Half –Jewish - The Aish Rabbi Rep[lies]

In a response to a question about patrilineal descent, the Orthodox rabbi from Aish gave the following response.  I will make my comments below it.

http://www.aish.com/atr/Half-Jewish.html?catid=907779

“Jewishness is passed on via the mother. If the mother is Jewish, the child is 100% Jewish. If only the father is Jewish (but not the mother), then the child is 100% not Jewish. Jewish identity passed on through the mother has been universally accepted by Jews for 3,300 years, and was decided by God, as recorded in Deuteronomy 7:3-4. The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b) explains how this law is evident from those passages. Modern attempts to revise this law have caused a dangerous split in the Jewish people.

In another sense, however, the father does passes on lineage, in terms of which tribe the child belongs to. This determines whether the child is a Cohen, Levite, or Yisrael. See Numbers 1:20-46 which explicitly categorizes the Jewish people by their "father's house."

Of course, in the event that one’s mother is not Jewish, there is no significance to which tribe the father comes from, since the child is anyway not Jewish.

It should be noted that just because someone's last name is "Cohen" doesn't mean that he has the status of a Kohen. To be considered a Kohen, one must have an unbroken tradition, as well as other factors too numerous to mention here. Nevertheless, it does turn out that many people who have the name Cohen also have the status as Kohen.

From the fact that the religion of the child goes by the mother, while the tribal affiliation goes by the father, we see that both parents must take an active role with the child. The mother is entrusted with the awesome duty of instilling in the child faith in God, observance of mitzvot, and Jewish pride. By way of metaphor, we see that the mother gives the baby food and love that brings out its internal potential. This is in contrast to the external qualities, represented by tribal affiliation that is the father's duty.”

The rabbis may claim it is a 3300 years old law of matrilineal descent, but this is actually false.  The verses from Deuteronomy 7 are as follows:

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.

First, the prohibition applies to both men and women marrying the 7 nations cited in V1.   It is not gender specific.

Next, V4 is speaking about the nation, e.g. Amor, Canaan, etc, who will turn “your son” away.  This is the same son (or daughter) as mentioned in V3.   The rabbis claim it is the offspring of the Israelite woman and Canaanite man.   Although I have written about this before, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-false-assumption-of-matrilineal.html  it is worth repeating:

In Exodus 34,

“6 and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods.“

If the Talmud’s understanding of Deut. 7 is correct, then Exodus 34 is referring also to your grandsons, ie the offspring of the 7 nations women and Israelite men. So the whole argument of matrilineal descent is demolished.

The next claim that the rabbi makes is also contradictory: “the father does passes on lineage, in terms of which tribe the child belongs to.”

But “Jewish” is nothing more and nothing less than being  part of a tribe.  In this case, the tribe of Judah.  Thus, the tribal affiliation of Judah is passed on through the father, and not the mother.  A female can only get her tribal affiliation from her father. If her father is from Dan, she will not be Jew-ish, but Dan-ish, and this is not the Scandinavian  variety.

The rabbis gets himself into deep trouble by quoting the Torah:

“Numbers 1:20-46 which explicitly categorizes the Jewish people by their "father's house."”

To be more precise,  Numbers categorizes the Israelite people by their patrilineal descent.  This includes, Judah, and hence the Jews.

Num 1:

2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;

The category of Jewishness as defined by the rabbis is not what the Torah teaches.

More Orthodox Reform - After the Kohanim, the Levites were Targeted

In the Mishna following the previous post  http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/orthodoxy-is-reform.html , a very strange thing is said:

Sotah 9:10

"(10) Yohanan the High Priest brought to an end the confession of the tithes (see Deuteronomy 26:13-15) [since Ezra punished the Levites who did not come up from Bavel by enacting that henceforth tithes should be given to the priests, thus one could not declare; I have given to the Levite]. ..."

see https://outorah.org/p/12978

It is claimed by  the Bartenura commentary that Ezra punished the Levites, and that the “High Priest” of the Pharisees abolished the tithes confession commanded in Devarim.

There is a factual problem to all this.  

Ezra 8:

18 And according to the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of discretion, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;

19 and Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;

29 Watch ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before the chiefs of the priests and the Levites, and the princes of the fathers' houses of Israel, at Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of the LORD.'

30 So the priests and the Levites received the weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the house of our God.

It is explicitly stated that Ezra succeeded in finding sufficient numbers of Levites for the Temple service. This contradicts the claim of the rabbanite mishnah, which says he punished them, and took away their duties from the Temple service.

What actually happened, is that the rabbanite crony, “Yochanan” who was installed as a supposed High Priest, had already been part of the scheme destroy the Priesthood, and then turns his attention to the Levites. In other words, to totally rid the temple of the righteous ministers, the Pharisees also had to dispose of the Levites. So they made up a false account of what Ezra had allegedly done, to “justify” the removal of the Levites, and the annulment of another Torah commandment.

