According to the Jews, when Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days and nights, God (whom they refer to often as “Hashem” or G-D), he received from God two sources of Jewish belief, practice, law, worship, etc: the written Torah and the explanation of it (particularly the mitzvot) which the Jews call the “oral Torah.”
“Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.” (Pirkei Avot, 1.1)
This concept is so foundational to Judaism that one who rejects it is regarded as a Gentile and an unbeliever (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchos Mamrim, 3:1-2), and that he has no share in the World to Come (Hilchos Teshuva, 3:6-8). Hence, they boldly declare themselves to be in possession of two “Torahs”: “Agnitis, the general, asked R. Gamliel: How many Toroth were given to Israel. He answered: Two, one written; the other oral.” (Sifre Deuteronomy, 351:2). And they do stake their entire future spiritual state in heaven or hell upon this study of their laws and traditions. “The Gemara concludes the tractate with a general statement with regard to Torah study. The school of Elijah taught: Anyone who studies halakhot every day is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [halikhot] are eternal” (Habakkuk 3:6). Do not read the verse as halikhot; rather, read it as halakhot. The verse indicates that the study of halakhot brings one to eternal life in the future world.” (Niddah 73a). And this same baraita is also quoted elsewhere in Sotah 22a and Megillah 28b.
And the means by which they twist the Scriptures unto this purpose are quite remarkable, and I have seen Socinians with a better grasp of the divine Word than they. Let us begin with the words of Maimonides:
“The mitzvot given to Moses at Mount Sinai were all given together with their explanations, as implied by [Exodus 24:12]: "And I will give you the tablets of stone, the Torah, and the mitzvah. ‘The Torah’ refers to the Written Law; ‘the mitzvah,’ to its explanation. [God] commanded us to fulfill "the Torah" according to [the instructions of] ‘the mitzvah.’ ‘The mitzvah" is called the Oral Law.” (Maimonides, Introduction to Mishneh Torah)
Three different terms being used here in no way implies a distinction between them with regard to their proper form and substance, any more than using the terms “sin” and “iniquity” posits a division of genus or species between them, which is what Maimonides in effect does with this verse. Even Ibn Ezra rejects this absurd exposition, saying “In my view, 'Torah' in this passage refers to the first and fifth commandments of the Decalogue; but 'Mitzvah' refers to the remaining eight." However, my main purpose in this beginning section is to extract the Jews’ concept of the orale lege based on their own rabbinical writings, and to offer responses in between. The fuller reasons for the Church’s rejection of the Mishnah and Talmud as the law of Moses shall be more fully opened later on, Lord willing.
And it is this oral Torah which is perhaps the foundational pride of the Jews in their boasting of external godliness while, of course, denying the power thereof and violently persecuting the Church of God. “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (1 Thess. 2:14-16) And what is the foundation of their wicked hatred of Christ and us Christians? A chief one indeed, is that they forsake the commandments of God for the sake of their rabbinical law (Mark 7:8), comprised primarily in the Mishnah and Talmud. And as we will see, give more heed unto it than to the real words of Moses and the prophets whom they persecuted. And we may see from their own words how they boast themselves upon this oral law. For hear what the Talmudist and rabbi Hayyim ben Bezalel (d. 1588) said;— “The Talmud is shown respect only by Israel and likewise, Israel is shown respect by the Blessed God only on account of the Oral Torah which is the most conspicuous and prominent sign that distinguishes Israel from the peoples...That is why we are accustomed to conclude each tractate with the words ‘our honour is upon you and your honour is upon us.’ Indeed, there is nobody who turns his mind to the Oral Torah – may it not be forgotten, God forbid -- apart from us, and that is why ‘we are mindful of You’ (da’atan alakh). Similarly, the Oral Torah is that which protects Israel and that is why it is called ‘Gemara’ which is shorthand for Gabriel, Michael, Raphael and Uriel. In other words, a divine angel is stationed in protective stance around the one who studies Gemara: Mishael on the right, Gabriel, on the left, Uriel in front and Raphael behind him and over his head the Shekhinah of God which which is crowned with the words of the sages- and this is what is meant by ‘You are mindful of us’, i.e. your providential care is extended over us. And since Israel and the Oral Torah are two twin gazelles it is right that they should not be taken away from each other in this world nor in the world to come. And since the Talmud is only sufficiently loved and esteemed by keepers of Torah but not by those who lurk in street corners we acknowledge that our portion is among the keepers of Torah and not among those who lurk in street corners.” (Sefer Ha-Chayyim, Part 1, ch. 2 [Cracow, 1593], fol. 5a)
According to the Jews, the standard format of the giving of the Law was that God gave the mitzvot to Moses, but He also explained and interpreted them to him. These explanations were not written down, but passed on to Joshua, Aaron, the 70 elders, and the people of Israel in a very precise manner (according to the Gemara). In terms of the written Torah, Moses wrote 13 scrolls, giving one to each of the tribes, and one to the Levites (Bava Batra 16a). From the beginning, the Talmudists claim, there was a strict ban on writing down this tradition: “But didn’t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Those who write halakhot are considered like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from written halakhot does not receive the reward of studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send halakhot in letters…And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the command “write you these words” serves to emphasize that these words, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.” (Temurah 14b)
Of the written Torah, there have traditionally been counted 613 mitzvot (commandments). There are 248 positive commandments, and 365 negative commandments (prohibitions). The rabbis say that the number 248 corresponds to the number of limbs in the human body, and the number 365 corresponds to the number of days in the year. Maimonides enumerates all of the commandments in the introduction to Mishneh Torah.
The Jews cite many instances from the written Torah in order to prove the valid existence of a distinct authoritative oral Torah. For example, the use of the plural וְהַתּוֹרֹת֒ (“commandments”) in Lev. 26:46, and the reference to the laws on slaughter to produce kosher meat (Deuteronomy 12:21), and yet no such laws, they claim, appear in the written Torah. Responses to these examples and others like them will be given later. There are also some laws in their Oral Torah which do not have any textual link in the written Torah, and these are known to them as Halachah leMoshe miSinai. These types of laws are also not able to be deduced by the rules of exegesis or sevarah (such as the rules of Rabbi Ishmael). Generally, they are accepted by the Jews merely in virtue of them being handed down through tradition. “Only that which is not hinted at in Scripture, which is not associated with it, which is impossible to be extracted from the written Torah through any means of analysis, is designated by the special term Halachah l’Moshe miSinai.” (Maimonides, Introduction to the Talmud, trans. Zvi Lampel [New York: Judaica Press, 1975], pg. 84)
Ironically enough, the Jews give the title of Halachah leMoshe miSinai to some of their own rabbinic traditions. The Tosefta states— “Thus I received from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, he received it from the Pairs, and the Pairs from the prophets, from Moses, a law from Sinai, that Amon and Moab they tithe the poor tithe in the seventh year!” (Yadayim 2:7). This is certainly a law of the Rabbis, since the Torah only obliges to tithe crops from the land of Israel. In their arrogant vanity, the Jews ascribe it to Moses simply because it is allegedly “beyond doubt” (Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel, Hilchot Mikvaot, 1). One such possible criticism of Maimonides is based on his claim that halachah leMoshe miSinai are beyond any controversy, and yet the Talmud does record such disputes over laws under this classification; a full of list of which may be found if one wishes to consult Rabbi Yair Chayim Bacharach (1638-1702) in Chavot Yair, Responsum 192. There are also instances in which laws classified halakha leMoshe miSinai do have a textual link in the written Scripture (Shabbat 103b; Eruvin 4b).
