• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture or in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders. This was one of the repeated complaints of the Prophets against Israel anciently.

Not at all! What you're describing is assimilation with the other nations. The other nations had their own practices, no one in the stories of the prophets is creating a religion. They are following the other pre-established religions. Orthodox Judaism completely and effectively addresses this problem with assimilation per Jehovah's will. Jehovah established an eternal Jewish nation. Orthodox Judaism executes this divine will.

Leviticus 26:42-46

42 and I will remember My covenant [with] Jacob, and also My covenant [with] Isaac, and also My covenant [with] Abraham I will remember. And I will remember the Land,

43 [For] the Land will be bereft of them, appeasing its sabbaticals when it had been desolate of them, and they will gain appeasement for their iniquity. This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes.

44 But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am Jehovah their God.

45 I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord.

46 These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the laws that Jehovah gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
@Clear


Other than the observation that all "persons", by definition, use "personal" judgments, do you have any justification to offer readers as to why the "war rules" regarding killing women who've had sex, killing all boys and keeping the nubile young girls as slaves and putting metals through fire while washing other spoils of war in Numbers 31:23 actually applies to the rabbinic rule that utensils given a Jew by a non-Jew should be taken to a Jewish Mikvah and ceremonially cleansed while saying a prayer over the utensil?

No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear.

What is the connection you are trying to make between spoils of war anciently and the ceremonial washing of utensils given you by a kind non-Jewish neighbor?

The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames. How is that hard to see?

The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture or in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders.

Ah, so your agenda is to delegitimize the entirety of Judaism. Got it. Good thing the Jewish religion does have a basis in scripture and divine guidance…

This was one of the repeated complaints of the Prophets against Israel anciently. The pattern in the Old Testament was that Israel so often would adopt Idolatrous man-made religion, sacrifice to man-made Idols and man-made God, instead of adhering to Jehovah and his edicts.

The complaint was that the people didn’t follow the laws. They were punished and then returned to Judaism. The “man made” stuff was the idolatry of non-Jews surrounding them. You want to call Judaism man made and yet the people weren’t punished for following it. Therefore, it must not have been man made. QED.

IF rabbanism (Rabbinic Judaism) today is engaging in the same habits of creating man-made rules and traditions as the prophets criticized them for so many times anciently

Except that’s not what the prophets were criticizing


then it is self-delusion to claim they are following the edicts of God when they are actually following the edicts of man-made religion as they have done in the past.

but since your presumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.


In actuality Numbers does not refer to utensils but to "everything" gained in the spoils of that war, it does not refer to washing in a mikvah, but merely to washing the spoils of war in water of purification, it does not refer to saying a specific prayer over utensils gained as spoils of war, but merely to putting them through fire or the water. This rule of spoils of war does not refer to "kosher foods" as you referred to. These additions of rules and traditions are innovations of the Jewish Leaders.

Well, since I have already said that immersion of utensils in a ritual bath is rabbinic, I’m not sure what you are adding. The fact that the details in this section are not identical to current practice is why this section is NOT a source to the law. All you have done is confirmed everything I have said about this rabbinic law. Thank you.

While you criticize using one's "personal judgment" (what other most basic form of judgment does a "person" have besides "personal" judgment?)

A person could adopt or invoke common or communal judgment without exercising personal preference. Glad to clear that up for you.


you are using your own personal judgment in allowing a rabbi or other Jewish leader to create non-biblical and secular rules to tell you how to live in this instance.

I am using my personal judgment to allow someone to have created something thousands of years ago? I hope you can see how that makes no sense.

Rabbinic edicts are NOT a proof to any set of Sinaitic laws, especially when they are NOT biblical, NOT based on Sinaitic laws, and are based on the personal interpretation of Rabbis who are innovating rules based on their personal opinions.

Great. So since the issue of Num 31 is not a proof, but simply a hint that isn’t a source, and since the law is rabbinic, why do you keep harping on it?


nor does it even qualify as "contextual and textual evidence" you claim to "keep pointing to".

Good, since it isn’t the contextual and textual evidence which I have presented.

Yes, I did not answer your question "Are there other kinds of rabbis" because it is another irrelevant deflection from the point that the scholars and historians that are looking for evidence of a vast oral law are mostly Jewish Rabbis and not simply anti-Jews.

And some scholars and rabbis aren’t looking for what you seek because they have already found the evidence. You know, the stuff I pointed out already which you clearly haven’t paid attention to.

Jewish rabbinic scholars and historians cannot seem to find the same evidence that you have, so far, been unable to find.

Some rabbis and scholars HAVE found the same stuff I found. The stuff you keep ignoring. Do you want me to point to the earlier posts in which I listed it?

to support the myriads of Jewish Rabbinic traditions that, as Rosends admitted, are Non-biblical?

Did I admit that? No. I didn’t I said that there are some that are rabbinic, not myriads. And why would anyone have proof of a divine source to anything that is rabbinic? You are very confused.


So, you're claiming you “looked up” “the background and personal attitude towards religion ”of each of these rabbis and scholars?”

Strange, I don’t seem to recall writing “each.” Is there any reason that when you ostensibly quote someone, you change what he actually said?


And you found that the Jewish rabbis among them are anti-Jewish on this point of Oral law?

Nope. I never said that either. Why would you claim I did?

Can you tell readers what did you actually look up that told you what each of the Jewish rabbis said that made you think they were anti Jewish on this specific point?

Why should I defend something I never said? This is just more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

And I pointed out that you don't seem to know Jewish teaching on this point.

And you are still wrong. I have known this Jewish teaching for a long time. I know plenty of other Jewish teachings as well. So? I said that it was not a doctrine, not that it wasn’t extant. But, again, you insist on mispresenting my statements.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF FOUR

1) REGARDING THE RABBANITE (RABBINIC JEWISH) DOCTRINE THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS (divine religion versus man-made religion)
Rosends clarifies : “While there is a rabbinic interpretation and there are midrashic stories about the physical presentation of Adam and Eve, that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (post #67) “


Thank you for clarifying that there are doctrines created by the personal interpretations of rabbis that the Jews do not feel they are required to believe in.

My point was that such Jewish doctrines are created by Jewish Leadership and that such doctrines are based on personal interpretation rather than by divine revelation.
IF the Jewish leadership creates rules and doctrines simply based on their personal interpretations then these are not rules and doctrines that have a divine source but are man-made religion.
For example, the Jewish doctrine of Adam, being created with both male and female sets of sex organs and using Numbers 31:23 as an allusion to the rule of ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum etc in a mikvah while saying a specific prayer over these utensils.

What is true of rules is also true of doctrines.
The admission that Jews are not required to believe in the Jewish doctrine is a tacit recognition that the doctrine is not divine, even in the opinion of Jews that do not feel any requirement to believe it. IF they felt it was divine doctrine then they would feel more obligation to believe the doctrine. It is an unconscious recognition that the doctrine is not divine.



2) THE USE OF NUMBERS 31:23 AS AN “ALLUSION” TO SUPPORT THE CEREMONIAL WASHING OF PYREX AND ALUMINUM DISHES IN A MIKVAH WHILE SAYING A SPECIFIC PRAYER

Originally Rosends claimed Numbers 31:23 was an “allusion” to this Rabbanite Jewish rule.

Rosends explains Number 31:25 is an allusion to this Jewish rule in post #58 saying : “The second one is listed by Maimonides as being rabbinic though an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23. (rosends post #58)

Rosends again claimed Numbers 31:23 is an allusion to this Jewish rule in Post #60 saying : “I pointed out that the Rambam references to it as a scriptural allusion to the rabbinic practice.” (rosends post #60)


Rosends
now claims that Numbers 31:23 is NOT related to this Jewish rule in post #82, saying :“No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear.”


Then Rosends claims Numbers 31:23 is related / connected to the rule.

Rosends in the next sentence claimed there IS a connection in post #82 : “The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames. How is that hard to see?” (POST #82)

Clear consistently claimed that the mere use of the words “washing” or “water” in a text regarding martial law and spoils of war described in Numbers 31:23 is not sufficient “evidence” to create a rabbic rule regarding the ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum dishes while saying a specific prayer.

Clear said : “… do you have any justification to offer readers as to why the "war rules" regarding killing women who've had sex, killing all boys and keeping the nubile young girls as slaves and putting metals through fire while washing other spoils of war in Numbers 31:23 actually applies to the rabbinic rule that utensils given a Jew by a non-Jew should be taken to a Jewish Mikvah and ceremonially cleansed while saying a prayer over the utensil?”

There is a problem making conflicting claims like "No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear." and then
later Rosends claimed in post #82 ““The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames..

Are you having a difficult time remembering what you wrote?

You are confused and perhaps you need to consult with someone that knows Jewish tradition BEFORE you try to teach Jewish tradition. Maybe you can ask a rabbi friend what you need to teach if you don’t know Jewish tradition.





3) REGARDING THE CREATION OF RELIGIOUS RULES THAT HAVE NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE NOR IN DIVINE COMMANDMENT

Clear said
regarding the creation of rules without biblical basis : "The fact that it is NOT biblical IS the point."
Rosends replied : "But since no one claimed it was biblical, why is that your point?"

The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture nor in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders.

This was one of the repeated complaints of the Prophets against Israel anciently. The pattern in the Old Testament was that Israel so often would adopt Idolatrous man-made religion, sacrifice to man-made Idols and man-made God, instead of adhering to Jehovah and his edicts.

