Analysis: Karaism
To those who do not know, the Karaites are a sect that has declared that the Oral Law is not a part of Judaism. They believe only in the divinity of the Tanakh and when interpreting scripture, Karaites strive to adhere only to the p'shat (plain meaning) of the text. Followers of the sect which believe in "Reformism" have also denied the Oral Law, yet they deny the Written Law as well, so they will not be addressed here. Therefore, I call on the Karaites to answer these two questions:
1. The Torah commands that one who assaults his fellow must pay "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 21:24) Can you provide for me when in Jewish history physical punishment was meted for an assault?
2. Moses instructed the Jews to perform Kosher slaughter as "I have commanded you" (Deuteronomy 12:21). Can you find me in the Written Torah where he had commanded them?
Many similar illustrations can be given like those above. There is obviously a companion of the Written Law, which is of course the Oral Law. Without the Oral Law, the Written Law can be twisted and misinterpreted, which it certainly has been by the ignorant down through the centuries.
Sources: The Art Scroll Chumash (stone edition).
8 comments:
Shalom,
You say, "There is obviously a companion of the Written Law, which is of course the Oral Law." This statement is a two-fold circular argument lacking proof for both contentions. You didn't prove either, and guess what? You won't be able to. Rambam once wrote down the "oral" law's supposed transmission chain and lo, he claimed for instance that Prophet Yirmiyahu's personal scribe Barukh ben Neriya (who died in the 1st half of the 6th century BC) transmitted the "oral" law to `Ezra the Scibe (who lived in the 5th century BC). This fact alone prove its supposed chain of transmission is bogus. A few other gaps like this one exist in the Chain, but this example suffices. In any rate, I've seen several attempts to prove a reliable Chain and all were less than compelling.
You further say,"Without the Oral Law, the Written Law can be twisted and misinterpreted, which it certainly has been by the ignorant down through the centuries.".
This claim is highly ironic given that the "oral" law itself is a great form of distortion and misinterpretation of the real Torah since it adds to, detracts from and contradicts the Torah (against the command in Devarim 4:2) through vast usage of inadequate exegetical methods that deviate from the text's plain meaning (Pshat) like Remez and Drash. A valid interpretation must fit the plain meaning of the text and be consistent with the rules of grammar and the context of the passage.
Rabbinical exegesis routinely takes passages out of context and ignores the nature of the Hebrew language. For example, the Talmud teaches that when someone makes a vow to be a Nazir without specifying the timespan, they must remain a Nazir for 30 days. The timespan of 30 days is derived from the Gematria (numerological) value of the word "YiHYeH" ('he will be [a Nazir]') which appears in the command of Nazir. This is an interpretation divorced from all linguistic reality and logic and which ignores the context of the words.
Another example is the prohibition not to boil a kid in its mother's milk. The Rabbis somehow read into this very straightforward commandment the fictitious prohibition of eating milk and meat together. They start with the observation that the prohibition itself appears 3 times. They then argue that each time it appears it comes to teach a different rule (even though the wording is identical!!!). The real reason that the prohibition appears 3 times is because the Torah was given over a period of 40 years and records prophetic revelations, which came to Moses at different times. Furthermore, the Torah was intended to be read aloud to the People of Israel on Sukkot every 7th year and the repetition was intended to help the people remember the laws. Rabbinic interpretation ignores the actual words of the commandments and takes the Torah itself out of context.
The commandment "an eye for an eye" evoked your question demanding when in Jewish history was physical punishment meted for an assault. I don't know, but in any rate zero enforcement of this mitzwah throughout history wouldn't bolster the "oral" law's take on the issue whatsoever. How you would think (if you think) that proves the literal interpretation of that mitzwah to be absurd or non-enforceable or wrong is eludes me.
