THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION OF "ORAL LAW" IN RABBINIC JUDAISM

[rosends]

@Clear

Again, you have combined 2 ideas – no one sees it so therefore something completely different must have happened.

As scholars have pointed out, tven Hillel and Shammai, assume the teachings of rabbinic sages are ‘Oral Torah” and important parts of the covenant between God and Israel 61)

The use of the term “oral law” is, indeed more expansive than just the text of the Mishna (which itself isn't exactly the same as the oral law). You should then clarify which parts you are saying are claimed to be from Moses and which are not because the umbrella term includes both.

but are still considered the “essence of torah” (and some of these are core rabbinic traditions).

You mean there is no specific text which they are tied to. Yes, because they are part of that primal oral law.

Eleventh : Scholars point out that the Empirical anthropological models demonstrate it’s implausible to assume rabbinic tradition was preserved verbatim in oral form.

You still then misunderstand what the oral law is and how it works. You are confusing the written text of the Mishna for “the” oral law. I apologize if my use of the terms fell into the same expansive trap – I assumed that you knew what you were talking about and clearly, I was wrong. You should go back and try to learn what the terms actually refer to and how they are used before you start making claims about them.

It is implausible to assume Moses dictated multiple diverging Torahs.

Good thing no one is claiming that then.

As I’ve pointed out in the above examples, it IS historically, incoherent to claim Moses dictated the Mishna in oral form 1500 years earlier in an unchanged condition without innovation or change.

As you are again clearly misusing and conflating terms, your conclusions are in error. Moses received an oral law and passed it down. The exact wording is not always clear and the Mishna is present in a few different versions Is there more than one text of the Mishnah? . The written form of the Mishna is a compilation of conversations including about the Sinaitic oral law.

The claim is that the rabbinic traditions called the Oral Torah (e.g. Mishna) was not dictated by Moses.

Again, they aren’t identical so your equivalence is faulty.

It is too late for you to claim the oral law is highly consistent since readers have already been given examples of the lack of uniformity.

I think you mistake “consistency” and “uniformity.” Is English not your first language? There is a systemic method to the construction of the written text of the oral law and a series of consistent rules for applying the law. Switching words mid-stream is not a helpful way of communicating, so decide if you are discussing consistency or uniformity.

Such texts are anything BUT consistent.

Such texts are not the topic at hand, though. The human conversation about the oral law is distinct from the law, itself.

Having a law mentioned that is not spelled out is only evidence that a law was not spelled out in the text you are reading.
It tells us nothing about a hypothetical oral law.

So you would be happy to concede the existence of another written law of which we have no proof?

In any case, the O.P. is asking for historical data regarding justification of the claim that God dictated the Mishna to Moses who dictated it to others who committed it to memory and passed it down for eons in an oral form, memorized and unchanged to end up at a specific text. If you do not have actual historical data to support this tradition, it is a good time to tell me so as not to waste readers time.

If you want to phrase your question like this, mired in misunderstanding and incorrect use of language then you won’t get any suitable answers and it is silly to waste anyone’s time anymore. I responded pretty clearly in post 14 to an erroneous claim. I have backed up my counter-points while you have moved to other claims that show a lack of understanding of the underlying concepts. Good luck.

 

[metis]

Jesus did quote from rabbis, although paraphrase is more precise. Jesus said, "do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law". Which is found (among other places) in the sayings of Hillel, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah". While the Christian New Testament doesn't acknowledge that he is quoting Hillel it is clear that he is. The people he was speaking to would certainly be familiar with Hillel one of the greatest rabbinic sages.

But Hillel didn't take it as far as Jesus did, thus this formula doesn't work: 613 = 2.

Maybe consider reading the book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus" by Rabbi Jacob Neusner, and it is available at Amazon.

There's no indication that I can see whereas Jesus considered himself to be affiliated in any way with the School of Hillel, as the latter did not say nor imply that all 613 could be narrowed down to 2.

 

[metis]

Hi @metis and @Shaul
I don't have any interest in entering into your debate but just wanted to make a single grammatical point and make clear Jesus did not support the Rabbanite sect of Jews and their religious rules.


1) REGARDING THE DESIRE TO MAKE A TEXT SUPPORT A POSITION IT DOES NOT SUPPORT

Shaul said : “Jesus affirmed and approved of the Oral Law. Jesus said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you." (post #35)


Of course the messiah Jesus did not approve of either the oral law of the Pharisees nor of the hypocrisy and motives of the Rabbis.
You are quoting the text incorrectly.
The original Greek text for “to sit” in this sentence is aorist indicative active (Μωυσεως καθεδρας εκαθισαν) and so the corrected verse is “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.”

Thus the several corrected versions read similarly :

New American Standard Bible - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.
NASB 1995 - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
NASB 1977 - saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
Legacy Standard Bible - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
Amplified Bible - saying: “The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses’ chair [of authority as teachers of the Law];


2) JESUS WARNS THE PEOPLE NOT TO FOLLOW THE ACTUAL ACTIONS OF THE RABBANITE SECT

Not only does the Messiah NOT accept the various rules created by the rabbis, but he chastises them for their hypocrisy and warns the people against doing what the Rabbis and Scribes are DOING.

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. 3Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and [a]comply with it all, but do not do Matthew 23 New American Standard Bibleas they do; for they say things and do not do them. 4And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger. 5And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people; for they broaden their [c]phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 7and personal greetings in the marketplaces, and being called [d]Rabbi by the people. broaden their [c]phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 7and personal greetings in the marketplaces, and being called [d]Rabbi by the people.


Clear
δρειτζω

No doubt, as Jesus went much further than Hillel ever would have when he claimed that he was the fulfillment of the Law.

 

[rosends]

But Hillel didn't take it as far as Jesus did, thus this formula doesn't work: 613 = 2.

Maybe consider reading the book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus" by Rabbi Jacob Neusner, and it is available at Amazon.

There's no indication that I can see whereas Jesus considered himself to be affiliated in any way with the School of Hillel, as the latter did not say nor imply that all 613 could be narrowed down to 2.

an argument could be made that Hillel reduced it further, 613=1 זוֹ הִיא כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ

 

[metis]

an argument could be made that Hillel reduced it further, 613=1 זוֹ הִיא כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ

Yes, but he did not believe that the 613 could just be dealt with as Jesus did, which was the main theme of Neusner's book, btw. Yes, the Law could be dealt with and applied with some flexibility but the 613 as individual Commandments should not be ignored.

