Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

**That is not an Orhtodox / rabbanite position. They claim that either there is no contradiciton, or if there is, they follow the Mishna/ Talmud/ halacha. so for teffilin, they bring hteir won example, that the Totafot should be worn on the upper forehead,a s oppsoed to the literal reading, of between the eyes. For the counting of the Omer, and shavuot, they begin on the 2nd day of Peasach, rather than the day after Shabbat of Pesach, etc**

Eddie...
I'd never considered the tefillin one....good observation! Many others I have and have adjusted accordingly. OK, so I'm eclectically Orthodox! LOL.
Tefillin are not generally used by Karaites.....your upbringing is showing (blush).
BTW, most of the changes you note are from the Gemara and subsequent works, not the Mishnah.
Shalom!

See
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/recent_comments_by_greg_gersh.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/recent_comments_by_rav2b.html

etc.

I would like to explain why it is important that we work with the Rabbis who are bold enough to accept our challenge, in discussing these very controversial issues.

Firstly, no individual should be arrogant enough to think that he is wiser than everyone else.
Secondly, even if one fervently is convinced of his position, he should be open minded to hear the other point of view.

3rd, most orthodox are loathe to enter such a debate, they consider it long dead and buried, sicne the karaites no longer hold much of threat to them.

4th, we get invaluable sources too.

Now, let me comment on the textual proof attributed Saadia by Ibn Ezra.

The verse is Exodus 24: 12

And the L-rd said unto Moses "Come up to me into the mount; and be there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the Law [Torah] and the Mitzvah, which I have Written, that thou mayest teach them. "

Now, the Ibn Ezra/ Gaon claim that the tow words Torah and Mitzva refer to Written and Oral laws respectively. Hence, this is a textual prof against the Karaim. However, if we actually look at the verse, these two words are followed by "which I have Written" or Asher katavti.
So the Law and Mitzva here are Laws and commandments which have Been Written. That is the meaning of the Text. So this very verse which the Gaon is claiming as proof for oral law only proves that G-d was commanding Moses abouta Written law. In fact, the words Asher Katavti are a very powerful Disproof of any imagined Oral Law.

As in the case of the Sefer Torah of the King, the absence of any requirement ofr oral Law repudiates the claim that Torah needs an oral law in order to be fully functional.

So, i am afraid that even Gaonim, who lived 1000 years ago were so blinded by their own ideology as not to see the plain meaning of a verse, and its implications. And, that myopia has been preserved religiously for so many generations.

I asked the vernerable Rabbi Moshe Ben Chaim to comemnt on my article. I have also been made aware that i actually misquoted him, and i retract my erroneous statement. Here is his reply in full:

"Eddie,

Someone on your blog wrote that I said there is no textual proof for Oral Law. However, I don't believe saying that for one reason: Ibn Ezra quotes the "Gaon" ("genius", referring most probably to Saadia Gaon) (Exod. 24:12):

"The Mitzvah: [this refers to] the Oral Law, for all the commands were given to Moses at Sinai, during the days he stood on the mountain."

Ibn Ezra is of the opinion, as are all Talmudic and Mishnaic Rabbis, that both, the Written and Oral laws were given to Moses ta Sinai. This historical truth was never disputed by the original Torah recipients, throughout the
Mishnaic and Talmudic periods. Therefore, it is impossible for someone subsequent to the original recipients of Torah to suggest an alternate history.

I strongly request you post this for others to read.