As to kasher slaughter: the two only requirements were to have a maximal amount of the animal's blood poor out of it onto the ground like water (see Devarim 12:16 and Wayiqra 17:13) and then cover the blood with soil (Wayiqra/Lev. 17:13). So the answer to your question lurked all the while 5 verses before the directive "as I have commanded you". I know what your next question might be, and I'm telling you in advance that several methods of slaughter accomplish these Toranic requirements (the Texan Qaraites are quite the experts in it and the traditional Qaraites of Egyptian extraction have their own ways), so don't tell me we all need the "oral" law's guidance or regulations to slaughter as commanded.
Hope this comment will be approved for display...
First I would like to say sorry for the delay, I do not go on the computer a lot so I am sorry if my response is delayed.
You began your comment with no proof whatsoever. Please show me the sefer in which the Rambam makes such a claim before we take your word for it! Amazing how the Rambam a great Torah sage made such an error in the dates of prophets and famous scribes!
Let us look at some examples of the oral law. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity. He asked them the following two questions (Haggai 2:12-13): "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?... If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?" The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah. How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition?
Next you decide to make the claim that the oral law is a great form of misinterpretation, however you never offer any proof of this. You merely make a claim, and then label it a “passage out of context” while you can offer no proof of this, but instead just claim that this is not the intended meaning.
How about this? (Paraphrased from Torat Emet) For a text to be perfect, by definition, it must be totally unambiguous and not require any supplementary information to be understood. Since the Torah is called perfect (Psalms 19:8), the Torah must not have any ambiguities. However, it does have ambiguities. Many passages are understood differently by many different peoples, and religions! How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity? Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect.
(ibid) Plus, it is impossible to read and understand the words of the Torah and Tanakh without a tradition concerning the vowelization and punctuation of the words. A simple reading of the text requires an oral tradition! Since the only existing tradition regarding the text includes a tradition about the concepts and laws, one who accepts the vowelization and punctuation must also accept the oral law. It is contradictory and ignorant to recognize the oral tradition only partially.
Some Questions:
1.) What does the Torah mean when it says (Exodus 12:2) "This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months"? To which months is this referring? Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)? Solar months or lunar months? Without an oral tradition, there is no way to know to what this verse is referring. This, by the way, seems to alleviate the issue of counting January as the first month. Since the verse is referring to lunar months, there is no prohibition to count January as the first solar month.
2.) Furthermore, when the Torah (Lev. 3:17) says "It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood", what exactly is fat? Are there different types of animal fat, some which are permitted and some which are forbidden? How are these fats differentiated?
Also, when the Torah forbids certain birds (Lev. 11:13-19), does that mean that all other birds are permitted? Or are there sign for birds like there are for animals (Lev. 11:2-8)? How can anyone know whether biblical law permits or forbids eating ducks, geese, and turkeys?
3.) When the Torah (Ex. 16:29) says "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day" to what place is this referring? Does it mean his home, his property if he has more than one home, his neighborhood, his city, or something else? In fact, Isaiah (66:23) says "It shall be that at every New Moon and on every sabbath all mankind will come to bow down before Me - said the L-rd" which implies that people will leave their homes on the sabbath and go to worship the L-rd. Evidently, Isaiah did not understand this verse in Exodus as the simple reading would have it.
The sections of Exodus (ch. 21) and Deuteronomy (ch. 21-25) that deal with monetary and physical crimes do not seem to contain enough information to formulate a working legal system. How can a court legislate with so few guidelines? Certainly, for courts to function based on biblical law there must have been more information given in the form of an oral law.
4.) How does one fulfill the biblical commandments of circumcision (Gen. 17:10-14), fringes (Num. 15:38-39), and booths (Lev. 23:42)? There is not enough detail in the biblical directive to know how to fulfill these commandments properly. What are fringes? What is a booth? How much and where must be cut off in circumcision? The biblical text is too silent to enable following these commandments unless there was an oral explanation.
5.) R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran points out that the Torah tells us that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges. Jethro then told Moses (Ex. 18:20) "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow." What does that mean? If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges. What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law?
