APPARENT INTERRUPTIONS IN THE MESORA.
Kings II - the found sefer
Kings 2, chapters 22-3
The discovery of a sefer in the
Temple and the resulting reform eliminating the widespread avoda zara [idol
worship] in Israel has prompted some to think that during the period of avoda
zara there must have been a complete loss of the original tradition. The
newly found sefer must be introducing a new ideology/religion. Some think
that this is the origin of sefer Devarim [Deuteronomy]. And then they
conclude that since at least in this case the old tradition was completely
lost, we have no reason to think that our tradition, which goes back
certainly no farther than this incident, represents a tradition from
Moses. Indeed, they say, if the tradition was forgotten on this
occasion, it may have been forgotten on other occasions as well.
We should note that the suggestion
that the found sefer is the book of Devarim is directly contradicted by
earlier references. Namely:
Kings II 14: 1- 6
Amatz-yah
of Yehuda, son of Yoash, became king in the second year of King Yoash.
He did what was pleasing to G-d, but not like his ancestor David....
After consolidating his hold on the kingdom, he put the servants who had
assassinated his father, the king, to death. However, he did not put
their children to death, as written in the Book of Moshe's Torah, where G-d
commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, and
children shall not be put to death for their fathers. Rather, every man
shall be put to death for his own sins."
[Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers
shall not be put to death for their children, and children shall not be put
to death for their fathers. Rather, every man shall be put to death for
his own sins.]
So chapter 14 makes a clear
reference to Devarim.
In addition:
Kings II Chapter 17:10.
And they
set up for themselves pillars and Asherim in every high hill, and under every
green tree; 12. For they served idols, about which the Lord had said to them,
you shall not do this thing.13. Then the Lord warned Israel, and Judah, by
all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn from your evil ways, and
keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the Torah which I
commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the
prophets….16. And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and
made them molten images, two calves, and made an Ashera, and worshipped all
the host of heaven, and served Baal.
Kings II Chapter 18:1.
And it
came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that
Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2. Twenty five
years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty nine years in
Jerusalem. His mother's name was Abi, the daughter of Zechariah. 3. And
he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that
David his father did. 4. He removed the high places, and broke the
images, and cut down the Ashera, and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that
Moses had made, for in those days the people of Israel burned incense to it;
and he called it Nehushtan.
[Deuteronomy 16:21.
You shall
not plant you an Ashera of any tree near the altar of the Lord your God,
which you shall make.]
So the destruction of the ashera
took place before chap 22, even though the only prohibition of ashera is in
the book of Devarim.
[These references are due to Rabbi
Yehuda Albin.]
Below there is a summary of
certain details of the text of chapters 22-3 showing that the idea of
discontinuity in the tradition has no more substance that the emperor's new
clothes.
Chap 22
3ff - the sofer is sent to check
on the money; he is given the sefer and reads it; he reports to the king on
the money and then reads the sefer to the king.
4 - the king calls the house
"beis Hashem"
So even the king, who participates
in idol worship, refers to the Temple as the house of Hashem, using G-d's
proper name from the tradition.]
8 - the finder of the sefer is
"kohen gadol" [a title from the tradition] and he calls the sefer
"sefer haTorah" ["The book of [the] Torah" - Malbim
points out the the "ha" means "THE sefer Torah" which
means the known, unique one, so the title and the concept were certainly not
forgotten. He suggests that this refers to the Torah written by Moses. That
would explain why it made such an impact. [See below.] But even if one does
not accept that is was the sefer written by Moses, it still means that the
concept of a special sefer Torah was well known.]
10 - Shafan says he received a
sefer
11 - when the king heard the words
of sefer haTorah....[The king too identified it as the special sefer Torah,
even though it was not identified that way to the king.]
13 - "this found sefer"
[Presumably they could tell the
age of a sefer by the condition of the parchment so they could see that it
was really an old sefer. Is it possible that it was a forgery on specially
prepared old parchment, or that they had a way of counterfeiting old
parchment? Yes, it is possible. But possibilities play no role in a serious
investigation. We would need positive evidence of forgery before we could
consider mere possibilities of possessing or counterfeiting old parchment.]
