The Tao of Karadoxy

To explain the title of this article, I have to explain what I mean by Karadoxy. It is a hybrid word, perhaps even an oxymoron, or perhaps not. It refers to a hybrid form of Karaism and rabbinic Orthodoxy, or at least a way of reconciling the differences in some areas. This paradox, and concurrent solution, I call the “Tao”.

Let me explain this by citing a rabbinic law written by Rabbanism's greatest individual, Maimonides.

In his Laws of Rebels or Mamrim, he writes:

Ch1: Halacha 5

The following rules apply when there are two sages or two courts that have differing opinions in an age when there was no Supreme Sanhedrin or during the time when the Supreme Sanhedrin was still undecided concerning the matter - whether in one age or in two different ages - one rules that an article is pure and one rules that it is impure, one forbids an article's use and one permits it. If one does not know in which direction the law tends, should the matter involve a question of Scriptural Law, follow the more severe opinion. If it involve a question of Rabbinic Law, follow the more lenient opinion.

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181852/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-1.htm

accessed today :)

He speaks of a difference of opinion between sages or courts, outside of the scope of the Sanhedrin. That poses a problem, but we know that the Sanhedrin was not always purely rabbinic, and sometimes it was not existent at all. Suffice to say, there were always times when a dispute existed, whether within the rabbinic structure or with it.

In a case of doubt, the individual is allowed to differentiate between Torah law and Rabbinic law.

As far as torah law goes, he should go with the stricter opinion. However, the dispute might not always be about strictness per se. For example, counting the Omer is a dispute between the 2 sides, which is not about one opinion being harder to keep than the other (except for the fact that counting the rabbinic way is illogical and hence harder to reconcile). It could also be said that keeping in line with the strict interpretation of the Torah is also “stricter”. However, what is very interesting is the second part of this statement, is the question of rabbinic law. If there is a doubt regarding rabbinic law, one is entitled to be lenient , ie to ignore the rabbinic law.

This provides, in fact a double whammy for Karaites. Firstly, there is always doubt as to the status of rabbinic law, since we know that the Prophets and Priests opposed rabbinic law, and adding to the Torah. Second, the very act of adding to the Torah is something to be taken strictly. Since the strict interpretation of this law excludes any extra-scriptural laws, then by choosing to be strict on the Torah law, we can refuse to accept any rabbinic law.

Whilst this won't persuade the rabbis, the logic at least works. They do not recognize the authority of anyone else, but we are not forced to recognize their either.

Maimonides, Shabbat, and the Karaites – a Persuasive Critique

An interesting argument is brought by Maimonides in his Hilchot Shabbat, which he uses as an interesting critique of his Karaite rivals.

The question is concerning the suspension of Shabbat laws in the case of a danger to life or illness.

The Rabbis generally give dispensation to violate the regular shabbat laws to save a life or even to reduce the risk of death. Apparently this was frowned upon by Karaites of the time.

We see in Hilchot Shabbat ch 2:

Halacha 1

The [laws of] the Sabbath are suspended1 in the face of a danger to life,2 as are [the obligations of] the other mitzvot. Therefore, we may perform - according to the directives of a professional physician3 of that locale4 - everything that is necessary for the benefit of a sick person whose life is in danger.

When there is a doubt whether or not the Sabbath laws must be violated on a person's behalf, one should violate the Sabbath laws on his behalf, for the Sabbath laws are suspended even when there is merely a question of danger to a person's life. [The same principles apply] when one physician says the Sabbath laws should be violated on a person's behalf and another physician states that this is not necessary.5

Halacha 2

[The following laws apply when physicians] determine on the Sabbath that a person needs [a treatment to be administered] for eight days. We do not say that we should wait until the evening so that it will not be necessary to violate two Sabbaths on his behalf.6 Instead, the treatment is begun immediately, on the Sabbath, and even one hundred Sabbaths may be violated on his behalf.