Regards,

Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim
Mesora.org

Apologies, it wasnt Greg i was replying to, but Rav 2 B

Greg,

putting aside Doc. Hypothesis, that's nto my area of interest.. you state

"That's why I keep the Torah (there is only 1!) and Mishnah, so long as the two do not contradict each other. When they do, the former takes center stage"

That is not an Orhtodox / rabbanite position. They claim that either there is no contradiciton, or if there is, they follow the Mishna/ Talmud/ halacha. so for teffilin, they bring hteir won example, that the Totafot should be worn on the upper forehead,a s oppsoed to the literal reading, of between the eyes. For the counting of the Omer, and shavuot, they begin on the 2nd day of Peasach, rather than the day after Shabbat of Pesach, etc etc. There are hundreds of other examples.

cheers

eddie

**I have not written an article on this yet, but I will. Stay tuned. :) It does not matter when it was writte down. The text says that ALL OF THE LAW (which is not necessarily the same as the Pentateuch that we have today) was written down. Moses commanded Joshua to write all of it down, and Jushua did in fact write all of it down. Since all of the Law was written down, all of it was written down.**

The problem is that, as Ami points out above, we're not really sure exactly what was 'originally' included in the Torah. We believe that what we have now is as close as possible, but it was indeed an oral document for at least one (and probably more) generations. The Documentary hypothesis states that numerous traditions of the Torah were brought together and codified probably by Ezra in the 6th century BCE. Obviously we know from Scripture that the Decalogue was written down circa Sinai and kept in the Ark. Karaism is not apt to agree with this hypothesis because if some of it was oral then that leaves the question of what was left out (perhaps some of those things found in the Mishnah?). The fact is, however, we simply do not know for certainty. That's why I keep the Torah (there is only 1!) and Mishnah, so long as the two do not contradict each other. When they do, the former takes center stage. Shalom!

I must reiterate the verse from the Parsha in my article:

19: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the L-rd his G-d, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes, to do them.

Presumably, the King would be able to deduce from the Law certain mitzvot, eg Teffilin, Sukka, Shechita etc, the typical examples that the rabbanite polemicists bring to Justify the Need for Oral Law. It is possible that in those times, just as we have today details on hwo to buid the mishkan, we had details on making tefillin. In Josiah's time, the Law was lost, as it was in Ezra's time, so perhaps certain sections were also lost.

I have asked several Rabbis for proof of Oral law, most notable R' Ben Chaim, Shlita, for whom i have the highest regard. He wrote that there is no textual proof for the Oral law, and i have provided a textual disproof. I hope to have my essay on rabbinic additions ready sometime soon.

Wow. A lot of comments here. Unfortunately, I will not be able to go through everything for a couple of days. I *will* address all the issues, just not right now.

Greg,

Thanks for reading this blog and commenting on it. There is really no need to be careful about hurting anyone's feelings. It's perfectly fine to step on a few toes. This site exists for the sake of learning, to demonstrate weak points in the other person's position.

***No traditional Jew holds that the Torah is incomprehensible and meaningless.***

For example, see Rabbi Gil Student's first two points:
http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/Proofs.for.the.Oral.Law.Gil.Student.html

1. The text is unclear even on the most basic points of Judaism, such as the oneness of God.
2. The text is impossible to read because no vowel points are there.

Or Rabbi David Wolpe
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/04/why_isnt_the_torah_enough.html

Plain meaning (which he confuses with "literalism") "is impossible because any single sentence in the world, however seemingly unambiguous, will be interpreted differently by different minds." He then says that, without the Oral Torah, it is even impossible to know what such basic law as "Do not murder" means.

If you want, I am sure I can find other examples.

***As far as I cal tell from the Written Law, it wasnt written down until the end of Dueteronomy.***

I have not written an article on this yet, but I will. Stay tuned. :) It does not matter when it was writte down. The text says that ALL OF THE LAW (which is not necessarily the same as the Pentateuch that we have today) was written down. Moses commanded Joshua to write all of it down, and Jushua did in fact write all of it down. Since all of the Law was written down, all of it was written down.

***you are required to interpret each law using your own mental faculties.***

Interpretation and the Oral Torah are two very different things. Often, Orthodox Jews present Oral Torah as "just" interpretation. Interpretation. Doesn't sound so bad. Everyone has a brain, everyone interprets the reality at all times. But this is a gross misrepresentation of what the Oral Torah is.

Oral Torah is *not* interpretation. Orthodox Jews believe that laws were given by God that are simply not recorded in the text. If it is telling us about something not recorded in the text, it is not an interpretation of the text.

