Nakdimons Page

Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the amazing statement that Yeshua believed in the oral law. Now we have already seen that Yeshua rejected the idea of an oral law and never heard of such a thing. We also saw that he called it Tradition of the Elders instead of the �oral law�. Also, we have acknowledged that a religious Jew who believed in the oral law would never entertain the idea of speaking against it, let alone act against it. And as also shown, he did speak and act against it, even juxtaposing it to the Written Torah! As far as the claim goes of what Yeshua should have said to the Pharisees if the oral law was an invention of the rabbis, Yeshua already made his point clear about the Traditions elsewhere, passages that rabbi Singer, of course, doesn�t quote to his audience, lest it blows his argument to pieces. But in this instance he wanted to make another point. He points them to the story of David and strangely enough, rabbi Singer claims that Yeshua doesn�t get the story right and starts picking on the New Testament�s accuracy. Let�s look at the story of David in 1 Samuel 21:2-7 before examining what Yeshua did say about this:

2. And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came trembling toward David, and said, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" 3. And David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a matter, and said to me, 'Let no man know anything concerning the matter upon which I am sending you, and with which I have charged you.' And I troubled the young men (to advance) to a hidden, secret place. 4. And now, what is there in your possession? Five loaves of bread? Give them into my hand, or whatever is found." 5. And the priest answered David, and said, "There is no ordinary bread in my possession, but there is holy bread, if the young men have but kept themselves from women." 6. And David answered the priest, and said to him, "But, women are withheld from us as of yesterday and the day before yesterday when I left, and the young men's garments are hallowed, and that is in a manner common, and even if today it would be hallowed in the vessel." 7. And the priest gave him hallowed (bread), for there was no bread there, except the showbread, which was removed from before the Lord, to place warm bread on the day it was taken.

So the story says that David came alone but was to share the bread with his companions. So although he was alone it was understood that the intend was to share the food with his companions. As for the reference to Avyatar �the high priest�. This is obviously a wrong translation of the Greek word, which has it right. The Greek word used here is more often used in reference to �chief priests�, rather than high priests. For example, when we look at Matthew 26:3

Then assembled together the chief priests [archiereus], and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest [archiereus], who was called Caiaphas,

The word �archiereus� is used for �chief priests� as well as for �high priests�. So instead of speaking about �Avyatar, the high priest�, Yeshua spoke of �Avyatar, the chief priest�, probably mentioning Avyatar rather than his father Achimelech, because Avyatar was the only survivor of the massacre Saul caused at that place, killing everyone accept Avyatar, who got away. So it is actually the translation of the Greek that is unfortunate, instead of Yeshua not getting it right. So let�s look at what Yeshua says about this in Matthew 12:2-6:

But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.

So how did Yeshua NOT get it right? It is clear that rabbi Singer, yet again, works for the sole purpose of slanting the New Testament faith and that he is the one that doesn�t have it right since Yeshua was right on point! He tells the heart of the story just as it is supposed to be read. But because rabbi Singer wants the New Testament to err so badly, that he doesn�t even see that the New Testament has it correct.

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the Pharisees and the scribes have the authority of Moses as far as Matthew 23:2 is concerned. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking from the zeal to prove that there was an oral law and he therefore has to claim that Yeshua enforces the oral law. There are a couple of ways to dismantle this claim:

1. Yeshua pointed to the Pharisees and the scribes rather than to the Sadducees because the Sadducees only found the Torah to be authoritative and not the Prophets and the Writings. They also didn�t believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is something the Prophets and the Writings clearly teach. So they basically rejected the majority of God�s revelation to His people.

2. In light of this, Yeshua correctly points to the Pharisees and the scribes instead, but NOT saying that they had the authority of Moses, i.e. authority consisting of an Oral Law.

3. Evidence against rabbi Singer�s position is in the very next verse: the heavy loads they put upon people! What other �heavy loads� could he be talking about if not their traditions, the oral law? They make their t�filin extra wide and their tsitsit extra big to show off and seek the favour of the people by their �display of holiness�. This behaviour we are to distance ourselves from. So again there is no acknowledgement of the Oral Law where rabbi Tovia Singer claims it is.

