Sunday 3 September 2023

The Mishnah seems to be at odds with the Torah and Prophets

 UPDATE - see below:


As previously shown:

 

https://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2023/08/shatnez-achilles-heel-of-oral-law.html

 

The Torah forbids wool and linen mixtures .   In Deuteronomy, Shatnez  is clearly defined as wool and linen.

 

 

 

Leviticus Chapter 19 וַיִּקְרָא

 

אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֙יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ׃

 

 

            19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 דְּבָרִים

 

לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}        

11. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}        

12. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

 

 

and

 

 

 

Ezekiel

44

 

 

 

17 וְהָיָ֗ה בְּבוֹאָם֙ אֶֽל־שַׁעֲרֵי֙ הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַפְּנִימִ֔ית בִּגְדֵ֥י פִשְׁתִּ֖ים יִלְבָּ֑שׁוּ וְלֹֽא־יַעֲלֶ֤ה עֲלֵיהֶם֙ צֶ֔מֶר בְּשָׁרְתָ֗ם בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֛י הֶחָצֵ֥ר הַפְּנִימִ֖ית וָבָֽיְתָה׃

And when they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments: they shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner court.

 18פַּאֲרֵ֤י פִשְׁתִּים֙ יִהְי֣וּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔ם וּמִכְנְסֵ֣י פִשְׁתִּ֔ים יִֽהְי֖וּ עַל־מׇתְנֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א יַחְגְּר֖וּ בַּיָּֽזַע׃

They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen breeches on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat.

 

The Mishnah, which is the basis of the oral law dedicates an entire volume to  “kilayim”.  And in Ch. 9:1 makes the following statement:

 

 

 

אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בִנְגָעִים אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. אֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים לוֹבְשִׁין לְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶלָּא צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים. צֶמֶר גְּמַלִּים וְצֶמֶר רְחֵלִים שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בָזֶה, אִם רֹב מִן הַגְּמַלִּים, מֻתָּר, וְאִם רֹב מִן הָרְחֵלִים, אָסוּר. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה, אָסוּר. וְכֵן הַפִּשְׁתָּן וְהַקַּנְבּוֹס שֶׁטְּרָפָן זֶה בָזֶה:

 

Nothing is forbidden on account of kilayim except [a mixture of] wool and linen. No [clothing material] is subject to uncleanness by scale disease except wool or linen. Priests do not wear any materials to serve in the Temple except for wool and linen. Camel’s wool with sheep’s wool, that have been mixed together: if the greater part is camel’s wool, it is permitted [to mix it with linen], but if the greater part is sheep’s wool, it is forbidden; if it is half and half, it is forbidden. The same applies to hemp and linen mixed together.

 

 https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Kilayim.9.1?lang=bi

 

 

 

Despite the outright prohibition in the Torah, and the explicit statement by Yechezkel outlawing  wool with the linen in the Temple service, the Mishnah appears to claims the opposite – i.e.  the Kohanim can only wear shaatnez – wool and linen mixtures in the Temple.

 

 

This raises the question of belief in the Oral law, and the stepwise reasoning for accepting or rejecting it.

 

Depending on how one is raised, one may be familiar with, or totally immersed in the mishnah way of seeing things, or  in some cases not at all aware of its existence.

 

The oral law – Mishnah and Talmud (plus various midrashim, Sifrei, baraitas etc.) is presented by Perushi  Rabbis as part and parcel of the written Torah , and indispensable in understanding the Torah!

 

However, a rational and stepwise approach would be to read the Torah in historical / chronological order.  That means starting with the Torah and then the Nakh.   The Mishna was written some 600-700 years after the end of Chronicles, and the Talmud almost 1000 years after  Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles).

 

 

Contrary to the claim of many rabbis, the oral law is not required to understand the Tanakh. In fact the very opposite is true. The oral law is a deliberate misunderstanding of the Tanakh, or  mistranslation.  It is not easy for the layman to know the entire Talmud or both talmuds, and I certainly make no claim to have such knowledge. Hence I am offering spot tests on various Torah laws, and how they are violated by the oral law of the Perushim.

 


UPDATE:

Most rabbis claim, that the verses from Ezekiel  ch 44 (17-19)  refer only to the Yom Kippur service.