 

[rosends]

Yes, but he did not believe that the 613 could just be dealt with as Jesus did, which was the main theme of Neusner's book, btw. Yes, the Law could be dealt with and applied with some flexibility but the 613 as individual Commandments should not be ignored.

Understood -- if I could be so bold as to "interpret", IMHO he seems to be saying that a full understanding of the single one would lead one to learning the others so it is not a replacement but a gateway.

 

[metis]

Understood -- if I could be so bold as to "interpret", IMHO he seems to be saying that a full understanding of the single one would lead one to learning the others so it is not a replacement but a gateway.

I think I know what you're saying and tentatively agree.

IMO, I drew from it that he believes all 613 deal with something much larger than the individual parts [Commandments], and if this is what you're saying, I agree. However, he also says we shouldn't ignore the individual parts just because they lead to something much larger whereas Jesus did not focus on the individual Commandments, plus he went much further than even that.

 

[Shaul]

But Hillel didn't take it as far as Jesus did, thus this formula doesn't work: 613 = 2.

Maybe consider reading the book "A Rabbi Talks With Jesus" by Rabbi Jacob Neusner, and it is available at Amazon.

There's no indication that I can see whereas Jesus considered himself to be affiliated in any way with the School of Hillel, as the latter did not say nor imply that all 613 could be narrowed down to 2.

You should re-read the quote I provided from Hillel. Especially the part that says, "this is the whole Torah". "The whole Torah" means the Law.

 

[Shaul]

Yes, but he did not believe that the 613 could just be dealt with as Jesus did, which was the main theme of Neusner's book, btw. Yes, the Law could be dealt with and applied with some flexibility but the 613 as individual Commandments should not be ignored.

Hillel did actually. A fuller quote of what he said is

‘That Which Is Hateful to You, Do Not Do to Your Fellow! That is the Whole Torah; The Rest is Interpretation’ (from the Elder Hillel in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)​

In other words the 613 commandments are "commentary" on how to treat your fellow man.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @rosends

Our posts are getting long. In the interest of clarity, let me go through your reponses to my points one at a time. (And I am typing between appointments at work...)





1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT MOSES DICTATED ORAL RULES THAT WERE PASSED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION

You (Rosends) made the claim :

“When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying. They had already been living by those laws.” (Rosends)

Clear replied : “Of course they were codifying their traditions and rules.

The definition of codify IS to “arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.”
Or to “arrange according to a plan or system.”

For example, Sherira Gaon, describing the editing of the Mishna by Rabbi Juda points out that the early Leaders living before the destruction of the temple did not need (nor did they have) uniformity of phrasing but, “he says) luckily, “help came” ("from heaven” and “they arranged and wrote down these words of the Mishna ‘as if at the dictation of God as a sign and a miracle’”.

This tradition of God dictating multiple different Mishnas is a historical problem.

The historical issue was not whether Jews lived by ancient traditions existing before each tradition is written down.
The issue was whether Moses himself dictated the many traditions in Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) as opposed to the other Jewish denominations that believed the laws created and organized (“Codified”) were not divine. (post #32)

rosends asked : “Why do you say that God dictated the Mishna? God gave Moses the oral law. Do you think they are identical and synonymous? (post #41)



1) THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE MISHNAH TO ORAL LAW IN RABBANISM (RABBINIC JUDAISM)

THE TALMUD ITSELF CLAIMS TORAH WAS DICTATED TO MOSES

2) REGARDING THE RABBINIC CLAIM THAT THE MISHNAH CONTAINS THE ORAL TORAH

Rabbanism (Rabbinic Judaism) compiled many of their early laws, rules and traditions into a written form and the multiple versions rules and tradtions became collated and written into one of various Mishnahs.

Approaching the third century c.e. Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi collated early texts and traditions and organized them into a very early version of the Mishnah (there were and still are multiple versions of the Mishnah with conflicting rules).

3) THE RABBANITES (RABBINIC JUDAISM) RESPONSE TO OTHER JUDAISMS THAT DID NOT ACCEPT RABBANISMS CLAIM REGARDING RABBINIC JUDAISMS “ORAL TORAH”

However, for hundreds of years, multiple other Jewish denominations did not believe in nor follow the traditions created by the Rabbanic Jewish denomination (which became the dominant denomination in Judaism).

FOR EXAMPLE :

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

4) THE RESPONSE OF THE RABBINIC DENOMINATION TO OTHER JEWISH DENOMINATIONS THAT DID NOT BELIEF IN THEIR RULES AND TRADITIONS.


Under pressure from non-rabbinic Jewish denominations who questioned rabbinic traditions (e.g. the Karaite controversy), early proponents of rabbanism (the rabbinic jewish denomination), created polemics trying to support the validity and authority of the rabbinic denominations’ rules and traditions.

One of the most famous and important was Rabbi Sherira who penned a very famous and influential letter (an “iggeret”) supporting the concept that Rabbi Judahs’ compilation was divine and should be considered authoritative for all jews.

Rabbi Sherira, in his attempt to support the Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism), made the claim that the editing of version of the Mishna by Rabbi Judah was carried out by divine dictation just as the Talmud claimed Moses received divine dictation in receiving the Torah. Sherira (speaking of the sages) claimed “they arranged and wrote down these words of the Mishna ‘as if at the dictation of God as a sign and a miracle’”.

This claim of divine dictation of these rules and traditions, many of which were not in the bible (written torah) was important because it provided a mechanism to claim authority for rules and traditions which were practice by rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) but which were not in the biblical text (written torah). Those rabbinic rules and traditions not specifically in the bible came under the designation as “Oral Torah”.

The rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism) came to claim that such rules were still authoritative though they were not in the bible, but because they were secretly passed on Orally, through memorization directly from Moses who first memorized them, to those sages who came after him over the eons and thus came into the hands of their specific denomination.

If this claim was true, then the other denominations would be obligated to get in line with the rabbanite denomination of Jews.

If the claim was false, then the rabbanites had no firm leg to stand on in their insistence other Jewish denominations should adopt their traditions.

The issue was whether Moses himself dictated the many traditions in Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) as opposed to the other Jewish denominations that believed the laws created and organized (“Codified”) were not divine.



5) MULTIPLE CONFLICTING MISHNAS EXISTED FROM THE EARLIEST COMPILATIONS (CONFLICTING MISHNAS STILL EXIST)

Part of the historical problem with claiming the rules and traditions of the rabbanite denomination (rabbinic Judaism) are divine and were dictated by God is the existence of multiple conflicting versions of “the Mishna”.