4. Another way to handle this absurd claim is Yeshua's words in Matthew 21:42-45. Here Yeshua tells the religious leaders that those who reject him will lose their authority over God's matters and be given to those that accept the Kingdom of God. So even IF one wants to take Matt 23:2-3 as saying that followers of Yeshua should adhere to Pharisaical (i.e. rabbinic) authority, Yeshua says here that the people who reject Him will nolonger have that authority. This authority belongs ONLY to those who except Him. This should take care of anti-missionaries constant pointing to Matthew 23:2-3 and claiming that we are to follow rabbinic authority.

Keeping up count from part 1 of this lecture, this is false claim #7.

First thing that should be noted is that the rabbi himself (12:12) says that pieces of information went missing because of �dark periods� in our history. Which is exactly what I am talking about when I say that such an exhaustive set of laws is destined to be forgotten if it�s not written down. The funniest thing is that the Oral Law is preserved up to now BECAUSE of it�s written form! I assure you that, if you burn all the volumes of the Talmud and transmit it all orally, within a few generations most of it will be lost forever, since there will be no longer any source to look things up anywhere. He claims that the Sages had to come together and say if things are in comparison to situations in the past. This is the whole story of the Talmud. They are constantly bickering about how things should be viewed. The conclusion, for example, of the marital value in the story about the penny and the dollar is also unclear to me. How can those two views be in agreement about the value if they give two different minimum values? It could be sufficient for both parties to accept a dollar or more because both criteria are met, but you can�t come with half a dollar, since that�s more than a penny but less than a dollar, which is the minimum criterion for a marriage. How do they then agree? They don�t! That�s like the Republicans say that the budget for Defence should be at least half a billion dollars to go to war, while the Democrats say that the budget should be at least 2 billion dollars to go to war. If the budget, then, is 1 billion it meets the requirements of the Republicans, but certainly not that of the Democrats, since you are at least 1 billion short! So there is no agreement whatsoever. Another example is from the Talmud itself. Now look at this lists of prohibited works and see how the Talmudic rabbis are in agreement:

We have learned, R. Simeon b. Elazar said: "One shall not kill vermin on the Sabbath." So said Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allowed this. R. Simeon b. Elazar used also to say in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: "One is not allowed to negotiate marriage engagements for children, nor to engage teachers or artisan masters for children, nor to pay visits of condolence to mourners, nor to visit the sick on the Sabbath. Such is the decree of Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allows all this.

Yet another example from the Mishna:

MISHNA V.:

The Beth Shamai said: Ink, dye material, or fodder (for animals) shall not be put into water (on Friday) unless there is still time for them to soak through while it is day. The Beth Hillel, however, permits this.

The Beth Shamai prohibits putting bundles of linen thread (to bleach) into the oven unless there is sufficient time left for them to become heated through while it is yet day, or wool into a dye-kettle unless there is still time for it to be soaked through the same day. The Beth Hillel permits this.

The Beth Shamai says: Traps shall not be set for animals and birds, or nets for fishes (on Friday), unless there is still time for them to be caught before sunset. The Beth Hillel permits this.

The Beth Shamai says: One shall not sell anything to a Gentile (on Friday) or help him load his animal, or help him shoulder a burden unless he (the Gentile) can reach (with his load) the nearest place while it is yet day. The Beth Hillel permits this.

The Beth Shamai says: Hides shall not be given to a tanner nor clothes to a Gentile washer (on a Friday) unless there is still sufficient time left for him (the Gentile) to finish it while it is day. The performance of all these acts of labor heretofore mentioned was permitted by the Beth Hillel (on Friday) while the sun was still shining. Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said: At my father's house it was the custom to give out white clothes to a Gentile washer three days before the Sabbath. Both schools, however, agree that the presses may be put on olives and grapes in the press-pits (as long as it is still daytime).

