Here is an exchange that took place between Eddie ("Reader"), one of our regular readers, and Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim ("Mesora") of Mesora.org. I hope to comment on some of the points raised here later.
(It appears that Ben-Chaim has revised the text somewhat. Here is the text as of August 15. Below that is the text that I originally posted, as of August 4.)
[August 15, 2004]
Oral Law – Refutation of ChristianityMoshe Ben-Chaim
Reader: Now, the points you raised, I will quote you: “Mesora: Their (the Rabbis) views are rooted in the Oral Law given AT Sinai.” I say, THEY CLAIM ORAL LAW WAS GIVEN IN SINAI - BUT THERE IS NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE TORAH!
Mesora: Textual evidence is not the only valid evidence. A unanimous, verbally transmitted position that Moses received the Oral Law proves that the Oral Law was in fact given to Moses at Sinai. If it had not been received, then there would not be a unanimous position by all Torah leaders.
Reader: You wrote, “The Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation, as stated in the Torah.” AGAIN, THIS IS NOT STATED IN THE TORAH. THE CHUMASH MAKES NO REFERENCE TO "RABBIS", OR TO THEIR INTERPRETATION. IT SIMPLY REFERS TO JUDGES AND COHANIM WHO SERVE IN HIS CHOSEN PLACE.
Mesora: It most certainly is, “In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you – right or left.” (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand “Judges” to refer to the Rabbis. But as I mentioned above, there is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law, from G-d to Moses, to the Elders, Aaron, his sons, and the entire Jewish nation. The Oral law teaches that this refers to the Rabbis.
Reader: THE MISHNA WAS WRITTEN AROUND THE SAME TIME AS THE NEW TESTAMENT – SO IT WASN’T GIVEN AT SINAI!
Mesora: The date of writing the Mishna does not define its date of inception, which was at Sinai.Reader: BESIDES, IF YOU DON'T THINK THE TORAH IS COMPLETE, WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO QUOTE (OR MISQUOTE) CHAPTER AND VERSE?
Mesora: The fact that there exists an “Oral Law” does not imply anything is lacking of the Written Law, as you suggest. The Written Law, Torah (Five Books of Moses) together with the Oral Law, function as a complete whole. G-d’s intent is that there be a Written portion, and an Oral portion to Torah. A wise person will ponder the need for such a unique structure, non-existent in all other religions.
A Purpose for the Oral LawThe very existence of an oral portion of Torah, insures - by definition - that in each generation the Torah student be trained by the Torah scholar. For without this personal training, all a student has are the texts, but no methodology of study. This is an essential point to understanding Judaism, its structure, and how is continues to be true to G-d’s knowledge.
To gain insight into G-d’s wisdom, man is hopeless without earnest training in thought, which originated in G-d Himself. This is the Oral Law, the tool for training mankind rational thinking. G-d’s knowledge is not a simple matter. If you respect the greatness of Maimonides, Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Newton, you must agree with the immense depth found in knowledge, and man’s inability to grasp it all. Man recognizes that the Source of all this wisdom far exceeds man’s ability to comprehend. Man stands in awe of this knowledge, and “That” which created it. These great men certainly did. But not only in “quantity” is G-d’s knowledge superior to man’s knowledge, but in “quality” too. Knowledge is not achieved as our society feels, simply by amassing texts, and enlarging one’s memory. G-d’s knowledge is far to great to be encapsulated in written form, and far superior. Human intelligence requires training to develop analytical skills to unlock new knowledge and insights.
Learning what is UnwrittenSo how does man tap G-d’s infinite knowledge, once he completes the limited texts available? The answer is “thought”. This activity of “thinking” is virtually unknown to the world, save a few individuals scattered through the generations, like those mentioned. But it does not have to remain this way, and it won’t upon Messiah’s arrival. Until then, with training in the proper method of thinking, man can unlock new vaults of G-d’s knowledge – although not written. The ancient Greek mathematicians demonstrated this. Without texts, they used intelligence alone, inducing and deducing proofs, to actually perceive real knowledge that exists “out there”. Amazing. Such knowledge is so attracting and absorbing, that people like Newton went for days pondering ideas, so focused and lured in, that others had to force him to eat! His hunger was not stronger than his desire to remain in his studies. This proves how enjoyable thought is, and how exciting is the journey when one anticipates finding new marvels that explain the universe. This is called “Love of G-d”, as we cannot love what we know not (Him), we can only love the knowledge He created.
