The Jews have brought forth diverse arguments over the centuries in favor of their oral Torah, many of which have not received as many adequate responses in our day (at least, none that are in English). It is usually based on what they see as obscure passages in the written laws of Moses which must have some reference to an external source, rather than a cross-reference to another verse(s) in the Pentateuch; however, this latter source is very commonly the deciding factor which provides an easy explanation for any unclear passage in the Bible. In order to better understand the perspective of the Jews on how the alleged necessity of the oral law, and the ambiguity of the written Torah, I quote the following from Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi, in his famous polemical defense of Judaism:
“If the consonantic text of the Mosaic Book requires so many traditional classes of vowel signs, accents, divisions of sentences and masoretic signs for the correct pronunciation of words, how much more is this the case for the comprehension of the same? The meaning of a word is more comprehensive than its pronunciation. When God revealed the verse: 'This month shall be unto you the beginning of months' (Exod. xii. 2), there was no doubt whether He meant the calendar of the Copts--or rather the Egyptians--among whom they lived, or that of the Chaldæans who were Abraham's people in Ur-Kasdim; or solar [or lunar months], or lunar years, which are made to agree with solar years, as is done in embolismic years. I wish the Karaites could give me a satisfactory answer to questions of this kind. I would not hesitate to adopt their view, as it pleases me to be enlightened. I further wish to be instructed on the question as to what makes an animal lawful for food; whether 'slaughtering' means cutting its throat or any other mode of killing; why killing by gentiles makes the flesh unlawful; what is the difference between slaughtering, skinning, and the rest of it. I should desire an explanation of the forbidden fat, seeing that it lies in the stomach and entrails close to the lawful fat, as well as of the rules of cleansing the meat. Let them draw me the line between the fat which is lawful and that which is not, inasmuch as there is no difference visible. Let them explain to me where the tail of the sheep, which they declare unlawful, ends. One of them may possibly forbid the end of the tail alone, another the whole hind part. I desire an explanation of the lawful and unlawful birds, excepting the common ones, such as the pigeon and turtle dove. How do they know that the hen, goose, duck, and partridge are not unclean birds? I further desire an explanation of the words: 'Let no man go out of his place [on the seventh day]' (Exod. xvi. 29). Does this refer to the house or precincts, estate--where he can have many houses--territory, district, or country. For the word place can refer to all of these. I should, further, like to know where the prohibition of work on the Sabbath commences? Why pens and writing material are not admissible in the correction of a scroll of the Law (on this day), but lifting a heavy book, or a table, or eatables, entertaining guests and all cares of hospitality should be permitted, although the guests would be resting, and the host be kept employed? This applies even more to women and servants, as it is written: 'That thy manservant and thy maidservant rest as well as thou' (Deut. v. 14). Wherefore it is forbidden to ride [on the Sabbath] horses belonging to gentiles, or to trade. Then, again, I wish to see a Karaite give judgment between two parties according to the chapters Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 21:10. For that which appears plain in the Torah, is yet obscure, and much more so are the obscure passages, because the oral supplement was relied upon.” (Rabbi Judah Ha-Levi, Khuzari, Book III, §35; emphasis mine)
I will treat the most common examples the Jews bring forward, in a one-by-one fashion. I do not know the exact number of cases in the Torah which the rabbis bring forward in their desperate attempt to make us Christians accept their authority, much as the Papists do in their pleas for an infallible Roman magisterium to interpret sacred Scripture. I only wish to deal with the ones which are so frequently alleged against us, and which appear on the surface to be strong reasoning, but cast down upon closer examination. “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” (Prov. 18:17)
[1]. The Jews, like the Papists, insist that we cannot know the law of God and the true meaning of the Scriptures unless we give heed to their rabbinical courts. And there being many sandy foundations upon which they build their pleas, I shall begin with that text which is so often thrown in our faces, as it were, by them and their defenders. “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; 9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: 10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: 11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.” (Deuteronomy 17:8-11). Thus we see the authority given by God to Moses and the Sanhedrin, and then to their successors - and the obligation of the Jews to listen to whatever they command. Hence, on the basis of verse 11, the rabbis can bind the consciences of men to anything whatsoever - “This is the meaning of the phrase ‘it is not in Heaven’: God Himself agrees with the sages from the outset. That is once the sages have given their ruling, even if they declare right left and left right, it is the law.” (Rabbi Nathan T. Lopes Cardozo, The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction, pg. 78). Isaac Abarbanel tempers such comments by saying that this is only speaking of when the Sanhedrin might deviate from a general principle(s) to apply the law to a particular set of circumstances (on Deut. 17:11).
