The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Yavneh
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Belief that Sikhism is Based on True Prophecy is Contrary to Judaism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 89049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

Yavneh

Pro

Bs"D

Thank you to Harrytruman for this debate.

My main contention is that, according to Judaism, prophecy was discontinued in the early Second Temple period (c. 300 BCE). We learn in Zechariah 13:1-2:

1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for purification and for sprinkling. 2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

(Note: Zechariah lived c. 300 BCE.)

'Purification and sprinkling', or, in transliterated Hebrew, 'Chatat and Niddah', are terms used in Numbers 19 (and elsewhere) to refer to the sprinkling of the ashes of Red Cow, which purifies one from impurity. We learn in Mishnah Parah 3:5:

If they could not find [the ashes] from [all] seven [red heifers, the seven that were made in times of the temple], they would use from six, from five, from four, from three, from two, or from one [depending on how many they found]. And who made these [seven]? The first Moses made, the second Ezra made, and five from Ezra and onward, according to Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: Seven [were made] from Ezra and onward; and who made them? Shimon the righteous and Yochanan the high priest made two each, Elyehoeinai ben Hakof and Chanamel the Egyptian and Yishmael ben Pi'avi each made one.

Note that all of the abovementioned people, with the exception of Moses and possible exceptions of Ezra and Shimon the righteous, lived after Zechariah. Thus, the described phenomenon of the re-institution of the sprinkling ritual applied to their days.

What was foretold to occur on this day? The termination of prophecy, and the termination of idolatry, from the Land of Israel. Indeed, archaeologists find idols in Israel consistently through the ancient time periods-- until the early Second Temple era (although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this does corroborate the Talmudic account to some degree).

Additionally, our Sages teach us that the Rabbis of the time prayed for the removal of the desire for idolatry. G-d listened to their prayer, but also removed the counterweight to idolatry-- prophecy.

One may counter that prophecy was only removed from the Land of Israel, while the Sikh Gurus lived outside of the area. However, the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan 25a states that prophecy does not come upon a person outside of the Land of Israel. The example of Ezekiel was brought up in the discussion; the solution, however, the solution is that Ezekiel began prophesying in Israel, and it merely was not removed from him. Indeed, the first prophecy of the Book of Ezekiel happened at a river named 'Kevar', which is the Hebrew word for 'already' (a veiled reference to his earlier prophetic career-- he was already a prophet). The same cannot be said of the Sikh Gurus.

To sum up, the Sikh Gurus cannot, according to Jewish tradition, be true prophets; by their time (late middle ages), all avenues to prophecy had been blocked.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

ZECHERIAH:
There are a number of issues with this verse that my opponent uses to prove that there are no true prophets since Malachi.
First of all, this verse is referring to false prophets, probably prophets of Baal seeing as though it rfers to Idol Worship also, this is made very clear by the fact that it puts prophets next to unclean spirits, and speaks specifically of those who deceive.
Secondly, this verse is referring to Jerusalem; Guru Nanak did not live in Jerusalem.
Thirdly, this time period when this happens is not said to be after Malachi, based on many scriptural clues such as Zechariah 13:8 which says;
"In time, throughout that land," says ADONAI, "two-thirds of those in it will be destroyed " they will die, but one-third will remain."
Have 2/3rds of the people in Jerusalem died after Malachi? Last I checked nothing happened to Jerusalem until 100 AD, and it wasn"t 2/3rds the Jewish population, based on this, we can conclude that this verse is referring to the end days.
Fourthly, this verse says that Idol Worship will crease from Israel perminately, another clue that it is not referring to after Malachi, because we know that Idol worship is still going on in Israel, the Christian Churches, the Christian Idols, the Christians, it"s Idol Worship. Thus, this prophecy does not apply yet.

SAGES
My opponent argues that the sages said that G-d removed prophecy from Israel;
"Additionally, our Sages teach us that the Rabbis of the time prayed for the removal of the desire for idolatry. G-d listened to their prayer, but also removed the counterweight to idolatry-- prophecy."
There are many issues with this argument;
First of all, the sages were at the time of Moshe.
Secondly, the credibility of these sages is in question; see this debate for the specifics:
http://www.debate.org...
Thirdly, the sages still have to have a source for this, some way that they knew or concluded that prophecy died out with Malachi, all they have is that the rabbis prayed for G-d to end idol worship- which didn"t happen yet, and they haven"t been seeing as many prophets lately. Thus there never will be any ever again.

