Am ha-Aretz / עם הארץ

"Belief" is not a simple word - "a fool believes anything"

Etrog: i have no way of assesing when this began, if it was part of the Sinai revelation, or ame about with/ after Ezra.

Tefillin - no evidence of it in the 1st temple. Rambams says that the 4 pronged "shin" on the Shel Rosh is halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai. However, Moses did not write in the Hebrew script we have today, os a Shin of modern Hebrew font would be ridiculous on the old tefillin.

Also, in the 2nd paragraph of the Shema, we are told, before the Totafot verse "V'samtem et devarai eleh al levevchem v'al nafshchem".

Does that mean there are actually 4 items of tefillin - a pendant for our hearts, and another for our souls, thus we are not carrying out the entire mitzvah?

Eddie,
Do you believe that am yisrael has been practcing etrog forevr and that they have been keeping teffilin and other basic mitzvot with a few variations in every geneartion.

Avi, I more or less agree with you!

except:

"Long standing Traditions casn't suddently be revoked entirely but small aspect (like the batim in teffilin)can change. If thats what your opinion is then BARUCH HASHEM we've come to an agreement.
4)You have to realize what the second temple period was like. Almost none of AM yisrael followed the torah and they worshipped the idols and left Hakadosh Baruch Hu."

In such a case, long standing traditions can easily be revoked or changed. A perfect example is Ezra rewriting the Torah in a new language!

Eddie,
1)I believe that CERTAIN aspects of mitzvot came from individula cases. But mitzvot themselves came from sinai. Fr oexmaple i think am yisrael always had the arba minim and wore teffilin. The yjust might have done it in a different way then we do. Long standing Traditions casn't suddently be revoked entirely but small aspect (like the batim in teffilin)can change. If thats what your opinion is then BARUCH HASHEM we've come to an agreement.
4)You have to realize what the second temple period was like. Almost none of AM yisrael followed the torah and they worshipped the idols and left Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Why do yopu think the Tanach is full of rebuke to the peopel in the first temple. So few people were scrupulous about the mitzvot that only at certain isolated times were many people wearing teffilin. Thats one answer.
If you want to think that most of the time am yisrael were tzadikim i might say that maybe the method of disposing of discarded teffilin has changed. MAybe then they used to burn their teffilin while now we bury them.
Or maybe there are teffilin buried in the ground somewhere but we just haven't found them. You do realize how recently have people become aware how far back torah texts date i.e. Qumran. Just because we haven't found something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hi Avi

i will try to answer in order of your questions:

1) "The torah she beal peh developed from isolated cases that could not be explained"

If you are arguing this way, then you belong on my side, since the rabbis would call you a conservative or apikores!

2) Adding: did u read my article - maybe u can comment there, so we can use that post for adding / bal tosiph

3)Jeremiah 2:8

4 ) Tefillin: what kind has been found from the 1st temple period? =)

5)" what group of jews do YOU believe is following the torah correctly. If you say none then what zechut has allowed us to return to Israel"

the 2 points are unrelated. I am not in a position to Judge Israel, nor do i pretend to be.
I m not into playing the "what group" game, it is one of arrogance and hubris. All groups seem to think they are doing it right, and noone else.

As for return to Zion: why do u say it is zechut?

The Zionist movement who spearheaded the return, and created the state, was largely secular, and the Yeshiva world had nothing to do with them, barring Rav Kook , and too few of his contemporaries. Some rebbes, whose ritual observance was meticulous even forbade their followeres to make aliya, but instead to be murdered in europe by the Nazis. Do you think those rebbes have any zechut?

If your logic is correct, then we shoudl follow the Samaritans/ Shomronim, who never were exiled, and even today carry out sacrifices - perhaps they had the zechut to live in Israel , while the Jews were exiled. (just playing logic with you!!)

Eddie,
I dont pretend we have semicha nowadays but we did when the mishna was written. Also the cases could be referring to a local case but the point is that we have to follow the rabbis decision on that case for all similar cases. The torah she beal peh developed from isolated cases that could not be explained. Thats how all the hypothetical cases come up in the gemara they all happened and were addresed by a beis din.
Adding to the torah means making a decree and calling it a law from GOd. Rabinic decrees are the rabbis laws and we all admit it but they are generally sanctioned by God. Thats one view but in any case its not so straightforward that the torah means to forbid gzeirot. Or i could say that gezeirot are part of God's law (as seen in shoftim) and therefore arent adding.
In Jeremiah please give me the pasuk and also Jeremiah could be reffering to some of the population who didn't follow GOd. Also there are often breaks in the transmission (thats how we lost the techelet) but it takes quite a long time for such a brake to occur. Its very hard to make evryone forget a tradition they have been doing for thousands of years. Also the oral torah changes over time as can be seen from the fcat that our teffilin are somewhat different then the ones found at masada.
One last thing what group of jews do YOU believe is following the torah correctly. If you say none then what zechut has allowed us to return to Israel. (This is kinda philosophical but consider this anyway.)

2 posts Avi:

a) I am not a karaite - Karaites developed their own halachic system, and "forbade" certain things on Shabbat for example, including using a fire (lite before), and enjoying marital relations - wiht no textual support. I guess they can argue for forbidding fire, but i dont see where the sex is prohibited from.

Your other post:

U draw a number of conclusions which are not justified.

a) U can have a legal sytem without the sanhedrin, howeve it doesn't have binding force of the Torah.
The sages should try to help resolve disputes, solve problems of marriage and divorce etc. In a sense, as far as halacha goes, the talmud should never have been closed, but the process should continue... but thats a separate discussion.

"ANd what is the beis din to do when they see am yisrael sinning. SHould they just stand aside and watch am yisrael incur guilt.NO.They should make gzeirot to stop the sinning"

Gezeirot to stop people from sinning? That is rabbinic propaganda - no support in the Texts for such behavior - and the Prophets never did so either. There were individual decisions made fo one time, such as Elija on Mt Carmel, but that was not a gezeira. A gezeira is an entirely fictitious entity, and is illegal according ot the Torah (do not add and do not subtract!)

You then use some twisted rabbinic styled thinking to justify gezeirot, when the passage clearly refers to a dispute that cannot be resolved between the disputants. We have shown this several times, it's obviosu to anyone who reads the text objectively. of course, if you have faith in the Oral law, no amount of reason can help.

"This verse must be referring in general to the power of the rabbis to make us listen to something besides a certain case." - you can make it refer to whoever you want ti to, to the Church, the synod, the Imams, the dalai lama, and if you really beleive hard enough and have a religious refernce group to reinforce this belief, it will become your reality.

My reality is to try to remove all the brainwashing and look at the plain meaning of the text, its context. The language is referring to the peoepl it menitons, who sit in the place and time it mentions. It's not refering to John Kerry, or Elton John.

"Jeremiah ...... This shows that the adding is not a problem for the rabbis."

Let's look at your thought process here: Jeremiah said the Torah Guardians did not knwo G-d , implying that they were not behaving inacordance with the Torah. I bring this as proof that there is no gurantee thet the rabbis have unbroken tradition or righteousness. I didn tmention "adding" in this context.

Since i didnt mention adding, you deem it to justify adding. Hw do u reach such a flawed conclusion. I gave my link to the essay on Lo Tosiphu. Read it!

That verse in jeremiah doens explicitly mention bestiality! Does that mean there is no problem with bestiality/ Thats exactly how your argumentaion runs.

FYI, adding is forbidden by the Torah, as is bestiality.

Semikha, is well known to have been lost. Ther is even haalchic discussion on whether it can be restored before the moshich comes.

I will try to give you a refernce, but ask any rav, and he will tell u that his semicha isnt the same as Moshe's semicha!

I just saw a karaite prayer book on karaite korner the other day and i noticed two things.
1.They say berachos a totally rabinic ordinance.(ALthough they say differnt berachos from the ones we say they still say baruch ata hashem...)
2.They say shema with the last passage of tzizit a concept only known through the oral torah.(and shema itself might only be able to be learned from the oral torah.

These seem to show that the karaites were not the original form of judaism because as can be seen from these 2 things they preserved rabinic practices.

Eddie,
So what is am yisrael to do if they find a case they cant answer and there is no beit hamikdash. Should they just forget the case or what. Rather they have to go to the nearest thing to the lishcat hagazit sanhedrin i.e. the rabbis in each generation. Otherwise many halchic questions just cant be answered. ANd what is the beis din to do when they see am yisrael sinning. SHould they just stand aside and watch am yisrael incur guilt.NO.They should make gzeirot to stop the sinning. And also what makes you think the case in shoftim is refering to a local case. If it were merely a local case they wouldnt bring it up to har habayit. Also we learn the rabbis can enact gzeirot from the fact is says vs. 11 "according to the TORAH they teach you and according to the judgement that they say you shall not stray from the matter they tell you left or right." Perhaps you might answer that this is merely referring to their judgement on a certain case and is not referring to gezeirot. I'll answer that the fact that we have to listen to their judgement on this case was already tstaed in vs 10 where it says "and you will do according to the matter they will tell you..." This verse must be referring in general to the power of the rabbis to make us listen to something besides a certain case. I say this verse refers to the rabbis gezeirot. Also explain yourself when you say Semicha isnt what Moses had and also the verse in Jeremiah from my undertstanding (please tell me where it is) implies that the problem with the tosphey torah is not thte fact that they are adding to the torah which rabbis are aloud to do in certain cases the problem is that they dont recognise God.
This shows that the adding is not a problem for the rabbis.

