Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

Ami,

See SL's post before mine, where he said: "The religious mind thinks in quantity rather than quality, and at times, I'm not even sure they are able to differentiate the two.", for the context on the word "religious".

I think that's the BCV in mention, but my point was that Torah tells us *not* to be sucking up to everyone just to win more numbers, and that those who do so and yet call themselves religous leaders are hypocrits.

Shlomo,

Thank you for your very kind words.

Shana tova. (Though it's not really a new year and I don't know anything about being inscribed and sealed. :)) )

Ami,

I would suggest to you that a person who persists in a failed argument might still qualify as idiot, though he may remain a persistent and faithful one. The surest sign of stupidity or insanity is repeating the same behaviours/arguments and expecting different results.

Arguing from a place of deliberate ignorance is no excuse. As I've shown before, there were many occasions that Orthodox educators made statements concerning science, philosphy, history,and psychology that are wholly inaccurate, and cover themselves by crying 'conspiracy'on the part of anti-semitic historians. I have no doubt that history is skewed by it's authors somewhat, but to claim that each and every historian is an anti-Semite is kind of ridiculous. They know not of what they speak, and that is sad.

There is a story circulated among the Orthodox that either Plato or Aristotle converted to Judaism on their death-beds. The story, though a short one, was repeated to me each and everytime I was caught secretly reading philosophy in my bedroom. (I think my parents would have been relieved had they found pornography!) I checked it out. No documentation, historical footnote, or passing commentary by any historian or contemporary of either man. So how do they make this claim?

Maybe you just had to be there to know, Ami. Imagine your own frustration, growing up being told lies by the very people you were trained to revere, and then discovering the lies, confronting the liars, and then being punished for it! Imagine being tainted and socially outcast simply because you chose to think for yourself! (I didn't realize the reputation I had earned for this behaviour until long after the fact, or how it effected my ability to marry or gain employment. Parents and teachers get together in secret and plan things for you without your knowledge based on that reputation.)

The argument is not for me to make. The burden still rests on the Orthodox to make their case, and both in this blog and in my own life, the Orthodox have had ample opportunity to do so. I grew up in their ranks, and have not only heard each and every excuse, but have myself espoused such beliefs in trying to convince others (and myself) of their validity.

The task left for us is to discern what is, and equally important, what is NOT authentic Judaism. We don't need them for that. Personally, I have to decide if Judaism has any relevance at all, no matter what it turns out to be. In this, there is no room for sophistry, emotional pleas, or historic revisionism. Just tell it like it is.

Your blog is great place, Ami. I'm happy to be among other Am Ha'aretz. Shana Tova, Yom Teruah, etc. May you find real blessing in your endeavors.

SL

We know the orthodox are lying to us. I realized the untruths as a child. At this point it's not even a question worthy of debate. To their credit, they are not being deliberately deceitful, but are holding true to what they believe is accurate, based upon what they are taught.

I remember another time in cheder our rebbe (teacher) was telling us the story of Chanukah, and the military and spiritual victory of Judaism over Hellenism. Being the curious one I asked "What is Hellenism?" After all that was a big word for a 7 year old, and required, at least in my understanding, a bit more elaboration. His answer was "Hellenism is the opposite of Judaism!"

I had to take the rebbe's words at their face value, and imagined Hellenism to be everything evil that Judaism stood againt in body and spirit. I left cheder that day filled with awe and amazement that such a meek and humble people could throw off the yoke of such vicious and evil tyranny.

I did not realize until several years later(thanks to a philosophy encyclopaedia I kept hidden under my bed) that my rebbe, his rebbe, and perhaps none of the rebbes knew or know what Hellenism is. They probably also don't realize how much "hellenism" they do in the form of mitzvos or their world outlook.

They most likely aren't aware that Hellenism was really clashing with Zoroastrianism (the Greeks and Perisans were at war), but BOTH were still at odds with real Judaism, whose followers made up the vast majority of the local populace. It was only the politicians, generals, the wealthy, and some of the priests, eager to find favor with their new masters that made changes to the religion. The Am Ha'aretz never gave in to their conquerors.

Shlomo,

I definitely see your point. But.

1. What Orthodoxy will do I do not know. But individual Orthodox might take it seriously.

2. Success and truth. You touch on a very important point. What is truth and how can we know it?

In the end, there will always be people with completely different opinions. That you say that their opinions are illogical is irrelevant. They still have them no matter what you do. Besides, they are not idiots, and they have their arguments as well (whether valid or not). And who knows, there might be someone with another opinion, and with arguments better than yours, but you have never heard of them.

We *believe* that truth was revealed on Mt. Sinai. But aside from belief, the only way to measure the truth of something is through its (evolutionary) success. Right? The more closely something is in tune with nature, the more likely it will survive. So long survival is evidence of truth.

The problem, and this is where many people make a mistake, is that evolutionary success does not have to equal huge population. There can be a very stable population that is small. If we are a nation of priests, I don't think we are supposed to be a majority. Yet, we, as a people, are immortal.

Josiah,

Context? Both on the use of the word "religious" and on the quote:

Exodus 23
1 You must not carry false rumors; you shall not join hands with the guilty to act as a malicious witness: 2 You shall neither side with the mighty to do wrong--you shall not give perverse testimony in a dispute so as to pervert it in favor of the mighty--3 nor shall you show deference to a poor man in his dispute.

SL,

I would object to your stereotyping all of us "religous" folk as thinking only in quantity, rather than quality. While some of us have, it is contrary to torah as it says (recalling from memory) "do not turn follow the multitude to do that which is wrong."

I don't believe Orthodoxy will take our critique seriously anyhow, therefore I can't see some small sarcasm changing their attitude in any way.

In their minds we are just another fringe group of whiners, scoffers, and misfits who, like the other dissenters before us, will eventually be among those forgotten to history. I doubt they will even try to save our souls at this point.

"You think the Sadducees or the Karaites were right? Where are they now? You think Spinoza or Mendelssohn were right? Where are they now?"
The religious mind thinks in quantity rather than quality, and at times, I'm not even sure they are able to differentiate the two.

The fact that a people/culture survive with their ideals in tow is certainly Providential, but to what end? History has witnessed the rise and fall of many civilizations, all claiming truth and God, and many many of those have been casually brushed off into posterity. The presense of large numbers indicates success, but success does not always translate into truth.

SL

Eddie,

The New Year began months ago :P

Have a Good Yom Teruah though :)

http://www.karaite-korner.org/yom_teruah.shtml

Josiah,

Perhaps you fail to see the analogy :

Any later group can claim that they have the Truth, or the valid tradition / revelation / explanation - and they do!

The fact that the rabbis beleived they were right isnt proof that they were right. Every religion believes they are right, and have the truth. That is precisely what the christians say, that their early disciples died for their beliefs, so who are we to argue with them?

As for insults, it is not a personal attack, it is shwoing a fallacy in his argumentation. if you read his many articles on his own website, you will see that he is all for rational discussion and does not shy away from breaking down false argumentation.

Happy new year!!

Eddie,

While I find the humor amusing, it doesn't do anything to further the discussion. It, in fact, does the opposite - it insults Rabbi Chaim, who has shown courteousy here.

LOL

Eddie,

It sounds like you've been trying to seduce an orthodox girl!

While you may be correct re: premarital sex from the few rabbis you quoted, the general concensus is that it remains forbidden, even thought the Torah permits it, not only for a King, but for anyone.

The point is moot in the case of David anyhow.

SL

Eddie's comments do not bear any weight. For he attempts to use the Written Law as proof that there is no New Testament. Besides the fact that the original Disciples and Apostles, along wiht Jesus himself were convinced of the New Testament based on transmission, the lack of mention of a New Testament does not proves its non-existence. It only tells you that it is not recorded in the quoted source.

Eddie's comments do not bear any weight. For he attempts to use the Written Law as proof that there is no Koranic law. Besides the fact that the original Prophet (Mohamed) and Islamic sages, along wiht the Imams were convinced of the Koran Law based on transmission, the lack of mention of an koran does not proves its non-existence. It only tells you that it is not recorded in the quoted source.

SL

I am not an expert on the story of David. But, the rabbinical justifications are pretty weak, and illogical. He was exiled becasue of this sin, to which he admits in tehillim, so the rabbis are standing on shaky ground.

There is a flaw in your argument tho, since the oral law has exceptions - which the rabbis don't publicize, about pre-marital sex. Acording to the Raavad and the ramban, it is permitted, and the Shofet Gidon is given as proof (providing the chick is scrupuloous about mikve). Rambam forbids it, EXCEPT for a King, so David does OK.

If the case for writing down the Oral law is valid, then it should have been written down much earlier, even after Joshua died, since that is when the people lost their belief.

The bottom line with the Oral Law, is that we are not allowed to understand the Torah on its own terms (since it is a threat to oral Law), and hence we must rely on what the Rabbis say.

What an excellent method for starting a new religion!! Isnt that exactly what the Christians, and the Muslims do? They reinterpret the Torah to suit their own ends. Since Jews generally assume that they are descendants of Israel, it is difficult to see that our own "leaders" have also departed from the Torah. It is much easier to criticize our Christian tormentors than our own leadership. This is how it has been, and how it will continue.

Eddie,

Re: If there was really a transmission, why does the first evidence of the Oral Law appear only in the Late 2nd temple period?

Other good questions:

If the Oral Law was so integral to Jewish life, then why do so many Biblical accounts seem to contradict it? If the Rabbis always existed in some form, then why are NO rabbis mentioned in the Torah? (The only two I can think of are Ezra and Nechemia, and both of them were Persian ministers.) The story of David and Bas-Sheva (Samuel 2, 11:1-26) is a good example of where the Oral law claims to have been, but from the account seems conspicuously absent.

David, according to the rabbis, did nothing ‘technically’ wrong when he sent Uriah back to the front into war. We are told that soldiers gave conditional divorces to their wives upon entering combat, and that Uriah made some remarks to the King that were disrespectful, thus earning him the death penalty anyhow.

(Uriah, if anything, was a real hero, one who would never shirk the sufferings of his fellow soldiers, thus he refused the King’s wishes that he attend to his home and wife, even if just for the night. David himself was once a soldier and should have known that already, but was more concerned with covering up his own crime than the natural camaraderie that exists among fighting men. )

So according to the rabbis, Bas-Sheva was already semi-divorced (kind of like being ‘slightly’ pregnant) so for David to have sex with her was not forbidden. Didn’t they have to be married though? Doesn’t the Oral Law forbid premarital sex? How could David violate such an obviously well known Oral Tradition? Even if she were unmarried, that Oral Law would still forbid David from having premarital relations with Bas-Sheva. The Tanach does not say that he married her before the sex happened either, which would have been problematic since her husband was alive at the time.

Either way it seems that David wasn’t much interested in any laws at all, and if he knew of an Oral Law, he certainly did not hold it in any high esteem. (See articles about Kings keeping the Torah close by.)

Also puzzling is the rebuke of Nathan the Prophet. If David committed no technical wrongdoing, then why was the Prophet so upset? Certainly Nathan, being a Prophet, would have known of the Oral Law (IF one existed), and would have known that David was within his technically legal bounds to act as he did. AND if David was aware of the Oral Law, which justified his actions, why didn’t David use this as his defense? He was bold enough to commit the act, why wouldn’t he be bold enough to defend himself?

The orthodox will answer that there is the ‘letter’ of the law and then the ‘spirit’ of the law. They say that David violated the ‘spirit’ of the Oral Law (whatever that means), but not the letter. Yet, from Nathan’s words, the situation seems a bit more serious than just ‘spirit.’ In Samuel 2, 12:9, Nathan says to David “why have you flouted the word of God?” Would Nathan the Prophet have minced or misused words? Nathan said ‘word’, words come in letters, and not in ‘spirit.” If the rabbis claim Oral Law as also being ‘word of God’, then according the Oral Law (rabbis) David was justified. So what was Nathan talking about?