As we will argue more in-depth later, the oral Torah is a concept that finds its gradual origination in Pharisaic and Rabbinic Judaism, particularly shortly after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. It constituted a means of sanctioning rabbinic authority over the Jews in matters of law, with the notion that such laws themselves could be traced all the way back to Moses (Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Making of the Mishnah and Talmud,” in eds. Sharon Liberman & Gabriel M. Goldstein, Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein [Yeshiva University, 2005], pg. 5; Jacob Neusner, “Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before A.D. 70: The Problem of Oral Transmission,” Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 22 [1971], pgs. 1-18). In this paper, Neusner says “the Pharisees of the rabbinic tradition were innovators who paid no attention to the forms of biblical literature.” (pg. 12) I am compelled to agree with him!
Of what is the Jew’s Torah shebaal-Peh comprised? What is its substance and constituents? It is quite comprehensive according to them, such that the entire rabbinic body of law and aggadah were given to Moses. The insanity of such a claim (and the many contradictions resulting therefrom, of which we shall discourse later) is recognized by a few of them, so that they try to mitigate what was really included in it, such as R. Moshe Chaim Luzatto, maintained that it was only the rules and principles from which the future halakhah was to be derived that was given, rather than the rabbinical laws themselves. The first of these principles is true indeed and taught in the Talmud, but we shall see that much more is claimed to have been given to Moses at Sinai than just that. So then, we begin with the first division: According to the Talmud, the principles of hermeneutics and exegesis were given to Moses at Mount Sinai:
“And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba further said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the mountain” (Deuteronomy 9:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Moses on the mountain all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Torah; and all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Scribes, the early Sages; and also all the new halakhot that the Scribes were destined to introduce in the future in addition to the laws of the Torah. And what is it specifically that the Scribes would introduce in addition to the laws of the Torah? The reading of the Megillah.” (Megillah 19b)
“Write for yourself these matters,” that is what is written: “I write for him the many teachings of My Torah, but they are regarded as foreign” (Hosea 8:12). When the Holy One blessed be He revealed Himself at Sinai to give the Torah to Israel, He said it to Moses in order: Bible, Mishna, Talmud, and aggadah, as it is stated: “The Lord spoke all these matters” (Exodus 20:1); even what a student asks his teacher, the Holy One blessed be He said to him at that time.” (Shemot Rabbah 47:1)
Concerning these principles of exegesis, it is generally accepted by the Jews that these were the 13 principles ascribed to Rabbi Ishmael (which are similar in many ways to those of Hillel and Rabbi Akiva). However, some rabbinists have suggested other principles which are now lost or unknown to us in the present day which were handed down by their sages: “They either employed secret methods of interpretation, which we do not know, which were handed down to them together with the thirteen middot…” (Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi, Khuzari, Book III, §73)
“It is impossible for the Torah of God to have covered all possible cases that may ever arise, because the new situations that constantly arise in human affairs, in law, and as a result of human enterprise are so manifold that a book cannot encompass them. Therefore, general principles, which the Torah only briefly suggests, were revealed orally to Moses at Sinai, so that the halakhic authorities of every generation would use them to derive new laws.” (Rabbi Joseph Albo, Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, 3:23)
As already noted, some of the later rabbis teach that the nation of Israel did not receive the entirety of the oral Torah at Sinai. Rather, Moses received it all at once and transmitted some of it, but not all. The rules and principles of rabbinic exegesis were given in order for the Jews to continue to “rediscover” the oral Torah down through the generations (Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, Tiferet Yisrael, ch. 68). Hence, they also say that in order to fulfill the commandment of Torah study with regard to their oral law, one must understand the ideas contained in it without necessarily grasping every word. “Therefore, every unlearned person recites the blessing over Torah in the morning before saying verses, and likewise when called up to the Torah for an aliyah. In what case is this true? Regarding the Written Torah. But in the Oral Torah, if a person does not understand the explanation, it is not considered learning at all. Nevertheless, a person should still engage in the entire Torah, even in matters that he cannot understand. In the future, he will merit to understand and attain all the Torah he studied in this world — even if he did not comprehend it at the time due to the limitations of his intellect.” (Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Hilchot Talmud Torah, 2:12-13)
However, this does not seem to be the most honest interpretation of their own texts. Rather, it seems that everything was given to Moses, but some was forgotten and then reinstituted: “The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish follows his line of reasoning stated elsewhere, as Reish Lakish said: I am the atonement for Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons, as initially, when some of the Torah laws were forgotten from the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, Ezra ascended from Babylonia and reestablished the forgotten laws. Parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, and Hillel the Babylonian ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. When parts of the Torah were again forgotten in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons ascended and reestablished the forgotten sections. This expression of deference toward Rabbi Ḥiyya introduces the halakha that Reish Lakish is citing in his name.” (Sukkah 20a). However, see the Talmudic commentary of Rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham of Seville (whom the Jews call “Ritva”): “And that which it says, ‘It was forgotten and Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons went up and reestablished it’ — we do not find that the Torah was actually forgotten in the generation of Rabbi Ḥiyya, for in his generation lived Rabbeinu HaKadosh (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) and his colleagues, who were among the greatest of Israel. Rather, he said this on account of what they innovated in that particular halakhah — that whoever upholds even a single halakhah so that it not be forgotten, it is as if he has established the entire Torah. And included in his words as well is that such people are worthy of being called ‘founders’ due to the power of their remembrance, as it says in the chapter HaSocher et haPoalim (Bava Metzia 85b): ‘I act to ensure that Torah will not be forgotten from Israel.’” (Ritva on Sukkah 20a)
And describing the Mishnah and Talmud, Rabbi Bahya ben Asher wrote “And these six orders are the very Oral Law (תורה שבעל פה).” (Kad Ha-Kemah, fol. 77, col. 3)
Upon Megillah 19b, Rabbi Menachem HaMeiri (1249-1315) writes, “And what is [the meaning of] that which is written: ‘And [God commanded] upon them all the words’ (Exodus 24:7)? We derive from the word "upon them" (עֲלֵיהֶם) that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses on Mount Sinai: the fine details (דקדוקי) of the Torah, the fine details of the Scribes (דקדוקי סופרים), and that which the Sages were destined to innovate in the future. And what is an example of this? The reading of the Megillah (Mikra Megillah).”
