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

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually, not by any indication as he simply doesn't use the accepted standard of citing the teacher and then giving affirmation or some dissent to an opinion or application. He never cites any recognized sages who lived prior to him after the prophetic age, which is a no-no.

But what he did do is to have his own oral law that went much further than any previous sage.

Matthew 23:1-3 says that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (meaning they have the authority of Moses) and that Jesus' followers should "do and observe all that they teach you." ALL. ALL. That includes Oral Torah.

Matthew 23:23 Jesus tells the Pharisees to keep the spirit of the written Torah, and then ALSO to keep Oral Torah (the spice tax).

 

[dybmh]

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

See below:

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

Compared to:

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

One is a commandment sourced from the LORD. The other is a human emotional reaction. Eleazer recognized this, changed the subject, redirected the soldiers to the law. And the directive born from anger was never carried out.

Pesachim 66b:7

Similarly, Reish Lakish said: Any person who becomes angry, if he is a Torah scholar, his wisdom departs from him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy departs...

www.sefaria.org

 

[metis]

Matthew 23:1-3 says that the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses (meaning they have the authority of Moses) and that Jesus' followers should "do and observe all that they teach you." ALL. ALL. That includes Oral Torah.

Matthew 23:23 Jesus tells the Pharisees to keep the spirit of the written Torah, and then ALSO to keep Oral Torah (the spice tax).

Yes, as I previously mentioned, thus again what he was doing was contributing his own commentaries, but not all commentaries are necessarily facts in reality since there are variations.

IOW, he really "pushed the envelope", which is one big reason why he didn't really gain many Jewish converts, thus the Twelve's opening the door for Gentiles to join them minus any circumcision requirement.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

1) CONFIRMED HISTORY IS CREATED BY HISTORICAL DATA AND NOT BY A CLAIM MADE IN ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL DATA.

Clear said regarding the Pharisees and the later Rabbanites (Rabbinic Judaism) “They were not codifying a vast amount of law handed down from moses through unerring memorization over eons of time.”

Rosends said : “That is your opinion and unproven claim, yes. So what?”

The way history works is that historical data is present to indicate a specific event happened. There is no evidence Moses dictated any vast amount of law that was to be handed down by memorization over eons of time. There is a lot of written text attributed to Moses, but no vast memorized law, historically. That is why I asked if you had ANY historically appropriate data to support this claim.

The “what” is that the reason the Messiah so harshly condemned the Pharisees and Rabbis was not for reading what Moses wrote but the Messiah condemns the Pharisees for adding their interpretations and traditions and accretions to Moses’ laws as though they were handed down from Moses.

They sat themselves in Moses seat and read Torah to the people (and thus were to be listened to when they read Torah), but they taught their traditions and did not do Torah.

That is the historical “what”.



2) MORE "NON-ANSWERS" TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

In post #57 Clear referred to Rabbanite (Rabbinic Jewish) teachings regarding the ceremonial washing of dishes given them by non Jews in a Shivka font while saying a special prayer as well as the Rabbanite teaching regarding Adam having both sexual organs (and thus was able to impregnate himself and reproduce without need of the female partner Eve).

THE QUESTIONS I asked were whether these two rabbinic traditions were from God or not from God.

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

Rosends answered : Um, why would you think that the statement “clearly rabbinic” means “from God”? “

This is another “non-answer”.
And “clearly rabbinic” does NOT mean "from God". You are confused.

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

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

This is yet another non-answer.
The question itself refers to the Jewish doctrine regarding the Jewish doctrine of Adam having both sets of sexual organs.
Yet again, there is no answer, but another deflection instead.

Are these Jewish traditions created by the Jewish leadership or are they from God (by revelation or some other means)?


Clear
φυνενεω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

The way history works is that historical data is present to indicate a specific event happened. There is no evidence Moses dictated any vast amount of law that was to be handed down by memorization over eons of time.

But there is evidence that another set of material existed during the Mosaic era which is referred to as having been given by God. There is also evidence of people’s practice which would be impossible were there no other set of laws.

There is a lot of written text attributed to Moses, but no vast memorized law, historically.

But wouldn’t “attributed” just be a claim? and you have said that a claim without historical data is not historical. So you can be comfortable denying the divine origin (or even the Mosaic authorship) of the written Torah text.

The “what” is that the reason the Messiah so harshly condemned the Pharisees and Rabbis was not for reading what Moses wrote but the Messiah condemns the Pharisees for adding their interpretations and traditions and accretions to Moses’ laws as though they were handed down from Moses.

That’s not really so clear from the text. Not only does Jesus endorse the Pharisaic learning/teaching (as opposed to the practice of the Pharisees), and that teaching IS the oral law, but he also, in his own teachings, parrots statements and ideas found in the Talmud. Of course, all of this is based on the claim that Jesus said or condemned anything, and that’s just a claim made in a text, with no historical evidence to support its accuracy.

This is another “non-answer”.

No, it is an actual answer. If you don’t understand it, you should ask questions, because when you jump to conclusions, you end up being wrong.

And “clearly rabbinic” does NOT mean "from God". You are confused.

I know that but your question seems to be predicated on your not realizing it. I said something was rabbinic. You then ask if that means I am admitting that it isn’t from God. Why would you think that needs to be admitted if, as you say, the term, itself, means that?

This is yet another non-answer.

Pointing out that you don’t know the difference between different types of statements and that you confuse them is not an answer you want to hear because it points out the flaw in your question. But when the question is based in error, that needs to be dealt with before it can be answered.

The question itself refers to the Jewish doctrine regarding the Jewish doctrine of Adam having both sets of sexual organs.

There is no such “doctrine.” Therefore your question cannot be answered as asked. Why don’t you try to word your question accurately, reflecting that you understand the terms and ideas. Right now, it is clear you don’t.

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE RABBANITE (RABBINIC JEWISH) CLAIM THAT MOSES DICTATED VAST AMOUNTS OF ORAL LAW THAT WAS HANDED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION OVER EONS OF TIME

Clear explained : The way history works is that historical data is present to indicate a specific event happened. There is no evidence Moses dictated any vast amount of law that was to be handed down by memorization over eons of time.

Rosends responded : “But there is evidence that another set of material existed during the Mosaic era which is referred to as having been given by God.”

And what historically appropriate evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).



2) REGARDING THE RABBINICAL RULES OF CEREMONIAL CLEANSING OF DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW - FROM GOD OR A RABBINICAL INNOVATION?

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

Rosends answered : Um, why would you think that the statement “clearly rabbinic” means “from God”? “

Clear reponded : This is another “non-answer”.

Rosends responded : No, it is an actual answer.


This is yet ANOTHER non-answer to the question as to whether "clearly rabbinic" means the rabbanic rules are from God or are rules and traditions created by the Jewish leaders.

I even gave you the example of the rabbinic claim that dishes given to a Jew from a non-Jew must be ceremonially “washed” in a Mikvah while saying a specific prayer.

Here it is again for reference :

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


3) REGARDING THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF ADAM FORMED WITH BOTH SETS OF SEXUAL ORGANS - IS THE DOCTRINE FROM GOD OR IT IS A JEWISH INNOVATION?

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

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

Clear pointed out : This is yet another non-answer.
The question itself refers to the Jewish doctrine regarding the Jewish doctrine of Adam having both sets of sexual organs.
Yet again, there is no answer, but another deflection instead.

Rosends responded : There is no such “doctrine.” Therefore your question cannot be answered as asked.

