Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

On the Shechita article, cited below by Ami, Samuel is quoted:

1 Samuel 14:31-34 says:

They struck down the Philistines that day from Michmas to Aijalon, and the troops were famished. The troops pounced on the spoil; they took the sheep and cows and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and the troops ate with the blood. When it was reported to Saul that the troops were sinning against YHWH, eating with the blood, he said, "You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone over to me today". And Saul ordered, "Spread out among the troops and tell them that everyone must bring me his ox or his sheep and slaughter it here, and then eat. You must not sin against YHWH and eat with the blood".

It seems that Samuel was being consistent with Ami's reading of the laws of slaughter, where we are forbidden "only, not to eat the blood".

Samuel's instructiosn are to slaughter and then eat. This is not consistent with halaha, since a whole bunch of things need ot be done with the dead animal, including salting the meat etc.

However, all that is prescribed by Samuel is to slaughter (correctly).

Jason,

OK. Now we're talking issues. It's a start.

1. Tefillin. The Torah does not command us regarding tefillin.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/03/tefillin.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/tefillin.html

What's *worse*, the Oral Torah doesn't clarify, but obfuscates, on this issue.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/more_fun_with_tefillin.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/regarding_stam_rabbis_do_the_opposite_of_what_oral_torah_commands.html

So here is what we have. The Rabbis *create* a problem by inventing tefillin. Then they go out to "solve" the problem they themselves created, by attempting to "clarify". But in the end, they can't even do that.

One of the justifications for the Oral Torah is that it is needed to clarify the Written. The Written is obscure, while the Oral makes things clearer. Well, this is the perfect example where things are the other way around. The Written doesn't even have the issue, while the Oral can't decide on which type of tefillin is the right one.

2. Shabbat. We can see from the text itself which types of work are forbidden. See
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_8_melacha.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/shabbat_sabbath.html

3. Shechita. The fact is, the Written Torah *does* tell us how to slaughter.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/disproofs_4_shechita_as_i_have_instructed_you.html

***Are we supposed to slaughter it from the neck or the throat. And with what kind of instrument?***

If it's not specified in the (Written) Torah, we can do it any way we want. Are we supposed to wear blue shirts or white shirts? Shirts with collars, or t-shirts? Or maybe no shirts at all? What does the Oral Torah say about that? Nothing. It does not say anywhere that the Torah's intent or purpose is to regulate every waking moment of our lives.

4. "chalav" or "chelev".
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/10/do_not_boil_a_kid_in_its_mothers_fat.html

(read the comments, the article needs some work.)

5. ***But, since the text did not tell them clearly what they had to do, they simply ended up inventing their own oral law.***

That's what I keep hearing from Orthodox Jews. But I don't see a need for an Oral Torah, since everything I need is already in the Torah. I don't know anything about any abstract other people -- I for one don't have an Oral Torah.

6. ***They chose man’s interpretations over G-d’s.***

I thought the Oral Torah was human "interpretation" and, what's more, legislation, that was sanctioned by God. It's not God's interpretation. As you know, there is even an episode recorded in the Talmud in which Rabbis overrule God. (And it's presented as a good thing.)

Jason, Sir!

Ami has written on tefilin and chelev on this site, they are under disproofs.

On the tefillin, i am undecided, and i do wear tefilin - i have an argument that is different from the karaite argument:

The written torah has been lost several times, and vandalized by some of the evil kings of Israel. It has been recovered several times. Ezra rewrote it in a new script, so there is no absolute proof that we have what Moses wrote down (Moses wrote under instruction from G-d).

So it is possible that there were some laws such as tefillin which had instructions, but were lost. Note, the temple and sacrifices laws are written in great detail in the Torah - no oral law is necessarry there!

I dont have scientific proof that tefillin is d'oraita.

Ami takes the view that everything in the Torah must be self explanatory.

The rabbis say this is impossible

I say, if there is safek, it does not ipso facto prove any Oral Law - it might be because some parts of the original torah have been lost, as in the time of josiah, ezra etc.

