1. R. Yosef Albo [Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23] offers the following philosophical proof for the existence of an oral law. R. Albo states that a perfect text must, by definition, be totally unambiguous and not require any additional information to be understood. Since the Torah is called perfect [Psalms 19:8], the Torah must not have any ambiguities. However, it does have ambiguities. For example, the verse [Deut. 6:4] "Hear O Israel! The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one" is understood by Jews to imply absolute monotheism while it is understood by Christians to imply a trinity. How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity? Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect [cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71]. Therefore, R. Albo states, there must have been an oral tradition transmitted along with the written Torah.
1. This is an example of the ambiguity argument, which, as I have discussed, is invalid.
2. Where does R. Albo get his definition of a "perfect text"? Is it from the Oral Torah? In that case, he is assuming the Oral Torah in order to prove it — in other words, he is begging the question. Any text requires additional information to be understood, such as the knowledge of the language in which the text written. Yet, such additional information is not the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah, remember, is an alleged additional revelation, as well as later Rabbinical rulings, not simply the knowledge of the Hebrew language. The implication that the two are one and the same is a logical fallacy called equivocation.
3. Rabbis often criticize literalism. XXX In general, Psalms is devotional poetry, and should not be taken literally. In particular, the language of Psalms 19 makes it clear that it is simply a statement of devotion and is not literal. Consider Psalms 19:8-9
The law [torat - תורת] of YHWH is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of YHWH is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of YHWH are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment [mitzvat - מצות] of YHWH is pure,
enlightening [m-irat - מאירת] the eyes;
Despite Rabbinical objections to literalism, and despite the language of this particular Psalm, R. Albo insists on taking the words "the law of YHWH is perfect" literally. Does he also believe that Torah literally revives the soul? Does he also believe that it literally makes the eyes bright? R. Albo confuses the literal and the figurative uses of words, which is the fallacy of equivocation.
4. The analysis of the Christian view of Deuteronomy 6:4 is wrong. R. Albo implies that Christians, reading the exact same text in Deuteronomy as Jews, come to a radically different conclusion about the nature of God. This is not so. Christians derive their belief in the Trinity from the New Testament. They then search the Jewish Bible for proofs of this doctrine. In other words, they work backwards, much as the Rabbis work backwards when they first assume the Oral Torah and then search the Jewish Bible to find proofs for it. I call this the cart before the horse conceptual fallacy.
To show ambiguity, R. Albo would have to show that two reasonable people, with good knowledge of the text's context, and who have no vested interest in any doctrine about the nature of God, come to two different conclusions on the matter. But again, whether or not there is actually ambiguity in the text is not that important, since R. Albo fails to show that the text must be absolutely without ambiguities, or what it would mean for a text to be without ambiguities.
5. "Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect". Does the Oral Torah clarify ambiguities, or does it introduce new ambiguities, not found in the text? On every issue in the Oral Torah, there are at least two opinions. Here are a couple of easy examples: Which kind of tefillin is correct: the one according to Rashi, or the one according to R. Tam? How many hours must one wait after eating meat before one can eat dairy? And so on. These are all ambiguities introduced by the Oral Torah, which do not exist in the Jewish Bible. XXX
6. Are the explanations of the Oral Torah themselves ambiguous? If they are, then they do not make the Torah "perfect" and unambiguous, contrary to R. Albo. If they are not, then why was the text made ambiguous, while its explanations not ambiguous? Why aren't the explanations simply included in the text, making it unambiguous?