But such a level is impossible, simply by reading the Torah alone, with no training in thinking…step in, the Oral Law.This is the design of G-d’s Torah: a Written portion, and an Oral portion. This Oral Law – Talmud and Mishna – are the indispensable keys for understanding G-d’s absolute knowledge: truths, absolute morality, absolute justice, and His formulations. (For example, we cannot know when it is “just” to kill, if G-d does not tell us His parameters of who is considered an “evil” person worthy of death. These parameters are unknown, without the Oral Law.) To secure that G-d’s knowledge be available to man, G-d formulated the Oral law, which can only be transmitted from teacher to student, originating with the model of “G-d to Moses” - the first “Teacher/student” model. This chain of teacher-to-student training, originating with G-d and flowing down the millennia, guarantees that man is able – even centuries later – to discover G-d’s knowledge.
The chain of Oral Law imparts G-d’s knowledge originating with Moses at Sinai, simultaneously training us in rational thought.
Judaism vs Other ReligionsSo the Oral Law acts as the only means by which we can arrive at G-d’s true intent of His cryptic, unknowable Torah. It also acts as a means of securing the teacher/student union, through which, every generation has been chained together, linking all the way back to Moses and G-d. Without the tutelage of a Rabbi, himself trained by his Rabbis; man is bereft of the indispensable knowledge, which G-d imparted to Moses. He has no direct link back. Other religions – by definition – have no knowledge of G-d’s Oral Law. Therefore, their systems are false. But in Judaism alone, with the Oral Law, we thereby gain absolute knowledge of G-d’s reality, Sinaic knowledge, and the essential training in thought only provided by Talmudic analysis. Judaism remains the only religion of G-d, as opposed to man’s fabrication, seen in Bible critics, Christianity, Islam, and every other man-made religion.
Contrast this perfect Judaism with other religions who distort G-d’s words, and number two, possess no Oral Law. The absence of the Oral Law is admission by Christianity and others that they possess an incomplete, and hence, corrupt system.Although lengthy, this elaboration is essential to this topic. I will now return to your questions.
Now, your original question is answered when one accepts the Rabbis’ authority as mandated by the Torah, and as expressed by the Talmud. This appears to be your first step, still not understood by you. I suggest you consider why such great minds like Maimonides - who was far wiser than us both - was completely convinced that the Oral Law was a reality, and the Rabbis do in fact have authority directly from G-d. This is not just the opinion of Maimonides, but of all our Sages. Ask yourself what compelled such a position, were it not for proof. In all areas, the Rabbis were brutally honest, admitting ignorance when they were, and speaking with strength on points as solid and provable as the Earth. They did not conspire to perpetrate lies. So with patience, dismount from your position long enough to consider with objectivity, what reasoning was available to convince such great minds.
Reader: You wrote, “Other religions have no proof to their ‘prophecies’, just the mere word of one man's claim to it. Whereas Judaism has Sinai, attended by 2.5 million people.” IF THIS IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS, YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THE 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE RECEIVED THE ORAL LAW ON SINAI, AND ACCURATELY PASSED IT FROM EACH GENERATION TO THE NEXT. DO YOU HAVE INDEPENDENT CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS? DOES IT APPEAR IN THE TORAH, PROPHETS AND WRITINGS?
Mesora: As we discussed here many times, the account of Sinai would not have been accepted and spread as is evident, had it never occurred. Nothing more is required to prove this history, or any other history.
Your requirement for “independent contemporary evidence” is an internally flawed request: this position claims that a single, historical account – even if held by millions of people – is insufficient evidence for the history it claims. So what IS sufficient for your standards? You suggest additional accounts from independent sources. However, what would these “independent sources” add, other than numbers of people? You assume other countries possessing the story of Sinai are greater proof than the Jews’ possession alone. But what is the new factor you say exists, once other sources claim Sinai’s truth? The fact it may be accepted in other lands only shows that the account spread, but nothing else qualitatively. You might retort that “objectivity” is now evident; offering greater proof, as other countries have no personal interest in claiming G-d appeared to the Jews. To this, I respond that the Jews as a country would not unanimously lie, for a common motive cannot be found in millions of people. (“Motive”, by its very definition, is a subjective phenomenon.) Certainly, the “real” Jewish history would have surfaced, had there been one. In the absence of any other Jewish history, and the unanimous world acceptance of Sinai, Sinai is proven. (You also have ignored the Christian world’s acceptance.)Regarding mentions in Prophets of Moses’ Torah revealed at Sinai, you will find them.