For example, in the Palestinian Talmud we often read expressions such as “Our version of the Mishna is so. Others, however, have a different version which reads….”.

This hardly indicates divine dictation.

The multiple variations contradict each other in various ways.

The fact that such variations existed, motivated the rabbanist denomination (Rabbinic Judaism) to come up with explanations why a “divine” document has multiple conflicting divine rules. The authors of the Tosafot were among the first to try to explain these problems.

Their explanation that the differences were due to differences of opinion between the Babylonian and the Palestinian schools (who each had a different Mishnah) was the source of conflict.

This was not satisfying since it was insufficient to claim a divine document had obvious conflicts.

Which of the multiple Mishnahs was correct, if any of them were?

For example, speaking of the exchanging of coins

the Babylonian Mishnah Says
“Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire Gold” while
the Palestinian Mishnah says
“Silver acquires gold, but gold does not acquire silver”.

The various explanations typically involve the change of opinion in the author Rabbi Judah as he aged. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory if the document is divine or dictated by God.

Another example is that the Babylonian Mishna allows the man forbidden by vow to have benefit from his fellow in teaching.
the Babylonian Mishna says :
“Scripture, though he may teach to his sons and to his daughters” while
the Palestinian Mishna says only that
“he may teach scripture to his sons.” (and it leaves out the daughters).

Other variant readings regard important rules surrounding certain animal sacrifices.

For example,
the Babylonian Mishna says “The duty of burning the fat pieces and the members of the animal offerings applies until the rise of dawn.” While
the Palestinian Mishnah says of “The duty of burning the fat pieces and the members of the animal offering and the eating of the Passover offerings applies until the rise of dawn.”

Even the Palestinian Talmud itself says “Our version of the Mishna reads ‘and the eating of the Passover Offering”; another version omits these words. Our version conforms with the opinion of the sages, and the latter version is in conformity with the opinion of R. Eliezer.”

R. Frankel relates such “omission of a few words” to the method of emending the two Talmuds.

The chief pupils, of R. Judah, Bar Kappara, Levi and R. Hiyya created a Mishna of their own.

Their first Mishna of Ket. Reads “A maiden should be married on the fourth day of the week…for in towns the court sits twice in the week, ….so that if the husband would lodge a virginity suit, he may forthwith go in the morning to the court.”

However, in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds we read “ “Bar kapara taught : a maiden is married on the fourth day of the week and the intercourse takes place on the fifth day because on it the blessing for the fish was pronounced”.

Not only did the scholars of R. Judah’s school undertake a revision of his Mishna after his death, R. Yohanan (who founded his own very successful academy in Tiberias) undertook his own revision of the Mishna, making changes and a number of additions in agreement with other scholars.

Thus, the Palestinian Rabbanite denomination (Rabbinic Judaism) were faced with at least three different major compilations of Mishnas.

Even the festivals/holidays of the Jews were affected by conflicts in the various Mishnas.

For example, the Babylonian Talmud says
“Why is this night so different from all other nights. For on all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but on this night –only unleavened bread; on all other nights we eat all kinds of herbs, but on this night—bitter herbs; on all other nights we eat meat, roast, stewed or boiled, but on this night –only roast; on all other nights we do not have to dip even once, but on this night—twice.

The Palestinian Mishna reads :
“Why is this night different from all other nights. For on all other nights we dip once, but on this night – twice; on all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but on this night – only unleavened bread; on all other night we eat meat roast, stewed or boiled, but on this night –only roast.”

The different schools that had their own Mishnas also created Mishnas that reflected the rules of the school itself. For examples :

The Babylonian school Mishna says
“The school of Shammai say: one may remove bones and shells from the table. And the school of Hillel say : “The entire table must be taken and shaken”

The Palestinian Mishna says the opposite:
“The School of Hillel say : One may remove bones and shells from the table. And the School of Shammai say : The entire table must be taken and shaken”

These two main Mishnas give conflicting rules regarding several important traditions such as the eating of the Paschal lamb, which fruits may be eaten where they are planted and which must be taken to Jerusalem to be eaten, laws concerning circumcision conflict, etc.

Even whether a person with a wooden leg may go out on the Sabbath is different, depending upon which Mishna one consults. Even the attributions conflict and are opposite.

The Babylonian Mishna says
“A stump-legged person may go forth with his wooden stump; this is R. Meir’s view while R. Jose forbids it.”

The Palestinian Mishna says the opposite
“A stump-legged person may go forth with his wooden stump: this is R. Jose’s view, while R. Meir forbids it.”

There are plenty of such examples and reasons why “the Mishna” (if a person can choose which one to refer to) is not a divinely dictated document that shows it has not been memorized and transmitted from Moses’ day until the Rabbinic Jews (the Rabbanites) wrote it down.

I will continue later to discuss the other issues when I have more time.


Clear
φιτζτωω

 

[metis]

You should re-read the quote I provided from Hillel. Especially the part that says, "this is the whole Torah". "The whole Torah" means the Law.

I didn't say anything different, as I said that Jesus was providing his own commentaries as a Pharisee himself.

Hillel did actually. A fuller quote of what he said is

‘That Which Is Hateful to You, Do Not Do to Your Fellow! That is the Whole Torah; The Rest is Interpretation’ (from the Elder Hillel in Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)​

In other words the 613 commandments are "commentary" on how to treat your fellow man.

Again, no different from what I previously posted, and notice that "interpretation" is important but variable, which is in part what the commentary system was providing as well as issues of application of Torah. Jesus was part of this but took it to an extreme level as Rabbi Neusner stated.

 

[YoursTrue]

REGARDING THE ANCIENT RELIGION OF ISRAEL



Hi @Jayhawker Soule

Jahwism is the name scholars apply to the ancient religion of Israel, the religion of Abraham, Moses, etc.
Rabbinic Judaism is the religion that ultimately was created, and was adopted by (and thus replaced) the early religions of Israel as the predominant religion of Judah (and remnants of other tribes who were mixed with Judah).

Rabbinic Judaism coexisted with other Jewish denominations such as the Sadducees, Essenes, etc. However, After the loss of the final temple in Jerusalem, the Sadducees and their religion declined in import and the Pharisees and their religion increased in dominance and the later Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is seen as having inherited dominance as a religion of the Jews.


Clear
δρακω

OK, I haven't read all the posts here, but let's be honest. Something started the nation of Israel back when.