Oral Law Debate - with Mesora -Ben Chaim

The following is a debate I had with Rabbi Ben Chaim a few years ago.  Upon re-reading his comment, sadly, I think they are all false, or based on his wishful thinking.

http://www.mesora.org/OralLawVeracity.htm

Oral Law – Refutation of Christianity

Moshe Ben-Chaim

---

Reader: Now, the points you raised, I will quote you: “Mesora: Their (the Rabbis) views are rooted in the Oral Law given AT Sinai.” I say, THEY CLAIM ORAL LAW WAS GIVEN IN SINAI - BUT THERE IS NO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE TORAH!

Mesora: Textual evidence is not the only valid evidence. A unanimous, verbally transmitted position that Moses received the Oral Law proves that the Oral Law was in fact given to Moses at Sinai. If it had not been received, then there would not be a unanimous position by all Torah leaders.

Reader: You wrote, “The Rabbis - and no other group - were granted authority over Torah interpretation, as stated in the Torah.” AGAIN, THIS IS NOT STATED IN THE TORAH. THE CHUMASH MAKES NO REFERENCE TO "RABBIS", OR TO THEIR INTERPRETATION.  IT SIMPLY REFERS TO JUDGES AND COHANIM WHO SERVE IN HIS CHOSEN PLACE.

Mesora: It most certainly is, “In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you – right or left.” (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand “Judges” to refer to the Rabbis. But as I mentioned above, there is no dispute as to the truth of the transmission of the Oral Law, from G-d to Moses, to the Elders, Aaron, his sons, and the entire Jewish nation. The Oral law teaches that this refers to the Rabbis.

Reader: THE MISHNA WAS WRITTEN AROUND THE SAME TIME AS THE NEW TESTAMENT – SO IT WASN’T GIVEN AT SINAI!
Mesora: The date of writing the Mishna does not define its date of inception, which was at Sinai. 

Reader: BESIDES, IF YOU DON'T THINK THE TORAH IS COMPLETE, WHY DO YOU ATTEMPT TO QUOTE (OR MISQUOTE) CHAPTER AND VERSE? 

Mesora: The fact that there exists an “Oral Law” does not imply anything is lacking of the Written Law, as you suggest. The Written Law, Torah (Five Books of Moses) together with the Oral Law, function as a complete whole. G-d’s intent is that there be a Written portion, and an Oral portion to Torah. A wise person will ponder the need for such a unique structure, non-existent in all other religions.

A Purpose for the Oral Law

The very existence of an oral portion of Torah, insures - by definition - that in each generation the Torah student be trained by the Torah scholar. For without this personal training, all a student has are the texts, but no methodology of study. This is an essential point to understanding Judaism, its structure, and how is continues to be true to G-d’s knowledge.

To gain insight into G-d’s wisdom, man is hopeless without earnest training in thought, which originated in G-d Himself. This is the Oral Law, the tool for training mankind rational thinking. G-d’s knowledge is not a simple matter. If you respect the greatness of Maimonides, Einstein, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Newton, you must agree with the immense depth found in knowledge, and man’s inability to grasp it all. Man recognizes that the Source of all this wisdom far exceeds man’s ability to comprehend. Man stands in awe of this knowledge, and “That” which created it. These great men certainly did. But not only in “quantity” is G-d’s knowledge superior to man’s knowledge, but in “quality” too. Knowledge is not achieved as our society feels, simply by amassing texts, and enlarging one’s memory. G-d’s knowledge is far to great to be encapsulated in written form, and far superior. Human intelligence requires training to develop analytical skills to unlock new knowledge and insights.

Learning what is Unwritten

So how does man tap G-d’s infinite knowledge, once he completes the limited texts available? The answer is “thought”. This activity of “thinking” is virtually unknown to the world, save a few individuals scattered through the generations, like those mentioned. But it does not have to remain this way, and it won’t upon Messiah’s arrival. Until then, with training in the proper method of thinking, man can unlock new vaults of G-d’s knowledge – although not written. The ancient Greek mathematicians demonstrated this. Without texts, they used intelligence alone, inducing and deducing proofs, to actually perceive real knowledge that exists “out there”. Amazing. Such knowledge is so attracting and absorbing, that people like Newton went for days pondering ideas, so focused and lured in, that others had to force him to eat! His hunger was not stronger than his desire to remain in his studies. This proves how enjoyable thought is, and how exciting is the journey when one anticipates finding new marvels that explain the universe. This is called “Love of G-d”, as we cannot love what we know not (Him), we can only love the knowledge He created.

But such a level is impossible, simply by reading the Torah alone, with no training in thinking…step in, the Oral Law.

This is the design of G-d’s Torah: a Written portion, and an Oral portion. This Oral Law – Talmud and Mishna – are the indispensable keys for understanding G-d’s absolute knowledge: truths, absolute morality, absolute justice, and His formulations. (For example, we cannot know when it is “just” to kill, if G-d does not tell us His parameters of who is considered an “evil” person worthy of death. These parameters are unknown, without the Oral Law.) To secure that G-d’s knowledge be available to man, G-d formulated the Oral law, which can only be transmitted from teacher to student, originating with the model of “G-d to Moses” - the first “Teacher/student” model. This chain of teacher-to-student training, originating with G-d and flowing down the millennia, guarantees that man is able – even centuries later – to discover G-d’s knowledge.