With regard to the actual writing of the Torah by Moses, there was a disagreement amongst the Amoraim (Gittin 60a). Rabbi Yochanan said that Moses wrote separate scrolls at different times, while R. Shimon ben Lakish says that it was written all at once. Jewish tradition records that Moses wrote a Torah scroll for each of the tribes (Devarim Rabbah 9:9), and that it was written on stones once the Jews entered the Promised Land (Deut. 27:8).
Maimonides summarizes the transmission of the tradition as follows: The oral Torah was taught by Moses to Joshua, Aaron (and his sons), and the 70 elders of Israel (Eruvin 54b). According to this portion of the Gemara, Aaron would have heard it 4 times, his sons would have heard it 3 times, the 70 elders heard it twice, and the whole nation of Israel heard it once. Joshua taught the oral Torah to the 70 elders, and they taught it to Eli and Pinchas. Samuel received the tradition and taught it to David, and David taught to Achiah of Shiloh (Bava Batra 121b). Elijah received the law from him and taught it to Elisha, and Elisha taught it to Yehoyada the priest. Zechariah received the oral Torah and passed it down to the prophet Hosea, who then taught it to Amos, who taught it to Isaiah. The prophet Isaiah then handed the oral Torah down to Micah, who taught it to Joel. Joel and his court gave the tradition to Nahum, who then taught it to Habbakkuk. Zephaniah received the oral Torah from Habbakuk, and then told it to Jeremiah. Baruch heard the oral Torah from Jeremiah and passed it down to Ezra. This was around the time of the destruction of the first temple (586 BC). According to some rabbis, the Great Assembly composed a text with rabbinical laws and traditions which later became the basis for the Mishnah.
The last surviving member of Ezra’s Great Assembly was the priest Simeon the Righteous. He gave the oral Torah to Antignos of Socho. After this time, the oral Torah was passed down by a pair of rabbis known as the zugot, the primary leader of which was known as the Nasi (“prince”), and his apprentice was called the Av Bet Din. I have put the pairs in the following chart:
Hillel and Shammai are the heads of the famous rabbinical schools named after them, and they often had disagreements with each other with regard to matters of the Jewish halakhah (some of which will be discussed elsewhere). Maimonides tells us that they passed down the oral Torah to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who had five students which received the oral Torah from him. Rabbi Akiva received the tradition from Rabbi Eliezar the Great, and Akiva then taught the oral Torah to Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Meir. One of the colleagues of Rabbi Meir was Rabbi Shimon (the son of Hillel the Elder), who taught the oral Torah to Rabban Gamaliel II.
Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi received the oral Torah from Rabbi Shimon and from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamu'a. As is well known, Judah ha-Nasi was the one who composed the Mishnah around the year AD 189. Judah ha-Nasi taught the Mishnah to various different sages. One of his students, Rabbi Yannai, taught the oral Torah to Rav. And Shmuel received the oral Torah from R. Chanina ben Chama.
Another student of R. Judah ha-Nasi was Rabbi Chiya, who composed the Tosefta. Rabbi Hoshaia and bar Kafra composed baraitot to explain the matters [discussed in] the Mishnah. Rabbi Yochanan composed the Jerusalem Talmud in Eretz Yisrael approximately three hundred years after the destruction of the Temple.
Rav Hunna received the oral Torah from Rav, Rabbi Yochanan, and Shemuel. Rabbah received the tradition from Rav Hunna, who then taught it to Rabbah. Ravva received the tradition from Rabbah, who then taught to Rav Ashi, the main collator of the Talmud (Bavli). Ravina and Rav Ashi together were the final generation of the Amoraim.
More information will be given in other sections as to the formation and compiling of the Mishnah and Talmud.
Why was the oral Torah not committed to writing early on? Because there would not be enough books to contain all of the necessary mitzvot and their proper explanations (Eruvin 21b). Another reason is that the Torah is a living and yet unchanging document whose laws will always need to be interpreted and explained for new circumstances which may arise. Rabbi Joseph Albo: “This interpretation of the written law which Moses transmitted to Joshua and Joshua to his successors, is called the oral law, because this interpretation can not be in writing, else the same uncertainty of which we spoke would attach to this writing as to the first, and we should require an interpretation of the interpretation, and so on without end. Thus the Mishnah, which is an interpretation of the written Torah, gave rise to doubt and confusion and required another interpretation, namely the Talmud, which Rab Ashi composed to explain the Mishnah. The Talmud, in turn, which is an interpretation of the Mishnah, required another interpretation, and so there is a multiplicity of commentaries on the Talmud and a variety of opinions, and the same is true of the commentaries. It is clear, therefore, that the written Torah can not be perfect unless it is accompanied by this oral interpretation, which is called the oral law.” (Sefer HaIkkarim, III:23)
I ask plainly: if there is always a need for new commentaries on this oral Torah, and for commentaries upon those commentaries, then I dare question whether the Mishnah and Talmud ever serve their claimed purpose at all, in terms of attempting to explain and apply the written Torah? Does it not rather muddy the waters beyond all hope of the Jews ever being able to observe all 613 mitzvot properly?
A third reason is that it maintains the uniqueness and peculiarity of the Jews as a people in that they have many laws which are unwritten (Bamidbar Rabbah, 14:10). A final reason to be listed for our purposes is that oral transmission generally requires greater effort towards precision in the process of transmitting the oral Torah (Ritva, Gittin 60b). Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (1785-1865), in his intro to Hakketav Vehakkabbalah, once said the the oral Torah is analogous to the human soul in that both are too sublime and “above” us to be comprehended in a physical way (such as the body or written text), but are infinite and like a bottomless ocean which may continue to be discovered.
So strict were the rabbis in their vain commitment to keep the tradition oral that it is said of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that he felt afraid during the night due to an incident in which he one time read a scroll containing the aggadah (Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 16:1). Though this strong element did indeed exist (Gittin 60b), Hermann Strack argues that a settled ban of this nature upon writing down the oral tradition came into standard rabbinical thought as late as the 3rd century AD (Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash [T&T Clark Ltd., 1991], pgs. 34-44), and therefore may not be as early as many think:
[1]. The Jerusalem Talmud mentions books of Aggadah (Shabbat 16:1), the writers of which were recommended to have their hands amputated.
[2]. A document which the rabbis refer to as Megillat Taanit, the “Scroll of Fasting.” (Eruvin 62b; Ta'anit 2.8).