Avi -YES! When a matter cannot be solved between you and your disputant, go tothe place where Hashem has chosen, ie the gt Sanhedrin (under auspices of Prophet and Cohen Gadol), and have the matter settled there.

It's nto only civil law, but also relgious law etc.

NOW, what the Rabbis neglect to mention is that Only the Lishkat haGazit under the fully fucntioning temple /sanhendrin is referred to here.

It doesnt give carte blanche to any group of scholars to enact new laws, and impose more and more gezeiros upon Israel.

It refers specifically to a local dispute. If my oxe gores yours, and we have at our disposal that hi court, we can go ther for judgement.

it doesnt say that the rabbis can one day decide that wiping one's bum is a relgious affair etc etc.

Eddie,
Just because they are orthodox rabbis doesn't mean i always agree with their historical nad philosophical views. I care about their halachic views beacuse the torah commands us that the rabbis have to make the laws in parshat shoftim. Ami says that that refers to state laws but it says at the beginning of that parsha Deuteronomy 17:8 "When a matter is far from youof judgement....between NEGA and NEGA. The only meaning of nega i know is tzaraat (leprosy) and it is definitely not civil justice which determines what tzaraat makes one tamei and which is tahor. Also later in the parsha verse 11 it says "According to the TORAH that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you." I might say that TORAh refers to religious laws and judgement refers top civil laws. TORAH means law usually it means the laws of what WE call the torah meaning the written one. So its not so clear that this parsha merely refers to civil government.

Avi: I AM NOT SHOUTING!!! i just need to distinguish my letters from yours,a nd htis thing doesnt accept colours.

"I believe the oral torah was made by rabbis in every generation but i dont think that detracts from its holiness." - thats fine, but it's not the Orthodox position - the Orthodox claim that the Oral torah was given on Sinai before or simultaneous ot the written Law. Including every Hiddush of every advanced rabbi, including the Zohar and all the kabbala.

Interestingly: It is very difficult to find a single rabbi who will discuss this matter 9or any other) rationally. There may be a few who will start to discuss and give the standard Kuzari type arguments, but as soon as they see their position is compromised, they disappear!! Without a trace!

So even if there are 50000 Rabbis in the world, they can't even collecively mount a sustained rational discourse.

Eddie,
I believe the oral torah was made by rabbis in every generation but i dont think that detracts from its holiness. I'll look at jeremiah later.
(dont write in capitals it makes me feel like you're shouting :))

OK:

1) Semicha is not what Moses had. Even the Rabbinical semicha is no longer existant. However, there is no continuity from once generation to another. Injeremiah's time, the Navi said that "Tofsei torah lo yadaooni" - ie the rabbis were corrupt in that generation.

2) "Over the generations rabbis used these logical methods to create what eventually became the mishna."
i WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT, I THINK THATS HOW THE MISHNA DEVELOPED. PROBLEM IS THO, THE ORTHODOX WONT AGREE WITH U. THATS MORE OF CONSERVATIVE / HISTORICAL SCHOOL. THE ORTHOS CLAIM THAT THE WHOLE ORAL LAW WAS GIVEN ON SINAI, AS DOES THE RAMBAM!!

THEY HOLD THE O.L. TO BE AS SACRED AND IMMUTABEL AS WRITTEN TORAH, AND TO HAVE THE SAME STATUS, SOURCE. OTHERWISE, IF A MAJORITY , AY SADDUCEES, GAVE A MORE LOGICAL INTERPRETATION, THEYWOULD BE BOUND TO FOLLOW IT.

SO, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE UNDERLINED HERE - I DONT THINK THE FUNDAMENTALIST WOULD!

KOL TUV

EDDIE

I think i should point out the matters of our disagreement. I believe that God gave permission to RABBIS (people who have recieved semicha dating back to the semicha moses gave yehoshua) to interpret the law according to reasoning. Over the generations rabbis used these logical methods to create what eventually became the mishna. I think that SOME things were explained to moses at sinai and he just told people what they were, like phylacteries and what a sukka was. The oral torah is not an obscure body of law that is not connected to the torah its just means an interpretation of the torah. Whether you call it logic or the telepathic torah does not matter we all agree that the torah has to be interpreted. I think (correct me if i'm wrong)that our only matter of disgareement is over who has the right to interpret the torah and whether the rabbis can make fences for the torah. But everyone agrees that the torah has to be interpreted. We call it the torah she beal peh Ami calls the telepathic torah and others call it logic. People are mistaken if they think that the rabbis just chose arbitrary meanings for the torah. They used logical reasoning which we have preserved in a body of learning called the midrash halacha. I just dont believe the individual has the right to interpret the torah for himself. Also i think that you dont have the right to ignore previous interpretations but if you have semicha you have the right to expand on it. Also i want to say that it is not a far-fetched to believe God explained to Moses what techelet was or how a sukka should be built or what shabbos meant. ANd it is also not a crazy suggestion to say Moses taught these things that God had told him when he taught the kehila the torah.

Avi, why do u repeat the same qns when i already answered them?

More to the point, u have entirely ignored my species theory: and this largely demolishes the arguments for the oral law.

Starting wiht a simle examle: Inthe temple and Mishkan, we have to make certain victuals with Gold, silver. Also , the cohanim have to wear clothes made of say linen, silk, etc.

Now, when the Torah mentions these species, be they mineral, animal products, or vegetable products, do we need a separate law book (unwritten) to tell us what is gold, siler, silk, etc? Of course not, because in that society everybod knwos whatthese products are. They may not have known what Uranium is, or what a flying squirrel is, but those are not relevant to the Mitzvot. Since the first exile, some of that knowledge has disappeared. in some cases the rabbis derived interpretatins, in others they were unable to do so. So the species of forbidden / permitted birds are not known; etc etc.

Tekhelet: I don't think the species of mollusc is identifed inthe talmud - they apaprently say its somethignthat comes every 70 years. The Efrat techelet, which is what Rav Lichtenstein identifies, i from a mollusc used in ancient times as blue/indigo dye - but most of the Yeshiva world do not follow this idea, and they wait until Moshiach reveals it.

Like i said, I keep Shabbat more or less like i did when i was orthodox. I dont keep muktze tho, since that is an rabbinic decree, and is sometimes counterproductive.

If the 39 are derived from the work on the Mishkan, then it's not really oral ALw, in that it is derived from the text.

Strictly speaking, any attempt to textually prove the Oral Law, goes againstwhat it actually is - a separate tradition form Sinai. If it can be derived form teh text, then a karaite coudl also derive the same law. there are Halachot whihc are not sourced form the Torah itself.

"do you think God cares at all whether we worship him or follow his commandments."

I think so, it says so in the Torah, all he asks of us is to keep his Torah.

Avi,

1. Many words have several meanings. So what? People whose IQ is greater than the ambient temperature can usually figure it out. Do the Hindus have an "Oral Torah" for the Vedas? No.

2. I have explained this elsewhere in the Critiques, and I have pointed you to my explanations. Did you see it?

I took the time to respond to everything you had to say. Whenever you brought a "proof", I explained why it does not prove the Oral Torah. What do you do? You ignore it and bring another "proof". Many of your "proofs", *including* this one, I have already explained, and I have pointed you to the explanations. Yet you insist on carrying on. Why?

3. 39 melachot. It's in the article on Shabbat to which I gave you a link just a few comments earlier. Did you bother to read it?

.

Eddie,
I believe that we have the complete written torah. But the oral torah being transmitted orally obviously had a greater chance of ebing lost. Also some orthodox jews where tzizit with tchelet. I'm considering getting tzizit with techelet sometime.I'm also interested how you learn to keep the 39 melachot without an oral torah please enlighten me. Also do you think God cares at all whether we worship him or follow his commandments. For all we know the mitzvot might have no reasons at all and they just show our obedience yo GOD.
-Avi
P.S. I found another textual suggestion to the oral torah i'll post it later. I want to see your response to it.

Ami,
Maybe the word "affliction" has two meanings. Affliction can mean sexual abuse too as seen in the case of Dinah and SHechem where it says Shchem afflicted dinah. We have a tradition that the word affliction here means fasting rom a gezeira shava.
-Avi

Hi Avi

which Tekhelet qn do u wish for me to answer?

you say that "I believe the otherwise i believe that what we have is the only written torha that was given to us. " but u also admit that "Its our fault we lost the techelet. Since we have sinned God sent us into exile and made us forget"

OK, its because of our sins, but how can we have a) the whole torah and b) we've lost parts of it?

The scribes counted the letters of the Torah, and had arrived at the centre point. Those dont correspond with a letter count that is done today, and the point is now off centre.

U asked me why the sages didnt create a tekhelet like they allegdly did with other oral laws.

I dont think the Oral law suddenly appeared overnite. I am also not disputing the meaning of etrog / etz hadar. Furthermore, ther are some details on thetalmud about tkhelet - and i am not expert on them. However, the efrat tkhelet has used science to ascertain the dye used in ancient times in that region. And the snail has been associated with the hilazon. This hasnt been widely adopted - most tzitzit today are still white.

(except for mine, and if u want i'll give u the name of the guy in Jerusalem i bought it from).

U ask too many questions, which stray from the dicsussion here.

Why do i keep the 39 melachos- its the way i learnt, so no point in going back on that - its not so difficult. on some things its better to be machmir, otherwise i could use electricity , computer etc

i think the emphasis shoudl be more on work, eg agricultural, physical work, or whatever we do during the 6 days. i dont think G-d really cares f i take my peas out of my soup or my soup out of my kneidlach or croutons.

also, which hand do u wipe ur ass with? the one u use to put on tefillin with, or the one where u put the tefillin on?

