What Maimonides Missed

We’ve reached the end of Maimonides’ list of 613 mitzvot, or Torah precepts--supposedly the complete picture of God’s instructions transmitted to us through Moses in the first five books of the Bible. If you’re like me, you’re feeling a little disappointed, maybe even a bit angry, that the Rambam and the sages upon which he relied missed so much that’s patently obvious to even the casual observer this side of Calvary. In light of what we’ve discovered by paying close attention to the Torah, a quick survey of Maimonides’ list reveals that it contains nowhere near 613 unique points of agreement with Yahweh’s instructions. By my count, there are 86 pointless duplicates or corollaries which clearly don’t deserve to be listed separately, 70 misstatements, twisted quotes, or outright perversions of the Torah’s text, 78 significant omissions, misinterpretations, or unwarranted extrapolations, and 74 blatant instances of missed or ignored significance (and I was extremely generous here--the evidence of rabbinical cluelessness is ubiquitous). In other words, Maimonides dropped the ball in half the precepts he covered.

But by examining the Torah’s actual text, we’ve been able to identify the broad sweep of God’s instructions in the areas Maimonides assumed he’d covered. And with the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight in the light of Yahshua’s finished work, we should now have a new appreciation of the Torah’s prophetic revelation of His role in achieving our redemption, atonement, and cleansing. The question is, now that we can perceive the rabbis’ failure to discern Yahweh’s plan and purpose as revealed in the passages they did cover, can we trust their claim to have identified all of the issues raised in the Torah? I, for one, doubt it.

And that, my friends, is the raison d’etre of this present work, The Owner’s Manual, Volume 2: What Maimonides Missed. Here’s my modus operandi. First, I scanned the entire Pentateuch for instances where Yahweh was telling somebody--anybody--to do something. (This includes the places where Moses is seen issuing instructions that clearly originated with Yahweh, though the text doesn’t say "And Yahweh said..."). Next, I reviewed the Torah passages that were quoted previously in the context of Maimonides’ 613 Mitzvot, and removed the overlaps from my working list. Repeats of precepts we’ve already seen were deleted as well. What’s left is a compendium of scripture passages to which Maimonides did not refer and that did not arise in the course of our exploration of his list. Some of this is small snippets of scripture that fell between the cracks; some broader subjects Maimonides skipped altogether; whether out of carelessness or an agenda of obfuscation remains to be seen. I tried to be scrupulous in my perception of God’s instruction, however. I did not restrict myself to passages that begin, "And Yahweh commanded Moses, saying...." However you slice it, the number of Torah prescriptions that were overlooked in Volume I is prodigious. The raw scripture in my working file (before I formatted it and added any commentary) filled 85 pages. That ought to tell us something.

What can we expect to see? Having covered so much of the Torah already, we should have a reasonably good feel for the general mindset of Yahweh, and we’re going to see more of that--more instruction about the human condition, our failures and what to do about them, and the connection between a holy God and His people. Maimonides glossed over quite a bit of information about the priesthood, the Levites, and the temple. So we’ll go back and review what he missed in those areas. And there is a whole body of scriptural instruction defining the promised Land--a confusing and seemingly contradictory maze of geographical description that the Rambam, a Spanish Rabbi who settled in Cairo, scrupulously avoided.

Maimonides covered quite a few of the scriptures concerning the offerings and sacrifices described in the Torah, and we will endeavor to finish that job. He skimmed over much of the instruction concerning the symbolic appointments Yahweh scheduled with His people throughout the year--and he missed their significance entirely. So we will revisit the seven miqrym and other events God set apart for our edification. There are things he missed concerning man’s relationship with his fellow man; we’ll pick up the slack there. And finally, there is a significant amount of warning and admonition, especially in Deuteronomy--promises of blessing or cursing that depend solely upon how seriously God’s people regard His word.

When we’re through, we will have discussed virtually everything God said to do in the first five books of the Bible. As we’ve already established, however, most of Yahweh’s instructions are symbolic: He is telling His people to rehearse, to act out as if on stage, the various elements or details of His plan of redemption. The Sabbath means something. Circumcision means something. The formula for making the priestly incense means something. Practically every facet of the Torah’s beautiful gemstone reflects something external, something beyond the jewel itself. They reflect the light of Yahweh, His love, His glory, His purpose, His plan. If we look no further than the precepts themselves, we rob ourselves of a beautiful, fulfilling experience--the experience of knowing God.