[3]. Scrolls of genealogies (Megillat Yuhasin). See Yebamot 49b.
[4]. In the house of Rabbi Hiyya, Rav found a megillat setarim which contained halakhic rulings of Rabbi Issi ben Yehudah (one of the tannaim). The Gemara said “As Rav says: I found a concealed scroll, a document that lists halakhot in shortened form so that they will not be forgotten. Rav discovered this document in Rabbi Ḥiyya’s house, and it was written in it: Isi ben Yehuda says that with regard to the verse: “When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard then you may eat grapes until you have enough at your own pleasure” (Deuteronomy 23:25), the verse is speaking of the entry of any person who passes alongside a vineyard, not only a laborer.” (Bava Metzia 92a).
[5]. The oldest remaining halakhic text is an inscription from the Rehob synagogue in the Beth Shean Valley. It dates to the 7th century (Hermann Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, pg. 37).
[6]. In chapters 49 and 50 of the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees, extensive laws concerning the celebration of the Passover and sabbath observance are enumerated, with great detail.
“They were not allowed to write it down. Either a law was enacted about this, or it was not. If it was, it was not a sin to write it down at any time. However, if not, then the Talmudic rabbis sinned. By imposing restrictions due to the circumstances of the time, they treated it as a sin for some but not for others, despite the fact that others in the past also suffered the same severity, and it was not considered a sin.” (Johannes Hoornbeeck, Teshuvat Yehudah)
Interestingly enough, the Talmud seems to indicate that parts of the oral rabbinic tradition which allegedly trace back to Moses were at times forgotten, particularly in the 30 days of mourning for Moses’ death! The Jews claim without any biblical basis that these laws were rediscovered by Othniel, the son of Knaz.
“The Gemara objects: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: Three thousand halakhot were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses. This suggests that the Sages who came immediately after Moses did not study Torah in the same manner as Moses. The Gemara answers: Those halakhot that they forgot, were forgotten, but with regard to those halakhot that they studied, they would continue to study in the manner of Moses, our teacher.” (Temurah 15b)
“It is taught in a baraita: One thousand and seven hundred a fortiori inferences, and verbal analogies, and minutiae of the scribes were forgotten during the days of mourning for Moses....Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Just before the time when Moses, our teacher, left this world and went to the Garden of Eden, he said to Joshua: Ask from me all the cases of uncertainty in matters of halakha that you have, so that I can clarify them for you. Joshua said to him: My teacher, did I ever leave you for even one moment and go to another place? Didn’t you write this about me in the Torah: “But his minister, Joshua, son of Nun, a young man, did not depart out of the tent” (Exodus 33:11)? If I would have had any case of uncertainty I would have asked you earlier. Immediately after he said this, Joshua’s strength weakened, and three hundred halakhot were forgotten by him, and seven hundred cases of uncertainty emerged before him, and the entire Jewish people arose to kill him, as he was unable to teach them the forgotten halakhot” (Temurah 16a)
In their misplaced reverence for their rabbinic teachings, the Jews dishonor and slander the inspired written Torah given by God. Hence, the words of our Lord - “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such things ye do.” (Mark 7:8).
In the introduction to Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy wrote “The verses of the Torah often contradict each other. The oral Torah frequently resolves these apparent contradictions.”. Again, the French rabbi and Tosafist Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d. 1280) said "Do not think the foundation is the written Torah. On the contrary, the foundation is the oral Torah. For according to the oral Torah the covenant was made, as it is written (Exod. 34:27), ‘According to these words I have made a covenant with you’—and these are the treasures of the Holy Blessed One." (Sefer Mitzvot Katan [also called Amunei Torah], fol. 39)
Some of the Jews even admit of their own accord that the written Torah does not actually teach any concept of an oral Torah. Here is one such example:
“The fact is that the written Torah contains no direct documentary evidence of the truth of the orally transmitted Torah. Yet an entire nation has joyfully committed the preservation of its existence during more than 3,000 years to this authority.” (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 1, pg. 97)
Indeed, it takes an incredible amount of blind faith to believe in the oral Torah. The rabbinic contention of their traditions going all the way back to Mount Sinai relies on a very shaky foundation: “Does the present literature contain exact replica of sayings originally formulated orally and transmitted orally? It is to be admitted, as has been noted earlier, the Hillel traditions and nearly the whole corpus of Houses do exhibit mnemonic patterns. But whether the transmitted pericopae derive from originally oral materials is a question that cannot be settled, one way or the other, by the character of materials which we now have only in written form. Since, apart from Yavneh, there is no reference to the manner in which materials were formulated, the contents of the traditions themselves supply no help. They certainly do not prove that they are the first written version of until then orally transmitted data.” (Jacob Neusner, “The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before AD 70: The Problem of Oral Transmission,” Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. 22 [1971], pg. 7). Unlike in other nations and cultures in which oral transmission was protected from the beginning by a set class who worked for that very purpose, the rabbinic tradition only had the tanna beginning from the time of Rabbi Akiva. The Qumran community, for example, wrote down the majority of its traditions. We do know both from our Lord Jesus Himself, and from Josephus and Philo, that the Pharisees were quite unique in their practice of oral tradition which they obviously regarded as authoritative.
“For the present I wish merely to explain that the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducean group, who held that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down [in Scripture], and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed…” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13:277-78)
“Children ought to inherit from their parents, besides their property,
ancestral customs which they were reared in and have lived with even from the cradle, and not despise them because they have been handed down without written record.” (Philo of Alexandria, The Special Laws, ch. 4)
As Neusner notes throughout his paper, the status quaestionis is not about whether second-Temple era Jews passed down traditions orally, but whether it was only oral, and whether there can a level of ipsissima-verba-certainty that these same traditions go back to Moses. Rabbi Yehoshua appeals to Yohanan ben Zakkai, but without any fixed oral saying (Mishnah Sotah 5:2, 5). There are even examples in which the Mishnah explicitly records students saying the teachings of their masters differently! “Hillel says: ‘A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.’ (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: ‘Nine kavs.’ But the Sages say: ‘Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;’ But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, ‘Three logs of drawn water render the mikveh unfit,’ the Sages confirmed their statement.” (Mishnah Eduyot 1:3)
Another problem that Neusner points out is that R. Yohanan ben Zakkai is often appealed to (and the appeal to Mount Sinai is also given in these same contexts), but he is never quoted—only alluded to. “Go and tell them, 'Be not anxious by reason of your voting, for I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, as a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai, that Ammon and Moab should give Poorman's Tithe in the Sabbatical Year." (Mishnah Yadayim, 4:3)
“But the sayings of Yohanan never survived in their original form! Eliezer and Joshua alluded to them-but they did not quote them. And Eliezer spoke only when Gamaliel II had been ousted. So if Yohanan's saying had earlier been given fixed form, and if this was done orally, and if it was thereupon taught to Eliezer for memorisation and oral transmission, then that saying nonetheless was not published, for only Eliezer knew about it. And he did not cite a fixed verbal form. The others were in the dark, so had to vote. This pericope hardly conforms to the picture of the oral formulation and transmission of a public tradition, the Oral Torah.” (Jacob Neusner, “Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before AD 70,” pgs. 13-14)
In the section on the production of the Mishnah by R. Judah Ha-Nasi, I will discuss the thesis of Dr. Martin Jaffee which, similar to Neusner, challenges the thesis of an early rabbinic ban on writing before AD 70.
