In this episode of Hebrew Voices #223 - Halakhic Purist Rabbi: Part 3, Nehemia brings back Rabbi Asher Meza to discuss proselytizing in 2nd Temple Judaism, how the conversion process has become dramatically more burdensome over time, and where believers in Yeshua fit in according to the Sanhedrin’s halakhic decrees.

I look forward to reading your comments!

PODCAST VERSION:

You are listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Rabbi Asher Meza: Within my own religion, I don’t think someone has to drop the belief in Jesus, okay, as long as they incorporate Torah observance. Right? Because like the word “avoda zarah”, the word used in Judaism to describe idolatry, doesn’t appear in the Torah.

—

Nehemia: Shalom, and welcome to Hebrew Voices. I’m here today with Rabbi Asher Meza. He works in Jewish outreach; he’s a Bible enthusiast and a self-described halakhic purist. He’s the founder of Torah Judaism International. Shalom, Asher. You talked about proselytizing and how Judaism is against proselytizing. And, of course, the classical thing that every Jew, certainly with any kind of education knows, is that if somebody comes to you and says, “I want to convert,” that you have to turn them away three times. And you’re saying that Rabbinical Judaism in ancient times was a proselytizing faith, which is actually what the New Testament says, right? In Matthew 23, Jesus says that they crossed the oceans, or something like “cross the sea” to find one convert. And you read that and you’re like, “Wait. Did Jesus ever meet a rabbi?” Because that’s not Rabbinical Judaism. But you’re saying it was.

Asher: Yes.

Nehemia: So, talk to us about that.

Asher: So, right. Anytime I say something is Rabbinical Judaism, I mean that it was done in the time of the Mishnah and the rabbis that appeared during the time of the Second Temple. Nowhere in Jewish law does it tell you to reject the convert once, twice, or even three times. It never says that, okay? That’s a myth, in some way misconstrued on the story of Ruth, which the rabbis don’t incorporate on their procedure and how to accept the convert.

Maimonides says that “Yes, if somebody comes to convert, you ask them, ‘Why do you want to convert?’” If their answers line up, it says that you accept them immediately. And then it says that you teach them some of the laws, not all of them, “lest you turn him from the good path that he has chosen back to the bad path”. Maimonides is acknowledging that a Gentile remaining a Gentile when he already wants to become Jewish is the wrong path. And he says that, from the outset, we draw a person forth, and he quotes Hoshea, that says that “with bonds of love I drew Israel from Egypt,” right? That this is the way that we should reach out to converts.

Now, what Maimonides has to say about conversion is identical to what appears in the Talmud, in Masekhet Yevamot, which is identical to what appears in Shulkhan Arukh, in Yoreh De’ah. There is no source that says to turn converts away. Now, clearly, we want people to be sincere. Okay? But that’s neither here nor there. That has nothing to do with proselytizing. Actually going out and making someone a lover of God, that’s also not prohibited. Maimonides says that one way that we fulfill the commandment of loving God… The Rambam has a book called Sefer haMitzvot, The Book of Commandments. The third commandment, the third positive commandment of loving God, he says, “The way you fulfill that commandment is by doing what Abraham did.” Now, this is a midrash that teaches that Abraham sought converts. He converted the men, and Sarah converted the women. It’s a midrash, but it’s there. But the reason I’m mentioning it is to tell you how even Rambam thought about the idea.

It wasn’t really till post-Kabbalah that the mistreatment of converts began. And I know that it always boils down to Kabbalah, but it’s such a big part of the Jewish world. The main reason people are against seeking converts is because Kabbalah introduced this idea of a Jewish soul. Kabbalah teaches that a Gentile cannot convert to Judaism. If they do convert, it’s because they were Jewish all along. And it’s tied on this midrash a little bit that all souls were on Mount Sinai, you know. So, if they acquired a Jewish soul now, it’s because they always had a Jewish soul.

So, their job is to, in some way, make it hard for anybody who comes to sift out the real Jewish souls from the false Jewish souls. Because Kabbalah invented, or solidified, this idea of Esav le’sone Yaakov, that Esau intrinsically hates Jacob. That the reason Israel suffers is not because of Israel’s sin, which is basically the standard that appears in the Torah, right, or the system, but because Gentiles have this soul that come from the Sitra Achra, from, like, the other unclean worlds. While the soul of the Jew, it says in… like, in chasidut, says that chelek eloka mima’al mamash, that the soul of a Jew is physically part of God. Intrinsically, not because they keep commandments. So, if you separate the world as “us intrinsically” and “everyone else”, of course, you’re not only not going to believe in proselytizing, you’re going to make it hard for converts who do come in. And…

Nehemia: This is… wow! So, you said a lot here. So, I want to go back to this idea of… So, this idea that the Jewish soul is inherently… because it’s interesting. I’ll hear this in like… especially like Chabad people, I’ll hear them saying, like, “You have a Jewish soul and there’s something beautiful about it.” But there’s an implication there that the non-Jew has a different nature of their soul, and you say in Kabbalah it comes from the Sitra Achra, which is the other side, which is something like Satan and all the impure things in the world. So, I mean, this is obviously nothing… this is inherently, from my perspective, right, to be fair, is inherently contrary to one of the central messages of Genesis, which is that we’re all made be’tselem elohim, in the image of God, right? So, you’re saying that in Kabbalah, there are two types of souls among humans; the Jewish soul and the non-Jewish soul.

Asher: Correct. I mean, I have to organize Orthodoxy a little bit here.

Nehemia: Please.

Asher: I encourage people to become Jewish, and I’m an Orthodox Jew. However, my form of Judaism, which is a more rational, halakhic-based form of Judaism, views all these extracurricular ideas, right, as optional. I mean, there’s some beautiful optional ideas, there’s some silly optional ideas. The problem is that nowadays, in my opinion, they’ve hijacked Orthodoxy that, if you don’t agree with… I was quoting the first chapter of the Tanya. Like, if those who want to look for the source… I mean, it’s a small chapter, and it specifically says that the souls of the Gentiles come from this unclean klipot and the Sitra Achra, and everything they do, they do for egotistical reasons, quoting the Arizal, right, the first chapter of the Tanya. That has nothing to do with feeling bound to keep the rulings of the Sanhedrin, which is what we call the Oral Law, and believing in the Five Books of Moses. That’s all secondary. And there were actually rabbis who also fought against Kabbalah, like Rav Yaakov Emden. Like Yaavetz wrote a whole book called Mitpachat Sfarim, that he completely wipes the floor with the Zohar, saying that it’s a forgery, not written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. The Chatam Sofer says that it’s also a forgery. The Noda Biyhudah says it’s a forgery. Because we see Judaism behaving in a certain manner today, right, agreeing almost on everything, doesn’t mean that’s how it was a hundred years ago, or two hundred years ago.

Nehemia: Well, so… but I think what you’re saying is that there’s this… I want to call it democratization. Is that a word? De-mo-cra-ti-zation. Democratization of Kabbalistic thought, where it’s been translated into English, and maybe even dumbed down to some extent, or simplified, for the layman, and that’s now readily accessible to anybody who, you know, pulls up, I don’t know, Sefaria or something. Things that in the past, yes, you had to be initiated after the age of 40 and, you know, a person in good standing within the rabbinical community. And now anybody can open that up and read it. And you’re saying what they’re reading in this simplified form, I think, is what you’re saying, is maybe different than what Judaism was hundreds of years ago. Is that fair?

Asher: Well, I think we could tie this back to what you were saying, that people who are not fans of the Jewish people will use a lot of these statements now because of websites like Sefaria. You know, it’s accessible if it’s translated into English. One reason that most Rabbinic books are not translated into the common tongue is because they don’t want to be misused by people who don’t have, like, a basic Hebrew or yeshiva education. Right?

However, I mean, Sefaria, I myself, I translated the first 30 chapters of Yoreh De’ah, which was never translated into English before me. I mean, I feel like this big shot, but it wasn’t translated for a reason. And I don’t agree with that reason, by the way. I mean, I don’t believe that we should have secrets because they just build resentment…

Nehemia: What was the reason? What was the reason it wasn’t translated? And Yoreh De’ah, you mean of the Shulkhan Arukh?

Asher: Correct. No, because it limits the powers of the rabbis. That if… Well, this was actually the goal of the Rambam. The Rambam, in his introduction to Mishna Torah, his whole goal… Now, even though they didn’t have rabbis back then, was to put Jewish law in the hands of laymen. This is why… the Mishna Torah is translated in a very simple Hebrew, because he said, “Now all you need to live a kosher lifestyle is the Five Books of Moses and Mishneh Torah,” which is what he called the Second Torah. Which is his codification of Jewish law, you know, do’s and don’ts. Now, that’s a different approach, after this recreation of semikhah and trying to solidify power in the rabbinate, right? With concepts like da’as Torah, which is almost like this holy spirit, this ruach hakodesh that Haredim, that ultra-Orthodox Jews believe that their rabbis have, which concludes with them not being able to make mistakes. And…

Nehemia: Wait, so, da’at Torah is… this you’ll have to explain to me, is a doctrine among Hasidic Jews that the rabbis is infallible?

Asher: So, Haredim, you know… so, ultra-Orthodox Jews, clearly…

Nehemia: Oh, ultra-Orthodox.

Asher: Yeah. I mean, ultra-Orthodox Jews could be Ashkenazi, Litvish, like Haredi.

Nehemia: Okay. So, they’re not necessarily Hasidic Jews. Okay.

Asher: We’re not necessarily Hasidic, you know. Yeah, but the Hasidim had this doctrine before the notion of da’as Torah. But the reason we say da’at Torah, like da’as Torah, not da’at torah, is it’s essentially an Ashkenazi invention, you know. So, like, it’s hard to be, like… you don’t hear it often in Sephardi circles.

Nehemia: And just for the audience who doesn’t know it, I’m using the Israeli pronunciation. He’s using the Ashkenazi, the two different dialects. It’s tomato, tomato, da’at Torah, da’as Torah. Okay.

Asher: So, there’s a historian, he’s also a teacher at YU, that his name is Rav Aaron Rakeffet.

Nehemia: Okay.

Asher: He has a whole lecture on this, that the invention of da’as Torah… and he got ordination from YU. I mean, this is an Orthodox rabbi. He says the invention of da’as Torah first appeared in 1919 in the Agudas Israel convention. First time they ever used it, and it was followed along by an essay explaining what da’as Torah was.

Nehemia: Wow. That’s recent.

Asher: Yeah. So, da’as Torah was basically a ruach hakodesh, this holy spirit that fell upon every rabbi, a sefer Torah high like… it makes him a living Torah scroll, an adam gadol, this basically superhuman, that only Orthodox rabbis have. And it’s passed down from teacher to student, similar to the notion of semikhah, but not as ancient.

Now, the phrase “da’at Torah” actually appears in the Talmud in Masekhet Tulin, to just mean a tradition of how to do something that came from the Torah. But not how it’s used nowadays. Just like tikkun olam means something else as it was developed than what it meant when it was developed by the Kabbalists. Da’as Torah today means… like, they’ll tell you, like, “What’s your da’as Torah?” Like, “Who’s your da’as Torah?” And it means like, “What rabbi do you have that’s connected into this spiritual pipeline,” right, “that you’re able to take advice or guidance from?”

Nehemia: Wow, okay. It’s interesting, because in the 20th century, you have the Catholics of Vatican II, in which they introduced this idea, or actually, even in Vatican I in the 1800s, they introduced this idea that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he’s infallible. And then you have a parallel idea being introduced in Orthodox Judaism around the same time. And both in Catholicism and in Orthodox Judaism, the idea doesn’t seem to have existed before that.

Asher: Correct.

Nehemia: Which is kind of astounding! It’s like… so, what is it about modernity that makes these two movements say, “We have to introduce this idea of infallibility”? I don’t know the answer. It’s very…

Asher: Power.

Nehemia: Is it about power?

Asher: Yeah. To consolidate power.

Nehemia: Okay. And maybe it’s that, before, they had the power, and so they didn’t need this idea of infallibility.

Asher: Right? Semikha.

Nehemia: And it’s when they lose the power, then all of a sudden, they have to introduce the idea of infallibility to kind of maintain that power. That’s interesting. Someone should write a study on that; that’s very interesting. Wow, that’s absolutely fascinating.

So, all right, we talked about Kabbalah… Ah, so, proselytizing; let’s go back to that. So, I think some of the people who are watching this are getting a little bit nervous. Is Nehemia having someone on his program who wants us to leave Christianity, or leave Islam, or leave whatever, you know, Zoroastrianism, whatever their religion is, and become Jewish? Is that your objective, to get people to leave Christianity and deny their faith in Jesus and become Jewish?

Asher: Okay, now this is another controversial topic we… like, we haven’t had enough today. I, in some way, validate the Jewish existence of a messianic Jew. The belief system. I think that… I don’t think it matters who you think the Messiah is, even if you apply divine qualities to this character, as long as you accept the written law and the Oral Law. That’s what solidifies you as a Jew. Believing in the Messiah is optional. I don’t believe any supposed reference to Jesus in the Talmud is really about Jesus. I think that essentially the Sanhedrin was silent on the issue, on any of the claims that people use against Jesus to present him in a negative manner. So, that I can justify.

Christianity, I mean, traditional Christianity that teaches that the laws are done away with… I can’t say that me, religiously, could validate such an existence. As a person, fine. I mean, I think Christians have civilized this planet. I get scared to think how the world would look if we didn’t have Christians. And the reason you and I could have this discussion is because of the freedoms afforded to us by the Christian founding fathers of this country. So, I find many, many redeemable qualities in Christianity.

However, within my own religion, I don’t think someone has to drop the belief in Jesus. Okay? As long as they incorporate Torah observance, right? Because… like the word avodah zarah, the word used in Judaism to describe idolatry, doesn’t appear in the Torah. It’s a Rabbinic term that doesn’t even mean idolatry. It means “foreign service” or “strange worship”. It means to serve God in a way that He didn’t prescribe. The way Israelites serve God is by keeping His commandments.

So, if anyone is ever going to say that the Torah has been done away with, that, from an Orthodox perspective, becomes avodah zarah. The way we serve God is by keeping His commandments. If we don’t have those commandments, then we’re not, either serving the same God, or we’re not serving Him properly. So, from that perspective, that stops me from validating the religiosity of the average Christian, okay? But Messianics, I do validate as my brothers fully. If I’m forced to tolerate Kabbalists and their metaphysical ideas, I think that we should be able to validate, you know, and accept, Messianic Jews. And I view Messianic Judaism a lot less problematic than Kabbalistic Judaism. I mean, there’s only so much harm you could do with 27 books, and there’s thousands of Kabbalistic books that make Paul seem like a boy Scout.

Nehemia: Wow! Okay! That is… okay, so if somebody comes to you and says… Wow, it’s a lot to take in there and wrap my head around. So, if someone comes to you and says they, um… hmm, what is the question here? I’m not really sure. If somebody comes to you and says, “You know, I’m Jewish and I believe that Jesus is part of a triune God, a part of a Trinity. And I want to keep Torah, but I don’t want to stop believing in Jesus.” What do you say to him?

Asher: So, I may view that as problematic. However, something could be silly or theologically problematic and not be idolatrous or heretical. We have a systematic theology. If the Sanhedrin didn’t call something a certain thing, it’s outside of our jurisdiction to condemn such a person. If for some reason the Sanhedrin said that such a person cannot be counted in a minyan, or like the belief that the blessing Al Hamalshinim was in some way created against Christians, which I don’t believe that’s the case, it doesn’t say that in the Talmud; then that’s a different argument.

But being that it doesn’t mention Christianity, right, and we mentioned Shabtai Tzvi before. Shabtai Tzvi claimed to be God, and didn’t lose his following, because they knew that there is no actual halachic prohibition outside of the Rishonim. Yes, Maimonides, Tosafot. You know, the medieval rabbis, they developed ideas, and they prohibited them, like shituf. I mean, shituf means… it means partnerships, but the idea of shituf as problematic doesn’t appear in the Talmud. It’s Tosafot. The Tosafists, like the students of Rashi commenting on the Talmud, but the Talmud never said that if you believe that God has a partner, right, I mean, still some unity, that whether it’s a Trinity or like some sort of duality, but always boiling down to one? They never called that idolatry.

So, from a Talmudic perspective… and this is why I started off calling myself a halachic purist; if it doesn’t prohibit it in the Talmud, it’s technically allowed, even though it may be problematic. And I do believe that Messianic Judaism is essentially problematic. However, they’re not idolaters and they’re not heretics, according to the Talmud. Which means that they’re Israel if they either convert to Judaism or they have Jewish mothers, like, and they live a Torah existence.

So, I could disagree with someone theologically and not toss on them the most destructive terms we have in Judaism. To call someone an idolater, that’s quite heavy. I mean, you’re basically saying that we don’t prolong your life. I mean, you fall into a pit, right? Like, we don’t save your life on the Sabbath. And same thing with the heretic. Like, why is it that whenever we disagree with someone, we have to throw the heaviest epithet their way? Like, instead of saying “No, like we can disagree here. The Talmud doesn’t mention it.” All right? However, what we do agree upon, which is the word of God, the Torah, that should really be the defining factor of our relationship. Not whether you believe there’s a messiah who came and died for your sins and has divine qualities.

Nehemia: Okay, now talk to me about Sanhedrin 10:1 in the Mishnah, which says, you know, “All of Israel has a portion in olam haba,” in the world to come, “except for…” I think, probably me, and a few others. What are your… what are your thoughts about that? Or how does that apply now to this whole question? And look, I’m not here to debate you. I really just… I’ve been sitting here listening because I think these are fascinating ideas that people should hear, you know, and I’ve spoken for hundreds of hours on my program, and I want to hear other ideas here.

So, talk to me about Sanhedrin 10:1. “These have no portion in the world to come.” Because one of those is you deny the Oral Law. Another one is you speak the name the way it is written. And then the third one is you read sfarim chitzonim, the outside books. So, I think I’ve got like a “three-for” there on me!

Asher: Yeah. Well, I’m glad that you said it correctly, and these are the ones that don’t. I mean, that has to be one of the most misquoted terms. “Kol Yisrael yesh lachem chelek ba’olam haba.” Right? I mean, Chabadniks will say it all the time to make unaffiliated Jews feel good. “It means I don’t have to keep anything?” “No. You have a Jewish soul? You have a place in the world to come.” Right?

But you read it correctly. The next page says, “And these are the ones that don’t.” Now, like we said earlier, the Sanhedrin had no authority to talk about the world to come, and only because it appears like this and that… who said that they agreed unanimously with what the other rabbis said? The reason we think that is because the Rambam’s 13 principles are based on this section that they call Perek Chelek. So, what the Rambam did, I mean, like, the Rambam in his Pirush Ha’mishnayot, his commentary to the Mishnah, in his introduction to this section… he tried to codify all these statements into one and said that this was the belief system of the time. And if you don’t believe in these things, then you’re an epikoros, and you lose your share. Like, if you don’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, you’re not going to partake in the resurrection of the dead.

However, that’s not how the Talmud is written. The Talmud, everyone is giving their own opinion. And there’s another book called Sefer ha-Ikarim from Rabbi Yosef Albo, that he basically confronts the Rambam 13 principles, that is directly connected to this portion in Sanhedrin, basically saying, “Wait, wait; we have rabbis in the Talmud who didn’t believe that the Messiah was coming.” I mean, is he also a heretic?

There’s a book called The Limits of Orthodox Theology, by Rabbi Marc Shapiro, that mentions many rabbis who disagreed with the Rambam’s rendition of the 13 Principles as built off of, like Perek Chelek, like of the Sanhedrin, that was never meant to be understood authoritatively. That is on the level of midrash, especially because it’s talking about Olam Haba. When does the Torah ever mention Olam Haba? Anything the rabbis have to say on Olam Haba… and I can tell you, almost everything they have to say disagrees with every other rabbi. I mean, there’s no consensus of it, right? It’s only opinion.

Nehemia: So, Sanhedrin 10:1 is just opinion, you’re saying; it doesn’t have halakhic force. Is that correct?

Asher: Correct, correct. Now, the problem is with the notion of the Oral Law. Okay? I mentioned once in a video, this is my theory, that the Sadducees actually believed in an Oral Law, at least the way that we teach it, as the authority coming from the Sanhedrin. I mean, it’s a principle, like in Orthodox Judaism, beis din ha’gadol she’beyerushalayim hem ikar Torah she’be’al peh. That it’s the Great Sanhedrin that sat in Jerusalem that is the root of the Oral Law. That means that’s where the laws come from. But if the Talmud says that the Sanhedrin sat, I’m sorry… that the Sadducees sat on the Sanhedrin, so not only did they believe in the Oral law, they were the creators of it.

So, when it appears in Josephus and in Christianity that the Sadducees didn’t believe in the traditions of our fathers, I teach that that’s what we call Midrash and Aggadah today. They wanted laws to be built, you know, the consensus, Rabbinic laws, Jewish laws, not Torah laws; the Talmud always makes a distinction. They wanted laws to be built on Tanakh, and specifically the Torah, and not off of folklore and legend.

And this is essentially what it means that he… they weren’t in line, they didn’t accept the traditions of our fathers. The “traditions” is Aggadah. And there’s tons of it. Ein Yaakov. There’s tons of books… Like, it outnumbers Torah she’bekhtav. I mean, there’s more aggadic statements on what the Torah has to say than what the Torah actually has to say, right? And then you get a ba’al teshuva, someone who’s new, like, to the religion, and they adopt it all and they’ll start quoting… but they’ll say, “the Torah teaches” and they’ll quote your folklore and legend, which is the definition of adding to the Torah.

So, it could mean that the opinion is that whoever doesn’t believe in these aggadic statements, right, and of course, this statement in general is opinion literature, is in some way, from their perspective, not given olam haba. This whole notion of not giving, being allowed… You know, I think everyone, including Christians, that have the right to create their own olam haba and invite whoever they want to their party. Okay?

Nehemia: What do you mean “they have the right”? Doesn’t God decide those things?

Asher: No. Correct. Yeah, but a Christian doesn’t make these things up. I mean, like, a Christian believes that the Book of Revelation is a continuation to the Torah. You know? So, being that the Torah doesn’t mention heaven and hell literally, then if you want to say that, in my heaven or in my world to come, you will be allowed in and not you. I mean, what are you breaking? You’re not breaking anything. All right? However, I could create my own party in heaven or on earth, wherever people want to say olam haba is, right, and invite my friends. That’s how I view it. Olam Haba is not a halachic issue, okay? By simple fact that it… Okay. So, like, for something metaphysical to be binding, it has to appear in the Torah.

Nehemia: It’s like any belief about the world to come, or the afterlife, is not binding.

Asher: Correct, unless it appears in the Torah. That means you can believe it or not believe it. But by the simple fact that, if you ask five different rabbis to explain to you, gan eden or olam haba or gehenom, that you’re going to get 200 different opinions, it means that they also don’t see eye to eye. It’s just nice to say it.

I mean, there’s some things that people say, like techiyat hametim, like the resurrection of the dead. Everyone says, “I believe,” you know. They’ll quote the Rambam’s 13 principles, that they believe in the resurrection of the dead. But what type of resurrection do you believe in? The same section in Perek Chelek that tells you that you have to believe in the resurrection of the dead, nowhere in the Talmud does it explain what that means. It never explains what the resurrection of the dead is, but that you have to believe in it. So, like, Maimonides was accused of not believing in the resurrection of the dead, because he doesn’t mention it where it should appear in, like the Mishneh Torah, which is Hilkhot Melakhim, the section of Kings and the Messiah, right? He excludes that portion. So, he had to write an apology, saying, “No, no, of course I believe in it, but in my rendition of the resurrection, people resurrect, only to die again.” Okay? Contradicts the Rambam…

Nehemia: Everybody? Or just the really bad people or…

Asher: No, everybody dies again. That means…

Nehemia: Okay. Oh, so you’re only resurrected for a temporary amount of time.

Asher: According to Maimonides.

Nehemia: Okay.

Asher: Right. Now, this contradicts Nachmanides. It contradicts Kabbalah, Rashi, where it’s perpetual. I mean, as a matter of fact, the life of the Messiah, according to Maimonides, is not a perpetual one either. I mean, he says that nothing’s going to change in the messianic age, which is an opinion in the Talmud, right? But a minority opinion, it says… Rav Shmuel says that in the messianic age, nothing is going to change, with the exception that Israel is going to have sovereignty over themselves to study Torah and live in peace. Okay? But there’s nothing miraculous that’s going to happen. He teaches that the Messiah will eventually have a kid and establish the line again, but he’s going to pass away as well.

Now, it’s easy to say you believe in something, but it’s hard to defend it. I don’t think anyone should say “I believe,” and just pay lip service if you can’t defend the idea you believe in. You can be like the Rambam and just give an apology just so your books don’t get burned, right? Or that you could strive to be painfully honest and say like, “You know what? I refuse to comment in this area, because the Torah doesn’t say anything about it.” The metaphysical has to come from the Torah.

However, we believe that Deuteronomy 17 authorizes the Sanhedrin, these judges, which we believe God told Moses to establish a court of 70 elders; these judges had authority on building consensus, and that’s it. And the authority of these judges ceased to exist, post the 4th century of the Common Era. So, nowadays it’s a free-for-all with what we can do with what the Mishna actually tells us, and that’s the extent of Orthodox Judaism. That’s the power of Orthodox Judaism. Everything else is a misappropriation of it.

Nehemia: Let’s circle back to the Sadducees, who you’re saying, one interpretation is that…

Asher: It’s a theory of mine; it’s a theory of mine.

Nehemia: Okay, fine. But in your theory, you’re saying it could be that they believed in an Oral Law, but they denied the Aggadah. Would that make you a Sadducee in that respect?

Asher: Well… [laughter]

Nehemia: I’m asking, not accusing.

Asher: Well, according to that definition, I mean… not to mention, by the way, that this distinction between Pharisee and Sadducee, there isn’t a rabbi in the Talmud that ever identified as a Pharisee. The Talmud makes fun of Pharisees just like it makes fun of Sadducees. You know? So, it’s… I mean, it’s not like if you’re not a Pharisee, you’re automatically a Sadducee from a Talmudic perspective. A plague on both of their houses.

So, I mean, from that perspective, yes. Not that I completely disregard every Aggadah, but I do disregard it as authoritative. I mean, it’s what you can extract from it. The issue, in my opinion, that the Sadducees had when trying to develop halakhah was, where was the root of that halakhah? You know, for example, like oneg Shabbat, right? Oneg Shabbat would be a ruling that the Sadducees would be okay with because it’s built off of Isaiah 55.

Nehemia: Wait. So, tell the audience what you mean by that, because I don’t think they… I’m pretty sure they don’t know.

Asher: We have a Rabbinic command; we have a Rabbinic command to rejoice on the Sabbath. This statement appears in the Book of Isaiah, but only because something appears in the books of the prophets doesn’t make it authoritative practically on every Jew, unless the Sanhedrin in some way takes that statement and makes it into law. So, these are examples of statements, laws, what we call halakha, that were extracted from the prophets and from like… from a Rabbinic perspective, we believe that all the prophets sat in the Sanhedrin as well, and they were judges of their generation. However… but not every statement given over by them necessarily carried that weight, unless it was reiterated by the Sanhedrin. I’m sure that’s…

Nehemia: Now I’m not sure what you mean by oneg Shabbat. Do you mean just in general to have enjoyment on Shabbat? Or do you mean specifically, what they sometimes call the double mitzvah? What are you referring to here in Isaiah 58:13-14? What are you referring to? It’s not clear to me.

Asher: So, the Torah never tells us to rejoice in the Sabbath.

Nehemia: Okay.

Asher: So, there’s a… there’s a Rabbinic command that we’re supposed to enjoy ourselves in the Sabbath. We should strive to have an enjoyable, pleasant Sabbath.

Nehemia: Whatever that is.

Asher: Right. I mean, it’s clearly subjective, you know, but to in some ways stop someone saying, “No. I believe that on the Sabbath we should suffer.” Right? I mean, similar to the idea of having chamin, like cholent, hot food on the Sabbath, but the rabbis instituted hot food to show that you believed in the authority of the Sanhedrin to, in some way, make your life easier, you know, or even more difficult in some cases, right, outside of the plain laws that appear in the Torah. Because the Torah never said that you have to eat hot food. It never said that you have to enjoy yourself on the Sabbath. The rabbis stepped in; they codified this practice, that was Rabbinic, by the way…

The major difference between Rabbinic law and Torah laws that many mystics don’t teach today, you don’t have to do mechila, that you don’t have to feel horrible because you broke a Rabbinic law, okay, like you would feel if you broke a Torah law. If you fail to live up to a standard laid down by the Sanhedrin, next time around you try harder. If you fail to keep a Torah law, that’s… teshuvah is required. Like, returning back in a docile state, right, with mechila. Like saying, “I’m sorry, God. I failed you this time. I missed the mark.”

The Rambam brings down that even when trying to apply Rabbinic law versus Torah law, safek deravnan le’hakel; that, if there’s a question on how to execute a Rabbinic law, we’re always lenient. Safek deoraita le’chumra; if there’s a question on how you keep a Torah law, we’re always strict. The rabbis had no issue making a distinction. This is why I don’t think most people who call themselves Karaites today would be Karaites if they understood Judaism according to Maimonides.

However, I don’t blame people for being Karaites when they’re told that, on Mount Sinai the whole Talmud was given to Moses, or even the Oral law in general. Which, by the way, never appears in the Mishnah. Nowhere in the Mishnah does it ever say that the Oral Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, nor did it ever use the phrase Oral Law. Nor in Talmud Yerushalmi. It’s only in the Babylonian Talmud, even in Perkei Avot.

Nehemia: So, in Yerushalmi there’s an interesting passage; I don’t know that we want to get too much into the weeds here. It says… Mikra, Mishna, Talmud ve’Aggada, meaning the Scripture, the Mishna, the Talmud, Aggadah, which is kind of meta… how is the Talmud referring to Talmud? Maybe. Obviously, it means something else. And it says, “Even that which a senior student in the future will teach in front of his rabbi was already spoken to Moses on Mount Sinai.”

Asher: Right.

Nehemia: And that’s in Yerushalmi in two different places. It’s in… well, I’ll put it up on the screen. It’s…

Asher: My point is on the word Oral Law.

Nehemia: Yeah. No. So, there it doesn’t mention Oral Law, but it mentions Mishnah and Talmud and Aggadah, interpreting Aggadah as a separate category.

Asher: Right, so Talmud… that clearly… what your question is… like, how can you have a Talmud before the Talmud was actually written? Yeah. I mean, not just that. I mean Gemara also. It uses the word Gemara, like, even before like there was an actual Gemara. I mean, it just means like in some way… a drash on Rabbinic literature. Like, I mean, comparing laws and their roots for the laws, seeing where’s the machlot, the… I mean, that’s called Gemara and it’s called Talmud. You know, but later on these terms have, like, different nomenclature.

Now, in terms of something else given to Moses, apart from the written Torah, that does appear in the Mishnah. It never calls it “Oral Law”, it calls it halakha le Moshe mi’Sinai. That there are certain laws that were given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Maimonides says it’s limited to 30, and he limited it to 30, because his understanding is that, if there’s no debate on a particular law, we can assume that it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

However, there’s other rabbis who stepped in and said, “Well, with this 30 that you laid down, there are debates on these laws.” So, there’s probably around 12 laws that were given to Moses on Mount Sinai. From a mishnaic perspective. You know… So, I know that Orthodox Judaism in some way, people paint with a broad brush when describing what they believe, but the closer you get to the Mishnah, the more you realize that these rabbis didn’t deify themselves. It’s later on, with boredom and affluence, that people in some way felt that the Mishnah wasn’t enough, that the Torah wasn’t enough, so they kept on adding and they kept on adding. And nowadays you have Hasidic Jews who believe that the teachings of their rebbe were also given on Mount Sinai. You know, so I think that we have to…

Nehemia: Well, I think, you know… I’m sorry, finish what you’re saying.

Asher: No, yeah, go ahead.

Nehemia: No, I think where that comes from is there is, there’s the story… and it ties into what I just read. I didn’t read the whole passage, which maybe isn’t fair in the Yerushalmi. It goes on, it says, “There is a matter that one says, ‘See, this is new.’” And that’s a quote, of course, from Ecclesiastes. “And his friend responds to him and says, ‘No, this was from of old time.’” In other words, what the Yerushalmi is saying there about the senior student who’s teaching in front of his rabbi what was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai… it’s not that it was transmitted, if I’m understanding it correctly, it’s not that it was transmitted rabbi-to-disciple in an unbroken chain, but that there’s this rediscovery of ancient Mosaic information that is being revealed through the teachings of rabbis. And you think you came up with a chiddush, with something new, but the only reason you think that is because you didn’t know that all already was taught in the past.

Asher: Right. And the statement itself is Aggadah. I mean, it’s…

Nehemia: No doubt, but it ties into what I love because it’s perhaps the earliest time travel story in history, that I’m aware of, at least, where Rabbi Akiva goes back in time to… oh, no, sorry; Moses goes forward in time to the academy of Rabbi Akiva, and he doesn’t understand what he’s saying. Right? Moshe is sitting in the eighth row, and then finally, you know, people are questioning Akiva because he’s saying these, like, ridiculous things. And finally, he says “Halakhah le’Moshe mi’Sinai,” and then it says, something like, heniach da’ate or heniach da’ato. It was… “Moses was satisfied when he heard that.” Because, in other words, it was something God intended that Moses himself didn’t understand. Right? Because it starts off, God is tying crowns on the characters. And Moses says, “What are these crowns?” And he gets sent forward in time to the Academy of Akiva.

And the point of the story there, in the Talmud, if I’m understanding it correctly is, there are things revealed through the teachings of the rabbis that they didn’t hear from a tradition, but it really does go back to what God intended in the first place. Is that… what… how do you understand that story?

Asher: Well, I mean, I think that whole story is satire, especially…

Nehemia: Oh, okay.

Asher: Well, I mean, in the way it’s presented, that Moshe Rabbeinu says, “I don’t remember learning this.” Right? And then, of course, there’s other statements that say… well, I mean, it’s quite convenient to say that you forgot so many halakhot. I think that it’s aggadata, and there’s many statements that contradict that. But this is why we needed codification of Jewish law to strip away the folklore and legend from the actual law. I mean, I can’t defend every aggadic statement in the Talmud. And yes, things that were done today were done back then in trying to justify unauthoritative statements. I mean, absolutely.

However, but we have to draw a line. And that line is drawn by people trying to establish a systematic theology that, I believe, was laid down by Maimonides on what’s authoritative and what’s optional. And you’re allowed to believe what’s optional, as long as it doesn’t start to affect what’s authoritative. I mean, for example, now that we’re in the time of the counting of the Omer, let’s say. Right? Every Orthodox Jewish person believes that, during the counting of the Sfira, you can’t have haircuts, you can’t listen to music. Why? Because it’s… it’s essentially a custom; it doesn’t appear in the Talmud. But they fail to make a distinction between a minhag, a custom, and the actual halakha. They think that if something exists from a prescriptive perspective, even outside of the Talmud, you must do it. Why? Because the mystics are calling the shots.

Now, what we try to do is say, “No. I mean, this is, I mean, quite absurd. I mean, the only reason that you don’t take on more practices is because you just don’t know that they exist.” And this is why the Siddur keeps on getting bigger and bigger.

What we have to do is go back to the original structure of the Sanhedrin and realize that if the Sanhedrin ruled it, it’s law. Even though in many cases it’s ambiguous because, like, since the time of the zugot, when the Sanhedrin was split in two, that main initiative was in order to split up Israel by the Romans. But the laws, the consensus of Israel, always went back to people who had authority, semikhah, and people who didn’t have authority could only comment on those laws. And if for some reason you belonged to that person’s community, to that teacher’s community, you should do his interpretation. But if you don’t like his interpretation, then you could create your own community. Which is why we have so many different groups in Judaism, because Judaism lacks that consensus that it had during the time of the Sanhedrin. And it’s really the only way that we could keep on moving forward and be able to strip away all of the fat that we’ve acquired throughout the ages.

Nehemia: So, I’m going to ask you a question which maybe isn’t fair, and if you want to edit it out, we can. If I were to show this video to, like, the local Chabad rabbi, and I would say, “Is Asher Meza, based on what he said in this interview, is he a legitimate Orthodox… is he within the fold of Orthodoxy?” What do you think that rabbi would say?

Asher: Oh, they wouldn’t… like, if he was Chabad, he would say no. But let’s see what I’ve actually said. I said, the authority goes back to the Sanhedrin, i.e. the rabbis in the Mishnah and the Berayse and the Tosefta, and like, Mishnaic literature. I tolerate books like the Zohar and Midrash and Aggadah as essentially folklore and legend like rabbis have done throughout the ages. I believe that you can’t add to either the written law or the Oral Law, which is what appears in the Mishnah. Where do him and I actually differ? With the exception that he did add to both the Oral Law and the written law, that’s where we differ, you know. So, the question is, who’s the real Orthodox Jew? With the person…

Nehemia: So, maybe Chabad was a bad example. Because the…

Asher: No, the average Jew feels like Chabad. I would say that the average Jew…

Nehemia: So, if I were to ask the average Jew, “Does this accurately represent Orthodox Judaism as you understand it?” What would he say?

Asher: So, it depends. It depends.

Nehemia: By the way, here’s why it’s not a fair question; if you were to show any random hour of my videos to the Chief Rabbi of the Karaites in Israel, he would probably say, “Nehemia is a heretic.” Right? And you know… so that’s why maybe it’s not a fair question. But having said that…

Asher: But I claim to speak for Orthodoxy; that’s the difference. And that being said, I think I’ve debated more Orthodox rabbis than anyone alive. My channel is TorahJudaism.com under media and debates, because I record my debates. I’ve never, till today, had, from an academic perspective, a rabbi tell me that I’m right. Well, okay. Or tell me that he wanted me to stop what I’m doing, but he just said that I wasn’t wrong. Right? They’ll say that what I’m saying is not wrong, but they just won’t say it’s right. Which means that, according to the actual text that appears in the Mishnah, according to the Rambam, it’s the way I say it is. According to what’s done nowadays, it is not.

For example, the procedure of conversion. According to the Talmud, Hillel converted people in one day. According to the Rambam, it could take two days. If you try to explain or try to get an Orthodox rabbi to justify the conversion process today versus what appears in the Talmud or the Rambam or the Shulkhan Arukh, he’ll be like, “Well, you know, times have changed,” this and that. Suddenly they start speaking like Reform Jews. I mean, only Reform Jews feel that you could change a practice because it doesn’t suit daily life, daily Jewish life. When was it… like chadash assur min ha’Torah has always been like the basis of Orthodoxy…

Nehemia: Please explain what chadash assur min ha’Torah means.

Asher: So, it was a statement, I believe, brought forth by, like, by the Chatam Sofer, to in some way attack the reform, saying that any new idea… I mean, it’s a misquote from the Torah, but any new idea is prohibited from the Torah. You know, I mean something that’s a chidush, I mean something that’s chadash, that’s new. It’s prohibited from the Torah.

Nehemia: What it originally refers to was grain that you’re eating. Right? From the new harvest before the Omer offering. Right? And so, now they’re applying it allegorically. I mean, literally allegorically. It’s beautiful.

Asher: It’s become the moniker of the Orthodox world…

Nehemia: Okay.

Asher: That what distinguishes Orthodoxy from Reform, that reform tries to change Torah law and oral laws while Orthodoxy hold the banner up, you know, for consistent, you know, authority sanctioned by God. Which, we believe, like, ended with the dismantlement of the Sanhedrin. So, what they’re doing now, they’re just saying, “Well, because of the state of Israel, now the reality is different, and we’re in some way going to modify halakha.” All right. They do it when it’s convenient.

So, the reason I’m able to have a discussion with Orthodox rabbis, and I myself have semicha; I’m a rabbi. I mean, I speak “yeshivish”, you know, so we have that common ground. But they would know that the principles I’m laying down are the principles of Orthodoxy. However, how they get translated in everyday life, right, especially with the involvement of a secular country called Israel, right, like, doesn’t always mirror what appears in the Talmud. You know, so they won’t say I’m wrong, but they’ll be like, “It’s not so simple.”

So, I think that a more knowledgeable rabbi would come to that conclusion. Yes, if it’s someone who’s just strictly metropolitan, like he cares what, you know, other people think on his legal rulings, yeah, I mean, he’ll say, like, he doesn’t represent it. He’ll say that I don’t represent Orthodoxy.

Nehemia: I want to state here something that I think that’s implicit and not related to the Orthodoxy issue, but related to conversion, and you tell me if you disagree with this. So, you’re talking about how an Orthodox rabbi today would say that “Well, some realities have changed because of the modern state of Israel when it comes to conversion.” And look, I was part of many… decades ago, I was part of this committee among Karaite Jews in Israel to implement modern-day conversion. Because we have people who are saying, “You know, I’m not Jewish. And I want to be Jewish, but I don’t believe in the Oral Law. I want to do it through the Karaites.” And they hadn’t done it. They hadn’t done it in quite a number of, you know, centuries or decades or, I don’t know exactly, probably centuries. And the reality of why they hadn’t done it was because it was illegal in Muslim countries and Christian countries to convert people. It was actually against the law. So, for very practical reasons, they didn’t do it.

So, they’re like, “Okay, how do we do this?” So, part of this committee, we went and met with one of the top legal experts in Israel, and he said like this. He said, “You have to have a minimum of one year- long education process for any potential convert, and it has to be a formal education. Like, there has to be some formal education structure, or the State of Israel will not recognize it.” And we’re like, what does the State of Israel care? Right? We’re not, you know… right? We’re saying people who aren’t Jewish, who have no interest in moving to Israel… “Well, they might one day want to move to Israel. And if they ever want to come to Israel, they’ll be allowed to, as somebody who converted to Judaism through the Karaite branch. But there has to be these hoops you have to jump through.”

And one of those was a minimum of one year. Why one year? Because that’s what the Orthodox do. And why do the Orthodox do that? This was the Oral Law, so to speak, that I was told by this legal expert. Because they don’t want people from third world countries immigrating to Israel in order to get an easier life, right? Meaning, they want people who are genuinely converting to Judaism because they believe in Judaism. But they don’t all of a sudden want 100,000 people from India showing up and benefiting from the social services. And we’re like, “These aren’t religious reasons. These are political reasons, right?”

So, it’s kind of like this… Israel has, you know, these what we call Chukot Yesod, foundation laws, which are essentially the Constitution in Israel because they can’t be overridden by the Knesset except under very special circumstances. And then the Supreme Court uses them the way the US uses the Constitution to a very large extent. And one of them is the Law of Return. It says every Jew has the right to return to Israel, but it doesn’t define what a Jew is. That’s based on precedent. Right?

So, now we have this… what’s the word I’m looking for? We have this fallout from Israel’s precedent over the law of return now affecting a Jewish community, or a nascent Jewish community, in eastern India. And this is craziness to me, right? I mean, look, there’s the passage in Isaiah 29 about the mitzvat anashim melumada, the commandment of men learned by rote. Right? Now I’m preaching, I apologize. But really, this is a commandment of men that has nothing to do with the Torah. And the joke is that if Ruth showed up at Ben Gurion Airport and said, “I’m Jewish,” she would have been turned away under the Law of Return. And it’s a joke, but it’s not. It’s actually true.