Furthermore, the Mishnah I have quoted above,  is interpreted differently to how I have understood it, and how the plain translation is -  they say  that the garments of the priests may be pure linen, or wool, or a mixture, depending on the occasion.  


the above are difficult to accept, unless one presupposes that everything the oral law presents is true, whilst the plain meaning of the TNK  essentially does not exist.  Firstly, Yechezkel does not state that this restriction is only for Yom Kippur. It is a general rule. Later on in  chapter 45,  there are specified times,  such as the first month (Aviv), and the 7th month. There are also specifics of Shabbat and new moon stated explicitly, e.g. in Ch. 46:1.  



Wednesday 30 August 2023

Shatnez – the Achilles Heel of the Oral Law

 

 

 

The Torah forbids wool and linen mixtures .   The translation given below in Leviticus 19  of the word Shatnez is not accurate. In Deuteronomy, Shatnez  is clearly defined as wool and linen.

 

The rabbis of the oral law looked at the verse 12 of Devarim 22, which commands the mitzvah of Tzitzit.  They somehow managed to confound this with the previous verse, and arrived at the conclusion that  whereas Shatnez is an outright prohibition,  in the case of Tzitzit  it is permitted, namely the techelet thread should be made of wool, with the rest of linen.  From here they also projected this synthesis of the forbidden and the permitted onto the garments of the Kohanim in the Temple service.  Whether the sequence was in this order, or in reverse is not clear – although my guess would be that they started with the perversion of  temple service, which was their methodology of  desecrating as much of the Temple purity as possible. From there, they tried to retrofit their justification onto the verses in Devarim.

 

 

Leviticus Chapter 19 וַיִּקְרָא

 

אֶֽת־חֻקֹּתַי֮ תִּשְׁמֹ֒רוּ֒ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ֙ לֹא־תַרְבִּ֣יעַ כִּלְאַ֔יִם שָׂדְךָ֖ לֹא־תִזְרַ֣ע כִּלְאָ֑יִם וּבֶ֤גֶד כִּלְאַ֙יִם֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז לֹ֥א יַעֲלֶ֖ה עָלֶֽיךָ׃

 

 

            19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 22 דְּבָרִים

 

לֹ֤א תִלְבַּשׁ֙ שַֽׁעַטְנֵ֔ז צֶ֥מֶר וּפִשְׁתִּ֖ים יַחְדָּֽו׃ {ס}        

11. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.

גְּדִלִ֖ים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֑ךְ עַל־אַרְבַּ֛ע כַּנְפ֥וֹת כְּסוּתְךָ֖ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תְּכַסֶּה־בָּֽהּ׃ {ס}        

12. You shall make tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

Yechezkel – Ezekiel, reiterates the laws pertaining to the Priestly garments, as if he prophetically foresees the abuse of this Law by the Pharisees. Interestingly, he  states that it is the Priests of Tzadok who will maintain the Temple service:

 

 

Ezekiel

44

 

 

 

17 וְהָיָ֗ה בְּבוֹאָם֙ אֶֽל־שַׁעֲרֵי֙ הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַפְּנִימִ֔ית בִּגְדֵ֥י פִשְׁתִּ֖ים יִלְבָּ֑שׁוּ וְלֹֽא־יַעֲלֶ֤ה עֲלֵיהֶם֙ צֶ֔מֶר בְּשָׁרְתָ֗ם בְּשַׁעֲרֵ֛י הֶחָצֵ֥ר הַפְּנִימִ֖ית וָבָֽיְתָה׃

And when they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments: they shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner court.

 18פַּאֲרֵ֤י פִשְׁתִּים֙ יִהְי֣וּ עַל־רֹאשָׁ֔ם וּמִכְנְסֵ֣י פִשְׁתִּ֔ים יִֽהְי֖וּ עַל־מׇתְנֵיהֶ֑ם לֹ֥א יַחְגְּר֖וּ בַּיָּֽזַע׃

They shall have linen turbans on their heads and linen breeches on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat.