Though they may not say so out loud in front of us Gentiles, it is clear as day that the Jews give more authority to the words of their Rabbis and Sages than they do to the written letter of the Law. There is a well-known story in Bava Metzia 59b in which Rabbi Eliezer called down several miracles from heaven (such as levitating a tree, and the walls caving in) in order to demonstrate the truth of his opinion regarding the ritual purity of the oven of Akhnai. The rest of the Rabbis ruled it to be impure, and insisted that the vote of the majority takes precedence (based on their twisted misinterpretation of Ex. 23:2). In the end, the Talmud writes, God says “It is not in Heaven……My children have defeated me” in response to the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. In that same passage, they also tell fables of miracles performed indirectly by Rabbi Eliezer due to his grief at being ostracized by the other rabbis, saying that his anger destroyed one-third of the world’s crops, and that kneaded dough grew spoiled. In the Gemara, the rabbis appeal to Exodus 23:2 - “after many to incline.” “And isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “To incline after a multitude to pervert justice” (Exodus 23:2)? The meaning is that the Torah is saying to you: Make for yourself a court that is composed of an odd number of judges, that will perforce incline in one direction, so that there will always be a majority that can be followed.” (Sanhedrin 3b) However, if they would but quote the entire verse! “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.”
Regarding this story of the oven of Akhnai, Menachem Elon wrote “The full scope and force of this principle go even further: God Himself, the Giver of the law and its Source, Who made known, as it were, by means of a heavenly voice, that R. Eliezer, although in the minority, was correct as to what the Torah actually intended to say, concedes that those of His children who believe otherwise, but are in the majority, are entitled to prevail even over Him.” (Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, 1:262; emphasis mine).
“Let no one say: I do not observe the ordinances of the elders since they are not from the Torah. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: No, My child! Everything they decree upon you—observe it, as it is said: ‘According to the law which they shall teach you’ (Deut. 17:11). Why? For even upon Me they decree, as it says, ‘You will decree a thing, and it shall be established for you’ (Job 22:28).” (Pesiqta Rabbat, ch. 3)
“Certainly, one should be fearful of stating matters of Torah erroneously, and human wisdom falters in the search for truth…..However, the Torah was not given to ministering angels but to mankind, who are endowed with human reason…God gave us the Torah to administer as human understanding determines it to be, even if that determination falls short of objective truth. Thus, if one brings forth a completely new idea, it need only be true by the measure of human reasoning…Truth should sprout forth from the earth; and the truth is what the halakhic authorities, exercising their human intelligence, agree is true.” (Rabbi Aryeh Leib Heller, Ketzos Ha-Choshen [1785], Preface; emphasis mine)
This absolute rule of the majority is followed in many other topics of the laws of the Jews, and I do not profess to know them all, and I am more than willing to grant that the rabbis may have and likely did make exceptions to this within the halakhah, but that it is a general principle amongst the rabbis seems to me to be beyond doubt, and two passages of the Gemara will suffice for the demonstration of that end: “Rabbi Neḥemya says: Wherever the Torah relies on one witness, follow the majority of opinions. And they established that two women against one woman are like two men against one man. But two women in opposition to one man who is a valid witness is like half of a pair of witnesses and half of a pair of witnesses, and the mishna did not address that case….The Gemara poses a question on these two interpretations of the mishna: And why do I need two cases in the mishna to teach the halakha that the majority opinion of those disqualified from bearing witness is followed? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that when we follow the majority opinion in the case of invalid witnesses, this is when it results in a decision to be stringent and require the performance of the ritual. But when it results in a decision to be lenient and say that the ritual is not required, we do not follow the majority opinion, and the performance of the ritual is required even if there is one witness saying that the killer was not seen. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no difference in this regard, and the majority opinion is followed in any case.” (Sotah 47b); “And on Shabbatot and Festivals, when court is not in session, the members of the court would sit at the rampart. When a question was asked before them, if the members of the court heard a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, they would say it to them, and if not they would stand for a vote on the matter. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually impure outnumbered those who deemed it pure, the court would deem the item impure. If the judges who deemed the item in question ritually pure outnumbered those who deemed it impure, the court would deem the item pure.” (Sanhedrin 88b)
“This is the meaning of the phrase ‘it is not in Heaven’: God Himself agrees with the sages from the outset. That is once the sages have given their ruling, even if they declare right left and left right, it is the law.” (Rabbi Nathan T. Lopez Cardozo, The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction, pg. 78)
“The Torah has commanded the Torah to follow, as the scripture says [Lev. 18:30]: And you shall keep my watch, keep watch for my watch, and our holy rabbis have already made fences and restrictions with nails driven in, the words of the scribes being more severe than the words of the Torah. However, it is not proper to reveal to the common folk the reason for a prohibition—that it is to prevent violation of a Torah law or the like—for someone frivolous might say: ‘I don’t need a safeguard, since it’s not a Torah prohibition.’ These deluded individuals don’t understand that once a prohibition is instituted by the Sages, it is as binding as the Torah itself, due to the commandment ‘Do not stray’ (Deuteronomy 17:11). And even if he doesn’t transgress a Torah law, merely transgressing the words of the Sages alone makes one liable for death and judgment in boiling excrement—God forbid (Eruvin 21b).” (Rabbi Eliezer Papo, Pele Yoetz, 258.1-2)
“For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, 'The halakha is like us,' and the other said, 'The halakha is like us.' A heavenly voice spoke: "These and these are the words of the living God, and the halakha is like the House of Hillel." A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "Both these and those are the words of the Living God," why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel? It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai. Not only for this reason, but they went so far as to teach Shammai's opinions first.” (Eruvin 13b)
The Jews distinguish between biblical and rabbinic laws, and treat the former with more stringency. However, they still believe that decrees of the Sages have the same binding force as what is found in the written Torah. “the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with the severity of Torah law and ruled that their laws cannot be abrogated.” (Ketubot 84a). More concrete examples of this are given by Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, trans. Bernard Auerbach & Melvin J. Sykes [Jewish Publication Society, 1994], 1:215-223.