Oftentimes, the Oral Torah mentions a passage in the Written. But this is not derivation or interpretation (even though it is often misrepresented as such). It is claimed as a "mnemonic".

When they say "Do not boil a kid is mentioned three times, therefore separate meat and dairy", it does NOT mean that they derive one from the other. It means that the Oral Law STATES to separate meat and dairy; and they use the verse, and its repetition, as a "mnemonic" to remember the Oral Law.

***the King is commanded to write down the textual version of the Oral Law***

1. According to the Oral Law, prior to the Talmud, it was forbidden to write down the Oral Law. If it was possible to write it down, and if the king DID write it down, why wasn't it ever written down?

2. The Oral Law is so vast, and it changes all the time, etc, etc, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to right it down. Right? That's one of the arguments *for* the Oral Law. That so much information is necessary, that it cannot be written down, in principle. Talmud, etc, are not the Oral Law. It is impossible to write it down, according to the Oral Law itself.

***Have you discussed this at all? ***

No, but like I mention above, I will.

Hi Greg, I don't think you're angry - thanks for taking this calmly.

You asked: Does Karaism really object to the concept of an Oral Law as plainly presented in the Torah, or is it really mainly a polemic against Rabbinic Judaism?

I reply: Karaism objects to the idea that part of the Torah was not written down, but even more so against quoting the torah to prove one thing, when the torah quote is talking about something else.

First off, I'm not angry, and I don't wish to impose anything on you at all. Even if I could prove to you that a plain reading of the Chumash includes an Oral Law, I'd still have to convince you that all this stuff really happened, which I think is impossible. I just think your argument doesn't hold water.

As regards what the Oral Law is: when Jews talk about the Oral Law, although this is written down in the form of Mishnah, Talmud etc., we don't mean those specific incarnations of the Law. According to the Torah, God gave the Law, orally, at Mt. Sinai to Moses. As far as I can tell, it wasnt written down into what we call the Chumash until, at the very earliest, the end of Dueteronomy. I am not relying on any rabbinic statements here, this is all based on an analysis of the text of the Chumash.

Which is why my "distraction" is really a key point, and extremely relevant to your argument.

You are trying to conflate the concept of Law with it's textual incarnation in Chumash form. Your assumption is that Orthodox Jews are trying to read into the Chumash narrative an extra, additional Torah (an Oral one). I'm saying that the straightforward reading of the Chumash supports the fact that the Torah was not written down in complete form until the end of Deutoronomy, and that there really is only one Torah. I believe Karaism must hold differently, which is what I'm trying to find out. But the point is, your arguments are insubstantial when considered from the traditional Orthodox perspective, which is supported by a plain reading of the Chumash.

The end result of this is probably that Karaism holds that the Torah was given only in Written form, while Judaism holds it was given in Oral form and eventually Written down. That's fine with me, but just realize that it makes arguments like the one you present baseless.

Another question: Does Karaism really object to the concept of an Oral Law as plainly presented in the Torah, or is it really mainly a polemic against Rabbinic Judaism? The two are very different.

re: Greg's post:

a) Oral Law - outside of the Mishna and Talmud, there isn't really much source for legal / halachic concepts. The Rambam / Rosg / Shulchan Aruch are all based on the Talmud. The Midrash is generally aggada, and not Law but Lore, and there is a halacha that you don't make a halacha based on aggada. The baraitot , which were extra mishnaic halachic tractates, but as far as i know they are contained in the Talmud. So by and large the Oral law is incorporated in the Talmud. If you wish to educate me as to other sources i havent mentioned, please go ahead.

Next, if oyu say the Written law is "insufficient", then why does a textual analysis of the King's torah imply that the Torah is sufficient? You havent answered this question, but you distract our attention to ask a question of when various Parshiot were given. Thats a fair question, but it is not relevant to my post.

