Nakdimons Page

Welcome to Nakdimon's Page


Oral Law pt 1
The best Scriptural "proof" for the oral law


This section needs an introduction. I have discussed the oral law many a times with anti-missionaries and in these debates I could hardly believe what parts of Scripture they used to try to prove that there was an oral law given to Moses, handed down to Joshua and then to the Elders and so on. Proofs of which the opposite could easily be found in the Tenach. We will see in this section how rabbi Singer and the anti-missionary movement misuse scripture to prove there was oral law given on Mt Sinai and we will look at the evidence against it. We will see how the proofs of the rabbinic Jewish side are extremely vague and the proofs against these claims are abundantly clear.
Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that there were 2 Torahs given on Mount Sinai. This, however, is impossible, as we will soon find out. The evidence for this simply lacks in the entire Hebrew Bible. The claim is that God gave the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, which interprets the written. So to give you an example of what they want you to believe, and as the rabbi explains himself: The commandments in the Written are only the chapter headings and the Oral Torah is supposedly the actual elaboration of what the Written says. God told Moses to write the headings down, but not to do that with the Oral Law. This was to be transmitted orally. Now seriously consider this line of reasoning. This makes as much sense as a college professor, telling his students every class for a whole semester to only write down the topic of the classes they follow, but they are only allowed to memorize all the words that have been said during the class. In addition, the professor will then emphasize that they should remember the unwritten words and that if they would be forgotten, they wouldn�t be able to graduate. Now be honest: What is the most likely thing to happen with the information that the students didn�t write down? Why do we make notes?


According to what anti-missionaries from the Messiah Truth website have told me, the oral law was given before the Written Torah. We need to ask ourselves then, why Moses, when he didn�t know what to do, always went to ask God for answers and never made a decision based on what he had learned from the oral law. He never knew what to do until he asked God and got a decisive answer from Him and never consulted any oral interpretation of any commandment! An example of this would be Num 15, which anti-missionaries use to prove that we need the oral law to understand what we can or cannot do on Shabbat. The man violates Shabbat and then is put to death eventually. �See, you need the oral law to know what �don�t leave your place� means�, anti-missionaries have often told me. But a closer look at the text doesn�t support the existence of the oral law, but it actually blows a hole in that very point they actually try to make with this example. Because the death sentence for violating the Shabbat was not made based on an oral law that was supposedly already given. Moses went to God and asked for council and based on what God told him, the sentence was carried out. I thought the oral law was supposed to be the decisive factor here. I thought the oral law was supposed to give Moses clear instructions about what was violation of the Shabbat or not and what was to happen with that man. What ever happened to the notorious �39 M�lachot�? (the 39 prohibitions that define what �work� is) Obvious Moses knew nothing about any oral law or �39 m�lachos of Shabbos� and that�s why he never bothered to consult any oral law and went to God instead. And there are more such examples. One other would be the circumcision, which rabbi Singer brings up. How do you know how to circumcise your sons? You need an oral law for this, right? No, not exactly. The Arabs circumcise their sons as well. How did they know? Because they are direct descendants of Yishma�el [Ishmael], a son of Abraham, to whom the covenant of circumcision was given initially. Did they need an oral law to know what circumcision is about? The answer is obvious! If they didn�t need it, then why does rabbi Singer claim that the Jewish people need an oral law to know what circumcision is?



Why did �Christianity� reject the oral law? (11:40)


Rabbi Tovia Singer then asks his audience that question and answers it for them. According to the rabbi, Christianity couldn�t see the oral law as divinely inspired because it had no access to it and, other than first century Christianity, modern day Christianity rejects the oral law. This claim is just untrue. But since the New Testament is used to try to prove the existence of an oral law, it is also fair to use it as valid proof against the existence of an oral law. We should consider this: someone of whom it is said that he accepts and believes in the oral law as God-given, will not question it�s validity and wouldn�t speak against it. Although the first believers saw the beauty of the oral law and they kept certain parts of it, they never saw it as God-given set of laws. They simply never knew such a thing. They did speak of customs and Yeshua made a clear distinction between God�s Law and �the traditions of the Elders�. (e.g. Mat. 15:2-9) and calls it teachings of men, referring to Isaiah 29:13! Therefore, as far as the Messiah goes, the washing of the hands is just tradition and hardly �law� and it is called teaching of men and hardly of God. Furthermore, Yeshua would have had access to that �oral law� since he was hailed as a rabbi. Also, Paul, who as shown in the essay �Who is the Messiah?� was a Pharisee, would have had access to an oral law too. All the apostles would have had access to it, had they considered it divine, yet they all categorically failed to forward it as binding in any way, shape or form. Why? Because it simply didn�t exist. So rabbi Singer�s claim, that the first believers believed in the oral law, holds no weight whatsoever.



