Oral Law Ambiguity argument, by Rabbi Gil Student

There is a modern Orthodox Rabbi, Gil Student, who once proposed a bunch of arguments to prove the oral law.  These were demolished systematically by Ami Hertz (see link to AmHaaretz on my homepage).

One argument he brings is the Ambigutiy Argument, it is as follows:

" 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."

 

Now it is interesting that a logical objection is brought by none other than R' Mecklenburg, who himself tried to prove the Oral Law!  The proponents of this argument are saying it is impossible (sic.) for God to give a Torah which is clear and comprehensible,  and thus arises the need for a Talmud, (which was not written until the 5th century CE).

There is so much nonsense contained in these arguments, it is hard to know where to begin refuting them.   This argument, by the way, is central to Christianity and Islam,  who pick faults with the Old Testament, and then claim that "only" with their "Talmud" can these problems be solved, salvation be achieved, and the clear message of the prophet be heard.  But it is also quite blasphemous, as it insults God, and I think R Mecklenburg, who was a substantial rabbinic figure, was quite aware of this.

The Torah itself refutes this nonsensical claim :

Deut. 27:  8 And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly

and Deut: 30: 10 if thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law; if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.

See also Deut 31: 9-13

The Book is ambiguous as the level of one's ignorance. This says more about the rabbis than about the Torah itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ami gives his own take on this argument, see below:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20041011094438/http://www.amhaaretz.com/2004/03/disproofs_20_the_ambiguity_argument_again.html