6.) R. Yehudah HaLevi points out that Daniel (Dan. 6:11) risked his life to pray. However, nowhere in the written Torah do we see a commandment to pray. While there is argument regarding the source of the obligation to pray and whether there is an obligation to risk martyrdom for prayer, the question remains -- how did Daniel know whether or not to offer his life for this commandment? Without an oral law to explain the details of martyrdom, there is no way of determining when and where to become a martyr and when not to.
Now consider the following passage. From (Jeremiah 26:20-21)
"There was also a man prophesying in the name of the L-rd, Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, who prophesied against this city and this land the same things as Jeremiah. King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard about his address, and the king wanted to put him to death. Uriah heard of this and fled in fear, and came to Egypt."
Let’s see: Uriah was scared for his life so he fled to Egypt. However, the Torah says in three separate places (Ex. 14:13; Deut. 17:16, 28:68) that it is forbidden for a Jew to return to Egypt. How did Uriah know that his action was permitted? Even to save his life, how did he know that it is permissible to violate a biblical commandment to save his life if not through an oral tradition?
Now to “meat and milk”.
The Torah does not say "in its mother's milk". In the Hebrew original it can just as easily be read "in its mother's fat". It is only the Oral tradition that tells us to read it as milk. And it is that same oral tradition that tells us the full extent of that law.
The concept of dishes is actually written in the Torah, albeit not in the context of Milk and Meat. The Torah does state clearly that dishes take on the same status as the food they were used for (for footnote: Leviticus 6:21). Hence if a dish was used for meat, it takes on the status of meat and cannot be used with dairy.
I mean, in all honesty, does it really make sense to say it was some kind of conspiracy? Are we to believe that from the day Moses gave the Jews the Torah they were eating all meat with dairy, except for young animals in their mother's milk, and then one day a bunch of pious scholars sat down and said "hey, what the heck, let's prohibit all meat and dairy"?
And if that is not a ludicrous theory in its own right, are we really to believe that the “stiff necked” Jewish community, including the hundreds of thousands of analytical scholars of any given era, wouldn't call their bluff?
Now to “adding” as you put it, by the Rabbi’s.
The Rambam writes:
The Rabbinical Courts maintain the right to issue decrees and forbid that which is [biblically] permitted, and these prohibitions stand for perpetuity. They are also entitled to temporarily lift Torah prohibitions. So what is the meaning of the Torah's prohibition: "You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it"?
[Rather, the intent of this prohibition is that we] not add on the words of the Torah nor subtract from them, and permanently establish [the addition or subtraction] as part of the Scriptures. This [prohibition] applies both to the Written Law as well as the Oral Tradition [transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai].
For example: It is written in the Torah, "Do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." The Oral Tradition explains that this verse forbids cooking and consuming meat and milk -- both the meat of domesticated and undomesticated animals -- but the meat of foul may be eaten with milk according to the law of the Torah.
If a Beth Din will arise and will permit the consumption of undomesticated animals with milk -- this is subtracting [from the words of the Torah]. If the beth din forbids the consumption of the meat of foul [together with milk], saying that it is included in the word "kid" -- this is adding [on the words of the Torah].
If, however, the [Beth din] says, "the meat of foul is permitted [together with milk] according to the Torah, however we are forbidding it, and will notify the public that this is a decree which will prevent [the following catastrophe]: People might say that '[just as] meat of foul is permitted because it is not stated explicitly in the verse, so too the undomesticated beast is permitted because it, too, is not stated explicitly.' And another might say, 'also the meat of a goat is permitted with the milk of a cow or sheep, for only a mother of the same species is mentioned.' And yet another will say, 'also the meat of a goat with goat milk which is not from its own mother is permitted, for the Torah speaks of [cooking meat in] its own mother's [milk].' Therefore we are prohibiting all meat with milk -- even meat of foul." Such a decree is not adding on the Torah, rather it is creating a fence surrounding [and protecting] the words of the Torah.
To summarize:
The prohibition only applies only if a person were to come along and say that G-d told him to add another commandment to, or subtract one from, the existing 613.
