More Gil Student Fallacies - the Problem of Uriah

This alleged proof of the Oral Law cited by Rabbi Student was disproven by Ami Hertz. I will reproduce Ami's arguments, and then add my own:



Claim:

18. Consider the following passage.

Jeremiah 26:20-21
There was also a man prophesying in the name of the L-rd, Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, who prophesied against this city and this land the same things as Jeremiah.  King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard about his address, and the king wanted to put him to death. Uriah heard of this and fled in fear, and came to Egypt.

Uriah was scared for his life so he fled to Egypt.  However, the Torah says in three separate places [Ex. 14:13; Deut. 17:16, 28:68] that it is forbidden for a Jew to return to Egypt.  How did Uriah know that his action was permitted? Even to save his life, how did he know that it is permissible to violate a biblical commandment to save his life if not through an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

Disproof:
1. It never says or implies that what Uriah did was lawful. The text simply tells us what he did.
2. Returning to Egypt is never stated as a capital crime. Uriah was faced with two choices: either certain death, or commit a non-capital crime. The decision here is very simple. Of course one commits a non-capital crime to escape certain death. There is no need for an oral law to tell us this.
3. Did Uriah sin by going to Egypt? If so, then no amount of Oral Law could allow it to him; if not, then no Oral Law is needed to allow it to him at all. In this, the case is the same as the previous ones.

Additional disproofs.

The Torah, in the places cited by Student/Rashbatz (Duran) does not actually forbid a Jew to return to Egypt. It actually makes 3 different statements, which are as follows:

Ex. 14:13; And Moses said unto the people: 'Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which He will work for you to-day; for whereas ye have seen the Egyptians to-day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.

Here, Moses is predicting that Israel will not see the Egyptians (slavemasters) again.

Deut. 17:16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

Here, a King is forbidden from sending the Israelites back to Egypt, and the verse is presumably referring to the previous one in Ex 14, i.e. it is stating that they will not return again in the future. Uriah did not force the people to return to Egypt, but he went temporarily himself.

Deut 28:68 And the LORD shall bring thee back into Egypt in ships, by the way whereof I said unto thee: 'Thou shalt see it no more again'; and there ye shall sell yourselves unto your enemies for bondmen and for bondwoman, and no man shall buy you

This is also an interesting verse, since it says the opposite of what Student/Duran are claiming. It says that in the contingency of certain behaviours/punishments, Israelites will be forced to go back to Egypt and sell themselves as slaves there. So the 3 verses are not commandments but predictions, of the consequences of being good or evil. Thus the “problem” raised by Duran is non existent, and so is the need for an Oral law to solve it. By studying the Written Law carefully, one can clarify the actual intent of the verses, and reject the false interpretations of the rabbis.