Tanach contained references to sephiroth, our Rishonim would not view Zohar as "new."  What did these objecting Rishonim find so distasteful in Zohar, that they did not find elsewhere? It is the discussion of matters one cannot prove, and the heretical notions of divisibility of God into many sephiroth; praying to varying sephiroth; and the gross humanization of God (Zohar, Vayeitze 106b).

Zohar Violates Torah's Restrictive Nature

The approach to determining truths about God's essence must be relegated to the Mesora, since God Himself falls outside, 1) what our mind can grasp, and 2) what we can perceive. Yes, we perceive "evidence" of the Creator in His world, but we never perceive "Him." To make statements about what God is, i.e., sephiroth, when not having found such statements in the Torah, is an incorrect approach, for it cannot be validated. 

Furthermore,  God told the wisest man, Moses, the following: "For man cannot know Me while alive (Exod. 33:20)." If Moses cannot know what God is, a discussion of "sephiroth" as "parts of God" falls outside human knowledge. 

Torah shuns the very notion that man can know God at all. It is for this reason that the Rabbis who crafted our prayers, included these words to be repeated many times daily: "Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, God of hosts, His honor fills the world (Isaiah 6:3)."  On these words, the great intellect Rabbi David Kimchi (1160–1235) (Radak) states, "God is distinct, elevated and totally incomprehensible (ibid)." The word kadosh does not mean holy, but rather, "distinct," as in God is distinct from all else and unknowable. Thus, we cannot know what He is. The suggestion of sephiroth exceeds Torah's boundary, that God is unknowable. Note also that the Torah says God's "honor" fills the world, not that "He" fills the world. For God is not related to the universe in any way. He cannot occupy space, for even space was His creation, and He predates space. Thus, He existed, and exists, without space. Unrelated to physical creations, God has no parts. Sephiroth must be false.

And who recited these words, that God is unknowable? It was the angels; beings of far greater knowledge than us. And yet, they admit they know nothing about God! How then can humans who wrote the Zohar depict God, in anyway? 

Why do both God and the Rabbis depict the angels in the Torah? We must understand this lesson: if higher-level beings cannot fathom God, certainly we cannot. God also tells us that angels, and Moses could never know what God is. But Zohar claims its does. You must appreciate Zohar's claim as directly rejecting God's Torah.

Torah was Complete at Sinai

Ibn Ezra Exod. 13:9: "Kabbala's words are strong and don't need to be strengthened."  Ibn Ezra says that our true Kabbala (literally, "received" Torah transmissions) predate Zoharic Kabbala. Nothing needs to be added (i.e., "strengthened") to what God gave Moses. 

Sephiroth: Bereft of Wisdom

All of God's Torah reflects wisdom. In contrast, the polytheistic notion of sephiroth imparts no wisdom and subscribes to idolatrous influence, thereby opposing Torah at the core. Worse, sephiroth truly confuse the mind, forcing physical characteristics of parts, onto our indivisible, metaphysical God. Again, to truly comprise Torah, an idea must be intelligent, not an empty statement, like sephiroth.

Today's Blogs and Email Lists: No Sound Ideas or Arguments

Zohar proponents often need to personally attack those rejecting Zohar. A recent email list discussion found it acceptable to reprint the exact words of today's Zohar defenders, who stripped "Rabbi X" of his title, calling him "Mr. X." This can only be explained as a weakness in their arguments defending Zohar itself, needing to resort to a personal jab. Rabbi X could not have known his attackers, they being part of such a large email list. Thus, Rabbi X did not attack others, but wrote solely against Zohar. Personal attacks were therefore unprovoked, and unveiled an emotional bias for Zohar, not an intelligent basis for accepting it.

Other defenders of Zohar responded with a list of Rabbis praising Zohar or Kabbala, but without any explanation of sephiroth or any of Zohar's views. This makes one question their beliefs, as their defense of Zohar remains without explanation. Their defense boils down to, "The more people repeat something, the truer it becomes", which is not rational. Even if the many people are Rabbis.

One person voiced this sentiment: "It is an important part of our rich intellectual and spiritual heritage", but again, without explanation. And a final defense of Zohar was the familiar, "Some things in life are just beyond our understanding." This admission that Zohar is inexplicable should be well-heeded. 

