Here is yet another take on the issue of tefillin.
Josiah Draper:
One common practice cited as proof the Oral Law is Tefillin. And I have to admit, you absolutely need the Oral Law for this one. There's no way to sugarcoat a way around it. Without the Oral Law, we would not know how to use Tefillin.... because Tefillin is not biblical!
Exodus 13:9, Exodus 13:16, Deuteronomy 6:8, and Deuteronomy 11:18 are the verses cited for proof of Tefillin. Let's take a closer look at them. Read these, the other passages I will cite, and their sorrounding verses after each explantion after each explanation, please.
Posted by Ami at August 14, 2004 04:34 AM | TrackBack
Exodus 13:9 reads "And this shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead - in order that the teaching of YHVH may be in your mouth - that with a might hand YHVH freed you from Egypt."
Now the question is - what is "this"?
It is the observance of the Days of the Unleavened Bread.
We read about the festival in the previous verses, Exodus 13:6-8, and then we come to verse 9 which says "and this...."; There hasn't been a change of subject indicated. So why should we believe otherwise? Verse 10 reaffirms that it indeed is talking about the feast of Unleavened Bread, as it says:
"You shall keep this institution at its set time from year to year."
Obviously, Tefillin isn't something that has a set date for it's use. The verses before the passage, and after the passage, both talk of observing the days of unleavened bread. With no indication of a subject change, there is absolutely no reason to believe it is talking about something different.
Next we come to Exodus 13:16. It reads:
"And so it shall be as a sign upon your hand and as a symbol on your forehead that with a mighty hand YHVH freed us from Egypt."
Again, the question is thus : What is "it"?
The answer is Redemption of the Firstborn. The previous verses, verses 11 through 15, are all talking about Redemption of the Firstborns. Just like the last verse, there is no indication of a subject change, and no reason to believe it is talking about something new.
Now we come to Deuteronomy 6:8 & 11:18. The language and context of the latter is extremely close to that of the former, so I'll just be covering the first one. Let's read the verse and it's context.
"4 Hear, O Israel! YHVH is our God, YHVH alone! 5 You shall love YHVH your God with all your heart and with all your should and with all your might. 6 Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. 7 Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; 9 inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."
Now, let's isolate the verses cited for Tefillin & Mezuzah.
"Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."
First things first - what are we supposed to bind on our hands, put on our foreheads, our houses, and gates? What are the instructions being reffered to earlier, in verse 6?
We see at the beggining of Deuteronomy that Moses was teaching "all Israel on the other side of the Jordan." (Deut. 1:1). When we get to chapter 6 of the book, they are still there, as the first verse (6:1) tells us that they "are about to cross into" Eretz Yisrael - the land of Israel. Thus, the instruction being reffered to is everything that was written before it.[1]
Now ask yourself this - do the Tefillin ever include this entire instruction? The answer is no. The text in the Tefillin boxes are the scriptures that are claimed as the support for the practice.
If these verses refer to Tefillin, I must ask: Where does it say the Tefillin are to be used in prayer? And where does it say that they are ever to be taken off? It doesn't. We are supposed to be living these commandments 24/7. In fact, the Vilna Gaon [2] taught that Tefillin should be worn the entire day.
Next we must ask : How is the type of language used in these verses used in the rest of the Bible? Does it refer to Tefillin there, also?
The answer, again, is that it does not.
In the Book of Proverbs, we see this type of language used 4 times.
"Listen my son to the teaching of your father and do not abandon the Torah of your mother; because it is a beautiful wreath for your head and a necklace upon your throat." (Proverbs 1:8-9)
"Do not let truth and righteousness leave you; tie them upon your throat, write them upon the tablet of your heart.(Proverbs 3:3)
"Keep my son the commandments of your father and do not abandon the Torah of your mother; Tie them upon your heart always, don them upon your throat. (Proverbs 6:20-21).
"Keep my commandments and live, and my Torah as the pupil of your eye. Bind them on your finger, write them upon the tablet of your heart. (Proverbs 7:3).
To this, we add the word of our prophet Jeremiah[4]:
"I will place my Torah in their inward parts and upon their hearts I will write it." (Jeremiah 31:32)
The Torah is to be like a fine bracelet or necklace which we are to wear proudly. In other words, the Torah is supposed to be precious to us and be remembered always.[3] This is what the verse is talking about.