 

[rosends]

@Clear

“they arranged and wrote down these words of the Mishna ‘as if at the dictation of God as a sign and a miracle’”.

Yes, note the “as if”

This tradition of God dictating multiple different Mishnas is a historical problem.

There is no such tradition.

The issue was whether Moses himself dictated the many traditions in Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) as opposed to the other Jewish denominations that believed the laws created and organized (“Codified”) were not divine. (post #32)

No, the issue is your wish for a distinct historical document that records that this happened, despite any evidence historically that it happened.

torah was dictated to moses bava batra 15a.JPG

Yes, the Talmudic discussion has to do with the writing of the written Torah, not the oral law. The subject there is the authorship of the final 8 verses of Deuteronomy. Nothing about the oral law here.

Approaching the third century c.e. Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi collated early texts and traditions and organized them into a very early version of the Mishnah (there were and still are multiple versions of the Mishnah with conflicting rules).

Great – so you see that the “oral law” is not identical to “the mishna.”

Note how even one of the snippets you posted says that the mishna includes the bivblical oral and rabbinic laws. Therefore it includes but is not simply “the oral law.”

However, for hundreds of years, multiple other Jewish denominations did not believe in nor follow the traditions created by the Rabbanic Jewish denomination (which became the dominant denomination in Judaism).

Why do you assume “created” in your claim? When you load your statement up with your foregone conclusions, it bespeaks an intellectual dishonesty. And the fact that other groups reject things doesn’t change anything. Christians reject a lot of Jewish stuff too. Reform Judaism rejects the idea that the written text is divine in origin. So?

You are bringing “proof” for a point that is not relevant or argued.

Under pressure from non-rabbinic Jewish denominations who questioned rabbinic traditions (e.g. the Karaite controversy), early proponents of rabbanism (the rabbinic jewish denomination), created polemics trying to support the validity and authority of the rabbinic denominations’ rules and traditions.

So in response to other groups’ rejection, rabbis wrote explanations for their position. Is that a problem? You only see it as a problem because you assume they are defending a position you, personally, reject. Again, the cart before the horse.

Rabbi Sherira, in his attempt to support the Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism), made the claim that the editing of version of the Mishna by Rabbi Judah was carried out by divine dictation just as the Talmud claimed Moses received divine dictation in receiving the Torah. Sherira (speaking of the sages) claimed “they arranged and wrote down these words of the Mishna ‘as if at the dictation of God as a sign and a miracle’”.

Again, his claim was that it was done AS IF at the dictation of God. You are ignoring that he doesn’t says “by divine dictation” but says “as if at the dictation.” This is from the source YOU posted. If you can’t see a distinction then I can’t help you.

This claim of divine dictation of these rules and traditions,

Not according to what you quoted. “As if”, remember?

The rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism) came to claim that such rules were still authoritative though they were not in the bible, but because they were secretly passed on Orally, through memorization directly from Moses who first memorized them, to those sages who came after him over the eons and thus came into the hands of their specific denomination.

Actually not true. You are showing more ignorance of the content and methodology. The rabbis cited evidence that the material was passed along orally and referenced the chain of transmission. They also recognized the faults and problems.

If this claim was true, then the other denominations would be obligated to get in line with the rabbanite denomination of Jews.

Yes, and according to orthodox Judaism, they are obliged to. So?

If the claim was false, then the rabbanites had no firm leg to stand on in their insistence other Jewish denominations should adopt their traditions.

Also true. But since you have given two options, and have no firm proof either way, you might as well give up this line of reasoning.

Part of the historical problem with claiming the rules and traditions of the rabbanite denomination (rabbinic Judaism) are divine and were dictated by God is the existence of multiple conflicting versions of “the Mishna”.

Why is that a problem? Since the mishna is a codifying of conversations and understandings that include (as the text you cited says) biblical, oral and rabbinic law, the fact that there are different written texts is a reasonable outcome.

This hardly indicates divine dictation.

Since no one claimed divine dictation of the mishna, your point is meaningless.

Their explanation that the differences were due to differences of opinion between the Babylonian and the Palestinian schools (who each had a different Mishnah) was the source of conflict.

Exactly, Since they had different texts of the mishna, their discussions would not always be in accord with each other. Why is this a problem?

This was not satisfying since it was insufficient to claim a divine document had obvious conflicts.

But no one has claimed that them mishna is a divine document.

Which of the multiple Mishnahs was correct, if any of them were?

There are ones we accept as normative but we also acknowledge differences and embrace the possibilities of variant understandings. Did you not know this about Judaism?

The various explanations typically involve the change of opinion in the author Rabbi Judah as he aged. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory if the document is divine or dictated by God.

Good thing no one claimed it is divine or dictated by God!

Not only did the scholars of R. Judah’s school undertake a revision of his Mishna after his death, R. Yohanan (who founded his own very successful academy in Tiberias) undertook his own revision of the Mishna, making changes and a number of additions in agreement with other scholars.

Now you are beginning to see the development of later discussions about the mishna. These discussions are, also, not divine.

These two main Mishnas give conflicting rules regarding several important traditions such as the eating of the Paschal lamb, which fruits may be eaten where they are planted and which must be taken to Jerusalem to be eaten, laws concerning circumcision conflict, etc.

Yes, very true. Good thing we have a set of rules in place to help us understand the practical consequences and how we should behave.

There are plenty of such examples and reasons why “the Mishna” (if a person can choose which one to refer to) is not a divinely dictated document that shows it has not been memorized and transmitted from Moses’ day until the Rabbinic Jews (the Rabbanites) wrote it down.

And, again, this is only a problem to you because you do not understand that “oral law” and “mishna” are not identical. I have sad this many times and each time, you ignore it and make more claims starting from your flawed initial position, and contextualized by your ignorance.

 

[Clear]

5) MULTIPLE CONFLICTING MISHNAS EXISTED FROM THE EARLIEST COMPILATIONS (CONFLICTING MISHNAS STILL EXIST)

Part of the historical problem with claiming the rules and traditions of the rabbanite denomination (rabbinic Judaism) are divine and were dictated by God is the existence of multiple conflicting versions of “the Mishna”.

For example, in the Palestinian Talmud we often read expressions such as “Our version of the Mishna is so. Others, however, have a different version which reads….”.

This hardly indicates divine dictation.

The multiple variations contradict each other in various ways.