 19 וּ֠בְצֵאתָ֠ם אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֨ר הַחִיצוֹנָ֜ה אֶל־הֶחָצֵ֣ר הַחִיצוֹנָה֮ אֶל־הָעָם֒ יִפְשְׁט֣וּ אֶת־בִּגְדֵיהֶ֗ם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֙מָּה֙ מְשָׁרְתִ֣ם בָּ֔ם וְהִנִּ֥יחוּ אוֹתָ֖ם בְּלִֽשְׁכֹ֣ת הַקֹּ֑דֶשׁ וְלָֽבְשׁוּ֙ בְּגָדִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֔ים וְלֹא־יְקַדְּשׁ֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם בְּבִגְדֵיהֶֽם׃

When they go out to the outer court—the outer court where the people are—they shall remove the vestments in which they minister and shall deposit them in the sacred chambers; they shall put on other garments, lest they make the people consecrated by [contact with] their vestments.

 

 

 

 

In contrast to the claim of the Pharisees,  no wool is permitted on/in any of  the priestly garments.  The rabbinic commentators try all kinds of pretzel logic to weave their way out of this – some say that it is only on Yom Kippur, and no shatnez was worn on that day (which is contrary to their own sources); Others say it was not Yom Kippur, and that these verses do not apply to the High Priest (although all priests would wear tekhelet according to the rabbis this would be wool woven with linen garments).

 

The absurdity of the zig zagging by the Pharisees is indicative that this matter is an Achilles heel for the oral law.

 

 

 

Rambam  also has some difficulty in trying to solve this problem.  Despite his protestations in his legal Mishneh Tora, that the priests' garments and also tzitzit were made of shatnez, in his Guide for the Perplexed  he makes an interesting insinuation – pointing out that the ancient priests of Idolatry would wear shatnez tunics, and this is the reason why it is forbidden!

Thursday 17 August 2023

Freud on Monotheism, and the sublimation of the Talmud

 

 

The great psychoanalyst  Sigmund Freud attempted to deal with Religion in his final book “Moses and Montheism”.  This was not received very well  - not by the Orthodox Jews, and not by secular academics.  Briefly, his thesis was that the Israelites rose up in the wilderness, against Moses, and killed him.  But because of this guilt, they established a monotheistic religion, which became Judaism. Moses was then possibly replaced by a Midianite priest, who also took on the name Moses.

 

Whilst this appears as sheer fantasy, it is in fact not a novel theory, but perhaps a distorted or displaced theory of  statements in the Talmud, and maybe even the Torah.

 

 

In the Talmud Yerushalmi (the less commonly studied version)  Sanhedrin 2:6 , a remarkable story is told. It claims that King Solomon was deposed from his throne,  by an angel, who then replaced him on the throne!

 

“It is written: To amusement I said, be praised. The Holy One, praise to him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his stead. He was going around in synagogues and houses of study, saying I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem. They were telling him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, I am Ecclesiastes? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: that is my part. Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, י in יַרְבֶּה accused him. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a י from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.”

 

https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.2.6.7?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

 

 

 

 

This story is sheer fantasy, and has no basis in the Tanakh.  For a more detailed analysis see Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz’s excellent essay:

 

https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/wisdom-and-human-pretention-the-riddle-of-shlomo-and-its-resolution/

 

 

 

So far, we have seen a theory about Moses, written by Freud in the 20th century, which is remarkably similar to the story told in the Talmud Yerushalmi, which was written about 1500 years earlier.  The displacement of the story is that whereas the Yerushalmi is talking about King Solomon,  Freud has applied the core concept to Moses. The further distortion is that the Yerushalmi speaks of an “angel” who ousted Solomon, and took his throne, whereas for Freud, it was the people who arose and ousted (murdered) Moses.

 

 

Is there any basis in the Torah itself for Freud’s assertions regarding Moses?

 

The Torah tells us a course of events, which lead to Moses being prevented from Entering Israel, and sadly dying outside of the Land. But Moses in turn blames the people for this, as they were ultimately responsible for his ownpuishment:

 

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 1 דְּבָרִים

 

37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying: Thou also shalt not go in thither;

38 Joshua the son of Nun, who standeth before thee, he shall go in thither; encourage thou him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

 

 

 

 

Deuteronomy Chapter 3 דְּבָרִים

 

25 Let me go over, I pray Thee, and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill-country, and Lebanon.'

26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me; and the LORD said unto me: 'Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter.

 

28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.