Later, he argues that prophecy can only be in Israel, because the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan 25a says that prophets cannot start prophesying outside of Israel. But he is again yet to prove the credibility of this Gemara, why we should accept it, or even who wrote it.
Yavneh

Pro

Bs"D

Thank you to my opponent for his swift response.

I will attempt to rebuttal my opponent"s rebuttal-- in essence, a counter-rebuttal. I will begin with my opponent"s four contentions against my quotation of Zechariah:

"First of all, this verse is referring to false prophets, probably prophets of Baal seeing as though it refers to Idol Worship also, this is made very clear by the fact that it puts prophets next to unclean spirits, and speaks specifically of those who deceive."

This is a logical statement based on what I quoted (13:1-2). However, verse three of the chapter states:

"And it shall come to pass that, when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begot him shall say unto him: "Thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD"; and his father and his mother that begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth."

Note that "the LORD" is the JPS translation of the tetragrammaton, the unique name of the Jewish G-d. The above-mentioned prophets were prophesying in the name of the true G-d. And as for the mention of deception and lying, how do we know they are lying? We know because, at this point, there was no more prophecy, and so they had to be lying.

Additionally, the verse gives no mention of seeing whether the prophecy came true; immediately when one prophecies, he can be declared a liar.

"Secondly, this verse is referring to Jerusalem; Guru Nanak did not live in Jerusalem."

The discussion of prophecy outside of the Land of Israel is under the "Sages" category of this debate, and will be discussed further down.

"Thirdly, this time period when this happens is not said to be after Malachi, based on many scriptural clues such as Zechariah 13:8 which says;
"In time, throughout that land," says ADONAI, "two-thirds of those in it will be destroyed " they will die, but one-third will remain."
Have 2/3rds of the people in Jerusalem died after Malachi? Last I checked nothing happened to Jerusalem until 100 AD, and it wasn"t 2/3rds the Jewish population, based on this, we can conclude that this verse is referring to the end days."

There are different ways of breaking up the Biblical text into sections. Far pre-dating the chapter breakup, which was invented by the early Christian Fathers, was the "Parsha" (paragraph) system (not to be confused with Sedrah, the weekly Torah section, colloquially called "Parsha"). These paragraph breaks come in two forms:

Petucha (open)-- open space until the end of the line, akin to the "enter" key.
Setuma (closed)-- nine letters" worth of open space, followed by writing on the other side of the break, akin to the "tab" key.

Both are used to signify a new topic.

In Zechariah 13, there is a Setuma break after verse 6, thus disconnecting the above-referenced verse 8 from the verses which I used, 1-2. The topic also changes. Thus, although the early Christian Fathers may not have separated the two sections, they are different portions altogether, and one"s conditions cannot be applied to the other.

"Fourthly, this verse says that Idol Worship will crease from Israel perminately, another clue that it is not referring to after Malachi, because we know that Idol worship is still going on in Israel, the Christian Churches, the Christian Idols, the Christians, it"s Idol Worship. Thus, this prophecy does not apply yet."

An important distinction must be made between Israel, the land, and Israel, the people. Let us re-examine the text in question:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, Saith the LORD of hosts, That I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, And they shall no more be remembered; And also I will cause the prophets And the unclean spirit to pass out of the land."

G-d promises to wipe out the idols from the Land of Israel. This is not a permanent purge of all idolatry; this is rather a statement that, "All the idolatry currently in the Land of Israel will be wiped out and forgotten." The verse, however, does not speak of future idolatry.

However, the second, separate half of the verse talks of the "spirit of uncleanliness"-- the pervasive lust for idolatry. After this point, all the widespread idolatry in the Land of Israel-- the Hellenization, the possible idolatry of Catholicism, and the idolatry of Greek Orthodoxy-- were all due to peer pressure, government pressure, or indoctrination. The desire for idolatry "just because" had been eradicated-- and with it, the prophecy.