Avi,

***It doesn't say explicitly that affliction is fasting we only know it because it says so in other contexts this is a gezerah shava part of the oral torah.***

No. It says "afflict your souls", which *means* "fast". Just like "raining cats and dogs" *means* "heavy rain". How do we know this? From the way the words are used in other places in the Tanakh. No Oral Torah needed.

Eddie,
I'll concede to you that parts of the torah can't be performed in every generation. (Like the bet hamikdash laws.) But i think all of the torah can be UNDERSTOOD. Its our fault we lost the techelet. Since we have sinned God sent us into exile and made us forget. There is no reason to not follow the practice of etrog because someone might not understand it, when we have a legitimate tradition that pri etz hadar is etrog. (Thats not a proof just an opinion you might argue that the tradition that etrog is pri etz hadar is an incorrect tradition.) Also i dont think a hadar tree exists because it just means beautiful and is mentioned nowhere else in the tanach therefore we need a tradition.
You seem to deny that we have the complete torah and that all the torah that we have came from moses. I believe the otherwise i believe that what we have is the only written torha that was given to us. I'll have to seek proofs to satisfy you though :). But if we don't have the complete torah that might be support to my side. Maybe God caused us to lose the complete torah so we would have top devise a torah she beal peh. Again i think we have the original torah but i suppose anything is possible. Please answer my techelet question though. Also if you think the written torah has been reformed why can't you believe that a torah she beal peh came about.
-Avi

Well, contradicitons matter. Forget, maybe, bla bla bla

we're having a rational discussion here, so dont swap from one thing to another when it gets uncomfortable.

A core argument for the oral Law is the Torah doesnt give enough information. Isay it once did, but due to exile and persecution by idola worshipping Israelites, we lost a lot 9even written boks were lost)

the Book of the law was found by Hilkia/ Shaphan, and Josiah made the first reformation. Since there is no independent record of the Torah before that, no reference point we cannot gauge exactly what has been lost.

The practices alo changed throughut time, eg read Ezra and Nehemia. So all along there was some re-construction going on, first by Josiah, then Ezra, and finally the Rabbis.

Even those things that were assumed by these leaders and became halacha, might not be what was given to Moses. Perhasp teffilin was created in Babylon. We have no record of it in the 1st temple. Perhaps the same is true for mikve/ nidda, since the Torah doesn't mention a woman should immerse.

In all religions, at some point an Orthodoxy is formed. this is after the Prophets have ceased, and ther are not any more revelations. SO a rigid system is created to reach to the masses.

ok, laters

eddie

AMi,
*?? The Rabbis say that it is *impossible* to know that we have to fast on Yom Kippur without the Oral Torah. But the text *tells us* to fast. No Oral Torah needed. Now, you are saying that the Rabbis also only use the text?*

It doesn't say explicitly that affliction is fasting we only know it because it says so in other contexts this is a gezerah shava part of the oral torah.
-Avi

Eddie,
Forget my contradictions for a minute just answer why we dont have a tradition for techelet nowadays. Also i want to know why you keep the 39 melachot like you said a while ago on October 20th if they're from the oral torah. Ami doesn't keep them why do you. Just wondering.
-Avi

Avi

at the begninning of this particular discussion, you said

"Obviously when God gave the torah he intended it to be for all generations or else he would have given a new one for each succeding generation. Therefore there mus tbe a method to understand teh torah in ALL geneartions" ie you imputed your own assumptions on G-d's actions .

Now, you are admitting that "The answer they had an oral traditin as to what a pri etz hadar was but the orla tradition to techelet had been lost"

Thank you very much!!! So you have contradicted yourself by the above 2 statements!

i cant remember what i liked, i think your tone was funny =)

***Why would the tzdukim where tefillin***

We do not even know that they wore tefillin. What is your proof that they did? Please provide references.

***I looked at http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/Yom.Kippur.Nehemia.Gordon.html and you do realize that the rabbis learn yom kippur in a similar manner.***

?? The Rabbis say that it is *impossible* to know that we have to fast on Yom Kippur without the Oral Torah. But the text *tells us* to fast. No Oral Torah needed. Now, you are saying that the Rabbis also only use the text?

Fine, if in this case they only use Written Torah, that is wonderful. Why did you ask the question then, if you knew that the answer is in the Written Torah?

***Using a word in one context to explain a word in another context is a gezeirah shava part of the torah she beal peh.***

Good. It is also part of normal logical thinking. Anyone who did not know anything about the Oral Torah would be able to figure it out. Therefore, it does not require an Oral Torah.

***Either i could say to you that even the karaites use teh torah she beal peh like us or i could say that the rabbis means of derivation aren't as unholy as you seem to think.***

- As I said, it is just using logic. Just because it is included in the Oral Torah doesn't mean that I can't use it, since it's also known to everyone who has never heard of the Oral Torah.

- "Derivation"?? In this one example, the Rabbis got it right. So? Let's talk about tefillin, or separation of meat and dairy, or Shabbat candles, or a thousand other examples where the "derivation" is insane.

Why "derive" the laws anyway? All the laws are clearly stated. Why would God state laws unclearly and make us derive them??

The only potential problem is when we do not know Biblical Hebrew very well. But then, in many cases, we can figure out what the words mean from their use elsewhere in the Tanakh. This was the case here.

***Ami God in his religious laws commands us to set up courts therefroe we can't divide the two ideas. All the laws in the torah are religious.***

Divide what?

There are laws that God commanded in the Torah.

Aside from those laws, every country also has laws.

The first type, I called "Religious", the second "National".

***"you will not stray right or left." is in Deuteronomy 5:29. I already explained that both torahs are dependant on each other and in the verse im quoting it does not refer to any written torah.***

- Let's read on. 6:1: "And this is the Instruction--the laws and the rules--that YHWH your God has commanded ..." And then Moses reiterates the Laws. How can you say that it does not refer to the Written Torah?? Moses says, do not turn to the right or the left from what God commended, and then tells us what God commanded.

- You did not explain that the Written Torah requires an Oral one. For every example, I showed that the Written Torah stands on its own.

***What ambiguities! Different opinions come about two manners in the orla torah.***

One of the arguments in favor of the Oral Torah that Rabbis give, and that, I believe, you gave, is that the Written Torah, by itself, cannot be understood: it contains too many "ambiguities". But the Oral Torah contains even more ambiguities. Just as one example, many Orthodox Jews disagree as to which tefillin to wear. That is an ambiguity from the Oral Torah.

***1. There was a mistake in transmission. The rabbis weren't perfect.***

Good. You are saying that there are mistakes in the Oral Torah.

***In other generations the rabbis had to figure it out using derivation laws and logic from the oral torah. But sometimes they had different opinions on how to learn something.***

?? I thought the methods of Rabbinical derivation are specified in the Oral Torah??

***Rashi is the correct kind beccause that is what the halachists decided.***

Where do they get the power to impose their decisions on other people? Parsha Shoftim does not apply to them.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/falseness_2_shoftim_rabbinical_authority_over_torah_interpretation.html

***The court goes according to majority!***

Where does it say so? The court can decide in any way it wants. It can be by the majority, or it can be in any other way.

***Since we lack the court nowadays we follow majority without a cort.***

Says who?

Check the above link about Parsha Shoftim. We followed the court in Jerusalem because it had the power to *physically* enforce the laws. Do the Rabbis have that power? No.

***Karaites don't do that. Also what do you think the courts function was. TO DECIDE THE LAW!***

The function of the court was to decide *cases*. The Rabbis *create new laws*. There's a difference.

***WHy do you follow the telepathic torah over the oral torah then! According to you then kAraites have just as much proof of their beliefs as the Orthodox.***

?? There is no such thing as the Telepathic Torah. I made it up.

What I am saying is that every proof you use to prove the Oral Torah can also be used to prove the Telepathic Torah. Since we know that there is no such thing as the Telepathic Torah, what good are these "proofs"?

***One last thing how do you explain whne the torah says in one place "you will eat matzot for 7 days" and in another it says "six days"***

1. Book, chapter, and verse?

2. You have given many many different proofs. For every proof, I show you why it is wrong. What do you do? You just give the next proof. Were those other proofs wrong?? If yes, then say so.

***If the rabbis were just making up the orla torha to expolain terms they didn't undertsnad why didn't the make up a die to be the techelet.***

The same reason they made up the law to light Shabbat candles. To separate out those who don't follow them.

Eddie,
Everything we're talkin about is maybe because if it weren't we wouldn't be arguing. Also the oral torah is often human speculation. The beauty of it is God gave the torah to humans some parts are come directly from sinai but others God gave to humans to figure out. Every view i give is my own or that of something i read. Most rabbis follow very blidnly so theri is usually no point in consulting them on this. It very sad. As t othe YESHUA vs. YEHOSHUA i dont understand why the different spelling is employed in nechemia therefore its POSSIBLE its a different person. Again if we knew all the naswers wed all be karaites or wed all be orthodox. As to writing down the orla torah i think the prohibition might just be of codifying like in the mishna. I think in every generation scholars probably wrote down theri oral traditions. Why were these records lost. Becuase they wernt included in the canon. The rabbis didn't want ot include the torah she beal peh "notes" in the canon so they wouldn't be codified. Therfore they were lost. Again a theory of mine.