Finally, we should all be aware that the Rabbanite arguemnt for the "need" for an Oral Law are based on their own cognitive assessments of what a Creator should do. eg, "The Torah in itself is insufficient etc, therefore an oral law is necessarry"

Greg, one last word - in the time i was Orthodox i got angry, even more than you, at people who assailed the Oral Law. So i understand how upsetting it is when someone attacks your fundamental beliefs. My starting point tho, is that if you wish to Impose upon me the oral Law, i want strong proof of its Veracity. This is what my debating is all about

Kol Tuv

I'm at work, so I don't have much time to respond fully. A few comments:

If you tink the Oral Law is simply the Mishnah, and Talmud, you need to go back to Jewish Studies 101. It's difficult to imagine having a coherent discussion of this topic with somone who does not understand the basic idea of the Oral Law.

Also, there is a huge difference between incomprehesible and insufficient. If you substitute the latter for the former, you are probably getting closer to what Orthodox Judaism holds.

Once again, I'd like to see a textual analysis from a Karaite on when the Torah was actually written down, based on the text. Bring me textual proofs. No midrashim allowed, since you don't hold of them. Was anything written down in parshas Yitro? If so, what? What about in Nitzavim? Behar? When did these take place? Make sure to clearly denote when you apply personal interpretation, so we can contrast it to the Oral traditions interpretations.

I look forward to hearing your response.

Gentlemen,

Firstly, let me corret Rav2b, in that he believes Ami authored this article - actually i did, so any comments about the Tone should be directed to the composer!

Greg: a) Every Orthodox educator i have spoken to on this matter has said the Written Torah is incomprehensible without the oral Law. So, if your experience is different, then we have met different people.

b) "The prevaling opinion in traditional Judaism is that the Oral Law IS the Law; the written Law is simply a guide to the Oral Law". That is the kind of retrodiction which is typical of Orthodox thought - ie the oral Law is the Ikkar, the Written is tofel! Now, if i had any other guide, whether it was a Guide for the perplexed, or a guide for Buckingham palace, or a Guide for Windows XP, etc, wouldnt it be reasonable to expect the guide to tell us what it is guiding us for? And could't any other sect make the same claim, eg the Christians say it is a guide for their own testament?

c) " But the traditional approach in Judaism is that the Oral Law preceeded and contains the Written Law (making it a textual version of the Oral Law). In this case, the King is commanded to write down the textual version of the Oral Law, which contains all he needs, etc. For one approaching this from the traditional perspective, there is no contradiction"

Ok, so now we are told the Oral law came first, and then the written law. To tell you the truth, i have never heard that one before! Even the most blinkered Orthodox chaps i have met wouldn't say that! Perhaps the Koranalso preceeded the Torah, and the Torah is merely a Textual version of the Koran!

The torah was written some 3300 years ago - nobody here is disputing that. The Oral Law: the mishna was composed around 100-150 CE, and the Talmud around 500 CE.

Of course, Greg, you can beleive that the Oral law was composed at any date you choose, but that is not convincing to the rational thiker. Do you have any evidence that it preceeded the Torah?

And, are you saying that The King was supposed to write down the Talmud? Was it the artscroll version or the steinsaltz? And presumably, the priests and levites kept copies of the talmud too, since he was meant to transcribe what they had!

You said "No traditional Jew holds that the Torah is incomprehensible and meaningless."

I reply: That's funny, there must be thousands of people on the internet pretending to be Orthdox Jews (and Rabbis too!) if that is the case. The vast majority of the "Orthodox" claim you cannot understand the Torah without the so-called "Oral Law". To say that is not the belief is to spit in the face of what "Orthodoxy" has taught for generations. If they truly believed you could understand the Torah without the so-called "Oral Torah", they would have no problem with "heretical" karaites like myself.