Where is the agreement between the two most authoritative rabbinic schools of the day of Shammai and Hillel? (except for the last point in this list) Totally absent! Yet rabbi Singer wants us to believe that the rabbis in the Talmud are in agreement with each other when they have different opinions. Sure! This makes false claim #8.

Also notice that this is Mishna, which is supposed to come from Sinai. This is the system that is supposed to clarify for us what to do and how to do it, yet it creates more confussion by giving us contradictory statements AND it lists the opinion of rabbis! If this was from Sinai, why isn't God's decree anywhere to be found? Where is God's decree in all this? Instead of telling us what God said at Sinai, the followers of this rabbi is arguing with the followers of that rabbi about how to keep Shabbes! There is no "HaShem told Moshe Rebeinu..." at all. And we're supposed to believe that this comes from Sinai?

Rabbi Tovia Singer is now going to give us a few examples of the prophets forwarding the Oral Law. Now bare in mind that when someone wants to prove something, if he wants to persuade someone of a certain point, he will try to gather the best evidence from Scripture he can find to support his position. Likewise we should remind ourselves that rabbi Singer is presenting us the best proofs from the Tenach that he is able to find. So let�s look at his proofs from the Tenach regarding the prophets telling us to keep the Oral Law.

First evidence rabbi Tovia Singer comes up with is the proof of the 39 m�lachot (39 categories of prohibited work) of Shabbat. This proof consists of Nechemyah 10:29-34 and 13:14-22. Now of all the proofs in the Scriptures this is one of the best he could come up with. Here, Nechemyah speaks about not buying and selling on Shabbat. Because we don�t find this specific commandment in the Written Law, it must be in the oral law, so says rabbi Singer. But is that what�s being referred to here? Not at all! The people only give one example how they will honour the Shabbat. That�s all! As the prophet Isaiah tells us, we are not supposed to go about our business on the Sabbath say:

13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;

We are not to pursue our business on God�s holy day, this is NOT the way to honour it. And Isaiah wasn�t quoting from the oral law! So if we are to pursue our business six days of the week but aren�t to do that on the Sabbath, it stands to reason that you�re out of order if you try to make a buck on Shabbat. This also goes for Nechemyah 13:15-18, treading winepresses and carrying burdens are not from the 39 m�lachot of the oral law. Instead, the oral law got these examples from these texts and made them law! As we saw earlier with the fasts, which was said to be from the oral law, but in reality we saw that it has nothing to do with that. It is not �selling and buying� specifically that�s being referred to as what Moses told our forefathers at Sinai, but the honouring of the Sabbath is what is being referred to, which is exactly what Moses told us to do. To honour that commandment we don�t do what we usually do on weekdays, when we pursue our business and are so caught up in our labour that we tend to forget God. Instead we are to rest and look back at what God has given us the power to do and honour Him and seek Him, especially on that day! THAT�S honouring the Shabbat, not not-doing specific work! This makes false claim #9.

Second piece of evidence is Ezra. This one is a simple one, says rabbi Singer. Ezra sends away the Gentile women with their children. So if the children were Jewish they wouldn�t have been sent away. This proves that one�s Jewish ness doesn�t go through the father. Pretty convincing story and surely is the �checkmate� rabbi Singer is talking about, isn�t it? Not at all! We have the same story in Nechemyah 13 and look at what Nechemyah says about intermarriage:

1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God for ever; 2 because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them; howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 And it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture�.23 In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; 24 and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. 25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God: 'Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves. 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did the foreign women cause to sin. 27 Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to break faith with our God in marrying foreign women?' 28 And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me. 29 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites. 30 Thus cleansed I them from everything foreign, and appointed wards for the priests and for the Levites, every one in his work;

