Duran’s Failure – Unravelling Haggai’s Riddle

Rabbi Gil Student has a list of “proofs “ of the oral law, which were concocted Judah  HaLevi  and    Duran, the Rashbatz. Here is another of Duran's claims:

“19. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity.  He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?...  If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?"  The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah.  How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.] ”

There are 2 questions that Haggai – through prophetic instruction - asks the Priests to test their knowledge.   The Priests give presumably correct answers.  2000 years later, a well known Rabbi who is not well versed in Hebrew or the Bible alleges that from knowledge of the Bible alone, the priests would not have been able to answer these questions, and therefore, he claims, they must have relied on the Oral Law! With my limited knowledge of  Biblical Hebrew, and limited knowledge of the Bible,  I am able to demonstrate that even today somebody can answer these questions without resort to the Oral Law. Indeed, the fact that this is possible, is a disproof of the Oral Law, for which we must thank  Rabbi Duran  for providing!

Question 1 asks if holiness of a holy object, such as sacrificial flesh can be transferred to a neutral item of food, rendering the other item also holy.   The Priests say no.  There are 3 possible cases for answering this question.

1)  That the Torah also says No.

2)  That the Torah says that it can.

3) That the Torah  doesn’t say anything at all on the transfer of Holiness.

If 1), then we do not need the Oral law, since somewhere in the Torah  it is written.

If 2), then the priests were wrong, so their view is disqualified.  However, there is no evidence of 2) , and even Duran says there is no statement like this in the Torah.

If 3), i.e. the Torah doesn’t say it one way or another, then we cannot deduce something that is NOT said in the Torah.  It would be fictional to imagine that Holiness can be transferred to a neutral object, if there is no verse attesting to this.  So we can deduce from the lack of a verse, that there is no concept of transfer of holiness.

That is not the case for the 2^nd question, which deals with the transfer of impurity.  Here, Duran is seriously mistaken in claiming that the transfer of impurity cannot be sourced in the Written Torah. He thus demonstrates his own intellectual and moral failure, and exposes the overall ignorance and dilettantism of the rabbis when it comes to the field of Bible study.

 

We see in the following verses the general case of how impurity of all kinds can be transferred to a person:

Lev 5

ב  אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בְּכָל-דָּבָר טָמֵא, אוֹ בְנִבְלַת חַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת שֶׁרֶץ טָמֵא; וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא טָמֵא וְאָשֵׁם.	2 or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean swarming things, and be guilty, it being hidden from him that he is unclean;
ג  אוֹ כִי יִגַּע, בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם, לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ, אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא בָּהּ; וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם.	3 or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty;

In Numbers we see the specific case of how impurity of the dead can a)  be transferred to a living person.  And b)  this newly infected person can transfer the impurity to anything he touches.

Numbers 19:

11 He that toucheth the dead, even any man's dead body, shall be unclean seven days;

And

22 And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth him shall be unclean until even.

The Written law is all that the priests required to answer Haggai's questions.

So we now have a disproof of the Oral Law, and we must now see the various attempts of the rabbis as actually being further disproof of that which they attempt to prove.

Great Rabbis series – Mendell Lewittes

Mendell Lewittes  was a Modern Orthodox rabbi, who shared a very similar worldview to Emanuel Rackman. 

(see: //tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/great-rabbis-series-prof-emanuel-rackman.html.)

Unlike Rackman, Lewittes did not gain great fame or seek controversy. However, his writings on the history and development of Halacha shows a mastery of rabbinic sources, and an intellectual honesty, where he presents views contrary to that of mainstream ideas. This is in contrast to Ultra-orthodox rabbis who present views in the Talmud that support their claims, but conceal (or are ignorant of) those which reject their views. His book,

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Development-Jewish-Law-Jurisprudence/dp/0819705063/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=1-4 

which is  recommended as a primer to rabbinic law and history,

provides several references to the dangers of rabbinic law. For example he stresses how the Torah  twice forbids adding to the Law.  He also shows how rabbinic laws are at best contrary to the Torah, and proposes the setting up of a modern Sanhedrin to delete laws which are no longer purposeful, e.g.  the observance of 2 days for holidays outside of Israel.  He is also uncomfortable with the alleged logic of the rabbis, noting that the principle of Gezeira Shava is not a logical method of interpretation.