 

 

 

 

So Moses himself sees this as a punishment, which was due to the behaviour of the people, although indirect. And his replacement  is Joshua.

 

Freud was aware of the Torah’s own narrative, and presumably also of the Talmud.

 There is some basis for his claims, although it does take a different course from what the Torah says, and is somewhat in line with the Talmudic formulation regarding Solomon.  Freud is projecting his own theories of the subconscious and trying to derive a new theory about religion.  Moses would not agree with Freud, but he did place the punishment he suffers on the shoulders of the people, who caused  this in the first place. In fact  their rebellious nature , against Moses,  led to his receiving a punishment and dying before reaching Israel. He was replaced by another leader, Joshua.

Tuesday 27 June 2023

A Warning and an Omission

 

In the Torah – Devarim ch.28,  we see a warning , to avoid all the plagues and curses in the Torah –

 

58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;


This is referring to the words written in the Torah.

 

The problem this raises for proponents of the alleged oral Law is that it makes no reference to the words in the Talmud or mishnah.  Thus, for example, the claimed festival of Nisuch Hamayim – Water Libation,  which the Pharisees imposed during the Sukkot festival, is not mentioned in the Torah.  As is the case with all other rabbinic and supposed non-written Laws.

 

Had there been a contemporaneous oral law, at the time of the giving of the Torah, the Torah would  also be warning us to observe those extra laws as well, which it clearly doesn’t.  This omission is very significant, since it exposes the absence of the oral law from Sinai.

 

Now, what if  the Pharisees were to claim that although this verse relates only to what is written, there is still an oral law, which is not mentioned specifically here?

There is an earlier verse in the chapter which can refute such claims -


15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.


 In v.15, it refers to all of the commandments - meaning there is no extra commandment that was given to Moses. Thus, v.58 is  referring to the same commandments as v.15, and therefore, v.15 is excluding any possibility of the Oral law!

 

Tuesday 18 April 2023

The Tree of Life ?

In Bereishit, we come across a very obscure passage, regarding the Tree of Life and immortality:

 

 

Genesis 3;

 

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

 

 

No further mention of this specific Tree of Life is made in the Torah, to my limited knowledge, and the prospect for Mankind is to remain mortal. It is used in a slightly different context in Mishlei – Proverbs : https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Prov+3%3A18%3B+11%3A30%3B+13%3A12%3B+15%3A4&version=NRSVUE

 

 

Later on we come across another obscure verse in Isaiah, where the prospect of immortality is prophesied, as a future event.  It is unbelievable, to mere mortals, and as such it seems to have not become a prominent concept in Judaism (unlike resurrection, or Olam Haba):

 

 

Isaiah Chapter 25; 8

 

He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the earth; for the LORD hath spoken it. 

 

 

 

Isaiah is prophesying, at the very least, a termination of  the expulsion in Genesis 3, namely preventing us from immortality.  But Isaiah does not mention the Tree of Life itself?

 

The question I have, is whether he is referring to the Tree, is the prophecy indeed the immortality conferred by the Tree of Life?

Monday 16 May 2022

The Nachmanides Supremacy

 

 

Maimonides - Moses ben Maimon (1138–1204), commonly known by his acronym the RambaM , is one of the greatest mediaeval Rabbis and halachic authorities. Also a great scientist, doctor, astronomer and a notable philosopher.  His younger near contemporary,  Nachmanides – Moses ben Nachman (1194–1270) was referred to as RambaN and perhaps almost as celebrated as his illustrious predecessor. Nachmanides was more mystically oriented, in some respects, and an early Kabbalist, but still took a rational approach to Torah.  My personal view is that he was more rational in his plain reading of the Torah, at least in his commentary on the plain meaning of verses.

 

Rambam wrote a  vast Halachic opus which he calls the “Mishneh Torah” , and  based on the following verse from Devarim 17:

 

11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.

 

יאעַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹֽאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל:

 

 

 

he claims (Hil. Mamrim Ch. 1; 1-2) that this Torah verse commands us to adhere to all laws and decisions enacted by the Phariseeic Sanhedrin, namely all aspects of the Oral law . This is despite the fact that the verse is referring only to a dispute where the disputants are unable to reach agreement locally, and they take their dispute to the High court – i.e. only the specific judgement for the case.