The concern was never about the race of the children. It had to do with the fact that these women could lead them from God to follow other gods. Just as even Solomon, in all of his wisdom and grace, was led into idolatry due to his foreign wives. The fear was therefore idolatry and assimilation and had nothing to do with ethnicity. Furthermore, if the prohibition of intermarriage had anything to do with fear of non-Jewish offspring, then why were men allowed to take the beautiful women of the countries they conquered in war as their wives? (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14) Why was that allowed if the concern was the �Jewish ness� of their offspring? However, for a priest it WAS unlawful to marry a gentile woman:

14 A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife.

And that�s the primary concern of Ezra and Nechemyah when they saw that the people married foreign wives and they took drastic measures and cleansed the entire land from ALL those �aliens�. (Notice that Nechemyah and his came to this conclussion only after READING about it from the BOOK of the Torah! And NOT from any oral teaching!) Look at Nechemyah�s words in verse 29 when he says �they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites �. That�s why only the men are addressed, but it stands to reason that the Jewish women were included to release their foreign men too. Really honestly tell me that this had anything to do with oral law and the ethnicity of the children.

This whole argument, that you are only a Jew if your mother is a Jewess is not even logical. Since the children of a Jewish mother and a gentile man are likely to get an upbringing that corresponds with the beliefs of the father rather that of the mother, especially in ancient times, where there was no such things as equal women rights movements. Which would automatically mean that the Jewish child would get a non-Torah based upbringing. And if someone is Jewish by mother alone and not by father, then we can safely conclude that Rechavam (Rehobeam), the son of Solomon was NOT a Jew, since his mother is said to be a gentile from Amon. And the excuse of conversion can�t be used either, because it is explicitly said that Solomon�s Gentile wives, without exception, caused him to practice idolatry. And since there is no proof of �conversion� of any kind, we would have to conclude that Solomon�s son was a Gentile based on oral law standards and Israel had a Gentile king sitting on David�s throne. This has actually been an argument an anti-missionary moderator used when I confronted him with this. The best response he had was �do you really think that G-d would have a Gentile rule over Israel after He prohibited it in His Torah?�. Well, that is exactly my point! It was because Rechavam was NOT a Gentile but thoroughly Jewish even though having an �unconverted� Gentile mother and a Jewish father that he was able to sit on his grandfather�s throne. Which, by the way, is totally contrary to the oral law! This also goes for the offspring of Achav, who�s wife, Jezebel, was a Gentile and absolutely not a �convert to Judaism�. Yet, Achav�s child sat on the throne and ruled over Israel, which is, again, totally contrary to the so-called "oral law". Clearly another false claim, moving the tally up to #10.

Then rabbi Tovia Singer is trying to prove that Jeremiah tells us that God commanded us not to carry any burdens and that this goes back to Sinai. But, again, God is NOT saying that He told our forefathers about not carrying any burdens at Sinai. He is telling us that He told our forefathers to �hollow the Sabbath day� as a holy day and not to labour thereon. Nothing more and nothing less! Obviously the people were carrying their merchandise on the Shabbat to be able to labour, just as we have seen at Nechemyah. And then rabbi Singer does something remarkable again. He actually is trying to make his case for the oral law based on words like �hear� and �listen�. You�d have to be very desperate to try to prove the existence of an Oral Law based on the word �hear�. These words have nothing to do with any oral law. They have everything to do with the Written Law. People didn�t have their own copy of the Torah at home as we do nowadays so they would �hear� the words at their assemblies, when the Torah was read out loud. There they would �listen� to the Written Torah! Just look at the following example from Nechemyah 9:14-16:

13. And You descended upon Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven, and You gave them right ordinances and laws of truth, good statutes and commandments. 14. And Your holy Sabbath You made known to them, and commandments and statutes and the Law You commanded them, by the hand of Your servant Moses. 15. And bread from heaven You gave them for their hunger, and You took water out of a rock for them for their thirst, and You said to them to come to inherit the land that You raised Your hand to give them. 16. But they and our forefathers behaved wickedly, and they stiffened their necks and did not hearken to Your commandments.