***



A word about format: you’ll recall that in The Owner’s Manual, I listed the precepts by number (1-613, the order being provided by Judaism 101). A mitzvah summary, based on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, was then given (set in italics), and this was followed by the actual Torah text from which the mitzvah was derived (set in boldface type). Only then did I wade in with my commentary.

For this present volume, the format will look similar, but of necessity, some things will have changed. The numbering system is totally without significance this time. It’s only there so we can easily reference other precepts. I will begin at #614, not because Maimonides’ 613-mitzvah system had any real merit, but simply to avoid confusion. As before, a summary statement in italics for each numbered observation will be provided. But this time, the synopsis is my own, and thus should be taken no more seriously that we did with the Rambam’s mitzvah statements. Indeed, I intend to use the summary statements as an opportunity to get to the heart of each precept or principle in a nutshell, not to merely restate the obvious. The real information, as before, will be in boldface type--the salient passage from the Torah. And as before, my commentary will follow.

Though my purpose is to provide as comprehensive a survey of the Torah as possible, I am fully aware that I’m going to miss some things. Forgive me; I’m only human, seeing things "through a glass, darkly." I pray that Yahweh’s Ruach Qodesh will teach you where I’ve failed, making God’s Word "a lamp to your feet and light to your path."

http://theownersmanual.net/What_Maimonides_Missed_00_Introduction.T...

or read the entire book here:

http://theownersmanual.net/pdf/The_Owners_Manual_Entire_Book.pdf

CS responds:

This is a good endeavor. I've always wondered if the 613 compiling was actually accurate... I'm surprised no one ever questioned it before.

My reply:

I've started reading the book - it is very well written indeed and very thorough although I do not agree with his doctrine of Echad which is essentially Modalistic Monarchism or a Hebraic form of Unitarianism - Elohim wearing three different hats (Father, Son and Ruach). It's also not very patriarchy-friendly (no big surprise) - He's virtually accusing Yahweh of setting up needless temptation as well as using loaded words - e.g.

(100) Do not commit incest with your wife’s sister. “Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.” (Leviticus 18:18) This is the very type of multi-wife relationship that jump-started the nation of Israel, not that it was Jacob’s fault or plan. God allowed it and used it for His own purposes in that instance, but He’s making it clear here that it is not His pattern for the ideal family unit. If polygamy is
69
dynamite with a short fuse, polygamy with sisters is like nitroglycerine on a bumpy road—it’s apt to blow up in your face with no warning at all.[i/]

Alse see Chapter 3, #81 - #73 is nonsense:


(73) Do not withhold food, clothing or conjugal rights from your wife. “If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.” (Exodus 21:10-11) What the rabbis said to do here was such a no-brainer, God never even mentioned it. What He did say was intended to protect subsequent wives from abuse. It is abundantly clear that Yahweh’s intended pattern for marriage was two people, a man and a woman, joined as one for a lifetime. However, strange as we may find it, He never overtly prohibited polygamy—although He made sure that every time we see it in practice in the scriptures, there’s trouble attached. Caveat emptor. This admonition in Exodus says, in our vernacular, You think you’re such a stud that you can handle two wives? Very well, I see it as a sign of arrogant stupidity, but knock yourself out. Just be aware that you’re going to have to be twice the man you were before—twice the man I made you, by the way. You can’t short-change your new wife in any way, not in financial matters, not in attention, not in support, and not in the bedroom. And if you find out the hard way that you can’t keep up your end of the bargain, don’t come crying to me when she cleans out your bank account. Okay, that’s a paraphrase, but you get the idea.


... and just as I was getting to like his approach.

CS replies:

I'm wondering if there are more than three status (status? stati?) Unchanged, abolished, and modified.
Might there also be?:
4 suspended till further notice
5 undoable while in exile

My reply:

I agree - though these present a minefield of problems on their own with some even arguing that some of the festivals aren't even do-able outside the Promised Land. This will also in part depend on your theology of the Millennial Temple (my personal theological nightmare ... thanks to Ezekiel) and (for example) the need for continuing animal sacrifices - my own view (as you probably know) is that there is no more value in animal sacrifices of any kind which is why it is important to have a clear theology and practice on (for example) the festivals. The desire for restored sacrifices seems to me (also) to be more a wish of Messianic Judah than Messianic Ephraim. I DEARLY wish these issues could be resolved.