In this book, he also points out that great rabbis of the past, for example R’ Yaakov Emden, doubted the authenticity of the Zohar.

One very important point he raises, is a response to the allegation against the Talmudic rabbis as being politically and financially motivated.   In order to disprove this claim, he cites none other than Akavya ben Mehalalel, who featured in a previous post http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

By citing Akavya, he hopes to dispel the claim that Rabbis were politically motivated.  But what he fails to notice is that Akavya is a single case, who suffered excommunication for maintaining the truth  and refusing the bribe of high position and power when it contradicted his sense of ethics.  Lewittes does not address the overwhelming Talmudic establishment that did business in this fashion, with the carrot of high position and the threat of excommunication, to falsify the historical record.  It is also the case that even Akavya advised his son not to follow in his path, because of the dangers of disagreeing with Talmudic mafia.

Lewittes, like Rackman, was concerned with halacha becoming too rigid and irrelevant.  Both of them saw the oral law as being true, but they wanted it to be dynamic  and not written in stone. Sadly,  neither of them had a significant following that was strong enough to change the tide of ultra-orthodox hegemony.

Duran Duran’s False Dilemma

Rabbi Gil Student brings another alleged “proof “ of the oral law  made by Rabbi Duran, the Rashbatz.

“17.  Similarly, R. Duran points out that Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38].  However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14].  From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted [Rashbatz, ibid.]”

This argument is fallacious for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it uses the fallacy of the false dilemma.  This means, he sets up a question, and then proposes that the only possible answer is from “an oral law”, implying that it can only be the rabbinic oral law. However, Elijah was a prophet and receiving prophecy is quite the opposite of oral law.  In fact, the Rabbis go so far as to suggest that prophecy is not permitted in  deciding religious law, as per the famous fable of the Oven of Akhnai.   So, assuming that there was a prohibition in place, any actions that Elijah took were guided by Prophetic instruction, and not oral law.

Second, even the premise that there was a prohibition is misleading.

Deut 12  states: 13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest;

However, Elijah did not make burnt offerings, as is clear in 1 Kings 18:

23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under; and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on the wood, and put no fire under.

Since he gave explicit instructions to put no fire under the wood, he was not in violation of the law in Deut 12.  It was only God who decided whether to intervene in this event, and God can  send fire at any time and place He so chooses.

Even so, should he claim that there was still some violation of the Biblical law, the rabbis themselves do not actually argue that this decision was based on oral law, but they point to a verse in psalms

 “It is the time to act for Hashem since Your Torah is being uprooted," (Tehillim 119:126) as the basis for this decision.

So the entire polemic of Duran is based on non existent facts.

The last verse quoted – (Itis the time to act for Hashem since Your Torah is being uprooted) is also used by the rabbis to justify the alleged prohibition to write down the “oral law”.  This will be the subject of a future post…

Ami Hertz Disproofs - Implicit proofs (Duran)

From Ami's  Disproofs series:

The purple text is from Rabbi Student,  the response in regular text is from Ami Hertz.

Implicit Proofs 13. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran points out that the Torah tells us that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges. Jethro then told Moses [Ex. 18:20] "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow." What does that mean? If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges. What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

1. Here is the full passage from Exodus 18:

Next day, Moses sat as magistrate among the people, while the people stood about Moses from morning until evening. But when Moses' father-in-law [Jethro] saw how much he had to do for the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing to the people? Why do you act alone, while all the people stand about you from morning until evening?" Moses replied to his father-in-law, "It is because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute, it comes before me, and I decide between one person and another, and I make known the laws and teachings of God." But Moses' father-in-law said to him, "The thing you are doing is not right; you will surely wear yourself out, and these people as well. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now listen to me. I will give you counsel, and God be with you! You represent the people before God: you bring the disputes before God, and enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow. You shall also seek out from among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain. Set these over them as chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens, and let them judge the people at all times. Have them bring every major dispute to you, but let them decide every minor dispute themselves. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the burden with you. If you do this--and God so commands you--you will be able to bear up; and all these people too will go home unwearied."

