Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

Dear SL,

""You are somehow implying that the Rabbis were doing us a favor by obscuring the lines between the Torah and their oral law. ""

Actually, no. I am not rendering any value judgment on their actions. All I am doing is pointing out that there is sound reasoning behind some of the typical rationales used to justify the existance of oral torah.

""Also excluded is the fact that many of these additions began long before Rome (or Greece) were of any consequence on in the Ancient Middle East. ""

The earliest historical record we have of the title "Rabbi" and of a Pharisee-Sadducee divide dates to the Hasmonean period, which was post-Alexander the Great. Laws, both oral and written, were introduced at various periods throughout Jewish antiquity, see e.g., Kings2 22: "And behold I have 'found' the book of the law in the house of the lord"

""We also have the story (told by Rabbinists) of a 'famous' Tana being secreted out of the city in a coffin, meeting with Alexander the Great, and securing a haven for his followers.""

I am unfamiliar with the details of this supposed Alexander the Great meeting, but I believe you have either confused ALexander for Emperor Nero or are refering to a story that I am unfamiliar with. The same structure of story was told about R. Yohanan ben Zakai, who was smuggled out of Jerusalem in a coffin, comes before the Roman general and greats him by saying "praise be to Caeser." The General is taken aback until a messenger suddenly arrives to tell him that he was called back to Rome to be emperor. At that point, the General (who in an historical inaccuracy is described as Nero) offers the Rabbi any wish. Rather than ask for Jerusalem to be saved, the Rabbi asks, "Give me Yavenh and her sages." The propriety of that action is obviously subject to much debate, but considering the state that Jerusalem was in WITHOUT regard to the Romans, I can understand why the Rabbi would have cut his losses, and retreated to Yavneh. But in any event, the story as told cannot be true and is replete with historical innaccuracies. Likely, this was an aggadic text meant to convey a moral, and not an historical example of a rabbi saving his own ass.

Interestingly, that EXACT story is told by Josephus, in explaining how he first met Vespasian. However, in Josephus' version, it was he that predicted the ascension of VEspasian to emperor. The Alexander story would be yet a third variant. Do you know where it is located?

"""The Pharisees were not the noble, benevolent savoiurs of Judaism or Israel. """

I believe the role of the Pharisees evolved throughout Jewish history. Furthermore, it is error to assume that all Pharisees were on the same page. I don't believe its prudent or event possible to render a blanket judgment on a political movement that evolves over time. For example, can you compare the Repbulicanism of George Bush to Abraham Lincoln, who were separated by only 150 years? How about the communism of Marx, Engle, Lenin, to Stalin? The Pharisees were around for approximately 500 years at the time of the Mishnah- but it would be error to paint the entire history of the movement with the same brush. Furthermore, in all likelyhood, it was probably the priestly elite among the Sadducees who caused sectation, as originally, the Pharisees were a populist movement, responding to the marginalization of the masses by the elite. But as we see from IRan, a populist religious movement can begin one way, and end with unwanted results.

-Steven

Steven,

With all due respect. My question was rhetorical, and I cited Biblical references to Jewish proselytising.

You are somehow implying that the Rabbis were doing us a favor by obscuring the lines between the Torah and their oral law. Also excluded is the fact that many of these additions began long before Rome (or Greece) were of any consequence on in the Ancient Middle East.

You seem to forget Josephus' account which includes the Pharisees as among those who helped the Romans enter Jerusalem and sack the Temple.

We also have the story (told by Rabbinists) of a 'famous' Tana being secreted out of the city in a coffin, meeting with Alexander the Great, and securing a haven for his followers. The legend has it that Alexander was impressed with the Sage's wisdom. I think it was payback for showing the Romans how to breach the walls. It is also interesting that a Rabbi would abandon his flock in times of trouble to save his own ass.

The Pharisees were not the noble, benevolent savoiurs of Judaism or Israel. They collaborated with our enemies, involved themselves in political intrigue, and created a caste system, thus further dividing the nation.