The chain of Oral Law imparts G-d’s knowledge originating with Moses at Sinai, simultaneously training us in rational thought.

Judaism vs Other Religions

So the Oral Law acts as the only means by which we can arrive at G-d’s true intent of His cryptic, unknowable Torah. It also acts as a means of securing the teacher/student union, through which, every generation has been chained together, linking all the way back to Moses and G-d. Without the tutelage of a Rabbi, himself trained by his Rabbis; man is bereft of the indispensable knowledge, which G-d imparted to Moses. He has no direct link back. Other religions – by definition – have no knowledge of G-d’s Oral Law. Therefore, their systems are false. But in Judaism alone, with the Oral Law, we thereby gain absolute knowledge of G-d’s reality, Sinaic knowledge, and the essential training in thought only provided by Talmudic analysis. Judaism remains the only religion of G-d, as opposed to man’s fabrication, seen in Bible critics, Christianity, Islam, and every other man-made religion.

Contrast this perfect Judaism with other religions who distort G-d’s words, and number two, possess no Oral Law. The absence of the Oral Law is admission by Christianity and others that they possess an incomplete, and hence, corrupt system.

Although lengthy, this elaboration is essential to this topic. I will now return to your questions.

Now, your original question is answered when one accepts the Rabbis’ authority as mandated by the Torah, and as expressed by the Talmud. This appears to be your first step, still not understood by you. I suggest you consider why such great minds like Maimonides - who was far wiser than us both - was completely convinced that the Oral Law was a reality, and the Rabbis do in fact have authority directly from G-d. This is not just the opinion of Maimonides, but of all our Sages. Ask yourself what compelled such a position, were it not for proof. In all areas, the Rabbis were brutally honest, admitting ignorance when they were, and speaking with strength on points as solid and provable as the Earth. They did not conspire to perpetrate lies. So with patience, dismount from your position long enough to consider with objectivity, what reasoning was available to convince such great minds.

Reader: You wrote, “Other religions have no proof to their ‘prophecies’, just the mere word of one man's claim to it. Whereas Judaism has Sinai, attended by 2.5 million people.” IF THIS IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS, YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THE 2.5 MILLION PEOPLE RECEIVED THE ORAL LAW ON SINAI, AND ACCURATELY PASSED IT FROM EACH GENERATION TO THE NEXT.  DO YOU HAVE INDEPENDENT CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THIS? DOES IT APPEAR IN THE TORAH, PROPHETS AND WRITINGS? 

Mesora: As we discussed here many times, the account of Sinai would not have been accepted and spread as is evident, had it never occurred. Nothing more is required to prove this history, or any other history.

Your requirement for “independent contemporary evidence” is an internally flawed request: this position claims that a single, historical account – even if held by millions of people – is insufficient evidence for the history it claims. So what IS sufficient for your standards? You suggest additional accounts from independent sources. However, what would these “independent sources” add, other than numbers of people? You assume other countries possessing the story of Sinai are greater proof than the Jews’ possession alone. But what is the new factor you say exists, once other sources claim Sinai’s truth? The fact it may be accepted in other lands only shows that the account spread, but nothing else qualitatively. You might retort that “objectivity” is now evident; offering greater proof, as other countries have no personal interest in claiming G-d appeared to the Jews. To this, I respond that the Jews as a country would not unanimously lie, for a common motive cannot be found in millions of people. (“Motive”, by its very definition, is a subjective phenomenon.) Certainly, the “real” Jewish history would have surfaced, had there been one. In the absence of any other Jewish history, and the unanimous world acceptance of Sinai, Sinai is proven. (You also have ignored the Christian world’s acceptance.)

Regarding mentions in Prophets of Moses’ Torah revealed at Sinai, you will find them.

Reader: THE FIRST WRITTEN EVIDENCE FOR ORAL LAW IS ABOUT 1000 YEARS AFTER THIS. IN JOSIAH'S TIME, THE WRITTEN TORAH WAS LOST (THANKS TO MENASSEH) AND IT WAS UNKNOWN IN ISRAEL.  HOW, THEN DID THE ORAL LAW SURVIVE? IN EZRA'S TIME, THE PEOPLE I ISRAEL WERE UNAWARE OF EITHER LAW. PLUS, EZRA READ FROM THE SCRIPTURE, BUT THER IS NO MENTION OF AN ORAL LAW!

Mesora: Incorrect. The Rabbis unanimously agree that Moses received the Oral Law on Sinai. Perhaps many Jews were ignorant of the Written and Oral Torah, but neither was ever lost. The Prophets constantly rebuke the people to abide by “Toras Moshe”, “Moses’ law”. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and all other Torah leaders knew that the Oral Law was never lost.