The Rabbis make God like one of them, in order that in their vanity they may exalt themselves as blind guides (Matthew 23:16-17)—their many blasphemies shall only bring greater damnation upon themselves in hell (Matt. 23:14), where they will suffer with the same Pharisees that nailed our Lord to the cross. Indeed, they punish themselves for not exalting their own pride and “honor” (see Megillah 28a, in which Rabbi Yohanan states that a Torah scholar who lets someone else say the blessing after a meal should be executed!). For example, it said that God spends time in Torah study, and playing with the Leviathan! “Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The day consists of twelve hours. During the first three hours the Holy
One, Blessed Be He, is occupying Himself with the Torah. During the second three He sits in judgment on the whole word, and when He sees that the world is so guilty as to deserve destruction, He transfers Himself from the seat of Justice to the seat of Mercy. During the third quarter, He is feeding the whole world, from the horned buffalo to the brood of vermin. During the fourth quarter He is sporting with the Leviathan, as it is said, ‘There is Leviathan, whom You have formed to laugh with’ (Psalms 104:26).” (Avodah Zarah 3b)
Indeed, the Jews claim that God puts on tefillin as they do (Berakhot 6a), and attends a yeshiva to study the Gemara under Rabbi Eliezer (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:7). Thus, their rabbis are also exempt from taxation and manual labor (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Talmud Torah, ch. 6; Rabbi Joseph Karo, Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah, 243:2), and people must stand up and acknowledge their presence in public (Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah, 244:1-16). Those who are unable to make the study of the Torah their profession must donate money to those who do (Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah, 246:1). In the year of 2013, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published a study which showed in clear daylight how many millions of shekels are made by the Jewish rabbis on a yearly basis. Perhaps these laws and rabbinic traditions concerning how the public ought to treat the Sages were created for their own benefit, and to gratify their insatiable financial greed as the Pharisees did (cf. Matthew 23:14).
Just as there was no prophet of the Israelites which the wicked Jews did not attempt to murder (Acts 7:52), they exalt their Sages above the prophets themselves! Maimonides said “And the Holy-One-Blessed-Be-He did not permit us to learn laws of Torah from the prophets [in their capacity as prophets], but only from the Sages, men of logical sequences and opinions.” (Maimonides, Introduction to the Talmud, trans. Zvi Lampel [New York: Judaica Press, 1975], pg. 63). When the Gemara discussed the question of the impurity of slaughtered animals, R. Yohanan’s opinion gained some controversy to the degree that R. Ammi said “By God, even if Joshua, son of Nun, had said this halakha to me in his name, i.e., from his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.” (Chullin 124a). Concerning the practice of halitzah (whereby a widow is released from the obligations of levirate marriage by taking off the brother’s shoe and spitting), the rabbis are so hell-bent on their own human traditions that the Talmud records— “Rabba said that Rav Kahana said that Rav said: If Elijah the Prophet should come and say: One may perform ḥalitza using a soft leather shoe, the Rabbis would listen to him. But if he says: One may not perform ḥalitza using a hard leather sandal, they would not listen to him, for the people already have established the practice of performing ḥalitza using a sandal.” (Yevamot 102a)
The statements of the Jews and their Sages declaring their contempt of the written law given to Moses are quite numerous, though they may not dare to say such a thing in front of us Christians. I will list a few of these statements here from the Talmudic rabbis to dispel all doubts in the minds of Jews and Christians alike with regard to the idolatrous status to which they have exalted their man-made תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל־פֶּה.
“Rava expounded another verse in similar fashion: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And more than these, my son, be careful: of making many books [sefarim] there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh” [Ecclesiastes 12:12]? My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah. For the words of the Torah include positive and negative commandments, and even with regard to the negative commandments, the violation of many of them is punishable only by lashes. Whereas with respect to the words of the Sages, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: ‘And whoever breaches through a hedge, a snake shall bite him’ (Ecclesiastes 10:8)” (Eruvin 21b)
“In the words of the Torah, he will see the wonders of the Creator, blessed be He, and all His deeds, and in the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, he will see all the aspects of things permitted and things forbidden, and they will provide Him with a fence, and they will not let him break it down or commit a sin. For the words of the Sages are explained and made clear even more than the words of the Torah, for the words of the Torah are obscure and concealed.” (Sefer HaYashar 13:4)
“Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud. And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning.” (Chagigah 10a)
“Happy is the man whose labour is in [the study of] the Shas. Not that he should skip Scripture and the Mishnah and come [direct] to the Shas; but he should learn Scripture and Mishnah with the object of coming to the Shas. Of such a person it is stated, The rich man’s wealth is his strong city, and as a high wall in his own conceit.” (Tractate Soferim, ch. 15)
“Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written (Ex. 34:27): ‘By the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel;’ it follows that the oral traditions are preferred.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 2:4)
“The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted in writing, while the minority was transmitted orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted orally [al peh], while the minority was transmitted in writing, as it is stated with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covenant was taught orally.” (Gittin 60b)
“The Sages taught in a baraita: For those who engage in the study of Bible, it is a virtue but not a complete virtue. For those who engage in the study of Mishna, it is a virtue and they receive reward for its study. For those who engage in the study of Talmud, you have no virtue greater than that. And always pursue study of the Mishnah more than study of the Talmud.” (Bava Metzia 33a) - Upon this passage, Rashi comments, “‘And it is not a proper measure’ — for the Mishnah and the Gemara are more excellent than it (i.e., the written Torah), because they depend on memorization and are liable to be forgotten, since in their days the Gemara was not in writing, nor was it permitted to be written. But because hearts (i.e., intellectual capacities) diminished, the later generations began to write it down.”
“‘Those who engage in Mikra (Scripture) — it is a measure…’— The word measure (midah) is used here to indicate that a person should conduct himself according to this measure. This is clarified by what Maimonides (Rambam) wrote in the first chapter of Hilchot Talmud Torah regarding the statement that a person should divide his Torah study into Scripture, Mishnah, and Talmud. In what case does this apply? At the beginning of a person’s study. But once he has grown in wisdom and no longer needs to study Scripture regularly… he should read from the Written Torah at fixed times, and devote the rest of his days to Talmud, according to the breadth of his heart and clarity of mind." (Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, Chiddushei Agadot, on Bava Metzia 33a)
“At the outset of one's learning; however, when one grows in Torah and no longer needs to learn the Written Torah nor needs to constantly review the Torah She'b'al Peh, he may read as fixed times the Written Torah and the words of Torah She'b'al Peh, so that he doesn't forget one thing from the laws of the Torah, and avail the rest of his days to Talmud alone, to the extent of his abilities and ability to focus.” (Rabbi Joseph Karo, Shulchan Arukh: Yoreh De’ah, 246:4)
It is abundantly clear from all of these sayings that their oral tradition is the foundation of all of their practice, and not the written word. As they themselves admit, “It becomes evident that the rabbis never relied upon any exegesis, even the most elementary, to derive biblical law. The source of law has always been exclusively tradition, nothing else.” (Rabbi Isaac Halevy Rabinowitz, Doros HaRishinom, 1:307). This is true despite the case that some rabbis were given more credence and authority than others. “Every place in the Mishnah where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel gives an opinion, the halachah goes according to him, except for three instances.” (Ketubot 77a).
