The verse states: “And a man who strikes any soul mortally, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:17). The Rabbis hold that “any soul” means that one is liable for murder only when there is an entire soul, i.e., when the murderer alone is responsible for taking the entire life of the victim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572351)

But criminal law is another animal entirely. There are infinite crimes that the Bible and Talmud don't address at all, and numerous crimes that it is highly doubtful could ever have been enforced. The rabbinic requirements for imposition of biblical penalties are extremely formalistic and unlikely to play out in the real world. For one thing, there have to be two adult witnesses who warn the perpetrator prior to the offense that the offense is forbidden and carries a penalty. Not normally how murders unfold.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572461)

The Oven of Akhnai

The debate arose from a question asked by a man who owned a clay furnace (oven). He enlarged it by breaking it in pieces and then reassembling it, using sand, to create a bigger oven. The debate brought before the Sanhedrin was whether the new oven was Kosher or impure. The Talmud specifies that Rabbi Eliezer had brought forward “every imaginable argument” and proved that the oven was in fact Kosher. But the vast majority of the rabbis of the Sanhedrin would not accept his arguments and claimed that the oven was NOT Kosher. Rabbi Eliezer went on to prove his claim using supernatural signs: A carob tree miraculously uprooted itself and replanted itself on the other side of the court. A channel of water flowed uphill. But the climax of the story was when Rabbi Eliezer called out: “If the Halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from heaven.” And then, God spoke from the heavens and said: “Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, with whom the Halachah always agrees?” Meaning, God called out from the sky, saying that Rabbi Eliezer was right. Then, Rabbi Yehoshua stood and made one of the most significant claims in the Talmud: “The Torah is not in heaven!”

[Thus, Rabbi Yehoshua’s argued] God no longer holds the reins. Now, the mandate belongs to the rabbis alone. THEY have all power and control. [And] God is left outside.

The Talmud goes on to say that, after the debate, God smiled in agreement and said: “My children have defeated Me, My children have defeated Me.” Meaning, according to the rabbinic legend, God submitted to the authority of the rabbis and therefore, even He admitted that their rulings not only surpassed the authority of Moses, but the authority of God Himself.

From then on, God stopped revealing Himself to the people of Israel, as He did in biblical times. From that moment on, the rabbis’ judgment and rulings are the new Torah, which they call the “Oral Law”.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572469)

Anyway, the answer is that the generation of rabbinic sages immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD had to reimagine the conception of Judaism in the absence of a temple and, to some degree, a homeland. They did this by expanding on notions initially developed by the Pharisees. The Pharisees' position in Judean society and culture was predicated on their knowledge, transmission, and interpretation of Mosaic law and practice. In contrast, their primary rivals, the Sadducees, predicated their influence on nobility, wealth, and priestly status.

The influence of the two groups waxed and waned vis a vis each other, but the Sadducees' grip on the Temple service, the primary focus of Judean devotional practice, was a thorn in the Pharisees' side. The Sadducees had their own traditions, and when Sadducean biblical interpretation was necessary, it involved less hairsplitting casuistry than Pharisaic interpretation. Also, as the nobility who presided over the Temple and claimed descent from ancestors who had done the same, their ability to resort to claims of mimetic tradition in the face of Pharisaic arguments was particularly galling.

Once Jerusalem was destroyed, there was no Temple serving as the religious focus anymore, so the Sadducee influence was vastly weakened or even entirely eliminated. Moreover, the upheaval meant that numerous mimetic traditions were forgotten or rendered meaningless. If the Judean religion could evolve from the ashes, these first generation rabbis thought, it would do so by ratcheting up the interpretive traditions and textual exegesis of the Pharisees, to the point that interpretation and exegesis and the process for validating them would replace the mimetic tradition and socio-religious hierarchies that dominated pre-destruction.

Rabbi Eliezer was widely admired as a scholar, but was a holdover with respect to this shift. He was known for remembering every tradition - the mishna describes him as a cistern that doesnt lose a drop - and for his belief that tradition, not exegesis, must serve as the basis for correct religious practice.

With that background, the interpretation of the story is straightforward. The rabbis believed in exegesis and believed that its application should be validated by consensus. Rabbi Eliezer believed that when one knows the correct result by tradition, there is no place for exegesis, and consensus is a nonfactor. The rabbis could not argue with the substantive correctness of Rabbi Eliezer's position - if God had dictated a single correct outcome, it must have been Rabbi Eliezer's.

They therefore emphasized that it is not the substantive position that matters, but the exegetical process and its validation. In other words, God himself could say, "this is what I meant," and it wouldn't matter, because he had abdicated this process to the rabbis. Rabbi Eliezer could not accept that, so he was exiled.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572567)

also, what is your take on the various anti-goyim passages littered throughout the talmud, such as these: https://gab.com/bixnoodredux/posts/109440626767237840

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572627)

Moses was up on Mount Sinai receiving the Torah from God. God was putting serifs on the letters, and it delayed Moses from bringing the Torah to the people. Moses asked God, what's the point of these little serifs? Just give me the Torah already.

God said, one day, there will be a rabbi who will find sources for bundles of laws in these serifs.

Moses said, show him to me.

God had Moses turn around and he found himself in the back of a synagogue where Rabbi Akiva was lecturing. Moses could not understand the substance of the lecture. Eventually, a student asked, master, what is the source of these teachings? Rabbi Akiva said, they are traditions taught to us by Moses.

Moses asked God, so why not have Rabbi Akiva deliver the Torah? God said, silence, I have made my decision.

Moses asked God, what is the reward for someone like this? God said, turn around, and he found himself watching the Romans tearing Rabbi Akiva's flesh with iron combs (Rabbi Akiva was said elsewhere to have been martyred in this manner). Moses said to God, this is the law, and this is its reward? God said, silence, I have made my decision.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572660)

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5245630&forum_id=2#45572628)