I believe your problem is that you commenced your inquiry from the wrong starting point: instead of starting from a position that there was no Oral Law, (which from your words has no basis) you should question what convinced these great minds otherwise. The fact is that generation after generation, the Torah leaders verbally communicated truths. One of these truths is the event at Sinai, and the body of knowledge passed down from Moses to the Elders, to Joshua, Aaron, his sons, and the Jewish nation. Read the introduction to Pirkei Avos for the history of the Torah’s dissemination. Base yourself on facts, not your own supposition.

Reader: You wrote, “G-d promised in the Torah and through prophets to never alter the Torah.” BUT THE RABBIS FELT THEY WERE ABOVE THIS, AND ADDED NEW LAWS! 

Mesora: You project your own emotional notions onto people who were far superior in character than you or I. Don’t assume their motives are like ours, that they felt “above” matters and acted in such a way. Also, your knowledge of Jewish Law is severely lacking. You must study the Talmud on this issue, and you will see how G-d demanded the Rabbis interpret the laws, and construct fences – not new laws – to protect the Torah system. Had you studied, you could not have made such a statement.

Reader: Well, that was certainly a good dialog. I thank you for taking the time to compose this and to sort thru our correspondence. I shall also endeavor to take your challenge and look at things from different angles.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some of his arguments are purely circular arguments, e.g.  "“In accord with the Torah that they teach you, and the statute they tell you, shall you do, do not veer from the word they tell you – right or left.” (Deut. 17:11) However, without the Oral Law, you will not understand “Judges” to refer to the Rabbis."

Without the Oral law we will not understand that it refers to the Rabbis!  But it refers to the Priests (Sadducees) and the Judge who was a Shofet.   Without the Koran, we would not "know" (or be brainwashed into thinking) that Mohammed was the last prophet and the Koran is the perfect revelation from God!  What clever argumentation.

Another silly statement  "The Rabbis unanimously agree that Moses received the Oral Law on Sinai. Perhaps many Jews were ignorant of the Written and Oral Torah, but neither was ever lost. The Prophets constantly rebuke the people to abide by “Toras Moshe”, “Moses’ law”. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and all other Torah leaders knew that the Oral Law was never lost"

The rabbis agreeing that their own beliefs are true do not make their beliefs true.  The atheists unanimously agree that there is no God. does that make such  claim true?  The Christians unanimously agree that Jesus was the Messiah. Must we therefore consider him to be the messiah?  Furthermore, the  Priests who were hated by the rabbis unanimously agreed that the oral law was a big lie.  Since the Torah (which he even quotes himself here) says we must listen to the Priest, doesn't that mean we must reject the oral law?

 

Expertise, mass acceptance and testing over time

In a discussion I had a decade ago with a Sephardi Rabbi Nissim, I asked him on what evidence I should rely on him or his predecessors as being representatives of the Torah.

His answer was “I think evidence should be based on 3 things; expertise, mass acceptance and testing over time”

Now, I wish to dissect this claim, since it is a myth, and there is strong evidence to refute it.

1)  “Expertise”.    It is claimed that the rabbis, whether the mediaeval code writers like Maimonides, or the Talmudic and Mishnaic rabbis, had expertise and knowledge of the Torah. However, this is not true. And It also does not help since the same claim is made by the Christians and Muslims.

In some previous posts, I have  shown these claims to be false. Here are just a few:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/lo-tosiphu-does-oral-contradict-written.html

In the next article, I showed that the real arbiters of torah Law were the Kohanim, and these were hated and attacked by the imposter rabbis:

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/that-which-they-shall-tell-you-claim.html

Further,  we have seen that the founders of the Talmudic church were in fact gentiles, who falsified the law, and showed their incompetence in its administration. This was exposed by one rabbi, who was then excommunicated by the mob.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/talmudic-whistleblower-akavya-ben.html

2) Mass Tradition

Traditions can start at any point in time.  They can then pick up momentum and go viral.  Islam has a huge mass tradition,  it has 1.5 Billion followers, that is 1000 x as much as Judaism, not even considering the number of secular or reform Jews who practice very little of the Torah, from whatever perspective.   So mass tradition is not a proof of anything truthful. 

Rabbinical Judaism has similar beginning to Islam. It had a destructive stage, where they murdered the priests and defiled the temple, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/unholy-cow-or-how-to-destroy-your-own.html

And http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/another-brick-in-temples-fall.html

 and then a propaganda phase to take on new believers.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-rabbis-epistle-to-hebrews.html

Thus, the so-called mass tradition is a reform movement, headed by criminals and murderers, and then passed on to unwitting believers.  A lie can be passed on perhaps easier than the truth can.

3) Finally, Testing over Time.

This is a fallacy in any case, since the formulation of the new Talmudic religion is one that does not allow self-criticism.  Maimonides classifies one who denies the oral law as a heretic, and worthy of death (as was done by the Talmudists themselves, see Rabbis’ Epistle to the Hebrews above). 

Furthermore, the alleged “giants” of oral law, provided the flimsiest of arguments to support their cases. These men, such as Saadia and Maimonides were too intelligent to actually believe their own arguments, and hence they could only have been telling lies.  This chops down the third pillar of Rabbi Nissim.