On the other hand, God's Torah is said to be that which the other nations will marvel at:

"And you shall guard the commands and perform them for they will be your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of other nations, for when they hear all these statutes they will say, "What a wise and understanding people is this great nation". For what great nation has God close to them, as the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him. And what great nation possesses statutes and laws so righteous as this Torah that I place before you today (Deut. 4:6-8)?"

These verses make it clear that unintelligible (and heretical) notions of sephiroth cannot be part of Torah. True Torah ideas can be understood by all nations, as God says. And those ideas (i.e., what God is) that are beyond our capacity to grasp, is where Zohar has fraudulently and irresponsibly has ventured to speak.

Summary

In conclusion, it is more reasonable to reject the view that many Rabbis agreed with Zohar, as it contains unintelligent and heretical positions. So we need not even engage the inapplicable use of "majority rule". It's defenders have not voiced any explanations for sephiroth or other claims. And Rav Eliezer Pilklush and Rabbi Yaakov Emden's position that Zohar is a forgery, retains our ancient Rabbis in an intelligent light, which maintains  Kavod Hatorah.

God gave each of us intelligence. Rabbi Bachya explained in Duties of the Heart so clearly, that this gift demonstrates God's desire that we each use our intelligence. Our opinions of what God is and is not, are at the core of our life's purpose. To leave this area unexamined, and merely follow the crowd, is against God's will. If you strive to follow God's Torah, you must start with a clear understanding of God Himself, as far as humanly possible. You must be clear about the guidelines for accepting and dismissing beliefs, and these rules are all within your grasp, if you engage your intellect.

Can God truly equate to His creation, by having parts? What did God say? 

"To what shall you equate Me, so that I shall be similar  (Isaiah 40:25)"

What makes sense to you, is God one, or many? What did God say?

"Listen Israel, Adonai is our God, Adonai is One (Deut. 6:4)."

source: http://www.mesora.org/zoharsdeviation.html

Torah: As Logical as Science - Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim

"This week, a friend shared with me her disappointment with her children’s orthodox, Yeshiva education, which I paraphrase:

“My sons come home from yeshiva, repeating stories about magical miracles that happened to some Rabbi. They’re being taught that we are to be more impressed with supposed, miraculous occurrences, than with natural law”.

I too recently witnessed this to some degree, when I asked a friend’s 9-year-old daughter Rochelle, what she had learned in Hebrew studies. She recited ideas, which clearly violated reason. But since they formed part of her “Hebrew” studies, she did not apply reason, and blindly accepted and strongly defended them. She unconditionally accepted all that was taught in the name of Torah. But this same girl will question sciences until she is blue in the face. Why the distinction? Because she has been poorly educated that Torah is not subject to reason, as is science.

This happens to be a predominant occurrence. And to make matters worse, on two separate occasions, I witnessed firsthand orthodox shul Rabbis endorsing their belief in miraculous occurrences. I’m not talking about the Torah’s miracles, but miracles purported about recent Torah personalities. Of course we wonder why such miracles never make the news, and are never seen by masses. And the reporting party – in this case the two Rabbis – did not witness the miracles firsthand. As a matter of fact, in all cases where I heard such accounts, the party relating the event to me did not witness anything firsthand. So why did these people accept these stories? They were fed this when they attended yeshiva, and so, the disease spirals downward.

Think about it: these Rabbis would not undergo surgery by voodoo doctor. No, both Rabbis would insist on “knowing” he is a full-fledged doctor, with the proper education and numerous successful operations under his belt before risking their lives. But in matters more crucial – matters of the soul – these Rabbis are ready to spread lies without the concern that they mislead others…a great crime, as Maimonides teaches:

 “Four matters are great sins, for which God does not allow one to repent, and they are: 1) causing the masses to sin…” (Laws of Teshuva, 4:1)

Misleading the masses is the first sin Maimonides lists. Misleading people to accept a faulty way of thinking that directly opposes Torah thought is a philosophical sin at the least. This path destroys Torah.

