Oy! If only the Rambam had read the surrounding verses he may not have made that mistake! Goes to show...

Yeah i know he rules that it's a miswah d'oraita. But if disagreeing with the Rambam were a sin then the Shulchan Arukh would be blasphemous :D Speaking of, i think the Rambam is siding with the Talmud which renders that it's a prohibition, and so he has to provide a proof, and that's the closest [Torah] scripture you can get for the prohibition of intermarriage with gentiles. Clearly Ezra and the leaders of his time took on the prohibition against intermarriage though.

Disagreeing with the Rambam is not a sin. Disagreeing with all of traditional Talmudic Judaism based on the claim that they didn't notice the simple reading of the adjacent verse is pretty blasphemous in that it accuses them all of being bumbling buffoons.

No one is accusing them of being baffoons. The Rabbi's often provide a proof text that goes against the Peshat. Rashi isn't a heretic for pointing such a thing out in his commentary to Exodus 32:3- "Do not follow the majority to do evil." Rashi says: "Regarding this verse, there are various expositions by the Sages of Yisrael but they do not fit the meaning of the verse: From here they derived that a guilty verdict3 should not be arrived at by a majority of one judge." He plainly points out that all the sages go against the meaning, is he guilty of calling the sages buffoons?

Not at all. But he isn't claiming that all those sages didn't notice and recognize the simple meaning. They pointed out additional meaning as well which Rashi think is completely valuable and halachically accurate. To claim that the Sages exposition of Deut 7:2 is halachically inaccurate because of their misunderstanding the simple meaning of the verses and their not noticing something as obvious as what you managed to point out with an English translation in one Mi Yodeya post, does accuse them of being bumbling buffoons.

When did i say that they didn't notice or recognize the meaning? i said that it's not a prohibition according to the peshat text, but that rabbinically, their interpretation leads to the prohibition. My statement doesn't say they are wrong, but that the peshat doesn't match the interpretation. They are not buffoons, but at the same time you can't translate Deut. 7:3 as: "You shall not marry them "the gentiles, about which the Bible speaks in the previous verses)" and then say that is a truthful translation. It's a reinterpretation, not a translation.

You said it's not a biblical prohibition despite the rabbis claiming it is. Tell me how that isn't accusing them of making a buffoon's mistake? The interpretation (not reinterpretation) is what they understood to be the correct halachic conclusion to draw, despite their knowing about everything you wrote about in your post. To claim otherwise is to claim either they didn't notice something obvious (blasphemous) or that they purposefully deviated from tradition (blasphemous). Either way: blasphemous.

Because it's my opinion. It's my opinion that lice do not spontaneously generate. It's my opinion that they come from eggs as a result of some sort of mating process. This opinion of mine contracts those of the Rabbis in Sabbath 107b. i feel that i can say without a doubt that lice come from eggs. This does not mean i am calling the Rabbis buffoons, it means that when i look at the same topic with a different lens or set of information i come away with a different opinion. Has anything i've said thus far been incorrect? Did the peshat of the verse not say what i claimed?

I don't understand why you are talking about lice? Of course the rabbis were wrong when they were told by local scientists that lice don't lay eggs. That doesn't make them buffoons. It means they were doing their best with the information available. Missing something completely obvious in the verse (which was available to them) does.

Using this verse as a proof text to stop the rampant problem of intermarriage does not make them buffoons in my mind, it means that they know that intermarriage is a problem and want to provide a proof-text for their prohibition. This makes them wise law makers in my eyes, not buffoons. But to me, you can't then retroactively go back and say the verse says something that it clearly does not.

Do you also think meat-and-milk is a rabbinic prohibition? You didn't claim in this post that the simple reading is limited to the 7 nations. You said the prohibition is rabbinic because the rabbis misinterpreted the verse. The former claim is reasonable. The latter claim is blasphemous.

Ah, finally figured out the chat thing, i will post my last comment in here

Yes i do believe milk and meat is Rabbinic. Otherwise the Alexandrian community wouldn't have elected Philo to be their representative because Philo does not see a milk and meat prohibition. He says "You shall not boil a lamb in its mothers milk... is wholly improper that food meant for a living thing should become its seasoning and flavoring....But if anyone thinks fit to boil meat and milk, let it be done with no cruelty..."

and he then goes on to say that someone who goes out of their way to find the specific milk of the mother of the meat has been severed from passion and mercy

books.google.com/…

We have also gone through the writings of the Jews at Qumran and found them to follow many halakhoth, they write of many, but they never mention separating meat and milk books.google.com/…

The Karaites mix meat and milk. The Ethiopian Jews mix meat and milk. When you keep adding all of these things together, it starts to become a fair statement to say that the prohibition of milk and meat is Rabbinic, otherwise you couldn't have so many large communities saying otherwise

Hello?

@Aaron hi didn't realize you go there and figured it out

@Aaron I don't know why karaites are relavnet. are you going to tell me next shavuot must be on sunday?