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/maimonides-fails-his-3-rs-counting-omer.html

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/saadia-gaons-textual-proof-crumbles.html

http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/yehudah-halevi-kuzari-cannot-read-hebrew.html

Using G-d's Name

From an old email  thread I found (Rabbi's answers in Bold) :

Dear Rabbi

throughout the Torah and Siddur, G-d's Name is written
in the 4 letter form, but never pronounced. This
occurs even in Tehillim.

The 10 commandments tell us not to use His Name in
vain, and that is understood as being for a false oath
etc. So is it permissible, therefore, to utter His
true Name when done for proper motives - eg prayer,
Torah study, or praise?

thank you

Yes, it is allowed and even commanded that in the Temple
the priest would enunciate God's name as written. But
believe this is only on Yom Kippur.


Moshe Ben-Chaim

Thank you - that I was aware of, but why cannot
ordinary Jews pronounce the Holy Name , if it is for a
Holy purpose?

btw - strength and courage to you for tackling the
heresies of Tanya etc, even if it is unpopular to do
so!

Kind regards

We have no positive knowledge of God, which must be
expressed by our act of never pronouncing His name. This
limitation expresses the idea that just as His name is
ineffable, so too is our concept of Him...we cannot
describe Him.

Thank you for your words.


Moshe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would point out that the argument from knowledge to use of name is false. In fact, we are told to use His Name in every generation -

Ex 3: 15  

  זֶה-שְּׁמִי לְעֹלָם, וְזֶה זִכְרִי לְדֹר דֹּר.
this is My name for ever, and this is My memorial unto all generations.

 

The Kuzari – an Eye for an Eye

Judah Halevi is famous for his various pseudo-(and anti-) philosophical arguments.  As previously shown, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/yehudah-halevi-kuzari-cannot-read-hebrew.html  HaLevi  disqualifies himself from being a reliable  commentator on the Torah, since he admits he cannot read Hebrew without the vowels. Nevertheless, his other claims in his popular book - the Kuzari - are quite often used by other important rabbis. 

One of the  major disagreements between Karaites and Rabbis is the interpretation of the laws of “an eye for an eye”.  By and large, the Karaites read the text as being literal, whereas the Rabbis allege that the compensation for human injury is financial.

There are 2 major sources for this Law (as far as I know):

Exodus 21:

22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

And  Lev 24:

17 And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. 19 And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 20 breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. 21 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.

The Kuzari (3:47)  argues, against the Karaites, that Lev 24:18 uses the phrase life for life, although it is referring to monetary (or livestock) compensation. From this he claims that all compensation for injuries to humans must be financial.  This is quite dishonest, since the surrounding verses are very clear as to the specifics of these laws.  Thus we see:

“ 19 And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 20 breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him. 21 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.”

If the law was about financial compensation, then v. 19-20 would be out of place, since they are talking about like for like.  Furthermore, v21 makes a clear distinction (which HaLevi tries to obscure) between killing an animal and killing a human. Thus, once again we see Halevi is either being a dishonest or showing his own stupidity. 

It is interesting to see how other major rabbis dealt with this issue. One debate, reported by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to Ex 21-24, is allegedly  between Saadia Gaon and a Karaite by the name of Ben Zuta.  The accuracy of this debate cannot be verified, since Ibn Ezra is using it as a polemic. However, it is worthwhile analyzing:

Rav Sa‘adia said, “We cannot interpret this passage in accordance with its

simple meaning, for if a person strikes the eye of another and destroys a third of

its vision, how is it possible that he will receive such a blow without any

addition or reduction?  Perhaps he will lose the sight of his eye altogether.  And

it is even more problematic in the case of a burn or a wound or a bruise.  For if

they are in a dangerous spot, perhaps he will die, and this is unreasonable.

Ben Zuta replied: But is it not written in another place (Lev. 24:20) “As

someone has made a wound in another, so shall one be made in him.”

The Gaon answered: The beit in the words “in him” should be understood as ‘al,

and the meaning is “He will pay a penalty for it.”

Ben Zuta insisted, “It says further, “As he did so will it be done to him.”

The Gaon responded, “Samson said, “As they did to me, so I will do to them.” 

(Judges 15:11)  But Samson did not take their wives and give them to others,

but only paid them their deserts.”

And Ben Zuta asked, “If the offender was a poor man, what would be his

punishment?” 

The Gaon responded, “And [according to your theory] if a blind man should

blind the eye of a sighted person, what should be done to him?  For the poor

person may one day become rich and pay, but the blind person won’t be able to

pay ever.”

Saadia’s reasoning here is quite ludicrous.  For example “The beit in the words “in him” should be understood as ‘al, and the meaning is “He will pay a penalty for it.”

This is pure fiction. He is misinterpreting the verse, In fact changing it to give another purported meaning. He could equally say that the word “so” is referring to a pork pie that should be rendered to him.  Next, his reference to Samson does not help his cause.  Samson is not making a legal statement. And he is not exacting a monetary fine, rather he is killing 1000 men in revenge. How then, can Saadia use this verse as support for his argument of monetary compensation?