Response: Let us first see to what absurd length the Jews twist this verse in order that they may exalt their pretended authority over us, and over their own people so that they will not believe the gospel. Upon verse 11, Rashi says “even if he (the judge) tells you about what appears to you to be right that it is left, or about what appears to you to be left that it is right, you have to obey him; how much the more is this so if actually he tells you about what is evidently right that it is right and about what is left that it is left.” And the halakhic midrash says, אפילו ,ושמאל ימין — מראים בעיניך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין שמע להם סליק פיסקא “Even if it seems in your eyes (that they are telling you) left is right and right is left, listen to them.” (Sifrei Devarim, 154:5). And again, Nachmanides: — “The purport thereof is that even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is simple in your eyes just as you know [the difference] between your right hand and your left hand, you must still do as they command you….Scripture, therefore, defined the law that we are to obey the Great Court that stands before G-d in the place that He chose in whatever they tell us with respect to the interpretation of the Torah, whether they received its interpretation by means of witness from witness until Moses [who heard it] from the mouth of the Almighty, or whether they said so based on the implication [of the written words] of the Torah or its intent. For it was subject to their judgment that He gave them the Torah even if it [the judgment] appears to you to exchange right for left.”
There is not a word in this verse that grants any infallible authority to the Sages or Sanhedrin, that they may bind anyone to anything whatsoever. Jews would do well to read other parts of the Old Testament which indicate this truth with abundant clarity: “The priests said not, Where is the LORD? and they that handle the law knew me not: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit.” (Jeremiah 2:8), and also—“How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them? Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.” (Jeremiah 8:8-10). It is as if the prophet Jeremiah himself foresaw the wickedness of the Jews in the rejection of their Messiah and idolatry of their rabbis, forsaking the commandments of God for the Talmudic traditions!
[2]. “If the place which the Lord thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill [זבח [of thy herd and of thy flock, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.” (Deuteronomy 12:21) - Here, God commands the laws of slaughter (שחיטה); "as I have commanded thee.” And yet no such passage is found in the written Torah where the laws of slaughter are described. Therefore, this shows that Moses and the Israelites received an oral tradition which enumerated such laws (Chullin 28a).
Response: Just because the precise details of slaughter may not be contained in the written Torah, this does not mean that we must therefore bow to the rabbinic traditions. The Jews ought to read verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter: “Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the heart. Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.” Thus, verse 21 is referring back to verse 15. The Jews must admit that this case by their own rabbinic hermeneutical principles, i.e. that of gezeirah shavah (an identical word in two texts establishes a connection between them which may be used in the legal interpretation thereof), since the same Hebrew verb זבח is used in both texts. Verse 16 also gives further direction concerning this shechita, that the blood must be poured out on this ground. This would rule out strangulation, for example, as a means of performing this slaughter. And then in verse 28 it says “Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.” So then, this whole passage itself gives sufficient direction for this slaughter that need not invoke rabbinic tradition—though the Jews, straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel—will insist upon these absurd minutiae to the point of insanity!
[3]. The written Torah sanctions the death penalty for anyone who dishonors the Sabbath day by performing work [מלאקה [on it (Ex. 16:21-26; 20:10; 31:15; 35:2). And yet we nowhere find in the written text what counts as מלאקה, and therefore we do not know what is prohibited thereon—without something else to guide us in interpretation, as is the case with the Mishnah and Talmud.
Response: The rabbis would do well to remember one of their own axioms, that “the Torah spoke in the language of men.” (Berakhot 31b). Thus, the laws were not too hard to understand, but were readily accessible to those who heard them—it is expressly declared to be “near you and in your mouth,” not hidden in heaven or “beyond the sea.” (Deuteronomy 30:10-14). And in verse 14, it is said that the commandments are clear “that thou mayest do it.” Therefore, let us see how the law of the Sabbath was enforced on the children of Israel during the life of Moses and the giving of the Law. The Holy Spirit has recorded one such example for us: “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.” (Numbers 15:32-36). If Moses had already received the full and complete Torah sheb’al Peh while on Mount Sinai, why is it that he did not know what to do with him? The Jews claim that all the opinions of the Sages were given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Megillah 19b; Eruvin 13b), and so naturally this would have included the punishment for Sabbath breakers, i.e. stoning (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Shabbat §1), and all of the 39 prohibitions, since the Gemara is part of their oral law: “R. Levi b. Hama says further in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: What is the meaning of the verse: And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written that thou mayest teach them? 'Tables of stone': these are the ten commandments; 'the law': this is the Pentateuch; 'the commandment': this is the Mishnah; 'which I have written': these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; 'that thou mayest teach them': this is the Gemara. It teaches [us] that all these things were given to Moses on Sinai.” (Berakhot 5a); “Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: ‘Upon them and upon them’ — this refers to all the words: Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah; even that which a diligent student is destined to teach before his teacher — all was already said to Moses at Sinai.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Peah 2:4). The rabbis interpret Numbers 15 to mean that Moses knew that the Sabbath-breaker was to die, but did not know his manner of execution (Sanhedrin 8a). However, this still would disprove the rabbinic tradition. For if the oral law had been revealed to Moses, wouldn’t he have known that breaking the Sabbath is punished by stoning? Why didn’t Moses know this already?
[4]. The commandment "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" appears three times in the written Torah (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). This commandment appears in each of these places by itself, without any elaboration upon it or its meaning. It is the ruling of the Sages that this verse teaches that milk and meat should not be mixed together, either in cooking or eating (Chullin, 103b–116b, esp. 115b). Therefore, the ambiguity of this command in the written Torah shows the necessity of a rabbinic interpretation.
Response: We should first note how far some of the Jews have taken their superstitious interpretation of this text. For one, they have also enacted one of their gezayros in which they have banned the eating of dairy with poultry as well. However, some of them did not practice this, such as Rabbi Yose the Galilean and the Jews in his city (Chullin 116a). Upon Exodus 23, Rashi writes “In three different passages the law תבשל לא גדי is written: once for the purpose of prohibiting the eating of meat-food with milk-food, once to prohibit us from deriving any other benefit (besides eating) from such mixture, and once to prohibit the boiling of meat with milk.” One may also consult Mishnah Kiddushin 2:9 for this same interpretation of the rabbis.
It is the interpretation of many commentators, Jewish and Christian alike, that these verses are warning the Israelites against a particular practice of the heathen gentile nations around them which was part of their idolatry. So says Maimonides: “Regarding the prohibition of meat and milk: aside from the fact that it is undoubtedly a coarse and bloating food, I do not consider it unlikely that it is related to idolatry. Perhaps it was consumed in one of their rites or festivals. Supporting this is that the Torah mentions the prohibition twice in proximity to the command to make pilgrimage to God’s sanctuary three times a year (Exodus 23:17; 34:24). It is as if to say: “When you ascend to appear before the Lord your God, do not cook as they do.” This, to me, is the strongest reason for its prohibition, though I have not found it stated explicitly in the writings of the Sabians I have examined.” (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, III.48). This may also be why the Septuagint translated "you shall not cook/boil” in Ex. 34:26, as οὐ Προσοίσεις, meaning “do not offer” or “do not bring forward.” This would entail that the Torah’s prohibition is not with regard to a general dietary principle, but is specifically forbidding a certain type of offering. And the gloss of the Samaritan Pentateuch upon Ex. 23:19 is כי עשׂה זאת כזבח שׁכח ועברה היא לאלהי יעקב; “Because if you do this, it will be as a forgetful sacrifice, and as insolence to the God of Jacob.” The two appearances of the prohibition in Exodus 23 and Exodus 34 both come immediately after instructions regarding various offerings that can be brought to the temple (Ex. 23:18; 34:25).