In the meantime, I do believe we can categorise a very large number of New Covenant mitzvot unambiguously that that is perhaps where we ought to start - where everyone's agreed. Categories which (in my mind) are clear cut and clearly belonging to all ages include:

GOD (ELOHIM) P1-9

The next category poses some problems so I will open a separate thread on that

CS replies:

Re: Wayriqua/Leviticus 18:18,
Yahshar 28:28
And YHWH afterward remembered Adinah the wife of Lavan, and she conceived and bare twin daughters, and Lavan called the names of his daughters, the name of the older Leah, and the name of the younger Rahqel.- it doesn't specify if they were fraternal or identical (with Leah being crosseyed or having a divergent squint?) But this brings into question the difference betweem "rival wife" vs. "co-wife". Even though in practice, due to the competitive nature of the two sisters, Leah and Raquel were rivals, yet Yaacov did not set out in taking them for the purpose of being rivals. So then is it OK to take two sisters if the marriages are not for the purpose of competition but rather cooperation? So what I'm getting from Way18:18 is that if and when looking for a rival wife (a wife to compete against a rebellious or negligent wife) one is not supposed to select her sister, but any other unmarried woman is OK. Where if both sisters like the same guy and want to share him with each other, they're not really rivals but on the same team so to speak. Am I off on this?

My reply:

I have always taken the position that two sisters who love each other and a common man uncompetitively should be allowed to marry the same man. That is the criterion for such a marriage being kosher.

Here are two articles from the HEM website (currently offline):

_______________


FAQ 37
Did Jacob Sin in Marrying Two Sisters?
and Can a Man Marry and Mother and Her Daughter?

Q. The Law of Moses forbids a man to marry two sisters (Leviticus 18:18) and yet Jacob married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Did Jacob sin?

This question is a difficult one because it can be approached in three different ways:

1. It can be argued that the Law (Torah) was not in force in the days of Jacob (as indeed it was not) and therefore he was guiltless. However, since the Law (Torah) has already come, we must now obey the injunction that a man should not marry two sisters; or

2. It can be argued that the Law (Torah) in this respect was a lesser statute given because of man's hardheartedness but is now no longer applicable because Christ has now come, restoring the fullness that obtained before the Law of Moses was received (Gal.3:19); or

3. It can be argued that upon closer inspection of the text that a man is not forbidden to marry two sisters per se: "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living" (v.18, NIV) because of the qualifying word "rival". The King James Version puts it even more clearly: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime". What this means is that you shall not marry your wife's sister for the wicked purpose of arousing her jealosy, to annoy her, or to anger her. In other words, unless your wife is in agreement, and your motive is pure, you shall not marry your sister-in-law.


My own belief is that the third position is the correct one but that the second is a valid interpretation too. Indeed, I don't think the two interpretations contradict each other. The third interpretation fits in perfectly with our belief that polygamy must be by love and not force and in many ways foreshadows Christian plural marriage.
Perhaps of more concern is how the third interpretation might be used to misapply other statutes concerning sexual behaviour and I can well forsee how, for example, someone might use it to overturn other statutes in Leviticus 18. The Law bans sexual relations between close relatives though does not explain its reasons. We can speculate that it has something to do with the dangers of genetic inbreeding because such marriages were considered valid in the days of the first patriarchs - Adam's sons and daughters must have intermarried in order to propagate the human race. However, was may just have been a non-repeatable practical necessity to get the human family started.

Therefore in my view none of the following statutes have changed:


"No-one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am Yahweh.
Do not dishonour your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
Do not have sexual relations with your father's [plural] wife; that would dishonour your father.
Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonour you.
Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's [plural] wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
Do not dishonour your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonour your brother"
(Lev.18:6-16, NIV).

I see no grounds anywhere for ignoring these commandments. Yahweh has never repudiated them and probably never will.
One problem that I have faced concerns the next verse because I have had questions as to whether this may in any way be regarded as being in the same category as verse 18, bearing in mind that the two are also in close proximity:


"Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness" (v.17).

This is the problem: I know patriarchs who have felt attracted to both a mother and her daughter from a previous marriage, and the two have felt attracted to him. The argument they have advanced is that since both are agreed that a higher law superceeds the Mosaic one.
Personally, I do not see how what the Bible calls "wickedness" can suddenly be called "righteousness". There are no qualifying statements like "to vex her". I believe that with all the best interests in the world that a mother and her daughter marrying a man, as often happened with the 19th century Mormons, is quite simply evil. In the case of the two sisters, there is also the qualifying statement "in her lifetime", allowing for the man to marry the other sister once the first sister has died. That qualification does not even apply to the mother-daughter situation, meaning that once the mother has died, the man still cannot marry the daughter because she is a near-relative (KJV "kinswoman").