I will now turn to critiquing my opponent"s critique of the statements of the sages.

"First of all, the sages were at the time of Moshe."

There were sages throughout the generations. I was referring to "Chazal" (our sages of blessed memory), who lived c. 300 BCE to c. 500 CE.

"Secondly, the credibility of these sages is in question; see this debate for the specifics: http://www.debate.org...;

I have read the above debate; if I had a mobile phone, with which to "verify my identity", I would have voted in favor of Rabbinical Judaism when it came to arguments. Ketuvim harbored the simply false idea that none of the Torah is ambiguous; Talmid called him out on it and proved otherwise.

One following a truly intellectually honest doctrine based on the face value of the text of Tanach would eat no animal fat whatsoever, and build an altar in his backyard to offer sacrifices frequently. This is not the Karaite lifestyle; they themselves give subjective interpretations to Tanach (for my examples, see Leviticus 1-7, and 7:23).

This may devolve into a debate on Karaism. If my opponent uses Karaism as his main weapon, I cannot avoid it. I will say, however, that I expected a debate based on mainstream Rabbinic Judaism; that my profile informs one that I am "Jewish-Orthodox", meaning following Torah and Rabbinic law; and that my opponent and I have teamed up in Judaism debates before, in which Judaism was always defined as Rabbinic. Thus, I believe my expectation was fair-- although, perhaps, incorrect.

The above section also serves as a rebuttal to the rest of my opponent"s argument, which is merely based on doubting the authority of the sages.

As for the side question of who wrote the Gemara, it was compiled from the statements of Rabbis from 300 CE to 500 BCE, and made into a book by Rav Ashi and Ravina.

I look forward to hearing from Con.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

ZECHERIAH REBUTTAL:
We would know that they are lying because of some very specific instructions as to how to know when someone is genuinely a prophet from various verses:
Deuteronomy 18:22:
"When a prophet speaks in the name of Adonai, and the prediction does not come true " that is, the word is not fulfilled " then Adonai did not speak that word. The prophet who said it spoke presumptuously; you have nothing to fear from him."
Isaiah 8:20:
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Jeremiah 28:9:
"The prophet which prophesied of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him."
All of Guru Nanak"s prophecies came true, he spoke in accordance to the law and the testimony, and he prophesied of peace, so we know he was a prophet, he fit all the criteria.
There may not be any reference to waiting to see if his prophecies come true, but that"s because it was standard procedure. When someone claims to be a prophet, you check what they are saying.
Also, you said that the eradication of Idol Worship was imperminate, but you say that the irradiation of prophets was perminate, so which is it? The verse is referring to something perminate, in which case it has not happened yet or it is imperminate, in which case Guru Nanak could be a prophet, because the eradication of Idol Worship has expired?
Furthermore, no, it is referring specifically to the LAND of Israel; actually, it only says Jerusalem, a specific city, not all of Israel.

SAGES:
Sages from 500 BCE to 300 CE- One could claim that the sages at the time of Moses had a kind of authority to claim certain things because of their supposed secret message they got from Moses, but not so with these sages. These sages were just common rabbis; they didn"t even claim that they got any secret message from G-d!
Rabbis make mistakes- they"re people like you or me, there was even a rabbi that claimed that only 1,000,000 Jews died in the holocaust!
http://www.haaretz.com...
Also, they just made claims; they don"t say where they got this information? The Oral Torah claims it got its information from Moses; prophets claimed that their books came from G-d; the rabbis only claim the claim and expect us to accept it. Classic milligrams study of obedience.
http://www.simplypsychology.org...
No, Ketuvim demonstrated how unambiguous the Tanakh is, Talmid responds by saying "that"s your interpretation," Ketuvim asks him to demonstrate, and Talmid ignores it and continues.
The Karaite Jews do not eat fat or blood or build altars in their backyard, and they don"t use Chickens either! You mistake "Quarism" with "Wicca."

