Hello,



The issue of Biblical Criticism requires a great deal of in-depth study, so it is suggested one take a university course on this topic. The Ph.D. requested anonymity and it is not our place to guess at his reasons.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Avi,



A. According to you, Chazal held that the second tablets did not have the text given to Moses by the Glory; Moses wrote them on his own. This is the opposite of their approach, which states that everything written in the Torah was said by G-d and written down precisely by Moses (Sanhedrin 99a). “One who says the Torah is not from the Heavens, or even one who says that all the Torah is from the Heavens aside from this verse which was not said by the holy One, blessed be He, but by Moses himself — this mocks the word of the Lord.” Therefore I do not find your interpretation reasonable, for that would mean Chazal said words of apostasy.

Ibn Ezra was very careful in his critical and revolutionary commentary about the Sages, and many times hid his true intentions. See what we wrote on the portion of Devarim.

B. I will try to explain myself in other words. Values and faith do not stem from logic and reason, and many times they even contradict reason.

Your claim “Perhaps the true answer is that they knew a few things you do not know” is not appropriate. The word “perhaps” is not a panacea. One who bases his lifestyle on a claim of “perhaps” has publicly stated that his actions rest on a thin reed.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Dear Avi,



A. The words you cite were written in the portion of Shemini and we will bring the essentials: The Ten Commandments appear in the Torah twice (Exodus and Deuteronomy) with differences in the text. According to Ibn Ezra (Exodus 20:1) the changes stem from our teacher Moses’ lack of precision in the text dictated to him by G-d. Moses made certain the intent would be preserved, but not the literal text. Chazal opined that the text in Exodus is the text for the first set of tablets while the text in Deuteronomy was the text for the second set of tablets, and this is stated in the Talmud (Bava Kama 54b-55a).

Why, in the first set of Commandments, in Exodus, does the command to honor one’s father and mother not state “so that it shall go well with you,” but in the later Commandments, in Deuteronomy, it does? The answer is that the first tablets were doomed to be broken, so the good was not mentioned, lest it come to symbolize the stoppage of good for Israel.

We have written this to show the pathetic who believes that the precise text of even the Ten Commandments is not known.

B. The reason Chazal did not leave the religion [though there were people of reason who did, such as Elishaa ben Avuyah] was the same reason why the people of Israel made the Golden Calf. The people of Israel, who had been at the Revelation at Sinai, who saw the sounds coming from the mouth of the Glory, immediately after committed the sin of idolatry. This shows you the soul of the pathetic man; even if you show him, through signs and wonders, that he errs, he will still grasp tightly to his nonsense.



Sincerely,



Daat Emet

Hello,



A. According to this the opinion of Ibn Ezra does not contradict the opinion of Chazal, as you wrote on the portion of Shemini, and each complements the other. Moses was not careful, on the second tablets, to precisely reproduce the text and only mentioned the same idea; Chazal give the reason for the difference. On that same topic Ibn Ezra added “Heaven forbid that one should say they did not speak correctly, for we mean the same thing.” Why did you not deal with that?

In my opinion, your proofs are wonderful, but the conclusions you draw are faulty, perhaps because you had already declared your target and force the Scriptures to fit.

B. In my opinion, the statistical chance that all of Chazal and the other Jewish greats were not people of reason who turned apostate like Elisha ben Avuyah is minimal. Throughout your work you praise Maimonides and Ibn Ezra, etc., when their opinion agrees with yours, as you wrote, “See the bravery of Ibn Ezra and how he cleaves to the truth, writing his opinion without fear.” And yet he did not leave religion.

Perhaps the true answer is that they knew a few things you do not know, things which complete the puzzle, and therefore they did not leave religion. I don’t believe that you think you know everything.

I expected answers from you which are not superficial, because I really do see you as great, given your expertise and proficiency in the Torah. In you I fulfill the saying “I ate a pomegranate and threw away the peel,” for through you I have learned things that I never would have known.



Avi