The Argument from Ignorance – the Gil Student Fallacies

One of the alleged proofs brought by Rabbi Student, from the Kuzari, is based on the verses in Deut 17. Unlike the classical rabbinic deception, which claims that the verses there refer to the Rabbis as the final authority, this one tries a different angle.

“ R. Duran also notes the following biblical passage.

Deut. 17:8-11
If a matter of judgement is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities -- you shall rise up and ascend to the place that the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose.  You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement.  You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that G-d will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you.  According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.

What possible knowledge is there that can be hidden?  If there is no oral law, then the only basis for judgement is in the Torah which is open for anyone to study.  Clearly, the entire need for the above process of going to the central court and following their ruling implies that there is an oral tradition which also serves as the basis for judgement [Rashbatz, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].”

Again, this is not actually an attempted proof, but a question, and a fallacy, perhaps Begging the Question fallacy or something of that ilk. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

The question is asking what knowledge can be hidden, if not the oral law? This claim is false in every possible way.

1) The verse states “ If a matter of judgement is hidden from you”, i.e. the plaintiff. The plaintiff is unable to resolve the matter on a local level, either due to lack of knowledge of the Torah, or the facts, or he is in dispute with a defendant, and cannot resolve the dispute locally. How exactly does this imply the existence of Oral Law?

2) The claim made by the Kuzari also implies that since the Torah is available to everyone, then there would be no need to go to the Priest! But even if there was an oral law, it would also be available to everyone, since all Israelites would allegedly require knowledge of the oral law in order to practice it. So the presumption of the Kuzari is false even when applied to the scenario that he believes in, ie the pre-existence of the Oral Law.

3) Notwithstanding the above, even if the precise case in dispute is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, this in no way requires there to be an oral law. The verses in Deut 17 instruct the plaintiff to go to the High priest, who was endowed with the Hoshen Mishpat, the breastplate with Urim and Turim, whereby he could enquire for answers from Heaven. A good example of a Hidden matter is given in Nehemiah 7, where some people cannot trace back their genealogy:

64 These sought their register, that is, the genealogy, but it was not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood.

65 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim.

Even supposing there was an alleged “Oral Law”, Nehemiah was unable to solve the problem. Thus the Torah cannot be referring to the oral law of the rabbis. Since the Rabbis claim that Nehemiah was part of the Sanhedrin, this is a problematic verse, since it supports the Karaite claim, but refutes the rabbanite claims.

Now we have completed the refutation of all of Gil Student's proofs. But something he says in his introduction should not go unnoticed.

“The existence of an oral law that was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai is a fundamental concept in [Rabbinic] Judaism.  However, the lack of a clear reference to an oral law in the biblical text has led some to deny its existence.  In response to these deniers, a literature has developed to try to prove the existence of an oral law.”

Here, Gil actually admits that there is no clear reference to the Oral law anywhere in the TNK. This is quite a problem. There is also no clear reference to the New Testament or the Koran. All 3 follow-on religions attempt to fins alleged references to their testaments in the Old testament, and all of them engage in the kind of fallacy used by the Kuzari. Again, I have to thank Gil Student for at least being more honest that his many colleagues, in admitting that the Torah nowhere mentions any oral Law.

As Groucho Marx famously said, an oral contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.