Hammurabi is a good example: It seems to me, that the laws in the Torah which seem the most primitve are the closest to hammurabi's , eg Rape of a virgin, and fingin the rapist or letting him marry his vicitm; eye for an eye etc. It is therefore possible that scribes redacted the Torah when it was lost from israel, and they used certain ideas from Hammurabi's law.

That theory doesn't contradict torah min hashamyim!
Kelemen, like many others, brushes away the idea that the torah was ever lost - so i cant take his scholarship very easily.

Jason

Aaron makes several points in his qn: He is right, in that most secular Jews might not even be concerend about the debate of the karaites/ rabbanites.

Perhaps we should make a blog on proving that the Torah was given on Sinai =) that would be a good enterprise, and it is common ground between us.

I don't have a strong proof for that tho - and the
unbroken chain or Kuzari argument is actually contradicted by the tenach, where there were several periods when the torah was lost and not kept by people in Israel.

But why is this relevant to this particular post? Start a new post on this subject!!

Please check out Lawrence Kelemen's book & tapes:

http://www.lawrencekelemen.com/permissiontoreceive.asp

http://www.lawrencekelemen.com/tapes.asp

When you buy his tapes he will send his email along so you can discuss the arguments if questions arise. I highly recommend him.

also,

Eddie, what is your take on Aaron's question?

It is quite obvious from looking at the Written Law that it was intended to be accompanied by an oral component. There is not a single mitzvah in the Torah that can be understood in all its parameters without resort to the Oral Law. 

For example, the Torah states that the Tefillin should be as Totafos between the eyes. But there is absolutely no indication from the Torah as to what this word means. Are the Tefillin meant to be big, green round balls worn on our nose, or sharp red pointy ones worn on our foreheads. Maybe we should be wearing a smooth, flat, gold plate. Should there be anything written involved? What? And on what? And where should this be placed? The Written Torah does not give even a clue. Now if G-d has given us this Torah as a revelation of His Will, then he has played upon us a cruel joke. It is like the NY Subway announcements. We hear clearly the bit about, “And the next stop will be…” But just when we get to the crucial information, all we hear is static. It cannot be that G-d went to all the trouble to create this world for us, then gave us the Torah to tell us how to live here, and we open it up, it is incomprehensible. Clearly, there is another place, other than the Written Law where He tells us what Tefillin are and where we should wear them.

G-d tells us not to work on the Sabbath, but nowhere does the written law define work. Nor does it tell us how many categories of work there are. G-d tells us to slaughter an animal, but the Written Torah does not tell us how. Are we supposed to slaughter it from the neck or the throat. And with what kind of instrument?  The Torah says that you should slaughter, “As I have commanded you”, implying that we know from somewhere else how to do this. But nowhere else in the written Law is anything clarified on this issue. The information must then be in the Oral Law. There are many, many such examples (i.e. how to read the Torah... "chalav" or "chelev").

There are groups of people who insist that there is no such thing as the Oral Law. But, since the text did not tell them clearly what they had to do, they simply ended up inventing their own oral law. They chose man’s interpretations over G-d’s. A poor choice indeed.

Hi Jason

I think any kind of debate requires an even playing field - or in Torah terminology, honest weights and measures.

So, if the rules of your game are to refer me to other essays, and not argue any specific points, why should i bother to debate with you, i could simply refer you to some karaite websites or Ami's articles !

Also, dotn make assumptions about me being "unchanging"! I was orthodox for some 18 years , and relied on the rabbis' arguemnts and also emunas chachamim. No, at the age of 38, i see many flaws in the rabbinic arguemntation. I asked staright out, show me textual proof for the oral law - but it is not yet forthcoming.

Avi referred me to Gottlieb's tape, but i pointed out the flaws in his argumentation, and his total disregard for history.

i read about 40- 50 pages of the pdf, and commented on its basic arguments. I think it's a good article, and it is obviously written by a good Torah scholar. I pointed out

a) some flaws

b) it also repeats some of the classic arguments.

c) I refrred you to my article on Lo Tosiphu -which you seem to excuse yourself fromreading.

Is the real reason you decline to debate that you would in reading my "apikorsus" be transgressing the halacha of even imagining that the Oral Law may not be true?