As long as a person is dangerously [ill] - or even if there is a question whether or not he is dangerously [ill] - and requires treatment, [the Sabbath] should be violated [on his behalf]. A lamp may be lit on his behalf and extinguished on his behalf.7 [Animals] may be slaughtered on his behalf, [food] baked and cooked on his behalf, and water heated for him, whether to drink or to use for bathing.

The general principle for a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs.8

Halacha 3

When such treatment is administered, it should not be administered by gentiles,9 by children,10 by servants, or by women,11 so that they will not view the Sabbath flippantly.12 Instead, the treatment should be administered by the leaders of Israel13 and the wise.

It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill,14 as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."

This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world. Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden,15 one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."16

Source: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/935201/jewish/Shabbos-Chapter-Two.htm#footnote16a935201

The argument is that saving a life overrides the observance of strict Shabbat rules, and that one is fulfilling a mitzvah in violating the Sabbath by saving a life. His critique of the Karaites is that they did not allow such a dispensation. Whether this is factually correct or not, is a matter of historical research. The implication is that without the “oral law”, we would be unable to determine whether we can override shabbat in such cases. This is an interesting and somewhat persuasive argument. However, through historical and textual research, we can find evidence that would blunt Rambam's claim.

Firstly, throughout the TNK, we see that Israel was engaged in warfare with our brutal enemies. This includes even Moses, who would lead us in war. The siege of Jericho was at least 7 days long. Thus warfare was carried out on Shabbat, whether it is mentioned explicitly or not. This is not something that we need to refer to oral law to verify. Furthermore, the first book of Maccabees shows that the Maccabee priests, who were opposed by the Pharisees, also faced such a dilemma. When they refrained form fighting on shabbat, they were killed, and hence decided to violate the Shabbat in order to defend themselves. The Maccabees were not known to be adherents of oral law. Had they been, then such experimentation would not have been necessary, since they would have already received the tradition.

Thus, what Maimonides states about Shabbat is certainly humane, and can be derived from the texts, without resorting to oral law. It may also be true the historic Karaites were very strict on such matters. But this in itself is not a proof or disproof of oral law vs. TNK only. Rather it shows lack of imagination of some Karaite scholars during a certain period.

Isaiah’s Inferno

There was classically a debate between the Sadducee sect and the Pharisees regarding the existence of Heaven and Hell, and the fate of the body or soul after death.  Apparently (according to Josephus and the Talmud) the Sadducees said that this is our one chance in this world, beyond which we simply  disappear.

Indeed, I have argued that the Torah does not speak of a Hell, in the sense of the Judeo-Christian concept http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/torah-no-reincarnation-no-hell.html .

However, there is some support for the idea of an eternal damnation.  The very last line of Isaiah, Ch. 66 refers to some sort of eternal flame:

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

This is an interesting point and should be viewed by both sides of the debate. This is not a place outside of this world, but inside. In other words, it is referring to Sheol, which is the underworld, where worms and fires abound.  That is where the rotting carcasses of the rebels will remain, according to Isaiah. On the other hand, there is also the possibility of a resurrection of the dead, for the righteous.  This will be the topic of further discussion…

An Appreciation To the Rabbis

Whilst many posts here have been distinctly critical of Talmudic/Rabbinic interpretations of Judaism, the time has come to write an appreciation of the many positive things we can learn from the Rabbis who are guided by Talmudic and Rabbinic texts.

The mainstay of Judaic practice for the last 2 millenia has been rabbinical. Whilst I have disagreements on how they read the Torah and practice certain elements, they deserve respect for building communities, engaging in serious Torah study and meticulous observance of Mitzvoth.

The practice of writing, reading Torah and prayers, of communal work, practice of gemillat chessed (kindness), charity is all to be lauded.

Education, kashrut, Batei Din (courts of Jewish Law), and generally respectful behaviour is also to be appreciated and emulated. In general practicing Orthodox families inculcate strong moral values and speak respectfully to others.