THE TECHELET( a proof to me not you)

I understand your argument about terms in the torah being understood in bible times but let me ask you a question. If the rabbis were just making up the orla torha to expolain terms they didn't undertsnad why didn't the make up a die to be the techelet. The answer they had an oral traditin as to what a pri etz hadar was but the orla tradition to techelet had been lost. If they were just trying to explain unknown terms the ywould've just made up something for techelet. BUT they didn't.
-Avi
P.S. what did u like bout my response to Ami i usually dont get much praise hear :)

Avi

talk to me about Tekhelet =)

it fits with my simple model: In Bible times, Tekhelet was a dye known to society. As was Slav/ quails, and Hadar.

Since these may have been lost at certain itmes, the rabbis had to deduce by use of hermeneutics what they could of these, and others. That became fixed as halacha, or left as unknown. Halacha was then given a divine status. That is the pattern of religion; ispiration; ideas; instruction; fixation with legalism.

Avi - i liked your reply to Ami =)

your reply to me: if you a word count, i am sure there are 100 maybe's =)

Another example: In england, we all know what a Quail is, and know the species. so we dont need a hidden Oral LAw, which some people may cheat with.
The point i am making is in Halacha, the Slav is a safek, and you cant get a "good" hechsher on Quail (glatt). So whence the Oral Torah? Either the oral LAw is the magic bullet, and we don't have problems identifying species, OR it's (like your post), a lot of maybe's - ie it is human speculation, which in order to gain acceptance , was given the "diine origin" spin.

I am just giving my own personal views - are you consulting with Rabbanim ?

btw, i don't buy the Yeshua Bin Nun spin, come on!!!

As for the cheats who wrote down the oral LAw, again, thats a problematic concept - the rabbis "cheated" when they wrote it. Moreover, after Joshua's death, there was no unbroken tradition of Torah in Israel. In times of avodah zara, eg King Mansseh, it was totally forgotten. Why wasnt it written down by the neviim, as they were being killed by Menasseh? or was it secretly written, and then reverted to oral form again? Again, it's a bunch of maybe's - peopel weave these stories together when their arguemtns don't fit reality (assuming tenakh is reality - which the Rabbis have a hard time with =)

kol tuv

eddie

Eddie,
I am aware of that passgae in nechemia and i have a two answers.

-The verse says that "bnei yisrael" hadn't celebrated sukkot. Maybe this means bnei yisrael as a whole. But individuals had and the yhad preserved the tradition.

-MAybe the yehoshua here is a different yehoshua. Here it is spelled YESHUA not the normal YEHOSHUA.
if you say well its YESHUA BIN NUN. Its still no disproof because im guessing that YESHUA and NUN were probably common names. Its a possibilty.

-Although the oral torha was not to be written down some people "cheated" and wrote notes so the ywould remember. In the gemara it is recounted a rabbi found a secret scroll. Meanin a scrol written down by a rabbis as self notes nad the nhidden so as not to be over writing down the oral torah. Perhaps when Bnei Yisrael went to teh gola they took some of these hidden scrolls with them. Maybe Nechemia found one of these recording the laws of sukkot which had not been observed since yehoshua's times when it was written down.
Maybe you don't buy the whole secret scroll idea but maybe after yehoshua when bnei yisrael were being persecuted by other nations the laws of sukkot had to be disbanded because bnie yisrael were so oppresed. Someone the nstill would've written the laws down so as not to be forgotten forever.

-MAybe some of the laws of sukkot had been forgotten but not all of them. Its apparent that in the time of Yeravam its apparent bnei yirsael had some chag in the first month because yeravam chaged it to the eighth month. Its apparent that sukkot wasn't completely forgotten.

Maybe its a combination of some of these factors. Many things are possible.

AMi my nemisis lol. Well hes getting pretty close.

-Avi

Ami,
Why would the tzdukim where tefillin for political reasons if they were in usually the majority and were in usually in power. The tzdukim would not have worn tefillin if a minority (but in my opinion still correct) grop wore them. Also according to that they would be over on Lo Tosiphu beacause you say tefillin aren't from the torah.

I looked at http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/Yom.Kippur.Nehemia.Gordon.html and you do realize that the rabbis learn yom kippur in a similar manner. Using a word in one context (the places in the scripture where it refers to fasting as "affliction")
to explain a word in another context ("affliction" in the torah) is a gezeirah shava part of the torah she beal peh. Either i could say to you that even the karaites use teh torah she beal peh like us or i could say that the rabbis means of derivation aren't as unholy as you seem to think.

*There are two laws, which I will call Religious and National. Religious laws are those that were given by God to Moses on Sinai.*

Ami God in his religious laws commands us to set up courts therefroe we can't divide the two ideas.
All the laws in the torah are religious.

"you will not stray right or left." is in Deuteronomy 5:29. I already explained that both torahs are dependant on each other and in the verse im quoting it does not refer to any written torah.

*This is the old ambiguity argument. While there are some ambiguities in the Written Torah, there are infinitely many more ambiguities in the Oral Torah!*

What ambiguities! Different opinions come about two manners in the orla torah.
1. There was a mistake in transmission. The rabbis weren't perfect.

2. In the midbar when a case arose that moses didn't know what the halacha was he'd ask God. But only moses could "summon " God at will. In other generations the rabbis had to figure it out using derivation laws and logic from the oral torah. But sometimes they had different opinions on how to learn something. Then a machloket arose.

*Is that why some Orthodox wear two kinds of tefillin? Or do they wear them because they are unsure of which kind is correct?*

Some orthodox where Rashi and Rabbenu Tam tefillin. Rashi is the correct kind beccause that is what the halachists decided. Maybe ancient jews wore like Rabbenu Tam but that doesn't matter to us. People who have a love of mitzvot want to please God by showing that they where all the kinds of teffillin that have been suggested. If one were to wear Rabbenu Tam only i believe he wouldn't fulfill his obligation. (DOn't take my word for it though.)

*Right. And according to the Written Torah, we go according to the decision of the Supreme Court.*

The court goes according to majority! Since we lack the court nowadays we follow majority without a cort. Karaites don't do that. Also what do you think the courts function was. TO DECIDE THE LAW!

*Or, every single "proof" used for the Oral Torah can also be used for the Telepathic Torah.*

WHy do you follow the telepathic torah over the oral torah then! According to you then kAraites have just as much proof of their beliefs as the Orthodox.

One last thing how do you explain whne the torah says in one place "you will eat matzot for 7 days"
and in another it says "six days" the orthodox have a way of learning this ambiguity do you or do you just ignore it.

I'll find you some info on the qement.

-Avi

Avi

this is an interesting post by Ami (your nemesis =)

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/sukkot_and_shemini_atzeret.html

In it, we see that in the time of Ezra / Nehemia, the festival of Sukkot was reinstituted afte a break of almost 1000 years!

There is no mention of Oral LAw - the laws were written in the Book.

There was obviously a lack of transmission, after all, the practice had fallen into disuse for 100 years - do u think the Jews still transmitted the oral law faithfully?

And the issue of pri hadar is also looked at from another angle

cheers

eddie

Avi,

***But there still are proofs.***

All right. So we are back to proofs.

I understand what you are saying. There can be no conclusive proof. But there can be arguments that suggest that the Oral Torah is true. Fine.

Except that I don't see any of the arguments suggested thus far as being valid. And I have explained why for all (or most) of them. And, if there are any more, I hope to explain why they don't work in the future.

***Why tzdukim used to where tefillin***

1. We don't know much about that historical period. How do we know that they actually wore tefillin? I've never heard anything like this. What is your reference for this?

2. If they did wear them, maybe they did so only for political reasons? This is much like modern politicians going into churches or using religious symbols and language.

***Why samaritans fast on yom kippur***

Because Torah commands us to fast on YK?
http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/Yom.Kippur.Nehemia.Gordon.html

***Why the qement slaughter animals (i don't know the qement is not a good answer.)***

Why not? Please provide a reference on them that I can check. A non-Orthodox reference would be a plus.

***Why Jeremiah forbade carying on shabbos***

He didn't. He reiterated the law against conducting business on Shabbat. That law is from Moses.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/library/shabbat.sabbath.html#tth_sEc4.2

***Ami no law code i know gives each indivvidual to interpret it according to his will.***

We have a misunderstanding then.

There are two laws, which I will call Religious and National. Religious laws are those that were given by God to Moses on Sinai. Any state can create laws of its own: these are National laws. Presumably, the National laws of a (theocratic) Jewish State should not conflict with Religious laws.

An individual is religiously obligated to follow Religious laws, and is also obligated to follow the National laws of the state in which he lives. A theocratic state might enforce Religious laws. But outside of a theocracy, there is no human authority over me telling me how to follow the Religious laws. There is only my understanding.

***If you can just assume we cna derive laws on our own***

Absolutely not! I do not believe that there are any more Religious laws (unless there will be some Divine revelation in the future). The Religious laws that we have are it. So there is no further deriving of the laws.

As for National laws, any state makes its own. Again, there is no derivation here.

The laws of the Rabbis do not fall in either category. Their laws are not from Sinai, are not sanctioned by God in the Law given at Sinai, and are not state laws.

***what does the totah mean when it says "you will not stray right or left."***

Book, chapter, and verse please. For example, in Joshua 1, it clearly means that we should not stray from the WRITTEN Torah.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/10/all_of_the_torah_was_written_down_at_the_time_of_moses.html

***THink about it you can't have a law code if everyone disagrees andt here is no way to make one decision.***

1. Again, you are confusing the situation of an individual outside a theocracy with the situation of a citizen of a state. Of course, we are all citizens of our respective states. But religiously, we are individuals who live outside a theocracy.

2. This is the old ambiguity argument. While there are some ambiguities in the Written Torah, there are infinitely many more ambiguities in the Oral Torah! On almost any major area of Oral Torah, there are countless opinions and disagreements.