Greg's question hits right at the heart of my comment/question: Which part of the Torah were they to write? Just as Joshua is commanded to write "this" Torah on plastered rocks upon entering Israel. Was it the blessings and curses (where the commandment is mentioned)? The Decalogue? All 613 (+/- depending on your understanding) Commandments? The entire Pentateuch? The latter Commandment is still under debate as to its meaning and exactly what was written, so pardon me if I transpose this conudrum onto the extant discussion. I don't consider the Mishnah "Torah" either, so that wasn't my question, but thank you for pointing out to me that MacBeth was not the subject material. LOL.
Two out of three of us wonder how this confirms or denies anything concerning extra-Biblical texts.
Ami, several months ago I asked about the negative tone on this site and you assured me it would move on to positive rather than negative tactics as soon as your proofs were done. Does this mean they go on forever? Your tone and tactics are getting worse as well my friend. Be well! Shalom!

I'd like to preface my (once again) contrarian comments with the statement that I like this blog.

That being said, you have a bunch of straw men which need the requsite blowing over. Let the huffing and puffing commence:

In response to a) - this is a childish statement; it conveys not only the ignorance of the author, but the level of irrationality used in constructing the argument. No traditional Jew holds that the Torah is incomprehensible and meaningless. To conflate a belief in the Oral Law to this is unfounded and immature.

In response to b) - the actual truth as to what Orthodox Jews believe in regards to when the Written Law and Oral Law were given is very confusing. The prevaling opinion in traditional Judaism is that the Oral Law IS the Law; the written Law is simply a guide to the Oral Law. As far as I cal tell from the Written Law, it wasnt written down until the end of Dueteronomy.

In response to c) - putting aside the fact that this is also a ridiculous claim (traditional Jews learn much from the Torah directly, in many areas) Karaites claim this as well; you are required to interpret each law using your own mental faculties.

And in response to your conclusion that the commandment of the king writing his own Sefer Torah disproves the Oral Law (or the need of an Oral Law); I would claim that your conception is backwards. You take as a given that the Written Law preceeded the Oral Law, in which case you assume that when someone writes the Written Law down, they have written all there is and do not require additional information. But the traditional approach in Judaism is that the Oral Law preceeded and contains the Written Law (making it a textual version of the Oral Law). In this case, the King is commanded to write down the textual version of the Oral Law, which contains all he needs, etc. For one approaching this from the traditional perspective, there is no contradiction (Ami, this might undermine many if not all of your disproofs).

I haven't looked through your whole site, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on when the Written Torah was actually written down. As far as I can tell, the end of Dueteronomy is the first time we have a commandment to write down the Torah in words and have a narrative of such occuring. I know of many rabbinic statements that seem to indicate that parts of the Torah may have been written down at earlier times, but they are probably talking about simply teaching the laws, not writing down. Whatsmore, I'll openly admit that while I believe that the approach I have outlined above as to the time of writing of the Law is normative, many traditionalists would take umbrage with it. Have you discussed this at all? If so, please email me a link.

Rav2B
If you paid attention to what the Torah commands, you will see tha the King must write a sefer torah: not shakespeare; not Orwell; and not the talmud. But the Sefer Torah. I prseum the Levites and the Cohanim didnt keep with them copies of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings: The Torah is the Torah, no more and no less. I find it quite remarkable that you are in "doubt" about the identity of the Book. Every child knows what this is referring to, and yet you claim ignorance!

He is not instructed to write down the mishna or gemara or rambam, nor to recite them orally - but to read the Sefer Torah. The objective person can understand this, but someone who is commited to an oral law ideaology will have difficulty in accepting it, since his "place in Olam Haba" depends on his blindly accepting the Oral Law.

Now,

**v. 18 says the King must write a Sefer Torah. Nobody disputes this. V.19 says:

• he shall read the Sefer torah
• In order to learn to fear Hashem
• To keep all the words of the law
• To do them.

So, the commandment says quite clearly that the moral instruction of the Torah is sufficient to fear G-d (ie no rabbinic mussar is required, nor rabbinic additions, eg gezeirot)**

Ami...I don't follow! How does this prove or disprove anything? What "Torah" or portion thereof were the Kings to write and carry with them? The whole thing (Pentateuch)? Wow! Kinda makes the President's 'football' seem miniscule. Shalom!