We're making a declaration of Quarism, it's notopen yet but we will be done on friday and it will open.
https://docs.google.com...
Yavneh

Pro

Bs"D

Once again, thank you to my opponent for his spirited rebuttal. I will endeavor to counter-rebuttal.

"We would know that they are lying because of some very specific instructions as to how to know when someone is genuinely a prophet from various verses:
Deuteronomy 18:22:
"When a prophet speaks in the name of Adonai, and the prediction does not come true " that is, the word is not fulfilled " then Adonai did not speak that word. The prophet who said it spoke presumptuously; you have nothing to fear from him."
Isaiah 8:20:
"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."
Jeremiah 28:9:
"The prophet which prophesied of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly sent him.""

And yet, a question persists. If one stood up in 100 CE and said, "I have a prophecy-- in five hundred years, Jerusalem will be known as BedaBida," my opponent"s reliance on the outcome of the prophecy would forestall judgement on this vision until half a millennium later. This problem is compounded by Jeremiah 18:7-10:

7 At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; 8 but if that nation turn from their evil, because of which I have spoken against it, I repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it. {S} 9 And at one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; 10 but if it do evil in My sight, that it hearken not to My voice, then I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit it.

This seems to imply that a genuine prophecy can, indeed, not come to pass-- which disqualifies the outcome from being the arbiter of truth.

The lack of the Hebrew word for "prophecy" (Nevuah) in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 presents an answer; the verses in Deuteronomy refer to the sign/omen the prophet gives, but not his prophecy.

This fits with Jeremiah 28, where the false prophet, Chananiah ben Azur, performs no sign or omen, which forces Jeremiah to question his prophecy instead. As to why he would be believed in the first place, this was a time when the future of the nation looked grim, and Chananiah ben Azur prophesied of peace and national triumph. A downtrodden people tends to hear what they want to hear, without too much skepticism.

"Also, you said that the eradication of Idol Worship was imperminate, but you say that the irradiation of prophets was perminate, so which is it? The verse is referring to something perminate, in which case it has not happened yet or it is imperminate, in which case Guru Nanak could be a prophet, because the eradication of Idol Worship has expired?"

My distinction is clearly supported by the text. The destruction of heretofore idolatry was described by the Hebrew word "Achrit". The removal of "the prophets and the spirit of uncleanliness" is described by "A"avir". The different words prompt the different meanings.

"Furthermore, no, it is referring specifically to the LAND of Israel; actually, it only says Jerusalem, a specific city, not all of Israel."

Verse 2 says "The land." If Jerusalem, mentioned in verse 1, was being referenced, the verse would have said "Ha"Ir" (the City).

As for the true identity, 'the' land implies a special land (known as "Heh HaYidiah", the Hebrew letter "Heh" being used to imply pre-knowledge of the subject). Thus, the most probable subject is the Land of Israel.

"Sages from 500 BCE to 300 CE- One could claim that the sages at the time of Moses had a kind of authority to claim certain things because of their supposed secret message they got from Moses, but not so with these sages. These sages were just common rabbis; they didn"t even claim that they got any secret message from G-d!"

The chain of tradition was passed down from generation to generation. In fact, frequently in the Talmud, things are brought down as "Halacha L"Moshe MiSinai" (a law passed down from Moses at Sinai). The claim is that G-d gave an Oral Law to Moses, who transmitted it to Joshua, and so forth (Mishnah Avot 1:1).

The reasons for an Oral Law:

All the laws of the Torah, while intended literally, also have deeper meaning. The Oral Law is an apparatus where simple laws can be passed down.
The Oral Law is not set in stone, and so as new situations arise, the law of how to deal with them can be added in.
The Oral Law contains the principles of how to interpret Torah verses-- the Braita of Rabbi Yishmael, found in any Siddur, contains 13 principles.

I would also like to shed some light on Karaism.

I have been reading the travel letters of Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura, the greatest of the Mishnah commentators, who lived in the 15th and 16th centuries. Lest one think he is predisposed towards the Rabbinic Jews, here is one description of his of Karaite Jews:

"They are more careful than the Rabbinic Jews about refraining from Gentile wine (this sentiment is also expressed in the Talmud)."

