By Ariella Golani
When a Biblical commentator or modern prophet writes about his understanding of the Bible, is it possible to evaluate what he/she says? And by what means? What are we to tie too as an unmovable anchor?
Originally the Bible was the measure of truth. (Still is IMHO).
Specifically the Torah. There are several laws in the Torah itself as well as verses in the Tanakh that claim that all truth must be founded first of all on the principles of Torah–That we must not add to nor take from. So how can that be applied in light of an Oral Torah?
So the big question that puts things in focus is whether or not those who came after Moses and the prophets were/are allowed to write stories about the meaning of what is recorded in the sacred writings of the Tanakh. And if we answer yes, then how will those stories be measured as to what is truth? Is it by a qualifying credential from a school of higher learning, be it a yeshiva, or a university? Or do we boil it down the the same thing–Torah as the only Anchor? Basically, does a rabbinic degree allow departure from the written Torah? And how is Oral Torah measured? Midrash? If there is no basic guide other than being an esteemed sage or rabbi, then public reverence is all that is needed to establish truth and if this is the case then we might as well follow the majority, be it in religious matters or politics. And what was that verse that is so badly taken out of context about following the majority? Hey let me get back to that!
I would not argue that scholars from these institutions have nothing to teach us. But what I take exception to is the often clear stepping aside to redefine the laws of the Torah of Moses–Adding to or taking from as is clearly forbidden by the text of Torah itself. Here is what the Bible says it:
Deu 4: “2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye take from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YHVH your God which I command you.”
Deu 12:”32 Everything that I command you, ye shall take heed to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor take from it.”
Jos 1: “7 Only be strong and very courageous, that thou mayest take heed to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded thee. Turn not from it to the right or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.”
Pro 30:”6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
Let’s take as an example, a well-known midrash. It is about Joshua the high priest who was to officiate in the second temple. The story is found in Zechariah 3:1-7:
Zec 3:”1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of YHVH, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 And YHVH said unto Satan, YHVH rebuke thee, O Satan! Yea, YHVH that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee! Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? 3 And Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the Angel. 4 And he spoke and said unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from off him. And unto him he said, See, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I clothe thee with festival-robes. 5 And I said, Let them set a pure turban upon his head. And they set the pure turban upon his head, and clothed him with garments; and the Angel of YHVH stood by. 6 And the Angel of YHVH protested unto Joshua, saying, 7 Thus saith YHVH of hosts: If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts; and I will give thee a place to walk among these that stand by.”
So what were the filthy garments that the attendants that stood by removed? Here is something from the internet:
“Intermarriage of Sons: The most prominent Midrashic explanation (found in Talmud Sanhedrin 93b and cited by Rashi) is that Joshua’s sons had married foreign women who were forbidden to the priesthood. The garments were “filthy” because Joshua did not protest or prevent these marriages.” Link
The filthy garments, according to midrash had to be removed, meaning the sons had to divorce their wives and abandon their children. In the story, the sons actually did this and then Joshua was acquitted (the filthy garments removed).
What the Torah says: a father is not held accountable for the sins of his sons. (this would of course be after the age of accountability).
Deu 24:”16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, neither shall the sons be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
So according to Torah, this midrash does not line up. The filthy garments were Joshua’s own sins and his own defilement, apparently things that he absorbed from the exile in Babylon. Now to be cleansed of these things it took the work of divine beings, perhaps giving him enlightenment. It was like a day of atonement. Yom Kippur.
If we are looking for another example from the Bible, let us look at the law about the rebellious son and what the parents were to do.
Deu 21: “18 If a man have an unmanageable and rebellious son, who hearkeneth not unto the voice of his father, nor unto the voice of his mother, and they have chastened him, but he hearkeneth not unto them; 19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is unmanageable and rebellious, he hearkeneth not unto our voice; he is a profligate and a drunkard. 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. And thou shalt put evil away from thy midst; and all Israel shall hear and fear.”
If parents are ultimately responsible for the sins of their children, then the parents would have also been stoned in this example.
The prophet Ezekiel speaks to this principle:
Eze 18: “20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
Since the prophet goes along with the commandment in Deuteronomy, we can include it. What happens if a prophet does not speak according to the commandment?
Deu 13: “4 Ye shall walk after YHVH your God, and ye shall fear him, and his commandments shall ye keep, and his voice shall ye hear; and ye shall serve him, and unto him shall ye cleave. 5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; for he hath spoken revolt against YHVH your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, — to draw thee out of the way that YHVH thy God commanded thee to walk in; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.”
So if the things a prophet says do not align with what God commanded us in the Torah, then we are not to listen to him. Actually in the instructions for Israel, that prophet was to be put to death.
Isa 8:”20 To Torah and testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because light has not dawned in them.”
לְתוֹרָה וְלִתְעוּדָה אִם־לֹא יֹאמְרוּ כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ שָׁחַר׃
What we need to ask is what was the influence of the Exile in Babylon that brought about the condition of “filthy garments” ? And what was the remedy? What will happen today when Jews return from the exile? From what do they need to be cleansed? Is the story of Joshua the high priest actually a prophecy for end time return from the exile? I believe it is!
So what about following the majority?
Orthodox Judaism claims that Jews must follow the majority of the collected rabbinic views on Halakhah. There is very little individual freedom to decide what a text means.
Where did this idea of following the majority come from? Only one verse in the Torah!
Exodus 23:”2 Thou shalt not follow the multitude for evil; neither shalt thou answer in a cause, to go after the multitude to pervert judgment.”
This verse has been expanded by Oral Torah scholars to mean the following: (And I clearly do not see how this can be accepted by any thinking mind! )
Jewish Virtual Library:
“MAJORITY RULE, deciding a matter according to the majority opinion. In the field of the halakhah this rule is applied in three principal instances:
(a) determination of the binding law according to (the view of) the majority of halakhic scholars;
(b) adjudication of dispute by the majority decision of the courts’ judges; and
(c) imposition by majority decision of the community, or its representatives, of a communal enactment (see *Takkanot ha-Kahal), binding on all members of the community. The basis for the majority rule is to be found in the exegesis of the scriptural phrase, aḥarei rabbim le-hattot (to “follow a multitude…” Ex. 23:2).” Link.
So what this does is to negate individual understanding of the Torah and place it outside in a rabbinic courtroom. Now the Torah becomes complicated and the individual becomes subservient to the leadership. Makes me think of some Catholics I knew in Mexico. They claimed they needed a priest to explain the Bible because it wasn’t written for the common man or woman!
But the Torah was given in simple form so that each person can understand it without scholastic interpretation:
Deu 30:”11 For this commandment which I command thee this day is not too wonderful for thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in the heavens, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to the heavens, and bring it to us, that we should hear it and do it? 13 And it is not beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we should hear it and do it? 14 For the word is very near to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”
And what about needing numerous fences around the Torah? This is often used to justify why there are so many Halakhic rules for Torah commandments. Do we really believe that God will punish us for somehow not understanding the simple words of the commandments? After all, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bow to an image, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not make God’s name of none effect…all these as well as the rest need no elaboration.
So how about we just keep it simple!