But of all the rabbis, the most interesting of all is Maimonides on this issue.  In his legal work, the so-called Mishneh Torah, he of course takes the standard rabbinical line. But surprisingly, in his Guide for the perplexed, his more rational work, he says something quite extraordinary:

“The punishment given to anyone who has done wrong to somebody else

consists in general in his being given exactly the same treatment that he

has given to somebody else.  If he has injured the latter’s body, he shall be

injured in his body, and if he has injured him in his property, he shall be

injured in his property….  And he who has deprived someone of a limb

shall be deprived of a similar limb:  As someone has made a wound in

another, so shall one be made in him.  You should not engage in

cogitation concerning the fact that in such a case we punish by imposing a

fine.  For at present my purpose is to give reasons for the [Biblical] texts

and not for the pronouncements of the legal science. (3.41)”

https://www.mhcny.org/parasha/1210.pdf

Maimonides, quite out of character, is giving a rational and Karaite reading of the Torah text, which contradicts what he himself says in the legal text he produced for the rabbanites!  Whilst Rabbi Danzig in the link above suggests that this was for the purpose of bringing karaites into the rabbanite fold, my  analysis would be somewhat different.  Perhaps, his true inner beliefs are coming out in the Guide for the Perplexed.

Genius and Truth – the Linguist, the Philosopher, and the Rabbi

 

One of the main arguments that Rabbis use, even the rationalists such as R’ Moshe ben Chaim,  is that if you study (with a rabbi) the texts of previous rabbis (eg Maimonides), you will see the sheer genius of HaRambam, and then relying on that, it would be unthinkable to suggest that he would believe in the Oral Law  if it was in fact false.  E.g. http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/sheeps-fat-tail-and-other-mysteries.html

This line of argumentation is false for several reasons, as I may have hinted in some of the previous posts.  I will show how such undue surrender of the intellect is both dangerous and dishonest.

First of all, it is not at all clear that Maimonides or any other rabbi was the ultimate intellect.  He was good in some subjects, but even so his knowledge was still limited. Thus his knowledge of astronomy was not as advanced as modern astronomy. He viewed the Earth as being the centre of the universe.  His knowledge of chemistry was also an ancient one which consisted of 4 elements.  Furthermore he claimed it was impossible for a metal ship to fly in the air like a bird.   Even his understanding of the planets was false, as he considered the planets to be intelligent spheres with no material substance, although since then we have sent men to the moon, and probes to other planets.  We also have brought back rock samples from the moon.

Next, Maimonides  said that Aristotle was the greatest of all logicians, and was one step away from reaching prophecy. It is not for me to debate the merits of this claim, but if we go along with Maimonides for such a claim, then obviously  Aristotle was a greater mind that the rabbi. And Aristotle did not believe in the Torah, let alone any “oral law”.

More pernicious a fact, is that when it comes to interpreting the written Torah, Maimonides is blatantly dishonest.  He simply pushes his own (or inherited rabbinic) views and misinterprets the Torah, no differently than a Christian or Muslim would, to suit his own ideology. As I have shown on several occasions, he, and the other “great” rabbis, are simply rewriting what it says in the Torah, to justify their belief in (or membership of) the rabbinical talmudic system.

But is Ben Chaim’s claim valid in any other way?  There are great philosophers, throughout history, who might have belittled the rabbis in their intellectual capabilities.  This is clear today, where leading rabbis make absurd and embarrassing statements, whilst their followers have faith in their words, and are violent towards those who refute them.  One such rabbi is called Gottlieb, at a Yeshiva in Israel. A former “professor” of Philosophy, but never was a full professor, thus had he been at a British University, he would only have been a lecturer.  This rabbi makes dishonest statements with every breath he takes.

Indeed, he claims that the evidence for prehistoric life was all manufactured  but it never existed as real life, since the world is no older than 6000 years. The dishonesty is that he himself rejected Cartesian standards when it suited him, ie  in his alleged Kuzari argument.  He rejects alternative hypotheses which do not have an absolute disproof, when they don't suit him, but utilizes them when they do.  Indeed, the example he gave for such a hypothesis (which he rejected) was precisely the same one which he now utilises to explain away evidence of prehistoric life!

But this is not limited to rabbis alone.  Great minds in one area may still be incompetent  in other areas, or even dishonest in their own field.  Thus, a real Professor of Philosophy, Noam Chomsky, although a great mind in the field of linguistics, makes use of his skills to twist things as much as possible to suit his own ideology.  He claimed once that USA actually used nuclear weapons in Vietnam.  How were these “used”?  They were used as a threat, i.e  he alleges that America threatened to use them (but never did)!  So the expert in linguistics makes absurd “midrashic” arguments, which are not logical or honest. He also denied the genocide in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, and by other communist regimes, because he is himself a Marxist.

And thus, we see that someone may be good in certain subjects or fields, but that does not make them honest or objective.  The rabbis used many twists of logic, as did Chomsky, to pervert the meaning and practice of the Torah. They were twisted linguists, as is Chomsky.  Maimonides was a so-called rationalist, but only as far as it suited him.  When it comes to reading the Torah, he is the most anti-rationalist, and most dishonest, of perhaps all the rabbis. He was a Philosopher-Rabbi.

