Why am I writing this series of Disproofs articles? Why create conflict? Doesn't strongly disagreeing with some Orthodox ideas mean that I hate Orthodox Jews?
The most straightforward reason for writing is that I do not think that the Oral Torah is from God, or that it was ever sanctioned by God. As such, on its face, it is no better and no worse than other legal, philosophical, and religious compilations. The Torah does point to the fact that all of God's Instruction was written down. (I plan to write about this in the future.) Pointing to these passages should be enough. But the idea of an Oral Torah has become so accepted over the centuries that I wanted to go beyond that. It is very difficult to prove that something does not exist. But what I can do is show that every proof for Oral Torah's existence fails to prove anything. For this, it was very important for me to analyze a comprehensive list of proofs so that it could not be said that, while one of the proofs did not work, perhaps there exists another that does; or that I am criticizing simplistic or straw man arguments, and that, in reality, there exist other, better, arguments in support of the Oral Torah.
All this might appear like a very negative enterprise. Don't I have anything better to do with my life than destroy the basis of other people's beliefs? Why not simply be and let be? I can talk about what I believe and let others talk about what they believe.
There are several reasons for undertaking these debates. Firstly, I love the Tanakh. I love all aspects of it: the system of law, the histories, the philosophy. It is very direct, simple to understand, and pertinent for all times. Unfortunately, many people do not see things this way. Whenever they find a marginally difficult passage, those who believe in the Oral Law, throw up their hands and say that the Tanakh is impossible to understand, or that it is somehow lacking. This is their argument for the Oral Law: that the Torah is unclear. To my mind, this is rather an attack on the Tanakh, and I feel that I should defend it.
But it goes beyond that. My Disproofs articles show, I hope, how simple, straightforward analysis can be applied to the Tanakh. Since the passages that I am discussing are supposed to show that the Tanakh is lacking, they must be the more difficult ones. Yes, I could (try to) analyze any passage in the Tanakh. But, hopefully, by concentrating on the more difficult ones, I can illustrate how simple things really are, and perhaps even inspire others to take a closer look at the Tanakh, rather than relying in every single thing on one's LOR ("Local Orthodox Rabbi"). In other words, these articles are not so much against the Oral Torah (which they are), but more for the Hebrew Bible.
It is true that I am no great scholar. The fact that even a simple person such as myself can refute all of these proofs that supposedly favor the Oral Torah seems rather pathetic. I hope that my articles will inspire more rigorous scholarship, on both sides of the issue.
As for whether these posts are appropriate and whether they imply that I hate anyone. No, I do not hate, or even dislike, Jews who believe in the Oral Torah. Debate and hate are two very different things. Leviticus 19:17: "You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart. Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because of him". Reproving is a good thing and is different from hate. If we did not debate with one another, how would a person who makes a mistake ever find out about it? Arguing with someone can help them. Also, avoiding debate, and bottling up the issues, can actually lead to hate. Debate is a way to the truth because in it, we test each other's arguments.
It is true that not all debate is good. There is Proverbs 9:8: "Do not rebuke a scoffer, for he will hate you; / Reprove a wise man, and he will love you". This is exactly why I think that this debate is good and appropriate. Orthodox Jews seek God, and many of them are very wise. That is precisely why the Disproofs arguments must be made.
Posted by Ami at February 3, 2004 06:42 AM | TrackBackExcellent!
I too am a great lover of Tanakh and have gradually found myself questioning the validity of the Oral Law or Rabbinic Tradition as my knowledge of both Tanakh and Archeology/Anthropology from 1st and 2nd temple periods all seem to contradict the Oral Law and Rabbinic tradition more than not.
One example is the controversy about Tefillin.All of the supposition about what tradition is accurate and what style is accurate does not take into account for one second the art of other cultures depicting Yahudim and even in ancient times Habiru wearing headbands with a sort of wallet in the middle while doing things like meeting foreigners and laboring in fields.
In fact ancient Jews are shown wearing a type of headband with a noticeable frontlet in almost every
era of our history predating the fall of the 1st temple!!
Tefillin were small headband/wallet affairs to contain a faithful Jew's copy of the Decalogue and other scripture in a safe location when he might be working in a field,fighting in a war or even going to a festival. Also the much "ballyhooed" Tallit was the standard garment of ever Habiru with the Tzit Tzit being added later and is clearly shown with Tzit Tzit in Egyptian depictions of ancient Israelite being wrapped around the waist of Jewish warriors,slaves,traders etc as a type of short skirt.
If they can't even get the age old customs/commandments right to a point where the Patriarchs would recognize what they were doing why should I follow them in their ignorance?
I have recently set about placing a copy of the Decalogue and the Shema in the band of my hat and will wear it all day and truly fulfill the commandment the way my ancestors did and leave the European "control freaks" to their own vain imaginings while I pursue accuracy and authenticity in an effort to fulfill Mitzvoth as we were originally intended by our Creator.
Thank You So Much for your excellent essay!
MD Froman
Posted by: MD Froman at April 17, 2004 07:26 AMIt is important to note that the Qumran tefillin have been dated to 100-200 BCE, which is well after the Temple period.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at February 26, 2004 08:56 PMre:ancient tefillin..correction
There are indeed ancient remains of tefillin form the Qumran site, and they are similar to what is being produced today.