Like i said, i am open to discussion, but you are only making rererences. I don't play games where the rules are not equal for both sides.

1. I looked at the pdf file. Obviously, I could not read all 132 pages in half an hour. From what I do see, it does *not* contain many proofs of the Oral Torah. For the most part, it is simply a *description* of what the Oral Torah is, and of laws associated with it. I am sure you know the difference between a description and a proof. How is one supposed to argue with a description?

That is why I asked you: give me one or two proofs from the file. I am sure they won't take too long to write up. Just a page or two. So far, you refuse.

2. Here are a couple of "proofs" that I did find in the text. Page 21-22. "Prevents other nations from stealing the Torah" and "A written text cannot avoid ambiguities". But I already cover all this!
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/disproofs_of_the_oral_law_1.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/03/disproofs_20_the_ambiguity_argument_again.html

Instead of addressing what I have said, you are giving me more of the same, and claiming that it's something new. And instead of clearly showing where the proofs are, you claim that the whole text is full of them, which it certainly isn't.

3. On my website, I deal with a lot of issues, not just disproving the Oral Torah. The Disproofs themselves are only 44 (web)pages. Why so many? Because each page considers a specific proof and shows why it is faulty. A good proof can be relatively short and to the point. But to disprove something, one has to go through all the points made by one's opponents. So I did. I went through all the major proofs of the Oral Torah and shown why those proofs are faulty.

Now, you are giving me another 132 page "proof". The point in it cannot be made more concisely? Really?

Do you disagree with anything that I have said? Then comment on what specifically you disagree. So far, you are only making general statements.

4. It's not about convincing me. State some logical arguments. You don't have to state them all. I know they take a full 132 pages. But just one or two. The best ones you've got. Rabbi Student did it, why can't you?

5. ***What happened to Aaron's question? I think he brought up a good point. Anything to say to him?***

Don't you worry. All in due time.

Ami,

Did you look at the pdf file or just how many pages it was?

You write: "What is its real purpose? 132 pages, heavily interspersed with Hebrew. Is the purpose really to prove the Oral Torah logically? Or is it to give an appearance of authority and to bully people into accepting the Oral Torah?"

So I ask you the same thing about your website: what is the real purpose? 10324 pages, heavily interspersed with convoluted logic (if any of your readers are secular, they have no idea what you are talking about). Is the purpose really to disprove the Oral Torah logically? Or is it to give an appearance of authority and to persuade people into rejecting the Oral Torah?

With your strength and desire you can turn people "on" to Judaism!

Eddie,
Did you read the document?

Let me post it again:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/zInfo/Oral.pdf

You can also check out:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/TorahTrue.htm for more basic arguments.

Ami/Eddie,

The reason I have not commented on your points is exactly what I have just posted. You have created this website which gives the illusion that you have disproved the Oral Law. So ... because Ami/(Eddie) has a big website, with big words, and lots of quotations - he must be correct. I have not commented because I know nothing I say is going to suddenly convince you to accept the Oral Law.

Now I know Eddie and Ami are not going to change their minds which is why "I" have not posted. I did post the pdf file which goes through all the arguments in depth and refutes this entire site with ease.

What happened to Aaron's question? I think he brought up a good point. Anything to say to him? Eddie ? Ami ?

Eddie,

I cannot say when exactly my search began. It would have to be when I was in my teens. In yeshiva, a great deal of time is spent reconciling apparent contradictions between Scriptures and passages of Talmud. It seems that Rabbinic Judaism is premised upon this sort of syncretism, where opposing views can be melded or reinvented into one whole idea, thus resolving the contradiction.

The part that always nagged at me was this: Why all the contradictions? Did God forget what he wrote/dictated a few centuries back? Why must every miniscule detail require more and more explanation?

Its the 'say what you mean and mean what you say thing' again. If one is always telling the truth, then one can never be caught in a lie.

SL

SL, the question is where are u coming from - ie are u using the neviim simply as a battering ram for the rabbis, even tho u dont care much for the neviim, or believe in them?

My approach began 20 years ago, when my question was whther Christianity and Islam were consistne with Tenach. I have applied the same logic to the rabbinical law.