The fact that such variations existed, motivated the rabbanist denomination (Rabbinic Judaism) to come up with explanations why a “divine” document has multiple conflicting divine rules. The authors of the Tosafot were among the first to try to explain these problems.

Their explanation that the differences were due to differences of opinion between the Babylonian and the Palestinian schools (who each had a different Mishnah) was the source of conflict.

This was not satisfying since it was insufficient to claim a divine document had obvious conflicts.

Which of the multiple Mishnahs was correct, if any of them were?

For example, speaking of the exchanging of coins

the Babylonian Mishnah Says
“Gold acquires silver, but silver does not acquire Gold” while
the Palestinian Mishnah says
“Silver acquires gold, but gold does not acquire silver”.

The various explanations typically involve the change of opinion in the author Rabbi Judah as he aged. However, this explanation is unsatisfactory if the document is divine or dictated by God.

Another example is that the Babylonian Mishna allows the man forbidden by vow to have benefit from his fellow in teaching.
the Babylonian Mishna says :
“Scripture, though he may teach to his sons and to his daughters” while
the Palestinian Mishna says only that
“he may teach scripture to his sons.” (and it leaves out the daughters).

Other variant readings regard important rules surrounding certain animal sacrifices.

For example,
the Babylonian Mishna says “The duty of burning the fat pieces and the members of the animal offerings applies until the rise of dawn.” While
the Palestinian Mishnah says of “The duty of burning the fat pieces and the members of the animal offering and the eating of the Passover offerings applies until the rise of dawn.”

Even the Palestinian Talmud itself says “Our version of the Mishna reads ‘and the eating of the Passover Offering”; another version omits these words. Our version conforms with the opinion of the sages, and the latter version is in conformity with the opinion of R. Eliezer.”

R. Frankel relates such “omission of a few words” to the method of emending the two Talmuds.

The chief pupils, of R. Judah, Bar Kappara, Levi and R. Hiyya created a Mishna of their own.

Their first Mishna of Ket. Reads “A maiden should be married on the fourth day of the week…for in towns the court sits twice in the week, ….so that if the husband would lodge a virginity suit, he may forthwith go in the morning to the court.”

However, in the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds we read “ “Bar kapara taught : a maiden is married on the fourth day of the week and the intercourse takes place on the fifth day because on it the blessing for the fish was pronounced”.

Not only did the scholars of R. Judah’s school undertake a revision of his Mishna after his death, R. Yohanan (who founded his own very successful academy in Tiberias) undertook his own revision of the Mishna, making changes and a number of additions in agreement with other scholars.

Thus, the Palestinian Rabbanite denomination (Rabbinic Judaism) were faced with at least three different major compilations of Mishnas.

Even the festivals/holidays of the Jews were affected by conflicts in the various Mishnas.

For example, the Babylonian Talmud says
“Why is this night so different from all other nights. For on all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but on this night –only unleavened bread; on all other nights we eat all kinds of herbs, but on this night—bitter herbs; on all other nights we eat meat, roast, stewed or boiled, but on this night –only roast; on all other nights we do not have to dip even once, but on this night—twice.

The Palestinian Mishna reads :
“Why is this night different from all other nights. For on all other nights we dip once, but on this night – twice; on all other nights we eat leavened and unleavened bread, but on this night – only unleavened bread; on all other night we eat meat roast, stewed or boiled, but on this night –only roast.”

The different schools that had their own Mishnas also created Mishnas that reflected the rules of the school itself. For examples :

The Babylonian school Mishna says
“The school of Shammai say: one may remove bones and shells from the table. And the school of Hillel say : “The entire table must be taken and shaken”

The Palestinian Mishna says the opposite:
“The School of Hillel say : One may remove bones and shells from the table. And the School of Shammai say : The entire table must be taken and shaken”

These two main Mishnas give conflicting rules regarding several important traditions such as the eating of the Paschal lamb, which fruits may be eaten where they are planted and which must be taken to Jerusalem to be eaten, laws concerning circumcision conflict, etc.

Even whether a person with a wooden leg may go out on the Sabbath is different, depending upon which Mishna one consults. Even the attributions conflict and are opposite.

The Babylonian Mishna says
“A stump-legged person may go forth with his wooden stump; this is R. Meir’s view while R. Jose forbids it.”

The Palestinian Mishna says the opposite
“A stump-legged person may go forth with his wooden stump: this is R. Jose’s view, while R. Meir forbids it.”

There are plenty of such examples and reasons why “the Mishna” (if a person can choose which one to refer to) is not a divinely dictated document that shows it has not been memorized and transmitted from Moses’ day until the Rabbinic Jews (the Rabbanites) wrote it down.


Clear

Hi @rosends;


REGARDING THE HISTORICAL TRADITION THAT MULTIPLE CONFLICTING MISHNAHS EXISTED
I have given readers multiple examples of conflicting rules from multiple Mishnahs in the above example.
Your claim is that "There is no such tradition." (Rosends, post #54).

I don't think hiding your head in the sand and claiming multiple Mishnahs don't exist is a good way to support your claim when readers have already been given concrete examples from multiple Mishnahs with conflicting rules and they can easily and simply look up this history for themselves?


REGARDING WHETHER THE RABBINIC LAWS IN THE MISHNAH ARE DIVINE OR NOT

Rosends said : “Good thing no one claimed it is divine or dictated by God!” (post #54)

So we can agree that the rules and traditions in the Mishnah were NEVER given by God and they are NOT divine in any way?


REGARDING THE CONFLICTING RULES FROM CONFLICTING RABBINIC MISHNAHS
Clear said : “These two main Mishnas give conflicting rules regarding several important traditions such as the eating of the Paschal lamb, which fruits may be eaten where they are planted and which must be taken to Jerusalem to be eaten, laws concerning circumcision conflict, etc.”

Rosends responded : “Yes, very true. Good thing we have a set of rules in place to help us understand the practical consequences and how we should behave. (post #54)

So now, you are admitting multiple conflicting Mishnahs DID exist and they do NOT represent divine rules and traditions as the rabbinic historians claim?

This has been my claim all along.

MUCH of the rules and traditions of Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) were created by the Jewish leadership and do not represent divine law.

Historically, the evidence is that such rules were created by Jewish leaders and thus, are the traditions of men rather than having divine origin.