No oral law, no language (16:10)


Then rabbi Singer makes the weird claim that you can�t have a language without an oral law. This would mean that before Sinai the Hebrew language was incomplete. Who would accept that statement? It wasn�t until the 6^th century CE that vocal signs were used in Hebrew literature, to make sure that the correct pronunciation would be preserved. If there was an oral law given to the people with a vowel system to clarify speech and understanding of the language and pronunciation of words, then why did it take 1800 years for it to become publicly known? And why was the oral law written down anyway, when even Moses didn�t get permission to write it down? The argument goes that it was written down because it was endangered to be lost due to upheavals. But that danger was there from day one! If you give someone thousands of instructions and you don�t allow him to write those instructions down, what is the most likely thing to happen? There is a great likelihood of forgetting at least some of the instructions or that the people might mix things up. So after all those upheavals from Sinai until the 3rd century CE there was no reason to write down the oral law and until the 6^th century CE to introduce the God-given vowel system? Especially when you think of the fact that Hebrew was being overshadowed by Aramaic. By the time of the beginning of this era a large number of the Jews were speaking Greek instead of Hebrew.

Rabbi Singer then comes with the story of Hillel and the wanna-be convert. The moral of the story is that since you trust the rabbi to teach you the aleph-beth correctly, so you must also trust him when it comes to the legitimacy of the oral law when he tells you it is Torah from Sinai. But as I told anti-missionaries over and over again, this is comparing sticks to stones. Because, for one, the aleph-beth is linguistically a fixed rule. In other words, when someone tells you to recite the Hebrew aleph-beth you can�t deviate from the fixed pattern. You can�t say, for example, that the alphabet goes �b-z-h-y-� because it is fixed in the order �a-b-c-d�. So the student of Hillel was correct to point to that error. Second, what this parable says is that you should believe whatever the rabbi says and not question anything he teaches you. This would be the same as saying that you should believe everything your parents teach you without hesitation. Although I love my parents dearly and I trusted them to teach me all the good things in life when they raised me, I wouldn�t just take their word for it if they would tell me that there were aliens creeping in the house at night. I�m going to want to find out if that is true or not. So I might trust you when you teach me, but if I go and do my research I will draw my conclusions based on what I found out.

So what I have found concerning the oral law is that I don�t question that there were some customs developed after Sinai that flowed from those events, but in no way is the concept of the oral law anything the traditional Jewish position claims it is, namely, that it is given from God, to Moses, to Joshua, etc. Evidence for it is simply too vague and the evidence against it is simply too apparent. We will look at the proofs that rabbi Singer raises for the oral law but first will look at what the Scriptures say about what Moses received and handed down. I can point to many parts of scripture, but I�ll just name a few.



The Bible testifies:
What was given on Mount Sinai?


I will start with the �slam-dunk� which is found in Joshua 1. Here God tells Joshua to be strong and gives him instructions how to walk in His ways. Look at what He tells Joshua:

8. This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.

This verse totally blows every argument that ever can be made for the case of an oral law to smithereens. It can be divided in three parts, which we will examine separately to understand what is clearly being said here and there is just no other conclusion to be drawn from this text:

1: This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, You would think that God would say that the oral law shouldn�t depart from Joshua�s mouth. But that is not what He is saying! He says that the BOOK of the Torah should not leave Joshua�s mouth and that he should meditate it day and night. Well, this excludes Talmud study, which traditional Jews do for the overwhelming majority of the time. And the reason Why Joshua is told to meditate in it day and night?
2: in order that you observe to do all that is written in it But that was simply NOT possible without an oral law! Yet God says that by meditating in this BOOK of the Torah, you will make sure that you observe all that is written in the Torah. This was an excellent moment to promote an already given oral explanation. Yet the Bible, for the ten thousandth time, says that the WRITTEN Torah is decisive and doesn�t mention any oral law. But Joshua is told that by meditating in the Torah day and night to be able to observe it. Why? Because�
3: �then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper. What ever happened to the already given oral law? God doesn�t point Joshua to any oral law. He presses him to take heed of the Written Torah and the Written Torah alone.


