I am surprised that you claim to find little evidence in Scripture for "Pharisaical Judaism." Virtually every commandment in the Torah is, given only Scriptural text, obscure and opaque. "Guard the Sabbath day to make it holy." Of what does this guarding consist? Scripture does not say. "Tie them on your arms." What are we to tie on our arms, and how? Scripture does not say. "Thou shalt not murder." Is abortion murder? Scripture does not say. I also question your characterization of ancient Judaism as leaderless. Surely Moses was the leader of the nation (next comment)

(continuation from previous) in his time, and he appointed the Elders to assist him. After him, Joshua was the leader of the nation. While there were indeed interstitial periods between the reign of one Judge and the next when there was no overall leader, it seems odd to ignore the period of Moses and of Joshua, and the reigns of the Judges themselves, and declare the "leaderless" periods the norm. And of course, even then there were courts and judges, as the Torah specifically commands. @Aaron

@YehoshuaKahan Moses taught Israelitism to the Israelites. He was a lawgiver, he was a religious leader. But he was no king, and his children held no status either. They were not trained in the law or considered to be anything other than normal Israelites. The same is true of Joshua. They had missions, missions needed leaders. But in terms of the religion, Moses setup elders to help render judgments in cases where the law is obscure. This was first done with the 70 elders, and scripture says the elders of the land and the priests can also fulfill this role.

@YehoshuaKahan Making the argument that some of Judaism's laws are obscure and require clarity is a good argument. Saying that de facto means it was Pharisee Judaism is not a good argument. The Sadduccees/Priests also claim their right as priests was to render clarity in the law and they learned how to do this going back to Sinai. But at least for them scripture states that they will have this position and power, whereas Rabbi, Sanhedrin, and anything remotely close to Pharisee Judaism is missing from the text. So I find priestly claims to ancient Judaism to be stronger.

@YehoshuaKahan I consider myself a Rabbinate Jew, and I believe Rabbinate Judaism's interpretation of the Bible and God is the most correct. That doesn't mean I'll give them a pass about inserting themselves into antiquity when we have little evidence for it. I have lots of Christians in the periphery of my life who also insert all sorts of things into the ancient text to justify their current religious practice. That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't make it true just because it sounds nice and helps your religious practice "make more sense" now.

I see that this is likely to be a lengthy discussion. Perhaps we should take it to a private channel. What do you think?

@YehoshuaKahan sounds good to me

So, if i understand your position properly, Moses' role was strictly limited, and he could not by any means be considered a king; there is no evidence that the Oral Torah as we have it is the correct Divine explanation of the intent of the Written Torah; and the Sadduccees are pretty much identical with the kohanim. Is that right?

My position is that Moses is basically a non Jew. It seems to me that Jethro and by extension his daughter may know more about Israelite practices than Moses considering who knew to circumcise their son. Moses role was limited not only by God, but by Moses himself, he is the archetype of a hesitant leader who threatens to walk away from God's entire plan.

When God says the Israelites will be wiped out and a new line started through Moses, that would have been a real leadership position. And Moses rejects it

I won't make the argument that the Sadduccees are identical with the Kohanim, many of them are of Kohanic families. And the Torah does speak of the Kohanim having a role that later Pharisee Rabbis take on. It's barely tenable that Sadduccees would claim to be the sole inheritors of the Kohanic role in the Torah, and it's even less tenable for the Rabbis to say that was their role in antiquity

If Moses had the power of leadership as you say, he would have ordered the execution of Korah

I suggest that we talk about one topic at a time. Otherwise it will simply be too confusing.

But he didn't

God is the one who did it

Because God is the leader

Korach was executed. In a miraculous way which emphasized that he was indeed Divinely selected.

Yeah but not by the power or authority of Moses

The same is true for the daughters of zelophehad. It was brought before Moses and he took it to God

And God's word was law

If Moses was not a king, what was the problem with challenging him? Korach never challenged Hashem, only Moshe.

I don't think it's Hashem OR Moshe; it's Hashem, the Divine King, and His servant, the human king Moshe.

I don't happen to believe Korach was executed simply for challenging Moses

Then for what?

What he hoped to achieve, and what the end result of the challenge would have been

Please elaborate.

Moses responded with humility to the challenge

He prostrated in front of the entire community, on his face

Kings don't do that

People prostrate to their king

If Moshe was a king, then apparently kings do (sometimes) do that.

You still have not elaborated on what you think was Korach's capital crime.

God doesn't have to say. He's God. Let's take different examples. The guy picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Case goes to Moses, Moses takes it to God and only then is guy executed. Zelophehads daughters is the same thing

If Moses was king, the issue could have stopped at Moses. Like things did with Solomon and the two women fighting over a baby

The difference is that Moshe was not only a king, he was also the conduit for matan Torah. His authority was not less than that of Dovid or Shlomo in their days. But in his time, and through him, the Torah was established. In later generations, the Torah was already established, and the kings and judges merely had to apply it.