Reader: THE FIRST WRITTEN EVIDENCE FOR ORAL LAW IS ABOUT 1000 YEARS AFTER THIS. IN JOSIAH'S TIME, THE WRITTEN TORAH WAS LOST (THANKS TO MENASSEH) AND IT WAS UNKNOWN IN ISRAEL. HOW, THEN DID THE ORAL LAW SURVIVE? IN EZRA'S TIME, THE PEOPLE I ISRAEL WERE UNAWARE OF EITHER LAW. PLUS, EZRA READ FROM THE SCRIPTURE, BUT THER IS NO MENTION OF AN ORAL LAW!
Mesora: Incorrect. The Rabbis unanimously agree that Moses received the Oral Law on Sinai. Perhaps many Jews were ignorant of the Written and Oral Torah, but neither was ever lost. The Prophets constantly rebuke the people to abide by “Toras Moshe”, “Moses’ law”. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and all other Torah leaders knew that the Oral Law was never lost.
I believe your problem is that you commenced your inquiry from the wrong starting point: instead of starting from a position that there was no Oral Law, (which from your words has no basis) you should question what convinced these great minds otherwise. The fact is that generation after generation, the Torah leaders verbally communicated truths. One of these truths is the event at Sinai, and the body of knowledge passed down from Moses to the Elders, to Joshua, Aaron, his sons, and the Jewish nation. Read the introduction to Pirkei Avos for the history of the Torah’s dissemination. Base yourself on facts, not your own supposition.
Reader: You wrote, “G-d promised in the Torah and through prophets to never alter the Torah.” BUT THE RABBIS FELT THEY WERE ABOVE THIS, AND ADDED NEW LAWS!
Mesora: You project your own emotional notions onto people who were far superior in character than you or I. Don’t assume their motives are like ours, that they felt “above” matters and acted in such a way. Also, your knowledge of Jewish Law is severely lacking. You must study the Talmud on this issue, and you will see how G-d demanded the Rabbis interpret the laws, and construct fences – not new laws – to protect the Torah system. Had you studied, you could not have made such a statement.
Reader: Well, that was certainly a good dialog. I thank you for taking the time to compose this and to sort thru our correspondence. I shall also endeavor to take your challenge and look at things from different angles.
The Veracity of the Oral Law – Excerpts from a DialoguePosted by Ami at August 4, 2004 09:52 PM | TrackBackMoshe Ben-Chaim
Reader: Now, the points you raised, I will quote you: “Mesora: Their (the Rabbis) views are rooted in the Oral Law given AT Sinai.”
I say, THEY CLAIM ORAL LAW WAS GIVEN IN SINAI - BUT THERE IS NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE TORAH!
Mesora: Textual evidence is not the only valid evidence. A unanimous position that Moses received the Oral law also suffices. If it had not been received, then there would not be a unanimous position by all Torah leaders.
Reader: You wrote, “The Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation, as stated in the Torah.”
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT STATED IN THE TORAH. BESIDES, IF YOU DON'T THINK THE TORAH IS COMPLETE, WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO QUOTE (OR MISQUOTE) CHAPTER AND VERSE? THE CHUMASH MAKES NO REERNCE TO "RABBIS", OR TO THEIR INTERPRETATION. IT SIMPLY REFERS TO JUDGES AND COHANIM WHO SERVE IN HIS CHOSEN PLACE. THE MISHNA WAS WRITTEN AROUND THE SAME TIME (LEHAVDIL , ELEF ELFEI HAVDALOT , AS THE NEW TESTAMENT!!)
Mesora: Firstly, the date of writing the Mishna does not define its date of inception, which was at Sinai. Now, your question is answered when one accepts the Rabbis’ authority as mandated by the Torah, and as expressed by the Talmud. This appears to be your first step, still not understood. I suggest you consider why such great minds like Maimonides - who was far wiser than us both - was completely convinced that the Oral Law was a reality, and the Rabbis do in fact have authority directly from G-d. This is not just the opinion of Maimonides, but of all our Sages. Ask yourself what compelled such a position, were it not for proof. In all areas, the Rabbis were brutally honest, admitting ignorance when they were, and speaking with strength on points as solid and provable as the Earth. They did not conspire to perpetrate lies. So with patience, dismount from your position long enough to consider with objectivity, what reasoning was available to convince such great minds.
Reader: You wrote, “Other religions have no proof to their ‘prophecies’, just the mere word of one man's claim to it. Whereas Judaism has Sinai, attended by 2.5 million people.”