These laws could also be a prohibition against the literal cooking of an animal with its mother, due to concerns of cruelty towards the small animal; compare with Deut. 22:6-7. Philo of Alexandria wrote “Moses looked on it as grossly improper that the substance which fed the living animal should be used to season or flavor it after its death.” (Philo, On the Virtues, §143) Another reason why is this is not a general dietary restriction is what we read of Abraham in his interactions with the angels of the Lord before the destruction of Sodom: “And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetch a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.” (Genesis 18:7-8). Of course, there is some degree of dispute amongst Jews as to how closely the patriarchs such as Abraham adhered to all 613 mitzvot, as well as all of the rabbinic “fences” made with them. It is the opinion of this author that this seems to be more prevalent within the rabbinic literature: “We found that Abraham our forefather fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because that Abraham listened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5), which indicates that Abraham observed all the mitzvot of his own accord and was rewarded in his old age as a result.” (Mishnah Kiddushin, 4:14, cf. Rashi on Gen. 32:5). This is also the opinion of Rav and Rav Ashi in Yoma 28b, and he is disputed by Rabbi Shimi bar Hiyya. However, many other Jews would say that Abraham did not know all of the 613 commandments, but only those which were explicitly given to him by God, such as circumcision (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchos Melachim, 9:1); Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, Chizkuni, Sforno commentary, Ibn Ezra, Rabbi David Kimchi, and Rabbi Joseph Karo.
Some Jews have explained Gen. 18:8 by saying that the calf and milk were eaten separately so as not to violate the prohibition against mixing milk and dairy. Thus, the Tosafists: “Seeing that Abraham is reported as first having served milky dishes, and the meat subsequently, it is reasonable to assume that he wished to give his guests something to eat before freshly slaughtered animals that had to have their blood removed could be cooked or roasted on the spit. The interval would have sufficed not to violate the laws of mixing milk and meat.” (Da’at Zekenim). This is a deceptive twisting of Scripture, which does not place any limit of time between the eating of the calf and the milk. Even one of their own midrash texts grants this “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, ‘At every moment, [there are] accusations between Me and Israel. Were you not there when you came down to Abraham and ate meat with milk, as it is said (Gen. 18:8) And he took butter and milk and the calf which he had dressed. And their child, when he comes from his teacher's house, and his mother gives him bread and meat and cheese, and he says to her, ‘Today my teacher taught me (Ex. 34:26) 'Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.'’ She has no response for him. At that moment, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses (Ex. 34:27) ‘Write thou these words.’ Until they had no response or reply.” (Midrash Tehillim, 8:2)
[5]. The laws of tefillin and tzitzit are part-and-parcel of the Jews’ tradition and practice. I desire to briefly show how it is not to be alleged as any proof for the oral Torah, and that the Jews do grossly and superstitiously misunderstand the teachings of Moses upon this point. For many of the rabbis insist that this command cannot be followed without their Talmudic customs, which detail the precise material, length, size of the letters and parchments, the type of ink which must be used, how many lines of each scriptural section, and type of animal from which the leather must be taken. These minutiae are claimed by them to go all the way back to Moses at Sinai, all the while offering no proof of this. (Shulchan Arukh: Orach Chayim, 32:7, 39, 42, 44, 49). The practice of tefillin is mentioned explicitly by our Lord Jesus in his rebukes to the wicked scribes and Pharisees: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries (φυλακτήρια), and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.” (Matthew 23:5-7). Hence, we know the motive deep down for this practice, which is called out by Christ: the outward show of godliness which the Jews attempt to practice, to glory in their shame (Phil. 3:19). That this practice was common in the 1st century is evident not only from the words of our Lord Himself, but also from the report of Josephus: "They also inscribe on the doorposts the greatest of the things that God has enjoined them, and they display upon their arms what can signify strength, and upon their forehead whatever may indicate their memory of God’s grace toward them—these things being inscribed on the head and the arm so as to make the divine benevolence toward them visible and evident in all directions." (Antiquities of the Jews, book IV, ch. 8) Some scholars have argued that the practice of tefillin probably originated during the era of Hellenistic influence, in which amulets with inscribed text were superstitiously given various spiritual powers and abilities (Yehuda B. Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin in the Ancient World [Providence, RI: Brown University, 2008]). “Originally, the ‘totafot’ and the ‘oth’ were perceived as magical, demonic symbols, and the use of amulets of this kind, which were attached to the head or arm, was common in the ancient world.” (Menachem Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation To The End Of The Second Temple Times And Changes Of Form To The End Of The Middle Ages. Part B [2003], pg. 180)
Inside the box of tefillin, there are four passages of the Torah which the Jews
inscribe upon the parchments which are placed inside:
[1]. Exodus 13:1-10, “Sanctify to me….” (לי קדש)
[2]. Exodus 13:11-16, “When the LORD brings you….” (יביאך כי והיה)
[3]. Deuteronomy 6:4-9, “Hear, O Israel….” (שמע)
[4]. Deuteronomy 11:13-21, “If you observe my commandments….” (אם והיה שמוע)
In their superstition and blind zeal, the Jews interpret these texts literally to refer to a physical practice of wrapping the black leather straps around their arms and the box upon their head (situated between the eyes): “Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.” (Deuteronomy 11:18); “It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes, for by a strong and the LORD brought us out of Egypt.” (Exodus 13:16). In verse 9, the memorial is called a ן֙וֹכרִָּז – signifying its purpose as a perpetual reminder of the deliverance from Egypt (the same word is also used in reference to the Passover; Ex. 12:14). Whereas, טוֹטָפוֹת is used only in these passages with respect to these phylacteries, although the direct parallel of language between Ex. 13:9 and verse 16 ought to be sufficient to show that it is not a literal thing here spoken of, as the Jews take it. With tefillin, there are two types: that which is bound upon the forehead, and that which is bound with leather straps around the left forearm, as said above. And the delusions attending this practice with which the Jews laughably deceive themselves ought to be know to all who are acquainted with the rabbinic writings in even the least measure. They do this so that they even stake part of their future hope of salvation upon it: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Anyone who has phylacteries on his head, phylacteries on his arm, ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza on his doorway is strengthened from all sides so that he will not sin, as it is stated in the verse: “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecc. 4:12). This is interpreted as an allusion to the three mitzvot of phylacteries, ritual fringes, and mezuza. And the verse states: ‘The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them’ (Psalms 34:8). This is interpreted to mean that the angel of the Lord surrounds those who fulfill the mitzvot and saves them from sin.” (Menachot 43b); And also Maimonides: “Whoever wears tefillin on his head and arm, wears tzitzit on his garment, and has a mezuzah on his entrance, can be assured that he will not sin, because he has many who will remind him. These are the angels, who will prevent him from sinning, as [Psalms 34:8] states: ‘The angel of God camps around those who fear Him and protects them.’ Blessed be God who offers assistance.” (Mishneh Torah: Laws of Tefillin, Mezuzah and Sefer Torah, 6:13) And that is not such a literal wearing of leather and boxes which is being commanded by Moses, may be evident from the following reasons:
(1) The verse does not say “Make for yourselves…”, but rather that the memory of the Exodus and Passover “shall be for you טוֹטָפוֹת", which indicates that the language here is figurative, rather than a literal command to make such materials. The Septuagint uses ἀσάλευτον to translate טוֹטָפוֹת, the former of which means something fixed or immovable (Acts 27:41; Heb. 12:28), further indicating its metaphorical nature to describe how the children of Israel were to remember God’s law. (2) Many other Scriptures, including the very passages which the Jews place in their parchments, make it clear that Moses used a proverbial way of speaking to describe the level of devotion which the Israelites ought to have kept towards God, His commandments, and the remembrance of His mighty and salvific dealings with and toward them as a people. “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart.” (Deut. 6:6), and also verse 8 in the same chapter, “And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand”; “Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul” (Deut. 11:18); “that the LORD'S law may be in thy mouth.” (Ex. 