This is another non-answer but simply denial that this Jewish doctrine exists.

I don’t understand why you seem to claim familiarity with Judaism but are not aware of this doctrine. Let me help you out.
Let's google "Adam Hermaphrodite" and see what pops up.

IS THIS STARTING TO JOG YOUR MEMORY YET?

If you need more references that this Jewish doctrine exists, I can certainly provide more but the site only allows 10 images to be downloaded. Do you need more?

Still. The question I've asked remains unanswered.

DO SUCH RABBINIC TRADITIONS, RULES, AND DOCTRINES COME FROM GOD OR FROM INTERPRETATIONS AND INNOVATIONS AND OPINIONS OF JEWISH LEADERSHIP?


Clear
σεειδρω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

And what historically appropriate evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).

In the text spoken by Moses, there is reference to other laws that are not written down. This is well before rabbis or any “Rabbinic Jews.” The text speaks explicitly of those other laws. Did Moses invent them? Did the people live by rules that simply didn’t exist? How did they practice without the rules to supplement and complement the written ones when the written ones, on their own, made no sense? If the written text is not evidence, then nothing will satisfy you.

This is yet ANOTHER non-answer to the question as to whether "clearly rabbinic" means the rabbanic rules are from God or are rules and traditions created by the Jewish leaders.

No, it is another answer that you don’t want to accept. You are asking if “clearly rabbinic” means “from God” and I’m just pointing out that there is no reason to think that.

I even gave you the example of the rabbinic claim that dishes given to a Jew from a non-Jew must be ceremonially “washed” in a Mikvah while saying a specific prayer.

And I already pointed out that this practice is rabbinic. Why do you keep asking the same question after it has been answered in post 58?

Clear pointed out : This is yet another non-answer.

No, it is another answer you don’t understand or like.

You are using the word “doctrine.” What does that word mean to you? 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, nor is it a law that we are to follow. Additionally, it is not part of any Sinaitic set of rules passed down from Moses.

This is another non-answer but simply denial that this Jewish doctrine exists.

Yes, because you are misusing the word “doctrine.” Is English your second language? When you ask a non-question, I guess you will get a "non-answer."

IS THIS STARTING TO JOG YOUR MEMORY YET?

Not as “doctrine”, no. You have yet to show that there is a “doctrine” only that there is an opinion, an understanding, an interpretation, or a midrashic statement.

DO SUCH RABBINIC TRADITIONS, RULES, AND DOCTRINES COME FROM GOD OR FROM INTERPRETATIONS AND INNOVATIONS AND OPINIONS OF JEWISH LEADERSHIP?

See? You are lumping “doctrine” in with “rules and rabbinic tradition” but those are three different groups. If you are going to be sloppy with your language and logic, you shouldn’t expect answers. Putting your mistakes in all caps or in colors or italics doesn't change your errors. Try being more precise and reading responses for what they say, not what you want to hear.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

1) REGARDING THE RABBANITE (RABBINIC JEWISH) CLAIM THAT MOSES DICTATED VAST AMOUNTS OF ORAL LAW THAT WAS HANDED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION OVER EONS OF TIME

Clear explained : The way history works is that historical data is present to indicate a specific event happened. There is no evidence Moses dictated any vast amount of law that was to be handed down by memorization over eons of time.

Rosends responded : “But there is evidence that another set of material existed during the Mosaic era which is referred to as having been given by God.”

Clear asked : And what historically appropriate evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).

Rosends said : In the text spoken by Moses, there is reference to other laws that are not written down. This is well before rabbis or any “Rabbinic Jews.” The text speaks explicitly of those other laws.

Oooookaaaay....

And what historically appropriate reference exists as evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).



2) REGARDING THE RABBINICAL RULES OF CEREMONIAL CLEANSING OF DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW - FROM GOD OR A RABBINICAL INNOVATION?

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

Rosends answered : Um, why would you think that the statement “clearly rabbinic” means “from God”? “

Clear reponded : This is another “non-answer”.

Rosends responded : No, it is an actual answer.

Clear pointed out : This is yet ANOTHER non-answer to the question as to whether "clearly rabbinic" means the rabbanic rules are from God or are rules and traditions created by the Jewish leaders.

I even gave you the example of the rabbinic claim that dishes given to a Jew from a non-Jew must be ceremonially “washed” in a Mikvah while saying a specific prayer.

Rosends responded : Pointing out that you don’t know the difference between different types of statements and that you confuse them is not an answer you want to hear because it points out the flaw in your question. But when the question is based in error, that needs to be dealt with before it can be answered.

This is another non-answer. I asked if rabbinic rules are from God or are these rules and traditions created by Jewish leaders. You deflected from answering the question again.



3) REGARDING THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF ADAM FORMED WITH BOTH SETS OF SEXUAL ORGANS - IS THE DOCTRINE FROM GOD OR IT IS A JEWISH INNOVATION?

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

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

Clear pointed out : This is yet another non-answer. (No one said this bizarre doctrine was a "law" - You need to read what I write)
The question itself refers to the Jewish doctrine regarding the Jewish doctrine of Adam having both sets of sexual organs.
Yet again, there is no answer, but another deflection instead.

Rosends responded : There is no such “doctrine.” Therefore your question cannot be answered as asked.

Clear pointed out : This is another non-answer but simply denial that this Jewish doctrine exists. I don’t understand why you seem to claim familiarity with Judaism but are not aware of this doctrine. Let me help you out. Let's google "Adam Hermaphrodite" and see what pops up.

Rosends admited : “…that is not doctrine that we are required to believe in, nor is it a law that we are to follow.

This is another non-answer and no one claimed it is a "law"
No one claimed Jews are required to believe in this doctrine or any other silly and bizarre Doctrine.
These are irrelevant deflections.
The question was whether the Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs originated with interpretations and innovations of Jewish leaders or if it was from God.

Your answer that this is not a doctrine Jews are “required” to believe in indicates that it is not a doctrine given of God, but is a “take it or leave” it doctrine created by the Jewish leaders.



Rosends admited : Additionally, it is not part of any Sinaitic set of rules passed down from Moses.”

Clearly this Jewish doctrine did not come from Moses.



3) REGARDING THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION AND USAGE OF THE WORD “DOCTRINE”

The dictionary defines a doctrine as "a belief" (or set of beliefs held) and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

As I have shown, the belief that Adam was formed with both male and female sexual organs is obviously a belief taught in Judaism.

Your initial denial that this doctrine existed as well as your admission “that is not a doctrine we are required to believe in” are irrelevant to the question as to whether the Jewish leaders came up with this doctrine or if it came from God.

It obviously came from the Jewish leaders and I think that many Jews probably do not believe in this bizarre Jewish doctrine.




4) REGARDING THE UNWILLINGNESS TO ANSWER A QUESTION THAT ISN’T FRAMED IN A SPECIFIC WAY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOURCE OF JEWISH BELIEFS, TRADITIONS AND RULES.

Rosends said : “See? You are lumping “doctrine” in with “rules and rabbinic tradition” but those are three different groups. If you are going to be sloppy with your language and logic, you shouldn’t expect answers.”


We can play this game if you want.

Let me re-phrase

Do such Rabbinic traditions as Adam being formed with both male and female sexual organs come from God or from interpretations and innovations and opinions of Jewish Leadership?

Do such Rabbinic doctrines as Adam being formed with both male and female sexual organs come from God or from interpretations and innovations and opinions of Jewish Leadership?