I don't see a reason to accept your premise that just because he's the conduit of the Torah that he's a king

Let's go back to Korach. Hashem commands us, in His Torah, not to be like Korach. According to my understanding, this mitzvah is understandable. Korach challenged Moshe, the King and Gadol Hador and Leading

Navi of his time. Don't do that!

I think the power of Moses is that he was raised a King. And he gave up trying to ever be a king again. And that's what made him the most humble and best "leader for Israel."

According to your interpretation, that Hashem put him to death for reasons that we don't know, what is the mitzvah not to be like Korach saying to us?

Korah didn't believe that Moses was a servant of God. Korach thought that Moses wanted to make himself king, and used nepotism to make Aaron a priest and to elevate Miriam to a prophetess

Korah didn't believe all the miracles he had seen, and God's love to the people, and how Moses suffered as God's servant, rather than Israel's King

I believe Korach is guilty of exactly what you are claiming. Korach made Moshe a tyrant King

So what does the mitzvah tell you and me? What action on the part of someone alive today would be a violation of this mitzvah?

I never said the Moshe was a tyrant.

Take the word tyrant out

Korach claimed Moses was king and was practicing nepotism

And Korach wanted the entire structure of the religion changed, despite hearing the commandments and seeing God was working through Moses

And so for me, no one should aspire to "raise themselves up." There's nothing wrong with being a regular Jew, or a levite. There isn't some conspiracy to raise up only Aarons family.

Also, I strongly disagree with the assertion that Korach, who witnessed the 10 Plagues, who walked through the Yam Suf, who stood at Har Sinai and accepted the Torah, somehow did not believe in everything he'd seen. If he had made those errors, he would have been seen by his contemporaries as insane, and certainly not attracted the support of 250 important people.

We should not be like Korah, we should accept our lives and status as God gave us

People who witness miracles through a prophet sometimes make the mistake of not knowing which miracle was made by God or made by the prophet

I would agree with you that Korach didn't reject what he'd seen, but he rejected the idea that Moses did it all as a slave to God

The Torah testifies after Krias Yam Suf that the nationed believed in Hashem and His servant Moshe. And all the nation--including Korach--declared na'aseh v'nishma.

Korach thinks Moses wants to be king, and Korach thinks him and others are also worthy of similar positions

Sure, that I agree with you. Moshe took up the rule of Am Yisroel reluctantly, at the Divine Command. Korach thought that Moshe seized it out of his own personal ambition.

But he was indeed the ruler.

He was a leader

Aaron was the priestly leader

Doesn't make him King

In what specific way was his authority less than that of a king?

But at this point I'd like you to give me evidence that Moses is king. That he passes his own laws. Declares wars on his own. With his own authority

Because a King needs no other authority other than his own

The one time Moses takes credit for doing a miracle, when he strikes the rock a second time, Moses is destined to die by God. In my opinion because Moses acted too much like a king

And not enough the reluctant leader

Not so. A proper King of Israel is described as having none above him save Hashem. But Hashem is indeed above him! A King of Israel is not meant to be a ruler just doing whatever he wants according to his own ideas, but a representative of the Divine Glory, bringing the Torah to life in the midst of the nation.

Israel was given no king. Only leaders for particular situations

You can make that statement

But solomon didn't ask Umim v'tumim when decided what to do with that baby

David didn't ask a prophet if he could sleep with a married woman

Him being King gave him that power and authority

Moses doesn't act that way

He judged in accordance with the Torah that was already given. And David did not sleep with a married woman, as Chazal teach us. His being a king would not give him the authority to violate Hashem's Law, chas v'shalom.

I can agree with you that people keep trying to make Moses king, because afterall what else do you call a guy who does what Moses does?

If you're going to explain away every idea I have without using the soures we are actually discussing we won't go anywhere

I can start darshening from the New Testament in the same way if you want

Or perhaps the Quran

Moses is the most named prophet in the Quran afterall

Or can we agree to stay within Tanakh?

You said elsewhere that you consider yourself a Rabbinic Jew. Is that no longer true?

It's completely true

Then what is the problem with seeing Tanach through the eyes of Chazal?

Because at the onset of this discussion I said I don't find all of the Oral Laws claims to be tenuous, especially when they are retroactively putting things into the text

*I don't find all the oral laws claims to be credible

I think that's the more fundamental issue. I think that whether the title of "king" fits Moshe or not is really a side issue.

But just because I don't accept every word of the Oral Law doesn't mean I think other Jewish sects, or other religions are doing a better job

So if you do not consider the Torah SheBa'al Peh credible, in what sense are you a Rabbinic Jew?

I didn't say it wasn't credible. I just don't accept everything it says. I think theory of evolution is credible, doesn't mean I accept everything it says

Just a few lines ago you said "I don't find all the oral laws claims to be credible."

I don't see any evidence for macro evolution. Doesn't mean the micro evolution laid out by Darwin doesn't have truth to it

Yes, I don't find ALL its claims

It's got a lot of them

Let's call it a 70/30 split

I'm in it for the 70

So you consider the Oral Torah about 70% credible?