Eddie,

It is for this very reason that boys in yeshiva are NOT well-schooled in the Prophets or writings, and are inundated with Mishna, Talmud, and Halacha exclusively. The 'Nach' was something studied in the girls academies.

We did have a class in tehillim in one yeshiva, but that turned out to be more like a study hall. The extent of deliberate exposure to the Prophets came only as by-products of Midrashim, or the recital of Haftarah.

I know there are some frummies who will say I'm full of drek. If they've studied the Nevi'im then why haven't these questions been asked by THEM?

(I am still working on my response to Nir re: chodesh. His choice of Samuel 1 was very selective.)

SL

Ami,

You said, "Yes, I believe that God revealed Torah to the Jewish people. Now what?"

How do you know this? What about Hammurabi's code? What about the missing 166 years? What about the websites that look identical to yours except disprove the written law? Do you have counters to that?

Who cares about the oral law? The oral law doesn't get off the ground unless you can establish that there was a revelation, that the creator gave the bible to the jewish people. I believe there are far more people that don't believe revelation happened then there are that are concerned whether or not the oral law was given at sinai.

So how do you know "I believe that God revealed Torah to the Jewish people"

SL

If one reads the book of Jeremiah, one begins to see that his ideas of what Torah was/is about do not fit very well into those of the Rabbis.

In fact, he denies that there will be any Prophets in Babylon!!

Eddie,

Very interesting point re:Vilna Gaon and prophecy.

I've been exploring the idea myself in terms of the shift from prophet to rabbinics, and how the post-Babylonian prophets may have actually violated the 'prophet as oracle' (Deut. 19) law. There was no way at time of their vision and prophecies to know whether or not they were really prophets!

Post-Babylon was the major shift in Jewish thinking overall, i.e. Ezra, Nechemia, Daniel, etc.

The more importnat question that goes to your point is the total usurpation of power by the rabbis. Deut. 18-19 assigns the role of judges and teachers to the Shoftim/Shotrim, and the role of Seer/oracle to the prophet. The rabbis seem to have taken over BOTH these roles, though the latter to a lesser extent. I suspect the Yavneh Canon of 70 CE was their last great hurrah in this matter.

SL

Jason

did you read my article:

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/lo_tosiphu_does_the_oral_contradict_the_written.html

Jason,

1. It's funny. You are not responding to anything I say. You have made a number of statements. I have commented on them. Am I wrong? If so, how? Were you wrong? Then at least say so.

2. Yes, I believe that God revealed Torah to the Jewish people. Now what?

3. "of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh". I have already written on numerous proofs of the Oral Torah as stated by prominent Rabbis.

Have you looked at Kelemen's material? If so, I am sure you can write up one or two of his main points? I wrote about this in my previous comment but...

Eddie,

Did you read the whole article or at least most of it?

Ami,

Do you believe G-d gave the written Torah to the Jewish people? Was there a revelation at Sinai?

If you want a simple explanation for the Oral Law I would highly recommend getting the series called "Emuna" by Lawrence Kelemen. He did his undergraduate degree at U.C.L.A. and in his graduate studies at Harvard he wrote a thesis disproving all religions. When he looked into traditional Judaism he saw it could not be broken. The tapes go through the arguments & he wrote a book on it if you want more info.

http://www.lawrencekelemen.com/tapes.asp

Jason

thanks for the article, i think its very well written, and has a lot more sources than the standard arguments

i actually find some of the arguments disprove the oral law.

It claims for example that for the 1st Temple era, the Law was derived thru prophecy, and only in the post prophetic era did the oral law come about. Furthermore, it quotes the Vilan Gaon's idea that once the desire for idolatry died, so did prophecy die too. (the gaon had the absurd idea that Prophecy was only a concession to idol worship, and since it allegedly disappeared , then prophecy was no longer required)

I think this in itself is a desperate attempt by the Gaon to attack prophecy, since he saw the internal contradiction between the oral law and the torah. This was a common theme amongst the rabbis.

The article also claims that in messianic times, the oral law wil again disappear, and be "united" with the torah.

So the whole foundation of oral law is very shaky indeed. The rabbis were aware of this.