It is not only the philosophers we can look to see the fallacy in this line of reasoning.  Other religions make similar claims. The Muslims claim that if one learns Arabic and then studies the Koran,  he will see the “truth” of the Koran as the most “perfect” book, which could only be a Divine revelation!  How does this differ from what the rabbis say?  It is essentially the same structure of argument. It is based on the assumption of ignorance and inferiority. Since someone else, who lived before our time said something, which we may or may not comprehend, therefore it must be the Truth.   No, this alone does not make anything true.

So, Ben Chaim’s argument (which is quite widely used among the rabbis) is certainly false.

Sheep’s Fat Tail and Other mysteries - Unfinished Debate with Mesora Rabbi Ben Chaim

Below is a copy of an email thread, of a discussion with a rationalist rabbi (in blue).

I start off by attacking his claim that Orthodox Judaism is the original form:

 

Dear Rabbi Ben Chaim

In your article on Conservative , you claim the following:

"This original, Orthodox Judaism received by
Moses and transmitted throughout the millennia
went unchallenged, precisely because of
those mass witnesses, and because literally all
Rabbis understood Torah as that one, identical
system."

However, this is a false statement. The very people you claim were the recipients of the Torah, were in fact its challengers.  The Pharisees / Rabbis challenged the Written Torah, and the Priests who ministered in the Temple.  They were the first reform movement, the writers of the mishna and talmud. In many things they contradict what is written in the Torah, eg the formula for the Shemen Hamaschit; the prohibition to wear shatnez (the rabbis claim the Cohanim must wear shatnez, with no basis in the Torah!)

Indeed, the physical destruction of the Temple was preceded by its spiritual destruction, an act carried out by none other than the Pharisee traitor, YBZ.  This was a campaign to defile the Temple, and wrest authority from the Holy Priests bnei Tzadok. Hence, he brought into the Temple  the impurity of the dead, perverted the meaning of the Torah, and abolished the important rituals such as the bitter waters. Such a vile "rabbi" ends up selling the temple and the Jewish people to the Romans, in order to start up his new testament/oral law in Yavne. And yes, the persistence of this has kept us in an unprecedented exile of 2000 years.

For you information, the Torah tells us NOT to follow the majority to do evil. You can chop and change anything you like,  by removing important words in a commandment.  It is like claiming the Torah tells us to eat pork, and steal, and conveniently forget the word "Not".

I am not conservative, but the rabbinical orthodoxy you profess is the source of all reform movements!

Kind regards

Why do you feel Maimonides did view Moses' Torah as the
same as his own...as orthodox?

Thank you for your reply, except I do not follow your question about Maimonides. If you are asking why Rambam was Orthodox, I would say it is because he was raised that way.  The only place where I have seen him take issue with the Talmudic Rabbis is in the areas of Astrology and Astronomy, and even there he finds a minority opinion, which he uses as normative.

But one can read Maimonides and find areas where he was not objective or rational, since he defers to the authority of the Sages. In fact, I haven't seen a single rational argument of his against the Tsaddokim, because it is easier to just insult them. The logical meaning of the Torah is at odds with its rabbinical interpretation.

Kind regards

How old are you? Did you attend yeshiva?

Moshe Ben-Chaim

Shalom Rabbi Ben Moshe

I am XX

I have been to a couple of yeshiva programs, when I was at university

Thanks

You must take more time before suggesting what you
had....years.....and study with a Rabbi. You will
eventually be very impressed with Rambam's genius, and the
genius of dozens of others who share Rambam's respect for
the transmission - the Mesora - which they all upheld and
agreed it was what Moses followed.

Moshe

Allow me to tell you a story. It is not about Rambam, but an ordinary rabbi, in a Chabad Yeshiva.

As you know, some 20 years ago there was a huge machlokes between Lubavitch and Ponovetch.

In a conversation I had with a Rabbi teaching in a Yeshiva, I mentioned the Israeli Chief Rabbi Lau, who had studied in Ponovetch. I knew he studied there, because a) he said so in an interview in an Israeli paper, and b) it says so in his book.  The lubavitch rabbi simply could not accept my "edut".  It is not because I rejected the Oral law, at that time I was Orthodox. I don’t play with dice, nor do i race pigeons? So why could he not accept my edut (on a well known fact?)  The reason is that within Chabad ideology (or demonology), The Ponovezh yeshiva is a source of evil. They don’t even mention it by name, they say "Bnei Brak". So , the Rabbi's Blindness was not to do with his academic ability, or his knowledge of Talmud, but of ideological blindness.

Now, when the Talmud, or rambam claim that the measure of Cinnamon in the Shemen Hamashchit is "500" shekel, instead of the 250 which the Torah says, this is not to do with the greatness of any of the rabbis. It may be in spite of the greatness. But it is an error nevertheless!

Kind regards

So what is your claim? That Rabbis make mistakes? Please
tell me succinctly what the issue is you wish to discuss.