IF rabbanism (Rabbinic Judaism) today is engaging in the same habits of creating man-made rules and traditions as the prophets criticized them for so many times anciently, then it is self-delusion to claim they are following the edicts of God when they are actually following the edicts of man-made religion as they have done in the past.

For example : You claimed that Numbers 31:23 is an allusion to the rabbinic rule to ceremonially wash utensils in a mikvah while saying a prayer over the utensils.

In actuality Numbers does not refer to utensils but to "everything" gained in the spoils of that war, it does not refer to washing in a mikvah, but merely to washing the spoils of war in water of purification, it does not refer to saying a specific prayer over utensils gained as spoils of war, but merely to putting them through fire or the water. This rule of spoils of war does not refer to "kosher foods" as you referred to. These additions of rules and traditions are innovations of the Jewish Leaders.



4) THE O.P. ASKS FOR DATA NOT TO DELEGITIMIZE “THE ENTIRELY OF JUDAISM”, IT ASKS FOR DATA TO SEE IF THE JEWISH CLAIM OF ORAL LAW WHERE MOSES DICTATES VAST AMOUNT OF LAWS TO BE TRANSMITTED BY PERFECT MEMORY HAS ANY HISTORICAL SUPPORT

Rosends said : “Ah, so your agenda is to delegitimize the entirety of Judaism. Got it. Good thing the Jewish religion does have a basis in scripture and divine guidance…”


You are confused : The O.P. is actually looking for evidence that the Jewish tradition that Moses passed on vast Amounts of rules, laws, doctrines and traditions to the Rabbanites (Rabbinic Jews) is either true or false.

Still, you are going to have to make up your mind.

If, as you claim, Numbers 31:23 IS an allusion of the rule of ceremonial washing of Pyrex and aluminum dishes given to a Jew by a Non-Jew, then this can form a “basis in scripture”.

IF as you also claim, Numbers 31:23 is NOT related to the ceremonial washing of Pyrex and aluminum dishes then it has “no basis or connection to that scripture”.

If the many rules and traditions created by rabbis are NOT “based in scripture or divine revelation from God” then it is a religion based on man made traditions to the extent that it follows rules and traditions created by men.





POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF FOUR

5) ISRAEL HAS A HISTORY OF BEING CHASTIZED AND PUNISHED FOR HAVING IDOLATROUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

Clear pointed out : “This was one of the repeated complaints of the Prophets against Israel anciently. The pattern in the Old Testament was that Israel so often would adopt Idolatrous man-made religion, sacrifice to man-made Idols and man-made God, instead of adhering to Jehovah and his edicts”

Rosends responded : “ The “man made” stuff was the idolatry of non-Jews surrounding them. You want to call Judaism man made and yet the people weren’t punished for following it.”


Rosends, you need to consult with Jews who know more about the history of the Israelites than you apparently are familiar with. For example, speaking of Israel the scriptures tell us they often reverted to false religion.

And the LORD said to Moses, "Go, get down! For your people whom you brought out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. (8) They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. They have made themselves a molded calf, and worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said, "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!"" Exodus 32:(7)

You cannot, historically, simply blame this on non-Israel as Jehovah is speaking of Israel.

Later in Deuteronomy Jehovah speaks of israel who “abandoned the God who made him” saying : But Jeshurune grew fat and kicked— becoming fat, bloated, and gorged. He abandoned the God who made him and scorned the Rock of his salvation. 16 They provoked His jealousy with foreign gods; they enraged Him with abominations. 17 They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they had not known, to newly arrived gods, which your fathers did not fear. 18You ignored the Rock who brought you forth; you forgot the God who gave you birth. (Deut 32: 15)

Again,you cannot blame non-israel for the apostasy of Israel from true religion.

Also in Deut Jehovah says Israel is a nation devoid of counsel, with no understanding among them. 29If only they were wise, they would understand it; they would comprehend their fate. (Deut 32: 28Israel)

Later, In 2 Kings, chapter 17 we find Israel has not learned their lesson as Jehovah again is angry with Israel for their apostasy from true religion saying : 6In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and carried away the Israelites to Assyria, where he settled them in Halah, in Gozan by the Habor River, and in the cities of the Medes.

7All this happened because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They had worshiped other gods 8and walked in the customs of the nations that the LORD had driven out before the Israelites, as well as in the practices introduced by the kings of Israel.

9The Israelites secretly did things against the LORD their God that were not right. From watchtower to fortified city, they built high places in all their cities. 10They set up for themselves sacred pillars and Asherah poles on every high hill and under every green tree. 11They burned incense on all the high places like the nations that the LORD had driven out before them. They did wicked things, provoking the LORD to anger. 12They served idols, although the LORD had told them, “You shall not do this thing.”b

13Yet through all His prophets and seers, the LORD warned Israel and Judah, saying, “Turn from your wicked ways and keep My commandments and statutes, according to the entire Law that I commanded your fathers and delivered to you through My servants the prophets.”

14But they would not listen, and they stiffened their necks like their fathers, who did not believe the LORD their God. 15They rejected His statutes and the covenant He had made with their fathers, as well as the decrees He had given them. They pursued worthless idols and themselves became worthless, going after the surrounding nations that the LORD had commanded them not to imitate.

16They abandoned all the commandments of the LORD their God and made for themselves two cast idols of calves and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the host of heaven and served Baal. 17They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the firec and practiced divination and soothsaying. They devoted themselves to doing evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger.


“They” in these sentence refers to Israel and the evils THEY were doing in worshiping false Gods and adopting false religion.

In Psalms 78, there is another chapter describing the apostasy of Israel, saying :
5For He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our fathers to teach to their children, 6that the coming generation would know them— even children yet to be born— to arise and tell their own children 7that they should put their confidence in God, not forgetting His works, but keeping His commandments.

8Then they will not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, whose heart was not loyal, whose spirit was not faithful to God.

9The archers of Ephraim turned back on the day of battle. 10They failed to keep God’s covenant and refused to live by His law. 11They forgot what He had done, the wonders He had shown them. 12He worked wonders before their fathers in the land of Egypt, in the region of Zoan. 13He split the sea and brought them through; He set the waters upright like a wall. 14He led them with a cloud by day and with a light of fire all night. 15He split the rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink as abundant as the seas. 16He brought streams from the stone and made water flow down like rivers.

17But they continued to sin against Him, rebelling in the desert against the Most High. 18They willfully tested God by demanding the food they craved. 19They spoke against God, saying, “Can God really prepare a table in the wilderness? 20When He struck the rock, water gushed out and torrents raged. But can He also give bread or supply His people with meat?” 21Therefore the LORD heard and was filled with wrath; so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and His anger flared against Israel, 22because they did not believe God or rely on His salvation. 23Yet He commanded the clouds above and opened the doors of the heavens….

30Yet before they had filled their desire, with the food still in their mouths, 31God’s anger flared against them, and He put to death their strongest and subdued the young men of Israel. 32In spite of all this, they kept on sinning; despite His wonderful works, they did not believe. 33So He ended their days in futility,d and their years in sudden terror.



36But they deceived Him with their mouths, and lied to Him with their tongues. 37Their hearts were disloyal to Him, and they were unfaithful to His covenant.

40How often they disobeyed Him in the wilderness and grieved Him in the desert! 41Again and again they tested God and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

42They did not remember His powerf — the day He redeemed them from the adversary….

54He brought them to His holy land, to the mountain His right hand had acquired. 55He drove out nations before them and apportioned their inheritance; He settled the tribes of Israel in their tents. 56But they tested and disobeyed God Most High, for they did not keep His decrees.


57They turned back and were faithless like their fathers, twisted like a faulty bow. 58They enraged Him with their high places and provoked His jealousy with their idols. 59On hearing it, God was furious and rejected Israel completely. 60He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent He had pitched among men.


Again, it is Israel who are not faithful nor were they faithful to Jehovah in beliefs and practice. You cannot simply blame any non-Israel among them for what Jehovah says Israel did.


POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE OF FOUR

Later, nearing the time of Judahs captivity in Babylon, Jeremiah the prophet again chastises ISRAEL for their unfaithfulness and bad actions. In Chap 3 the prophet says regarding ISRAEL :

1“If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him to marry another, can he ever return to her? Would not such a land be completely defiled? But you have played the harlot with many lovers— and you would return to Me?” declares the LORD.
2“Lift up your eyes to the barren heights and see. Is there any place where you have not been violated? You sat beside the highways waiting for your lovers, like a nomad in the desert. You have defiled the land with your prostitution and wickedness.
3Therefore the showers have been withheld, and no spring rains have fallen. Yet you have the brazen look of a prostitute; you refuse to be ashamed. 4Have you not just called to Me, ‘My Father, You are my friend from youth. 5Will He be angry forever? Will He be indignant to the end?’ This you have spoken, but you keep doing all the evil you can.”
6Now in the days of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every green tree to prostitute herself there. 7I thought that after she had done all these things, she would return to Me. But she did not return, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it.
8She sawa that because faithless Israel had committed adultery, I gave her a certificate of divorce and sent her away. Yet that unfaithful sister Judah had no fear and prostituted herself as well. 9Indifferent to her own infidelity, Israel had defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10Yet in spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the LORD.
11And the LORD said to me, “Faithless Israel has shown herself more righteous than unfaithful Judah. 12Go, proclaim this message toward the north: ‘Return, O faithless Israel,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will no longer look on you with anger, for I am merciful,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will not be angry forever. 13Only acknowledge your guilt, that you have rebelled against the LORD your God. You have scattered your favors to foreign gods under every green tree and have not obeyed My voice,’ ” declares the LORD.
14“Return, O faithless children,” declares the LORD, “for I am your master, and I will take you—one from a city and two from a family—and bring you to Zion. 15Then I will give you shepherds after My own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

I thought you would call Me ‘Father’ and never turn away from following Me. 20But as a woman may betray her husband, so you have betrayed Me, O house of Israel,” declares the LORD. 21A voice is heard on the barren heights, the children of Israel weeping and begging for mercy, because they have perverted their ways and forgotten the LORD their God. 22“Return, O faithless children, and I will heal your faithlessness.”

Again the prophet chastises ISRAEL and JUDAH and is not speaking simply of the non-Jews among Israel and Judah. Exekiel also carries the same witness to Israel regarding their apostasy from Jehovah and true religion in Ezekiel chapt 6 :

9Then in the nations to which they have been carried captive, your survivors will remember Me—how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts that turned away from Me, and by their eyes that lusted after idols. So they will loathe themselves for the evil they have done and for all their abominations. 10And they will know that I am the LORD; I did not declare in vain that I would bring this calamity upon them.

11This is what the Lord GOD says: Clap your hands, stomp your feet, and cry out “Alas!” because of all the wicked abominations of the house of Israel, who will fall by sword and famine and plague. 12He who is far off will die by the plague, he who is near will fall by the sword, and he who remains will die by famine. So I will vent My fury upon them.


As in the other examples, the Lord is chastising ISRAEL for what THEY have done. The prophet is not simply speaking of non-Israelites among Israel.

Later in Ezekiel 20 the theme of Israel and their apostasy continues.

2Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 3“Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel and tell them that this is what the Lord GOD says: Have you come to inquire of Me? As surely as I live, I will not be consulted by you, declares the Lord GOD.
4Will you judge them, will you judge them, son of man? Confront them with the abominations of their fathers 5and tell them that this is what the Lord GOD says: On the day I chose Israel, I swore an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt. With an uplifted hand I said to them, ‘I am the LORD your God.’
6On that day I swore to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, a land flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands. 7And I said to them: ‘Each of you must throw away the abominations before his eyes, and you must not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.’
8But they rebelled against Me and refused to listen. None of them cast away the abominations before their eyes, and they did not forsake the idols of Egypt…
10So I brought them out of the land of Egypt and led them into the wilderness. 11And I gave them My statutes and made known to them My ordinances—for the man who does these things will live by them.a 12I also gave them My Sabbaths as a sign between us, so that they would know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.
13Yet the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness. They did not follow My statutes and they rejected My ordinances—though the man who does these things will live by them—and they utterly profaned My Sabbaths. Then I resolved to pour out My wrath upon them and put an end to them in the wilderness. 14But I acted for the sake of My name, so that it would not be profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
15Moreover, with an uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would not bring them into the land that I had given them—a land flowing with milk and honey, the glory of all lands— 16because they kept rejecting My ordinances, refusing to walk in My statutes, and profaning My Sabbaths; for their hearts continually went after their idols. 17Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them or bring them to an end in the wilderness.
18In the wilderness I said to their children: ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers or keep their ordinances or defile yourselves with their idols. 19I am the LORD your God; walk in My statutes, keep My ordinances, and practice them. 20Keep My Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us, so that you may know that I am the LORD your God.’
21But the children rebelled against Me. They did not walk in My statutes or carefully observe My ordinances—though the man who does these things will live by them—and they profaned My Sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath upon them and vent My anger against them in the wilderness. 22But I withheld My hand and acted for the sake of My name, so that it would not be profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.
23However, with an uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them throughout the lands. 24For they did not practice My ordinances, but they rejected My statutes and profaned My Sabbaths, fixing their eyes on the idols of their fathers.

25I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. 26And I pronounced them unclean through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn in the fire—so that I might devastate them, in order that they would know that I am the LORD.

POST FOUR OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST FOUR OF FOUR


6) REGARDING HOW ROSENDS KNOWS IDEAS IN JEWISH DOCUMENTS “DOESN’T SIT WELL” WITH THE RABBINIC SCHOLARS I’VE QUOTED

Clear said : “I've read the article you referred to and it is part of what piqued my interest in this specific history. Halivni, like, ito, Elman, glasner, Jaffnee, etc, Halivni (like others) tries to examine the relatively modern (post a.d.) claims that there existed an "oral law" beside written torah. The implication is that this specific claim by the later Rabbinic Judaism was created in an attempt to provide credibility to the multitude of non-torah rabbinic traditions.”

Rosends claims : “…I looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion. “


Clear responded : Really? So, you're claiming you “looked up” “the background and personal attitude towards religion ”of each of these rabbis and scholars?” And you found that the Jewish rabbis among them are anti-Jewish on this point of Oral law?

Can you tell readers what did you actually look up that told you what each of the Jewish rabbis said that made you think they were anti Jewish on this specific point?
I admit that I thought Jewish Rabbis would want to support the rabbinic doctrines and traditions and did not assume Jewish Rabbis would want to prove themselves wrong on this point.


Rosends responded : “Strange, I don’t seem to recall writing “each.” …

“Why should I defend something I never said? This is just more intellectual dishonesty on your part.”

Well, can you at least tell readers WHICH of these Rabbi/scholars you are referring to when you claim you “looked up their background and personal attitude towards religions” and tell us what the rabbis said that made you think the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”?



6) ROSENDS OFFERS TO COPY AND PASTE "RELEVANT THINGS", (HOPEFULLY "EVIDENCE" IS MEANT) FROM PRIOR POSTS

Clear said : “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.”


Rosends responded : “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?”

Clear responded : “Yes, If you have ANY historical evidence that your theory concerning Moses dictating vast amount of law that was meant to be passed on by memorization, I would ask that you post it.”

You offered to do this but have not done this.



Clear said : “But, when The Jewish scholars were unable to find evidence for this claim just as you’ve been unable to find historical evidence, that they started looking at other theories. I am looking for similar evidence that the Jewish Scholars have sought to find but could not. The same kind of evidence you have been unable to find and provide to readers.”

Rosends responded : “Some rabbis and scholars HAVE found the same stuff I found.”


OK, very good.

The O.P. is looking for any evidence that Moses dictated a vast amount of rules and laws that were intended to be passed on by perfect memorization over eons of time.



Will you share with readers what the “rabbis and Scholars” have found that you think is evidence for this claim of the rabbanites (rabbinic Judiasm)?



Clear
ακφυδρω
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
@Clear


Thank you for clarifying that there are doctrines created by the personal interpretations of rabbis that the Jews do not feel they are required to believe in.

Again, I didn’t say anything about doctrines. Why do you thank me for saying something about doctrines when I explicitly said that the example you gave about Adam and Eve is not doctrine?


Rosends now claims that Numbers 31:23 is NOT related to this Jewish rule in post #82, saying :“No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear.”

More misrepresentation. You linked a statement about how to act in war as a causal agent in the need to immerse things. They are not linked. But instead of quoting me honestly, you claim that my statement of a lack of linkage refers to two other things. Why do you do that?


Rosends in the next sentence claimed there IS a connection in post #82 : “The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames. How is that hard to see?” (POST #82)

And I note that you haven’t answered that.


Clear consistently claimed that the mere use of the words “washing” or “water” in a text regarding martial law and spoils of war described in Numbers 31:23 is not sufficient “evidence” to create a rabbic rule regarding the ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum dishes while saying a specific prayer.

Your opinion about what is and isn’t sufficient evidence is immaterial, and as this reference is not evidence to create a rule (and no one claimed it is) you are again being dishonest in how you present this.



Are you having a difficult time remembering what you wrote?

No. The issues of war and the issues of immersing are unrelated. You are trying to link them. But you seem to forget that. Is that more intentional dishonesty on your part or are you really just that dim?

The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture nor in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders.

Ah, again you are now generalizing as a way to delegitimize all of Judaism. You are “Clear”ly anti-Jewish. Since that is now your clear and (repeated) explicit agenda, it seems fruitless to try and dialogue with you and your intellectual dishonesty now has a context of being anti-Jewish.

Note how you focus not on the few laws in the Oral Tradition that are rabbinic, but on “The creation of Jewish religion” and “man-made religion.” This is proof that your focus is on undercutting the entirety of the religion. Did you forget what you wrote?


If, as you claim, Numbers 31:23 IS an allusion of the rule of ceremonial washing of Pyrex and aluminum dishes given to a Jew by a Non-Jew, then this can form a “basis in scripture”.

An allusion is not a basis in Jewish law. Just because you think it is doesn’t make it so. You need to learn about Judaism before you decide that you know anything about it. But you won’t because your aim is to denigrate and delegitimize it.


If the many rules and traditions created by rabbis are NOT “based in scripture or divine revelation from God” then it is a religion based on man made traditions to the extent that it follows rules and traditions created by men.

Notice that you, again (sigh) insert “the many rules and traditions” when that is not the case.


Rosends, you need to consult with Jews who know more about the history of the Israelites than you apparently are familiar with. For example, speaking of Israel the scriptures tell us they often reverted to false religion.

Yes, idolatry and not following God’s laws. The fact that you want to include any rabbinic (post Sinaitic) laws into the category that the people abandoned according to Sinaitic writings is illogical.

Note what the text YOU quoted writes, “They had worshiped other gods and walked in the customs of the nations that the LORD had driven out”. So, yes, this is pinned on the non-Israelite religions and nations. And the idolatry was from outside influences – recall you quoted “They abandoned all the commandments of the LORD their God and made for themselves two cast idols of calves and an Asherah pole. They bowed down to all the host of heaven and served Baal.” So this is all about not following God’s laws and instead worshipping idols and following practices of other nations.


Again, it is Israel who are not faithful nor were they faithful to Jehovah in beliefs and practice. You cannot simply blame any non-Israel among them for what Jehovah says Israel did.

You are very, very confused. Israel was not faithful in beliefs and practices – that is accurate. But in what way? The texts you cited show that they were following in the ways of other nations. Or did you miss that?

Did you miss lines like And I said to them: ‘Each of you must throw away the abominations before his eyes, and you must not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.’ But they rebelled against Me and refused to listen. None of them cast away the abominations before their eyes, and they did not forsake the idols of Egypt…”


Well, can you at least tell readers WHICH of these Rabbi/scholars you are referring to when you claim you “looked up their background and personal attitude towards religions” and tell us what the rabbis said that made you think the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”?

Well, I looked up Rabbi Halivni (and I have actually met him; he worked with my parents. Have you met him?). I know his education and work history. If you did, you would understand why I said what I said. My guess is that you haven’t researched him at all and have never met or spoken with him.


You offered to do this but have not done this.

Sure I have: go back to messages 13 and 21 and see. Try not to ignore it this time.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF TWO

1) REGARDING THE RABBANITE (RABBINIC JEWISH) DOCTRINE THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS (divine religion versus man-made religion)

Rosends clarifies : “While there is a rabbinic interpretation and there are midrashic stories about the physical presentation of Adam and Eve, that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (post #67) “


Clear responded : “Thank you for clarifying that there are doctrines created by the personal interpretations of rabbis that the Jews do not feel they are required to believe in.

My point was that such Jewish doctrines are created by Jewish Leadership and that such doctrines are based on personal interpretation rather than by divine revelation.
IF the Jewish leadership creates rules and doctrines simply based on their personal interpretations then these are not rules and doctrines that have a divine source but are man-made religion.
For example, the Jewish doctrine of Adam, being created with both male and female sets of sex organs and using Numbers 31:23 as an allusion to the rule of ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum etc in a mikvah while saying a specific prayer over these utensils.

What is true of rules is also true of doctrines.
The admission that Jews are not required to believe in the Jewish doctrine is a tacit recognition that the doctrine is not divine, even in the opinion of Jews that do not feel any requirement to believe it. IF they felt it was divine doctrine then they would feel more obligation to believe the doctrine. It is an unconscious recognition that the doctrine is not divine. (post #86)


Rosends responded : “Again, I didn’t say anything about doctrines. Why do you thank me for saying something about doctrines when I explicitly said that the example you gave about Adam and Eve is not doctrine?”



Of course the Jewish doctrine regarding Adam having both sets of sex organs is a Jewish doctrine.
It is difficult for me to take your denials and constant criticisms seriously when you do not seem to know much about Judaism and it’s doctrines.

Let me give you examples demonstrating this doctrine by simply googling "adam hermaphrodite" as any reader is able to do :

Adam hermaphrodite 01.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 02.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 03.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 04.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 05.JPG
Adam hermaphrodite 06.JPG


So, you see that Judaism DOES have a well known doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs.

While you admitted that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (rosends post #67) the simple denial that the doctrine is a doctrine will not work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that readers can easily access.
The fact that Jews are not required to believe in such doctrines is irrelevant to my claim that it seems to be an example of a man-made doctrine rather than a divine doctrine.

The fact that you claim Jews are not required to believe in it is a tacit admission that even you do not believe it is divine. If it WAS divine, Jews would feel an obligation to believe the doctrine that Adam was created with Male and Female sexual organs.

It is, to me, a doctrine that seems to "fly in the air and have nothing to support them," and, is like the numerous Halakhot that Chagigah 1:8 describes as being "like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah,




2) THE USE OF NUMBERS 31:23 AS AN “ALLUSION” TO SUPPORT THE CEREMONIAL WASHING OF PYREX AND ALUMINUM DISHES IN A MIKVAH WHILE SAYING A SPECIFIC PRAYER

Clear said : Originally Rosends claimed Numbers 31:23 was an “allusion” to this Rabbanite Jewish rule.

Rosends explains Number 31:25 is an allusion to this Jewish rule in post #58 saying : “The second one is listed by Maimonides as being rabbinic though an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23. (rosends post #58)

Rosends again claimed Numbers 31:23 is an allusion to this Jewish rule in Post #60 saying :
“I pointed out that the Rambam references to it as a scriptural allusion to the rabbinic practice.” (rosends post #60)


Rosends now claims that Numbers 31:23 is NOT related to this Jewish rule in post #82, saying :
“No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear.”

Then Rosends claims Numbers 31:23 is related / connected to the rule.

Rosends in the next sentence claimed there IS a connection in post #82 :
“The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames. How is that hard to see?” (POST #82)


Clear consistently claimed that the mere use of the words “washing” or “water” in a text regarding martial law and spoils of war described in Numbers 31:23 is not sufficient “evidence” to create a rabbic rule regarding the ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum dishes while saying a specific prayer.

Clear said : “… do you have any justification to offer readers as to why the "war rules" regarding killing women who've had sex, killing all boys and keeping the nubile young girls as slaves and putting metals through fire while washing other spoils of war in Numbers 31:23 actually applies to the rabbinic rule that utensils given a Jew by a non-Jew should be taken to a Jewish Mikvah and ceremonially cleansed while saying a prayer over the utensil?”

There is a problem making conflicting claims like "No. They are not related to each other. Why you try to link them is unclear." and then
later Rosends claimed in post #82 ““The connection is that material owned by a non-Jew was owned by a non-Jew in both time frames..”

Are you having a difficult time remembering what you wrote?

You are confused and perhaps you need to consult with someone that knows Jewish tradition BEFORE you try to teach Jewish tradition. Maybe you can ask a rabbi friend what you need to teach if you don’t know Jewish tradition.




Rosends replied : More misrepresentation. You linked a statement about how to act in war as a causal agent in the need to immerse things. (post #87)




Your memory is a problem here.
YOU were the one who pointed out that Maimonides used Numbers 31:23 as an allusion to the Rabbinic rule to wash pyrex and aluminum dishes but not can openers.

Below is a cut and paste from your comment in post #58


maimonides 31 23 post  58.JPG



I pointed out that numbers 31:23 concerned what happened to the spoils of the Midianite war and it was NOT a justification for modern Rabbis to create a rule to ceremonially wash pyrex and aluminum but not can openers in a Mikvah while saying a specific prayer over them.

And now you complain that they are both "unrelated" AND "connected". Below is a cut and paste of your conflicting claims.
numbers 31  23 connection.JPG



I am NOT trying to embarrass you rosends, but While you seem offended and attack me when I describe such rules and their justifications as “silly”, the point is that these feel like “man made” rules and NOT divine rules. I am not the only one that notices this.


In an article in Israel today a Jew pointed out that the Rabbis seem out of touch when creating even more religious rules. For example the following rules concerned the prohibition of visiting a patient in a hospital because the taking of a temperature (as was done during the covid crisis) profanes the Sabbath. The rule seems to be another example of a man-made rule and not divine. :

silly rabbinic rule  01.JPG

silly rabbinic rule  02.JPG



POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF TWO


3) ISRAEL HAS A HISTORY OF BEING CHASTIZED AND PUNISHED FOR HAVING IDOLATROUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES

Clear pointed out : “This was one of the repeated complaints of the Prophets against Israel anciently. The pattern in the Old Testament was that Israel so often would adopt Idolatrous man-made religion, sacrifice to man-made Idols and man-made God, instead of adhering to Jehovah and his edicts”

rosends responded : “Yes, idolatry and not following God’s laws. (post #87)



OK, we agree on this.

Israel has a longstanding history of adopting false religion (idolatry – adopting and worshipping things other than the true God).

Jehovah also punished Israel for this as an example from Ezekiel chapt 6 tells us :

9Then in the nations to which they have been carried captive, your survivors will remember Me—how I have been grieved by their adulterous hearts that turned away from Me, and by their eyes that lusted after idols. So they will loathe themselves for the evil they have done and for all their abominations. 10And they will know that I am the LORD; I did not declare in vain that I would bring this calamity upon them.

11This is what the Lord GOD says: Clap your hands, stomp your feet, and cry out “Alas!” because of all the wicked abominations of the house of Israel, who will fall by sword and famine and plague. 12He who is far off will die by the plague, he who is near will fall by the sword, and he who remains will die by famine. So I will vent My fury upon them.



4) REGARDING HOW ROSENDS KNOWS IDEAS IN JEWISH DOCUMENTS “DOESN’T SIT WELL” WITH THE RABBINIC SCHOLARS I’VE QUOTED

Clear said : “I've read the article you referred to and it is part of what piqued my interest in this specific history. Halivni, like, ito, Elman, glasner, Jaffnee, etc, Halivni (like others) tries to examine the relatively modern (post a.d.) claims that there existed an "oral law" beside written torah. The implication is that this specific claim by the later Rabbinic Judaism was created in an attempt to provide credibility to the multitude of non-torah rabbinic traditions.”

Rosends claims : “…I looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion. “
(underline is mine - Clear)

Clear responded : Really? So, you're claiming you “looked up” “the background and personal attitude towards religion ”of each of these rabbis and scholars?” And you found that the Jewish rabbis among them are anti-Jewish on this point of Oral law?

Can you tell readers what did you actually look up that told you what each of the Jewish rabbis said that made you think they were anti Jewish on this specific point?
I admit that I thought Jewish Rabbis would want to support the rabbinic doctrines and traditions and did not assume Jewish Rabbis would want to prove themselves wrong on this point.


Rosends responded : “Strange, I don’t seem to recall writing “each.” …


Clear responded : “Well, can you at least tell readers WHICH of these Rabbi/scholars you are referring to when you claim you “looked up their background and personal attitude towards religions” and tell us what the rabbis said that made you think the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”?

Rosends resonded : “Well, I looked up Rabbi Halivni…” (post #87)



Halivni. ONLY Halivni. You claimed you looked up "THEIR" background - as in plural....

Well Good. You claim you looked up Halivni.
What did Halivni say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with him?

Since you claimed to have looked up multiple scholars I quoted, tell us which others did you look up and what did they say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with them?



REGARDING ROSENDS FALSE CLAIM THAT I AM CLEARLY "ANTI-JEWISH"

Rosends claimed : "Ah, again you are now generalizing as a way to delegitimize all of Judaism. You are “Clear”ly anti-Jewish. Since that is now your clear and (repeated) explicit agenda, it seems fruitless to try and dialogue with you and your intellectual dishonesty now has a context of being anti-Jewish." (post #87)



While I understand personal attacks are a tool for debate, your attacks are often misused and misguided. I Love Judaism. I think there is an extraordinary amount of truth in prophetic and historic Judaism and honor the Prophets and those in Israel who sacrificed so very much so that we might have a record of Jehovahs dealings with mankind. We owe an extreme debt to those individuals.

However, I do not feel an obligation to overlook and accept untenable and unsupportable claims as true. You mentioned that the Jewish doctrine was not a doctrine Jews are required to believe in. I agree. However, that principle also applies to irrational and non-historical claims of the later Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism).

In any case rosends, try to be at peace regarding these historical inquiries. The world is not coming to an end and the O.P. is simply asking what sort of historical evidence there is for the rabbinic claim that Moses dictated a vast oral law that was to be passed down through the centuries by perfect memorization.

I honor anyone who honors God, including yourself.

I will give you and readers some more historical examples so as to clarify the historical issues at stake.



Clear
ακακσιω
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Let me give you examples demonstrating this doctrine by simply googling "adam hermaphrodite" as any reader is able to do :

Adam hermaphrodite 01.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 02.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 03.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 04.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 05.JPG

If you read your own screenshots, this is described as an opinion mutiple times, a notion, and a hypothesis. But not a doctrine. Also, the passage you have from the Jewish Encyclopedia shows that its basis is in biblical scripture. It's not man-made.

Also, the multiple search results are really just citing the same few sources. It is a bit of a scandalous idea, so, that's to be expected. But really, intersex is a real biological condition that occurs in nature. Any sort of shock and abhorence is an artifact of gender non-conforming bigotry.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
@Clear you seem to be equating "doctrine" with "view" or "belief", whilst most people, including @rosends, equate it with something more authoritative, such as a "creed" or "defining factor of a group's worldview". Perhaps this will clarify to you why rosends has continuously denied that the opinion that Adam was an androgyne is a Jewish "doctrine". It is not a creed of Judaism and it is not a defining factor. It is a view, an opinion, perhaps a belief put out by a number of rabbis over the millennia, but it is not so all-encompassingly authoritative as you might think.
Let me put it another way: No one will receive karet and/or lose their share in the World to Come for disagreeing with that view.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
@Clear


Of course the Jewish doctrine regarding Adam having both sets of sex organs is a Jewish doctrine.
It is difficult for me to take your denials and constant criticisms seriously when you do not seem to know much about Judaism and it’s doctrines.



And you don’t seem to know what a doctrine is.



The fact that Jews are not required to believe in such doctrines is irrelevant to my claim that it seems to be an example of a man-made doctrine rather than a divine doctrine.



The fact that you keep calling it a doctrine doesn’t make it one. It is an interpretation based on medrash and the precise wording of the text, but it is not a doctrine.



YOU were the one who pointed out that Maimonides used Numbers 31:23 as an allusion to the Rabbinic rule to wash pyrex and aluminum dishes but not can openers.

No, I never said that. I said that the Rambam sees the text as an allusion to the practice, not that it is an allusion to the rabbinic rule. You see, when you make basic mistakes you end up with an indefensible position.


I am NOT trying to embarrass you rosends, but While you seem offended and attack me when I describe such rules and their justifications as “silly”, the point is that these feel like “man made” rules and NOT divine rules. I am not the only one that notices this.

You are only embarrassing yourself. The connection was between why one has to immerse utensils owned by ancient Midianites and modern non-Jews. You then make the incorrect assertion that the “war rules” of killing people have any connection to the immersion. The scenario that led to the immersion was that particular war, but the war rules regarding dealing with the enemy is unrelated to the immersion. As it has been said, the immersion etc is rabbinic. You do not have any real clarity of your own position so you keep running around in circles, making the same mistakes.

Halivni. ONLY Halivni. You claimed you looked up "THEIR" background - as in plural....

You make a fine point. I should have used the singular. When I read an article by Glassner, I assumed you named the wrong person because he believes very strongly in the oral transmission of a divine law by Moses (though he says that the precise wording was not divine – Moses used his own words to pass along God’s law). So, knowing Glassner’s background, I skipped mentioning him. I couldn’t find any information about a “Rabbi Jaffnee” or “Rabbi Ito” so I didn’t look those people up any further. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that when you mentioned “Elman” you meant “Rabbi Yaakov Elman” but he specialized in the Babylonian Talmud and Zoroastrian influence on it. Since you were talking about the oral law, I knew that couldn’t be what you meant, so I moved on. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

Well Good. You claim you looked up Halivni.

What did Halivni say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with him?

I also said that I have met him and spoken with him. Do you understand the affiliation with JTS and its implication in the development of religious theories? It isn't that the "oral Torah" doesn't sit well with him. You have lost track of what you were saying. (and, if you recall, you invented the idea that because they had a different position, they were "anti-Jewish" (post 79)). What I said is that your claim in post 70, about what scholars who (from their own background) start with a particular view of the oral law would love to have is incorrect. Having this would undercut their (at least "his") religious world-view. And your assumption about how he crafted his theory (after searching for A and not finding it, he resorted to not-A) is an invention on your part as well.



à I Love Judaism.

No, you don’t understand Judaism. And you make statements which question the underlying legitimacy of Judaism as an entire religion. These are your words:

“The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture nor in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders.”

Or are you saying that you “love” a man-made religion?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF TWO

1) REGARDING THE RABBANITE (RABBINIC JEWISH) DOCTRINE THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS (divine religion versus man-made religion)

Rosends clarifies : “While there is a rabbinic interpretation and there are midrashic stories about the physical presentation of Adam and Eve, that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (post #67) “

Clear responded : “Thank you for clarifying that there are doctrines created by the personal interpretations of rabbis that the Jews do not feel they are required to believe in.

My point was that such Jewish doctrines are created by Jewish Leadership and that such doctrines are based on personal interpretation rather than by divine revelation.
IF the Jewish leadership creates rules and doctrines simply based on their personal interpretations then these are not rules and doctrines that have a divine source but are man-made religion.
For example, the Jewish doctrine of Adam, being created with both male and female sets of sex organs and using Numbers 31:23 as an allusion to the rule of ceremonial washing of pyrex and aluminum etc in a mikvah while saying a specific prayer over these utensils.

What is true of rules is also true of doctrines.
The admission that Jews are not required to believe in the Jewish doctrine is a tacit recognition that the doctrine is not divine, even in the opinion of Jews that do not feel any requirement to believe it. IF they felt it was divine doctrine then they would feel more obligation to believe the doctrine. It is an unconscious recognition that the doctrine is not divine. (post #86)


Rosends responded : “Again, I didn’t say anything about doctrines. Why do you thank me for saying something about doctrines when I explicitly said that the example you gave about Adam and Eve is not doctrine?”



Clear responded : "Of course the Jewish doctrine regarding Adam having both sets of sex organs is a Jewish doctrine.
It is difficult for me to take your denials and constant criticisms seriously when you do not seem to know much about Judaism and it’s doctrines.

Let me give you examples demonstrating this doctrine by simply googling "adam hermaphrodite" as any reader is able to do :

Adam hermaphrodite 01.JPG


Adam hermaphrodite 02.JPG


Adam hermaphrodite 03.JPG


Adam hermaphrodite 04.JPG


Adam hermaphrodite 05.JPG

Adam hermaphrodite 06.JPG



So, you see that Judaism DOES have a well known doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs.

While you admitted “that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (rosends post #67) the simple denial that the doctrine is a doctrine will not work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that readers can easily access.
The fact that Jews are not required to believe in such doctrines is irrelevant to my claim that it seems to be an example of a man-made doctrine rather than a divine doctrine.