But thanks for the article =)

Jason,

Yes, I believe the Laws, as stated in the Written Torah, are true. I believe this because I see them as objectively good. "Objectively good" means that the Laws promote life, happiness, a stable society, justice, and so on. The Laws, as well as the stories, also show a keen understanding of human nature.

I may be wrong. The laws might not actually be objectively good. I am only human and this is just my opinion.

As for the Oral Torah: the Written either disproves it outright or at the very least puts it in great doubt. There are also many important inconsistencies: internal contradictions and contradictions between the Oral Torah and the real world. I am sure there are Rabbinic explanations for many of these. But Rabbinic explanations often lack logic, and are completely arbitrary, to the extent that I can use their "logic" to "prove" anything.

If you want to say that it is all just a matter of belief, then it is all a matter of belief. All religions are a matter of belief. How can you then honestly say that yours is superior? Also, Rabbis claim that they can *prove* the Oral Torah. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that there is proof and then that it is all just a matter of belief.

Obviously, Rabbis say there is proof to exude an air of authority and to mislead people into following them. But as soon as the "proofs" are shown to not prove anything, you run back to belief. Which is it? Pick one and stick to it.

As for the link you give. What is its real purpose? 132 pages, heavily interspersed with Hebrew. Is the purpose really to prove the Oral Torah logically? Or is it to give an appearance of authority and to bully people into accepting the Oral Torah? If there really was a logical proof, you could give it to me, or at the very least explain its main gist, in a page or two or three. That is what R' Student did (though, as I explain, his proofs are not valid)
http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/Proofs.for.the.Oral.Law.Gil.Student.html

Eddie,

Does this help clarify the problem?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/zInfo/Oral.pdf

Ami,

Do you believe the Written Torah is true? If so, how do you know this?

Thanks Avi

The Gottlieb tape is not very audible, however, his opening proposal is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the book of the Torah to have existed alone for several hundred years, and for somebody to have later invented the Oral Law.

He claims that the reason is there are too many technical terms which are not understood, eg Melacha, pri Hadar etc. This has been dealt with extensively by Ami on his disproofs.

My simple disproof of the "technical terms" argument is that each nation has its own knowledge of local practice, nature etc. Every person in England knows what a magpie is, but in countries where the bird does not exist, people do not kwo what a magpie is. My american friends generally dont know what a magpie is. So does that mean that the English people had an unwritten magna carta which explained what a magpie is, or what a quid is etc?

Next, he claims that in the case of a sacrifice for those living far away from Jerusalem, the torah says "you should sacrifice as i commanded you", without that command being apparent in the text.

firstly, Gottlieb's view of history is very distorted: The sadducees existed for the entire 2nd temple period, dominated the Temple and the sacrifical rites, and were a major force in Judaism. The expertise they had inthe sacrifical cult of Judaism (now lost) was carried in practice for the entirety of the 2nd commonwealth, without the reliance on an Oral law.

Next, The sentence that Gottlieb claims is not explained, has been explained by Ami. The Torah says Just dont eat the blood. It is talkign about the method of sacrifice. See his articel for further elaboration.

So, not only is it theoretically possible for a society to function without the Oral Law, it did so for the entire 2nd temple period ( that is undisputed, even by the Phariees =)).

Shlomo,

Could you send me the manual with the directions? :-))

Eddie,

Debate: If I understand correctly, there is either a prohibition or severe restriction among the Orthodox on religious debate. Historically, it is understandable re Christianity and Islam. Jews would by punished by Christians / Muslims whether they won such a debate or lost it.

But on this issue? Besides, some of them DO argue their position (or pretend do), meaning they can still argue, even if there are restrictions.

Again, it's psychology. They have realized that logic is not all that matters to people. People easily submit to authorities, they want to do the "traditional" thing, etc. Agreeing to debate only exposes the Rabbis since they risk losing the debate. Since today they feel powerful enough, they see no need to take the risk. Intellectually honest? You decide.

Jason,

***I have covered bases***

1. Pascal's wager anyone? Orthodox Judaism says that the most anyone (or any regular person) suffers in the afterlife is 11 months. Christians, who *also* claim to believe in the Written Torah, but whose beliefs are really based on an additional source, say that if you are not a Christian, you will suffer ETERNITY in hell.