However, I would like to present another selection, which describes the Karaism he was a witness to:

"I saw some of the Karaite commentaries, such as the commentary of Yafet, whom Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra mentions , and the commentary of Rabbi Aharon Kara. The Karaites are constantly composing new interpretations of the Torah. Regarding even the most basic understanding of a Mitzvah (commandment), if a contemporary Karaite sage will reinterpret the simple meaning of the verse, they will change the Mitzvah to conform with his understanding. They do not think that this reflects negatively on either the earlier or later sages."

This is a complete departure from the ideology espoused by Ketuvim, and, assumingly, my opponent as well. There are undeniable ambiguities in Tanach; in fact, G-d would have good reason to plant them there-- so as to facilitate extra study and discussion. A tradition would need to be put forth, to provide the answers.

At the end of the day, the Rabbinic tradition dates back the farthest of any claimants-- to at least 300 CE. The main groups of Jews in the Second Temple era were the Rabbanites, also known as Pharisees, and Sadducees, who denied any such tradition. Thus, it is hard to deny the Rabbanites their claim of authenticity.

A final note: Regarding the above-mentioned Yefet, known as Yefet ben Ali HaLevi, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"Yefet claims full freedom for the exegete, refusing to admit any authority for the interpretation of the Law; and, although he sometimes uses the thirteen hermeneutic rules laid down in the Mishnah, he denies their authority: they are to be applied, he claims, only when it is not possible to explain the passage literally. Thus, notwithstanding his veneration for Anan ben David, the founder of Karaism, and for Benjamin Nahawandi, he often rejects their interpretations."

I look forward to hearing from my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

ZECHERIAH:
I don"t know what relevance this has; if someone has a prophecy we cannot verify for 500 years- he should have some short term prophecy to verify that he is a prophet.
Also- G-d removes Idol Worship temporarily but Prophecy perminately? This makes no sense, besides, prophecy isn"t just the opposition to Idol Worship, Prophets also brought messages to kings to tell them to shape up, and they went to cities to warn them of impending doom, the opposition to Idol Worship was only a minor function.
There is no real reason why Guru Nanak cannot be a prophet, none that you have brought forward at least.
THE REASONS FOR THE ORAL LAW:
Add things in? It is permissible to add things in to the Oral Torah? The suspicions of the Oral Torah being altered over time is no longer a suspicion then! There is a direct verse that refers to this:
Proverbs 30:5-6:
"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."
So G-d will rebuke them and they will be found liars? It seems to indicate that, they also added in an entire Oral Torah to top it all off.
This quote from Rabbi Ovadiah is false- Karaites don"t have sages, they don"t have commentaries, and they don"t alter their interpretations either.
Yes, G-d would put ambiguities in the Tanakh to encourage deeper study- another reason why the Oral Torah cannot be genuine, because it gives the answers to you, and expects you to put your faith in a few rabbis.
In Karaism they study the Tanakh looking for genuine Objective answers, rather than just saying "we don"t have the answers, so let"s make some up."
Rabbinical Traditions date back to 300 AD? If it was genuine- it would date back to 2000 BC, we can date the Written Tanakh that long ago.
Yavneh

Pro

Bs"D

Thank you to my opponent for the quick response.

I believe my opponent's argument is predicated on a few misconceptions.

a) G-d removes "the spirit of uncleanliness" (not idolatry) and prophecy forever. My opponent argued that if idolatry was only removed temporarily, then prophecy, its counterweight, should have been removed temporarily. Prophecy, however, is actually the counterweight to the above-mentioned "spirit of uncleanliness", viz. the pervasive lust for idolatry, which re-occurs all throughout Tanach. This desire was the main opponent of most prophets.

b) The Oral Law is inherently not meant to be set in stone. Yes, with a strong link from generation to generation, you will pass down the original material, more or less intact. But the Oral Law is meant to have additions as new situations arise. This is the venue for new problems to be solved and collected into the body of Halacha.

c) One cannot refute a primary source document by saying, "This quote from Rabbi Ovadiah is false." He is relating what he witnessed in the Karaite communities! And if, on the other hand, the veracity of my quotation is being questioned, here is the link to the book: http://www.amazon.com... . My quotes were taken from pages 39 and 40-- photocopied here: https://docs.google.com...