There is also much positive content to rabbinical literature, including even the Kabbalah, which has some interesting ideas and interpretations. Disagreeing with certain views does not mean rejecting all. Interpretations can often be biased and self-serving. Thus the narrative of causes for the 2^nd temple's destruction serve the rabbinic system, whereas my narrative lays the blame at those who opposed the Kohanim.

The Karaite movement was successful in the middle-ages but has since dwindled. The Rabbinic movement has fluctuated, collapsing in the 19^th/20^th centuries and even now only has a minor resurgence. However, most synagogues, especially in Israel and UK are nominally orthodox. The services provided from cradle to grave, are prescribed and regulated by rabbinic teachings, and circumcision if generally followed according to rabbinic prescription, even by non-orthodox communities. Indeed, the comforting of mourners is something that the rabbis do for the entire spectrum of people, regardless of their level of religious observance. Maimonides, the great intellectual giant wrote a responsum on the relationship towards Karaites, who were his main opponents within Judaism of the time. In it he said that Karaites should be spoken to respectfully when seen in public, and not to be attacked (unless like me, they attack the rabbinical ideology) for their beliefs. Also, that wine produced by Karaites is kosher (rabbinically), and that rabbanites should comfort the mourners of the Karaite community.

There is a certain amount of method within rabbinical literature and exegesis. This is also a welcome approach, although at times I have been critical of some of these methods. The sadducee – pharisee debate, and later the karaite – rabbanite polemics fall into a debate which is outside of the talmudic canon. What I mean by that is that the debates amongst the talmudists themselves are somehow all “valid” opinions (in that framework). The rival and opposing views of the 2 groups are not in the same framework, and hence they are generally mutually exclusive. But that isn't always the case. Sometimes commentators such as Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides give the game away, and admit that the Karaites are right. This could be because the 2 named above were closest to Karaites, and had discussions and study with them.

What I would like to see is a return to the mutual respect, and occasional sharp debates that Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides had with the karaites. This year, the Rabbanites will be counting the Omer correctly, because the day after the Shabbat will fall on a sunday! Thus, even inadvertently, it is possible to have agreement on some things.

The Kaddish and the Undercover Karaite

Although I have previously been critical of the rabbinic Kaddish prayer, some interesting details emerge from further analysis.  I should reiterate that it is a rabbinically produced prayer, in Aramaic, which was written some time after the destruction of the 2^nd Temple.

A full text appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaddish

The prayer can only be dated back to c.900 CE, and its first use as a mourner's prayer was in the 13^th century. As such, it has little force even in terms of Rabbinic halacha.

Its contents do not mention the dead, but the living. The word “Kaddish” comes from the opening line - יִתְגַּדַּל וְיִתְקַדַּשׁ שְׁמֵהּ רַבָּא.    This calls to sanctify the great Name of God.  It is rather ironic, since the Name YHWH  has been banned from use by the rabbi, even though it is a commandment for all Israel to call on this Name.

What is even more surprising is the extra section known as the Kaddish D’Rabbanan or Al Yisrael. This extra section is read in the synagogue service after a recital of a Talmudic passage.  However, it does not itself refer to the Talmud, but calls for blessings of al Israel, including the rabbis and their students.  There is a caveat:

“וְעַל כָּל מָאן דְּעָסְקִין בְּאוֹרַיְתָא.”

This refers to those who study “Orayta”, which is the Aramaic word for Torah (written). This is agreeable, since it does not actually ask for blessings for people who study Talmud.  We must encourage the rabbis and their students to study only the Written Torah.  So perhaps the composer of this prayer was an undercover Karaite, after all.

Unknown to Moses

  

From the Torah’s own narrative, we can derive certain facts about the scope of Torah Law, and who were the true successors to Moses.  Of course, any Tom, Dick, or Harry can claim to be the heir to Moses’ Torah, and also to have in possession some books or laws unknown to Moses himself.