And they also wallow in their arrogance and pride, doing all things to be seen by others as any hypocrite would! “And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” (Matt. 23:7). Hence, they twist “For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;” (Deut. 11:22) to mean that we are rather to cleave to their sages and rabbis! “It is a positive commandment to associate with Torah scholars so that we may learn from their deeds, as it is said, ‘And cling to Him.’ Is it possible for man to cling to the Divine Presence? Rather our Rabbis of blessed memory explain: ‘Cling to Torah scholars.’ Therefore, a man should make a serious effort to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, and give his daughter in marriage to a Torah scholar, to eat and drink with Torah scholars, and do business with a Torah scholar, and to join hands with them in every possible form of association, for it is written, ‘And cling to Him.’” (Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 29:11). And they even say that a Jew should "make one's home a meeting place for Rabbis, be attached to the dirt of their feet, and drink with thirst their words" (Pirkei Avot, 1:5). And that we must always stand upright in their presence (Makkot 22b), as if they were kings. The sheer amount of Scripture-twisting which is engaged in by the Talmudists would fill up about 37 volumes, if every example were to be given; for that is the number of the volumes in the standard set. I direct the word to a final example: “The Sages taught: The verse states: ‘Justice, justice, shall you follow.’ This teaches that one should follow the best, most prestigious, court of the generation. For example, follow after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil.” (Sanhedrin 32b)
They even expressly say that the Sages are superior to the Prophets! “The scholars [said] in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah, as it is stated: “Your palate is like fine wine.” One who says there are no phylacteries, which contradicts matters of Torah, is exempt; [one who says they have] five compartments, which adds to the words of the scribes, is liable. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi derived it from this: Rabbi Tarfon said: I was [once] coming on the road and I stopped and reclined to recite Shema in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. I endangered myself due to armed robbers. You see, had he refrained from reciting it, he would have merely violated a positive command. Now that he recited it, he is liable to lose his life; that is: The words of the scribes are dearer than matters of Torah. Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Ada said in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Aḥa: They are more stringent than matters of Torah and prophecy; it is written: “Do not preach, they preach” (Micah 2:6). This is analogous to a king who sent his officials to the provinces. Regarding one, he wrote: If he shows you my seal and my insignia, trust him, but if not, do not trust him. Regarding the other one, he wrote: Even if he does not show you my seal and my insignia, trust him. So too, regarding prophecy, it is written: “If a prophet will arise in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:2). Regarding words of the scribes, it is written: “On the basis of the Torah that they will instruct you” (Deuteronomy 17:11); “that the Torah will instruct you” is not written here, but rather, “that they will instruct you.” “And the judgment that they will say to you, [you shall do;] you shall not deviate from the matter that they will tell you, right or left” (Deuteronomy 17:11) – [if they tell you that] the right is the right and the left is the left, heed them; and even if they tell you that the right is the left and that the left is the right.” (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:2)
“But didn’t we learn in a mishna that a court cannot void the statements of another court, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? And furthermore, doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to all issues, a court can void the statements of another court, except the eighteen matters decreed by the students of Beit Shammai, as, even if Elijah and his court were to come and rescind them, one would not listen to him.” (Avodah Zarah 36a)
Even before the days of Christ, the godly saints of the Old Testament are not spared from such ridicule and slander. The primacy of their traditions is so extreme that they believe some parts of Scripture were written only to give credence to the oral law itself! “Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This halakha, until Ezekiel came and taught it, who said it? How can a halakha by Torah law be derived from the juxtaposition of verses in Ezekiel? Rav Ashi responds: And according to your reasoning, then, with regard to this statement that Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this following matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher, until Ezekiel came and taught it to us: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9), until Ezekiel came and taught it, who said it? Rather, this halakha is learned as a tradition and therefore was observed for generations, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse. Here too, this halakha is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.” (Sanhedrin 22b)
Hence also is the statement of Rabbi Avdimi that the spirit of prophecy was given to the Sages after the destruction of the second temple, in order that they may have a fictitious basis upon which to continue binding the consciences of their deceived followers. “Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: “And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy. Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy.” (Bava Batra 12a). Again on the folio 12b of the same tractate: “Rather, Rav Ashi said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai in accordance with his statement. The Sage makes a statement that corresponds to words pronounced in Heaven, which, without prophecy, is beyond human capability. The Gemara states: But perhaps he arrived at this idea by chance, without the assistance of prophecy, like a blind man who makes his way through a skylight. A blind man cannot deliberately find a skylight; therefore, his finding it occurs by chance. The Gemara answers: But does the Sage not offer a reason for his statement? The fact that he demonstrates an understanding of the issue indicates that he does not arrive at his idea by chance, but rather by prophecy.”
From horrible sayings such as these and the like did the idea of “Torah study” become substituted in for faith and repentance as the means by which man becomes righteous in the sight of the Lord. “When the verse states: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8), you must say that he was created for the toil of Torah. And that is the meaning of what Rava said: All bodies are like receptacles to store items until use. Happy is one who is privileged, who is a receptacle for Torah…Rav says: It is as though he built a palace of heaven above and of earth below, as it is stated: ‘And I have placed My words in your mouth, and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand, to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, and say to Zion, you are My people’ (Isaiah 51:16). One who has the word of God placed in his mouth through Torah study has established heaven and earth. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who engages in Torah study also protects the entire world, as it is stated: ‘And I have covered you in the shadow of My hand.’” (Sanhedrin 99b). In the same passage, the Gemara absurdly implies that the main sin of King Manasseh (for which the entire Israelite nation was justly punished by God) was that he “taught flawed Torah interpretations”, rather than child sacrifice — something which the Talmud condones (Sanhedrin 64a) and of which instances occurred in the Middle Ages in which wicked and conniving groups of Jews kidnapped the children of Christians and did things to them of which I dare not write upon here. “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” (Eph. 5:12).