Do such Rabbinic rules as ceremonial washing of dishes while saying a specific prayer come from God or from interpretations and innovations and opinions of Jewish Leadership?

Readers can probably come up with their own conclusions at this point but it would be good to hear you admit the source of such Jewish traditions.


Clear
σεφυακω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

And what historically appropriate reference exists as evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).

The same historically appropriate evidence that exists that Moses received vast amounts of laws from God that he wrote down. If you want to deny the oral part, you can use the same approach to deny the written part. Do you want to do that? Or are you being selective in what “counts”?

This is another non-answer. I asked if rabbinic rules are from God or are these rules and traditions created by Jewish leaders. You deflected from answering the question again.

No, it is another answer. I already and explicitly answered this same question. How is it deflecting if I not only answered, but in my previous post, pointed to exactly where I answered?

Clear pointed out : This is yet another non-answer. (No one said this bizarre doctrine was a "law" - You need to read what I write)

Ah, good. You admit that “doctrine” is not law and are backing off from the lumping together with law which you did in your last message, so this must fall outside of your request to find a historical proof regarding the Sinaitic source of “vast amounts of law”. Now you want to know if every interpretation and story is Sinaitic. No. Not every one is. Hope this helps.

This is another non-answer and no one claimed it is a "law"

So since it isn’t a law, it isn’t what you initially were trying to source. Got it. As stated, it is an interpretation and a belief, but not a doctrine.

No one claimed Jews are required to believe in this doctrine or any other silly and bizarre Doctrine.
These are irrelevant deflections.

I was just browsing through a dictionary and came upon the definition of “doctrine”:

“a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief”

Your reference to the midrashic discussion of the form of Adam’s body is not a principle of knowledge of Judaism.

The question was whether the Jewish doctrine that Adam was created with both male and female sexual organs originated with interpretations and innovations of Jewish leaders or if it was from God.

Not a doctrine, but OK. But as to the concept? Interpretation, yes. Directly from God, not as far as I know, no.

Your answer that this is not a doctrine Jews are “required” to believe in indicates that it is not a doctrine given of God, but is a “take it or leave” it doctrine created by the Jewish leaders.

So if you can draw that conclusion, why do you keep asking me? Why did you put “required” in quotes?

Clearly this Jewish doctrine did not come from Moses.

and yet you keep asking about it.

As I have shown, the belief that Adam was formed with both male and female sexual organs is obviously a belief taught in Judaism.

Sure it is – if you look at the text it is derived from, unless you deny the wording and authority of the text, you need to find a way to explain what the text means. This is one opinion about that. Whether this is a “belief in Judaism” or just the “belief of certain Jews” is a distinction you might not appreciate, but there you go.

Let me re-phrase

Excellent decision on your part.

Do such Rabbinic traditions as Adam being formed with both male and female sexual organs come from God or from interpretations and innovations and opinions of Jewish Leadership?

Interpretations and understandings based on earlier traditions and textual explication, yes, are sourced in rabbinic thinking.

Do such Rabbinic rules as ceremonial washing of dishes while saying a specific prayer come from God or from interpretations and innovations and opinions of Jewish Leadership?

Reread post 58. Asked and answered.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

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

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

Clear responded : “Yes. They were codifying the earlier innovations and interpretations of their leaders. They were not codifying a vast amount of law handed down from moses through unerring memorization over eons of time.”

Rosends responded : “That is your opinion and unproven claim, yes. So what?”

The “what” is that the claim that Moses dictated these silly rules about hand washing and ceremonial washing of dishes given to a jew by a non-jew is not historically tenable.

This is why you have been so uncomfortable as the discussion required you to offer any historical support for these rules.

While you admit that there are Jewish doctrines that no one, including Jews need to believe in (such as the Jewish doctrine that Adam was born with both male and female sexual organs), still, this Jewish doctrine is not historically coherent nor Biblical.



2) REGARDING THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP (RABBIS) AS A SOURCE OF RULES

Rosends : “You have confused two completely different sets of rules -- one a rabbinic one about washing hands and one a rabbinic one about immersing certain types of utensils in a ritual bath to deal with a state of impurity. “

Now you are not reading my posts nor do you seem to be reading what you wrote. You wrote, : "One RABBINIC one about washing and one a RABBINIC one about...) Caps are mine...
Is this a Freudian slip?

The historical connection is that both rules are rabbinic innovations and THAT is the historical connection between the different rules created by the Rabbis.
They are not “completely different” in terms of their source but are from the same source, Rabbis.
Even your prior description distinguishes between “RABBINIC” rules and “MOSAIC” rules.



3) THE USE OF NUM 31:23 AS EVIDENCE OF A VAST ORAL LAW HANDED DOWN BY MOSES, OR AS A TEXT TO SUPPORT RABBINIC RULES TO CEREMONIALLY WASH AND PRAY OVER DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW.

Rosends said : “The second one is listed by Maimonides as being rabbinic though an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23.”

Moses chapter 31 relates how 12,000 Jewish soldiers destroy the Midianites and the chapter deals with the spoils of war. Here is the text :

Numbers 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.


If you are going to use Num 31:23 as an example, Can you explain how it is that Numbers 31:23 is an example of a specific rabbinic rule dictated by Moses to be handed down by memorization over eons of time which all Jews should obey by ceremonially washing dishes while praying over them. ? Where is the interpretation of "dishes" or "utensials" found? Why is the fire not included in the rabbinic interpretation? Do Jews actually use "the water of separation" in washing the dishes as directed?



4) RABBIS INTERPRET THE TEXT AND CREATE NEW RULES AND TRADITIONS AND DOCTRINES BASED ON THEIR INTERPRETATION

Rosends asked : “So you have cited 2 sets of rules that are rabbinic (and this has never been a secret), so what is your point?”

The historical point is that the rules are interpretations and innovations of the rabbis and not oral laws from Moses which are handed down over eons by memorization.

You need to Read what YOU wrote. The laws are ”RABBINIC”, NOT “Mosaic”.



5) MISUSING AND MISAPPLYING HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES

Rosends claimed : “So your position is that if there is no document attesting something, it is invariably untenable?”

You are confused and your conclusion is bizarre and incorrect.
If there is no evidence that Moses handed down a vast set of oral laws that were intended to be passed on orally by memorization, THEN the bare claim that he did so is historical untenable. This is why you have been unable to provide any proof of your claim.

Your claim can survive as long a you remain in the world of dogma, and religious advertising.
But since there is no evidence Moses did this then the claim cannot survive in the world of history.
He may or may not have done a thing. The point historically, is that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that he passed on great and vast rules by memorization to the later Rabbis.



6) THE INABILITY OF RABBINIC SCHOLARS TO FIND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO CLAIM MOSES DICTATED VAST ORAL LAW THAT WAS PASSED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION

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

Rosends replied : “And you have not proven the contrary – you are asking if documents exist because some scholars say that the ideas that would be in those documents doesn’t sit well with them.”

Actually most of the Scholars I have referred to are Jewish Rabbis who would LOVE to have some sort of historical documentation to prove the Jewish Claim.
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.



7 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?”

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.


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

8) IS NUMBERS 31:23 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CREATION OF A JEWISH RULE TO CEREMONIALLY WASH DISHES WHILE SAYING A PRAYER OVER THE DISHES?

Clear said : "“You offered Numbers 31:23 as justification as to why Jews are required to wash dishes given them by non-Jews.

Rosends said : “No, I didn’t.