Sir, you're engaging in extensive hair splitting but I don't want to get into a protracted argument. I know Hebrew quite well and some of your claims that the original "in its mother's milk" can also mean "in its mother's fat" and that "Helev [Fats}" are "Fat[s]" in English betray a certain lack of proficiency in biblical Hebrew on your part.
Meanwhile I suggest you procure a copy of The Five Books of Moses by Everett Fox, the best Khumash translation to date and forget your Artscroll, JPS or whatever you've relied on.
I haven't found the name of the book wherein Rambam imparted us the "oral" law's Chain of Transmission, yet Pinhas the High Priest (Aharon's grandson) along with 70 elders (who died in the first half of the 12th century BC at the latest) supposedly passed it down to `Eli the High Priest (who was born in 1148 BC and died in 1050 BC (the date of the defeat at the Even Ha-`Ezer battle) at 98 yrs. old); and the 120 elders living concurrently with `Ezra (and died at the latest in the late 5th century BC) supposedly passed it down to Shim`on the Tzadiq who was born at the earliest in the beginning of the 4th century BC!) -- all impossible...
I'm sure you can find the exact source on your own.
I can go on and on refuting your new claims but I've already "been there, done that, seen it" and with all due respect, I have some other things to do with my time. I've given your post answers and I bid you farewell.
May YHWH bless you and keep you.
Alright, I am sorry you do not have the time to answer the question I posed to you. I stand by my answers to your questions, and I stand by the fact that without the oral tradition of the vowelization of the text, then the overall meaning can be very different. Therefore, you do indeed rely on an oral tradition, just not all of it.
I hope you find truth, and may peace be upon you.
My questions still stand if you ever find the time. I am again sorry for the delay on replying and posting your original comment.
- Blessed Rosh Hodesh to all Jews -
Sir, you probed me for the name of the Sefer wherein the Rambam wrote down the supposed Chain of Transmission for your "oral" law when you didn't and couldn't (and hadn't) prove(n) your claim(s) that "There is obviously a companion of the Written Law, which is of course the Oral Law."
You should hold yourself to the same standards you hold Qaraites, otherwise there's no point in a real debate on the subject matter. Either you acknowledge we Qaraites as worthy of the same respect a Rabbinical Jew is entitled to in your eyes, or there will never be a decent exchange between the two sides of the aisle.
Similarly, when you refuse to learn from your mistakes and/or misconceptions, it's impossible to see the use in an intelligent exchange.
I've seen several folks compare Orthodox Judaism to the Roman Catholic Church, including its patronizing treatment of other Christian denominations which they claim is similar in some important aspects to how Orthodox Judaism treats other Jewish movements, and I'm sorry to realize many times anew that these comparisons hold water.
BTW, I've just found (at last) of curiosity through Google searches that Rambam's included the "oral" law's Chain of Transmission in his introduction to the Mishne Torah. This in turn was authored by Rav Sherira Ga'on (died about 1000 AD).
BTW #2: there was some sort of tradition of vowelization of the text, oral or otherwise. But evidence has mounted proving the vowelization (along with a few other Masoretic feats) was performed by Qaraites. That's right -- the Ben Asher family was Qaraite, and their vowelization tradition is NOT part of the Pharisaic/Rabbinic "oral" tradition.
I don't wish to get into a drawn out dialogue of deafs which has already begun to some extent and in some respects. As far as you're concerned all your claims are correct because you said so and you can't afford to deviate from the tradition you've inherited or were imparted with.
Want answers to your recent questions? Kindly search for them online in Qaraite websites. You've urged me to read Rabbinic musings, so I allow myself to reciprocate by pointing you to Qaraite sources. Reading their arguments would do you good even if your only desire would be to try and figure out how to circumvent them.
~Praise to YHWH~
I’m afraid what your saying is irrelevant. You made a lot of claims in your first comment to the original challenge, yet it was based on the assumption that your literalist, simple way of interpreting the Torah is the correct way. Therefore, what you wrote in reality did not prove anything to anyone who was already not under your main assumption that your method interpretation is correct.