I think it's better than Kairaite Judaism, Christianity, or Islam

But that doesn't make it perfect, unchanged, and having never been lost or broken

Right now, I frankly don't know what priors we have in common and what priors we differ about. You're telling me we have significant overlap and also significant disagreement. But I don't know what's in which bucket.

But at this point I'd like you to provide evidence of Moses calling himself a king, or doing things on his own authority, or passing his own laws like a king would

Ok. I think that's a minor issue, but ok. And you want it strictly from the text of Tanach, right?

Well?

Yes please

I'm willing to have my mind changed

Ok. I just ask that you not interrupt me, but let me continue till I'm done. Fair?

And I will tell you when I'm done.

Because in my mind I believe I'm making a logical argument based on how the text represents the figure Moses. I'm willing to see your logic if it's consistent

I will ask clarifying questions like you did to me. But I wont' object to anything or counter argue until you're done

Example 1 of Moshe making a significant policy decision without any textual indication that he checked with HKB"H first. Bamidbar 32. Reuven and Gad request to settle on the Eastern Bank of the Jordan. Moshe rebukes them severely, but eventually allows them to settle there, provided that they do their part in the conquest of Eretz Yisroel proper. The people of Reuven and Gad respond (verse 25) "Your servants shall do as my master commands."

Moshe then commanded Elazar the Kohen, Yehoshua bin Nun, and the leadership of the tribes to ensure that Reuven and Gad would keep their word. If not, he informs them, the deal is off, and Reuven and Gad will be in Eretz Yisroel proper rather than in their preferred Eastern territory.

That's a good example

Example #2. In the previous perek, Bamidbar 31, the Army of Israel has returned from the Divinely-commanded vengeance-war against Midian. From verse 15, Moshe says to them "Did you let all the females live? It was they who, at the word of Bilaam, caused the Children of Israel to betray Hashem in the matter of Pe'or, and caused a plague amongst the Congregation of Hashem.

Now, kill all the males among the babies, and every woman who has known a man you should kill. But the babies among the females, that have never known a man, them you may keep for yourself." It is a very significant decision involving much shedding of human blood. There is no textual indication that he checked first with HKB"H.

I feel this example is tied with Example 1. But keep going, these are good points

Thank you. I'm preparing my next example now.

Example #3. In Bamidbar 20, verses 14-17, Moshe sent a delegation to the King of Edom, proposing that he permit Israel to cross his territory peacefully. He specifies several concessions, promising that Israel will not travel through planted fields nor drink well water, but keep to the main highway until they have passed the borders of the Kingdom of Edom.

Later, in Bamidbar 21:21-22, Israel sends a similar embassy to Sihon, King of the Amorites. I take for granted that this was sent by Moshe in his function of leader/king of Israel; tell me if you disagree.

In both cases, there is no textual indication that Moshe first consulted with HKB"H.

In the case of Sihon, when Sihon mobilized his army to attack, Israel cut him down in battle and seized his land (verses 24-25), with no indication that Moshe first checked with HKB"H.

Is that enough?

Enough? No. But they're good points. For me they all seem to be around the idea of warfare. And even local tribal leaders would do things that Moshe does. Also the idea that everything needs to die seems to be consistent all the way to Saul not killing certain animals

So for me Moses clarifying rules of war which are known, are well within his rights. As well as sending peace dignitaries

Surely warfare is central to the role of a king. As is sending embassies to foreign powers to negotiate deals.

And the consistency of Moshe's behavior with that expected of Saul, undoubtedly a king, certainly seems like an argument in favor of Moshe's kingly status.

As for local tribal leaders, I'm not sure what is the difference between a tribal chief that wields full authority and a king, except that one rules a larger domain.

Also, his deciding where the tribes of Reuven and Gad would settle, and under what circumstances, is a purely internal matter. While he made it depend on their taking part in the coming war, the clear assumption of the text is that he had the authority to decide who gets the already-conquered Eastern Bank of the Jordan.

Well, I hope we can continue this discussion on another occasion. It's over 1:15 in the morning here in Israel, and I must get going. And of course, tomorrow is erev Shabbos. So, maybe next week.

Do you want to exchange some form of contact?

Sure, why not? [email protected]

I see your points. I think for me, your most convincing point was Moses allotting lands to the tribes outside of Israel. The warfare thing can be like clarifying what is known aspects of war and how things happened. In much the same way I would say that Judah didn't invent Yibum, it was clearly an already known and established semitic practice

I would appreciate it if you would more fully elaborate what you think about Moshe's role, so that I can better know what we agree or disagree about, and prepare my best arguments for those points about which we disagree.

In an email, I mean, not here in this chat. Like I said, I'm going to get going now.

Thank you so much. Have a goodnight

You too. Oh, what's your email address?

ive sent you an email already

Be safe over there in Israel.

Thanks. You too.

Oh, one more question. Will it be possible for me to come into this room again and review our discussion? Or should I save it for future reference?

I don't actually know. That's why I wanted to exchange email addresses. I think if there isn't enough activity the rooms go away

Ok, thanks. So I'll cut-paste the text for future reference.