Surely this is all that needs to be said to convince anyone that there was no such thing as an equally important oral law given at Mount Sinai. The next verses I want to bring to your attention is the WITNESS of the Covenant. What is the witness of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, the Written Torah or the oral law?

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 'Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The witness of the Covenant made at Sinai, according to the Talmud, is the oral law. How does that fit in the above text from Deuteronomy 31? Let�s proceed.

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.' 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: 'Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.' (Exodus 24)

Again, abundantly clear! NO oral law! Moses took THE BOOK of the Covenant and said that God made the Covenant based on those words in the BOOK. Not by virtue of any oral law. It simply didn�t exist then. Let�s move on.


Another profound text we find in Exodus 34:27. This text is used in an extraordinary way by the Talmud. This is what the Torah says in Exodus 34:27:

27. The Lord said to Moses: "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel."

Did you get that? God tells Moses to �write down these words� and that He has made a Covenant with Israel based on these words. So the whole basis for the Covenant at Mount Sinai is the WRITTEN Torah! But, amazingly, it is from this very verse that the Talmud manages to conclude that the oral law is the most valuable of the two! You can see an analysis of this text as used by the Talmud in the section �Questionable rabbinic interpretations of the Scriptures�. However, anybody reading these words, will conclude that God is saying, that based on the words Moses is to write down He has made a Covenant with Israel.


The next piece of evidence comes from 1 Kings 2. David is about to die and wants to give his son, Solomon, some last words which he will need to be a successful king. Now these last words are the most precious words you can give your child. This is what king David says:

2. "I go the way of all the earth; you shall be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man;
3. And keep the charge of the Lord your God to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn; 4. That the Lord may continue His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, 'If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you,' said He, 'a man on the throne of Israel.'

Look at that! David tells his son that he should keep Gods statutes, commandments, etc. as is WRITTEN in the Law of Moses! NO oral law, no nothing. If it�s such an important piece of information for the kings successor, then why doesn�t he tell him to keep that as well? Especially when you think about the fact that all the traditional Jew does is study Talmud all day instead of Scripture! But David doesn�t say �follow the written and the oral law�. He says walk in Gods ways as is written in the book of Moses.


The last piece of evidence comes from the book of 2 Kings 22. Here, the book of Kings tells us that the book of the Torah was lost for a period of time and rediscovered by Hilkiah, the priest. Now this is what the text says:

8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: 'I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.' And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it�. 10 And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying: 'Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.' And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying: 13 'Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.'

So if the Written Torah was lost for a period of time, how can there possibly have been an oral law that told them what was in the Written Torah? Josiah obviously had no idea whatsoever what was written in the Torah about certain things. But when he heard he rent his clothes. How can you ever explain to someone that the Written Torah was lost, but the oral law was still at large and the people still did what the oral law required? If the oral law explains the Written Torah and by doing what the oral law says you automatically do all that is written in the Torah, then why does king Josiah say that �our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us�? This happened in the 18^th year of his reign and he was a righteous king that followed the footsteps of his father David. Yet that was the first time he laid his eyes on the Torah and in all those 18 years there was no oral law to set him straight. Obviously, Josiah had no idea of any oral law and it�s impossible for an oral law to be preserved, when even the Written Torah was lost!


What more could have been said to make one realise that this oral law doesn�t go back to Sinai, let alone to God? Yet in spite of all this, the traditional Jewish side has still managed to come up with parts from scripture that supposedly �proof� that there was indeed an oral law given to Moses. Well, let�s examine that claim and look at this evidence presented by rabbi Singer. And as we do so, keep in mind that these are examples that are supposed to persuade others that there was an oral law given at Sinai, so consider this the strongest evidence from Scripture the rabbi could come up with.