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/regarding_stam_rabbis_do_the_opposite_of_what_oral_torah_commands.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/more_fun_with_tefillin.html
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/03/disproofs_20_the_ambiguity_argument_again.html

***According to the oral law we go according to the majority.***

1. Is that why some Orthodox wear two kinds of tefillin? Or do they wear them because they are unsure of which kind is correct?

2. Right. And according to the Written Torah, we go according to the decision of the Supreme Court.

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/08/falseness_2_shoftim_rabbinical_authority_over_torah_interpretation.html

***
*Telepathic Torah.*

You have no proof! Don't tell me i have no proof when your own beliefs have no basis.
***

Huh? It's called sarcasm. Just as there is absolutely no proof for the Telepathic Torah, so too there is no proof for the Oral Torah. Or, every single "proof" used for the Oral Torah can also be used for the Telepathic Torah.

Avi:

offhand, i think in Parshat shoftim, we are told that G-d will raise a navi from among us, so that we do not enquire from sorcerers.

Kasher species: The oral law atempts to solve this: however, we cannot today eat of more than a handful of species of birds; Locusts are not known (with exception of Yemenites); Tekhelet - i have tekhelet, and only the modern orthodox accept this - but the yeshiva world does not. Furthermore, for the last 2000 years - nobody has had tekhelet - so the oral law has been of no help on that!!

Your whole arguemtnation is rather circular -

you claim the Oral Law can help us, since G-d willed that we keep torah - EXCEPT where the oral law cant help us, in which case it must have been G-d's will that we don't keep it. Ok, thats really helpful!

I beleive this began with what i wrote about Hadar

you replied "Obviously when God gave the torah he intended it to be for all generations or else he would have given a new one for each succeding generation. Therefore there mus tbe a method to understand teh torah in ALL geneartions"

That is similar to Ami's position - except you differ on the methodology to understanding the Torah. Perhaps, you are following the rabbinic tradition of arguments l'shem shamayim!

I am suggesting, that since we lost Prophecy we had to learn things using argumentation. There is no guarantee we can keep everything today. Or at least, we do not know what all the species are. Even with the Oral Law, we cannot identify what birds are being referred to. However, if there is a tradition, then halachically it is accepted.

I say the same applies to hadar.

Ami,

*But most of what we know is built by proofs from the assumptions.*

I believe in the oral torah based on an assumption built on the proofs i brought. (many of which you still haven't adressed adequately.)

*You came in here claiming that there is a proof for the Oral Torah. Now you're saying it's pure belief. Why then did you say there was proof? Were you mistaken?*

You are misunderstanding me. I said that the oral torha has to be based on faith-PARTLY. But there still are proofs. Again we make assumptions based on proofs, i have belief based on proof. THe proofs aren't conclusive though just like none of yours AGAINST the oral torha are.

*According to Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah is not derived!*

Many but not all orthodox jew believe that all laws date back to sinai. Some laws like tefillin and the laws of sechach came from sinai but others i think were derived by chazal in every generation.

You havent explained,

-Why tzdukim used to where tefillin

-Why samaritans fast on yom kippur

-Why the qement slaughter animals (i don't know the qement is not a good answer.)

-Why Jeremiah forbade carying on shabbos

*Huh? There is also nowhere in the Torah (Written OR Oral) that allows individuals to breethe on their own. This only proves that there is *another* Torah, the Telepathic Torah.*

Ami no law code i know gives each indivvidual to interpret it according to his will. If you can just assume we cna derive laws on our own what does the totah mean when it says "you will not stray right or left." Implying one direction not many for each individual. Also how could a court punish if everyone interprtes the torah differently. The court would say Reuven is guilty. Then REuven would say well according to how i interpret the torah im innocent. THink about it you can't have a law code if everyone disagrees andt here is no way to make one decision. (According to the oral law we go according to the majority.)

*Telepathic Torah.*

You have no proof! Don't tell me i have no proof when your own beliefs have no basis.

-Avi

Eddie,
*We were told that we would have a navi to keep us away from the saucerers*

i think you meant sorcerers but anyway im not aware of such a statement and even so thta sorceres not explaining the torah.

*Furthermmore - even with the Oral LAw, many species of permitted animals are no longer known.*

Even if we dont know the exact species the oral torha provides us with methods of determining whta is kosher and what is not even nowadays. Also the things that are physically imposible to fulfill nowdays(i.e we dont have a temple) are obviously GOds will. But things that we can fulfill nowadays SHOULD be fulfilled. We can fulfill these things by using an oral torah.
Also God in the torah tells us that a day will come when the temple will have to be disbanded when the torah talks about the exile Deuteronomy 4:25 we obviously can't keep the temple in exile. But nowhere duz it say that kashrut and the arba minim will become obsolete.

-Avi

Avi

here is what i wrote about adding

it was only a first part, hopefully i will write a continuation.

Subtracting form the Oral law, eg is keeping 7 days passover (as per the Bible) subtraacting from the Oral LAw?

If the rabbis have created new laws (fences), then non observance of them is not a Torah Sin

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/lo_tosiphu_does_the_oral_contradict_the_written.html

Kalman,

***If you want maybe we could say that the Rabbis were God's messengers in changing the torah.***

1. But God said that Torah does not change. Did He lie?

2. *Everything* happens because God wills it. So?

***Maybe that is why the Pharisees were victorious in the end***

1. We're at the end already?? :o

2. What do you mean by "victorious"? Please clarify. Remember that today (a) 2 Billion people are Christian; and (b) only about 10% of all Jews are Orthodox.

***God had discontinued prophecy by then but he still wanted to change the torah***

Yes but Prophets never changed the Torah.

Avi,

***Prove to me that God gave any kind of torah at sinai.***

1. That is an excellent question. I have not written extensively on it yet. Some of my early thoughts are here
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/10/where_we_are_where_were_going.html

2. You are saying that it's impossible to prove EVERYTHING, therefore it's not necessary to prove anything. That's not how things work. Of course we all have assumptions. But most of what we know is built by proofs from the assumptions. It is a Good Thing(TM) if the assumptions are tight and well defined. Claiming that every pronouncement that the Rabbis make today is *by assumption* from Sinai doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

3. OK, you are asking, what is sense? What makes sense to one doesn't to another? Is there an objective test?

As I write elsewhere, the only real and final test is life. We can make predictions about how the test will turn out, but none of us know the future. Now, if you go through life believing every word a rabbi tells you *by assumption*, do you think your life will turn out better or worse? That's all.

4. You came in here claiming that there is a proof for the Oral Torah. Now you're saying it's pure belief. Why then did you say there was proof? Were you mistaken?

***Most of the laws the rabbis derived from the torah were hinted to in the text.***

1. According to Orthodox Judaism, the Oral Torah is not derived! Rather, the Orthodox (purposefully?) create confusion here. They present the Oral Torah as "just an interpretation". But strictly, according to them, it is not.

2. Using the mental gymnastics they use, I can "derive" *any* law out of any text.

***Its not there explicitly becuase it would be to big to put into one book so it was to be interpreted and passed down orally.***

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/03/disproofs_20_the_ambiguity_argument_again.html

***Depending on how you interpret the verses one can have proof for either side.***

Again, I can "interpret" any text to mean anything. But some interpretations are valid and others are not.

***ALso Ami you are not disproving me by saying my beliefs dont make sense becuase saying there is no oral torah makes njo sense either.***

?? I am unclear because, I think, you yourself are unclear. Is it pure belief or is there proof? I said that it makes no sense in response to your statement that it is pure belief. How am I supposed to argue with a belief? So that is why I said, fine, if that is what you believe, that is what you believe, but it makes no sense to me.

***You adressed some of my proofs but many of them you just ignored.***

I'm sorry if I did. Could you give a couple of examples?

***Please give me logical arguments intstead of "You dont make sense."***

?? Arguments against pure *beliefs*? Some people believe that the world is flat. How can one argue with that?

***Ami ther is also nowhere in the torah where it gives the individual the right to interpret the torah***

Huh? There is also nowhere in the Torah (Written OR Oral) that allows individuals to breethe on their own. This only proves that there is *another* Torah, the Telepathic Torah.

Whenever you hear anything, or read anything, you understand it in some way. We now need a special permission for that?

The Orthodox redefine the meaning of the word "interpret". When you say "interpret", you mean "force any arbitrary meaning onto the text".

Hello guys, i see u have been busy:

Avi: "Obviously when God gave the torah he intended it to be for all generations or else he would have given a new one for each succeding generation"

well, it's not so obvious. We were told that we would have a navi to keep us away from the saucerers - but sadly the neviim are gone. We dont have prophecy; Temple; King; Cohanim; sacrifices; Shemitta. most of the torah laws are now temporarily suspended (becasue we r unable to practice - of course they still hold! )

Also, even the mishan in Sotah tells us that before Moshiach comes, there is noone to rely on, and the truth is lost.

Furthermmore - even with the Oral LAw, many species of permitted animals are no longer known. practically we dont have a clue about certain laws, purity/ impurity/ leprosy / temple laws etc.
So why is that the case if G-d wanted us to keep the laws in each generation?

I dont think your point fits with reality or with orthodox halacha.

As for adding/ subtracting - read my article

cheers

To Eddie,

I have a theory that might please you at the risk of making me sound like a heretic :). Avi said that God should have given us a new torah in every generation so we could undertsand it. If you want maybe we could say that the Rabbis were God's messengers in changing the torah. Maybe God influenced the Rabbis make up the oral torah. Maybe that is why the Pharisees were victorious in the end, gaining many adherents creating Rabinic Judaism. God had discontinued prophecy by then but he still wanted to change the torah by influencing the rabbis to change it. It may be kind of philosophical but i suppose its possible.