SL

While not advocating a position on the ultimate debate (yet), I wanted to respond to this comment:

The rabbinists claim that the Oral law is necessary so that non-Jews would not have easy access to the Torah, and either mimic it, or decide to impugn it through refutation. The intent of having an Written Law and an Unwritten code of elucidation is claimed to be a barrier against outside influence and corruption, since only WE would have access to it’s real meaning.
This sort of rationalization, though at first seems reasonable, contradicts the Torah itself which states Isaiah 42:6 “ a people contracted to be a light unto the nations.” How can we be a ‘light’ if we shroud our Torah in obscurities? If we create a secret rabbinical decoder ring that only we have access to?""

There is an easy answer to this. You must recall that the Mishnah was compiled during the Roman period. The Roman period was marked by numerous violent revolts by Jews, in both Judea and the Diaspora. Typically, these Jewish revolts were met with a harsh crackdown on Jewish religious practice.

Even though I believe the Rabbinists are totally wrong in their beliefs about Oral Torah, (I am working on the COMPLETE comment on that), the rational for God to conceal it exists within the early mindset of the Rabbis. For example, certain actions are considered by the Rabbis to be “Yaharog v’al yavor”-“Die before committing it.” With knowledge of the Oral Torah, a Jew could perform certain acts to save his life, e.g., eat pork, to fool the authorities into thinking they had abandoned Judaism. If the authorities were versed in Oral Law, they would be able to recognize these types of ruses. In fact, Agadah tells that Elisha ben Abuya aka Aher in fact helped the Romans in this fashion, by revealing that Jews were jointly carrying objects on the Sabbath, thereby avoiding the direct biblical prohibition against carrying on the Sabbath as it pertains to an INDIVIDUAL. Previously, the Romans observed the Jews carrying and did not distinguish between the forbidden act of singular carrying vs. the permissible aspect of group carrying. It is not hard to see how an Oral Torah is advantageous in this situation, and therefore, there is validity to that Rabbinic argument.

Also, your comment implying that Jews were not being a proselytizing religion overlooks the historical record. In fact, Jews were a major proselytizing religion, for e.g., the Edomites who Jonathan Hyrcanus forcibly converted. Also, there is much evidence to suggest that Jews were proselytizing in the Diaspora as well. The terms of surrender after the Cyranaica revolt was that Jews could no longer proselytize, and could only circumcise natural born Jews. I suspect that what we would term early Christian groups were responsible for this missionary activity. The Rabbinic ban on proselytization, a rather late development, was either a result of opposition to the philosophy of the proselytizing group (not dissimilar to how an orthodox Jew might view Madonna’s Kabalaism), or perhaps due to outside political pressure. Considering the widespread effect of the Jewish revolts, its no surprise that Romans may not have wanted more Jews popping up. In this respect, the Rabbis also have a point. Virtually any imbecile can pick up a book like the Torah, read it, and come certain conclusions. However, the existence of an esoteric Oral Law that is transmitted personally teacher to student, ensures that only a select class remains in the know and not those who converted to follow some fad (as Judaism was during the 200's.)

I hope this sheds some light…. I look forward to posting my entire discourse on the purpose and origin of oral Torah. You may be surprised to learn, both sides are right.

Deut.30:10 states that all the commandments and laws were RECORDED in the Torah.

Moses must have received the law orally,Then he wrote it down. The Oral Torah is nothing more than a fetish. Ez.44:9-16 makes a clear statement to this in my opinion.

Ok. I have some 30 years experience in the ultra-orthodox world, heard all the various opinions, and remain skeptical.
(understatement)

We discussed before the notion that the Avos fulfilled the Torah before it was given, which I demonstrated as patent nonsense. That assertion, to the rabbinist, must also include the Oral Law, since the two are allegedly inseparable! In fact, they jump through a great number of hoops to justify their position. So they MUST assume that the Oral Law was around even before the Torah was given on Sinai, and therefore the wacky explanations. The rabbinists just dig themselves a deeper hole to climb out of, and thus have to create wilder and more specious justifications for upending the Torah’s authority.

(At the same time, however, when all other excuses fall short, the rabbinist will still fall back on the “it was before Matan Torah” reasoning. They try to have both arguments available to them.)

At the same time, they claim that God dictated the Torah to Moshe. Yet, within that, Torah provided NO clue as to what the true intent (re: Oral Law) of what Torah was supposed to be. Now the question must be asked: If the Torah was meant as a mnemonic device, then why keep it’s intent hidden? It would have been very easy to include a verse that said, “Keep these words so that you may remember the deeper meaning.” The answer is one you’ve already heard, but I will repeat it here to make the point.

The rabbinists claim that the Oral law is necessary so that non-Jews would not have easy access to the Torah, and either mimic it, or decide to impugn it through refutation. The intent of having an Written Law and an Unwritten code of elucidation is claimed to be a barrier against outside influence and corruption, since only WE would have access to it’s real meaning.

This sort of rationalization, though at first seems reasonable, contradicts the Torah itself which states Isaiah 42:6 “ a people contracted to be a light unto the nations.” How can we be a ‘light’ if we shroud our Torah in obscurities? If we create a secret rabbinical decoder ring that only we have access to?

Now where did the rabbinists get this ‘protectionist’ outlook on Torah? Surely, many non-Jews followed Abraham (Eliezer for example), and it is claimed that 1000s left Egypt with the Israelites. So it seems clear from the Torah that Judaism was, even at its onset, quite open about accepting newcomers into its ranks. Even King Solomon made this his foreign relations policy (1st Kings 8:41) So what changed? Why did the rabbinist feel the need to hide that which Solomon (allegedly the wisest of all men) was preparing to showcase?

Historically, the rabbinist movement began during the Persian Exile, and the Jewish leaders returning to Israel from Persia had been strongly influenced by Zoroastrian ideas. Among those ideas were eugenics, reincarnation, mysticism, messianism, resurrection, and afterlife. In order for the returning Persian-trained Jewish elite (Ezra & Nechemia) to spread these new ideas among the people, they had to create a new set of rules, and be able to integrate those new ideas with the old ways. They knew that a direct assault on the Torah wouldn’t be successful, so they found a better way. The great centers of Jewish learning, even after the rebuilding of the Temple were in Sura and Pumpeditha, within the borders of Persia.

This ‘oral law’ is just a cover for co-opting the Zoroastrian ideals into Judaism, and the ‘protectionist’ rhetoric of the rabbinists is more smoke and mirrors to hide the real issue.

It is interesting that so many fundamental principles of Judaism have to be ‘derived’ rather than being plainly spoken. The notion that ‘it says this, but means something else’ seems deceptive on its face, and must make gentiles wonder if they ever hear the truth about anything in relation to Judaism.

SL

SL - you are quite smart for an apikores!

This is an obvious flaw of the new religions which came about after the Torah: they each thought that they had the receive wisdom to "upgrade" G-d's laws; be they the Talmudists; the Christians, or the Muslims. And they also use the threat of "heresy" to bring people in line!

And byt the way, if they all make the same claim, and threaten dissenters with eternal damnation (even Rambam says that those who deny the Oral law have no place in Olam Haba), then how does the objective person differentiate?

I think the Torah has its own internal system - do not add or subtract!!!

" The Torah is obviously incomplete"??? What?? Last I heard the both HaShem and His Word were perfect. Or am I wrong?

AND....

If we say now that the Torah is imperfect, we will have to determine in what way it is imperfect. Are we saying that the Torah needed improvements?

Wouldn't an entity, endowed with both the ability and wherewithal to communicate with His Creation simply say what He means and mean what He says? If God says something, then who can possibly add to it, or take from it?

SL

Shlomo,

Keep on writing.

FrumDad,

Thank you for your comments.

Let's look at the outline of Ben-Chaim's argument:

a. A non-heretical Jew is one who follows the Oral Torah.
b. All non-heretical Jews follow the Oral Torah.
c. All Jews follow the Oral Torah.
d. All Jews following the Oral Torah is evidence of its validity.

We should realize that here, (a) is an *assumption*. There is nothing wrong with this, except, as you say, it is begging the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Orthodox Jews are (or should be) trying to *prove* (a). If, instead, you simply *assume* it, then just say so! One can say, "There is no proof for the Oral Torah, but I believe it." I would have no problem with this.

This is not what the Rabbis do though. They pretend that there is proof. What is the purpose of presenting proofs if they really know that there is no proof?

(b) is the same thing as (or follows directly from) (a). (c) is a simplification of (b). Fine. The simplification is a bit misleading since only about 10% of all Jews are Orthodox. But OK, let's go with it. But even IF (c) was true, (d) does not follow. We know that it is possible for all / most people in a group to do what is wrong. Heck, the largest religion in the world, with 2 Billion adherents, is Christianity; yet we both agree that it is wrong.