IF THIS IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS, YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THE 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE RECEIVED THE ORAL LAW ON SINAI, AND ACCURATELY PASSED IT FROM EACH GENERATION TO THE NEXT. DO YOU HAVE INDEPENDENT CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS? DOES IT APPEAR IN THE TORAH, NEVIIM, KETUVIM?
Mesora: As we discussed here many times, the account of Sinai would not have been accepted and spread as is evident, had it never occurred. Nothing more is required to prove this history, or any other history.
Your requirement for “independent contemporary evidence” is an internally flawed request: this position claims that a single, historical account – even if held by millions of people – is insufficient evidence for the history it claims. So what IS sufficient? You suggest additional accounts from independent sources. However, what would these “independent sources” add, other than numbers of people? You assume other countries possessing the story of Sinai as greater proof, than the Jews’ possession alone. But what is the new factor you say exists, once other sources claim as we do about Sinai? The fact it may be accepted in other lands only shows that the account spread, but nothing else qualitatively. You might retort that “objectivity” is now evident, and offers greater proof, as other countries have no personal interest in claiming G-d appeared to the Jews. To this, I respond that the Jews as a country would not unanimously lie, for a common motive cannot be found in millions of people. (“Motive”, by its very definition, is a subjective phenomenon.) Certainly, the “real” Jewish history would have surfaced, had there been one. In the absence of any other Jewish history, and the unanimous world acceptance of Sinai, Sinai is proven. (You also have ignored the Christian world’s acceptance.)
Regarding mentions in Prophets of Moses’ Torah revealed at Sinai, you will find them.
Reader: THE FIRST WRITTEN EVIDENCE FOR ORAL LAW IS ABOUT 1000 YEARS AFTER THIS. IN JOSIAH'S TIME, THE WRITTEN TORAH WAS LOST (THANKS TO MENASSEH) AND IT WAS UNKNOWN IN ISRAEL. HOW, THEN DID THE ORAL LAW SURVIVE? IN EZRA'S TIME, THE PEOPLE I ISRAEL WERE UNAWARE OF EITHER LAW. PLUS, EZRA READ FROM THE SCRIPTURE, BUT THER IS NO MENTION OF AN ORAL LAW!
Mesora: Incorrect. The Rabbis unanimously agree that Moses received the Oral Law on Sinai. Perhaps many Jews were ignorant of the Written and Oral Torah, but they were never lost. The Prophets constantly rebuke the people to abide by “Toras Moshe”, “Moses’ law”. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and all other Torah leaders knew that the Oral Law was never lost.
I believe your problem is that you commenced your inquiry from the wrong starting point: instead of starting from a position that there was no Oral Law, (which from your words has no basis) you should question what convinced these great minds otherwise. The fact is that generation after generation, the Torah leaders verbally communicated truths. One of these truths is the event at Sinai, and the body of knowledge passed down from Moses to the Elders, to Joshua, Aaron, his sons, and the Jewish nation. Read the introduction to Pirkei Avos for the history of the Torah’s dissemination. Base yourself on facts, not your own supposition.
Reader: You wrote, “G-d promised in the Torah and through prophets to never alter the Torah.”
BUT THE RABBIS FELT THEY WERE ABOVE THIS, AND ADDED NEW LAWS!
Mesora: You project your own emotional notions onto people who were far superior in character than you or I. Don’t assume their motives are like ours, that they felt “above” matters and acted in such a way. Also, your knowledge of Jewish Law is severely lacking. You must study the Talmud on this issue, and you will see how G-d demanded the Rabbis interpret the laws, and construct fences – not new laws – to protect the Torah system. Had you studied, you could not have made such a statement.
Reader: Well, that was certainly a good dialog. I thank you for taking the time to compose this and to sort thru our correspondence. I shall also endeavor to take your challenge and look at things from different angles.
Eli,
I myself was born in the Soviet Union. It's nice to hear from a former compatriot.
1. This is the famous Kuzari argument. Maybe it's that it's very late at night, but I'm not sure how this relates to what the rabbi said.
Kuzari is a proof for the revelation at Sinai in general. The rabbi is trying to prove the veracity of the Oral Torah specifically.
2. ***The Karaites don't completely deny the existence of the Oral Law but rather its scope.***
This is a charge I hear often. I do not know anything about the Karaites. Here I am, presenting the issues, and not relying on any Oral Torah. Let's talk about that.