- Kalman

Eddie,
What i meant was that when the arba minim were listed it wasn't coming to show us that you are forbidden to take any other fruits on sukkot for whatever purpose. On second tought there are some better examples i could've brought but i was rushed for time.
-Avi

Eddie,
Also as to what "adding" to the torah means it depends on interpretation. I'll discuss that later. (Also in the same breath i might say to you you are "subtraccting" from the torah by questioning the torah she beal peh.)
-Avi

Eddie,
Obviously when God gave the torah he intended it to be for all generations or else he would have given a new one for each succeding generation. Therefore there mus tbe a method to understand teh torah in ALL geneartions. Your argument is saying "the torah was only understood long ago and we dont understand it nowadays therefore the rabbis made up the oral torah." If that were the case why didn't we just recieve a new torah in the modern age. Pehaps God gave us an oral torah to make the torah accesible in ALL ages. Your disproofs keep strengthening my faith :)
-Avi

Actualy Mr Avi, there is a commandment not to Add to the Torah. i wrote about it on here somewhere, i'll send u the post later =)

Even the Rabbis agree that you cannot add to the speified species, eg Arba Minim - so this argument of yours simply contradicts your own beliefs - Ramban actually says that if you sit in a sukkah for 8 days, you are Adding - (a sin).

Regarding Pri hadar - this is a classic rabbinist argument.

If, the meaning is the Etrog - which is generally held as such, my answer is that our terminology of today is not the same as it was 3500 years ago.
In the same way that if you say "squirel" to most israelis , they wont knwo what u mean, but every englishman and american woudl knwo what a squirrel is, 3500 years ago everyone knew what hadar was and what the permitted birds were and all other species.

the rabbis assume that their ignorance of these matters existed in Bible times. In fact, egyptian society was very sophisticated, and they were also great astronomers etc etc. It was an agrarian society, so peopel knew abotu the world, since their lives depended on it.

Furthermore, ezra the sofer rewrote the torah in a new script - not the original Hebrew. Information existed in those times, in that society whci we don't posess today. The locals would view the moon, coutn the months, kwow the agricultural seasons, get married, get divorced, have levirate marriages etc etc. much of the torah's injunctions were already based on societal norms. Slaves, freeing of slaves, etc. The code of Hammurabi is one piece of evidence to support this.

In 2nd commonwealth, the rabbis did not have much knowledge of the ancient world, and hence could claim the need for an oral torah.

Eddie,
The statements about the torah being witten down either:
1. Aren't coming to exclude anything becuase the torah at least part of it is written down.
2.Or are still coming to include the oral torah because its laws are hinted to in the text of the oral torah.

Also if you say the orah is coming to exclude things when it makes statements. In Leviticus 23:40 it says and "you will take for yourself n the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree etc.
" This doesn't mean you can't touch another fruit on Sukkot. Itrs merely mentioning the fruits you have to take. Once I'm on this subject how do you know what a "Pri Etz Hadar" (fruit of a beautiful tree) is without the oral torah.
-Avi

Ami,
Prove to me that God gave any kind of torah at sinai. YOu cant! BUt yet you blieve in it to a certain extent. All things have to be accompanied by some belief. Proofs cna enlarge our belief but nothing can be proven for sure. Most of the laws the rabbis derived from the torah were hinted to in the text. Its not there explicitly becuase it would be to big to put into one book so it was to be interpreted and passed down orally. The rabbis only wrote down the oral law when they felt it would be forgotten all together which gave us the Talmud. Also i and others have brought you pesukim we think refer to the oral torah just like you brought us pesukim you say imply there is no oral torah. Depending on how you interpret the verses one can have proof for either side. ALso Ami you are not disproving me by saying my beliefs dont make sense becuase saying there is no oral torah makes njo sense either. You adressed some of my proofs but many of them you just ignored. IS that because you cant disprove them? Please give me logical arguments intstead of "You dont make sense." Explain how i dont make sense. Your general statements dont disprove my stance. Ami ther is also nowhere in the torah where it gives the individual the right to interpret the torah yet you seem to believe that.
You make some sense before you say I'm not!
-Avi

Avi,

***Everything that God commanded Moses is in the written torah although not explicitly.***

1. What does that mean?
2. Why doesn't it say so?
3. Why isn't there any indication that this is so?
4. Why isn't it there explicitly?

***Therefore when it says anywhere "like all that is written in the torah of moses." It could still refer to the oral law which is hinted to in the written torah.***

1. Written in the Oral Torah? I don't think so.

2. In the Written Torah, there are many hints of the Telepathic Torah. The Telepathic Torah was transmitted from Moses, through the Sages, to me, telepathically. Without the Telepathic Torah, you cannot know how to properly follow the commandments of the Written and the Oral Torahs.

***I think this debate will end up being unresolved because many things require a little bit of faith.***

1. Your position makes absolutely no sense to me. Therefore, I reject it.

2. Bait and switch. Go to any rabbi, and ask him, "How do we know that there is an Oral Torah?" He will start giving you *proofs*. But as soon as it is established that there is no valid proof, he (and you) falls back on "belief".

If it's all just belief with no logic to it, do not claim that there is proof! That is a deceptive practice. Most of the Orthodox masses are fooled into thinking that there is proof. In fact, even you, when you came to this site, started giving proofs.

3. You can say "belief" until you are blue in the face. God gave you a brain and a capacity to think. Belief is belief, but as the Russians say, "Make a fool pray, and he will break his forehead".

Ultimately, the less you use your God-given faculties, the more you are at a disadvantage. Suit yourself.

***2.Those things that the neviim and rabbis derived in there own generations from pesukim.
3.Those things decreed by the rabbis to safegaurd the torah.***

Right. But the Written Torah does not give Rabbis the authority to impose their rules on the people. :)

According to my belief there are three parts of the oral torah.
1.That which was told to Moses at sinai and passed down through the generations.
2.Those things that the neviim and rabbis derived in there own generations from pesukim.
3.Those things decreed by the rabbis to safegaurd the torah.

I wanted to clarify that.

-Avi

Avi

"When the torah makes a simple statement it doesn't mean to exclude every thing not included in that statement"

This kind of argument isn't sound. My disproof is the 2 articles i wrote on King's and People's Hakhel respectively.

If something isnt mentioned in the torah, then it isnt Law. If someone said we ha to keep yomtov every wednesday, that would be nonsense - since there is no basis for it. It would also be Lo tosif. But the wednesday adventist could also say "When the torah makes a simple statement it doesn't mean to exclude evry thing not included in that statement"

shavua tov

eddie

Ami,
The oral torah is based on the written one. Everything that God commanded Moses is in the written torah although not explicitly. Therefore when it says anywhere "like all that is written in the torah of moses." It could still refer to the oral law which is hinted to in the written torah. I believe that the laws of the oral torah are hinted to in the text. You can't refute me by saying i don't believe that becuase i do. I think this debate will end up being unresolved because many things require a little bit of faith.
-Avi

How could you decide the halacha if you didn't vote. All rabbis had sound arguments so the only way to decide the halacha was to see how many people held each view. There is no other way to decide halacha. If you can come up with a better way please tell me.

-Avi

Eddie,
There is no scientific proof that There is no proof that the written torah is the word of God and was given at SInai yet you believe in it. If you want I might say the same holds true to the oral torah, although i think my proofs are sufficient and you haven't given satisfactory refutation besdies. "What kind of nonsense is that?" If we are having an intelectual discussion you will have to bring better disproofs than that.
You need to adress my points individually and stop giving me this nonsense about "Rabinic arguments."
-Avi

We also should point out that the rabbinic tradition and the myriad of additional rules and regulations are NOT universally agreed upon even by the orthodox, and, as far as the Mishna/Talmud are concerned, were decided by VOTE rather than content of argument or tradition.

It is ironic that the rabbinists call Christianity a 'false' religion based upon the vote of the Nicean Council, when they themselves voted on the Jewish Canon at Yavneh in 70 AD. I didn't realize that Divrei Elokim Chaim were decided by a majority, and this concept bothered me even in the days I was fervently orthodox.

As the Talmud says "In the days when the students of Hillel outnumbered the students of Shamai, the law went as Hillel." For as much as we all admire the democratic process, if we reduce the religion to popular vote, then how can we claim it holy? God given? Absolute?

Maybe the whole body of rabbinic law exists because 'Shlomo' had the flu that week and didn't show up for the vote!

SL

Avi

1) "The torah is just that a notebook with brief notes to the law. "

That's a standard rabbanite argument - why then in both the cases of the King and the HakHel, is the written Text sufficient for us ot fear the Lord, and keep His Commandments?

2) Can you prove scientifically that the Talmudic Oral Law was given on Sinai? Your argument is very weak: It basically says: "we are too dumb to udnerstand the Torah itself, THEREFORE we need something more to do so. Since we are insufficient, the Oral Law MUST be true!

What kind of nonsense is that? It is similar to the Christian proofs for Jesus as Messiah. it isnt a ratioanl or philosophical proof. Do you have any?

***If the torah would have written "there is nothing besides what is written down in this book." then you would have a disproof to the oral torah.***

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/10/all_of_the_torah_was_written_down_at_the_time_of_moses.html

The last comment was posted by me Avi.