14 - Chulda hanevia is a true
prophet of Hashem and is a resident of Yerushalayim and known to the king's
advisors [So the population of the capitol was not only adherents of avoda
zara.]
chap 23
1ff - the king gathers all people
of Yehuda and all the inhabitants of Yerushalayim and reads the "book of
the covenant" to them.
3 - they make a covenant to
perform all the commandments in the sefer. [if the tradition were really
forgotten - if this sefer is a forgery with new content - then this would be
an unknown old book with unknown ideas - why should they agree to follow it?
And see next comment.]
4ff - they destroy all elements of
avoda zara.
[Note: there is no local
catastrophe to motivate this wholesale religious revolution - no attack by
enemies, famine, pestilence, etc. - why do they take it so seriously?]
9 - the only kohanim [priests]
allowed to serve the alter are those who ate matzos among their brethren. [So
there was a group of kohanim publicly identified as loyal to the old
tradition.]
21 - the king commands to make
Pesach as is written in "this sefer habris" [book of [the]
covenant] [So it could not be sefer Devarim – the detailed instructions for
Pesach are in Exodus and Leviticus. The only new element in Devarim is
restriction to the place shosen by hashem. But since the verse here says that
the Pesach was kept in the time of the Judges, and that pre-dates the choice
of Jerusalem, it cannot be that new element that the text here is referring
to. And see next comment.]
22ff - no Pesach like this was
made since the shoftim [Judges]. [Malbim: No explanation is given of what
made this Pesach so unique, unless verse 24, which means that this Pesach was
accompanied by the uprooting of avoda zara, unlike the Pesachim of previous
years, in which case this is an allusion to the link between Pesach and the
elimination of avoda zara which is reasonably explicit in the story of the
exodus in Exodus - which means again that the found sefer cannot be Devarim.]
If the idea of discontinuity is
utterly inconsistent with the text, what is the correct understanding?
(1) The practice of avoda zara did
not mean abandoning the old tradition, it meant adding to it. This is called
syncretism. The Temple is still Hashem's house, but other gods are worshipped
there as well. Indeed, one form of false prophecy is when a prophet says that
Hashem wants us to worship other gods in addition of Himself! And we have at
least one explicit reference to syncretism in 1 Kings 18:21 where Elija tells
the people: "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Hashem
is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." Elija’s critique of
the people is precisely that they were practicing syncretism.
(2) In addition, the population
was mixed: some accepted the new syncretism and some did not. So there
never was a complete discontinuity with the original tradition.
(3) It remains to explain why the
king was part of the idol worship of the times. He was eight years old when
he became king. His father was a leader in the idol worship. Even though he
knew of Hashem and the original tradition [as did the vast majority of the
population, if not all of them], he regarded the syncretism as natural, and
perhaps even not in contradiction to that tradition. Hearing the contents of
the sefer, and knowing that it is the unique, genuine sefer Torah [perhaps
even going back to Moses], made its absolute prohibitions against idol
worship, and the curses resulting from idol worship, impossible to ignore.
|
Hello
Rabbi! How is everything? I really hope everything is going well with you and
your family. I am emailing you regarding a few questions that have come
up.
The Kuzari principle has probably been the strongest intellectual reason for me to believe anything the Torah says, but I have been revisiting it. I have also been reading up on the many kashas that are brought against it. I was wondering if you could elaborate on a few points I have found that seem to seriously challenge the principle, especially since I am heading back to America for the first time since I have become religious, and I think I’ll really need an intellectual approach to fall back on when things get difficult. Here [is a] few question:
1. The statement in Nechamia 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
2. The statement in Nechamia: 8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths:for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
Do these statements not suggest a lack of awareness of the tradition of the exodus, plus an enormous power the rabbis had enabling them to institute such laws, that might have not come from Sinai? Wouldn’t this make the faith on my part have to rely on a much smaller number of people, the rabbis, instead of an entire nation’s claim?
Have an amazing week Rabbi!
________________________________________
Dear,
Below I try to answer your question. It has been posed to me many times over the years, but your letter prompted me to analyze it in detail. As usual, the problem stems from reading without sufficient care and scholarship. I would be interested in hearing from you how the answer strikes you.
