The Albo Fallacy - A supposed “proof” in Sefer HaIkkarim

Rabbi Yosef Albo is one of the “rishonim”, meaning the first generation of rabbis, who were contemporaries of Rambam, Rashi etc.  The myth is that these were super-duper intellectuals with deep understanding of the Torah and all knowledge.  Whilst it is true that Rambam and Albo had knowledge of philosophy of their day, this does not make them infallible or any greater than other scholars, whether of their own day or any other period.

Gil Student opens his alleged “proofs” for the Oral Law by citing  Albo's argument which is as follows:

" 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."

Albo alleges that the Torah is ambiguous, and that the verse of the Shema can be equally interpreted as a Monotheism, or a Trinitarianism, depending on whether one reads its according to the NT or to Judaism. He thus concludes that only with an oral law can the Torah be understood unambiguously!

The violence done to logic and to the Torah by the above statement is unmeasurable.

As if the Shema Yisrael is somehow ambiguous, and that only with the oral law can we disprove the New Testament!  Firstly, the Sadducees  did a pretty good job  of refuting Jesus without need for any oral law.  Second, the NT is an ideological work, not too different from the oral testament (of the rabbis), and it sees what it wants to see in the Torah, as do the rabbis.  Third, there is no ambiguity to this verse, or to any other, rather there are those we understand clearly, and those we do not, due to our distance from spoken Biblical Hebrew.  Fourth, Albo is actually implying that the NT is just as valid as the Talmud, since any interpretation is valid.  Thus, his argument could also be used by Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Mormons etc, saying that there is ambiguity to the Torah,  and it is only  going to be finally understood by resorting  to the NT/Koran/ Book of Mormon etc.

This style or argumentation is so fallacious and absurd that it shows the rabbis for what they really are – opportunistic and dishonest. What's more, the actual claim made by Albo and others like him, is refuted by the Torah itself. In Deut 27 we see:

ח  וְכָתַבְתָּ עַל-הָאֲבָנִים, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת--בַּאֵר הֵיטֵב.  {ס}

8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly.'

All arguments which claim the Torah is unintelligible  are refuted by this verse. If the torah cannot be understood, then this verse is an absurdity.  However, it was well understood, since it was written in plain language of the day.