Now this should be very interesting. Notice that in verse 14, as noted before, Nechemyah speaks of commands and laws �b�yad Moshe� (by the hand of Moses), which can only refer to the Written Torah and then in verse 16 says that they didn�t �listen� (velo sham�u) to those laws. What �auditory language� is being spoken here? How can one honestly claim that the words �listen� and �hear� actually refer to �auditory language� which naturally �proof� that the oral law is being referred to? There is simply no merit at all for the reading of rabbi Tovia Singer and there is no oral law being forwarded by the prophets at any time in history and certainly not in the Tenach. The �proof� is simply not there, which makes this false claim #11.

Fish: Rabbi Singer then goes on to give us an example of the wisdom of the Sages who spoke of things that people didn�t know at that time. He mentions that the Sages said that a fish can have fins and yet have no scales, but you will find no fish that has scales and yet has no fins. So what does this prove? Nothing at all. The secular world has come up with a lot of things that aren�t in the Bible that people didn�t know. Does that mean that everything they claim is �given from God�? Again, rabbi Singer assumes what he wants to prove.

The Calendar: There are some that argue that the rabbinic Calendar is off by at least a few minutes per year. Which doesn�t sound that dramatically at first glance, but this will eventually mean that it needs to be revised if you want to, let�s say, keep celebrating Pesach in spring time in a few millennia from now. I will not get into details here, because it is very complex stuff, but I will give you a website that argues for a revision of the Hebrew (rabbinic) calendar. You can find this information at http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/index.html .

Perhaps this will be of some value for you.

Summary: In part one of this lecture on (29:50-30:24) rabbi Singer tells us that the Sages make a comparison to the relationship between a man and a woman, saying that the written law is like a ring that is for everyone to see and that the oral law is like the words that a man speaks in the ears of the woman which is only for her to hear. Subsequently he then asks which of the two is more precious to that woman. And he points to the fact that the spoken words, in other words, the oral law, is the more precious one. This is clearly a statement that the oral law is above the Written law in importance and value! According to rabbi Singer THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAGES!

Here is what the Talmud says: �These laws were given at Sinai to the Children of Israel through Moses> God did not make a covenant with Israel except by virtue of the Oral Tradition (Gittin 60b).�

Also: Rabbi Z. H. Chajes, a leading nineteenth-century authority said, the Talmud indicates that the words �that were transmitted orally� by God are �more valuable� than those transmitted in writing.

Well, there is no denying this statement. The oral law is more valuable than the Written Torah, according to the most authoritative rabbinic sources! That is to say, that the books that contain the words of the Living God Himself as believed to be dictated to Moses are LESS IMPORTANT and INFERIOR to the books that contain NO WORDS of God, but only gives us the opinion of human beings! So, according to this statement, the words of the God of Israel come SECOND to the words of the rabbis of Israel! The question, of course, would be: Where do we find this in Scripture??????

Bottom line remains that all the proofs that rabbi Singer brought up for the existence of an oral law are simply not there and he is just trying too hard to prove that there was an oral law given by God to Moses and being forwarded by the prophets, using texts from the Tenach and even from the New Testament (!!) that say no such thing. Any reference being made to violating the Word of God and being unfaithful to His Covenant is ONLY made to the Written Torah, which is the foundation of God�s Covenant with the Jewish people. The bible doesn�t only forget to mention any oral law, but it testifies that there is nothing besides the written and that there was not a word said that was not written down. Also consider that every time the Torah mentions sin or transgression of Gods Torah, it always makes reference to the Written Torah and never to the oral law. If an oral law was already given at Mount Sinai and if the oral law was an equally important (or even MORE important) norm to determine sin, then how come it�s completely ignored in crucial parts throughout the Scriptures? Because it wasn�t there! Something to really ponder is that words are written down so that they can be reviewed to make sure they aren�t forgotten. And if they are forgotten they can be looked up and remembered. That�s why we make notes. But we are to believe that God gave us a Written Torah to remind us of the testimony and the Covenant with Him, but told Moses not to write the part that is many a times larger, more exhaustive, and more important than the Written Torah? Sure!