Clear
φινετζω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

I don't think hiding your head in the sand and claiming multiple Mishnahs don't exist is a good way to support your claim when readers have already been given concrete examples from multiple Mishnahs

When did I say multiple Mishnaic texts don’t exist? In fact, in the message to which you are ostensibly responding, I wrote, “Since they had different texts of the mishna, their discussions would not always be in accord with each other.” In message #41 I wrote “The exact wording is not always clear and the Mishna is present in a few different version” and I gave a link to a site which discusses this. Claiming I said that multiple Mishnas don’t exist is wrong. I do hope people look back and see that I very clearly acknowledged this a while ago and you have ignored what I wrote.

So we can agree that the rules and traditions in the Mishnah were NEVER given by God and they are NOT divine in any way?

Some of the rules eventually written down as the mishna are divine. Some aren’t. Your absolute “never” is wrong.

So now, you are admitting multiple conflicting Mishnahs DID exist and they do NOT represent divine rules and traditions as the rabbinic historians claim?

Now? As I showed above, I mentioned this a while back.

Historically, the evidence is that such rules were created by Jewish leaders and thus, are the traditions of men rather than having divine origin.

Textually, the Talmud records that some were created by Jewish leaders. But it also records that some wasn’t. Since you haven’t been reading what I wrote and don’t understand the terminology being used it seems fruitless to try and convince you of anything. You will believe what you want and ignore the rest.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

1) REGARDING THE MISHNA CONTAINING THE TRADITIONS OF MEN

Rosends said : “Some of the rules eventually written down as the mishna are divine. Some aren’t.” (post #56)

Very good.
It has taken a while but we are getting closer to the truth regarding the traditions of men in Jewish rules and traditions.
We are at least to the point that you can admit there are things in the various Jewish rabbinic Mishnahs that are NOT from God.


2) REGARDING THINGS IN THE JEWISH TALMUD AND MISHNAHS THAT ARE "NOT FROM GOD".

Since I have already given the example from the rabbis regarding the washing of utensils from the Talmud, we might as well use it.

Do you believe these specific rabbinic rules regarding the ritual washing of utensils once owned by a non-Jew are divine or are they simply rules and traditions created by Jewish leadership (i.e. traditions of men)?

For example, the rabbinic rule is that pyrex, aluminum dishes, cast Iron, pewter and tin MUST be ritually cleansed in a shivka before use while utensils made of ceramic, cork, plastic, rubber, wood need not be ritually cleansed.

However, aluminum dishes must be ritually cleansed while disposable aluminum pans do not require ritual cleansing.

Do you think these rabbinic rules are divine (from God) or are they simply traditions created by Jewish leadership and are not divine.



The rabbis offer other examples : “Tevillah is required for a barbecue spit or the food pan used with a chafing dish. The cover of a chafing dish must also undergo tevillah; although it seemingly does not have contact with the “actual” food, it is considered to have food contact because of the considerable amount of steam that rises up from the food to the cover. A glass cake tray requires tevillah even if the cake is always placed in cupcake holders or on a doily (i.e., never touches the actual tray), because the doily etc. is considered tafel/negligible to the food. A can opener does not have (intentional) food contact, and therefore it does not require tevillah. The tray in a toaster oven or microwave requires tevillah, because people put food right onto it, but the chamber of those appliances does not require tevillah, since they do not have (intentional) food contact. The following are some other examples of items which have no food contact and therefore do not require tevillah: corkscrew, dishwashing basin, knife sharpener, and TEVILLAS KEILIM napkin ring.”

Do you believe these rules and traditions are divine (from God) or do you think they were simply rules made up by Jewish leaders?


3) REGARDING RABBINIC DOCTRINES CREATED BY JEWISH LEADERS

What about doctrines created by Jewish Leaders.

For example the Jewish doctrine that Adam had both sexual organs and did not need eve to procreate seems very bizarre and I cannot find it in the Bible anywhere.

Yet, the Jewish encyclopedia tells us that "Rabbinical literature knows both the mythical and the real hermaphrodite: the former in the Haggadah, the latter in the Halakah. The notion of bisexuality must have been derived from Hellenic sources, as the Greek form of the word proves. The other form, "hermaphrodite," never occurs in rabbinical writings. The principle of the sexual generation of the world is not of Greek origin: its phallic character pointing to India as its birthplace….."

In the Haggadah.

Transmitted and developed through dualistic Gnosticism in the East, the notion of an androgynous creation was adopted by the Haggadists in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements of the Bible. In Gen. ii. 7 and 18 et seq., the separate creations of man and of woman are described, while in chap. i. 27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them," their creation is described as coincident. In connection with the latter verse the Midrash states (Gen. R. viii.): "Jeremiah, son of Eleazar, says: God created Adam androgynous, but Samuel, son of Naḥman, says, He created him 'double-faced,' then cutting him in twain and forming two backs, one to the one and the other to the second" (see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 547, iii. 585). The same statement is given in Moses ha-Darshan's Bere**** Rabbati ("Pugio Fidei," p. 446, Paris, 1651).

I might point out that medically, a hermaphrodite is a single individual who has both sexual characteristics (e.g. they may have both sets of organs, male and female), whereas the “double-faced” Jewish version seems to have two individuals of different sexes, melded into in one body, but facing different directions (like the mythical Janus, whose face looks both forward and backward).

Thus, the Jewish encyclopedia explains that : according to Jeremiah's opinion," Adam had both sexes, and was thus a real hermaphrodite in the old mythical sense….

This represents ADAM as a hermaphrodite since, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, “Eve was created later”, after Adam and not at the same time.

The midrash in Stones Chumash (a printed Torah. Not a scroll) elaborates regarding the creation of Eve as a “companion” to Adam. “God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function.”

The Jewish encyclopedia further explains that “In all the parallel passages in the Talmud, the opinion of Samuel b. Naḥman alone prevails, for we find regularly Adam (bifrons, double-fronted), as, for example: 'Er. 18a, Ber. 61a, etc. (Jastrow, "Dict." s.v., p. 304, 1).The opinion expressed by Jeremiah is, however, very old and wide-spread, for we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"; Augustine writes against it in his commentary on Genesis, ad loc. ch. 22. Strabos,agreeing with Augustine, declares this opinion to be one of the "damnatæ Judæorum fabulæ." Others revive the question, and Sixtus Senensis in his "Bibliotheca Sacra" devotes to it a special chapter (ed. Colon. 1586, fol. 344, 345). An alchemic interpretation has been given to "Adam androgynus," by Guil. Menens, "Aurei Velleris libri tres, Theatrum chemicum," vol. v., p. 275, Argent., 1660.

In the Halakah.