d) Karaites, in fact, do have Rabbis-- a Google search of "Karaite Rabbis" yields a wikipedia page of them-- and, sure enough, they have commentaries on Tanach. Proof of the afore-mentioned Yefet ben Ali's commentary can be found in the commentary of the ibn Ezra, on Exodus 4:4, 5:5, and 7:29, for example. This is the link for 7:29: http://www.sefaria.org....

e) The Oral Law does not merely "provide the answers". The Gemara rarely decides a Halachic debate, but it always breaks down the opinions into their source, their reasoning, etc., so as to flesh out the argument. The very first Mishnah showcases the desire for discussion: "From when do we start to say the Shema at night? From the time that the priests enter to eat their Terumah (after a period of impurity)." The Gemara, then, must discuss: When do priests enter to eat their Terumah? Is it on the eighth day, when they bring their sacrifice? Is it at nightfall just after the seventh day? The Oral Law, although it does provide a large help in getting the answers, mostly did not provide the answers until the Middle Ages, when all the arguments were settled for certain.

f) My opponent, rather than agreeing with Ketuvim"s demonstrably false assertion, has come to terms with the fact that the Tanach contains ambiguities. My opponent states: "Yes, G-d would put ambiguities in the Tanakh to encourage deeper study- another reason why the Oral Torah cannot be genuine, because it gives the answers to you, and expects you to put your faith in a few rabbis. In Karaism they study the Tanakh looking for genuine Objective answers, rather than just saying "we don"t have the answers, so let"s make some up." This quote belies a deep misunderstanding of the process of deciding Halacha. The Oral Torah is almost completely based on verses; it expounds extra words, abnormal letters, or strange constructs, that a perfect G-d must have had a reason for. The answers given all are deeply rooted in the text. In fact, when arguments did come up over Halacha, the arguments were almost always regarding verses. The answers were not "made up", as my opponent would like to suggest.

g) My opponent writes: "Rabbinical Traditions date back to 300 AD? If it was genuine- it would date back to 2000 BC, we can date the Written Tanakh that long ago." In my 300 *BCE* comment, I was merely talking about the oldest active speaker. However, there are laws passed down as "Halacha L"Moshe MiSinai", a law dating back to Moses at Sinai. Thus, the Oral Torah does date back to the time of Moses-- c.1300 BCE.

I might add on this last point that the Karaite traditions date back no further than 650 CE. Perhaps it is my opponent who must defend himself on the point of authenticity.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

harrytruman forfeited this round.
Yavneh

Pro

Bs"D

Thank you to my opponent for a great debate. I hope the readers were enlightened.

This debate, by the way, was really hinged on the definition of 'Judaism' (My real proof against Sikhism was from the Sages, and my opponent countered by questioning the authority of the Sages). As the vast majority of Jews who stay truthful to the Torah's commandments are Rabbinic, I believe that the debate should be viewed in a Rabbinic light-- and therefore, the words of the Sages should be deemed acceptable.

A good Shabbos to all.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yavneh 10 months ago
Yavneh
It wasn't. HaRamiBami is a direct address. The only possible mistake was the capitalization of the 'w' in 'With', but that was because 'HaRamiBami' was a joke, and I wanted to show a little separation.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
Your sentence is terrible grammar
Posted by Yavneh 10 months ago
Yavneh
Huh?
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
Grammar please?
Posted by Yavneh 10 months ago
Yavneh
HaRamiBami, With the help of heaven, schedules worked out. A day off helped :)
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
W e had some setbacks, i will be done on Tuesday.
Posted by Rami 10 months ago
Rami
Yavneh, you sure were quite busy with this debate. Nice job!
Posted by Yavneh 10 months ago
Yavneh
I would love a debate on the Karaite Manifesto you and Ketuvim are culling together.
Posted by Yavneh 10 months ago
Yavneh
He brought verses-- but not all 20,000 of them. Talmid only needed to bring one, and he did.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
Well he brought verses and showqed how you cannot go any other way with them,
No votes have been placed for this debate.