13:9); “Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.” (Prov. 6:21); “Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm” (Song of Solomon 8:6); “Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book. Surely I would take it upon my shoulder, and bind it as a crown to me.” (Job 31:35-36). Are then the Jews to tie leather straps around their necks? What about their shoulders? If they take Exodus 13:1-10 literally, why not do so with verse 9 and place parchments of the Torah inside their mouths? This is the absurd and ridiculous nature of the Jews and their interpretations of the Scriptures. And this figurative interpretation of these texts is not only that of polemicists against Judaism or of Christian Hebraists, but also of some of the Jews themselves; as Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (1085-1158): לאות על ידך – לפי עומק פשוטו יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד כאילו כתוב לבך על כחותם שימני כעין .ידך על; 'As a sign upon your hand’: According to the fundamental meaning – it should be a permanent reminder for you, as though written on your hand. Similarly ‘place me like a seal on your heart’ (Song of Songs 8:6).” And Ibn Ezra also admits of this interpretation, but rejects it solely on the grounds that it contradicts the rabbis: “And it will be as a sign for you upon your hand and as a memorial between your eyes”: There are two possible explanations. One is after the fashion of “bind them about your neck, write them upon the table of your heart” (Proverbs 3:3), in which case the meaning of “sign” is similar to a mnemonic device – and what will become “as a sign … and as a memorial”? Namely “that with a strong hand (the Lord brought you out of Egypt),” which you should thus preserve in your heart and for your child. And similarly the second verse (13:16) – and it will be for you “as a sign upon your hand and as totafot between your eyes,” namely “that with strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.” And the word totafot is a strange one in the Bible, and some say it is from the same meaning as hatef (i.e. preach) in Ezekiel 21:2. And the second explanation is according to its meaning to make tefillin of the arm and of the head. And because our sages of blessed memory shifted it in this way the first explanation is not valid. For it has no reliable witnesses as the second explanation does.”
In our day and age, there has been much study of the phylacteries in the Judean Desert, which have been discovered and researched by archaeologists. They date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries BC. In some respects, they differ from the tefillin prescribed by the Jewish law, for some of them only included the text of the Decalogue in them. 4QPhyl N, for example, includes text from the Shema but also from the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:45-47). Many of the tefillin from the Dead Sea differ in their size and shape, going against the rabbinic halakhah - as has been confirmed by Dr. Yonatan Adler, the main researcher of these ancient findings. So also, the rabbis rule that where the letter yod doesn’t touch the other letters in the parchments, the tefillin are invalid (Shulchan Arukh: Orach Chayim, 36:2). Some Jews have cited 2 Samuel 1:10 as proof for the practice of tefillin and therefore for the oral Torah (Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Oral Torah from Sinai: The Case for the Authenticity of the Oral Torah Tradition from Alef to Tau [Lightcatcher Book, 2011], pgs. 101-102). The verse in question records the account of the aftermath of King Saul’s death and of the Amalekite who looted his corpse, saying “and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet (אֶצְעָדָה) that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.” The Jews argue that this text is speaking of phylacteries that must have been worn by Saul. On the contrary, it is not clear that the word אֶצְעָדָה is even speaking of such a thing whatsoever; for elsewhere, it refers to a type of bracelet in the broad sense, as in Numbers 31:50, in which the Israelite officers and captains say to Moses “We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets (אֶצְעָדָה), rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.” Did Moses and the priests then take the tefillin and offer them as a sacrifice to God? Rather, the אֶצְעָדָה of King Saul was likely some sort of regal bracelet made from pure gold. And even Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron admits that it may be referring to a type of bracelet which was used to keep the tefillin from slipping off of the arm of a typical Israelite warrior (Oral Torah from Sinai, pg. 103); such men often did wear their tefillin into battle in the rabbinic period (Gittin 57b-58a). However, if he concedes this interpretation of the word אֶצְעָדָה, his proof for the antiquity of the phylacteries has now been crushed.