And also, why do the Rabbinical decrees only start around the time of Jesus?

The question might better be asked as to why that which was Oral suddenly became written? According to orthodoxy, the reason was to preserve the tradition in the face of ongoing conquest and civil strife. The Sages felt it necessary to codify the Oral law in order to safekeep it. Seems logical, yet still never answers the question of the Oral law's overall validity. Many cultures have turned to preserving their ideas in writing and the writing alone does not judge the work as valid or not.

SL

I would take issue with my Rabbi, whom i invited to this discussion, because he always offers traditional points of view.

My assumptions are that The Torah itself must be taken on its own terms, not on those imposed on it by later groups, eg the Rabbis, and the Christians.
Furthermore, in much the same way that i dispute Christianity by readig the Tanakh objectivley, that is how i approach the mishna etc.

The Rabbi says:

a)" the original Mishnaic and Talmudic Rabbis, along wiht the Rishonim (original Torah recipients) were convinced of the Oral Law based on transmission."

If there was really a transmission, why does the first evidence of the Oral Law appear only in the Late 2nd temple period? And also, why do the Rabbinical decrees only start around the time of Jesus?

b)" the lack of mention of an Oral Law does not prove its non-existence"

The context of the verses above, and also the case of the King's Sefer Torah imply that reading the Text is sufficient to deduce the details of the law, and do them! The teffilin argument is reasonable, but that is based on practice of the last 2000 years. There is no archaeological evidence for teffilin in 1st temple era. Agreed, that in itself isn,t evidence of absence. but the fact that we do things in a certain way today, does not mean ipso facto that that is how it was always done - altho some would assume that it is the case. Eg the laws of Muktza; wearing a skullcap; dressing in Black by the Charedim and Leaders; Even our language isnt the same; Yiddish isnt a Hebrew language; The talmud is not hebrew; The Torah script of today is not the same scrip that G-d gave it in!!!

In he Time of King Josiah, even if the whole population of Israle was 2.5 Million or more, the Torah scroll and knwoledge had been lost by virtually everyone, so stating "2.5 million" as a mantra does not prove anything at all.

1) If it is not mentioned in the Torah, why should we accept it instead of, let's say, the traditions of the Essennes?

2) As I showed at http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/tefillin.html , Tefillin is not biblical.

3) Tzitzit - if the Oral Law tells us exactly how to make tzitzit, then why are there differences between those of the Askhenazim and Sephardim?

4) I agree that would should try our best to understand where the Rabbis of old were coming from, but I would say the same for any lifestyle that claims to be based upon the Tanakh, including Christianity.

Eddie's comments do not bear any weight. For he attempts to use the Written Law as proof that there is no Oral law. Besides the fact that the original Mishnaic and Talmudic Rabbis, along wiht the Rishonim (original Torah recipients) were convinced of the Oral Law based on transmission, the lack of mention of an Oral Law does not proves its non-existence. It only tells you that it is not recorded in the quoted source.

But the converse is true: the Torah commands of Tefillin, Tzitzis and all others, would not have been unanimously agreed upon in terms of their forms, had the Jews not had a reference to what these objects are. For the Torah does not define what "Tefilin" is, yet it commands one to wear them. How then would a nation of 2.5 million people unanimously decide what Tefilling are? The answer is that they all had asome reference -not in Written Torah. And the Jews unanimously agreed the source of this refernce: Oral Law. Therefore, it is not understood what the argiument against Oral law is, when in fact the Rabbis stated above attested to its existence.

The correct approach here would be to analyze from where the Rabbis derived the truth of the Oral Law which was unanimously accepted by the original Torah recipients, the writers of the Misha - the Oral law.

Moshe Ben-Chaim