Asher: Rabbi Akiva would be turned around also. I mean, Mishnaic Judaism doesn’t resemble Amoraic Judaism. So… but yeah. That when they say that the Orthodox say it’s essentially the consensus of the Rabbinate, which, what they’re essentially doing is politicizing Judaism. And it’s not something you should do if you claim to be Orthodox, right? I mean, according to Jewish law, if somebody goes through the requirements put forth in the Mishnah on how to convert, that person’s Jewish. If you deny that, then you’re denying the authority that you believe the Sanhedrin had to establish checks and balances. So, how are they still Orthodox in that perspective? You know, so it’s a problem.

Nehemia: You’re saying there’s innovations in modern Orthodoxy which are contrary to what is supposed to be the basic principle of Orthodoxy, which is that you’re not supposed to have innovation.

Asher: Correct. You’re not allowed to innovate.

Nehemia: Yeah. Any final words for the audience? A call to action. What is your message?

Asher: My message? I’m all for promoting individual moral training. I believe that we should all strive to make this world a little better than we found it, and I think living a Torah existence helps us get there. I don’t believe the Torah is there to make you good, I think it’s there to make you better. All right? Like, strive for decency and morality. And I think the Torah is like the greatest aid towards that. So, if you’re looking for a more ethical existence, perhaps you may want to consider Judaism. You may not want to consider Judaism, right? I mean, there’s something…

I think the way we classify proselytizing nowadays is with intimidation and fear. There’s no coercion here. If you’re looking for an ethical outlet, Judaism might be for you. It might not be for you. But just consider this a friendly invitation. And I would encourage everyone this Sabbath, let’s say Saturday morning, to visit your local synagogue and just check it out, you know?

Nehemia: Would they be welcome in their local synagogue?

Asher: If you’re not welcome, keep looking, okay? There’s many synagogues that are welcoming, and there are many that are not. But just keep looking. It’s… I mean, it’s a hell of a power move. I mean, to just go there and, like, be an Abraham; go from where you’re at to where God wants you to be. And every day you should do something that scares you a little bit. I mean, I think you’d be doing your whole heritage a favor, and possibly improving, like, your whole spiritual and ethical outlook by upgrading to a more sophisticated belief system.

Nehemia: Would you end this… if you’re not comfortable, it’s fine. But would you end it with some kind of a brakha? Some kind of a prayer?

Asher: No, no. Like, I don’t do anything like lucky charms, you know? Like, it frustrates me when I hear someone… I mean, going to a rebbe, I mean, to get a brakha. I mean, if he’s really worth his weight in gold, like, ask him for advice. Like, it’s worth a lot more.

Nehemia: So, what’s some advice?

Asher: Oh, I just gave you advice!

Nehemia: You just gave it. Fair enough.

Asher: All right, so Onkelos… there’s a story about Onkelos. I mean, some people say it’s the same Aquila that, before he converted to Judaism, some say that he was the nephew of Titus, or Vespasian, or Nero. No one knows for sure. He asked his uncle for business advice. Right? He’s a young guy entering finance, or the business world, and he said, “Okay, nephew: buy cheap, sell high.” So, what does he do? I mean, he goes on and he converts to Judaism. It was a crime at that time to convert to Judaism, and right before they execute him, his uncle came. He’s like, “Why did you do this?” And he said, “Well, I just took your advice. What other people are more downtrodden today than the Jewish people? I bought into this low now, and then in the future, once God establishes them to their former glory, I’m going to cash in,” with, I mean, having a line of decent individuals who claim to be my descendants.

So, we may be small in number now, but Judaism, the Torah, essentially, the Torah covenant, are the building blocks of both Islam and Christianity. What makes Islam and Christianity such an ethical force for good in this planet is that it in some way recycled the ethics that appear in Torah. So, go with the original, right? And I think that that’s what we’re experiencing now; we’re experiencing a Torah revolution. And thank God for the internet and other modes of conversation that are accessible to almost anyone on this planet. So, I believe you should do it sooner rather than later; consider becoming Jewish.

Nehemia: And where can people find you on the internet?

Asher: torahjudaism.com

Nehemia: All right. Thank you, Rabbi Asher Maza. Shalom.

Asher: Shalom.

—

Nehemia: Have you ever seen this video? There’s this… this is way off topic, I apologize. We’re going two hours. We’re going to break it up in the number of episodes. If you still have stamina, I’ve got a few more questions. All right.

You have been listening to Hebrew Voices with Nehemia Gordon. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has proven to be a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the text has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If you would like to support our efforts to transcribe the teachings on NehemiasWall.com, please visit our support page. All donations are tax-deductible (501c3) and help us empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!

Subscribe to "Nehemia Gordon" on your favorite podcast app!
Apple Podcasts | 
Amazon Music
 | TuneIn
Pocket Casts | Podcast Addict | CastBox | iHeartRadio | Podchaser
 | Pandora

If you have found Nehemia Gordon’s teachings to be of value, please consider supporting his efforts through his ministry Makor Hebrew Foundation.

Make a lasting impact through the year by making your donation recurring.

Or support Makor Hebrew Foundation by becoming a member of the Scholar Club.

VERSES MENTIONED
Matthew 23:15
Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 14
Hoshea 11:4
Talmud Yevamot 47a
Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 3
Tanya, Likkutei Amarim 1-2
Genesis 1:26-17
Talmud Avodah Zarah 26a-b
Sanhedrin 10:1
Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 1
Maimonides, Introduction to Perek Helek
Deuteronomy 17
Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1
Deuteronomy 17:8-13
Isaiah 58:13-14
Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2:4:9; Chagigah 1:8:11
Ecclesiastes 1:10
Talmud Menachot 29b
Leviticus 23:9-14
Isaiah 29:13

BOOKS MENTIONED
Mishneh Torah (1180)
by Maimonides

Shulchan Aruch (1563)
by Rabbi Joseph Karo

Tanya (1796)
by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

Mitpachat Sefarim (1767)
by Rabbi Yaakov Emden

Sefer HaIkkarim (1425)
by Rabbi Joseph Albo

The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised
by Marc B. Shapiro

Medical Aphorisms Treatises 1-5
by Moses Maimonides, Gerrit Bos

Medical Aphorisms Treatises 6-9
by Moses Maimonides, Gerrit Bos

Medical Aphorisms Treatises 10-15
by Moses Maimonides, Gerrit Bos

RELATED EPISODES
Hebrew Voices Episodes
Hebrew Voices #217 – True Torah Judaism: Part 1
Support Team Study – True Torah Judaism: Part 2

OTHER LINKS
Torah Judaism International

The post Hebrew Voices #223 – Halakhic Purist Rabbi: Part 3 appeared first on Nehemia's Wall.