[6]. It is apparent that the Jews of the Babylonian Exile knew the oral Torah and practiced it faithfully, for it said of Daniel that he risked his life to pray 3 times a day facing towards Jerusalem (Daniel 6:4-13). Daniel and his 3 friends also observed the dietary laws (Dan. 1:8-12). He could only have known to do such things based on the oral rabbinic tradition! (Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Oral Torah from Sinai, pgs. 118-122). This would also include the command to have one’s windows open and pray on one’s knees. All such Jewish traditions are enumerated by Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot Tefillah & Birkat Kohanim, Ch. 5)
Response: It is conceded that the practice of praying 3 times a day is an ancient Jewish custom practiced by the Israelites during this period, and before it. However, I deny that it proves any existence of an oral Torah, for this law is expressly instituted in the written Scriptures, for in Psalm 55:17 it says “Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.” And this also is done by Scripture for some of these individual times of day: morning (Psalm 5:3) and evening (Psalm 119:62) Daniel’s direction of prayer toward the temple appears to have been in fulfillment of the prophecy of King Solomon that this exact thing would indeed take place amongst the Jews after their exile (1 Kings 8:30, 48; cf. Psalm 28:2). As for the observance of certain dietary restrictions, the Scripture says “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” (Dan. 1:8) - Daniel most likely did this due to the written Torah’s prohibition of eating any food from unclean animals such as swine and pig. Another reason would simply have been that many of the king’s delicacies would have been offered up to idols, and therefore violate the conscience of any Jew. “[One might say/It implies] to pour it [the wine] as a libation according to their rite for their gods.” (Ibn Ezra). We know from elsewhere in Scripture that this was an idolatrous practice of the Persians: “They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.” (Dan. 5:4) And therefore, this would have constituted the basis for Daniel’s avoidance of such food and drink, rather than a specific oral tradition of the sages. And that this was a matter of conscience rather than binding law is evident from the later words of Daniel himself; “I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.” (Dan. 10:3). Presumably, thereafter, no such prohibition was being as strictly enforced?
[7]. The prophets warned the Jews to observe the oral Torah when they forbade the carrying of objects on the Sabbath (Jer. 17:19-24) and buying and selling on the Sabbath (Nehemiah 10:30-32; 13:15-18). Therefore, during the time of the prophets and the return from the Babylonian exile, there existed an authoritative rabbinic tradition which is traced back to Moses (Rabbi Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah?, pg. 304). Response: As to the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath, the Jews call it hotza’ah, that is - you may not transfer an object between public and private domains. The reason why no such commands were given in the written Torah, was not that there was an oral law to supplement it (and contradict it often), but because the children of Israel in the wilderness did not have as clearly defined limits of public and private domains as when they lived in Jerusalem. In verse 22, the phrase “as I commanded your fathers” is modifying the previous two clauses, “neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day”, and not the first clause concerning the carrying of objects between domains – therefore, the structural wording of Jer. 17:22 itself confirms that no such commandment concerning domains were given to the wilderness generation, whether written or orally.
[8]. One cannot properly observe the Sabbath without the oral law, for it is said that we may not leave our homes on that day (Exodus 16:29-30), and that we must “restrain our feet” (Isaiah 58:13-14). Without the Mishnah and Talmud, it is impossible to observe these commandments and prohibitions, for the written Torah is ambiguous upon them. It is also mentioned in Acts 1:12, “Then they returned unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.” Response: According to the laws of the Jews, 2000 cubits is the limit for walking on foot during the Sabbath day, which they techum shabbat. I deny that this was not instituted in the written Torah, for the city limits are clearly defined when given to the Levites: “And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities.” (Num. 35:5). And this same distance appears throughout the Scriptures as the bounds for keeping various commandments (cf. Joshua 3:4). Does one need an entire tractate of the Mishnah in order to figure this out?
[9]. In the written Torah, the commandment has been given that the Jews should attach fringes unto the corners of their arguments, and these they call ציצית, tzitzit. “Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.” (Numbers 15:38-40). The Jews say: How are to observe this commandment without our oral traditions? How must a man know how to make such fringes without them? What are the materials, sizes, cloth, and color of these? Therefore, you cannot observe this command of Numbers 15 without the oral Torah. And this their practice is mentioned by our Savior in Matthew 23:5.