At the time, Moses was the only judge over the people. He had to work as a judge morning to evening. This was very tiresome, and could not do anything else. Jethro told Moses to appoint judges over the people. That way, Moses would only preside over the major cases; the minor cases would be resolved by the lower judges.
When Student mentions Exodus 18:20, he says that Jethro told Moses to teach the newly appointed judges. But that's not what Jethro said. Jethro was simply stating that Moses was the prophet through whom God was in the process of revealing His Instruction to the people. The verse is not a command and is not directed at the judges -- it is a statement that talks about all the people. Notice that Jethro mentions judges for the first time only in Ex 18:21.
2. Consider a typical math class. All the math is already in the textbook. Very often, the textbooks have much more information than is taught in class. There is no hidden "oral math" that is only passed from teacher to student orally. Yet, most people still need a math teacher to learn. It is possible to learn just by reading a book, and some people do learn that way. But the usual method of learning is by having both a textbook and a teacher.
3. Nehemiah 8 describes how Ezra read the Law of Moses in front of the people:

All the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the Water Gate; and they spoke unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which YHWH had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the broad place that was before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law.

(If memory serves me right, while Ezra was reading, the priests were among the people teaching. Can't find that passage at the moment.)
It is the same principle. If the Law was already in a book, why did the people need Ezra? They could have just read to themselves (those who could read). They needed Ezra because people learn better with a teacher, even if all the material is already written.
4. If the written law is all that was given... At the point of Exodus 18:20, the (Written) Law was not yet given in full. For example, the famous Ten Commandments are only given in Exodus 20 for the first time. Since Moses was in the process of receiving the Law, and it was not yet completely written down, it was totally appropriate for him to instruct all the people in it, including the judges.
Moses says that "I make known the laws and teachings of God". This means that:

• He was an expert in the Law. Other people knew the Law generally, but they were not experts as they had to work at their own jobs. And,
  
• he was in the process of receiving the Law from God. As he was doing so, he made it known, and wrote it down.

Where there’s Gold, there is muck – the Taz and the Rabbis

One great Rabbi known as the Taz – Turei Zahav (named after his book) was a significant Polish authority on Halacha.  Our friend Rabbi Gil Student writes that the Taz wrote a famous maxim that “The Sages are unable to contradict an explicit biblical permission”. See http://hirhurim.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/shofar-on-yom-kippur.html

Now this in itself is a tremendous statement, which effectively renders the entire rabbanite enterprise null and void.   Anything that the Bible does not forbid would seem to be explicitly permitted.   Also, what the Bible does forbid, such as adding and subtracting,  has been explicitly violated by the rabbis.   Although Gil Student claims that this was a famous saying by the Taz it is relatively unknown, presumably because it  is so contrary to rabbinic falsifications of the Law.

There is a saying “where there’s muck , there’s brass” , meaning where some dirt may be found, there may potentially be some profitable opportunity,  e.g. recycling business.  I have reversed the saying, and since the Turei Zahav is actually referring to gold, hence the title of

Where there’s Gold, there is muck. In this case, the muck refers to the various rabbinic commentaries to the statement of the Taz, which  try to minimize its application, with a thousand qualifications.  Incidentally, this is a well used strategy of the rabbis, which is minimize, obscure, and deny any truthful statements found in the torah or even the rabbis, which damage the authority of the Rabbanites.

The basic statement of the Taz, however, is something we can all agree with.

The Kuzari Fraud on Forbidden Fats

Rabbi Gil Student brings one of the Kuzari (and Duran) arguments regarding forbidden fats. His claim is :

“5. Furthermore, when the Torah [Lev. 3:17] says "It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood", what exactly is fat?  Are there different types of animal fat, some which are permitted and some which are forbidden?  How are these fats differentiated? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.] “

Source: http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

Now a complete demolition of this argument has been provided by Ami Hertz here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041011084404/http://www.amhaaretz.com/2004/01/disproofs_5_forbidden_fat_chelev.html

However, I will summarize this argument by citing the relevant verses.