�Toroth� referring to 2 Torahs (30:20)

Rabbi Singer then claims that whenever the Torah speaks of �Toroth� (plural of Torah) it speaks of the Written Torah and the oral torah., which is only between God and Israel. This can also be refuted by just looking at the application of the word Toroth and we will see that this argument of rabbi Tovia Singer is totally fabricated. For example, if we look at the first time the word Toroth is used, in Genesis 26:5, we see that God is speaking to Isaac and telling him that Abraham kept all his laws (Toroth). It is then fair to ask the question to what �bibles�, as rabbi Singer claims, God is referring to here! What �two sets of laws� did God give Abraham that He would speak of �toroth�?
Next example is from the prophets, namely Ezekiel 43:11. God tells Ezekiel to tell Israel about the Temple. Ezekiel is to make known all the laws (Toroth) and to write them down. Again the question raises: What �bibles� was God referring to by using the word �toroth�? Certainly couldn�t be the oral law, since that is transmitted orally and the prophet is clearly told to write the Toroth down. Obviously this isn�t referring to 2 sets of laws at all.
Now, lastly, we will look at an example from the Writings. Next example is Nechemyah 9:13-14, where the prophet extols God and recounts the history of Israel coming out of Egypt. He says that God gave commandments and laws (Toroth) and the next verse tells us what he is referring to: He refers to the Torah that God commanded �by the hand of Moses, your servant�! (b�yad Moshe, av�decha) Whatever happened to the oral law? How did Nehemiah first refer to the �toroth� and in the very next verse the prophet explains that it is the Written Torah from the hand of Moses that he is referring to and not any separate set of teachings called oral law.
So we see three clear examples from the Torah, Prophets and Writings where rabbi Tovia Singer�s claims about �toroth� having the meaning of two sets of laws or two �bibles� is proven to be dead wrong. The word �toroth� simply means �instructions�, contained, of course, in one set of laws: The Written Torah. This would be false claim #1.



What to do? (35:00)

Then rabbi Singer gives us a few examples of what he means when he says that you need an oral law to perform the commandments. We will look at the largest argument he makes in the list: the Shabbat. The rabbi then asks his audience what �work� is since it is not specified in detail in the Torah. But since God intended for the Shabbat to be a day of rest and rejoicing, let�s see what rabbinic Judaism has come up with to observe Shabbat as a day of rest and rejoicing. Now if I would carry a pot of soup and a big basket of bread to a square and feed the hungry and homeless, I would violate the Shabbat commandment according to rabbinic standards, since that would be qualified as �work�. But let�s see what is considered to be work on Shabbat. Here is a small sample of how to observe Shabbat and what to watch out for in order not to violate the Shabbat:

q It is permissible to scratch one�s head of beard lightly, and one need not be afraid that one might thereby pull out some of the hairs.
q It is also permissible to extract the remains of food stuck in one�s beard, so long as one takes care not to pull out any of the hair.
q One is allowed to remove loose dandruff from one�s hair with one�s hand, but
q One must be careful not to remove dandruff which is still attached to the skin.
q One may neither comb one�s hair, nor
q Brush one�s hair with a hard brush
q �if the end of a nail as become detached for most of its width and is therefore, close to coming off and
q it is causing, or one is afraid that it will cause, pain, it may be removed either by hand or with the teeth, but not with an instrument.
q One is generally not allowed o wash of shower the whole, or the major part, of one�s body in such water [i.e. water that has been heated before the Shabbat], even if one does so bit by bit.
q Anyone washing himself on Shabbat should take care to avoid squeezing water out of his hair.
q If, upon opening an electric refrigerator on Shabbat or Yom Tov, one finds that the internal light has automatically been switched on, one should consult a qualified rabbinical authority about what to do with regard to closing the door of the refrigerator again.
q One shall not search his garments for or kill vermin on Shabbat.
q One who searches his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it with his fingers and throw it away (on the Sabbath).


And we haven�t even scratched the surface yet. Add to this hundreds of other prohibitions and discussions, such as if one is allowed to stretch his arm outside of his residence to receive something and then pull it into the residence, or if it�s allowed to throw something in the air and catch it with the other hand or with the same hand and if such activities qualify as �work�, and the restrictions from the oral law are an equivalent to the commandment �play dead�! This way, one is more occupied with worrying not to violate Shabbat then one is with honouring God on Shabbat. How resting, liberating or rejoicing can this be?



Fast days (39:50)

The proof of the fast days in Zechariah is brought up next. Rabbi Tovia Singer uses this passage to prove that those days are kept just as the oral law says. But is the prophet Zechariah really testifying about an oral law? No way! The Bible itself tells us where the fast days come from and it has nothing to do with an unbroken chain of traditions coming from Sinai. Look at one chapter before the quote of rabbi Singer. In Zechariah 7:4-5 God says:

4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying: 5 'Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying: When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?