Your answer to my “eye for an eye” challenge was simply that you did not know, and it may have never been enforced. In my opinion that is useless, and not an answer. Practically, the reason people’s eyes have never been poked out throughout Jewish history is because the oral tradition has always taught that the verse does not literally say to chop take out an eye as retribution as a punishment. As for kosher slaughter, you claim when G-d says: “slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the L-rd has given you, as I have commanded you”… “slaughter” in this verse is really referring to two passages (a) blood pouring to the ground, and then (b) covering it with soil. I’m afraid that is not a reference to “SLAUGHTER”, no matter how much expertise Karaite Texans have in slaughtering, please find me a passage in the Torah which is what G-d is referencing when speaking about commanding a certain way to “slaughter”.
I do not care how many “folks” compare Orthodox Judaism and the Roman Catholic Church. The comparison is not only one made in complete ignorance, but reveals the utter foolishness of the individual who claims such a thing.
The vowelization of the text first of all has not been conclusively proven that Ben Asher was indeed a Karaite because why would the Rambam accept his work, as well as the Jewish world at this time, when the communities were distinct and separate? But let us assume that Aaron ben Asher was indeed a Karaite. That is still irrelevant. He worked off of an oral tradition and that tradition is from Moses, unless you believe that G-d gave a perfect, yet very ambiguous Torah which could mean many different things. A perfect guide (Torah) to Jewish life and set of laws; would not be so vague, and indistinct if it were comprehensive with no tradition to go along with it.
I have read many Karaite websites and I am afraid many of the questions I have asked have not been answered. I have already done a search for the first question of many I asked you:
---“When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity. He asked them the following two questions (Haggai 2:12-13): "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?... If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?" The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah. How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition?”--- See: (Rashbatz, Magen Avot Hachelek Ha-philosophi p. 30b)
Anyway, it has been interesting discussing this topic with you, and please come back and comment on any of my blog posts, although I will get very busy soon, so expect delays and do not be so hasty and impatient if comments are not posted right away. (BTW: Where have I “urged” you to read rabbinic writing?)
~ Praised be YHWH's name ~
Firstly, your retort betrays a certain unfamiliarity with the meaning of Pshat exegesis. Some Phshat interpretations *must be* metaphorical rather than literal (e.g. tefillin, mezuzot, and specially the notion of circumcising the foreskin of one's heart in Sefer Devarim) while others are literal like the "eye for eye" interpretation. So no, I'm not a "literalist". Even the rabbis admit that the tefillin "commandments" cannot be derived from the Torah itself through the word "totafot".
Secondly, you may purchase online or consult in a library a booklet entitled "As It Is Written: A Brief Case for Karaism" by Shawn Lichaa, Nehemia Gordon and Meir Rekhavi which may contain some answers for your additional questions.
Thirdly, I did not need rabbis to tell me what "a kid in its mother's milk" meant in the original Hebrew. I simply went by the language's properties and rules. This reminds me of another Rabbinite who had claimed on the Israeli Qaraite website that we knew what the word "`orla" (foreskin) meant in Hebrew thanks to Chazal. In truth, once one attains a reasonable command of Biblical Hebrew, one doesn't need to consult any rabbinic literature to find out what "`orla" or a host of other biblical words mean.
Fourthly, you have NO way of knowing for sure that people's eyes have never been poked in Jewish history before the Mishnah was published, so don't pretend to know what you do not. You're only doing yourself a disservice with such behavior. After all, there MAY have been evidence kept at the huge ancient library in Alexandria (that was ruined in a giant earthquake in the Middle Ages and covered by ocean waters) proving the "eye for an eye" verses were interpreted at some point(s) from 444 BC to maybe 76 BC literally. Same goes for some scrolls from the Dead Sea region that were robbed in the early Middle Ages by antiquity looters -- they may have contained some testimonies proving the "eye for an eye" commandments were kept literally at some point(s). So don't tell me all the evidence hinges on what the "oral" law says on the matter. I know enough Jewish history to buy into these kind of pro-rabbinic arguments.