The Kuzari as asking  “what is fat”,  and how is this defined? The torah describes it in clinical detail.

Thus:

Lev 3:

1 And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace-offerings: if he offer of the herd, whether male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before the LORD. 2 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting; and Aaron's sons the priests shall dash the blood against the altar round about. 3 And he shall present of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire unto the LORD: the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 4 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away hard by the kidneys. 5 And Aaron's sons shall make it smoke on the altar upon the burnt-offering, which is upon the wood that is on the fire; it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD. {P}
6 And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD be of the flock, male or female, he shall offer it without blemish. 7 If he bring a lamb for his offering, then shall he present it before the LORD. 8 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and Aaron's sons shall dash the blood thereof against the altar round about. 9 And he shall present of the sacrifice of peace-offerings an offering made by fire unto the LORD: the fat thereof, the fat tail entire, which he shall take away hard by the rump-bone; and the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 10 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys. 11 And the priest shall make it smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD.
12 And if his offering be a goat, then he shall present it before the LORD. 13 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall dash the blood thereof against the altar round about. 14 And he shall present thereof his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD: the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 15 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys. 16 And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a sweet savour; all the fat is the LORD'S. 17 It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood.

Lev 4:

8 And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering he shall take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, 9 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys, 10 as it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar of burnt-offering. 11 But the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, 12 even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire; where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt

26 And all the fat thereof shall he make smoke upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

31 And all the fat thereof shall he take away, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace-offerings; and the priest shall make it smoke upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

Lev 7:

1 And this is the law of the guilt-offering: it is most holy. 2 In the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the guilt-offering: and the blood thereof shall be dashed against the altar round about. 3 And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof: the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards, 4 and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the loins, and the lobe above the liver, which he shall take away by the kidneys. 5 And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar for an offering made by fire unto the LORD; it is a guilt-offering

22 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 23 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. 24 And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it. 25 For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. 26 And ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.

Thus there are comprehensive definitions of where the forbidden fat is, and also how this differs for sheep and other sacrificial animals.

The Kuzari is simply committing a fraud, relying on the ignorance of his readers (or of himself).

Incidentally, we see from Lev 6:3 that the Priests would wear pure linen, as opposed to the rabbinic claim of shaatnez.

"And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar".

Great Rabbis Series – Prof. Emanuel Rackman

It is very rare to find a Rabbi with genuine love for other people, and a willingness to adapt some of the “halacha” rules to modern life. If anyone would fit this description, it was Emanuel Rackman. He was one of the leaders of Modern Orthodoxy, Yeshiva University and later Chancellor of Bar Ilan University.

He also suffered the attacks of the ultra Orthodox, and also the right wing Modern Orthodox. However, his ideas were revolutionary, and although he accepted and practiced the Oral Law, he paid much attention to the Torah Law and its spirit.

One controversy he got into was a solution to the “agunah” problem, where women were unable to get “gets” religious divorces, and were unable to remarry without it ending up in adultery. He provided some solutions which were innovative, but he claimed based on rabbinic sources.

IN my strict orthodox phase, I found his views sometimes a bit extreme, but I later saw the wisdom in his words. His most famous book, “One Man's Judaism” includes some criticism of Karaites and also Kohanim. Regarding the Karaites, he said that they caused themselves virtual extinction by cutting themselves off from the rest of the Jewish world. As a sociological observation, I see nothing wrong with that statement. However, with regard to the Kohanim, he suggests that the laws restricting their contact with the dead might be designed to prevent them taking advantage of the mourners, who are vulnerable to exploitation at that time. This is most ironic, since he also wrote that the Rabbis of the Talmud took the place of the Kohanim. The irony being that what he fears might have been an excess of Kohanim became a signature of the rabbis who did take advantage of everyone and imposed a bunch of new rules and prohibitions.