 

And here is where Nachmanides takes issue with Maimonides.  He points out, that even according to the Talmud,  rabbinic law is inferior to Torah law, in certain situations, eg in case of a doubt , one takes a leniency for rabbinic law, but is strict to observe the Torah law.  According to Maimonides, all rabbinic law has Torah status, at least in his abovementioned statement.

 

Nachmanides is rejecting the claim that the verse from Devarim obliges us to keep rabbinic (oral) law.  Apparently,  Nachmanides does not claim that there is a Scriptural basis for rabbinic law! The implication for Bnei Mikra is quite obvious,  that Nachmanides  is essentially accepting the fundamental claim of Karaites!

 

Hence, the title of this post,  relative to Maimonides and many other rabbis, we see the Nachmanides Supremacy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunday 27 February 2022

Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk – Greatest Rabbinical Thinker

 

 

 

The great Rabbi, Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, also known as the Ohr Sameach, and the Meshech Chochmah (by the titles of his famous books), was a unique thinker, who was at once amongst the greatest Rabbis of strict orthodoxy, and at the same time an individual thinker, who went against the grain of  strict Orthodoxy in his interpretations of the Torah.

 

One might ask why I have designated him as the greatest Rabbinical thinker, at least in his era? There were Modern Orthodox thinkers such as Rabbis Kook, Soloveitchik, Goren, Sacks, as well as the philosopher Rabbis Eliezer Berkovits and Emanuel Rackman.

 

Rabbi Meir Simcha was not part of Modern orthodoxy, but was more radical than anyone within Modern Orthodoxy.  He was not part of the religious Zionist movement, but was fundamentally more Zionist  than many in that world.

I will try to present the case that he certainly was not a Karaite, but in some ways was one of the greatest Karaite thinkers too.

 

In his commentary on Bereishit-Genesis, we see an amazing interpretation , which has implications that go well beyond the topic of Adam and the forbidden fruit.

 

https://outorah.org/p/44190/

 

Quoting from the above summary:

 

The First Mitzvah and the Etz Hada’as

וַיְצַו ה' אֱלֹקִים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל. וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ.

Hashem God commanded man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do not eat thereof.” (2:16-17)

It is possible to sum up the contents of these two pesukim by stating that Hashem told Adam that while he may eat from any of the trees on the garden, one tree – the Etz Hada’as – remained forbidden. As such, the first mitzvah ever given to man was a negative one, i.e. a prohibition. However, the Meshech Chochmah states that this is not the case. The first mitzvah was in fact a positive one – to eat from all the other trees in the garden, for the words “אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל” as stated regarding those trees was also a mitzvah![4]

The implications of this understanding are twofold.

Firstly, it reflects the idea that benefiting from and enjoying this world is not merely something which is permitted; it is a positive expression of Hashem’s will and, as such, a mitzvah. This idea is summed up in the statement of the Yerushalmi[5] that a person will have to give a reckoning in the future for not having partaken of the enjoyments of this world which were permitted to him.

However, there is a further element. One of the properties of mitzvos is that they help protect a person from committing aveiros. As such, the mitzvah of eating from the other trees in the garden should likewise have protected Adam and Chava from sinning with the Etz HaDa’as. Why did this not happen?

The answer to this question will come from considering Chava’s words to the snake:[6]

מִפְּרִי עֵץ הַגָּן נֹאכֵל. וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן אָמַר אֱלֹקִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ

Of the fruit of any tree in the garden we may eat. Of the fruit of the tree which is in the center of the garden God has said: “You shall not eat from it nor shall you touch it.”

We note that Chava does not mention Hashem’s name in connection with eating from the other trees. It is only with reference to not eating from the Etz HaDa’as that she prefaces: “אָמַר אֱלֹקִים – God said.”[7] This means that when Adam informed her regarding eating from the other trees, he neglected to tell her that this was also a mitzvah.

 

 

We see that for the verses  Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do not eat thereof.” (2:16-17)

The Meshech Chochmah is saying there is a positive commandment here , to indulge in the almost unending number of trees and their unique fruits, thus to avoid the single forbidden fruit.  He further argues that  Eve did not quite grasp this concept and that she therefore was unable to defend herself from the snake and its seduction or deception.