The Rabbis’ messages were identically disturbing Torah violations, which I translate for you: “We must be impressed with those about whom we hear miraculous events. We must follow them unconditionally”. These Rabbis did not claim to see the events, but they repeated them to their captive audience, certainly with the wish to “ooh and aah” them. Perhaps teaching Torah has lost its impact for their congregants, after years of miraculous stories. But had these Rabbis replaced the names of those they sainted in these fables, with “Jesus” or “Mohammed”, they would be searching the Help Wanteds.

Why do Jews buy stories about “Rabbis” flying on animals, or walking on water?

Shouldn’t a Rabbi seek to impress his flock with God, not man?

The primary danger is that this practice endorses the Jesus phenomenon: where without evidence, we accept miracles, and deify a person, or raise him to some prophetic status. As proof to where this path leads, a vocal segment of Chabad deifies the Rebbe, calls him God, prays to him, and sends faxed letters to his grave…as proof that the Jesus phenomenon has been resurrected. Those in the Chabad camp who disagree, must repeatedly denounce such views. In contrast, Moses teaches the Jews to accept only “what your eyes saw”. (Deut. 4:9) Belief in second hand reports of miracles without mass compliance was not Moses’ way. Therefore, we must not deviate from Moses.

Now, what happens to children who are raised to blindly accept such stories? They do not learn to use their critical faculties…their Tzelem Elokim, which God gave us precisely to determine what makes sense, and what doesn’t. God designed the world with scientific laws and math, so that man might learn these sciences and witness a sensible system. This is what God deems most central to the human race, and why He granted us alone a soul. This realization of precise laws, that are consistent, allows man to build upon previous knowledge, upon the laws he learned yesterday, and progress further and uncover more truths. This is God’s system, that man follows a rational trend of thinking, and sees the consistent beauty in nature. It was this approach that Abraham used to discover God. And it is this same logical approach God desires we employ when approaching Him through Judaism. The Talmud teaches that the purpose of study is “svara”, definitions, an understanding of principles, not a blind faith in miracles, or in anything. But if we train our children to seek out miraculous stories, to be impressed with incomprehensible matters, they will become blind faith observers, where Judaism and Christianity share identical fundamentals. In essence – we will have made them into Christians. We will have taught them that using our minds is not preferred. But our greatest Rabbis toiled to explain the root of mitzvahs such as the Minchas Chinuch. They uncovered beautiful explanations for the philosophy of Judaism as seen in incomparable works authored by Maimonides, Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak, Nachmanides, Sforno…the list is endless. These leaders opposed the blind faith approach, and practice of extolling people whom purportedly experienced miracles. That is why they rejected Jesus.

God is the source of all knowledge. And knowledge is the set of truths that by definition explain matters of creation and God’s will, with “reason”. This means, that the only path to knowledge, is a path where reason guides every step. If we do not engage reason, then what we fathom are mere fantasies that do not reflect what is true and real. Therefore, if a teacher continues to repeat stories that he or she did not witness, or where there were no masses present…they do not teach Torah. They in fact teach lies, and train students to be impressed with fantasy, and not with reality. They oppose all our great Rabbis, starting with Moses.

We must urge our teachers not to repeat stories without proof, just as Moses did not wish the Jews to accept anything without proof. For if we follow a life where any story goes, we cannot say Christianity is wrong.

The distinguishing characteristic of Torah that makes Judaism true and all other religions false is the path of reason, the unwavering demand for proof. As concerned parents, you must be sensitive to the stories your children repeat, and not sit idly by, unless you do no care that your child may one day be more impressed with Jesus, than Rabbi so and so. Teachers must emulate the great Rabbis, and teach what they have toiled to preserve for us.

Torah is no less logical than the sciences. God created both, so they both must reflect wisdom, and a structure that is reasonable and based on proofs. So the next time you hear miraculous stories coming from your children’s mouths, contact the teacher or Rabbi, and demand proof, or their retraction in front of the class. If you do not act, then you are to blame for the continued loss of Torah, and these teachers’ students who eventually abandon Judaism because they found Christianity more emotionally appealing. Conversely, if the Torah’s proofs are taught, starting with the Fundamentals, then your children will be armed with the arguments to defend Judaism 100%. They will only grow in their devotion to the true God, and His true Religion."

source: http://www.mesora.org/Torah-Logical.htm

A brief conversation about the Mikveh Myth

 

Karaite:

 Shavua Tov - there is not basis in the Torah for Mikva. It nowhere states a woman must immerse herself. And Rambam falsifies the Torah in the beginning of Hilchot Mikvkavot. "Halacha 2 - Whenever the Torah mentions washing one's flesh or laundering one's garments from impurity, the intent is solely the immersion of the entire body or article in a mikveh. " This is essentially like Christianity or reform, changing what is explciitly stated in the Torah.