There is another point which is important to note. Many rabbis in the current scene became religious at a point in life and were even taught by newly religious rabbis who lost all sense of moderation. They became extremists, and haters. Haters of people, of the outside world, and even of more modern and balanced orthodoxy.

Rabbi Rackman's greatest quality was his love for all people, and openess to thought and culture.

a couple of jokes for Shabbat

1) why did the chicken cross the road?
it was running away from kapparot!


2) why was the Oral Law written down?
because it could not be remembered orally.

The Big Lie of Kol Isha

One of the many manufactured restrictions of the rabbis is their prohibition of listening to a woman’s singing.   This has developed into a stricture, and a synopsis is given by the contemporary Rabbi Howard Jachter.

“The Gemara (Berachot 24a) states, “The voice of a woman is Ervah, as the Pasuk [in Shir Hashirim 2:14] states ‘let me hear your voice because your voice is pleasant and appearance attractive.’” Rashi explains that the Pasuk in Shir Hashirim indicates that a woman’s voice is attractive to a man, and is thus prohibited to him. Rav Hai Gaon (cited in the Mordechai, Berachot 80) writes that this restriction applies to a man who is reading Kriat Shema, because a woman’s singing will distract him. The Rosh (Berachot 3:37) disagrees and writes that the Gemara refers to all situations and is not limited to Kriat Shema. The Shulchan Aruch rules that the Kol Isha restriction applies to both Kriat Shema (Orach Chaim 75:3) and other contexts (Even Haezer 21:2). The Rama (O.C. 75:3) and Bait Shmuel (21:4) clarify that this prohibition applies only to a woman’s singing voice and not to her speaking voice.”

http://koltorah.org/ravj/The%20Parameters%20of%20Kol%20Isha.htm

However, these are simply man-made rules and nothing to do with the Torah of Israel. We see this from Nehemiah the Tirshata, who was the religious leader at the time of Ezra.  The book of Nehemiah tells us that there were men and women singers who were connected to the temple and to holy and national service:

Nehemiah 7:

סו כָּל-הַקָּהָל, כְּאֶחָד--אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא, אַלְפַּיִם שְׁלֹשׁ-מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים. 

66 The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,
סז מִלְּבַד עַבְדֵיהֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיהֶם, אֵלֶּה--שִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁבְעָה; וְלָהֶם, מְשֹׁרְרִים וּמְשֹׁרְרוֹת--מָאתַיִם, וְאַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה. 

67 beside their men-servants and their maid-servants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven; and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women.

72 So the priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the Nethinim, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities. And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in their cities

Thus it was permitted and practiced in Biblical times to have women singers.  The fact that this took place in connection with Temple services only further proves the alien nature of rabbinic laws.  It is time now to reject the rabbis and the destruction that they have wrought on Israel and its Biblical religion.

To see this as a relatively harmless matter would be a big mistake. Recently, a Zionist Rabbi,  who runs a Hesder Yeshiva (where rabbinical students also serve in the IDF)  made the vile and sick statement that his students would sooner die (ie commit suicide) than to attend official functions where women soldiers sing! This is the degree of insanity and jihadism that Rabbinism has produced.

Incidentally, there are further instances of women singing in public:

2 Chron 35:
25 And Jeremiah lamented for Josiah; and all the singing men and singing women spoke of Josiah in their lamentations, unto this day; and they made them an ordinance in Israel; and, behold, they are written in the lamentations. 

This was under the auspices of Jeremiah!

The Torah tells us NOT to follow the majority.

One of the first things that is used as a basis for rabbinical authority is that we should always follow the majority. However, the Torah tells us the opposite!

Exodus Chapter 23

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

(This has two separate statements:

1. do not follow a majority to do evil
2. do not tend / sway after the majority in a dispute , to steer /incline (opinions).

The rabbinic derivation of b) is “always sway after the majority”!