This has been going on for only 70 years, since they went into exile. So this is not oral law, but a later instalment of custom and hardly a mitzvah! And what God is saying about the fasts in Zechariah 8 is not that they will be holy days in the Messianic age. What He is saying is that He will turn their misery (their fasting) into joy in the Messianic Age. He explains that He first did them harm, but now will only do them good (v. 14-15) Notice also that he only mentions that it will be for the house of Judah, so this is hardly a national feast God is referring to. Why does He mention the house of Judah only? Obviously because they have been fasting in those months for 70 years now, since the destruction of the first Temple. So, again, this serves as no proof for an oral law either. This would be false claim #2. So even if rabbis didn�t make up �tisha b�Av� they took a biblical example and made it mitzvah when such a thing is never intended. Which is something that has been done with many things.



2^nd level of evidence
Daniel 1: Food & wine (46:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then goes to Daniel to prove that the prophets even kept the Oral Law. There, Daniel refuses to eat the food of the king and the wine of the king as well. So rabbi Tovia Singer takes this as observing the Oral Law, because it says that Jews are not allowed to eat the food and drink the wine that is touched by a heathen, which is nowhere commanded in the Written Torah. Well, sounds convincing again, doesn�t it? Why does Daniel refuse to eat the food of the king and refuse the wine? Because of the idolatry. But do we need oral law for that to explain this to us? NO! Scripture testifies that the people in Israel did that very thing when they were in their idolatry, so Daniel refused to follow that example, since that got them exiled in the first place. This is no teaching of the oral law, Daniel experienced it first hand! For instance, look at Deuteronomy 32, which says:

35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense, against the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that are to come upon them shall make haste. 36 For the LORD will judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants; when He seeth that their stay is gone, and there is none remaining, shut up or left at large. 37 And it is said: Where are their gods, the rock in whom they trusted; 38 Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering? let him rise up and help you, let him be your protection. 39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me; I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand.

This is a testimony of wine being offered at false gods and God taking away his protection to leave His people to be protected by their deities, challenging His people to seek the help of those false gods, who really can�t help them. From verses such as these, Daniel could have known that he wasn�t to touch the wine of the king, since he had experienced this himself in the idolatry of his people that caused their downfall. How is that something from the Oral Law? It�s right there in scripture! This is what Hoshea 4 says about the use of the wine of his people:

10 And they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry, and shall not increase; because they have left off to take heed to the LORD. 11 Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away the heart. 12 My people ask counsel at their stock, and their staff declareth unto them; for the spirit of harlotry hath caused them to err, and they have gone astray from under their God. 13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and offer upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and terebinths, because the shadow thereof is good; therefore your daughters commit harlotry, and your daughters-in-law commit adultery.

So according to rabbi Singer and the anti-missionaries, verses like these couldn�t have been Daniel�s reason to refuse the wine of the pagan and idolatrous king of Babylon, but the oral law was the reason for it. Of course they will claim that and not mention verses such as these to try to convince their listeners of an oral law, since verses like these will dramatically decimate their chances of finding any proof of oral law in Scripture. Note that rabbi Singer is probably more versed in the Tenach then I am, yet he simply disregards verses such as these to be able to prove there was an oral law given. There simply is no proof for it and therefore they have to do things like this to come up with �proof�. As for the food, we also have to consider that there might have been the case of non-kosher food (fat, pork, etc.), which Daniel refused to eat. And there is an interesting account in Jeremiah, where Jehojachin was granted favour by God so that he found mercy in the eyes of the king of Babylon and ate at his table. You could argue that Jehojachin was a wicked king after all, so this hardly serves as proof. But this was after it�s said that he repented and God granted him favour. So much for an Oral Law, which says we�re not supposed to touch the food and drinks of the heathens. This would be false claim #3.