Fifthly, it is possible that Rambam wasn't aware that Ben Asher was a Qaraite and that could explain why he accepted his work. Either that or Rambam took the best on Tanakh vowelization from whomever it came.
Now you're back to making unsupported assertions when you insist Ben Asher worked off of an oral tradition that came from Moses when you have no way of knowing for sure it did. Maybe Moses' supposed tradition was based on some other vowelization system like the Babylonian or the Eretz Yisra'el one as opposed to Ben Asher's Tiberian system? If another vowelization tradition had been adopted you'd be making the same unsubstantiated claim.
In any event, I stand by my claims at this thread, including the contention that there are some points of similarity between the Roman Catholic Church's ignoble attitudes toward other Christian denominations and Orthodox Judaism's negative attitudes and treatment of other Jewish movements like Qaraism. What else is there to conclude when the Rabbis have resorted against Qaraism to various heavy handed tactics over a millennia, including strong arm tactics like forcing them out of a country in collusion with gentile authorites as in Spain, lies ("hanging Tzitzit on the walls", "wearing tefillin right between the eyes", slander, bearing false witness (see for examples http://orahsaddiqim.org/Resources/Myths_About_Karaism_Lies_and_Misconceptions.shtml) and referring to Qaraite greats wishing them "May his/their name be blotted" and "May the name of a wicked rot". In a certain sense, Rabbinites who refer to the "Qaraite issue" and purport to know what they talk about but are ignorant of such facts are in no position to lecture others about utter foolishness. And to deny those uncomplimentary facts about Orthodox Judaism's attitudes toward Qaraites is worse than being completely stupid; it's downright vicious.
Lastly, your reference to Haggai testing the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity and other Halakhic issues doesn't prove the existence of the "oral" law known to us from the Mishnah and subsequent Rabbinic corpuses. There may have been *certain traditions* in existence at that time (or at other times pre-Mishnah), either written OR ORAL. Or the priests' replies were made on the spot. But the priests' replies certainly do not prove the existence of the rabbinic "oral" law or the existence of any oral tradition at the time. It's a matter of dealing with logic soundly, sir.
You haven't proven your claim from your original post that "There is obviously a companion of the Written Law, which is of course the Oral Law".
OK, I'm sure you'll say the last word here...
(1) When did I ever mention literalism in reference to tefillin? I was referring to passages which you cannot take metaphorically in regards to the actual language of the text, and therefore, you must interpret it literally by the simple wording. However, you do not take into account traditions or interpretations of the like that you may disagree with, but have always existed since the time of Moshe.
(2) I’ll look for it.
(3) I’m afraid the Torah is ambiguous enough, on enough areas of the text where rabbinic interpretation is needed.
(4) I’m afraid that the burden of proof does not lay on me. Therefore, if eye plucking did indeed happen as retributional punishment in ancient Israel, then the burden is on you to prove it. If no historical records exist of it ever taking place, than history does not assume it was there and we cannot find the records. History holds that it never took place.
(5) I would think the Rambam would know, but even if he did not, Ben Asher, if you believe what we have is the world of G-d today, he must have worked off the oral traditions. Guess work is unacceptable. The Rabbi’s would not have accepted it otherwise.
(6) I’m afraid your comparison of any tactic an Orthodox Jew has done to a Karaite in relation to what the Catholic church has done is out of pure ignorance.
(7) Okay so now you are admitting the possible existence of a tradition that was in all probability oral, however you deny that it could be the “oral tradition” that Orthodox Judaism stands by. Well I am afraid that their replies coincide with our oral tradition and To accept that it was a tradition but blatantly deny that it could have been part of the oral tradition that you so faithfully deny ever existed is not dealing with logic soundly at all!
Post a Comment