OK, we can agree that Numbers 31:23 does NOT justify the modern rabbinic rule that Jews must ceremonially cleans dishes given them by non-Jews.

Rosends said : “I pointed out that the Rambam references to it as a scriptural allusion to the rabbinic practice. I never mentioned “justification”. See, putting words in my mouth is not helpful.”

I agree, Numbers 31:23 does NOT justify creating a rabbinic rule to ceremonially wash dishes given them by non-Jews..

So, the Rabbi referenced Numbers 31:23 which directed the Jews to kill the women who have had sex, killing boys but keeping young girls and putting metallic objects though the fire and washing these objects as a basis for creating this rabbinic rule?

This is a tenuous and bizarre basis upon which to create a rabbinic rule that has only a thin relationship to a scripture.




Rosends asked : “Are you really going to deny that the text’s clear statement about immersing utensils can be cited as historical precedent for the practice?”

Let’s look at the text and see what it says. Readers can make up their own mind.

The context of Numbers 31, is that the children of Israel are at war and have just beaten the Midianites : 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods….11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts…. 13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

Moses gives them some rules on the people they have taken captive :
“17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

This is also one of the rules in the chapter with the “allusion” to washing, but the Jews do not follow this rule.

Moses says : “And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.”

21 ¶ And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

The rule on washing says “Every thing” that may abide the fire must go through the fire. Do the Jews do this?

The washing here refers to “the water of separation”.

Are you claiming Jews nowadays still make actual “water of separation” in accordance with this rule?

Do the Jews make the water with ashes of the red heifer?

There are multiple rules given to deal with the Midianites in this text. Do these rules actually apply to a non-jewish friend that gives dishes to a Jew?


9 DOES ANY EVIDENCE EXIST FOR THE JEWISH CLAIM THAT MOSES DICTATED VAST ORAL LAW TO BE HANDED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION?

Clear asked : “And what historically appropriate reference exists as evidence is there that Moses dictated vast amounts of law that was handed down by memorization over eons of time? (The question is not whether Rabbinic Jews had created rules and traditions they lived by that are not written, but whether the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time).:

Rosends responded : The same historically appropriate evidence that exists that Moses received vast amounts of laws from God that he wrote down.”

And what evidence is there that the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time?
So far you have appealed to the claim that Jews had been obeying rabbinic rules and traditions for a long time but this is not evidence that these rules came from Moses.
The logic that the rabbis themselves created these rules and traditions by their own interpretation and innovation is stronger and more likely than your theory of oral memorization from Moses.



10) REGARDING THE JEWISH DOCTRINE THAT ADAM WAS BORN WITH BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS

Rosends said : “Now you want to know if every interpretation and story is Sinaitic. No. Not every one is. Hope this helps.”

I did not ask this. I and other readers have already known many, many of the rules and doctrines created by the rabbis are not “Sinaitic”.

What we are looking for is any historical reason for the Jewish theory that Moses dictated vast oral laws that were to be handed down by memorization.



11) REGARDING WHETHER THE JEWISH HERMAPHRODITE/ADROGYNUS ADAM DOCTRINE/BELIEF WAS AN INTERPRETATION AND INNOVATION OF THE RABBIS

Rosends responded : “Not a doctrine, but OK. But as to the concept? Interpretation, yes. Directly from God, not as far as I know, no.”

That is my point as well.

A vast amount of rabbinic beliefs and doctrines are interpretations and did NOT come from God historically.

The belief/doctrine that Adam had both sets of sexual organs is bizarre and I very much agree that no one is required to believe this silly rabbinic interpretation of written text.

The rule of ceremonially washing of dishes in a mikvah while saying a specific prayer over dishes that were given a Jew by a non-Jew also is silly.

The claim that rules of war and the handling of nubile young girls while killing boys and women who have had sex and the washing of “Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead” (no dishes of aluminum or pyrex or even utensils are mentioned) is any basis to create this rule of washing dishes is itself bizarre.



Clear said : “As I have shown, the belief that Adam was formed with both male and female sexual organs is obviously a belief taught in Judaism.”

Rosends responded : “Sure it is “– if you look at the text it is derived from, unless you deny the wording and authority of the text, you need to find a way to explain what the text means. This is one opinion about that.

Yes, readers have already understood that Jewish rabbis are trying to “explain what the text means” to them and that the doctrine of Adam having both sets of sexual organs is their interpretation.



Rosends : “Whether this is a “belief in Judaism” or just the “belief of certain Jews” is a distinction you might not appreciate, but there you go.”

Yes, I it well known that “certain Jews” will belief this stuff and others will have feel no need to believe in the interpretations of the Jewish leaders.

This is also true of the claim that Moses dictated vast amount of oral law that was to be handed down over eons by memorization. There will be Jews that believe this sort of theory and many others will feel no need to believe this claim.




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

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

Yes. I think seasoned forum readers realize I do read your posts and the seasoned readers have seen enough deflecting to know that your question does not answer my question and is simply another form of not answering the question you are asked. .


Clear
σενετωω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

The “what” is that the claim that Moses dictated these silly rules about hand washing and ceremonial washing of dishes given to a jew by a non-jew is not historically tenable.

Except no one has made that claim, and calling something “silly” because you don’t agree with it is judgmental.

While you admit that there are Jewish doctrines that no one, including Jews need to believe in (such as the Jewish doctrine that Adam was born with both male and female sexual organs), still, this Jewish doctrine is not historically coherent nor Biblical.

No one said it was biblical and your understanding of “historically coherent” is not everyone’s. So, again, you project your sensibility.

Is this a Freudian slip?

Um, no. It is the answer to what you asked.

Even your prior description distinguishes between “RABBINIC” rules and “MOSAIC” rules.

But your two examples are both rabbinic. So what are you asking about them for?

If you are going to use Num 31:23 as an example, Can you explain how it is that Numbers 31:23 is an example of a specific rabbinic rule dictated by Moses to be handed down by memorization over eons of time which all Jews should obey by ceremonially washing dishes while praying over them.

It isn’t, nor did I claim it is. Why should I explain how something is what I never claimed it to be?

Why is the fire not included in the rabbinic interpretation? Do Jews actually use "the water of separation" in washing the dishes as directed?

As to your other questions, fire is included in the rabbinic interpretation and Jews DO use waters of sprinkling, yes.

The historical point is that the rules are interpretations and innovations of the rabbis and not oral laws from Moses which are handed down over eons by memorization.

As stated, some are. So?

You are confused and your conclusion is bizarre and incorrect.

And yet that is the simplest and most logical extension of what you said that a lack of historical date supports “ my claim that a vast oral law handed down by memorization from Moses himself is, indeed, a historically incoherent and untenable theory”. How is my conclusion incorrect?

If there is no evidence that Moses handed down a vast set of oral laws that were intended to be passed on orally by memorization, THEN the bare claim that he did so is historical untenable.

Good thing I keep pointing to contextual and textual evidence also.

Your claim can survive as long a you remain in the world of dogma, and religious advertising.

Since there is no historical data that the WRITTEN Torah is from God, or that Moses ever existed, or that Jesus ever said anything, then you should feel comfortable throwing out all religious texts which rest on a belief system. Just do that and at least be consistent.

Actually most of the Scholars I have referred to are Jewish Rabbis who would LOVE to have some sort of historical documentation to prove the Jewish Claim.

Are there other kinds of rabbis? And how do you know what they would love? If you knew their religious background, you might conclude differently.

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.

I have presented 3 types of evidence that the oral law existed from Mosaic times. I pointed to the text’s own claim that there is complementary law that people in Moses’ time knew but which is not in the written text. I pointed out the textual evidence that people understood laws which the text never explains, and I pointed out historical evidence that people practiced, following the Oral Law (such as the specific kinds and form of tefillin that were worn before there were “rabbis”).

So, the Rabbi referenced Numbers 31:23 which directed the Jews to kill the women who have had sex, killing boys but keeping young girls and putting metallic objects though the fire and washing these objects as a basis for creating this rabbinic rule?

Do you now know what a “biblical allusion” is? I’ll use simpler terms if that helps you avoid drawing totally erroneous conclusions. Do you know how an asmachta works in Jewish law? Probably not. It isn’t a “basis” for anything.

This is also one of the rules in the chapter with the “allusion” to washing, but the Jews do not follow this rule.

One does not make a rule from everything that happens. Since you don’t understand the mechanism of the development of Jewish law, why do you impute things that are wrong? Are you denying that the text discusses washing in water?

The rule on washing says “Every thing” that may abide the fire must go through the fire. Do the Jews do this?

Yup. Why do you ask?

The washing here refers to “the water of separation”.

Well, the Hebrew doesn’t actually use the word for “separation” but your translation suits you, so have fun with it.

Are you claiming Jews nowadays still make actual “water of separation” in accordance with this rule?

Yup.

Do the Jews make the water with ashes of the red heifer?

Not currently because we don’t have a proper red heifer and other variables required for the ceremony. Why?

There are multiple rules given to deal with the Midianites in this text. Do these rules actually apply to a non-jewish friend that gives dishes to a Jew?

By rabbinic edict, yes.

And what evidence is there that the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time?

Because people in Moses’ time were familiar with more commanded laws than what was written down. So they must have come from somewhere and somewhere with the authority to command – Moses, from God. Or was someone else walking around in the desert making rules up that Moses then, speaking what God told him, says “I commanded you”?

The logic that the rabbis themselves created these rules and traditions by their own interpretation and innovation is stronger and more likely than your theory of oral memorization from Moses.

See, you did it again. You have no evidence but have decided that your claim is “far stronger.” That’s intellectually dishonest.

I did not ask this. I and other readers have already known many, many of the rules and doctrines created by the rabbis are not “Sinaitic”.

But you asked about one that isn’t and then asked if it is. If you know some are not, why ask if that one is?

What we are looking for is any historical reason for the Jewish theory that Moses dictated vast oral laws that were to be handed down by memorization.

You are drawing a conclusion about a Mosaic oral code by citing a story which would not have been part of that code? Weird. And "any historical reason" isn't inclusive of "because the biblical text says that there were other laws given to the people through Moses but not written down"?

The rule of ceremonially washing of dishes in a mikvah while saying a specific prayer over dishes that were given a Jew by a non-Jew also is silly.

You are letting your emotions drive your claims. If you call something “silly” then you are denigrating it and can’t accept that it has validity, a priori. That puts your opinion in the forefront and colors your thinking. I could then say “the right to privacy isn’t in the constitution because it is silly.”

That fact that it is not in the constitution has nothing to do with my opinion that it is silly. So calling something bizarre is just an insult, not a proof of anything. But if that’s your method, good luck with that.

There will be Jews that believe this sort of theory and many others will feel no need to believe this claim.

OK. Some will believe the claim and some will believe the counter-claim, or reject the claim without any proof to any other claim. That’s fine. Good luck with your counterclaim.

 

[Hawkins]

Does anyone know much about how the tradition developed regarding Rabbinic Jewish "Oral Law" as it relates to the rabbinic claim that traditions and writings created by the rabbis of rabbinic Judaism (e.g. Mishna, Talmud, etc) were an unwritten (i.e. oral) set of laws Given to Moses on Sinai at the same time he received Torah. That is, the claim that these writings were an "oral Torah" as the same times as the "written" torah was given.

It all started with humans' lack of ability to convey a historical truth. Oral Law is thus required to build a valid culture for a truth to be conveyed by the word of mouth. It means the Jews built up a culture to seriouly memorize the Law ever since childhood. Oral Law thus goes in parallel with the written complemantarily for God's truth to be conveyed. Or else everything may turn into a myth, as humans will at the end turn every ancient facts into myths such as the tons of flood myths in the different cultures.

Oral Law is thus enforced by an authority. In Jesus' days the Pharisees represent such an authority. The rabbis had to turn the Oral Law into the written form only means that they are not authenticated. The fading out of the oral form represents the death of its enforcing authority, the same authority went away long with the destruction of the Second Temple.

On the other hand, God's truth no longer progress using the old methodology. Ever since, Christianity ran well by means of ancient scrolls and at the end the well-maintained paper form.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @rosends

1) MANY RABBINIC RULES SHOW A LACK OF COMMON SENSE OR JUDGMENT

Clear said : “The “what” is that the claim that Moses dictated these silly rules about hand washing and ceremonial washing of dishes given to a jew by a non-jew is not historically tenable.”

Rosends said : “Except no one has made that claim, and calling something “silly” because you don’t agree with it is judgmental.”

Yes, the definition of “silly” is "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish."

I think many of the Laws created by Rabbis show a lack of common sense. For example :

The rabbinic rule that because the ancient Israel army were told to kill women who’ve had sex and to kill boys and keep the young girls as their slaves and to purify with fire all spoils of war that can withstand the fire and they should wash their spoils in water, then nowadays the Jews should wash utensils given them by friendly non-jews shows a lack of common sense to apply an ancient rule of war to friendly relationships.
To me using this rule of war when no war, no spoils, no killing is going on is absurd and foolish.


2) MANY RABBINIC RULES DO NOT HAVE THEIR SOURCE FROM BIBLICAL TEXT BUT FROM INTERPRETATIONS OF JEWISH LEADERS

Clear said : “While you admit that there are Jewish doctrines that no one, including Jews need to believe in (such as the Jewish doctrine that Adam was born with both male and female sexual organs), still, this Jewish doctrine is not historically coherent nor Biblical.”

Rosends replied : “No one said it was biblical and your understanding of “historically coherent” is not everyone’s.”

The fact that this Jewish doctrine is neither Historical NOR biblical IS the point.
The Jewish leaders that created the Jewish doctrine that Adam had both male and female sex organs created a doctrine that is NOT biblical but this Jewish doctrine reflects their own attitude, interpretation and innovation.

The definition of “coherent” regarding an argument or theory is that it is logical and consistent”. It is illogical historically to create a doctrine that maintains the man adam had both male and female sex organs.




3) REGARDING THE JEWISH LEADERSHIP (RABBIS) AS A SOURCE OF RULES

Rosends : “You have confused two completely different sets of rules -- one a rabbinic one about washing hands and one a rabbinic one about immersing certain types of utensils in a ritual bath to deal with a state of impurity. “

Clear responded : "Now you are not reading my posts nor do you seem to be reading what you wrote.
You wrote : "One RABBINIC one about washing and one a RABBINIC one about...) Caps are mine...

The historical connection is that both rules are rabbinic innovations and THAT is the historical connection between the different rules created by the Rabbis.
They are not “completely different” in terms of their source but are from the same source, Rabbis.
Even your prior description distinguishes between “RABBINIC” rules and “MOSAIC” rules.

Rosends replied : “But your two examples are both rabbinic. “
Yes, they are historically, detailed innovations created by the rabbis (i.e. “rabbinic” but not “Mosaic”) but not historically, created by Moses.