Daniel 6: three-times-a-day prayer (56:35)

The next �proof� for the oral law is Daniel 6 and the proof that oral law was kept by Daniel, since it teaches that we are to pray 3 times a day. Rabbi Singer gives his explanation based on this text. But does this prove that his claim is valid. To show you how weak this claim really is I will ask you the following: What would rabbi Singer say if a Christian told him that Daniel prayed 3 times a day, because he believed in the trinity? Would he think that Daniel 6 would be a valid proof for that position? Of course not! He would ridicule that statement all day in his lectures. How is this then used as a proof for oral law? It just says that Daniel prayed 3 times a day. What the real issue is here is that the satraps wanted to prevent Daniel to call unto God in any way possible, since they saw that he was blessed by Him. If they really wanted to prevent him to pray 3 times a day in order not to keep oral law, they could have argued for a 1-time-a-day prayer instead. But what they wanted is to move God out of the way and replace Him with Daryavesh (Darius), which is actually idolatry and forbidden per Written Torah! So this has nothing to do with any oral law that Daniel supposedly kept. Another argument anti-missionaries use to prove the oral law from this text is that Daniel prayed 3 times a day to coincide with the 3 times a day sacrifices in the Temple. As Dr Brown correctly points out:

��there is one major problem: There were only two daily times of sacrifice (see Num. 28:1-8; Ezra 3:4l for references to �the evening sacrifice,� se 1 Kings 18:29; Ezra 9:3-5; Ps. 141:2; Dan.9:21). The correspondence doesn�t work because the correspondence isn�t there.
Then why did Daniel pray 3 times daily? I�ll answer this question with a question: Why not? We often make reference to doing something �morning, noon and night,� and it is really quite natural to divide the day into three parts. On the other hand, the psalmist spoke of praising God seven times a day (P. 119:164), yet we would never think of making a doctrine out of this practice. He also said, �At midnight I rise to give you thanks for your righteous laws� (Ps. 119:62). What Temple ritual was this replacing? The answer, of course, is self-evident. None at all.� (AJOJ Vol.2, pg 143)

That makes this false claim #4.



Deuteronomy 12:21 (1:08:45)


Then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to demonstrate the existence of the Oral Law and gives us another of his �proofs� from Scripture. From Deuteronomy 12:21 he reads that if you want to slaughter the animal to eat it, you have to slaughter is in a certain manner, meaning ritual slaughter. So he says �you can stand there all day, you won�t find it� in the Written Torah. Well, if you are talking about �ritual slaughter� then he is right and you won�t find it in the Written Torah, since it is only in the Oral Law which is invented by the rabbis. But if he is talking about the manner of slaughtering, then you will find it in the Written Torah, even in the same chapter he uses as proof for an Oral Law. What God meant is explained a couple of verses earlier in verse 15-16:

�15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart. 16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.�

That�s it! Do you need ritual slaughter for this? God gives us here His instructions on how an animal is allowed to be eaten. It�s right there and repeated in verse 22-23: 22 Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat thereof; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. 23 Only be stedfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. That�s it! But if you want �ritual slaughtering� so badly, you �can stand there all day, you won�t find it�. But do we need ritual slaughtering to understand that you have to drain the blood out in order to be able to eat a clean animal? Says who? This makes false claim #5.




T�filin (phylacteries 1:12:10)

Rabbi Singer makes a case for the Oral Law, based on the t�filin, tiny boxes attached on leather bonds, which are tied on the head and on the arm. According to traditional Judaism, this was mandated by God to wear. This comes from the passage of the �Sh�ma� in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, which says:

4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

I can be very brief about this. Why do rabbi Singer and the anti-missionaries ignore verse 6? If this is talking about literally binding upon the hand and the forehead then we should take �upon thy heart� literally as well, shouldn�t we? Of course this is not about �totafot� (frontlets) between your eyes. This passage is about keeping them in mind at all times: They will be on your heart always, everything you move your hand to do (for a sign on your hand) and everything you look at (frontlets between your eyes) should be in accordance with all I command you, from the time you get up till the time you sleep.
There are so many other examples for this:

Tie them upon your heart always, don them upon your throat (Prov 6,21)

8 Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother; 9 For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck. (Prov 1)

9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes (Exo 13:9)

16 And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes (Exo 13:16)

Note that Exodus verse 9 says �ul�zikaron� and verse 16 says �totafot� yet they mean the exact same thing. The word �zikaron� means �memorial/remembrance�. But if you want to tie them on your forehead and hand, then by all means. But don�t say that we should all do that because it�s mandated by Torah. This has nothing to do with phylacteries either because then we should have them literally put on our hearts also. This concludes part one of this lecture with false claim #6.


Nakdimon

Email me!
Go to Part II Back to the main page

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws