Yehudah HaLevi - The Kuzari, cannot read Hebrew

This post was written by Ami Hertz, but I am reproducing it with some additional notes of my own.



From the Disproofs of the Oral Law series.

" R. Yehudah HaLevi [Kuzari, 3:35] states simply that it is impossible to read and understand the words of the bible without a tradition regarding the vowelization and punctuation of the words. A simple reading of the text requires an oral tradition [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Commentary to Torat Cohanim, Baraita DeRabbi Yishmael sv. R. Yishmael]. Since the only existing tradition regarding the text includes a tradition about the concepts and laws, one who accepts the vowelization and punctuation must also accept the oral law. It is inconsistent to accept the oral tradition only partially [cf. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz), Magen Avot Hachelek Haphilosophi, 2:3 p. 30b; R. Shlomo ben Shimon Duran (Rashbash), Milchemet Mitzvah, First Introduction]. "

"1. It is impossible to read any text in Hebrew without knowing how to vowelize the words. Does it follow that every single Hebrew text needs an oral explanation along with it? No. We can know how to vowelize the words by analyzing the context in which they occur.
This problem is also present in other languages, such as English, though to a lesser extent. It's called homonyms. Does the word fluke mean a type of fish, a part of a whale, or a stroke of luck? It all depends on the context.

2. The accepted vowelization of the Tanakh was standardized by the Masoretes. Perhaps the greatest of all Masoretes was Aaron ben Moses ben Asher [local]. There is evidence that he, and his family for many generations, who were also Masoretes, were Karaites; that is, they rejected the Oral Law.

From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most famous masorete [ben Asher] (and, possibly, his family for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.

It should not be surprising to discover that many masoretes, so involved in the Masorah, held Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the Karaites who placed such absolute reliance on the Torah text. It would be natural that they would devote their lives to studying every aspect of it. 

The surprising element was that being a Karaite didn't disqualify Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of Rabbinic Jews (like RaMBaM).
With one exception: It was known that Saadia Gaon had written against the Karaites. In his critiques, Saadia mentioned a "Ben Asher." Until recently, it never occurred to Jewish scholars to associate the "Ben Asher" of Saadia's diatribe with the famous Aaron ben Asher of Tiberius. After all, Aaron ben Asher was respected throughout the Jewish world. The Karaites were considered outsiders. It was unthinkable that traditional "normative" Jews would accept the work of a Karaite.
Recent research indicates, however, that it is probable that the subject of Saadia's attack was Aaron ben Moses ben Asher. 

In his work Sefer Dikdukei ha Te'amim, Aaron ben Asher wrote, "The prophets... complete the Torah, are as the Torah, and we decide Law from them as we do from the Torah." That's pretty Karaitic. It also has forced scholars to re-evaluate the relationship between Jews and Karaites in the 10th century despite the writings of Saadia Gaon.
R. HaLevi accepts the vowelization of those who reject the Oral Law, and then turns around and says that it is impossible to accept the vowelization without also accepting the Oral Law. Isn't this position inconsistent?"

I would add a few further arguments,  which were discussed with Ami as well.

a)  The problem that the Kuzari raises is fallacious, but it is probably not his own fallacy.  There was a debate within Islam about how to interpret the Koran. A large sector claimed there was an Oral Law called the Hadith. They denied that the Arabic Koran can be understood  without commentary.  Does this mean that the Koran is true, and that the Hadith was also given by God?   Not so.  Arabic, like Hebrew, does not contain vowels, which were added later on in both languages.   The same goes for Farsi (although this language was forced to accept the Arabic script after the Arabic invasion).  

So if we were to accept the Kuzari, there would be no understanding of any language, until the diacritical vowels were invented.   Interestingly, the Hittite Stele, was written in Proto-Hebrew, without vowels, and is still totally comprehensible, as it must have been 4000 years ago.

b)  In actual fact,  in Modern Israel, almost any adult (or educated child) can read a book, newspaper, secular or religious text, without use of the diacritic vowels. This is regardless of their religious affiliation or acceptance of the "oral law".   Thus, the entire basis of the Kuzari's claim is false, and proven to be false.

c) The issue of context is also important. A classic example brought by Rabbis is whether the term for mother's milk is Chelev (suet fat) or chalav (milk).   A simple answer is that the phrase mother's milk is known even in English, and must also have been known to native Hebrew speakers.  

d) Finally - and this is simple but ignored.   Hebrew, just like other languages, can be understood by native speakers of experts in the language. If a Rabbis claims that either the language or the Torah cannot be understood on its own terms, that is self disqualification by the rabbis, and on this we agree.  The rabbis cannot be relied on for interpreting the Torah, because, as they admit, they do not understand a word of it.