Rosends said : “So what are you asking about them for?”
Read what I wrote.
I am not asking about them.




4) THE USE OF NUM 31:23 AS EVIDENCE OF A VAST ORAL LAW HANDED DOWN BY MOSES, OR AS A TEXT TO SUPPORT RABBINIC RULES TO CEREMONIALLY WASH AND PRAY OVER DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW.

Rosends said : “The second one is listed by Maimonides as being rabbinic though an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23.”

Moses chapter 31 relates how 12,000 Jewish soldiers destroy the Midianites and the chapter deals with the spoils of war. Here is the text :

Numbers 31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

Clear asked : "If you are going to use Num 31:23 as an example, Can you explain how it is that Numbers 31:23 is an example of a specific rabbinic rule dictated by Moses to be handed down by memorization over eons of time which all Jews should obey by ceremonially washing dishes while praying over them. ? Where is the interpretation of "dishes" or "utensils" found?
Why is the fire not included in the rabbinic interpretation? Do Jews actually use "the water of separation" in washing the dishes as directed?


Rosends replied : It isn’t, nor did I claim it is. Why should I explain how something is what I never claimed it to be?”

You said regarding the Jewish rabbinic rule to ceremonially wash dishes in a mikvah while saying a prayer over the dishes : “an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23.”

The definition of “allusion” is “ an indirect or passing reference.”

Now you say were NOT referring to Numbers 31:23 as an actual "allusion" (reference) to the washing of dishes?
Your responses are inconsistent and incoherent.
I agree with the readers who recognized that Numbers 31:23 was never an applicable allusion to this rabbinic rule.



5) THE JEWISH RABBIS INNOVATED MANY, MANY OF THEIR RULES AND DOCTRINES
Clear said : “The historical point is that the rules are interpretations and innovations of the rabbis and not oral laws from Moses which are handed down over eons by memorization.”

Rosends responded : “As stated, some are. So?”

The "So" is that the various Jewish traditions, interpretations and innovations made up by the Rabbis which have no Mosaic authority and any attempt to present them as having Mosaic authority is historically, incoherent and misplaced.

For example, I asked : “There are multiple rules given to deal with the Midianites in this text. Do these rules actually apply to a non-jewish friend that gives dishes to a Jew?”

You replied : “By rabbinic edict, yes”

So, if a “rabbinic edicts” is non-Mosaic, you are saying it needs to be obeyed "By rabbinic edict, yes", even though this rule did not come from Moses and is not divine and merely an innovation of the rabbis?
If such rules are not from God nor prophetic, but are instead, created through the interpretations of Jewish leaders, they do not have divine same authority.



6) WHAT IS MORE LIKELY : NON-MOSAIC LAWS CREATED BY RABBIS OR SECRET LAWS FROM MOSES MEMORIZED OVER EONS?

Clear asked : “And what evidence is there that the many rabbinic rules and traditions were handed down by MOSES dictation by memorization over eons of time?”

Rosends responded : “Because people in Moses’ time were familiar with more commanded laws than what was written down. “

An argument from logic is OK.
However, It is even more logical to assume the source of these commanded laws were Jewish leaders interpreting and innovating rules and traditions rather than Moses handing down such laws by memorization.
Logic itself weighs against your claim.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

7) WHAT SORT OF ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE HAS ROSENDS PROVIDED FOR THE THEORY OF MOSES HANDING VAST AMOUNT OF LAW DOWN FOR MEMORIZATION OVER EONS OF TIME

Clear pointed out : “If there is no evidence that Moses handed down a vast set of oral laws that were intended to be passed on orally by memorization, THEN the bare claim that he did so is simply a historically untenable dogma.”

Rosends responded : “Good thing I keep pointing to contextual and textual evidence also.”

You mean like your initial claim that Numbers 31:23 (the rules for dealing with spoils of war) is an allusion to the modern rabbinic rule for washing dishes?

You mean that sort of “evidence”?

Or perhaps you are referring to your admission that the Jewish Doctrine that Adam had both male and female sexual organs is not a doctrine Jews necessarily believe in?

Do you mean that sort of “evidence”?

OR, perhaps you mean like your claim that Jews had lived non-mosaic rabbinic laws for a long time and therefor they must be part of a secret law that Moses gave the Jewish leaders that were never mentioned to any other group.

Do you mean that sort of “evidence”?




8) THE INABILITY OF RABBINIC SCHOLARS TO FIND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO CLAIM MOSES DICTATED VAST ORAL LAW THAT WAS PASSED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION

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

Rosends replied : “And you have not proven the contrary – you are asking if documents exist because some scholars say that the ideas that would be in those documents doesn’t sit well with them.”

Clear said : “… most of the Scholars I have referred to are Jewish Rabbis who would LOVE to have some sort of historical documentation to prove the Jewish Claim.
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 asked : “Are there other kinds of rabbis?
Read your claim.
You wrote “some scholars say that the ideas that would be in those documents doesn’t sit well with them.” (Underline is mine)
I was merely pointing out that these “scholars” are Jewish rabbis and not individuals who have a grudge against the Jews.


Rosends asked : “And how do you know what they would love?
Probably in the same way you claim to know the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”


Rosends asked : “If you knew their religious background, you might conclude differently.
And If you knew much about Jewish history or Jewish Historical Scholars, you might conclude differently.

You didn’t even realize the belief that Adam had both male and female sexual organs was a Jewish Doctrine.
You need to know more about Judaism before you try to argue Judaism.





Clear said : “The logic that the rabbis themselves created these rules and traditions by their own interpretation and innovation is stronger and more likely than your theory of oral memorization from Moses.”

Rosends responded : “See, you did it again. You have no evidence but have decided that your claim is “far stronger.” That’s intellectually dishonest.”



Actually, the best evidence that many, many, many, many of these rules, traditions and doctrines from rabbinic Judaism come from the Jewish historical records themselves. If you had read my prior posts you would see multiple examples of evidence. For example, from post #51 I pointed out :




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

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

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

This hardly indicates divine dictation.

The multiple variations contradict each other in various ways.

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

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

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

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

For example, speaking of the exchanging of coins

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

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

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

Other variant readings regard important rules surrounding certain animal sacrifices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are plenty of such examples and reasons why “the Mishna” (if a person can even choose which one to refer to) is not a divinely dictated document that shows it has not been memorized and transmitted from Moses’ day until the Rabbinic Jews (the Rabbanites) wrote it down. The various descriptions clearly show that it is Rabbis and Jewish leaders that create these rules and decision and traditions and doctrine.

Clear
σιτωφιω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

Yes, the definition of “silly” is "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish."

I think many of the Laws created by Rabbis show a lack of common sense.

Great – so you admit that you are letting your own personal judgment and opinion guide your thinking.

The rabbinic rule that because the ancient Israel army were told to kill women who’ve had sex and to kill boys and keep the young girls as their slaves and to purify with fire all spoils of war that can withstand the fire and they should wash their spoils in water, then nowadays the Jews should wash utensils given them by friendly non-jews shows a lack of common sense to apply an ancient rule of war to friendly relationships.

You are actually mixing a few things here. The only rabbinic rule from that paragraph is that utensils owned by non-Jews must be washed in a particular way to ensure that they are clean from any non-kosher food, and immersed to assume a particular spiritual status You think that is silly and that’s great – you have an opinion about a rabbinic rule. So, you know what? Don’t follow it. But your opinion about what is silly has no bearing on your original post (unless it is the agenda setting aspect of your thinking) and certainly is not a persuasive argument because it is so deeply connected to your particular point of view and not any objective facts.