The fact that you claim Jews are not required to believe in it is a tacit admission that even you do not believe it is divine. If it WAS divine, Jews would feel an obligation to believe the doctrine that Adam was created with Male and Female sexual organs.

It is, to me, a doctrine that seems to "fly in the air and have nothing to support them," and, is like the numerous Halakhot that Chagigah 1:8 describes as being "like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in
the Torah,



2) REGARDING THE SEMANTICS OF THE WORD "DOCTRINE" AND IT'S SYNONYMS SUCH AS BELIEF, OPINION, ETC. VERSUS SIMPLY USING THE STANDARD, BASIC DICTIONARY DEFINITION

Harel 13 said :
@Clear you seem to be equating "doctrine" with "view" or "belief", whilst most people, including @rosends, equate it with something more authoritative, such as a "creed" or "defining factor of a group's worldview".


doctrine CP dictionary meaning.JPG


I do equate the word “doctrine” with “belief” since that is the dictionary meaning

The Editors of the Merriam Webster dictionary tell us that they study language as it’s used. They tell us they carefully monitor words people use most often and how they use them.

How do you know “most people” equate the word “doctrine” with a “creed” or “defining factor or a groups worldview” rather than using the dictionary’s basic usage?

Why not assume that most educated English speaking religious people simply use the most basic English dictionary meanings when discussing religion instead of a secondary or tertiary meaning?

Rather than using semantics to obscure and confuse, why not simply agree to use words with their dictionary meaning?

A doctrine is, firstly, and at it’s most basic level, a “belief”. People may teach that belief, they may create a creed about a belief but that does not change the basic definition of doctrine as a belief.

The doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs IS a Rabbanite (Rabbinic Jewish) belief. I can certainly give you many more examples of this fact.

While this specific Jewish doctrine may be seen as bizarre and Jews may not actually believe in this Jewish doctrine (rosends claims Jews are not required to believe that doctrine), still, it is a Jewish doctrine/belief imbedded in important Jewish writings.

My point was that the doctrine seems to be one created by rabbinic leaders who are tenuously interpretating the scripture to reflect their personal system of beliefs.

This is different For example, from the poster @dybmh in post #90 says that “The passage you have from the Jewish Encyclopedia shows that its basis is in biblical scripture. It's not man-made.”

@dybmh seEms to assume the fact that a Jewish leader(s) interpreted scriptures to mean Adam had both male and female sex organs means “It’s not man-made”. So, one assumes dybmh means the doctrine is divine and from God while rosends tells us Jews are not required to believe this doctrine.

To me, @rosends attitude that “Jews don’t have to believe this Jewish doctrine” is a tacit admission that those who do not believe the doctrine also do not believe it is divine from God, but instead, they recognize it is a man made interpretation.


Clear
νεδρδρω

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF TWO

2) REGARDING ROSENDS FALSE CLAIM THAT I AM CLEARLY "ANTI-JEWISH" BECAUSE I QUESTION THE BELIEF THAT MOSES TRANSMITTED VAST AMOUNTS OF LAWS BY ORAL MEMORIZATION OVER EONS OF TIME.

Rosends claimed : "Ah, again you are now generalizing as a way to delegitimize all of Judaism. You are “Clear”ly anti-Jewish. Since that is now your clear and (repeated) explicit agenda, it seems fruitless to try and dialogue with you and your intellectual dishonesty now has a context of being anti-Jewish." (post #87)


Clear responded : “While I understand personal attacks are a tool for debate, your attacks are often misused and misguided. I Love Judaism. I think there is an extraordinary amount of truth in prophetic and historic Judaism and honor the Prophets and those in Israel who sacrificed so very much so that we might have a record of Jehovahs dealings with mankind. We owe an extreme debt to those individuals.

However, I do not feel an obligation to overlook and accept untenable and unsupportable claims as true. You mentioned that the Jewish doctrine was not a doctrine Jews are required to believe in. I agree. However, that principle also applies to irrational and non-historical claims of the later Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism).

In any case rosends, try to be at peace regarding these historical inquiries. The world is not coming to an end and the O.P. is simply asking what sort of historical evidence there is for the rabbinic claim that Moses dictated a vast oral law that was to be passed down through the centuries by perfect memorization.

I honor anyone who honors God, including yourself.” (post #89)


Rosends responded : “No, you don’t understand Judaism. And you make statements which question the underlying legitimacy of Judaism as an entire religion. These are your words:

“The creation of Jewish religion that has no basis in either scripture nor in divine guidance is simply the creation of a man-made religion based on the opinions of Jewish leaders.”

Or are you saying that you “love” a man-made religion?”




You are confused. Read what I wrote.


I said : “ I think there is an extraordinary amount of truth in prophetic and historic Judaism and honor the Prophets and those in Israel who sacrificed so very much so that we might have a record of Jehovahs dealings with mankind. We owe an extreme debt to those individuals.”

I am describing authentic “prophetic and historic Judaism” and its truths. I’m not referring to the later Rabbanite faction of Judaism with its many accretions and many man-made traditions, doctrines, and rules they created.

The divine portions of Judaism are wonderful.

This is in distinction of the man-made accretions and traditions, doctrines and rules created by the Jewish leaders.

I simply used the Jewish doctrine of Adam having been created with both male and female sex organs as one of many, many, many, many examples of doctrines that could be used as examples.

I also used the rule of ceremonial washing pyrex and aluminum dishes (but not can openers) in a Jewish Mikvah while saying a specific prayer is an example of a man-made rule and is not divine.

I also used the rule against entering a hospital on the sabbath to visit the sick because temperature measurement of visitors was a violation of work on the sabbath. This is another man-made rule and a modern interpretation and not a divine rule.


While I love authentic and prophetic Judaism, I feel no obligation to like the man-made changes to authentic religion.




3) REGARDING HOW ROSENDS KNOWS IDEAS IN JEWISH DOCUMENTS “DOESN’T SIT WELL” WITH THE RABBINIC SCHOLARS I’VE QUOTED

Clear said : “I've read the article you referred to and it is part of what piqued my interest in this specific history. Halivni, like, ito, Elman, glasner, Jaffnee, etc, Halivni (like others) tries to examine the relatively modern (post a.d.) claims that there existed an "oral law" beside written torah. The implication is that this specific claim by the later Rabbinic Judaism was created in an attempt to provide credibility to the multitude of non-torah rabbinic traditions.”

Rosends claims : “…I looked up
their background and personal attitude towards religion. “ (underline is mine - Clear)

Clear responded : Really? So, you're claiming you “looked up” “the background and personal attitude towards religion ”of each of these rabbis and scholars?” And you found that the Jewish rabbis among them are anti-Jewish on this point of Oral law?

Can you tell readers what did you actually look up that told you what each of the Jewish rabbis said that made you think they were anti Jewish on this specific point?
I admit that I thought Jewish Rabbis would want to support the rabbinic doctrines and traditions and did not assume Jewish Rabbis would want to prove themselves wrong on this point.


Rosends responded : “Strange, I don’t seem to recall writing “each.” …

Clear responded : “Well, can you at least tell readers WHICH of these Rabbi/scholars you are referring to when you claim you “looked up their background and personal attitude towards religions” and tell us what the rabbis said that made you think the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”?

Rosends responded : “Well, I looked up Rabbi Halivni…” (post #87)


Clear said : Halivni. ONLY Halivni. You claimed you looked up "THEIR" background - as in plural....

Well Good. You claim you looked up Halivni.
What did Halivni say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with him?

Since you claimed to have looked up multiple scholars I quoted, tell us which others did you look up and what did they say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with them?


Rosends responded : “You make a fine point. I should have used the singular. (Post #92)


Yes, you should have used the singular if you were only speaking of a single scholar. When you claimI looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion. Readers might have assumed this false claim was true.

What did Halivni say that made you think the ideas in the “oral torah” did not sit well with him?




4) GLASNER’S POINT THAT THERE IS MUCH IN THE “ORAL LAW” THAT IS SIMPLY INTERPRETATIONS OF MEN (I.E. MAN MADE RULES, DOCTRINES AND LAWS.

Rosends said : “When I read an article by Glassner, I assumed you named the wrong person because he believes very strongly in the oral transmission of a divine law by Moses (though he says that the precise wording was not divine “(Post #92)



I am glad you’ve read Glasner and it is very interesting that you conclude “he believes very strongly in the oral transmission of a divine law by Moses”.

Glasner himself tells us that “Hazal derived from “These are the commandments [the principle] that from that time [of the completion of the Torah…] even a prophet may not innovate anything –this refers to adding to, or subtracting from it, but permission is given to every authorized court [of ordained sages] to interpret it and derive new laws” (underline is mine)

So Glasner tells us the Sages themselves derive “new laws” by their own interpretation.

Glasner also says of the original “Oral Law” that “Now any matter which is transmitted orally will be the very nature of [its transmission] be subject to change in interpretation [as it goes] from person to person, for everyone injects into it something of his own understanding…For this reason [Hazal] invalidated the testimony of a witness at second remove…and the testimony can easily become distorted…for human sensibilities are never identical.”

Glasner is speaking of the tendency for one set of data to change as it is transmitted orally. And, Glassner says the reason the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to THEIR understanding…..for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements. (29)

Glasner explained the view that “In order to give authority to the sages of the Torah of every generation, and in order that the nation not be divided into different sects

As I said prior, Rabbanism became the dominant sect among others and created these rules to try to unify their sect of Judaism as the most dominant and authoritative (Just as the roman Christian Church sought for dominance over other Christian Churches).