Rabbi:

you mean Torah does NOT talk about washing one's flesh? Is this your claim?

Karaite:

No, that is not my point. The Torah does say that person must bathe his body and launder his clothes in certain cases (Lev 15), for Temple purity. It does not say that a woman needs to go to a Mikveh to immerse. it does not even say that a woman is required to bathe in regular water, although this might be inferred. But the actions of bathing and laundering are not the same as immersing in a mikveh. The rabbis are forcing this misreading of the Torah, and that is my point.

Mourner’s Kaddish – Therapy or Death Tax?

A Professor of Psychology, Cary Cooper, who is an expert on stress, once wrote that the rabbinical Mourner’s Kaddish is a form of therapy, which helps the mourner come through his loss and pain. Indeed, this is touted by the rabbis as being its purpose.

The subject of death is highly emotive, and those in mourning have a deep sense of pain and loss. However, no such prayer existed in the Torah, and the Kaddish is actually not even in Hebrew, but Aramaic. Furthermore, it is a great burden for someone to go to a synagogue 3 times a day for a whole year whilst in mourning. The Torah does not command this, and the physical and economic damage of being compelled to do this is form of theft.

Next, the full Kaddish, called the Kaddish D’Rabbanan, has a prayer for the Rabbis’ wellbeing. So if one does not support the rabbinate, then there is no reason to say this prayer.

There is a myth, which was formed by R’ Akiva, that saying the prayer (or at least the central line) will elevate the deceased from the “flames of gehinnom”.  Thus, the vulnerability and guilt felt by the mourner, is being manipulated by the rabbis to get them to attend the synagogue. This attendance has financial and political benefits to the rabbis, since there is membership and other fees, eg when being called up to the Torah. This is a form of religious death tax, or extortion.  In the TNK we see nobody saying a regular prayer for the departed, nor trying to change the alleged next world lot of the departed. It is thus a false concept, and a violation of the prohibition to add to the Torah.

 

A Karaite Theodicy - at least a theoretical one

In Philosophy and Theology, the Theodicy problem arises, i.e. why the good suffer and the bad have good lives. Various attempts at answering this are made, but not very convincingly. In Orthodox Judaism, we see various attempts to brush this world aside and claim that it is all compensated for in the next world. The argument gets worse when moral terrorists of Orthodoxy make claims like this one http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/aryeh-kaplan-blasphemer.html .

Some try to use the argument of reincarnation, that suffering here is in a reincarnation of a previous life. This is also quite ridiculous.

I am unable to explain the Holocaust, or why children are murdered even today. However, as far as the Torah goes, there is no nonsensical statements of a world to come as compensation, or reincarnation etc. Quite the contrary. The proof of God brought by Moses is the precise punishment of bad and reward of good, in this world. Whether or not the world of the Torah exists today or in reality, is a question that the skeptic can justifiably ask. However, for a rabbi to to make comments like Kaplan, and many others do, is itself denial of the Torah of Moses.

Thus, we see in Deuteronomy Chapter 4 , that Moses says:

3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did in Baal-peor; for all the men that followed the Baal of Peor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from the midst of thee.

4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.

The Torah is very clear about reward and punishment here and now. Whether this was only in Biblical or Prophetic times is an important issue, but we are forced to see this as the authentic Torah view, whether we like it or not.

Is the Pope Jewish? Infallibility in the Torah

Whilst Catholicism has a Pope who is claimed to be infallible, the common answer that rabbis give to this question, i.e. if Judaism has an infallible leader or Rabbi, is an emphatic “NO”.

However, things are not as they seem, and the answers given by Rabbis are often unreliable, or concealing something they do not wish us to know.

In a recent post, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/rashi-brainwashy.html, I've shown how the mainstream rabbis reached hubris, and falsely claimed that we must accept whatever nonsense they spout, even when we know it is nonsense. Fortunately, the few rabbis in the Talmud Yerushalmi rejected this view, but they were outnumbered by the Catholic rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud.