To me using this rule of war when no war, no spoils, no killing is going on is absurd and foolish.

Great – to you it is. That’s fantastic. Also irrelevant, but good for you for having a personal opinion.

The fact that it is NOT biblical IS the point.

But since no one claimed it was biblical, why is that your point? No one claimed it was oral law, either. So what is the point? You bring it up to criticize it because of your personal opinion. So what?

The definition of “coherent” regarding an argument or theory is that it is logical and consistent”. It is illogical historically to create a doctrine that maintains the man adam had both male and female sex organs.

Why is that illogical, if it is consistent with the wording of the text? Why is that illogical if you are starting with a divine being creating a universe ex nihilo? Your sensibility about what is illogical is as unpersuasive as any of your other personal opinions.

The historical connection is that both rules are rabbinic innovations and THAT is the historical connection between the different rules created by the Rabbis.

The historical connection between 2 rabbinic rules is that they are both rabbinic? Wow. Amazing, indeed.

They are not “completely different” in terms of their source but are from the same source, Rabbis.

Sure they are from different sources. One has a specific textual allusion to hint to it and one doesn’t.

Yes, they are historically, detailed innovations created by the rabbis (i.e. “rabbinic” but not “Mosaic”) but not historically, created by Moses.

No one said they were. You are arguing against something no one said again.

I am not asking about them.

Then why do you keep bringing them up if their rabbinic origin was never in question?

4) THE USE OF NUM 31:23 AS EVIDENCE OF A VAST ORAL LAW HANDED DOWN BY MOSES,

This was never claimed

OR AS A TEXT TO SUPPORT RABBINIC RULES TO CEREMONIALLY WASH AND PRAY OVER DISHES GIVEN A JEW BY A NON-JEW.

Well, not wash, and they aren’t really a support for the rule, but something called a “hint” to a behavior.

You said regarding the Jewish rabbinic rule to ceremonially wash dishes in a mikvah while saying a prayer over the dishes : “an allusion to it is found biblically in Num 31:23.”

Yes, an allusion, not a proof, not a source, not a support. What I said “I didn’t” say was what YOU claimed

"If you are going to use Num 31:23 as an example, Can you explain how it is that Numbers 31:23 is an example of a specific rabbinic rule dictated by Moses to be handed down by memorization over eons of time which all Jews should obey by ceremonially washing dishes while praying over them. ?

I never said it was an example of a specific rule dictated etc.

Now you say were NOT referring to Numbers 31:23 as an actual "allusion" (reference) to the washing of dishes?

No, I was consistent in that I never claimed that washing or immersion is a specific rule dictated by Moses. I said that there was an allusion to it in the text. Are you saying that there isn’t? You seem unable to follow your own line of reasoning, mostly because you keep inventing things I said and can’t remember what I actually said and what you invented. You really aren’t very good at this.

I agree with the readers who recognized that Numbers 31:23 was never an applicable allusion to this rabbinic rule.

Awesome! More opinions from you. So what?

The "So" is that the various Jewish traditions, interpretations and innovations made up by the Rabbis which have no Mosaic authority and any attempt to present them as having Mosaic authority is historically, incoherent and misplaced.

Lots of problems here. First is that you ignore the distinction between things that are Sinaitic in source and those that aren’t. Next you say that the rabbinic ideas have no authority even though the text makes reference to the authority of the courts and leaders in each generation (which would now be the rabbis) to ensure proper practice, commanding the people to abide by the judgments and decisions of the religious and judicial leaders in each generation. Then you throw in your personal opinion about what is incoherent or misplaced.

So, if a “rabbinic edicts” is non-Mosaic, you are saying it needs to be obeyed "By rabbinic edict, yes", even though this rule did not come from Moses and is not divine and merely an innovation of the rabbis?

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

If such rules are not from God nor prophetic, but are instead, created through the interpretations of Jewish leaders, they do not have divine same authority.

Well, if you ignore that the text says to abide by them. But if you actually listen to the text, then you are wrong. But you are getting into a separate question of rabbinic authority. If you don’t like it, don’t listen to rabbis. I think that priests shouldn’t be listened to so I don’t listen to them. Go figure.

6) WHAT IS MORE LIKELY : NON-MOSAIC LAWS CREATED BY RABBIS OR SECRET LAWS FROM MOSES MEMORIZED OVER EONS?

Who said anything was “secret”? See, you do it again, loading up with words that betray your preconceived opinions and then you pretend like that opinion is some sort of fact.

However, It is even more logical to assume the source of these commanded laws were Jewish leaders interpreting and innovating rules and traditions rather than Moses handing down such laws by memorization.

Wait, hold on. Are you now saying that your position is “more logical” (which grants my position a logical footing) without any explanation as to how you are judging and weighing the logic in an objective sense? So your proof that your position is more logical is that you state that it is more logical? Wow.

Logic itself weighs against your claim.

No, your claim to logic sits there like a piece of uneaten cheese.

You mean like your initial claim that Numbers 31:23 (the rules for dealing with spoils of war) is an allusion to the modern rabbinic rule for washing dishes?

Nope. How would an allusion to a rabbinic edict be proof to a Sinaitic set of laws? You are really confused.

Or perhaps you are referring to your admission that the Jewish Doctrine that Adam had both male and female sexual organs is not a doctrine Jews necessarily believe in?

No, why would that, which I have said is non-Sinaitic (not a doctrine) be a proof? See, you are asking about things no one claimed so you have something to argue with. That doesn’t make you right, just foolish.

OR, perhaps you mean like your claim that Jews had lived non-mosaic rabbinic laws for a long time and therefor they must be part of a secret law that Moses gave the Jewish leaders that were never mentioned to any other group.

More stuff I never said. You like to reword and insert your opinion about things. That’s more intellectual dishonesty. You assume that I claimed that they lived by “non-mosaic rabbinic laws” and “secret” while neither is anything I spoke of. By the way, if they were rejected by other groups then the other groups are mentioning it...

I was merely pointing out that these “scholars” are Jewish rabbis and not individuals who have a grudge against the Jews.

Are there other kinds of rabbis? You still haven’t answered what I wrote. This just shows that you seem to be missing pretty basic stuff.

Probably in the same way you claim to know the ideas in those documents “doesn’t sit well with them.”

That’s because I looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion. If someone holds a particular belief and opinion of a theological position then it is straightforward to see what kind of proof he would want to find to support his position. What method did YOU use to decide what they would love?

You didn’t even realize the belief that Adam had both male and female sexual organs was a Jewish Doctrine.

Jeepers…you really don’t read well, do you. I am familiar with an idea, but I am pointing out that the idea is not a doctrine. You have invented that idea and then wonder why I disagree. I know substantially more about Judaism (past and present) than you do. I also am more precise with my words and am making a more fact-based set of claims, while you, by your own admission, are basing yourself on your own opinion.

Actually, the best evidence that many, many, many, many of these rules, traditions and doctrines from rabbinic Judaism come from the Jewish historical records themselves. If you had read my prior posts you would see multiple examples of evidence. For example, from post #51 I pointed out :

In post 51, all you did was show that there are people who don’t accept the oral law and that there are variant texts of the mishna (which is not identical with “the Oral Law”). That there are rules, traditions and doctrines that are rabbinic was never in doubt. None of that showed that anything was “far stronger.” In fact, no metric for deciding strength was introduced.