Rashi's grandson, Rashbam, realized this also. Commenting on “And it shall be for a sign upon your hand and a remembrance between your eyes” he writes the following:
"As a sign on your arm": According to the plain meaning [of the verse, it means that] it shall be a constant remembrane to you as though it were written on your arm. It is like [Song of Songs 8:6, which reads] "Place me like a seal upon your heart.", like a piece of jewelry or gold chain which people put on the forehead for decoration.
In modern times, Rabbi Leo Trepp notes that “taken literally, the Commandment bids us to make the Love of God and the teachings of the Torah our motto, in order that our home may become a small sanctuary.”[5], as Karaites have always taught.
Submitted by Josiah Draper
http://www.ancient-paths.net/
[1] Some argue that the instructions are the ones starting at 5:1
[2] http://www.tefillin.co.il/english/faq/index.htm
[3] http://www.karaite-korner.org/tefillin.shtml
[4] The moderator of KJD provided the quote from Jeremiah and the next footnote
[5] The Complete Guide to Jewish Observance p. 36
I want to point out another textual proof of the oral torah that people seem to skip over.
Deuteronomy 30:14
"Rather the matter is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it."
The preceeding verses explain that the torah is accesible, "it is not in heaven for you to say who will go up and bring it down...nor is it across the sea." (Deuternonmy 30:12-13)
This verse is the climax of the narrative explaining how the torah is accesible. The answer, if their is only a written torah, would be "for it is written down before you."
But the torah says it is in your mouth and in your heart shedding light onto an oral law.
Some have told me that this means that the written torah is to be interpreted by every individual as he finds fit. This would mean there are many paths to take to follow God's will.
But I answer them God himself tell us taht their is only one path to take for it says in Deuteronomy 5:29 "you shall not deviate right or left" Implying their is only one path to take not allowing personal interpretation. I hope this helps those who can't find proof for the oral law.
Avi,
You just posted the *exact* same comment here
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/textual_proof_for_oral_law.html
where you also received a reply.
We're down to senseless copying and pasting now? Please don't do that.
Posted by: Ami at October 14, 2004 01:55 AMI want to point out another textual proof of the oral torah that people seem to skip over.
Deuteronomy 30:14
"Rather the matter is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it."
The preceeding verses explain that the torah is accesible, "it is not in heaven for you to say who will go up and bring it down...nor is it across the sea." (Deuternonmy 30:12-13)
This verse is the climax of the narrative explaining how the torah is accesible. The answer, if their is only a written torah, would be "for it is written down before you."
But the torah says it is in your mouth and in your heart shedding light onto an oral law.
Some have told me that this means that the written torah is to be interpreted by every individual as he finds fit. This would mean there are many paths to take to follow God's will.
But I answer them God himself tell us taht their is only one path to take for it says in Deuteronomy 5:29 "you shall not deviate right or left" Implying their is only one path to take not allowing personal interpretation. I hope this helps those who can't find proof for the oral law.
Josiah,
Here is a tongue-in-cheek response. This is the typical rabbinic response.
Dear Friend (notice the condescending tone),
Your analysis of the issue is quite comprehensive and we laud your honest efforts. Yet, the great and holy sages who came before must have pondered this very question, and drawn the opposite conclusion. Don't you think they knew and considered everything that you have considered? Do you imagine that your mind is better than theirs?
Perhaps if you studied in the proper manner, then over time these questions would answer themselves. One cannot ask and answer such important questions without mastering the fundamentals of Torah. Our Sages mastered it through centuries of sacrifice and study, and you think you can have your answer in a few short sentences?
The Rabbinist
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at August 26, 2004 09:10 PMdoes anyone have a response to this one... anyone?
Posted by: Josiah at August 26, 2004 05:23 PMJosiah
There is a standard rabbinical response to all such claims: They argue that the Torah is on its own incomprehensible, and that you need the Oral LAw to understand it! Thats the basic argument.
For the past couple of years I have been asking various Rabbis for a stronger more logical position, and for a higher standard of evidence that the oral LAw was given in tandem with the Torah. That was why i posted the discourse with R' Ben-Chaim.
The Gil Student arguments that Ami has posted are along similar lines.
Some are more honest, and they admit that tehr isnt a proof for the Oral LAw - that its an issue of faith.
I am not even aware of rambam "proving" the Oral LAw, he simply posts it as part of the 13 doctrines of faith.
if you hear of any good rabbinic argument, let me know!!!
Posted by: eddie at August 15, 2004 11:02 AMIf anyone has the time, I would be interested in reading a Rabbinical response to my article.
Posted by: Josiah at August 15, 2004 07:26 AM