Eddie,

Just because the torah refers to itself as being written down it doesnt mean that it is only written down. If one says "I wrote down what the lecturer said." It doesn't mean you wrote down everything he said. Some of the details you heard at the lecture you will remeber by yourself. You mean you wrotedown some brief notes. If someone besides you who understands the notes were to read them they wouldn't understand. The torah is just that a notebook with brief notes to the law. The pesukim that say the torah is written down aren't lying because the written torah is written down. When the torah makes a simple statement it doesn't mean to exclude evry thing not included in that statement. If the torah would have written "there is nothing besides what is written down in this book." then you would have a disproof to the oral torah.

Avi

yosher koach!

Let me try to explain my position:

a) Ami argues that it's all in the Book, ie everything we need to kow is in the Torah, we dont need oral law.

b) The Rabbis say the opposite - that we cant really function with the Torah alone, hence we must need some kind of Oral Torah.

I wrote a couple of posts on her showing that the Torah itself instructs a) the King and B) the masses to READ what is written in the BOOK , in order to Fear G-d, and keep his commandments!

This strongly refutes the postion of the Rabbis, and supports Ami / Karaite positions.

check:

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/sefer_torah_if_its_good_enough_for_a_king_its_good_enough_for_me.html

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/09/keep_his_commandments_and_his_statutes_which_are_written_in_this_book_of_law.html

So you seem to be missing this step , and jumping onto the classic Rabbinic arguements.

I haven't, as yet, had a good response to these 2 posts, or any kind of refutation.

Eddie,
Im sorry that i adressed my last comment to you instead of ami i wont let that happen again. I agree with you that we should have an intelectual discussion and not dismiss each other without good proof.

-Avi

Avi

respectfully, you are responding to Ami's post, but u mention my name .

Ami is the curator of this site, i am Eddie in the UK, clear?

Now, you make a good point, is that we need to have an intellectual discussion

Now, i think you are asking the wrong question: Becasue there has to be some point to our discussion. Are u looking for the truth, or have u already found it? And on what basis do u beleive in your truth? Because of Tradition?

If a system of Law can be derived fromthe Text, does that obviate the need for an Oral LAw? If it doesnt make any difference, then ther is no purpose in debating the issue.

So it depends on the rules of our discussion

Eddie,
Its not my fault u dont know the qement. Look them up somewhere and find what it says. Maybe you dont exist because your a hearsay. Dont be stupid we have to trust each other somewhat to have an intelectual discussion. And tobit was written in the time of the northern kingdom. The rabbis removed it from the canon because they felt that it had no historical or spiritual value. That doesn't mean it doesn't reflect people's practices when it was written. Ill look at your refutations on other posts later. Also you haven't addresed why the samaritans fast on yom kippur and why tzdukim used to where tefillin. Also most rabbis who believe in the oral law follow blindly and don't strive to find proofs thats not my problem. Ill adress your other refutations later.

-Avi

Avi,

Please at list skim through these articles before posting more proofs of the Oral Torah.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/cat_critique.html

Most of the things that you bring up, I have already covered. If you have a specific problem with a specific answer that I give, then post a comment there, and I will be happy to look at it.

1. ***They both mean the same thing a torah beyond writing.***

How do you know? You simply arbitrarily pick a phrase and claim that it refers to the Oral Torah. What am I even supposed to do with that?

And here's the best part. How do you know that the phrase refers to the Oral Torah? The Oral Torah says so.

If you insist, I will write a separate post on the verse.

2. *** Gil Student***

Yes. I have already gone through all of his arguments. See
http://www.amhaaretz.org/cat_critique.html

(scroll down)

3. ***I will bring more proofs from an essay by Reb Yehoshua a messianic author ***

That's really funny. And I thought the Christians were against the Oral Torah.

Rather, they were against it when they thought that it is the Oral Torah that keeps Jews from believing in the NT. But it turns out, NT can be refuted easily from the Tanakh alone.
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/04/faith_strengthened_hizzuk_emunah_by_isaac_ben_abraham_troki.html

In fact, it is *easier* to refute NT from the Tanakh alone than from the Rabbinical position, since the Oral Torah allows many of the things that Christians believe. (As we see in the Lubavitch movement)
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2003/12/lubavitch_messianists_boreinuniks_elokistim.html

So now, some Christians have changed their tune. Now, they argue *for* the Oral Torah, again, as a way to convince Jews to believe in the NT.

Truth is, a good Christian would do *anything* to convert more people to Christianity. If they have to argue that the Oral Torah is true, then that's that.

4. When was Tobit written?? And why did the Rabbis (according to you) throw it out of the canon if it supposedly supports their case?

5. I don't know anything about Qement. Am I supposed to argue based on hearsay introduced by this missionary??

6. ***someone help me defend the oral torah its hard to do by myself***

I'm laughing again. With all the Rabbis around the world on your side, and you still need help. :))

Hi Avi

http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/01/shabbat_sabbath.html

That's Ami's arguemnt for what sabbath Laws are.

I personally keep rabbinica laws too, at lest the 39 melachas - safek d'oraita l'chumra - anything wrong with that? =)

I'll write back once i have read Jeremia

kol tuv

eddie

Eddie,
Also what did Jeremia mean when he said “If you value your lives…don’t carry anything out of your houses on Shabbat.” (Jer. 17:22)The torah doesnt say you cant carry out of your house.

-Avi

Eddie,
Tell me how do you keep shabbos without an oral law. Melacha just means work a very general satement. What work is it reffering to.

-Avi

hi Avi

In my world, things have to be logical. I don't have a scientific proof for the Written Torah , but in principle, i follow Torah law. If there is something beyond that, i apply scientific burden of proof, mainly because i am a scientific thinker.

I did accept the oral law concept for some 18 years tho, but i gradually grew more and more skeptical of its veracity (18 adult years i mean).

I read thru your list of classical Oral law arguments - Ami has a list of disproofs which deal with most if not all of these. They can be found on the disproofs section on this site. He was actually responding to gil student's arguments.

There is a very exciting part of Torah which is congruent with scientific methodology - that of prophecy. A prophet is tested to see if his predictions come true. If they do not, we have no need to fear him. this is the opposite of the daas Torah approach, where we listen to the rabbis, even if they talk total nonsense.

And it is no surprise that there is a conflict between the rabbis and the Prophets. The rabbis claim that Talmid chacham adif m'navi - a rabbi is preferred to a prophet. The Gra claims that Prophecy was a concession to idolatry, but since idolatry disappeared, there is no need for prophets anymore....

In my view, the prophetic religion of the Bible is the mre authentic than rabbinic law, which i believe is man made.

Eddie,
If you dont believe in the oral torah what do you (and i mean you personally) believe in. Also look at some of the logical and historical proofs i posted. I can see the point you r tryin to make that anything can be learned by drash but the oral torah is the only method of interpretation that makes sense in the end (and i dont just say that out of blind faith.)

-Avi

Avi,

this post was about the verse from Exodus 24: 12

And the L-rd said unto Moses "Come up to me into the mount; and be there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the Law [Torah] and the Mitzvah, which I have Written, that thou mayest teach them. "

The rabbis claim that the "Mitzvah" here refers to She b'al Peh - however, it does say "which I have Written"

How does your "proof" say anything about She b'al peh? What standard of proof is it exactly? Scientific? or is it based on your searching for some half verse which you can fit into your existing firm belief? If you had a stronger disproof, would it alter your emunah, or woudl you simply brush off the disproof as a temptation, which you struggle with?

How you approach these questions determine the rules of our dscussion. i do not wish to weaken your faith. If you are interested in rational discussion, that is what i am trying to do.

Anyone can actually make a drash from verses to get to where they want. If you find a triple pattern , as in the Shema, it coudl be stretched to "prove" a Trinity, which is precisely what the Christians do. That is no less rational than your argumentation.

In any case, the Rabbis say that reading the torah on its own is dangerous, and can only be understood by acceptance of the Oral Law. So it defeats the whole purpose of finding an allusion in the Torah.

Whereas, in this post, and also several others, i have shwon that the Torah speaks about the Laws as being written , it nowhere says that there is an additional oral system of Law.

In your mouth and heart, is a counter to in heaven and across the sea. It is not far off, but within you. And if this is a hidden message, why cant it refer to the new testament or Koran?

The Torah spells every detail of making the mishkan, and sacrifices. Why would it miss out what is fundamental to orthodox Judaism, and allow so many miss the whole message?

Eddie,
if the verse was referring to the accesibily of the torah it should have said "it is written before you" Also i want someone here to post what they think the oral torah is because i think you people dont understand how it works. And maybe if you did you would believe it more. Also I want to know what makes you people think their is no ral torah.

-Avi

Ami,
I want to apologise for copying this statement on another page like you pointed out to me I thought my comment hadn't been posted therefore i tried again. To answer your refutation the torah is using the word heart as a synonym for the word mouth. They both mean the same thing a torah beyond writing. The torah often uses two different words or phrases to describe one thing. Especially in poetry the otrah will use two words two describe one thing. (For example the blessings of Baalam) Or you can say that the double langauge here reffers to the two facets of the oral torah "in your mouth" referrs to the transmission of the oral laws from Sinai and "in your heart" refers to the interpretation Rabbis have made in each geneartion. The torah uses the word heart to refer to the brain. Rabbis used their brains to expound the torah to explain instances in law that had not yet occured. This is called the Midrash Halacha a system of deriving laws from the verses of the torah.

I want to add another logical proof for the oral torah. Many laws cannot be understood without the oral torah because the written torah does not explain them. A few examples (these examples are from an essay made by a Gil student i found on the web www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm

When the Torah [Ex. 16:29] says "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day" to what place is this referring? Does it mean his home, his property if he has more than one home, his neighborhood, his city, or something else.