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

But no one claimed that mishna is a divinely dictated document. You are again starting with an error and then arguing against the error. Weird.

 

[dybmh]

You didn’t even realize the belief that Adam had both male and female sexual organs was a Jewish Doctrine.

It's not doctrine, it's just an opinion based on a hyperliteral approach to scripture. Christians in the middle ages did the same thing with Revelations 1:13 which literally describes Jesus with breasts. They also take the idea of being born again through Christ as descibing Jesus as a mother with a womb. Does that mean there's a Christian doctrine that Jesus is female?

Spoiler: Literal word for word translation of Rev 1:13

Spoiler: JOURNAL ARTICLE Jesus Is Female: The Moravian Challenge in the German Communities of British North America

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

1) MANY RABBINIC RULES SHOW A LACK OF COMMON SENSE OR JUDGMENT

Clear said : “The “what” is that the claim that Moses dictated these silly rules about hand washing and ceremonial washing of dishes given to a jew by a non-jew is not historically tenable.”

Rosends said : “Except no one has made that claim, and calling something “silly” because you don’t agree with it is judgmental.”

Clear replied : "Yes, the definition of “silly” is "having or showing a lack of common sense or judgment; absurd and foolish."

I think many of the Laws created by Rabbis show a lack of common sense. For example :

The rabbinic rule that because the ancient Israel army were told to kill women who’ve had sex and to kill boys and keep the young girls as their slaves and to purify with fire all spoils of war that can withstand the fire and they should wash their spoils in water, then nowadays the Jews should wash utensils given them by friendly non-jews shows a lack of common sense to apply an ancient rule of war to friendly relationships.
To me using this rule of war when no war, no spoils, no killing is going on is absurd and foolish.

Rosends said : "Great – so you admit that you are letting your own personal judgment and opinion guide your thinking."

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?

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?


2) 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 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. 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.

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



3) REGARDING THE NON-RELATIONSHIP OF RABBINIC EDICTS TO ANY DIVINE LAW
Rosends asked : "How would an allusion to a rabbinic edict be proof to a Sinaitic set of laws?"
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.



4) WHAT SORT OF ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE HAS ROSENDS PROVIDED FOR THE THEORY OF MOSES HANDING VAST AMOUNT OF LAW DOWN FOR MEMORIZATION OVER EONS OF TIME

Clear pointed out : “If there is no evidence that Moses handed down a vast set of oral laws that were intended to be passed on orally by memorization, THEN the bare claim that he did so is simply a historically untenable dogma.”

Rosends responded : “Good thing I keep pointing to contextual and textual evidence also.”

Clear responded : "You mean like your initial claim that Numbers 31:23 (the rules for dealing with spoils of war) is an allusion to the modern rabbinic rule for washing dishes?
You mean that sort of “evidence”?

Or perhaps you are referring to your admission that the Jewish Doctrine that Adam had both male and female sexual organs is not a doctrine Jews necessarily believe in?
Do you mean that sort of “evidence”?

OR, perhaps you mean like your claim that Jews had lived non-mosaic rabbinic laws for a long time and therefor they must be part of a secret law that Moses gave the Jewish leaders that were never mentioned to any other group.
Do you mean that sort of “evidence”?

Rosends responded regarding Numbers 31:23 as evidence : "No, why would that, which I have said is non-Sinaitic (not a doctrine) be a proof?"

I agree that your reference to Numbers 31:23 is not a proof nor does it even qualify as "contextual and textual evidence" you claim to "keep pointing to".


5) REGARDING THE INABILITY OF JEWISH SCHOLARS TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR MOSES' PASSING DOWN VAST AMOUNTS OF UNWRITTEN LAW TO BE PASSED ON FOR EONS BY PERFECT MEMORIZATION

Clear pointed out that these historian/scholars who are looking for evidence for a vast set of "oral laws" are themselves Rabbis and not anti-Jews.

Rosends wrote “some scholars say that the ideas that would be in those documents doesn’t sit well with them.” (Underline is mine)
Clear pointed out "I was merely pointing out that these “scholars” are Jewish rabbis and not individuals who have a grudge against the Jews."
Rosends responded : "Are there other kinds of rabbis? You still haven’t answered what I wrote. This just shows that you seem to be missing pretty basic stuff."

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.

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

That is why I asked in the O.P. if ANYONE had evidence that none of the Jewish Rabbis and scholars and historians could find.

Does ANYONE on this forum have ANY evidence to support the claim that Moses dictated vast amounts of oral laws to support the myriads of Jewish Rabbinic traditions that, as Rosends admitted, are Non-biblical?



Clear


POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE


6) REGARDING ROSENDS CLAIM TO HAVE LOOKED UP THE MOTIVES AND FEELING OF THE JEWISH RABBIS THAT CLEAR QUOTED
Clear said in post #3 regarding Jayhawk Souls suggestion that I read Halivni for information on Oral law.

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 replied : I looked up their background and personal attitude towards religion”


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.



7) REGARDING THE JEWISH DOCTRINE THAT ADAM WAS CREATED WITH BOTH MALE AND FEMALE SEXUAL ORGANS

Clear pointed out that Rosends did not seem to know Jewish doctrine regarding adam

Clear said : “You didn’t even realize the belief that Adam had both male and female sexual organs was a Jewish Doctrine.”

Rosends responded : “I am familiar with an idea, but I am pointing out that the idea is not a doctrine.”

And I pointed out that you don't seem to know Jewish teaching on this point.
The Jewish literature and tradition is replete with descriptions of the Jewish doctrine that Adam had both male and female sexual organs.
Let me give you some examples (again) from Jewish sites and literature and from the Jewish encyclopedia.

While I understand you might not be familiar with certain Rabbinic Jewish doctrines, it is not helpful to your credibility to simply try to deny this doctrine exists when it is so obvious to readers that this sort of denial is untrue.

Clear
σισεφιω

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[dybmh]

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 on-jew neighbor?

First, for a moment, ignore the kind non-jew neighbor.

Battle in war results in contact with dead bodies. This means that the soldiers themself were likely in a state of ritual ( aka spiritual ) impurity. This spiritual impurity can be passed to inanimate objects. Making sense of the concept of spiritual impurity can be approached if a person is willing and able to comprehend reality as the union of matter and spirit. I said approached because if reality is more than matter, more than what can be measured on a scale, and more than what can be examined under a microscope, then there will always be something mysterious and awe inspiring about these laws. Again, awe inspiring to those who are willing and able.

So, the impurity is coming from the death that happens in battle, not from the foreign non-Jews themself. Does that make sense? It's the actions that have taken place. So, the kindness and friendliness of a non-Jew is not the issue at all when it comes to utensils and vessels obtained from them. The question is: what is the liklihood that they would have nullified any ritual impurity that was imparted to the vessel during construction? Do they know what spiritual impurity is? Do they know how to nullify it?

A similar concept occurs in the laws of tithing, except it is the ignorant Jew that is the concern. So, these ideas are not limited to non-Jews. The law is equally concerned with all people who may not be aware of the proper actions to take under certain circumstances. Non-jews are not being singled out.

So, what's happening in Numbers 31 is evidence of a law which predates Numbers 31, a law which was not written, but was given at sinai none-the-less. The law involves spiritual vessels and spiritual impurity. Avenging the midianites triggered the execution of this law, but it does not define it. Receiving kitchen vessels and utensils from an unknown source also triggers execution of the same law.