In context, those verses read:
8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.
8:16 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.
8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
The Kuzari principle has probably been the strongest intellectual reason for me to believe anything the Torah says, but I have been revisiting it. I have also been reading up on the many kashas that are brought against it. I was wondering if you could elaborate on a few points I have found that seem to seriously challenge the principle, especially since I am heading back to America for the first time since I have become religious, and I think I’ll really need an intellectual approach to fall back on when things get difficult. Here [is a] few question:
1. The statement in Nechamia 8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month:
2. The statement in Nechamia: 8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths:for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
Do these statements not suggest a lack of awareness of the tradition of the exodus, plus an enormous power the rabbis had enabling them to institute such laws, that might have not come from Sinai? Wouldn’t this make the faith on my part have to rely on a much smaller number of people, the rabbis, instead of an entire nation’s claim?
Have an amazing week Rabbi!
________________________________________
Dear,
Below I try to answer your question. It has been posed to me many times over the years, but your letter prompted me to analyze it in detail. As usual, the problem stems from reading without sufficient care and scholarship. I would be interested in hearing from you how the answer strikes you.
In context, those verses read:
8:14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.
8:16 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim.
8:17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.
I suggest that the word “so” refers to the passages above in bold - it refers to the universality of performance, not the mere fact that it was performed. If that is even a possibly correct understanding, then there is no reason to say the text implies that the institution was forgotten.
Furthermore,
the phraseology “since the days of ...” is found earlier, in the book of Kings:
2 Kings Chapter 23
1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up to the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. 3 And the king stood on the platform, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant. 4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el. 5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to offer in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that offered unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven. 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the common people. 7 And he broke down the houses of the sodomites, that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah. 8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; and he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand as he entered the gate of the city. 9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. 11 And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nethan-melech the officer, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 And the altars that were on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king break down, and beat them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the detestation of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the detestation of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. 14 And he broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with the bones of men. 15 Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and stamped it small to powder, and burned the Asherah. 16 And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount; and he sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned them upon the altar, and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things. 17 Then he said: ‘What monument is that which I see?’ And the men of the city told him: ‘It is the sepulchre of the man of God, who came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el.’ 18 And he said: ‘Let him be; let no man move his bones.’ So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria. 19 And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke [the LORD], Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Beth-el. 20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there, upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them; and he returned to Jerusalem. 21 And the king commanded all the people, saying: ‘Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant.’ 22 For there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23 but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this passover kept to the LORD in Jerusalem. 24 Moreover them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the detestable things that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.
And here too only a limited comparison is meant – look at the words in bold. That is: the text does not say “there was no other Passover at all” but only “there was no other Passover like this one”. [The explanation may be, as the Malbim writes, that the destruction of idol worship accompanying the Pesach was unlike the previous generations - that is what v. 24 is explaining.] So too, in Nechemiah, only a limited comparison is meant.
Furthermore, Yeravam pretty clearly moves Succos from the seventh month to the eighth:
1 Kings Chapter 12
32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah,
2 Kings Chapter 23
1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. 2 And the king went up to the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great; and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. 3 And the king stood on the platform, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant. 4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; and he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Beth-el. 5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to offer in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that offered unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the constellations, and to all the host of heaven. 6 And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD, without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and stamped it small to powder, and cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the common people. 7 And he broke down the houses of the sodomites, that were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah. 8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; and he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand as he entered the gate of the city. 9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren. 10 And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech. 11 And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nethan-melech the officer, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire. 12 And the altars that were on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, did the king break down, and beat them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron. 13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had builded for Ashtoreth the detestation of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the detestation of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile. 14 And he broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with the bones of men. 15 Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and stamped it small to powder, and burned the Asherah. 16 And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount; and he sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres, and burned them upon the altar, and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things. 17 Then he said: ‘What monument is that which I see?’ And the men of the city told him: ‘It is the sepulchre of the man of God, who came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Beth-el.’ 18 And he said: ‘Let him be; let no man move his bones.’ So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria. 19 And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke [the LORD], Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Beth-el. 20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there, upon the altars, and burned men’s bones upon them; and he returned to Jerusalem. 21 And the king commanded all the people, saying: ‘Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant.’ 22 For there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; 23 but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this passover kept to the LORD in Jerusalem. 24 Moreover them that divined by a ghost or a familiar spirit, and the teraphim, and the idols, and all the detestable things that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.