What does the Torah mean when it [Ex. 20:10] forbids "work" on the sabbath? What work is forbidden and what is not?

The laws of inheritance as stated in Numbers [27:8-11] cannot begin to address all of the many complicated situations that can and have arisen throughout the generations. Without an oral law, how does a society apply the biblical inheritance laws.

How does one fulfill the biblical commandments of circumcision [Gen. 17:10-14], fringes [Num. 15:38-39], and booths [Lev. 23:42]? There is not enough detail in the biblical directive to know how to fulfill these commandments properly. What are fringes? What is a booth? How much and where must be cut off in circumcision? The biblical text is too silent to enable following these commandments unless there was an oral explanation.

As you can see the laws in the torah cant be explained merely by the text. Again i will bring the Karaite refutation, "God allows every man to make his own choice as to how to interpret the torah." I want to know then when ancient Isarel had jewish courts how could they administer punishment? If Mr. So and So went and commited a crime and the court proclaimed him guilty how could they punish him couldn't Mr So and so merely counter "according to my interpretation of the torah i am innocent". A legal sytsem cannot exist if there is no agreemnet as to what the laws are.

"Another proof for the oral torah is a practice the samaritans do. On yom kippur all the samaritans fast. The samaritans deny the oral torah and the torah does not sya "and you will fast" the torah says "and you will afflict your souls" how could the samaritans come up with such a practice. The answer is when they formed their sect the oral law of fasting on yom kippur was so much part of judaism that even the samaritans couldn't bear to revoke it when they began denying an oral law.

I will bring more proofs from an essay by Reb Yehoshua a messianic author who wrote a paper on the Oral Torah.(I forgot the site i found it on but if anyones interested ill post it here)

Historians do not agree on how or when the doctrine of an Oral Torah entered Judaism. Though some claim it only arose after the Babylonian exile, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. The apocryphal book Tobit was regarded as Scripture by many Jews, until it was officially rejected and cast out of the canon by a Rabbinical decree in 90AD[17], and it is still a part of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bibles. Tobit is an adventure story set shortly after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and it contains some of the earliest references to the Oral Torah in non-canonical, non-rabbinical, Jewish literature. There are references to the duty to bury the dead[18] (Tobit 1:17) as well as the ban on digging or burying the dead on festivals[19] (Tobit 2:4). Neither of these mitzvos[20] appears in the Pentateuch, but are important acts of piety in the Oral Tradition. There are also references to demons, and to marriage contracts.[21] Neither of these appears in their traditional form in the written Torah, but also became important parts of later Judaism. Because the heroes of Tobit are first generation exiles from the Northern Kingdom, the creation of the Oral Torah tradition had to have taken place before the exile of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC.

The Qement, a group of Ethiopian Jews, also testify to the antiquity of an Oral Torah doctrine in ancient Judaism. The Qement practice a paganistic form of Judaism that resembles the biblical description of the idolatry of the Northern Kingdom. According to Ethiopian tradition, they, as well as the Falashas, another tribe of Ethiopian Jews, are the products of an encounter between King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba around 950BC. Though the Qement violate many parts of the Torah, they still retain a few vestiges of Judaism. Among their practices is a form of slaughter known as shekhita, a butchering technique not directly mentioned in the Pentateuch, but described in the Oral Torah.[22] If an animal is not slaughtered in this manner, the Qement will not eat it."

anotehr excerpt....

"Dr. Daniel Botkin, a respected Messianic leader and publisher of Gates of Eden magazine, understands the commandment to be metaphorical as well. “Since there is no actual instructions to make leather boxes,” he writes. “It is highly doubtful that this commandment really means, ‘Thou shalt make for thyself little leather boxes to strap upon thy hand and thy head when thou prayest.’”[43] Dr. Botkin also points out that the Karaites, too, abandoned the literal interpretation of the mitzvah. However, abandon is the most accurate term for their decision not to follow the custom. Their practice of not wearing tefillin was unique, and not an outgrowth of a previously existing belief. Before the destruction of the second Temple, Judaism split into over twenty different sects, or according to some opinions, 200, and all of them wore tefillin. Tefillin were worn so universally among Jews that the Sadducees, who rejected the oral Torah, never thought to question their validity. Even some modern Messianic Jewish scholars accept the practice. Dr. Stern, in his Complete Jewish Bible, translates Duet. 6:8, “Tie them on your hand as a sign, put them at the front of a headband around your forehead.” "

(i do not agree with any beleifs of messianic judaism)

I want you to try and refute all that Ami!

-Avi (someone help me defend the oral torah its hard to do by myself)

One can ask the question as to why the written Torah doesn't give clear references to any oral Torah? After all, in the Tenach, including the Chumash, we have several refernces to other Books which are not found in the canon, and have apparently been lost. One can justifiably question therefore, why books which have been lost are quoted explicitly (ie not the kind of hint which the rabbis pounce on as "proof") whereas no mention is made to the Oral Law.

So the verse quoted by Avi does not really say much about an oral Torah, it is abotu accesibility of the Law, in contradistinction to it being far off. Indeed, one could argue further that it is precisesly the rabbinic innovations which have made the Torah a far off thing. Whereas G-d commanded some 613 laws, which conceivably can be kept by most human beings, the thousands upon thousands of new laws, restrictions, new categories, separations, ascetic practices, abstention from the permitted have alienated many Jews from keeping the Torah. They have achieved precisely the opposite of the the Torah intends, ie it being not in heaven or across the sea.

And furthermore, why can't anyoen else exploit Avi's claim, that it refers to their own additions or innovations? Perhaps the Christians can claim that in your heart refers to Jesus, for true salvation is finding jesus "in your heart". The level of argumentation is exactly the same: The Torah makes a comment about the psychological experience of keeping the Torah: the rabbis claim this is a clear reference to their own law system. it is not logically or textually correct, but since they make a claim , it must therefore be correct.

This kind of thinking is very primitive, and based on a closed minded authoritarian society - from which major religions have developed. I hope to evelo this theme, and explore the logic of prophecy. The Torah gives a very rational test by which we measure the veracity of prophets, dreamers, and lawmakers. This very test was applied by both the rabbanites, and the sadducees, against Jesus. I propose that it should be also applied to new lawmakers.

Avi,

"Rather the matter is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it."

"in your mouth" you interpret as referring to the Oral Torah. In that case, "in your heart" must refer to yet a third type of Torah?

Reading the verse in context, I do not see any references to a second (or third!) Torah.

I want to point out another textual proof of the oral torah that people seem to skip over.

Deuteronomy 30:14

"Rather the matter is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it."

The preceeding verses explain that the torah is accesible, "it is not in heaven for you to say who will go up and bring it down...nor is it across the sea." (Deuternonmy 30:12-13)

This verse is the climax of the narrative explaining how the torah is accesible. The answer, if their is only a written torah, would be "for it is written down before you."

But the torah says it is in your mouth and in your heart shedding light onto an oral law.

Some have told me that this means that the written torah is to be interpreted by every individual as he finds fit. This would mean there are many paths to take to follow God's will.
But I answer them God himself tell us taht their is only one path to take for it says in Deuteronomy 5:29 "you shall not deviate right or left" Implying their is only one path to take not allowing personal interpretation. I hope this helps those who can't find proof for the oral law.

Maimonides, the rambam, in his introduction to his Magnum Opus, the Mishne Torah, also claism that this verse refers to the Oral Law:

"1 All the commandments that were given to Moshe at Sinai were given together with their interpretation, as it is written "and I will give thee the Tables of Stone, and the Law, and the Commandment" (Exodus 24,12). "Law" is the Written Law; and "Commandment" is its interpretation: We were commanded to fulfil the Law, according to the Commandment. And this Commandment is what is called the Oral Law."

I would like to point out one more proof in Deut.30:6-10 with particular attention to verse 10

After the Jews return then YHWH will open our hearts to obey all His commandments and Laws that are RECORDED in this book of teaching

I would like to explain why it is important that we work with the Rabbis who are bold enough to accept our challenge, in discussing these very controversial issues.

Firstly, no individual should be arrogant enough to think that he is wiser than everyone else.
Secondly, even if one fervently is convinced of his position, he should be open minded to hear the other point of view.

3rd, most orthodox are loathe to enter such a debate, they consider it long dead and buried, sicne the karaites no longer hold much of threat to them.

4th, we get invaluable sources too.

Now, let me comment on the textual proof attributed Saadia by Ibn Ezra.

The verse is Exodus 24: 12

And the L-rd said unto Moses "Come up to me into the mount; and be there: and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the Law [Torah] and the Mitzvah, which I have Written, that thou mayest teach them. "

Now, the Ibn Ezra/ Gaon claim that the tow words Torah and Mitzva refer to Written and Oral laws respectively. Hence, this is a textual prof against the Karaim. However, if we actually look at the verse, these two words are followed by "which I have Written" or Asher katavti.
So the Law and Mitzva here are Laws and commandments which have Been Written. That is the meaning of the Text. So this very verse which the Gaon is claiming as proof for oral law only proves that G-d was commanding Moses abouta Written law. In fact, the words Asher Katavti are a very powerful Disproof of any imagined Oral Law.

As in the case of the Sefer Torah of the King, the absence of any requirement ofr oral Law repudiates the claim that Torah needs an oral law in order to be fully functional.

So, i am afraid that even Gaonim, who lived 1000 years ago were so blinded by their own ideology as not to see the plain meaning of a verse, and its implications. And, that myopia has been preserved religiously for so many generations.