According to the "logic" of "covering all bases", shouldn't you be a Christian? If you are right, you avoid an eternity in hell. If you are wrong, you only suffer 11 months. Seems like a good deal, don't it?

2. Did you really keep the Written Torah? Including the part about not adding to God's commadnments? Almost nothing in an Orthodox Jew's daily practice was commanded by God. By heaping up so many invented commandments on top of each other, it is very easy to lose sight of the important things (those that were related by God).

3. I know you got a loophole there. You can say "but I know that these are human commandments". Why do you keep them then? If you are feel obligated to keep them, no matter what you call them, they supplant God's commandments and keep you from focusing on them.

Besides, what about tfillin?? Never commanded by God, yet you claim that they are, in a clear violation.

4. Also, you celebrate the holidays on the wrong dates. God gave the dates of the holidays relative to the observational calendar. You follow the Rabbinical fixed calendar.

It would be one thing if the Rabbinical calendar was meant to be an approximation of the observational calendar. But IT ISN'T. It starts out that way, but is then modified, to make sure that certain holidays fall on certain days of the week. So you are typically off by a day or two. Some years, you might even be off by a full month.

5. Tanakh says that Joshua WROTE DOWN all that Moses commanded. Oral Torah disagrees.

6. What are you doing on the internet anyway? Chareidim, for the most part, are against using the net. If you were truly "covering all bases", you would be as stringent as possible, and not use the net either.

And think of it. What if all of the stringencies that currently exist do not "cover all bases"? You should make some more stringencies for yourself. Just in case. Try living like that, and then tell me how it goes.

Eddie, did you take a look at: "http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/TorahTrue.htm" ? Also, have a look at "http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html" who is one of the leaders on this subject. He has a tape on the Oral Law. SL, I do not advocate asceticism. I chose to leave unchecked indulgence which leads to disgust. To much of anything makes one sick. Try eating your favorite food 3 times a day for a month :) I try to follow what the Torah advocates which is balance. Ami... hypothetically speaking, if the Oral Torah is true then you will be responsible for it & those you led away from it. If I am wrong I still kept the whole written Torah you hold is true. So I guess you could say... I have covered bases :)

The philosopher must remember , that in his search for truth (it could also be her search..), he may face great opposition

Depending on the culture he lives in, that opposition could be in many forms, including physical violence or even death.

The problem with the fundamentalist is that he is not about to enter into a logical discussion, so he can shout , make threats of excommuniation, disapproval, or loss of one's future world.

Most religions can make such threats, so do we simply follow the one which has the most scary threat of all? Perhaps that explains the success of christianity.

I keep askig Rabbis i know, and those who have websites, to offer proof of the oral Law. I havent really had any resposne, with the exception of rabbi Ben Chaim, whose response is posted on this site.

I challenged a Rabbi i know in London to offer strong proofs for the Oral Law, or even to substantiate his claims that my arguemtns (posted on here) are invalid. Again, no actual response to the question, but again implied threats and unsubstantiated claims.

I try to encourage debate, but i feel there is no one willing to argue for the oral LAw.

It is interesting that freedom is denoted as being "women, money, and cars." I've been "free" for over 13 years, where the hell are they? If you are not getting any fulfillment from women, money, or material things, you may just not be using them right. Read the directions first.

When a perosn expresses desire for 'freedom' from a religious life, the basic assumption is that it is because he/she wants material or sensual pleasures. The issue of assimiliation/defection is deflected from the religion (it couldn't possibly be wrong)and transferred onto the person. This way, it protects the religion from any criticism.

Many apikorsim, mumarim, and other heretics seek an intellectual freedom that cannot exist in the rabbinical world. We have also, in course of expressing our intellectual curiousity, stumbled upon inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Torah/Rabbinical account, and this ultimately has led us to question the basic assumptions of faith in general.

The freedom to think, the freedom to question, and the freedom to say 'NO!' are integral parts of human happiness, no more or less than love or physical pleasure. Freedom isn't just about 'doing', it's also about 'being'.

SL