The debate was not only within the rabbinic world, but it also took place between the Sadducees and Pharisees. In a previous post, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/sadducees-vs-pharisees-case-of-false.html we see that the Rabbis considered themselves to be infallible in their judgement, once it had been carried out (according to some opinions). But the position of the Sadducees implies that the Judge or the Kohen can make mistakes or be deceived by false witnesses.

A definitive answer can be reached if we consult the TNK.

The prophet Jeremiah said

“2: 8 The priests said not: 'Where is the LORD?' And they that handle the law knew Me not, and the rulers transgressed against Me; the prophets also prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.”

This is explicitly denying any infallibility of Priest, judge or even Torah scholar. Furthermore, the Torah itself has a system for cases where the leadership errs, in Numbers Chapter 15 בְּמִדְבַּר.

Thus, why is there such a strong trend within rabbinic Judaism towards a Papal style infallibility? Well, the simple answer would be that it is keeping in style with its sister religion, Christianity. But what this means is that the rabbis were always in violation of the Torah, but their arrogance and hubris led them to see themselves very much like their Roman masters, as being demigods, and that their statements have the authority of the Torah (even though they frequently contradict it). As the saying goes, Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely!

So rather than concluding that the Pope is Jewish, a more accurate statement would be that the Talmud is far from Jewish.

Rabbi Moshe ben Chaim's Logic Leads to Karaism

I frequently discuss and debate with R' ben Chaim of Mesora.org. He is one of the wisest and most rational people in contemporary Judaism (even if we occasionally disagree).

A fascinating argument he makes against the Kabbalah leads to some surprising conclusions:

“One's "closer relationship with Hashem" is not something anyone can validate about another person. And it is arrogant and baseless for anyone to suggest he or she is now "closer to God." How does one know this? A tznua [modest person] which is what Moses was, would never make such a claim. God alone knows whether one person get's closer to Him. You will never find any Prophet of truly righteous person boast, nor boast about which he cannot know. And others cannot know if a given Rabbi is close or distant from God. Either way, such claims are baseless and contrary to Torah. Torah is complete, and we are not to add to, or subtract from it. Suggesting Zohar contains more than Tanach and Torah She B'al Peh, through which one gets closer to Hashem, is a wrong concept.

Whatever in Zohar is valid, meaning, what is synonymous with Torah, teaches us nothing new and it may be followed. Whatever in Zohar opposes Torah, must be rejected.
My view is that the ancient Rabbis who supported Kabbala did not have the same Kabbala that exists today that contains false and heretical ideas. Ibn Ezra spoke of Kabbala. There existed a body of transmission, which is what is meant by the word "kabbala." Nothing more. Once one projects mystical notions onto Zohar, Kabbalah and Torah, he no longer follows Torah.”
                                            source: http://www.mesora.org/kabbala4.12.13.html

Now, taking his logic about Zohar, i.e. “what is synonymous with Torah, teaches us nothing new and it may be followed. Whatever in Zohar opposes Torah, must be rejected.” and applying it to the Oral Law, will give us Karaism. That is, whatever the Talmud says which is synonymous with the TNK, teaches us nothing new. But whatever opposes the TNK, must be rejected.

I congratulate R' Ben Chaim for giving a simple approach to determine the truth/falsity of rabbinic Judaism.

The Law of Moses

 Deut 31:

  9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel. 10 And Moses commanded them, saying: 'At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, 11 when all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. 12 Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law; 13 and that their children, who have not known, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.'



It is important to know that the Torah was always a written document, and was preserved in writing not in oral form. Also, had there been any alleged Oral Law, it would be mentioned here. However, the Law was taught as a reading from the Torah, as per v. 12-13. They would learn and observe to do all the words of the Written law which was read by the Priests.  

In the above verses, the Written Torah is referred to as הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת  - this Law.    It is also this Law which is to be observed. throughout the Torah it is referring to "this Law"  i.e. the Written Torah.   The reason being that there never was another law, ie Oral Law.