This is not to say that the tefillin are not a rabbinic derivation, and there is still no reason to assume so.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at February 26, 2004 08:54 PMThe Tefillin issue is a great one. When I was a religious man, I wore both the Rashi and Rabeinu Tam versions, and both types styled after the Beis Yosef (The shin on the shel rosh is different). Yet, in spite of this most careful adherence to this halachic parody of Pascal’s Wager, there remained those who felt that even this wasn’t enough to satisfy the normative performance of the mitzvah, insisting that I follow THEIR versions only. No one among the Rabbinists seem to be satisfied with anything.
There are some basic questions regarding tefillin that, although asked and researched, have yet to receive an answer.
1) Do we have tefillin that dates back to the 1st or 2nd Temple? To Davidic times? Or even maybe a set of Rashi’s own? One would assume that somehow, someway, we would discover at least one set of tefillin, and by doing so, would answer all the questions as to how it should be done(or IF it was done at all), since that which is closer to Sinai is considered more credible. This in particular since halacha requires that tefillin and other kodesh are to be buried. The rocky and arid soil of much of Israel seems adequate for preserving such items.
2) What style of tefillin did Rashi’s father wear? Or his Rov? And why did Rashi feel the need to change that? If Rashi were only copying the versions of his father and/or Rov, then what exactly did he innovate that now gives him so much credit for defining tefillin? Would it not have already been well known enough amongst Jews? One would think that a Tana or Amora would have an opinion on it, too.
3) How didthe Rabeinu Tam, who being one of Rashi’s own grandchildren and one of the Baalei Tosfos, come up with a different version (subtle as the alterations may be)? One would think that someone that close in time, proximity, and relation would have shared a few notes occasionally.
I suspect that the entire development of tefillin was kind of gradual and somewhat arbitrary, much like some of the other rabbinic explanations. The practice is built to suit a twisted reading of the Tanach. The rabbinists excel at creating complex answers for questions that shouldn’t exist.
SL
Spinoza in his Critique of Orthodoxy and Critique of Religion takes the same position. To Spinoza there was no reason to read the Tanach in any manner other than simply and naturally.
One would think that a God, Creator of Universes, All-Knowing, Almighty, Infinite, Eternal, etc...would have no problem in saying what He means and meaning what He says, without having to be ambiguous or vague. After all, a being that could create a brain/mind should certainly be capable of communicating clearly with it.
My father O'H used to teach me chumash in a very different way than most. We would actually talk about what was going on as if we were players in it, seeking reasonable and everyday explanations along with historical contexts. Commentaries became superflous. A posuk chumash learned as a real living thing tells its own story from every perspective, and we didn't just learn about mitzvos, but about human nature and psychology.
One can study the chapter about Yehuda, Tamar, Er, Onan (one of my favorites), become engrossed in all the nuances of zera levatala, and lose sight of the fact that these were just people, not heros or saints, just people with needs, fears, and desires. The rabbonim like to place the Avos on pedastals, holding them up as 'keeping the Torah before it was given', and then having to make excuses for everything they did which appeared to violate that asumption. Not only does the story become twisted beyond belief, but the simplistic, straight-foreward richness of it becomes lost in the maze of rabbinic obfuscations.
SL
Posted by: SL Aronovitz at February 17, 2004 03:18 AMLol.. thanks. :-)
*Tefillin*: I have heard this proof several times. Interestingly enough, Student does not mention it in his list. Maybe I will write about it in more detail later.
Briefly, I see of no evidence that tefillin is d'oraissa (from the Written Torah). Even if it was, the fact that details are missing does not imply an Oral Torah. As I said before, missing details means that we can do those things in any way we want. For example, see
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/disproofs_9_and_10_human_legislation.html
B"H
The Torah is a package deal - oral and written. We believe - as handed down from teacher to pupil in an unbroken chain since Moses - that Hashem gave the oral law to Moses. You agree that tefillin is d'oraissa, no? How could you possibly know how to make tefillin without the oral Torah?
You, my learned friend, could be ga'on hador if you channeled some of your superb intellectual energies into Gemorra and Rishonim. I don't agree with a lot of stuff you say, but you're my type of guy.
When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, they yearned for a god (and a name) to worship. One of the results was the idol worship which pissed off Moses.
I think that some folks are so eager to please the most high that they yearn for more law/history/information than is originally provided.
-The Puerto Rican quasi-Jew convert.
Posted by: luis at February 4, 2004 02:21 PMWhen Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, they yearned for a god (and a name) to worship. One of the results was the idol worship which pissed off Moses.
I think that some folks are so eager to please the most high that they yearn for more law/history/information than is originally provided.
-The Puerto Rican quasi-Jew convert.
Posted by: luis at February 4, 2004 02:21 PMNice Essay
I think you will find , however, that if this debate ever gets to the Orthodox side, you wil only meet scorn and violence from the orthodox. According to Halacha, and Rambam Especially, eg hilchot teshuva ch: 3, anyone who denies one single word of the oral law is an heretic and has no place in Olam Haba.
The motive that interests me is more one of intellectual honesty - something that is really precluded by being fundamentalist in one's beliefs. If one holds the oral law to be all true, then how can one be honest and objective, if it contradicts reason or revealed torah (ie written torah).
If one reaches the position on Oral law by faith alone, then what advantage does oen have over christianity, who say exactly what our rabbis say, and substitute the new testament for theOral law,a s the sole legitimate text for understanding the Tenach.
Posted by: eddie at February 3, 2004 12:10 PM