The rabbis also practice what is called a הוראת שעה, Hora’at Sha’ah; — that is, an extraordinary situation in which the rabbis are allowed to suspend the commandments of the Torah. And Maimonides provided two conditions for such a situation to be enforced: 1st, if the suspension of the law is not permanent; 2nd, the suspension of the law is for the overall good of the Jews as a community. “When a prophet — who has already proven himself to be a prophet — instructs us to violate one of the mitzvot of the Torah or many mitzvot, whether they be of a severe or light nature, for a limited amount of time, it is a mitzvah to listen to him.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Yesodei haToreah, 9:3; see also Hilchot Mamrim, 2:4). And in the Talmud, this same tradition is stated: “The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof. The verse states with regard to a true prophet: ‘To him you shall listen’ (Deut. 18:15). From here it is derived that even if the prophet says to you: Transgress one of the mitzvot of the Torah, for example, as in the case of Elijah at Mount Carmel, who brought an offering to God on that mountain during a period when it was forbidden on pain of karet to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple, with regard to everything that he permits for the requirement of the hour, you must listen to him. This indicates that a Torah mitzvah can indeed be uprooted in an active manner.” (Yevamot 90b). And again, "one should desecrate a single Sabbath to save a person’s life and make it possible for him to observe many Sabbaths." (Yoma 85b). And they also override their general prohibition of the pronouncement of the name of God, YHWH, in order that they may greet one another: “The Sages also instituted that one should greet another in the name of God, i.e., one should mention God’s name in his greeting…And lest you say that mentioning God’s name is prohibited, it says: ‘It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah’ (Psalms 119:126), i.e., it is occasionally necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to perform God’s will, and greeting another is certainly God’s will. Rabbi Natan says another interpretation of the verse: ‘Make void Your Torah’ because ‘it is the time to work for the Lord,’ i.e., occasionally it is necessary to negate biblical precepts in order to bolster the Torah.” (Berakhot 54a)
Though we may concede that God has sometimes accommodated or “lessened” His individual laws for the sake of human weakness (as He did for the Israelites in the case of divorce; Matt. 19:8), yet the Talmudists twist it beyond reason and proportion, as they always do. For in such circumstances recorded in Scripture, the prophets had an express command from God to act as they did, as in the case of the sin of Achan (Josh. 7:10-12), — but the Jews and their rabbis have no such authority! For they extend this rule to absurd minutiae, as when it was permitted for Simeon the Righteous to wear garments closely resembling the priestly vestments outside of the temple (Yoma 69a); or when they stoned a man to death that rode a horse on the Sabbath (Yevamot 90b). Upon this text, the Tosafists say such an express from God is not required to suspend the Torah: “And if you ask: That case is different, because the prophet was speaking by Divine command, and how can we derive from there permission to violate (a Torah law) because of a rabbinic ordinance, when it is not by Divine command? It seems that since, by Divine command, it is permitted due to exigency of the moment, then the same should apply even without Divine command.” The problem, of course, is that the Jews debate amongst themselves as to the circumstances and required conditions in a situation which are sufficient to enforce a hora’at sha’ah, rendering it wholly arbitrary!
Perhaps the most egregious instance of the rabbis canceling the Hebrew Scriptures is their institution of the prozbul by Hillel the Elder. The prozbul is a contract which the Jewish leaders instituted (perhaps to satisfy their financial greed) to allow the collection of debts past the Sabbath year, cancelling the institution of God Himself in Deuteronomy 15:1-10, who ordained that all debts would be cancelled (referred to as Shemitah in rabbinic literature) during the Sabbatical year in the Jewish calendar. Hillel instituted this contract under the pretense that it would encourage lenders to give money to poorer Jews. Interestingly, the rabbis exempt themselves from this decree (Maimonides, Hilchot Shemittah, 9:27). The lender will transfer his outstanding claims to the Beit Din, and this will circumvent the forgiveness of those debts. “This is the [text of the] Prozbul: I transfer to you, judges A, B, and C in place X, that all debts owed to me may be collected whenever I wish.” (Shulchan Arukh: Choshen Mishpat, 67:18)
“According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt, and the Sages instituted that it will cancel? It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money. Abaye says: This is not actual theft; it is an instruction to sit passively and not do anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. Rava says: The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless.” (Gittin 36b).
Therefore, it is the view of the Babylonian rabbi Rava that the prozbul overrides the teaching of the written Torah concerning the forgiveness of loans. This works because of the principle of הפקר בית דין הפקר (hefker beit din hefker), which gives the Rabbis the capacity to allocate funds as they see fit, even if Biblically they’d belong to someone else. “For when it comes to monetary matters, there is no true uprooting of a Torah law in the context of a safeguard or fence, for the court has authority to confiscate property.” (Rashi on Gittin 36b)
We now return again, to the broader authority of the Jewish courts. Once the decision of the av bet din was made, it was considered as part of the oral law (or at least a rabbinical “fence” alleged as a protection of the Torah’s laws) and could not reversed except by a greater majority — “The following rules apply when a court issued a decree, instituted an edict, or established a custom and this practice spread throughout the Jewish people and another court arose and sought to nullify the original order and eliminate the original edict, decree, or custom. The later court does not have this authority unless it surpasses the original court in wisdom and in its number of adherents. If it surpasses the original court in wisdom, but not in the number of adherents, or in the number of adherents, but not in wisdom, it cannot nullify its statements. Even if the rationale for which the original court instituted the decree or the edict is nullified, the later court does not have the authority to negate their statements unless they are greater.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Mamrim, 2:2)
There is also an aggadah in the Talmud which brings us much insight into how rabbinic authority and interpretation was understood and reinforced in the Second Temple era, involving Moses and an alleged futuristic vision he had of Rabbi Akiva:
“Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive. Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop [bemakkulin], as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.” (Menachot 29b; emphasis mine)
Though Moses did not know all future legal rules of the Jews, he allegedly knew the principles from which those rulings would be derived. All of the future conflicts of opinion are attributed to a failure to follow rabbinic authority (see Hillel’s statement in Pesachim 66a). We may see here how the Jews contradict themselves and each other as to what was given to Moses in this oral law, since some of them believe that it was only the principles of exegesis that were given, while others may say that the entirety of the Talmudic teachings were given. Which is it, I ask?
According to them, Moses foresaw all of the future disputes over halakhah which would arise amongst the Sages, but he personally would not settle them: “‘These and those are the words of the living God.’ The rabbis of France, of blessed memory, asked: How is it possible that both are the words of the living God, when one prohibits and the other permits? And they answered: When Moses ascended to heaven to receive the Torah, he was shown on every single matter forty-nine arguments for prohibition and forty-nine arguments for permission. He asked the Holy One, blessed be He, about this, and He said that it would be entrusted to the sages of Israel in every generation, and the decision would follow their ruling. And this is correct according to the way of derash (homiletic interpretation). But according to the path of truth (derekh ha-emet), there is a hidden mystical reason (ta'am sod) in the matter.” (Ritva on Eruvin 13b)
No comments:
Post a Comment