Sadducees vs Pharisees = the case of the false witness

Deuteronomy 19

^{16 If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him; 17 then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days. 18 And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. 20 And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee. 21 And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.}

The Talmud discusses an alleged dispute between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, on the above verses. They claim that the Sadducees ruled the death sentence for a case where the false witnesses succeeded in having an innocent man executed, whereas the Pharisees ruled that it was only in the case where the sentence was passed but the execution had not yet taken place, i.e. the framed defendant would be saved by new witnesses for example. In this case, say the rabbis, the false witnesses would suffer the fate they planned for their “brother” (v.18) who if he had been killed would no longer be referred to as their brother.

There is more than one problem here.  The first is whether or not this was actually the position of the Sadducees. Since there is no independent record of the rulings of the Sadducees, we rely on the written record of their outspoken enemies – the Talmud.

On the surface, the verses do support the claim of the Rabbis.  V18 is about the Judges enquiring, and finding the witnesses to be false. And v 19 is about the intent of the false witness not the completed deed.

However, what happens in the case of the Judge carrying out the execution, and then finding out later the witnesses to have been false? There are various rabbinic opinions on this, some say that the execution would only take place if the defendant was guilty (Divine intervention) and others refute this, saying that if such a travesty of justice takes place, then no worldly punishment is good enough for the witnesses, and let them be punished in the next world!

See: http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/chrysler/archives/shoftim72.htm

However, these contradictory positions are far fetched, and not in accordance with the purpose of the Law. V20 clearly says that punishment is carried out in this world as a deterrent to others, and 21 gives measure for measure punishments. So even if the defendant was falsely fined 10 shekels, that would be the punishment of the false witness.

So the Sadducees – if the position attributed to them is accurate – did have a point, and in the case of a wrongful execution or punishment, the same punishment should logically be applied to the false witnesses.

The whole subject of impeachment of witnesses takes up a large area of Talmudic discussion, and this is only looking at the basic debate between the two parties.

Ami Hertz's Shoftim: Rabbinical authority over Torah "interpretation"

Proposition: [The Tanakh states that the Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation:] "In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you - right or left." (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand "Judges" to refer to the Rabbis. But as I mentioned above, there is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law, from G-d to Moses, to the Elders, Aaron, his sons, and the entire Jewish nation. The Oral law teaches that this refers to the Rabbis. 

Response: 1. "Interpretation": This is a very important point to understand. The Oral Torah is often misrepresented as merely Rabbinic "interpretation". It is not! "Interpretation" implies that the Rabbis derive their rulings from the Written Torah. But this is not what they do. The Oral Torah is a separate code of law, which is not derived, and which cannot be derived using any logical means, from the Written Torah. The use of the term "interpretation" is very misleading.
Consider, for instance, the Rabbinic prohibition on eating meat and dairy together. This is often presented as an "interpretation" of the verse "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk." Yet, there is no way that the Rabbinic prohibition can be derived from this verse. In fact, according to Rabbinic theory, the verse serves simply as a "mnemonic" for remembering the Rabbinical law. Yet, this fact is often not mentioned, which results in many people being misled into thinking that the Rabbinic law actually derives from the verse.

2. Here is the verse that Ben-Chaim quotes, in its context:

If a case is too baffling for you to decide, be it a controversy over homicide, civil law, or assault -- matters of dispute in your courts -- you shall promptly repair to the place that YHWH your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that YHWH chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there YHWH your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die. Thus you will sweep out evil from Israel: all the people will hear and be afraid and will not act presumptuously again. (Deut. 17:8-13)

I have discussed this passage before. Here is another take:
a. The passsage establishes a Supreme Court as the court of last resort for all legal cases, whose rulings on these cases cannot be appealed.
b. The physical location of the court is in Jerusalem ("the place that YHWH your God will have chosen").
c. The court is composed of the priests or the Judge.
d. These priests or this Judge are alive at the time of the case. How else are the parties in the case to present themselves to them? Also, "in charge at the time".