 

The Bereishit system of Law is centred on a single restriction, i.e. the fruit of the forbidden tree (of knowledge of Good and Evil).  To balance this, there are hundreds, or thousands of trees, perhaps also vegetables , that bear fruits of different flavours.

The later Torah from Sinai has a larger number of restrictions than what existed in Eden. But they are not infinite. The world still provides many “trees” that bear fruit.

It has been the systematic Rabbinic project to add to restrictions, and more and more restrictions.  And this has been for the purpose of self-mortification. It also led – historically to the destruction of the 2nd Temple.

 

Rabbi Meir Simcha is telling a truth that applies to rabbanism – which he must have subconsciously been aware of.  Namely, that the Torah did not command anyone to add restrictions, and in fact forbade it.

Saturday 19 February 2022

Don't Believe Everything They Tell You

 

In   1 Kings  13, a prophet is sent to Bethel to warn Jeroboam about the altar he had set up, against the Laws of the Torah.   That same prophet is also instructed not to eat bread or drink water of the locals, and to return home via a different route.

 

 

Later on, an older prophet meets the prophet sent by God, and invites him to eat and drink at his local house. Initially he (young prophet) refuses. The older prophet says the following.

 

 

v.18

 

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ל֗וֹ גַּם־אֲנִ֣י נָבִיא֮ כָּמ֒וֹךָ֒ וּמַלְאָ֡ךְ דִּבֶּ֣ר אֵלַי֩ בִּדְבַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר הֲשִׁבֵ֤הוּ אִתְּךָ֙ אֶל־בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְיֹ֥אכַל לֶ֖חֶם וְיֵ֣שְׁתְּ מָ֑יִם כִּחֵ֖שׁ לֽוֹ׃ “I am a prophet, too,” said the other, “and an angel said to me by command of the LORD: Bring him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.” He was lying to him.

 

 

 

He fails to maintain his resistance, and accepts the invitation of the older (dishonest) prophet.  For this, he is later on punished, and killed by a lion on his way back home.

 

 

 

There is contained within this story not only a philosophy of prophecy, but also a philosophy of religion.  Here are a number of inferences we can make:

 

 

a)      Even an old prophet can make up lies, if it suits him, eg for prestige, power, or any other personal gain.

 b)      The fact that somebody claims to be a prophet, a mystic, a receiver of visions or traditions, in no way verifies his claims.


 

Thursday 6 January 2022

Chareidi Child Abuse – the Depth of Depravity

 

 

Numerous cases of child abuse, rape, homosexual abuse have occurred in Rabbinic institutions – yeshivas, or by supposedly Orthodox people, observant of both the Written and Oral law sets.  This has not been unlike what has happened in the Catholic Church for many years.

 

The response to these terrible crimes has often been suppression, denial, and threats against the accusers or publicisers, and calls of “informer”. Some changes have occurred in recent years. In the Religious Orthodox Zionist world, which was also hit by such scandals, a forum of leading rabbis was set up to tackle this problem, and they boldly took down some people who were even heads of yeshivot.  In the Ultra-orthodox (Hareidi) world  the leaders have at last advised any victims to go directly to the police. 

 

A current scandal is so contorted that it has to be explained in several steps:

 

1)      A Chareidi author, who wrote many books for children, as well as being a rabbi, also became a self-appointed child therapist.  He was accused of multiple rapes and abuse of children put in his care for “therapy”, as well as conducting adulterous affairs with married women. All this from a Bnei Brak “rabbi”.

2)      2 courageous Rabbinic courts, one of Rabbi Eliyahu, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Safed,  and another in Bnei Brak itself , under  the auspices of leading Ashkenazi rabbinic Dayanim , attempted to deal with this problem.

3)      The alleged paedophile, by the name or Chaim Walder, refused to cooperate with either Beit Din,  and in the meantime removed himself from public life.

4)      The Safed Bet Din received testimonies form 22 different people, who all accused Walder of various types of sex abuse, rape and adultery. 

5)      It was rumoured that the Police had received reports of these accusations, and had contacted Walder. 

6)      A recording of a phone conversation between a married woman and Walder was leaked to Haaretz newspaper, who originally broke the story. In this conversation, Walder appears to be telling his married lover who to lie her way through everything, the way he does. She was going through divorce proceedings as a result of her adultery, which was carrying on for 6 years.