To summarize, there are 2 major flaws in the chain. One is that (a) is assumed, not proven. Two is that (d) does not follow.

The four steps outlined above can be used to prove anything. For example:

a. A non-heretical Jew is one who wears a pink hat.
b. All non-heretical Jews wear pink hats.
c. All Jews wear pink hats.
d. All Jews wearing pink hats is evidence of the validity of this practice.

Should we start wearing pink hats?

***But "non-heretical Jew" depends on the definition of "heretical," which *validly* looks to the authority of Torah leaders.***

1. Right. Except that you only look to the authority of *Orthodox* Torah leaders. And, as a result, you get an *Orthodox* definition of "non-heretical Jew".

2. In their determination of who is a "non-heretical Jew" these Torah leaders presumably are following some logic. What is that logic? I know I am not a Torah leader, but perhaps I can understand it too?

3. A much bigger question is this: Orthodox or not, who gets designated as a Torah leader? In my opinion, the *person* making the statements should not matter (or should not matter that much). It is the *statements* that should be evaluated. If a statement is in agreement with the Torah, then it is in agreement with the Torah; and if it's not, then it's not.

This is a topic for other essays, but as you know, the Torah never mentions an Oral Torah, does not imply it, and actually says that all of the Instruction was written down. So then, here we are.

***The essence of a group, it can be argued, is at least in part its ability to self-define.***

Good point.

***Written Torah as obviously incomplete***

I have written a bit about this.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/cat_disproofs.html

***Tefillin being the example I remember offhand***
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/03/tefillin.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/tefillin.html

***"as I have commanded you"***

You will have to give me an actual verse here. But see
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/disproofs_4_shechita_as_i_have_instructed_you.html

FrumDad,

Thoughtful article. Thanks.

The issue of logical fallacy may be indeed a moot one, but since it is these very sort of logic games played by both sides, then they require our attention. The predicate/subject point is a good one. Well said.

So now we are left to define who is a heretic, who is the authority, and how they came to be so. So, who is the Scotsman here? And to what authority must he answer?

It is certainly valid, as you point out, that groups decide for themselves who is among them, and by what authority they determine it to be so. If said group operated in a vacuum, exerting no influence or effect upon others of differing viewpoints, or if said group did not claim Divine authority, I’d be ignoring this issue altogether. However, once a group crosses over into dictating to others (who also claim to be Scotsman) what is and is not, the situation changes. It becomes necessary to drop the logic and begin searching for facts, be they Scriptural or historical, to substantiate the claim.

There are any number of well written articles on this weblog that answer some of those questions directly. Ami, Eddie, and others present a comprehensive and thoughtful assessment of Rabbinic authority and the Oral Law. Ami has included a number of articles dedicated to Tefillin, which you mention specifically.

I may have to abjure from this debate as I am not merely a non-rabbinic, but an Apikores, and some of my friends here object to the implications, if not the sharp tone, of my ideas. Those notions are adapted from Spinoza’s Critique of Orthodoxy and the writings of Feuerbach. I generally speak from passion, and apologize for offending anyone.

SL

I realize that in some sense this begs the question, but part of the No True Scotsman problem is that in NTS there's nothing in the predicate that is inherently contradictory to the subject definition. From Wikipedia: "'no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak' is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of 'vegetarian'"

But "non-heretical Jew" depends on the definition of "heretical," which *validly* looks to the authority of Torah leaders. The essence of a group, it can be argued, is at least in part its ability to self-define.

So, since it's heresy to buck against the Torah authorities, a non-heretical Jew accepts the Torah authorities, so a non-heretical Jew accepts the Oral Law as Sianitic. (is that a word?)

The after-thought of adding "non-heretical" is not problematic in this case because it was (fairly I think) implied in the original sentence. In the context of the world today, I don't think anyone makes a claim that everyone born a Jew necessarily accepts the Oral Law as Sianitic (assuming that's a word), but that every non-heretical Jew does so.

If your point is, though (as it well may be) that we (the non-heretical) need to step back from the assumption of what constitutes heresy, then that's a different argument, worth pursuing at an intellectual level. Dangerous, but worth pursuing.