None of these things give the Rabbis the authority over Torah "interpretation". The passage gives the Supreme Court the authority to rule on cases that are brought before it. Certainly, if it so wishes, a Supreme Court may rely on precedent set by a previous Supreme Court. But nowhere does it say that it has to. Any Supreme Court can therefore decide differently than a previous Supreme Court did in a similar case. Thus, the Supreme Court is not setting any laws. Even if a previous Supreme Court set a precedent, it is not law. A new Supreme Court is free to decide a similar case differently.
The Rabbis, on the other hand, set laws, not simply precedents in legal cases. These laws are permanent, or almost permanent, as the Rabbis say that the contemporary Rabbis cannot overrule previous ones, such as the Rabbis who lived in Talmudic times.
 
Point b: the Supreme Court is to be located in Jerusalem. Yet, how many Rabbinic laws are set by Rabbis actually located in Jerusalem? Possibly the most important work of the Oral Torah, the Babylonian Talmud, was written nowhere near Jerusalem. Maimonides, who codified Talmudic law, did not live in Jerusalem either.

 Point c:
I. The court can be composed of either the priests or the Judge. Certainly, the Priesthood is not the same thing as the Rabbis. No amount of Oral Torah can change that. The Priesthood is hereditary and does not depend on ideology. Being a rabbi is not hereditary and depends on believing in the authority of the Oral Torah. 

II. What is the definition of the word shofet ("judge")? A shofet is not just someone who writes abstract responsa involving the Law; it is someone who has the ability to and actually does implement their decisions in this world. We know this from the text. Firstly, someone who does not obey the Judge is to be executed. That is, the Judge must be able to enforce his ruling on pain of death. Second, the Book of Judges describes many Shoftim of the pre-Monarchy period. All of these people were rulers with real physical power, not scholars devoid of the ability to enforce their decisions. As the JPS translation notes, the word shoftim is better rendered as "chieftains"; "the corresponding verb shaphat is usually rendered not 'judged' but 'ruled' or 'led'."

The Rabbis, in their capacity as Rabbis, do not have such powers. In other words, a rabbi might happen to have these powers, but they do not derive from him being a rabbi. Certainly, none of today's Rabbis have any such powers.

Point d: The Supreme Court must be alive at the time of the trial. This means that if we have a dispute today that we cannot resolve, we must go to someone alive today, not to ancient books. Rashi on this verse says as much:

Even if he is not comparable to the other judges who preceded him, you must obey him --- you have no one but the judge in your day. {Otherwise, "during those days" is redundant --- is it possible to approach a judge from another day? (Rosh Hashanah, 25:b)} (Rashi Yomi)

If the Supreme Court is "interpreted" to mean the Rabbis, it must be today's Rabbis. Yet, they do not have nearly enough power to qualify them as Shoftim, as pointed out above.

If this passage refers to any entity in existence today, that entity is the Government of Israel (or a part thereof), not the Rabbis. The Government of Israel decides legal cases (through its court system) and, for Israelis, it is the court of last resort. The Government of Israel rules from Jerusalem. The Government of Israel has the power to enforce its decisions (again, only on Israelis, not on all Jews). And, finally, the Government of Israel exists today. 

3. One of the ancient Shoftim was Deborah (Judges 4:4), a woman. Yet, Rabbinical law forbids women to become rabbis. (Although, if we assume that the Oral Torah is true, it is theoretically changeable, and it is possible that at the time no prohibition against women rabbis existed. In that case, however, I'd like to know the circumstances under which this law changed. Also, if Deborah was such a great rabbi, why do the Orthodox powers that be of today refuse to allow women to become rabbis?

4. Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis: This is yet another case of circular reasoning:
a. The passage gives certain powers to the Shoftim.
b. The Oral Torah states that Shoftim means Rabbis.
c. Thus, Rabbis have these powers.
d. Rabbis having these powers means that the Oral Torah is true.
First, as already discussed, the passage does not grant the powers claimed by the Rabbis to anyone. Second, the purpose here is to prove the veracity of the Oral Torah. Yet, Ben-Chaim has to assume the Oral Torah in step (b) in order to "prove" it in (d). 

5. There is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law among those who do not dispute this. And there is no dispute that the Earth is flat among those who believe that the Earth is flat.

6. All of this raises another interesting question. Who are the Rabbis? If I get the appropriate degree from Yeshiva University, will I become a rabbi? Smicha has been lost, remember? How then can the rabbis of today claim to have the tradition of the former Rabbis, who did have smicha?
 
Posted by Ami at August 20, 2004 02:36 AM