Thank you,

Moshe

Another example :

Levitcus 7


ג  וְאֵת כָּל-חֶלְבּוֹ, יַקְרִיב מִמֶּנּוּ--אֵת, הָאַלְיָה, וְאֶת-הַחֵלֶב, הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת-הַקֶּרֶב. 3 And he shall offer of it all the fat thereof: the fat tail, and the fat that covereth the inwards,


Then read 22-25 , and tell me how the rabbic came to "permit" the  fat tail, when it is Issur karet!

I don't say this simply as a polemicist. In Persia, where my parents and grandparents lived, they would eat this delicacy and it was permitted by the orthodox rabbinate! 

Shabbat Shalom

Research the Talmud and the Commentators on this, then write me your findings.

Dear Rabbi Ben Chaim,

There is a logical problem here. I found The Likkuetei Halacha of Rambam in my Chumash. On [Lev 7]v. 23, Rambam states that there are only 3 types of Heleve, from Cow , Goat, and Sheep. However, the sheep tail heleve is only mentioned in respect to sacrifices, so is not forbidden to eat.

Now, it seems that Rambam does not take into consideration v.25, which says the exact opposite of what he says! "For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire unto Hashem, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people. "

So, the exact meaning of v. 25 is that any Heleve from an animal which can be used for sacrifice, will be cut off!  So why arbitrarily choose to eat one cheleve and forbid another? What if the majority of rabbis voted the other way round, that helev of the kidney is permitted, but tail is forbidden?

(see also http://abluethread.com/2013/04/16/should-karaites-boycott-shawarma/)




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Postscript:  This demonstrates that Rambam, like many other rabbis,  will almost always side with the Talmud's misrepresentation of the Torah.  Ben Chaim's argument, that if you study  long enough, you will see the genius of the rambam , and hence accept his support of the rabbis, is false.  It is false for several reasons:

a) If you study objectively,  you will find many falsehoods that Rambam and his allies propagate, to justify the Talmud.

b) His genius  in some areas are apparent but so is his intellectual dishonesty - and that of the other rabbis.

c) The fact that a Rabbi in a religious sect  supports his predecessors says nothing of the truth of his predecessors.  One can also do the same exercise in another religion, eg Islam, and come to the conclusion that Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was a genius, and therefore the Koran is also true.  As is clear, such argumentation is fallacious.

The Albo Fallacy - A supposed “proof” in Sefer HaIkkarim

Rabbi Yosef Albo is one of the “rishonim”, meaning the first generation of rabbis, who were contemporaries of Rambam, Rashi etc.  The myth is that these were super-duper intellectuals with deep understanding of the Torah and all knowledge.  Whilst it is true that Rambam and Albo had knowledge of philosophy of their day, this does not make them infallible or any greater than other scholars, whether of their own day or any other period.

Gil Student opens his alleged “proofs” for the Oral Law by citing  Albo's argument which is as follows:

" R. Yosef Albo [Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23] offers the following philosophical proof for the existence of an oral law. R. Albo states that a perfect text must, by definition, be totally unambiguous and not require any additional information to be understood. Since the Torah is called perfect [Psalms 19:8], the Torah must not have any ambiguities. However, it does have ambiguities. For example, the verse [Deut. 6:4] "Hear O Israel! The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one" is understood by Jews to imply absolute monotheism while it is understood by Christians to imply a trinity. How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity?  Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect [cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71]. Therefore, R. Albo states, there must have been an oral tradition transmitted along with the written Torah."

Albo alleges that the Torah is ambiguous, and that the verse of the Shema can be equally interpreted as a Monotheism, or a Trinitarianism, depending on whether one reads its according to the NT or to Judaism. He thus concludes that only with an oral law can the Torah be understood unambiguously!

The violence done to logic and to the Torah by the above statement is unmeasurable.

As if the Shema Yisrael is somehow ambiguous, and that only with the oral law can we disprove the New Testament!  Firstly, the Sadducees  did a pretty good job  of refuting Jesus without need for any oral law.  Second, the NT is an ideological work, not too different from the oral testament (of the rabbis), and it sees what it wants to see in the Torah, as do the rabbis.  Third, there is no ambiguity to this verse, or to any other, rather there are those we understand clearly, and those we do not, due to our distance from spoken Biblical Hebrew.  Fourth, Albo is actually implying that the NT is just as valid as the Talmud, since any interpretation is valid.  Thus, his argument could also be used by Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Mormons etc, saying that there is ambiguity to the Torah,  and it is only  going to be finally understood by resorting  to the NT/Koran/ Book of Mormon etc.

This style or argumentation is so fallacious and absurd that it shows the rabbis for what they really are – opportunistic and dishonest. What's more, the actual claim made by Albo and others like him, is refuted by the Torah itself. In Deut 27 we see:

ח  וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל-הָאֲבָנִים, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת--בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב.  {ס}

8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.'

All arguments which claim the Torah is unintelligible  are refuted by this verse. If the torah cannot be understood, then this verse is an absurdity.  However, it was well understood, since it was written in plain language of the day.