In the halakic writings only "Androgynos" is used, never "duoprosopin" (bifrons), and always in the physiological sense of "bisexual." In the Mishnah Bikkurim, the whole of section iv. is devoted to the minute description of the legal position and abnormities of the Androgynos. In some particulars he is to be treated as a man, in others as a woman, as he partakes of both natures; not so the "ṭum-ṭum," an individual whose sex can not be determined. This Androgynos is a common figure in classical tradition. Pliny mentions him ("Historia Naturalis," vii. 34), and Gellius ("Noctes Atticæ," ix. 4, 16). Special attention was paid to the Androgynos in the old writers on physiognomy. Compare "Scriptores Physiognomonici Græci et Latini," ed. Foerster, Leipsic, 1893, under "Androgynos," in Index Græcus (ii. 368). For the further legal treatment of the Androgynos in Hebrew law, see Isaac Lampronti in his "Paḥad Yiẓḥaḳ," s.v., and Löw, "Lebensalter."

Obviously the early and widespread Jewish tradition that an "andro / gynus" (male / female) adam had organs of both sexes was a very widespread and deeply footed tradition in orthodox Judaism. However, it does not exist in any detail in the tanakh (Hebrew bible) but is simply exegetal speculation and irrationality run wild.

This sort of irrational and illogical speculation that creates a bisexual/two-bodied adam with a tail (the tail is in other Jewish literature) is similar to the same sort of irrational and illogic that creates similar strange metaphors out of simple words and seeks to contaminate the early judeo-christian traditions with Jewish mythology.

For example, When Christians use the words "Adam was created in the image of God", that come from the Bible, early Christians did NOT adopt a widespread tradition that Adam had both sex organs and that Adam could, by use of both sets of sex organs together, create children without eve. This may be Jewish, but it is not represented in any widespread fashion in sacred early Christian texts and, as the Jewish encyclopedia admits, "we find the fathers of the Christian Church at pains to refute this "Jewish fable"


Is this Rabbanite doctrine from God or did the Jewish leaders simply create this doctrine by their own interpretation of the Bible?

If it is not a divine doctrine, and is part of those doctrines that are simply “traditions of men”.


Clear
φυτζακω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

It seems that you haven't read anything I have written. You state that "We are at least to the point that you can admit there are things in the various Jewish rabbinic Mishnahs that are NOT from God."

when in fact, in the first message in which I participated in this thread (post 13 on the first page), I wrote "There are, of course, additional categories of law that ARE clearly rabbinic. Much discussion in the talmud centers around the distinction between those types of laws and the implications".

Then you mention "Do you believe these specific rabbinic rules regarding the ritual washing of utensils once owned by a non-Jew are divine or are they simply rules and traditions created by Jewish leadership (i.e. traditions of men)?"

I had discussed the question of "washing hands" as a rabbinic innovation. You then muddied the water by (in message 31) talking once about "washing utensils" when that was not the discussion. In message 25 you mention "baptizing" utensils like pyrex. You have confused two completely different sets of rules -- one a rabbinic one about washing hands and one a rabbinic one about immersing certain types of utensils in a ritual bath to deal with a state of impurity. The second one is listed by Maimonides as being rabbinic though an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23. So you have cited 2 sets of rules that are rabbinic (and this has never been a secret), so what is your point?

You then move from law to questions of midrash (which you don't understand and the source from which you copied and pasted labels incorrectly). To understand the place of midrash in Judaism is an important part of piecing together Judaism but you are not anywhere near that level yet, obviously.

You are flailing about and it is sort of sad to watch. Maybe you should take a breath, create an inventory of all you don't know and start from scratch, asking and learning instead of imputing statements and miswording ideas.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

1) REGARDING MISUNDERSTANDING WHEN ONE ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER HISTORICAL DATA WITH OBLIQUE ANSWERS AND AD HOMINEMS

If there is misunderstanding, you must take some responsibility for this with your oblique answers and ad hominems rather than offering any historical data to support your position.

For example. I pointed out that rabbinic claim that Moses handed down vast amount of “Oral law” which were memorized by sages and became the basis of a multitude of later rules and traditions created by the rabbis was historically untenable.

I labeled these non-Mosaic rules and traditions as “innovations”.

You responded “When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying. They had already been living by those laws.”

Yes. They were codifying the earlier innovations and interpretations of their leaders.

They were not codifying a vast amount of law handed down from moses through unerring memorization over eons of time.



2) WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO AGREE THAT RABBINIC LAWS ARE “NOT FROM GOD”?

Rosends said : “It seems that you haven't read anything I have written. You state that "We are at least to the point that you can admit there are things in the various Jewish rabbinic Mishnahs that are NOT from God." when in fact, in the first message in which I participated in this thread (post 13 on the first page), I wrote "There are, of course, additional categories of law that ARE clearly rabbinic. (post #58)

Are, are you admitting that the “clearly rabbinic” laws are “NOT from God” or is this another oblique answer that does not mean what it appears to mean?



3) REGARDING THE COMPLAINT THAT YOUR POSTS AREN'T BEING READ

I can make exactly the same complaint against you regarding why you continually fail to answer my questions.

I asked : “… the rabbinic rule is that pyrex, aluminum dishes, cast Iron, pewter and tin MUST be ritually cleansed in a shivka before use while utensils made of ceramic, cork, plastic, rubber, wood need not be ritually cleansed.

However, aluminum dishes must be ritually cleansed while disposable aluminum pans do not require ritual cleansing.

Do you think these rabbinic rules are divine (from God) or are they simply traditions created by Jewish leadership and are not divine.

Instead of answering MY questions, you complain I don’t read your posts.

How about the Jewish doctrine that Adam had both male and female sex organs and could reproduce by himself without eve. Is this a doctrine that is created by rabbis or is it a doctrine given to the rabbis by God?


4) AD HOMINEMS DO NOT TAKE THE PLACE OF HISTORICAL DATA IN A HISTORICAL DISCUSSION

While I provided historical data that readers can easily look up for themselves, your responses are ad hominems for the most part and such as suggesting that if I only knew rabbinic Judaism I would agree with your tradition.

I cannot if you know ANYTHING about ancient judaism other than dogmatic soundbites. if you will not provide historical data instead of ad hominems none of us can tell what you do or do not know.

If you know as much about ancient Judaism as you seem to think you do, but yet are almost completely unable to provide historical data to support your position, then it only supports my claim that a vast oral law handed down by memorization from Moses himself is, indeed, a historically incoherent and untenable theory.