If there are any patriarchs reading this who are considering marrying a woman and her daughter, my urgent pastoral counsel is: GET THAT WICKED THOUGHT RIGHT OUT OF YOUR MINDS. And I say this not just because I am convinced it is 100% Biblical but because I faced a similar dilemma myself once.

(snipped)

Marry the sisters if they love each other, if your motive is pure and not to "vex" the first one, and if Yahweh gives the go-ahead. But absolutely do not marry a mother and her daughter. You might well not only reap a harvest of destruction and unhappiness but lose your salvation.

Further Reading


[1] When Two Sisters May Marry Polygamously and When They May Not - An Email Discussion

____________________


EMAIL 6
When Two Sisters May Marry Polygamously
- and When They May Not




This discussion is a response to FAQ #37, "Did Jacob Sin in Marrying Two Sisters?"
SK. It can be argued that upon closer inspection of the text that a man is not forbidden to marry two sisters per se: "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living" (v.18, NIV) because of the qualifying word "rival". The King James Version puts it even more clearly: "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime". What this means is that you shall not marry your wife's sister for the wicked purpose of arousing her jealosy, to annoy her, or to anger her. In other words, unless your wife is in agreement, and your motive is pure, you shall not marry your sister-in-law."

M.R. To know the meaning of that verse, the entire chapter is needed. The bans are of kinship, 18:17 - of the wife's kinship. A man is not to marry his OR his wives next of kin. A sister is kin. A wife's sister is her kin, which is why the ban. The "vex" statement is seperate and only detailing that not only is this an unlawful marriage of kinship... it also sets up a battlefield, which can be witnessed in the case of Rachel and Leah. Poor Jacob was trapped into that, and God had mercy on him. We know better, we have the written word calling it wickedness and to break it would be such. Also see Romans 5:13.

S.K. I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, though I fully understand your raison d'être. I still maintain that the key word is "rival" which is the word which disqualifies the practice. Similarly, the following verse is not prohibiting sexual intercourse, but only during the menstruation period (v.19), demonstrating that not all the statutes in this chapter are absolutes but contain exception clauses.

Speaking personally, I know of a number of polygamous marriages where sisters have married the same husband and their relationship is fantastic. There is no rivalry. Moreover, the marriage is Spirit-filled.

There is intelligence behind all of Yahweh's commands - they are not arbitrary. In judging the Rachel and Leah scenario, we are faced not so much with the problem of sisters marrying but with a rivalry born out of deception on the part of the women's father and Jacob's romantic indifference to Leah, leading Leah to try to win approval through child-bearing. Rachel's barrenness is another cause of the rivalry. Interesting that it was, in your scenario, the bona fide wife who should be 'punished', don't you think?

Of course, it is possible to argue 'mercy', as you do, but I doubt that somehow Yahweh would use this marriage as a type of the Church (Messianic Community) if it were somehow sinful. I think your position creates many more problems than it solves.

The battlefield was, therefore, not the fact that the two were sisters, but the fact that the polygamous marriage was contracted in all the wrong way - indeed, the same result (and worse) may be found in (by your defintion) bona fide plural marriages. In both cases, the issue is (often) MARRIAGE BY FORCE - Jacob being forced to marry a woman he did not love (though I believe he subsequently learned to) (whether Leah felt 'forced' we do not know). THAT, I contend, is the origin of the battlefield.

Finally, what if I told you that I was married to two sisters, that there was no rivalry between them, that they were aware of the teaching in Leviticus, that they understood this passage as I do, and that they were filled with the love for Christ for one another? And what if I were to tell you that Yahweh showed both of them in vision to me years in advance and said that they were to be my wives - a prophecy that subsequently was fulfilled? Would you care to come out in public - in the light of Romans 5:13 - and call us wicked?