No i'm not going to say that, but my point was that when you get enough Jews having enough different of an opinion, there is a possibility that certain beliefs were not ubiquitous

But you asked me what the third option is. i think the third option is that initially there was no blanket prohibition aginst marrying gentiles, because the peshat of the verse is very specific

@Aaron I agree. Not a possibility. A known fact that that were Sadducees and Essenes and proto-chirstians. We (traditional rabbinic jews) think they were all wrong, just like we think modern christians and muslims are wrong. So be it.

@Aaron I asked you what the fourth option was. see the comments in the picture

However, the choices klal yisrael throughout time made intermarriage untenable. All the examples of intermarriage continued to not work, therefore causing Yisrael to ban intermarriage for themselves in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah

So therefore, the Rabbis are clearly linking the two

Why is intermarriage prohibited? Because it's untenable, Ezra and everyone says so. Where do we find this? Here in Devarim, where it was hinted at from the very begining

That's all a wonderful story and all but it's irrelvant to what i'm asking you...

That's my fourth option

No

Or third, or whichever number

No.

That's not an option that explains why the talmud thought it was biblical.

You aren't addressing what i'm asking you

Just repeating your own opinions on the history.

You're turning my answer into a binary situation.

To repeat my comments: The rabbis who say it's a biblical prohibition. How do you understand them given that you think it's rabbinic (and biblically it's fine)? Either they purposefully changed from what God told Moshe, or they misunderstood and thereby accidentally changed what God told Moshe, or they accurately explained what God told Moshe. What are the other options?

@Aaron I don't even know what that means.

You can't take the third option, since you think it's not biblical.

i do think it's biblical, just not Devarim Biblical

It became biblical law in Ezra 9-10

@Aaron I don't think we're using biblical here in the same way...

When I say biblical i mean what is often called 'deorayta' in rabbinic literature.

You seem to mean "roughly dating from the period of tanakh"

i don't know that we are looking at the same thing. In my eyes the Rabbis often cite biblical sources that are not readily apparent in the text

Sometimes they sey it's de'oraita, sometimes people disagree

Like with Havdalah

Or kethubboth

You mean the concept of Asmakhta?

Yes!

That's the word.

Cool. Ok

So what?

So my third option is they cite the source for it being biblical as Asmakhta

Right, but who cares?

How does that explain the rabbis who did think it is biblical??

That's what I'm getting at.

Who says they think it's biblical?

i'm not making the argument that they changed the verse

Although i would make the argument that the person who pasted that verse of deutoronmy had changed the text

Because it was not correct. And many chabad publications are like this, they don't translate, they re-interprate

Well, Rambam counts it in his list of 613 Mitzvot, about which he says in the introduction that he doesn't include rabbinic ones.

So did rambam just miss your obvious point? Did he purposefully change from what he thought God told Moshe? Which is it?

Neither. Rambam's 613 miswoth are not the same lists as other Rabbis, just because everyone likes his list does not mean it's the correct one.

Saadia Gaon has a list

I know I know

why are you telling me this?

I'm asking about rambam

you claim he is wrong

why is his list wrong

did rambam just miss your obvious point? Did he purposefully change from what he thought God told Moshe? Which is it?

Why do you keep calling my point obvious?

@Aaron mostly because it can be explained to a fourth grader with only a translation (the original isn't necessary) in under 3 minutes.

i don't say he is wrong, but i don't agree with him. Would editing my post to say "i don't agree that the prohibition is biclical" change it for you?

Because i have a large space in my viewpoint for disagreeing without others being wrong

@Aaron it doesn't sound like it from comments like this

They were not translating, they were re-interpreting

Probably because they hold a belief that one is not allowed to translate the torah into any language that's not greek

@Aaron lol i doubt it

So they don't translate, they insert halakhic or ideas of the rebbe into the text

The Gutnick edition of the Torah is a good example

i misspoke by saying halachic

i don't know what word to use

But when you read it, it will say things like "And so the children of Israel celebrated the Passover on the 15th of Nissan"

Until you explain how rambam came to a different conclusion, you are either calling him a buffoon or a heretic. You can't argue on him without doing so, or you are implicitly insulting his intelligence and/or dedication. One way to do so is to explain why you have information he didn't (eg. modern science about lice).

Why can't i argue that he was maintaining the status quo?

@Aaron you can say that but i don't know how that helps in this regard.

Why can't i argue that he personally believed that's what God meant? Just because he believed it, does not mean he was an idiot for doing so

@Aaron how could anyone but an idiot believe that given your oh so convincing proof in the answer?

What the? Because people are different? Because people often have personal reasons for doing so

Like personally believing that intermarriage never works

Rambam doesn't have the copyright on what God meant

@Aaron Sure. I didn't say he did.

i get the feeling you just don't like what i said. Or its implications

@Aaron Nope.

I have heard it all before. Your claims aren't new or scary.

That's my whole point.

So then you don't like what i said, or the way i said it

i'm not the author of anything new

Or maybe we have a different outlook on something? Because Rambam is infinitely more brilliant than i am

As were all the sages, because what they were able to know, without any of the tools, or libraries that we have now is incredible

You come here with your razzle-dazzle proof from the text as if you can uproot centuries of Jewish thought with it. It speaks of an arrogance which belittles all the rabbinical interpreters that Jewish tradition holds dear. To claim that you can solve the issue with two lines of argument and a translation is the biggest insult you can give to all those rabbis who traditional Judaism assumes thought hard, deeply and sincerely about this issue before stating their conclusion.

Some respect for their claims, I think, is in order.

Why do you use all these mocking tones? Have i spoken to you in such a manner?

Their is respect in their claims, but their claims are not the only ones in existence.

@Aaron Not about me.

But you are speaking to me

@Aaron I agree.

In a way that's not very nice

@Aaron So it seems.

i'm not trying to uproot all of rabbinic tradition, but there has to come a point when someone comes looking for an answer for how to repent of this very specific sin in a very specific way

Doesn't that frighten you?

@Aaron Doesn't what frighten me?

Nvm, it's an off topic thought of mine that's too long to get into

Because i need to go, my biology class starts in 2 mins and i'm in the school library

@Aaron Good luck!

@Aaron @DoubleAA I suspect that you two have been dancing around a basic difference of epistemology. Traditional Judaism biblical-Divine-Deoraita status to many laws and details of laws that re not immediately available via plain reading of Scripture, based on the tradition that these laws and details - the Oral Torah - were taught to Moshe at Sinai and transmitted from generation to generation via methods other than Scripture itself. ...

This category, traditionally, is distinct from rabbininc-derabanan laws (e.g. Purim, Muktzeh etc.), which were legislated by rabbis of various generations and which have a different status in halacha from deoraita laws. However, there have been groups throughout the ages, e.g. Saducees, Karaites, Reconstructionists, etc. who believe that what tradition considers the Divine Oral Torah was also the result of rabbinic legislation. Therefore, they conflate these two categories into one: ...

"rabbinic."

The rabbis of the Talmud, the Rambam, and @DoubleAA (to name a few) believe in the traditional view and therefore see no difference in Halachic status between the law against contemporarily marrying non-Jews, which is partially rooted in a line of interpretation transmitted Orally and the law prohibiting kindling a fire on Shabbat, which is stated explicitly in the Torah.

I get the sense that @Aaron (but please, correct me if I'm wrong) believes in the more Karaitic view and therefore sees no difference in status between the law against intermarriage and the law against moving muktzeh on Shabbat, since neither comes directly from a plain reading of the Torah.

If I'm right, then I suggest that you just agree that you have essentially different worldviews about the provenance of most of Halacha and move on.

... @Aaron, note that in the context of people who base their lives on Jewish tradition, the term "rabbinic" generally refers specifically to the body of law traditionally considered to have come from rabbinic legislation and not to the Oral Torah. So, you might want to consider either using a different term or opening with a description of your epistemology to prevent confusion.

... and once again, if I'm inferring your worldview incorrectly, please correct me and accept my apology.

Thanks for coming in and saying those things. i wouldn't say that i subscribe to a karaitic point of view, though my family came from Cairo which was Karaite home center. But i grew up secular and became a history major.

And therefore as a religious person, i often use the historical lens to sift through data and therefore give my personal Judaism a scope that is larger than Traditional Judaism, because otherwise historically it's hard to account for all of the other sects that were just as old or possibly just as authentic

But yes, i do think that puts my worldview in a place that's very different than @DoubleAA

@IsaacMoses All that you said is true, but it isn't what I found offensive. I just found that wrong.

What's offensive is claiming to disprove the opinions of men that traditional Judaism reveres with such a simple argument, as discussed above at length.

The claim is that they didn't notice the simple read of the verses (in which case it is offensive as it implies they are buffoons).

Were the claim that they noticed this and decided against it anyway because they had a received tradition about the correct interpretation of the verses, or that they felt that in terms of legal exposition a verse may be expounded outside its local context, or something else, then the argument cannot be made against them by just pointing out the simple read of the verses. That is not an argument against them as they agree with what the simple read is.

Were the OP to claim that he disagrees with a certain rule of legal exposition (as mentioned in the previous comment) or about the existence or veracity of a received tradition of theirs, that wouldn't be offensive. I would just think it is wrong.

Claiming to disprove them just based on pointing out the simple reading of the verses can only follow AFAICT by claiming they didn't notice it, which is a pretty offensive claim.

@DoubleAA You were the first one to mention rabbis that he disagrees with. All he said in the post was that his reading of the verses indicates that the prohibition is "rabbinic," which, from the point of view of tradition, incorrectly elides the difference between OT and derabanan. He is correct that this Halacha is founded on OT and incorrect that this makes a halachic difference. I agree that his later brushing aside of the Rambam and Chazal took an offensive turn, but really, it's just ...

... based on the same epistemological disagreement with them, and possibly some unawareness thereof. To someone who's not into OT, when the Rambam says "this law is from this verse," that seems to make no sense. A more sensitive and humble response would be to examine why the Rambam would say that, apparently departing from the verse's plain meaning.