The problem for you was lack of any historical data. You tried to support this tradition by logic but were unable to provide historical data to support your position. This is the context of the discussion.

My O.P. asked for historical data regarding the tradition that Moses handed down a vast amount of "Oral Law" which was to be passed on generation after generation by memorization. I also said, If you don't have any data, it would be good to admit it now so that we don't spend a lot of time and energy discussing something that is not really historical.



5) REGARDING THE SINGLE SCRIPTURE YOU OFFER TO SUPPORT THE RITUAL CLEANSING OF DISHES A JEW RECIEVES FROM A NON-JEW (e.g. a friend or neighbor, etc).

You offered Numbers 31:23 as justification as to why Jews are required to wash dishes given them by non-Jews. Here is the scripture you offered and with some additional verses as context.


9The Israelites captured the Midianite women and their children, and they plundered all their herds, flocks, and goods. 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites had lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and carried away all the plunder and spoils, both people and animals.

12They brought the captives, spoils, and plunder to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of Israel at the camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. 13And Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp.

14But Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who were returning from the battle. 15“Have you spared all the women?” he asked them. 16“Look, these women caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to turn unfaithfully against the LORD at Peor, so that the plague struck the congregation of the LORD. 17So now, kill all the boys, as well as every woman who has had relations with a man, 18but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.

19All of you who have killed a person or touched the dead are to remain outside the camp for seven days. On the third day and the seventh day you are to purify both yourselves and your captives. 20And purify every garment and leather good, everything made of goat’s hair, and every article of wood.”

21Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is the statute of the law which the LORD has commanded Moses: 22Only the gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, and lead— 23everything that can withstand the fire—must be put through the fire, and it will be clean. But it must still be purified with the water of purification. And everything that cannot withstand the fire must pass through the water. 24On the seventh day you are to wash your clothes, and you will be clean. After that you may enter the camp.”



Are you really going to take a reference to a battle against Midianites where Moses commands the Israelites to kill all boys and women who have had sex but keep the young girls and commands the soldiers to wash and “put through” fire certain objects to clean them and try to apply this obscure reference to the modern Rabbinic rule to take dishes to a Mikvah and ritually wash them while saying a specific prayer?

Really?

REALLY?

And this is your entire argument so far, regarding this set of modern rabbinic rules?

Since the scripture commands other things of the soldiers, why not obey those commands as well? Why not kill the neighbors wife if she’s had sexual relations, and their son and take their young daughters for your spoil?

Do you really think this innovation and interpretation is from God or is it simply a rule created by your leaders?



Clear
φυδρνεω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

Yes. They were codifying the earlier innovations and interpretations of their leaders.

They were not codifying a vast amount of law handed down from moses through unerring memorization over eons of time.

That is your opinion and unproven claim, yes. So what?

Are, are you admitting that the “clearly rabbinic” laws are “NOT from God” or is this another oblique answer that does not mean what it appears to mean?

Um, why would you think that the statement “clearly rabbinic” means “from God”? Do you have any record of my saying one thing and meaning the opposite?

Do you think these rabbinic rules are divine (from God) or are they simply traditions created by Jewish leadership and are not divine.

So you haven’t read. I just wrote a response to this in which I said that immersion (not “washing” as that’s not a thing when it comes to utensils) is rabbinic. That you ask again, even after I took pains to spell it out speaks volumes.

Instead of answering MY questions, you complain I don’t read your posts.

Except that I did answer them. You are the one asking repeatedly despite my answers.

How about the Jewish doctrine that Adam had both male and female sex organs and could reproduce by himself without eve. Is this a doctrine that is created by rabbis or is it a doctrine given to the rabbis by God?

What “doctrine”? You are confusing statements from the midrash for laws. Why?

While I provided historical data that readers can easily look up for themselves, your responses are ad hominems for the most part and such as suggesting that if I only knew rabbinic Judaism I would agree with your tradition.

You haven’t pointed to any historical data, only to the scholars you chose who made statements based on their opinions and you agree with them. I presented historical evidence that an oral law existed. I gave textual reference, textual evidence of practice and logical deduction, none of which you have dealt with. You would know what I knoew had you read what I wrote.

If you know as much about ancient Judaism as you seem to think you do, but yet are almost completely unable to provide historical data to support your position,

“almost completely”?? So you are conceding that I presented some? Therefore your initial request has been satisfied. Voila!

then it only supports my claim that a vast oral law handed down by memorization from Moses himself is, indeed, a historically incoherent and untenable theory.

So your position is that if there is no document attesting something, it is invariably untenable? I guess the existence of my great-great-great-great-grandmother is untenable as there is no documentation proving she existed.

The problem for you was lack of any historical data. You tried to support this tradition by logic but were unable to provide historical data to support your position. This is the context of the discussion.

And you have not proven the contrary – you are asking if documents exist because some scholars say that the ideas that would be in those documents doesn’t sit well with them. That’s their using logic in the absence of any data to support their position. So for them it is ok, but for me…not so much? Weird.

My O.P. asked for historical data regarding the tradition that Moses handed down a vast amount of "Oral Law" which was to be passed on generation after generation by memorization. I also said, If you don't have any data, it would be good to admit it now so that we don't spend a lot of time and energy discussing something that is not really historical.

So I gave data and was very clear about the limitations of the data and what would exist or would not exist that might satisfy your request. Should I go back and copy and paste the relevant things I wrote (number and color code them) for you?

You offered Numbers 31:23 as justification as to why Jews are required to wash dishes given them by non-Jews. Here is the scripture you offered and with some additional verses as context.

No, I didn’t. I pointed out that the Rambam references to it as a scriptural allusion to the rabbinic practice. I never mentioned “justification”. See, putting words in my mouth is not helpful.

Are you really going to take a reference to a battle against Midianites where Moses commands the Israelites to kill all boys and women who have had sex but keep the young girls and commands the soldiers to wash and “put through” fire certain objects to clean them and try to apply this obscure reference to the modern Rabbinic rule to take dishes to a Mikvah and ritually wash them while saying a specific prayer?

Are you really going to deny that the text’s clear statement about immersing utensils can be cited as historical precedent for the practice? Really? Is this your best work – to deny what the text says and then ask for other proof? To misrepresent what I stated (and what Maimonides wrote) and then attack that fiction? Really?

Do you really think this innovation and interpretation is from God or is it simply a rule created by your leaders?

Do you really expect anyone to believe that you read what I wrote, when you keep asking questions like this?