Response: Concerning these tzitzit, I shall first declare a few more things which the Jews practice in relation to them so that we might have a better and more comprehensive understanding thereof: (1) The Jews boast that the numerical value (gematria) of the word tzitzit is equal to 600, and the 8 fringes and 5 knots add up to 613, the number of mitzvot (Kitzur Shulchan Arukh, 9:1). Therefore, the Jews wear a smaller garment around their waist through their entire day, called a tallit katan. (2) Due to the commandment to attach the tzitzah on the corners, it must be no further than 3 thumbreadths from the actual edges (Kitzur Shulchan Arukh, 9:3). (3) The tzitzit must be tied into 5 knots (representing the Torah), so that there will be 4 links between them. The 4 strings are inserted and then wound around 7 times. (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 9:5). First of all, I ask if there was such a detailed oral tradition given to Moses as to how to make these tzitzit, why are there so many various opinions amongst the rabbis as to the color thereof (תכלת; Tekhelet). Specifically, there is a dispute as to how many strands must be dyed. Maimonides says 1 of 8, Rabbi Abraham ben David says that it must be 2 of the 8, while the Tosafists say that it must be 4 of the 8. Who is right here? Even with their oral Torah, the Jews still do not know what to do! “There can never be any difference of opinion with regard to matters received through the Oral Tradition. Whenever there arises a difference of opinion with regard to a matter that shows that it was not received in the tradition from Moses our teacher. The following principles apply with regard to matters derived through logical analysis. If the entire body of the Supreme Sanhedrin agrees with regard to them, their consent is binding. If there is a difference of opinion, we follow the majority and decide the matter according to the majority.” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Sefer Shoftim, 1:3)
[10]. The written Torah commands the Jewish people to observe a Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) in Leviticus 23:39-44. It also mentions the four species with which the Jews are to make their booths: fruit of goodly trees, branches from a palm tree, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook. How are we to observe this holiday without an oral Torah? For there are no written descriptions of how we are to make these booths, with regard to their shape and size, etc.
Response: Once again, the Jews have chosen to strain a gnat and swallow a camel. For the Lord was not concerned here with all of the outward rituals and precise measurements of cubits, but rather that a memorial to the exodus from Egypt be instituted (Lev. 23:44). We deny that an oral law is proved from this feast, for we also deny that the Jews were commanded by God to be so overly burdened with such things. And that this may be further established, we have the testimony of the Jews that returned from exile: “And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the watergate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim. And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.” (Nehemiah 8:14-18). From verse 16, it is seen that the simple instructions of the written law of Moses were sufficient to inform the Jews of their ceremonial duties in this matter. They knew the materials to use, and did not become scrupulous about those petty things with which the rabbis choose to vainly occupy themselves.
[11]. On Yom Kippur, the Jews were commanded; “It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever.” (Lev. 16:31). What does it mean to “afflict one’s soul”? How does one go about such a solemn task? Here again, the rabbinic traditions are indispensably necessary in order to understand how to observe the day of Yom Kippur properly. The affliction of the soul is things such as fasting (Yoma 79b-81a), no bathing (Shabbat 86a), no marital relations (Yoma 77a; Pesachim 53b), etc.
Response: We know from the written Torah itself that this affliction of the soul is a reference to fasting, and not from the oral law. More peculiarly, no work was to be done on this day. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.” (Lev. 23:26-31) - For the verb anah is elsewhere used for fasting (Psalm 35:13; Ezra 8:21; Dan. 10:12).
[12]. The statement “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Ex. 21:24; Lev. 24:19; Deut. 19:21) is ambiguous in itself and teaches a general lex talionis. However, we must have the oral law in order to know that this is talking about monetary compensation, as the rabbis have interpreted it. It is not found in the written law of Moses.
Response: If the Jews that make this objection would read the surrounding context of Exodus 21, it is abundantly clear that compensatory damages (what American courts call “actual damages”; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64 [1876]) is being spoken of, and therefore no extra tradition is needed to discover this: “And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maid servant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit ” (Exodus 21:18-28). The written Torah gives concrete legal cases here to illustrate the principle of lex talionis, showing that it is speaking of general types of compensatory damages, and not teaching a man’s eye should literally be gouged out, and tooth pulled with pliers!