7)      Some 5 weeks after the story broke, Walder had acquired a gun, and shot himself dead, leaving a suicide note, placing the blame of Rabbi Eliyahu of safed, and rabbi Silman of Bnei Brak, and claiming a fair trial is not possible in this world , and hence he is summoning these Dayanim to the great bet din in the sky!  Suicide is strictly forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, and is considered to be equivalent to murder.

8)      In the Orthodox Rabbinic world, several  groups have emerged, with varying opinions on this whole shameful episode:

 

 

  The Modern and Zionist orthodox have largely backed Rabbi Eliyahu, as have essentially the entire Sephardi world, whether modern or Chareidi.  I should add that secular Israelis who have followed the story also support Rabbi Eliyahu.

 

The Chareidi Ashkenazi world has split into several parts. The “modern” end of the hareidi spectrum, together with Chabad Lubavitch  have tended to back rabbi Eliyahu.   The leading Ashkenazi rabbi Gershon Edelstein has made 2 contradictory statements. The first one accused people who publicised  the matter of having shamed Walder, and ultimately are guilty of “murdering” him. A few days later, this statement was retracted, and attributed to other people. He then made a more measured statement, saying people should go direct to the police if they have suffered abuse, and also notes that suicide is strictly forbidden.

However, an extremist sector in the Chareidi world, has only accepted the first statement, i.e. blaming the press, and the court of Rabbi Eliyahu (whilst also ignoring the Bnei Brak court) of being guilty of “murdering” the mass rapist, Chaim Walder.  Also,  some “religious Zionist” rabbis, who are somewhat closer to the Chareidi world view, but not entirely, have also joined in the anti-Eliyahu  chorus.

 

 

 

The problems that this scandal raise are quite troubling. The Rabbanites, and the Chareidim in particular, are obsessed with the separation of the sexes, “modesty” eg in dress,  closing off the outside world, eg movies, TV, smartphones etc.

Yet, when their own people behave in the most depraved manner, they deny, cover, or even justify and consider them to be righteous.   Adultery, suicide, rape, which are severe crimes, are brushed off as being insignificant compared to those who speak “loshon hara”  - gossip.

 

The fixation on laws of “loshon hara” and embarrassing another person, are stifling them from doing what the Torah commands, eg to do justice, to plead the cause of the widow and orphan, to drive out evil from the Land etc.  At the same time, many Hareidi rabbis have no problem in embarrassing and speaking against those who don’t agree with their interpretations or politics.

 

 

Despite claims to the contrary, these episodes show that  even highly organised religion of Rabbanite Orthodoxy is subject to the same psychological drives as any other group of people. What occurs in the Catholic church , also sadly occurs in the orthodox yeshiva – and the psychological reasons are most likely the same.  Restriction heaped upon restriction has not managed to control this type of behaviour, and it is in fact not even a matter of great concern to some in that world.  Also , the other myth, that Talmud study is a cure all, and that mental illness is not so prevalent in the Orthodox world, appear to be completely false. 

 

Do the overly strict laws and regulation of the rabbanites cause mental harm? Or is the kind of mental illness that leads to such depravity something that is more genetic, and not learned form the environment?  Or would a relaxation of many restrictions actually make things worse?  These are important questions, but would require a systematic research programme, which I am unable to do at this moment.

Tuesday 7 September 2021

Minority Opinions in the Talmud - match those of Karaites

 Here is an interesting article by Rabbi H. Shachter of Yeshiva University

 

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2006/parsha/rsch_vaeschanan.html

 

In it , he discusses the prohibition of intermarriage, and  how Jewishness is determined.

 

He mentions several opinions in the Talmud (without proper citations) , the minority opinons seem to be also held by Karaites -  namely, that Jewishness is determined  either by both parents being  Jewish, or either of them  (father or mother) being Jewish.