In the famous Talmudic story of the Oven of Akhnai, (TB Baba Metzia 59a-b) , the Rabbis pervert the meaning of this verse and say “After the majority must one incline” – precisely the opposite of what the Torah says (do not tend after the majority in a dispute to incline)!!

From here the Rabbis twisted the verse, removed the negative command, and made it a positive command to follow the majority. Well, if every “Do not” turned into a “Do” in the Torah, you have an orgy of violence and idolatry.

The Torah has a very logical basis in its Law – whereas the rabbinic interpretation is fallacious – ie the logical fallacy of following the majority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-popularity-a-fallacy-of-the-majority/

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-popularity-a-fallacy-of-the-majority/

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/appeal-to-popularity-a-fallacy-of-the-majority/

Indeed, Rashi, the most revered of Rabbinic commentators reads this verse according to its plain and simple meaning – ie that one should stand by the truth of a matter and not be swayed by the majority! He inadvertently contradicts the dictum of the sages!

The Ohr HaChaim commentary by Rabbi Chaim Ben Attar – himself an Orthodox Kabbalist rabbi – understands the verse in its most literal sense, ie that one should never give in to numbers, even a Judge should not sway his opinion or be pressured by a majority of other judges!

Not so in the thought of the Talmudic rabbis. In the same story of Akhnai, another misappropriation of a Biblical verse is made by rabbi Joshua, in this Talmudic fable.

Whereas the Torah in Deut 30 says the following:

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

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'

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

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

The rabbis claim simply “it is not in heaven”, ie decision making is on earth and not in heaven. The context of the verses in Deuteronomy 30 are regarding the relative ease of keeping the commandments (which are written in this book of the law;)

Whilst there is some sophistication (or sophistry) to the rabbinic re-reading of the verse, it is not in keeping with the meaning of the verse. Furthermore, the only requirement in the Torah is to keep the written laws, since there is in fact no Oral Law.

The rabbinic claim for “Not in Heaven” is that after the giving of the Torah, there are no further appeals to God , but that judgments are made by a voting system of earthly rabbis.

This is problematic for a number of reasons.

Ex: 28

29 And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually.

30 And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD; and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually.

This is a prescriptive law for resolving issues of judgment for all of Israel, for all time – it is quite a “heavenly” affair, and not one based on any Greek style democratic votes.

2 Chronicles Chapter 19

1 And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. {S} 2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat: 'Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate the LORD? for this thing wrath is upon thee from before the LORD. 3 Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Asheroth out of the land, and hast set thy heart to seek God.' 4 And Jehoshaphat dwelt at Jerusalem; and he went out again among the people from Beer-sheba to the hill-country of Ephraim, and brought them back unto the LORD, the God of their fathers. 5 And he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, 6 and said to the judges: 'Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD; and [He is] with you in giving judgment. 7 Now therefore let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it; for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of bribes.' 8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites and the priests, and of the heads of the fathers' houses of Israel, for the judgment of the LORD, and for controversies. And they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying: 'Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a whole heart. 10 And whensoever any controversy shall come to you from your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, ye shall warn them, that they be not guilty towards the LORD, and so wrath come upon you and upon your brethren; thus shall ye do, and ye shall not be guilty. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king's matters; also the officers of the Levites before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD be with the good.

V.11 shows how the Priest, just like Aaron, would inquire of God for divine (religious/spiritual) matters, and Zebadiah would judge for crown or national/legal matters.

This destroys the rabbinic myths of “majority”; of voting system and Sanhedrin; of “not in heaven”.

The use of Inquiring or seeking of God is used throughout the Torah and Scriptures.

The most vulgar claim in the story of Akhnai is the false prophetic claim "my children have bested Me". The storywriter is alleging that God admits defeat to the wisdom of the majority of the sages. Something unheard of in the Torah. Some prophets would ask mercy of God to annul a harsh decree, but none would arrogate to themselves the power to “out vote” God!

Why then, did Moses get punished when he tapped the rock twice, if he was allowed to upstage God?

And why was Israel not forced to follow the 10 spies who gave a bad report on Israel? Do they not have the power to change Heavenly law?