Glasner explains that the Talmud tradition that answers the question “if there is substance to the Oral Torah, why was it not written down?” The answer given is because of the verse “of making books there is no end, viz it would then be necessary to write a new and different interpretation for every time, according to the needs of the time and place, and that is why the Oral Torah is called “new” for the Oral Torah is not absolute truth but rather conventional.

Only that which the sages of the generation agree upon is true [in this sense]. When they contradict that which was [accepted as true until then, their new interpretation becomes the true one [for their generation]; so have we been commanded by Him, may He be blessed , that we “should not depart from the thing (the sages of that generation) tell us either to the right or left.—even if they uproot that which was agreed upon until now.

Thus, what Glasner is calling “Oral Torah” is simply the interpretations of the Jewish leaders of each generation and whatever they interpret as correct though that interpretation may change and contradict what was “true” in the prior generations by a different set of Jewish leaders.

I am glad you like Glasner and think he has some degree of authority since he is a very good witness to the historical principle I have discussed. “Oral law” is not a divine, unchanging law, but it is a set of legislation created by Jewish Leaders and this legislation changes according to man-derived interpretation and bias.



Clear
νεδρακω
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
My point was that such Jewish doctrines are created by Jewish Leadership and that such doctrines are based on personal interpretation rather than by divine revelation.

"such doctrines are based on personal interpretation rather than by divine revelation"

You said "it's not based on divine revelation". The key word here is "based"

This is different For example, from the poster @dybmh in post #90 says that “The passage you have from the Jewish Encyclopedia shows that its basis is in biblical scripture. It's not man-made.”

"The passage you have from the Jewish Encyclopedia shows that its basis is in biblical scripture"

I said, "your own source shows it is based on divine revelation". Same key word "based"

@dybmh seems to assume the fact that a Jewish leader(s) interpreted scriptures to mean Adam had both male and female sex organs means “It’s not man-made”. So, one assumes dybmh means the doctrine is divine and from God while rosends tells us Jews are not required to believe this doctrine.

No, please. There is a middle option. If the scripture is divine, and the belief is based on the scripture, then the belief is based on a divine source. Based. The middle option is: the basis is divine.

The doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs IS a Rabbanite (Rabbinic Jewish) belief

Good. If it is referred to as a belief, then I expect there will be no objections about it. Adam described as a hermaphrodite is part of the interpretation of the story, not part of oral law. And the fact that Rabbis wrote about it should not be a concern, because this idea is based on a literal rendering of divine scripture.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
While I love authentic and prophetic Judaism, I feel no obligation to like the man-made changes to authentic religion.

Maybe review Deuteronomy 17:11-12? These things you describe as man-made changes have scriptural authority for Jewish people who want to be careful with the law. As long as scripture is not contradicted or ignored, there shouldn't be a problem.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
@Clear

So, you see that Judaism DOES have a well known doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs.

You keep posting the exact same things, none of which asserts that this interpretation is a doctrine. So, nothing new here.


While you admitted “that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (rosends post #67) the simple denial that the doctrine is a doctrine will not work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that readers can easily access.

How is that an admission? I said it is not a doctrine that we are required to believe in. That’s a statement. You label it an “admission” as if it is some incredible and new concession on my part. Weird.

It is, to me, a doctrine that seems to "fly in the air and have nothing to support them," and, is like the numerous Halakhot that Chagigah 1:8 describes as being "like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah,

To you, it is. That’s nice. Who cares what it is to you? To you, it is also a “doctrine” and you are wrong there…

Merriam Webster has this to say about what a doctrine is:

Definition of DOCTRINE


Note that it is “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief”. But this interpretation is not, so your claim fails.


However, I do not feel an obligation to overlook and accept untenable and unsupportable claims as true. You mentioned that the Jewish doctrine was not a doctrine Jews are required to believe in. I agree. However, that principle also applies to irrational and non-historical claims of the later Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism).

You say my claim is unsupported and yet I quoted a direct statement which you made. So this is just another case in which you close your eyes when proof is provided. Not surprising. You also keep repeating yourself (verbatim) and tying things together that are unrelated (such as your anti-Jewish position and your ideas about claims of rabbis).



You are confused. Read what I wrote.

I did and I quoted it. Are you denying that you said what I quoted?

I am describing authentic “prophetic and historic Judaism” and its truths. I’m not referring to the later Rabbanite faction of Judaism with its many accretions and many man-made traditions, doctrines, and rules they created.

Ah, so you are only trying to delegitimize Judaism as it exists in reality, now. You are a lover of the fiction which you have invented in your head. Got it.

I also used the rule of ceremonial washing pyrex and aluminum dishes (but not can openers) in a Jewish Mikvah while saying a specific prayer is an example of a man-made rule and is not divine.

Great – since it isn’t divine, your bringing it up again makes no sense. Well done.


While I love authentic and prophetic Judaism, I feel no obligation to like the man-made changes to authentic religion.

And no one feels any obligation to consider your imagination a valid understanding of what authentic Judaism is.

I admit that I thought Jewish Rabbis would want to support the rabbinic doctrines and traditions and did not assume Jewish Rabbis would want to prove themselves wrong on this point.

That’s my point – they don’t want to prove themselves wrong. Thank you for reaching the same conclusion!

Glasner himself tells us that “Hazal derived from “These are the commandments [the principle] that from that time [of the completion of the Torah…] even a prophet may not innovate anything –this refers to adding to, or subtracting from it, but permission is given to every authorized court [of ordained sages] to interpret it and derive new laws” (underline is mine)

So you read page 66 in which Glasner says that the Oral law was handed to Moses at Sinai? Did you read the last paragraph on page 67? The question isn’t whether AFTER the oral law was given to Moses, Rabbis, who were given divine authority to interpret and apply did so, but whether there is an Oral Law which was transmitted to Moses from God. Glasner says that there is.


So Glasner tells us the Sages themselves derive “new laws” by their own interpretation.

Actually, Glasner says that the rabbis make interpretations based on their having been given divine authority to do so (page 66, second paragraph) but that doesn’t call into question whether there is an oral law which was given by God to Moses.


Thus, what Glasner is calling “Oral Torah” is simply the interpretations of the Jewish leaders of each generation and whatever they interpret as correct though that interpretation may change and contradict what was “true” in the prior generations by a different set of Jewish leaders.

No, what is the Oral Law is the content and ideas transmitted from God to Moses. The application and interpretation of that primal Oral Law becomes the Talmud and the rabbinic explanations all, sanctioned by God. In a sense, Glasner’s position is that the oral law is both divine and changeable (and that the legislation created is done under divine authority).

Your acceptance of Glasner as an authority demands that you concede that there is a divine Oral Law which was given to Moses by God. So citing Glasner as someone who says that there is no divine set of laws handed down to Moses from God as complementing the written law is a mistake on your part.

So it is not only “…very interesting that conclude “he believes very strongly in the oral transmission of a divine law by Moses”.” but also accurate and correct.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF FOUR

1) REGARDING ADAM HAVING BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEX ORGAN AS A JEWISH DOCTRINE JEWS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BELIEVE IN

Clear said : “While you admitted “that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, (rosends post #67) the simple denial that the doctrine is a doctrine will not work in the face of so much evidence to the contrary that readers can easily access.

Rosends said : “How is that an admission? I said it is not a doctrine that we are required to believe in. That’s a statement.”

Yes, it is an admission that it is a Jewish religious doctrine, religious belief, religious principle or religious position that is not seen as sacred enough and not respected enough to require belief in, even by Jews themselves.

Your admission places this Jewish doctrine on a “lower level” of sacredness such that it demonstrates that not all Jewish doctrines are worthy of belief, even by the Jews themselves.


2) REGARDING A RESPECT FOR ANCIENT PROPHETIC JUDAISM WHILE RECOGNIZING THE LATER RABBINIC JEWISH SECT AS HAVING MAN-MADE LAWS AND OTHER CONTAMINATIONS IN THEIR “ORAL LAW”

Clear said : “ I think there is an extraordinary amount of truth in prophetic and historic Judaism and honor the Prophets and those in Israel who sacrificed so very much so that we might have a record of Jehovahs dealings with mankind. We owe an extreme debt to those individuals.”

I am describing authentic “prophetic and historic Judaism” and its truths. I’m not referring to the later Rabbanite faction of Judaism with its many accretions and many man-made traditions, doctrines, and rules they created. The divine portions of Judaism are wonderful.

This is in distinction of the man-made accretions and traditions, doctrines and rules created by the Jewish leaders.

I simply used the Jewish doctrine of Adam having been created with both male and female sex organs as one of many, many, many, many examples of doctrines that could be used as examples.


I also used the rule of ceremonial washing pyrex and aluminum dishes (but not can openers) in a Jewish Mikvah while saying a specific prayer is an example of a man-made rule and is not divine.

I also used the rule against entering a hospital on the sabbath to visit the sick because temperature measurement of visitors was a violation of work on the sabbath. This is another man-made rule and a modern interpretation and not a divine rule.

While I love authentic and prophetic Judaism, I feel no obligation to like the man-made changes to authentic religion. (post #94)


Rosends replied : “Ah, so you are only trying to delegitimize Judaism as it exists in reality, now.”


You are confused and are misrepresenting my statements.