It's possible that, historically, there were Karaite leaders who, in one way or another, relied on some of the Oral Torah. This is important from the point of view of Orthodox Judaism, but it is *not* important from the point of view of Karaite Judaism.
In Orthodox Judaism, the words of a great leader become part of the Oral Torah and so must be followed by later generations. If a great Orthodox leader did or said something, Orthodox from later generations have to deal with how to incorporate this into their lives.
But in Karaite Judaism, it doesn't matter what some leader in ancient times did or did not do. The Karaite dictum is "search the Scriptures, and do not rely on my own words".
3. ***they rely on traditional interpretations***
There is absolutely nothing wrong in relying on an interpretation that was made by someone else. As long as the interpretation is valid. Does every mathematician rederive every single mathematical proof? No. Mathematicians rely on proofs made by others. But those proofs can be verified by anyone. It is the same here.
Also, interpretation **is not** the same thing as an Oral Torah! This is an error, according to Orthodox Judaism itself. Yet, many Orthodox Jews seem to have this belief.
An interpretation simply restates meaning where meaning is already there. Oral Torah creates meaning where none exists. I wrote a bit about this before.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/falseness_2_shoftim_rabbinical_authority_over_torah_interpretation.html
4. ***How otherwise can they slaughter animals or keep their version of kashrut or define "work" on Shabbat.***
All of these things are covered by the Written Torah.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/disproofs_4_shechita_as_i_have_instructed_you.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_5_forbidden_fat_chelev.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_8_melacha.html
Orthodox Judaism provides many more details. But where does it say that every action must be specified in every single detail?
5. ***By the way, I heard the the Karaites constitute about 0.2% of the Jews – not quite alive and kicking…***
And the truth is defined by the majority? Remember, Jews are 0.25% of the world population, and Orthodox Jews are about 10% of all Jews. So?
That is one interpretation of the numbers. Here is another.
About 50% of Jews are secular and another 40% are non-Orthodox. Why? Jews see that there is something wrong with the Orthodox system. The big question is, what's wrong? I think I have an answer...
6. ***The veracity of the Talmud, I believe, is in its being accepted by the vast majority of our people.***
10% of all Jews are Orthodox. At one point during the Second Temple period, there were about six thousand Pharisees in all of Israel.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/04/pharisee_population.html
Also, Tanakh clearly records periods of time when the vast majority of Jews practiced idol worship. The majority argument was invalid then and it is invalid now.
7. ***here is an authentic document of the Oral Law in its formation***
The document is authentic. But the Oral Torah was never sanctioned by God! That is the issue.
"in its formation"? Anyway...
8. ***These same rabbis also compiled the final version of the Tanach.***
Not true. All the books of the Tanakh were known long before Yavneh, even to Josephus. The Masoretic Text was prepared by Karaites.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/disproofs_2_mesorah.html
9. ***For some reason they haven't seen any problem in the fact that it has no explicit mention of the Oral Law.***
They couldn't alter the text. By the time Rabbinical Judaism started becoming powerful, there were already many copies of the Tanakh, as well as Septuagint, Targums, etc. A significant change in the text would be noticed immediately.
Posted by: Ami at October 15, 2004 10:22 AMEddie, Ami
1. What Rabbi ben-Haim argues is that no leader, no matter how great, can make you think that some event happened to you personally if it hasn't occurred. This makes perfect sense. According to the Torah, Moses tells the Jews they personally had a "close encounter" in Sinai - and to pass it on to their children. Anyone would have to be really crazy to deliberately lie to his kids and then have them follow 613 commandments which practically direct every aspect of their life. Do you honestly see yourself ever doing such a thing?! (My family is from the USSR and even after 3 generations of dogmatic communist regime, people still remembered their true history- I'm certain Moses didn't have any of the KGB's resources…)
2. The Karaites don't completely deny the existence of the Oral Law but rather its scope. They also have their version of Halachik codex (if you can call it that way) and they rely on traditional interpretations. How otherwise can they slaughter animals or keep their version of kashrut or define "work" on Shabbat. They limit the scope of the Rabbis' authority on making "fences" around the Law; reject certain built-in methods of derivations such as the 13 midot of Rabbi Ishmael and some "Halacha le'Moshe mi'Sinai". (By the way, I heard the the Karaites constitute about 0.2% of the Jews – not quite alive and kicking…).