You may consider these last questions to be rhetorical, for I do not expect an answer. I ask them merely to jog your conscience a little. All I would ask is that you consider that there MIGHT be an alternative interpretation vis-à-vis the word "rival" and that you exercise care in whom you might inedvertantly be calling wicked, for as I am sure you will know from this ministry it is all too easy to tread on sensitive toes - mine are fairly rubbery, though my consenting, conscious and happy 'Leah' and 'Rachel' might take strong exception :-]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's just hard for me to see how vexation/rivalry can be the determiner in deciding if you can marry your wifes' sister, but not be the determiner in deciding if you can marry her mother or daughter, or granddaughter as well. Because I just don't see how the chapter truly separates her sisters from the rest of her near kinswomen.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmmm.

Do the other situations carry a modifying clause with them? It is a principle to which I hold that a modifying clause to one situation does NOT automatically equal a modifying clause in another situation.

Thus, when my pastor got up and read Romans 7:1-3, a very gender specific passage, and then proceeded to assume that it applied the other way around as well, I did not accept his pastoral leadership on that topic.

The fact that there is a modifying clause in this ONE SPECIFIC instance out to, in my opinion, SEPARATE it from the others, rather than provide a clause which could then be applied to all.

I have very little difficulty in seeing, logically, why it wouldn't be a determiner in a mother-daughter package. There are other headship issues involved which would unavoidably complicate things. Unavoidably. Grand-daughter? It gets even more nightmarish! Having your son call his daughter Mom?

Y'all may disagree, but the fact that God made modifying clauses on this one, rather than simply saying, "Don't marry your wife's sister while your wife is alive." (period) seems significant to me. If the first part was completely and finally definitive, than the rest seems to me not only unnecessary but obfuscating. (C)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VEX=To make into a jealous opponent

According to Gesenius, 'akhoth' has exact cognates in Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldean, and "It properly signifies an own sister, born of the same parents, but (where accuracy of expression is not important) used also of a sister, 'homopatria' (Greek - 'same-father') or 'homometria' (Greek - 'same-mother')". He also lists wider usages, such as referring to a female relative, kinswoman; one of the same tribe or people; an ally; "one... another"; as metaphor for anything very closely connected with us; or a spouse.

The Septuagint uses the word 'adelphe', the feminine form of 'adelphos' ('brother'), to translate 'akhoth', which effectively eliminates either 'homopatria' or 'homometria' for consideration here, since the translators could have chosen either of these words if they believed that 'akhoth' was referring to either of these. The stem 'delphus' means 'womb'. So the idea of a sister or brother in 'adelphe/-os' is one born from the same womb. To me, this suggests something quite similar to specific meaning Gesenius gives for 'akhoth', i.e., that the 'sisters' in question here are sisters who have the same mother and father, especially since the Greek vocabulary has specific terms of the two types of half-sisters. If this is the case, then this has no bearing at all on Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarah.

For whatever it's worth...

The Concordant Version of the OT renders Leviticus 18:18 this way:

"And you shall not take a wife (in addition to) to her sister to distress (her), by exposing her nakedness (on)to her in her life(time)."

* words in parenthesis, with the exception of 'on', indicate words not in the source text, but which were added for clarification.

In Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, it is rendered this way:

"And shalt thou not take, - to cause rivalry, by uncovering her shame, besides her own, while she is living."

Both of these are literal translations. The word 'distress' in the CVOT and 'rivalry' in Rotherham both correspond to 'antizelon' in the Septuagint. Unfortunately, none of my dictionaries had an entry for 'antizelon' (which surprises me somewhat). As prefix, 'anti-' can mean 'over against', 'in opposition to', 'one against another, mutually', 'in return', 'equal to, like', or 'corresponding' (from Liddell and Scott). The stem, '-zelon', can be either related to 'zale' ('surge, spray, storm'; metaphor. 'trouble, distress'), which I think is probably the case, or possibly 'zelos' ('eager rivalry, emulation; strong passion, jealousy, envy'). I would suggest from this that 'antizelon' probably means something like 'jealous opponent', which would seem to be consonant with the various translations.

In any case, this may open more questions than it answers.

Shalom,

JW



------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should like to thank everyone for their contributions. It is very clear to me, taking all the data into consideration, that a patriarch may polygamously marry two sisters provided the one is not a jealous opponent to the other.

A final thought that, to my mind, settles the issue. If polygamously marrying two sisters were a sin, then surely Yahweh would not use such a model in descibining His allegorical marriage relationship to two sisters, Jerusalem (Judah) and Samaria (Israel)! Those who therefore accuse those of marrying two non-vexing sisters to be living in sin might just as well say the same of the Almighty ... who did the same thing! (SK)