Side query: I haven't thought it through thoroughly (alas! a little aliteration), but have always been impressed by the argument that looks to the Written Torah as obviously incomplete -- Tefillin being the example I remember offhand -- and so implying an Oral Law to fill it out. This ties in with "as I have commanded you" phrases in the Written Torah that don't seem to have counterparts elsewhere.

Ami,

It's called the "Tevye" syndrome (ala Fiddler on the Roof.)

SL

The argument of "tradition" is also very powerful and even insidious. Many *liberal* Jews appeal to tradition, saying: We do not know whether Torah contains God's truths; or even, Torah was written by fallible humans like you and I. *But*, because this is what Jews have done for generations, we shall continue doing it.

No question is made of whether this traditional practice is right or wrong. This flips everything that is good and right on its head. Judaism says, do this because it is the right thing to do. Now, the "tradition" argument says, do this because it has "always" been done.

Heck, where I come from (USSR), the "tradition" has been to eat pork chops, work on Saturdays, knock on wood, and a whole slew of other practices. We know that it is possible for the tradition to be wrong. The Tanakh describes times when traditional practice *was* wrong. Judaism is about right and wrong, *not* about what has "always" been done.

By the way, how is it that all Jews came to follow these traditions? Was it not because Jews, both in the Christian and Muslim worlds, were forced to live in the ghetto? The traditions were *forced* on the Jews. How do we know this? Immediately after Emancipation, immediately after Jews were given some choices, there was a strong reaction *against* the traditions in the form of the Reform movement.

The "tradition" argument *is* very powerful emotionally. People want to belong. To belong, one has to do what others do. That is why you say, "this is what we do". But, though it may be powerful emotionally, it is not necessarily right. Is the point to belong, or is the point to do what is right? If I wanted to belong, why choose Jews at all?

Usually, I'm the last person to interrupt a good ol' fashioned epistemontologial hoohaw, but -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- aren't my learned colleagues /missing the point/: which is how to live Jewishly?

Seems to me that at our end of history, attempts to prove or disprove the Oral Tradition's validity ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jews (yes, even "Reformim") base their normative guidelines thereon every time we pray the Amidah, light Shabbos/Shabbat candles, celebrate a Pesach or Tu B'Shevat seder, etc.

In other words: whether or not the Oral Law is "valid" isn't as important a question as whether or not it's /what we do/.

But maybe it's just me.

rebnachum

Ami

I don't agree that the numbers argument is a soud scientific argument, but it is a powerful psychological one.

Today, orthodoxy maybe 10 % or so, but historically it has been much greater, and probably majority.
And, in the next couple of generations, i believe it will become the dominant force - due to demographics.

If you argue from the Tenach Only side, then you will agree that you are closer to orthodoxy than any other Jewish denomination. Ie conservative, reform, reconstr. etc. deny the Written Torah as being divine.

Ultimately, we simply "learn" differently from the Orthodox - the sadducees still played a part in Temple and sanhedrin together with the Pharisees.

In the time of Elijah, there were only 7000 men who did not bend the knee to Baal!! The christinas and Mohamedans used the numbers argument as proof that they were triumphant against the Jews. those who are intellectually or psychologially weak, will succumb to such arguments!!

I am going to research some rabbinic arguments in favour of the oral Law, and will hopefully post them, to liven up the discussion.

cheers

eddie

Eddie,

The demographics argument, while it may sound good at first, is also no good. I wanted to write a separate article on it, but since you mention it.

First, it is an appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy. Second, "do not follow the majority to do evil". Third, we know from the Nakh that there were times when the majority *did* do evil things. Would we be right to follow the same argument then?

Finally, the argument does not even apply! This is a very important point that I think a lot of people forget. What percent of Jews are Orthodox? IIRC, about 10%. The only way that 10% becomes a "majority" is if they start arguing "no true Scotsman".

"There is no textual evidence for the Oral Torah, but] Textual evidence is not the only valid evidence."

I think this line is a tacit admission of failure.
Why, for example, does the text have such detailed rules for building the mishkan; a detaield log of Israel's travels in the desert. But no mention of the Oral law? If the Oral law is indispensable, why no mention of it?

The skeptic will demand strong evidence, which is convincing - to him, not only to the "converted".

The final, bottom line argument that the rabbis will use, and that is effective, is that of demographics - that the Rabbanites are a large, if ntothe largest religious denomination. But as we have said before, it isnt a Philosophical argument, it is sociological pressure.