3. The veracity of the Talmud, I believe, is in its being accepted by the vast majority of our people. Its honest inquiry, uncensored, sometimes humorous, criticism of the Rabbis and the documentation of debates has me believe that here is an authentic document of the Oral Law in its formation. Although the numerous debates, I haven’t read any rabbi accusing any his collogues of fabricating the tradition. These same rabbis also compiled the final version of the Tanach. For some reason they haven't seen any problem in the fact that it has no explicit mention of the Oral Law.
Eli
Posted by: Eli Abramzon at October 13, 2004 10:48 PMVron,
Right. All of the Orthodox arguments posted here can be easily debunked. Which is what I will do once time permits.
Posted by: Ami at August 11, 2004 12:14 AMThis argument of witnesses (no one would believe this, if it wasn't true) is old and can be used by any religon.
For example, Christian apologist J.P.Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html
claims that Christian beliefs were so extraordinary and alien to the ancient people, both Jewish and pagan ("Who Would Buy Crucified God?") that the only explanation for faith of the first Christians could be their experience of resurrected Jesus.
(disclaimer: I'm posting christian link as illustration, not to convert you :-) )
Aother example from more modern times is the famous miracle of Fatima in 1917, observed by crowd of 70,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima
My point is to neither affirm of deny the veracity of Torah, but to show the weakness of the argument. (Everyone knows my opinion on this anyhow.)
Eddie is correct that both Ben-Chaim and I come from an all or nothing position. I would like to think that the esteemed rabbis could have come up with some better arguments than those they have been using. I would like nothing more than to have my mind changed on this matter.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at August 9, 2004 03:47 PMEddie,
You make several excellent points. I hope you find the time to write those essays. I will be happy to post them here.
Posted by: Ami at August 9, 2004 12:06 AMValidation: Both the rabbi, and SL , miscontrue my quest for validation as applying to the Giving of the Written Torah itself. That is not my position.
Given that The Written Torah is true, which I and the Rabbi agree on, can you rationally derive the claim of the oral law from a) the Text of the Torah, or b) other external sources?
Interestingly, if we go along with the claim to having 2.5 million witnesses, and that the Torah on its own is incomprehensible, is it not logical and neccessarry to assume and expect the Written Torah bearing witness to the existence of its "sister work", the oral torah? And with so many witnesses, wouldn't they have witnessed the receiving of an oral law too? but that is not mentioned.
Another rabbinic claim, that of the incomprehensibility of the written Torah without an oral counterpart. I claim the opposite: Much of the greatness of the Torah, and several of its basic mitzvot are neutralised by the Oral Torah!!!
The most basic, is "lo tosiphu", which i hope to write an essay about.
Another is the commandment "not to follow the majority to do evil", which is neutered by the Rabbis, to mean "Do follow the majority", and this is even perverted further by Sifre (and used extensively by orthodox brainwashing) that even if They tell us left is right and right is left, we must still follow them (rabbis). This concept negates and nullifies the Torah's built in mechanism to determine who is a false prophet or dreamer - by logical analysis of the prophet's prediciton versus outcome.
Each of these can be the basis for a long essay , i hope at least to write some more on "lo tosiphu".
Posted by: eddie at August 8, 2004 10:29 PMYoshayahu,
I don't know enough of Karaite ideas / taraditions in order to make such a statement. On the other hand, i disagree with some karaite ideas, eg its position on Fire on Shabbat - in the temple, there wa a ner tamid, so does that mean he Temple was not observing shabbat? (there were also musaf offerings etc).
i am just trying to be rational - and for an extraordinary claim such as the Oral law makes,w e need extraordinary evidence - evidence which the orthodox have been unable to provide.
Posted by: eddie at August 8, 2004 12:47 PMEddie, would you then identify yourself as a Karaite?
Posted by: Josiah at August 8, 2004 11:20 AMActually, my point was quite different form what Sl is posting.
since there is now written or other evidence of a separate oral law in parallel with the written law, we need evidence.
furthermore, we need it to show that the oral law was accurately transmitted from master to teacher. there cannot be any missing links. scientifically, we need to show that in each generation there was a mishna, midrash, halacha etc. that is the burden of proof which a rationalist will impose in order to verify that there was an "unbroken chain of transmission". in absence of that, and textual proofs, ie the Torah referring to its oral counterpart, i cannot accept that there was a dual torah, the concept of whcih only made light of day around the time of Yoshki!
Posted by: eddie at August 8, 2004 12:46 AM
Objective: To analyze Ben-Chaim’s responses and illustrate some of the flaws inherent in his argumentation. To go through all of them would require an entire book. My thanks to Eddie for posting this dialogue, and I hope only to add to what he has already offered here.