We see in Deut 31 some very precise statements regarding the scope of the Torah law, and its rightful guardians:

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.'

V.9 Is a clear and pure disproof of any claims to additional legal works, be they the Mishnah, the New Testament, or the Koran.  Moses wrote this Torah in question.  If there was a dual or parallel part of the Torah, the oral law, as claimed by the rabbis, why is not mentioned here? And why is it not mentioned that he handed it to certain successors in oral form?   Furthermore, we see that the Law was entrusted to the Kohanim and the Levites.  This is quite an embarrassment for the Rabbis, since they opposed both the Kohanim and the Levites, who upheld the Written Law. 
See http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/destruction-of-levites-rationale-of.html

V.11-12 teach us the Hakhel gathering, every 7 years, when the whole written Torah is read.   The people will learn from this to fear God and also to keep the Torah.  It specifically states “and observe to do all the words of this law”.    In other words, the purpose of the Hakhel is to bring people to observe the Written law, as it is written, not anything other than this. The oral law is contradictory to the written law.   When I raised this point to an Orthodox rabbi he claimed this is only to get people to fear God.  This is necessary, but not sufficient, since the  Torah says it is specifically to observe the written law.

We see further on, again, that the Torah was completed in writing:

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,

25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying

26 'Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Again, no additional law could exist or be separate from this law.  The witness function of the Torah will reject something that is not Torah – and the oral law is outside of the Torah.

As already said, anyone can claim that Moses also gave another law to another group of people, but this is fictional, and precluded by these verses.   The oral law was unknown to Moses.  The rabbis themselves hint at this, in one of their fantasy stories about  rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b), who allegedly was foreseen by Moses, teaching things that Moses did not know.  This single aspect of the myth is in accordance with my analysis above – namely that the oral law was unknown to Moses.

The Science of Talmud – What's at Stake?

 

Within the orthodox rabbinic world, there is an ongoing debate around the statements made in the Talmudic literature about science. Many of the Talmudic statements are outdated and/or false, and reflect ideas that were floating around millennia ago.

The modern Orthodox tend to view these statements as plain wrong, and argue that the Talmud is only there for Torah matters, not scientific. The Ultra-Orthodox are fundamentalists, and claim that every statement in the Talmud is true, and hence the science of today must be wrong if it contradicts the talmud.

One such claim appears in the Talmud and the Mishnah, and is about spontaneous generation, of lice, mice, and salamanders. A very modernist thinker, Rabbi Slifkin, has written extensively on these matters, and suffered the wrath of his Hareidi brethren.

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/dongchong.html

Theories of spontaneous generation have long been dismissed and disproven by scientists. See for example http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27

So why are the hareidi rabbis taking an atavistic step back and making this into a new fundamentalism?

I would suggest several reasons.

1) Science is a threat to talmudism, since the acquisition of scientific knowledge can do away with reliance on rabbis, and hence they will lose adherents and income.

2) There is an internal political interest here as well. Despite earlier generations of rabbis such as Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, who were not fundamentalist on scientific claims of the Talmud, the ultra-orthodox of today wish to insulate themselves from both the outside world, and from the modern orthodox. Part of this is simple rivalry. If modern orthodox is “correct”, then big earning concepts such as Glatt Kosher (where food can be twice the price or more of regular kosher food) can also be questioned.

3) From a Karaite point of view, and this maybe of fundamental importance to the rabbis – if part of the Mishnah (and Talmud) is proven to be false, then their claim that the whole oral law was “divine” will collapse. Thus they have to retort to obscurantism and fallacious arguments, in order to avoid reaching such a conclusion.

The fact is that many or all of the pseudo-scientific statements made by the Talmudic rabbis had their origins in the theories of their contemporary neighbours, whether Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Hindu etc. Admitting this will not help their claims for their oral testament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rav Shimon Ben Yochai taught:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mishna's [In]Authenticity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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