I think ancient authentic prophetic Judaism is perfectly fine and the prophets were inspired of God.

I agree with the Jewish Rabbis that feel the rabbanite sect of Judaism is contaminated with many, many, man-made rules and doctrines that are not divine.

It is specifically the contamination of religion with man-made doctrines and rules that are presented as “divine” that I am critical of.




3) REGARDING RABBI GLASNERS’ AND RABBI GRUBERS CONCLUSIONS THAT MAN-MADE LAWS CONTAMINATE JEWISH ORAH TORAH

Rosends said : “So you read page 66 in which Glasner says that the Oral law was handed to Moses at Sinai?


Yes, Rabbi Glasner does believe that some sort of oral law was given to moses.

HOWEVER. You should have read and considered HOW HE DESCRIBES “Oral Torah” NOT as “true” per se, and how he relates the many, many man-made rules that contaminate and mix with divine laws.

Other rabbis and Torah scholars agree and give their own examples of how Oral law is contaminated with “man-made” laws and doctrines.

Let me give you some examples from Torah scholars Rabbi Glasner and Rabbi Gruber :

REGARDING THE CONTAMINATION OF MOSAIC TORAH WITH MAN-MADE “TORAH”

Rabbi Glasner describes Oral law is no longer reflecting that which was given to Moses but he admits the Oral law changes with varying opinions and interpretations of those who create Oral law.

Like Rabbi Gruber, Rabbi Glasner describes an arbitrary Oral Torah that is whatever the Jewish leaders say it is, even if one “true” law is rescinded and an opposite law takes hold, then the conflicting law becomes “true”.

Rabbi Gruber relates the rule that “[If} the great court derived [a law]…and after them a new court arose to reverse [that law], [that later court] may reverse the law as they deem correct,…]

This sort of religion is arbitrary to the extent that it is subject to the opinion and interpretation of men.

FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GLASNER :
glasner one court may reverse the ruling of another 9.JPG


The nature of Scribal “torah” is also different in that it is arbitrary and dependent upon the opinions of those men who are creating the laws/Torah. When the text tell us “they legislated” or “they opine” a principle as “true”, the next group of scribes may “legislate” the opposite position as “true”.

Rabbi Glasner tells us that “the Oral Torah is not absolute truth” but rather is “conventional” (e.g. traditional). Glasner does what you do in that he seeks to re-define and use words such as “truth” in a relative fashion. He says :

Rabbi Gruber writes "...the Oral Torah is not absolute truth but rather conventional. Only that which the sages agree upon is true [in this sense]. When they contradict that which was [accepted as true] until then, their new interpretation becomes the true one [for their generation]; so we have been commanded by Him, may he be blessed, that we "should not depart from the thing (the sages of that generation) tell us either to the right or left. --even if they uproot that which was agreed upon until now..."

This strange attempt to re-define the word “true” or “truth” is unsettling because it is somewhat arbitrary and changes, depending upon the opinion of the Jewish leaders in charge in each generation.



REGARDING THE RABBINIC ORAL LAW AS A SERIES OF INNOVATIONS BY JEWISH LEADERS

In the same context, the Mishnaic text itself has many references to expressions referring to man-made laws such as the “scribes innovated a new law” or “he legislated”. While such claims may have frustrate you in prior posts when I use the same words as Rabbi Gruber uses, such as “innovate”, Still, your own text should witness to you that this is true.

FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:

glasner scribe innovated a new law 4.JPG


And, strangely, Jews are to do what the Judges tell them “even if they are in error in one matter, it is not fitting for us to dispute them, but we must act according to their error.”

FOR EXAMPLE , RABBI GLASNER WRITES :
glasner - put up with error 8.JPG




REGARDING THE RABBINIC EDICT THAT RABBINIC JEWS ARE REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SCRIBAL LAWS

Rabbi Glasner describes the man made laws (‘Scribes Laws”) which mSanhedrin 11:3 tells Jews that they must defend the legitimacy of these laws at the expense of “what we would call Oral Torah) (his words). It is the scribes themselves who create laws that tell Jews that they must defend the man-made laws created by the scribes.
There is no surprise there. However, it should surprise us.

FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:
Glasner Sanhedrin creates law for Jews to defend 1.JPG



In a similar vein of self-preservation, Rabbi Glasner described the motive of writing down “oral Torah” “to prevent later generations from disputing the views of their predecessors.”
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GLASNER :
glasner - oral torah written to prevent disagreement c prioR 10.JPG



SOME RABBINIC RULES WERE CREATED FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS - SUCH AS THE RICH

Rabbi Gruber also give the example of rules created for other special interests such as the rich. The following example is from mEruyvin 4:9
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:

gruber man made laws rich 2.JPG




INNOVATIONS OF NEW RABBINIC DECREES AND RABBINIC RULES HAPPENED SO OFTEN THERE WERE CATEGORIES OF THEM

The innovation of laws and rules and doctrines by the rabbis happened so often that there are formulaic expressions which introduce man-made laws. Rabbi Gruber describes many of these formula such as “they decreed” or “he decreed”, etc.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER :
gruber man made legislation 5.JPG



POST TWO OF FOUR FOLLOWS

νεσιδρω
 

Attachments

  • gruber man made laws rich 2.JPG
    gruber man made laws rich 2.JPG
    18.4 KB · Views: 53
  • gruber legislation 01.JPG
    gruber legislation 01.JPG
    21.8 KB · Views: 43
  • gruber man made laws rich 2.JPG
    gruber man made laws rich 2.JPG
    18.4 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF FOUR

REGARDING THE MANY, MANY, RABBINIC INNOVATIONS OF RULES AND LAWS AND DOCTRINES

In fact, Rabbi Gruber indicates that there were sufficient acts of legislation by the Jewish leaders that they created expressions to describe the different types of man-made laws the Jewish leaders legislated versus individual legislation which requires versus those laws which forbid.

For example, Rabbi Gruber tells us the phrase missum sevul designates a corpus of man-made law, which forbids on the Sabbath or festivals that which God permits”.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER :
Gruber they enacted legislation 12.JPG



In the same context, an entire corpus of man-made laws exist which are often introduced by the formulafor the benefit of the world” or “for the benefit of the altar” or “for the sake of harmony”, etc.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER :


gruber man made laws 3.JPG



The many, many examples witness to us that Rabbi Gruber is correct when he describes an entire corpus of man-made laws “which forbids on the Sabbath or festivals that which God permits.”
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:

gruber corpus of man made laws 11.JPG


In fact Rabbi Gruber tells us that “the majority of statements in the Mishnah provide no formulaic key for determining whether they purport to be of man-made or of divine origin". Thus, one cannot really tell how much of the Oral law is simply man-made and how much of it represents divine law.
gruber no keys to tell what is divine and what is man made 13.JPG


Sometimes the man-made laws have no attribution, and at other times specific Jewish leadership is named as the source of these man-made laws. For example, the formula divre soferim is the formula introducing “Scribes laws) and importantly, the Scribes created laws that obligate the rabbinical Jews to defend the Scribal laws with “greater stringency” than they defend actual Torah!

FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GRUBER:

Mayer Gruber - scribes more important than torah.JPG




"TRUTH" IN RABBINIC LAW IS DEPENDENT ON WHO THE LEADERSHIP IS AND UPON TIME AND PLACE

Not only does what is “true” change depending upon conflicting opinion of current Jewish leadership, but Rabbi Grubber points out that Jews, like yourself are obligated to defend this strange Scribal authority to designate as “true”, rules that state one thing in one time and place and yet must defend the opposite in another time and place if the scribes change their mind as to what is “true”.
FOR EXAMPLE FROM RABBI GLASNER :

glasner - put up with error 8.JPG


defend jewish law.JPG


Perhaps this Jewish rule described by Rabbi Glasner underlies your attempt to support the “party line” even though the data indicates it is in error. Given the rule that says you must support an error, how can one tell if a Rabbinic Jew are simply supporting a position because of this rule? While one can see the Rabbis purpose in creating a rule that says “do what I say, even if it is wrong”, still, obedience to such a rule does not seem based on a divine principle and it offends the moral principle of honesty.

Thou shalt not lie”, remember?


3) REGARDING THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY MULTIPLE CONFLICTING SETS OF RABBINIC LAW

Just as Rabbi Glasner tells us that the content of Rabbinic Oral law is changeable and dependent upon Jewish Leaders’ interpretation which, he admits, is provincial and changes depending upon which Jewish leaders are creating the specific law in question.

The Oral law also is dependent upon location and which of the multiple conflicting oral laws which have existed.

This is a problem because there were many, many conflicts between the Palestinian Oral Torah in their Mishnah and the Oral Torah in the Babylonian Mishnah.

If am a rabbinic Jew living in Jerusalem I live by one set of “true” laws, but if I move and become a Babylonian Jew I had to start living by a conflicting set of “true” laws.

For examples :

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.

POST THREE OF FOUR FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST THREE OF FOUR


The multiple versions of oral laws with 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 oral law and it's various texts” 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. The various descriptions clearly show that it is Rabbis and Jewish leaders that create these rules and decision and traditions and doctrine.

This is why, historically, there are many, many examples of historical data demonstrating this and it is also why you are left to simple claims rather than historical data to try to support your claim.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful @rosends

I am writing between appointments at work and will stop here for the moment and will continue later

Clear
νεσιδρω
 
Last edited:
Top