Ben-Chaim: Textual evidence is not the only valid evidence. A unanimous position that Moses received the Oral law also suffices. If it had not been received, then there would not be a unanimous position by all Torah leaders.
SL: Unanimous? Hardly! I may not be 3300 years old enough to remember the event, but as the Torah puts it, even at Mt. Sinai the Jews were not quite in agreement as to what went on or how to proceed. In addition, we know of several other sects within Judaism who do NOT agree there was an Oral Law given at Sinai. The Hasmonean kings and priests (of Chanukah fame) were Sadducees! Some of the students of the Talmudic sages ended up denying the Oral Law! The Karaite movement is alive and well today. Is this unanimity?
Even within the rabbinic tradition itself there exist vastly different interpretations and conclusions regarding this alleged Oral Law. If everyone was so clear on it, then why were Hillel, Shamai, and a host of others arguing so much over it? Certainly, the unanimity of the belief itself should have been coupled with some clarity as to what that law entailed, rather than having to debate each and every detail ad nauseum. In subsequent generations, those same debates have been reinterpreted, rehashed, and reformed to such an extent that one has to wonder if the originators would even recognize their own ideas today. With unanimity should come clarity, NOT more ambiguities.
Ben-Chaim: Ask yourself what compelled such a position, were it not for proof.
SL: That’s what we’re doing!!! Sheesh. I wish this guy would just answer a question.
Ben-Chaim: So what IS sufficient? You suggest additional accounts from independent sources. However, what would these “independent sources” add, other than numbers of people?
SL: Apparently, Ben-Chaim doesn’t understand how corroborating evidence works in science, law enforcement, or archaeology. He can claim that 2.5 million people experience a close encounter with God at Mt Sinai, but cannot provide a single outside source that saw 2.5 million people anywhere at a single event, irrespective of the miracles claimed at said event. In those times, 2.5 million people would be a large portion of the Earth’s population, and someone would be sure to notice that.
It’s perhaps believable that no one outside the Israelite community would write anything concerning the revelation at Sinai. After all, it was in the middle of a desert where few travel. (Though it does seem from the Torah record that many tribes lived in this desert and fought against the Israelites.) My question is, why didn’t any of the actual witnesses, from among the Jews themselves, write anything down? Paint a picture? Maybe decorate a piece of pottery? Surely they weren’t illiterate? Or were they?
There are also NO archaeological remnants of such an event either. I can’t throw a picnic at a state park for 20 people without leaving some evidence behind. How do 2.5 million people manage that? We have endless supplies of pottery, jewelry, manuscripts, etc. from much older cultures that existed in much smaller numbers than did the Israelites, yet here, from Mt. Sinai, not ONE shred of archaeological evidence exists. Considering all the gold, silver, clothing, and livestock that the Jews carried with them out of Egypt, I find it hard to believe that nothing would be left behind.
(Another issue seldom raised is that of the Generation of Sinai themselves. The Torah tells us that only 2 of them, Joshua and Caleb, entered the Land of Israel, which means that the actual eyewitnesses to the event at Sinai did not have much time to tell their story, and that the 2nd generation was already receiving second hand information. )
Ben-Chaim: I respond that the Jews as a country would not unanimously lie, for a common motive cannot be found in millions of people. (“Motive”, by its very definition, is a subjective phenomenon.)
SL: I will remember this next time I hear about eradicating every Amalekite or punishing the Germans for Nazi war crimes. The Torah explicitly attributes common motive to the 7 Canaanite nations, the Moabites, and the Amalekites, yet Ben-Chaim says there is no such thing! Maybe he only means the Jews, but let’s assume Ben-Chaim’s argument thus far.
A motive here does not have to belong to a nation as a whole. That’s what leaders are for. The leaders tell the people what to do, set themselves as governing authorities, and regulate the information and how it is applied. The Torah tells us that Moshe did exactly that, appointing judges, setting up a chain of command, and teaching the Law. The people don’t require motives, any more than the average citizen today needs a national directive to go to work, wash himself, or behave in an ethical manner. Ben-Chaim ignores this simple reality.
The lack of national motive is apparent by the problems Moshe was having with the people and the various factions among them. Had there been a national motive for anything, it certainly wasn’t clear exactly what that was. Some weren’t even sure they wanted to leave Egypt, let alone grab some Law from atop a mountain. Many of their complaints were related to everyday real life worries. The people didn’t care either way about posterity or history. That was the job of their leaders. They just wanted to be free and survive the journey.