A rabbinic analysis bringing all the arguments in concise article:

http://www.hartman.org.il/uploads/Holidays/Elu-02062008_0957_45.pdf

http://www.hartman.org.il/uploads/Holidays/Elu-02062008_0957_45.pdf

http://www.hartman.org.il/uploads/Holidays/Elu-02062008_0957_45.pdf

http://www.hartman.org.il/uploads/Holidays/Elu-02062008_0957_45.pdf

Claims for a Sanhedrin

Maimonides teaches in his Mishneh Torah – a summary of the Talmudic Law, that the Sanhedrin was the foundation of the Oral Law.

Delegation to lower judges – Ex 18:

21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

22 And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves; so shall they make it easier for thee and bear the burden with thee.

These were not , and could not have been courts comprising of 3 or more judges, but were individual judges.

Numbers 11:

16 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with thee.

17 And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

If these 70 were to act as a single court or “Sanhedrin”, this would only halve the workload of Moses by. If they act as individual Judges, akin to Moses, then the workload of Moses will be reduced by 70 fold - or that there are now 71 Judges that individually judge cases. Logically, there is little benefit to having a court of 70 elders who judge cases as one court.

This is proven in Exodus 18 , v.22 and 26

26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

If this was a 70 person Sanhedrin, why would they not deal with the hard cases? After all, this is precisely what the “Sanhedrin “ of the Talmud and mIshna was supposed to do! A Sanhedrin that is unable to deal with hard cases is no Sanhedrin at all!

Judges 2:

18 And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for it repented the LORD because of their groaning by reason of them that oppressed them and crushed them.

19 But it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they turned back, and dealt more corruptly than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to worship them; they left nothing undone of their practices, nor of their stubborn way.

These were individual judges, otherwise the death of a single judge in a “Sanhedrin” of 70 would not alter people’s behaviour, as there would still be a majority of them left.

Judges 3:

9 And when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised up a saviour to the children of Israel, who saved them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother.

10 And the spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel; and he went out to war, and the LORD delivered Cushan-rishathaim king of Aram into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Cushan-rishathaim.

Othniel was a single judge, he was not voting in a democratic institution to follow a majority!

Judges 4:

4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she sat under the palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Beth-el in the hill-country of Ephraim; and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment

Again, Deborah was a single Judge, not a Sanhedrin. People came to her for judgement. (Mishpat = Judgement is derived from Shophet = Judge).

Now, if the Torah does nor prescribe a Sanhedrin, whence the establishment in late Second Temple period by the same name?

“The earliest record of a Sanhedrin is by Josephus who wrote of a political Sanhedrin convened by the Romans in 57 B.C.E. Hellenistic sources generally depict the Sanhedrin as a political and judicial council headed by the country’s ruler.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html

As the name suggests, the institution was of Greco-Roman origin, hence Greek: συνέδριον, (synedrion).

At some stage during the conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, it became politically expedient to “create” a religious institution with which to outvote the opposition. If something as important as a Sanhedrin was really mandated in the Torah, why is there no reference to it (the references cited actually disprove the claims for a Sanhedrin) and why is there not a Hebrew name for it?

There are similar claims for the Knesset Hagedolah, or the Men of the Great Assembly, which allegedly had 120 members. This figure is derived from a list of names given in Nehemiah ch.10, which names some 85 signatories of leaders of Israel, to adhere to the Torah law. In addition, it mentions other signatories:

29 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the porters, the singers, the Nethinim, and all they that had separated themselves from the peoples of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, every one that had knowledge and understanding;

These additional people would number in the thousands. Many of them had intermarried and had just recently returned to the fold. So was the Great Assembly made up of thousands of people, including the Nethinim.

Interestingly, Neh. 7 states:

60 All the Nethinim, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. 61 And these were they that went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer; but they could not tell their fathers' houses, nor their seed, whether they were of Israel:

Nehemiah is saying clearly that Patrilineal descent determines someone’s Jewishness, in contradistinction to the matrilineal claim of the rabbis! Was this also a teaching of the Knesset HaGedolah?