 

Below is a copy of the article:

 

Intermarriage

In one possuk at the end of parshas Va'eschanan (7:3) the Torah prohibits both forms of intermarriage: a Jewish man may not take a non-Jewish woman, nor may a Jewish woman marry a non-Jewish man. In Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 157:61) the opinion of the Ramban (Milchamos, Sanhedrin 74) has been adopted, that there is a big difference between the two aforementioned cases. Because in the case of a Jewish man taking a non-Jewish wife the children will not be Jewish, this prohibition is considered more serious; it is considered as if the man had become a "mechuttan" with the avodah zarah. This is the end of the line! The tradition of Jewishness transmitted from Mt. Sinai from generation to generation will not be able to continue. But when a Jewish woman marries a non-Jewish man, the children will be Jewish; the transmission of Jewishness will continue. The woman has violated a serious aveira, but this is not a case of yehoreig ve'al ya'avor.

In Europe the common practice was that when a Jewish man would marry a non-Jewish woman, this was considered equivalent to his converting to another religion (shmad). However when a Jewish woman married a non-Jewish man, the custom was not necessarily so. This aveira was not considered the equivalent of shmad.

Whenever there is a "mixed" marriage between two Jews, for example when a Kohein or a Levi marries a girl who is not a Kohenes or a Leviah, the status of the children is determined by the father. The same is true when there is a "mixed" marriage between two non-Jews. Amaleki, Edomi, Mitzri, and Canaani each have a special status according to the halacha. When there is a mingling between two nationalities, the halacha declares that all the children follow the nationality of the father. This halacha is based on the possuk in Parshas Bamidbar (1:2) "l'mishpechosom l'beis avosom", which implies that in cases of a conflict, the mishpacha of the father is to be followed. The only exception is where there is a mixed marriage between Jew and non-Jew. In Talmudic times none of the rabbis felt that in these cases the status of the children should be determined solely by the father. One opinion felt that in order to be Jewish one must have both a father and a mother who are Jewish. A second opinion held that with either parent being Jewish, all the children would be considered Jewish. And the accepted opinion is that the issue is determined solely by the mother[1]. This position was arrived at based on the Rabbi's careful reading of the pesukim (7:3-4) at the end of our parsha. The Reform movement's renunciation of this position was a rejection of a tradition that has been accepted for over 1,500 years.

It is interesting to note that in a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew none of the rabbis felt that the status of the children should be determined by the father. If in the other two types of mixed marriages (where both parents are Jewish or where the parents come from two different non-Jewish nations) the halacha established that everything is determined by the father, what motivated the rabbis to assume that the same should not be the case when a Jew and non-Jew marry?

The answer lies in the wording of the possuk in Bamidbar (ibid). The status of the children is determined solely by the father when we're dealing with an issue of "mishpacha". Being a Kohein or Levi is an issue of mishpachas kehuna or mishpachas leviah. The same is true regarding Amaleki, Edomi, etc. we colloquially refer to these groups as "nationalities", but strictly speaking (halachically) they are merely "mishapchos". In order to be a member of a certain mishpacha, you must have yichus (genealogical lineage) of ben achar ben through your father. Being Jewish, however, is not a function of which mishpacha one belongs to. This is illustrated by the institution of geirus (conversion). After conversion, a ger belongs to no mishpacha, but nonetheless is just as Jewish as all the other Jews. Being Jewish is a function of belonging to the Jewish people (Am Yisroel). The Jewish people are the only ones called a nation as such! "Umi ke'amcha Yisroel goy echad ba'aretz" (Shmuel II 7:27)[2].

The rabbis apparently assumed that since "mishapacha" and "am" are fundamentally different, it must be that inclusion in each one will be determined by different factors in the case of a mixed marriage. A major difference between a mishpacha and a nation is that a mishpacha consists of a collection of individuals who relate to each other in a special way, while the term "goy" (nation) comes from the word "geviah" (body). Klal Yisroel is considered "one body". We must adopt this attitude and act accordingly.


[1] Tosafos Yevamos 16b, s.v. oveid kochavim, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Gilyon Hashas ad loc.)

[2] See "Chilul Hashem" where we explained in a similar vein why the actions of one Jew are seen as a reflection on all Jews, as opposed to other nations where the actions of an individual are not understood as such.

 

 He then tries to point out that there was not a rabbinical opinion which claimed that Patrlineal descent is what determines Jewishness. 

however, he as admitted that it can be either patrilineal of Matrilineal, according to one of the unnamed rabbis.

 

In any case these minority views have never been accepted as Rabbinic halacha,  but nevertheless it is interesting that such views existed.