Luckily for the Rabbinists, most people are followers, willing to take their direction from the self-chosen few, and will do so without question. It didn’t take 2.5 million (IF there were really that many) people to create a lie, it only needed a few well-placed spokespersons to spread the word and masses would follow along.
Bottom line, the Jews didn’t unanimously do anything, and still don’t. So to claim unanimity on one hand and then defend oneself with ‘subjective phenomenon’ is plain horseshit.
Ben-Chaim: Certainly, the “real” Jewish history would have surfaced, had there been one.
SL: It has! Right now.
Ben-Chaim: You project your own emotional notions onto people who were far superior in character than you or I.
SL: Sorry Eddie, but I think that Ben-Chaim just insulted you. How exactly does he know what kind of character they displayed? Or possessed? Are there any biographies of these people? Any historical documentation as to their character and personas? It is just another argument from authority meant to belittle the listener into acceptance. No one should fall for that horseshit unless they enjoy the smell.
It is Ben-Chaim who is doing the projecting here. He projects over himself and his beliefs an aura of moral superiority based solely on his own impression of someone’s long dead character, which is based on nothing more than the extant writings of that person. If I found a gentile with such character, would Ben-Chaim be equally impressed?
I believe that Spinoza was a genius in his time, and perhaps even beyond it, but I would never assert that Spinoza was right based upon his alleged moral character, which has nothing to do with his ideas, unless you’re the sort of person who deals in ad hominem arguments. (Spinoza is reputed to have been kind of an asshole, so I’m glad I can read him from the distance of time.) The discussion is about the discussion and NOT who is discussing it.
This is simply another form of the “Sages were smarter than you” ploy. More horseshit. More of the same.
For Ben-Chaim to be so cocksure of the veracity of Oral Law from Sinai, he’d better recheck his arguments again. His claims are exactly the same as many of the Christians arguments and just as stupid. All one has to do is persist in asking the simple questions.
SL
Eddie,
Another clever argument used by the rabbinists is the "you can't deny it's truth until you study ALL of it."
At first, one can see the logic in that. How could one possibly reject something one is unfamiliar with? It seems reasonable to demand some proficiency before one can critique a particular idea. So the rabbis make a good case.
The idea is clever, but stupid at the same time.
If the standard they set for my 'denial' is precluded upon knowledge of ALL of their Oral Law, then conversely, they would have know the entire Oral Law before being able to CONFIRM it's veracity as well! The pedulum of this standard for proof swings both ways. So my question would for the rabbis, who can't possibly know all of it (since it's endless), how do you know it's true?
The same rabbis would laugh loudly (they do) if we were to suggest that the Karaites were correct, they were wrong, and would say that they remain wrong until they have mastered every aspect of the Karaite position. Or, could you imagine the Christian making the same argument to them? "If you haven't studied the entire Gospel, then you can't reject it."
The notion in and of itself is complete nonsense from the start. One need not read an entire volume of Grimm's fairy tales to know they are fiction, nor does one have to master differential calculus to understand basic algebra. There are basic principles that govern what knowledge we possess, and how that knowledge is applied. We do not have to know everything to know at least something. In the same way, I do not have to smoke to know that smoking is harmful.
The Torah was very clear about NOT adding, subtracting, or deviating from Torah. The rabbinists have devised many loopholes around that warning while, at the same time, shifting the onus of proof upon those whom they impose their authority.
Clever, but not too smart.
SL
My final comments are how i feel.
Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim is a unique man, and a teacher of great patience and intelelctual capacity.
In my discussion with him, i tried to avoid anything personal, in that it was an intellectual philosophical debate. Mesora.org is also a great resource.
A classic argument he gives in favour of the Oral Law is exemplified by
"I suggest you consider why such great minds like Maimonides - who was far wiser than us both - was completely convinced that the Oral Law was a reality, and the Rabbis do in fact have authority directly from G-d"
Maimonides was a giant, far greater than i could hope to be, as was Saadia Gaon, Nachmanides etc.
the logical fallacy in such arguments, is that there could be even bigger geniuses who don't acept the Oral (or Written) Laws. Maimonides himself attests to the greatness of Aristotle, but feels that he is still entitled to dispute some of Aristotle's ideas.
I hope to add a few more points in the ensuing weeks
Posted by: eddie at August 4, 2004 11:22 PM