And here too only a limited comparison is meant – look at the words in bold. That is: the text does not say “there was no other Passover at all” but only “there was no other Passover like this one”. [The explanation may be, as the Malbim writes, that the destruction of idol worship accompanying the Pesach was unlike the previous generations - that is what v. 24 is explaining.] So too, in Nechemiah, only a limited comparison is meant.
Furthermore, Yeravam pretty clearly moves Succos from the seventh month to the eighth:
1 Kings Chapter 12
32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah,
which means that at least at his time Succos was celebrated.
It remains only to explain the words And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses - it sounds as if these words [and their content] are newly discovered. But let us compare that phrase with the similar phrase in the book of Esther:
Esther - Chapter 6
Chapter 6
1. On that night, the king’s sleep was disturbed, and he ordered to bring the book of the records, the chronicles, and they were read before the king. א.
2. And it was found written that Mordecai had reported about Bigthana and Teresh, two chamberlains of the king, of the guards of the threshold, who had sought to lay a hand on King Ahasuerus. ב.
3. And the king said, “What honor and greatness was done to Mordecai on that account?” And the king’s servants who minister before him said, “Nothing was done for him.”
Now
since Mordechai’s report took place only four years before, this could not be
the discovery of an unknown event. It seems that it was unexpected that it
should be found now. Similarly in Nechemiah, “found” should mean “found
unexpectedly in this context’, not “found when utterly unknown”.
Furthermore, it is very unclear exactly what they were reading when the text of Succos [which must be Vayikra 23 since that is the only place where the Torah prescribes living in booths]. How did they get to that passage on the second day of Rosh Hashanna? [And what did they read on the first day - for half the day?] [And notice that it is the people who initiate the reading - they ask for the scroll to be brought and read.] So I do not understand the reading at all [nor does the critic understand it], and within that event I do not fully understand the “finding” of Succos. But a passage we do not understand does not provide a proof of anything.
Finally, I have trouble understanding the critic’s reading of the event. So the rabbis of the time invented Succos on the spot? But then what could it mean to say that there never was a performance of that holiday over the last 1200 years? That in the generation immediately following Moses the entire people stopped keeping the mitzva? That would be impossible to prove to their audience, and impossible to explain to them. And the prophets, who inveighed against all sorts of infractions, never mentioned it? It is a very peculiar reading of the event, I think.
“Do these statements not suggest a lack of awareness of the tradition of the exodus, plus an enormous power the rabbis had enabling them to institute such laws, that might have not come from Sinai? Wouldn’t this make the faith on my part have to rely on a much smaller number of people, the rabbis, instead of an entire nation’s claim? “
I hope you can see from the above that this conclusion does not follow.
Furthermore, it is very unclear exactly what they were reading when the text of Succos [which must be Vayikra 23 since that is the only place where the Torah prescribes living in booths]. How did they get to that passage on the second day of Rosh Hashanna? [And what did they read on the first day - for half the day?] [And notice that it is the people who initiate the reading - they ask for the scroll to be brought and read.] So I do not understand the reading at all [nor does the critic understand it], and within that event I do not fully understand the “finding” of Succos. But a passage we do not understand does not provide a proof of anything.
Finally, I have trouble understanding the critic’s reading of the event. So the rabbis of the time invented Succos on the spot? But then what could it mean to say that there never was a performance of that holiday over the last 1200 years? That in the generation immediately following Moses the entire people stopped keeping the mitzva? That would be impossible to prove to their audience, and impossible to explain to them. And the prophets, who inveighed against all sorts of infractions, never mentioned it? It is a very peculiar reading of the event, I think.
“Do these statements not suggest a lack of awareness of the tradition of the exodus, plus an enormous power the rabbis had enabling them to institute such laws, that might have not come from Sinai? Wouldn’t this make the faith on my part have to rely on a much smaller number of people, the rabbis, instead of an entire nation’s claim? “
I hope you can see from the above that this conclusion does not follow.
Posts
