In
Gil Student's bunch of attempted proofs for the Oral Law, he brings
one final category of reasons why G-d allegedly gave the oral law. It
is telling that he himself does not believe this proof and says so in
the same paragraph (underlined below):
Claim:
20. As we said above (1), any written book is subject to ambiguity [Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71]. Since that is the case, had G-d only given us a written Torah, its interpretation would have been debated due to vagueness. Therefore, G-d also gave a tradition that would be taught orally from teacher to student so that the teacher could clarify any ambiguities [Rashi, Eiruvin, 21b sv. Veyoter; R. Yosef Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23]. R. Yair Bachrach [Responsa Chavat Yair, 192] and R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg [Haketav Vehakabalah, vol. 1 p. viii] dispute this argument and claim that since G-d is omnipotent, He could have created a totally unambiguous book. However, it seems to this author that the original argument was assuming that any written book is, by definition, ambiguous. It is a logical impossibility to have a completely unambiguous book. In fact, the example that R. Bachrach offers of an unambiguous book is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah which, despite its clarity and brilliance, has dozens if not hundreds of commentaries that try to clarify its ambiguities.
I
have previously attacked this claim, see
http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/oral-law-ambiguity-argument-by-rabbi.html
.
However,
some further analysis is warranted.
The
above argument is not an argument at all, but a series of
contradictions. Here are the points made, and then the gradual series
of contradictions.
1)
It is impossible for any book to be completely unambiguous.
2)
The Torah is also ambiguous, and hence needs a clarification, which
was handed down orally.
Contradiction
a) No, it is not impossible, had God really wanted to, He could have
written something purely unambiguous, since he is Omnipotent.
Contradiction
b) The Rabbi, Yair Bacharach, who contradicted the original argument,
by saying God can write an unambiguous book, then goes to say that
Maimonides's book, the Mishneh Torah, is an example of a perfectly
unambiguous book. Is this the same Bacharach who a moment ago said
that only God can write an unambiguous book, but nevertheless alleges
that the Torah is still ambiguous? So Maimonides in his legal
compendium the Mishnah Torah achieves what God couldn't, i.e. a
perfectly unambiguous book. Bravo. What a blasphemous statement.
Contradiction
c) Gil Student then takes issue even with Bacharach, who he himself
is citing. Student points out that Maimonides' book itself is subject
to hundreds of commentaries, who point out ambiguities,
contradictions etc.
Contradiction
d) Gil implies, however, that somewhere, at some time, there must
have been an unambiguous text or oral tradition, but he cannot
specify what this was.
The
choices are relatively limited. The Oral tradition can be the
Mishnah, the Talmud, or according to some extremists also the Zohar.
None of these books are in anyway unambiguous. They are all debates
between conflicting opinions, which are not even resolved there and
then [although the Zohar is a mystical text and is by definition
ambiguous]. The result of many of these debates is violence and
sometimes murder, as has been shown previously on this blog.
http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/golden-calf-of-talmud.html
So
the entire argument of “ambiguity” is false and
self-contradictory. Not only is it false, but the editor who presents
it states that it is false! Imagine, for example, a Christian
missionary, who as part of his propaganda activity, states that there
was no historic Jesus, or that the new testament is actually false
and not the word of God! This is precisely what Gil Student does
here.
The
only conclusion is to sing Walk on by!
No comments:
Post a Comment