Counter-Missionary > The Oral Law - Part I

The Oral Law - Part I

Brown's article may be found here: Click here

Please note: I have not commented on every point in the article, that doesn't mean I agree with what was stated.
Disclaimer: I don't claim to be scholar, don't email me telling me Dr Brown is a Ph.D. and I'm not. People should think for themselves about the issues.

My comments are highlighted in light blue. I have cited verses from the NIV. While I disagree entirely with the translation, I have provided these for reference. For fonts I have chosen Arial, Times New Roman and (all a provided by Microsoft Windows XP). The Hebrew is best viewed in Internet Explorer. Brown's comments are noted in inline italicized dark blue text.

“Meantime, shmeantime. If you don’t know Hebrew, it doesn’t mean a thing.”

If you don't know Hebrew, you're dead in the water. However, Brown is wrong in his approach. He is well versed in many languages some of which are Akkadian and Ugaritic - well known in Academic circles as rightly or wrongly, fundamental to understanding Ancient Hebrew.

Judaism rejects the Academic approach to Scripture. Academics will use the Septuagint, Ugaritic, Akkadian, Arabic and every other source to determine meaning of words, understanding the culture and gathering information. This is not the Torah approach. Torah Judaism is about learning what G-d's interpetation of His writings are. Judaism has an Oral tradition on how to read, apply and understand the text. For example, consider Hebrew grammar, Dr Brown's professors will probably cite Cowley's translation of Kautsch's rendition of Gesenius' Grammar. What Brown doesn't mention, is the source for Kautsch's Grammar - German scholars of the same ilk as Wellhausen, who propagated the notion of the JEDP theory of scripture claiming that the Torah was written by multiple editors. Their view has been rejected in recent times by other scholars (Kikawada, Quinn, Bronner, and Cassuto among others see references at the end for further inquiry). (

These German scholars built their work on research obtained by scholars such as Christian Ginsburg, Levitas and Jewish Grammarians. Ginsburg relies heavily on Levitas, and Jewish Grammarians. Levitas is himself a Rabbi, Torah Jew, and the major Jewish Grammarians are none other than the major commentators of the Torah and Nach: Rabbi Dovid Kimchi (Radak), Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchaki (Rashi) and Rabbi Avraham ben Ezra (Ibn Ezra).

Its hypocritical in the same breath to herald Dr Brown's academic achievement (something not to be discredited - it is a tremendous accomplishment, given his background), and deny its academic origins.

My drug abuse was not due to some inner turmoil or spiritual quest. I used drugs because they made me feel good! You see, I was a fairly talented, teenage rock drummer, and the whole Woodstock, cast-off-restraint, get high, do-your-own-thing mentality appealed to me. I wanted to be like the rock stars! Soon, life became one big party.

Dr Brown's past life is not under discussion. His achievements are inspirational, but play to emotions. I can name several people who had similar backgrounds who have achieved similar levels of scholarship and expertise in Torah-true Judaism.

He also brought me to meet with Ultra-Orthodox, Lubavitcher rabbis in Brooklyn who specialized in dealing with “straying” young Jews like me. For my part, I was happy to have the opportunity to share my faith with these sincere men. After all, I was reading the Bible day and night, memorizing hundreds of verses, praying for hours, even persuading a Jewish Jehovah’s Witness that her religion was not biblical. But these rabbis in Brooklyn had answers I had never heard before. And all of them had been able to read and understand Hebrew since their childhood. I could barely remember how to pronounce the letters! Plus, they looked so Jewish, with long black beards and all. Their faith seemed to be so ancient and authentic. Was mine?

This is drummed up as the following: If Ultra-orthodox Lubavitcher Jews couldn't convince me of the truth, then its obviously false, and my message is true....

So it was that I began to study Hebrew in college. If my faith was based on truth, it could withstand honest academic scrutiny. If Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah, I had nothing to fear. Serious questions deserved serious answers, and I was determined to follow the truth wherever it led, regardless of the consequences.

This is a point that sadly few address. If the truth cannot stand to absolute scrutiny, it is not truth. However, Brown, instead of being rigorous and approaching the issue from all angles, opted to study Hebrew in college - the same college professors that deny the Bible as being the word of G-d, and who followed the works of Gesenius and Wellhausen.

Almost all my courses were taught by Jewish professors and, along the way, I also had the opportunity to do some private study with several rabbis. What happened to my faith? It actually became stronger. As I learned more, I became even more convinced that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, the one whose life, atoning death, resurrection, and return were foreshadowed in the Hebrew Scriptures. I had sound answers for serious questions!

Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you represent Jewish values and beliefs. Karl Marx was Jewish, and represented everything but Judaism!

I also discovered something unexpected: It was not the New Testament faith that was built on faulty foundations; the foundations of rabbinic Judaism were faulty! It was rabbinic Judaism, not the New Testament faith, that deviated from the Hebrew Bible.

This is your opinion, Dr Brown. Please provide adequate citation and sources to support your position.

Rabbinic Judaism does not even claim to be based upon a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Brown's view of the text is that a literal word-for-word rendering implies that it is G-d-given and that any other interpretation is man-made. However, the problem is that the text itself lends itself to more than one literal-word-for-word rendering. Anyone who wishes to read the text as written, will have a hard time precisely determining what it says. Brown's academic training will tell him to look in Ugaritic and Akkadian sources to determining the meaning of words, and understanding the bible. Let us clarify this point - Brown wishes to show that his reading is not invented, yet he will resort to the writings of some pagan idol-worshipping communities to determine what words mean? Or perhaps the Septuagint - the Torah was translated by those Rabbis.....Brown wishes to claim to having invented Judaism. However, let us "Get Biblical" - the text in Genesis 1:1 reads? What would brown like to read "בראשית" as? construct or absolute - if he reads it in its absolute form there is no basis in the text for it, nor is it supported by other verses. Construct? for Brown it doesn't make sense, so how does Brown determine the meaning of the first verse of the Bible? I'll tell you a secret Brown, G-d knows...and He told Moses.

Instead, the rabbis say that their faith is the continuation of an unbroken chain of tradition dating back to Moses and the prophets. This is a crucial point. As we will see later, such an unbroken chain does not exist.

Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. And why is Luther's interpretation of how to read Scripture any more accurate? Dr Brown's logic here is flawed. Who told Dr Brown that the literal word of the Torah, and Nach is what G-d wants? If we take a simple passage such as:

Leviticus 24:20
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.

The literal meaning is that if Reuven decides to gouge out Shimon's eye, the recompense is that Reuven should be equally required to gouge out his own eye.

However, what happens if Reuven already has only one eye, or is blind? Imagine Shimon has two fully functional eyes. Is it entirely just or fair that Reuven be completely blinded, whereas Shimon, while obviously has only one eye, can still see?

This example shows that while the text, read quite literally, implies a particular outcome, it doesn't really do justice.

Dr Brown will argue that - that is exactly what G-d wants - Reuven should be blinded completely, whereas Shimon not.

I would like to respond with the following scenario: Reuven is particularly weak. His constitution allows that if his eye is gouged out he will almost certainly die. Reuven gouges Shimon's eye out. Does that mean Shimon has a right to gouge out Reuven's eye, if it will certainly kill him? Lets imagine that Brown's reading is true, and that we should take the literal meaning of the verse. Shimon does so, and Reuven dies on the spot. Has Shimon carried out the verse's literal meaning and sense?

No. The verse specfifically says: As he has injured, so he is to be injured...nothing to do with killing another. In fact, Shimon did worse - he killed Reuven.

Already, we have to restrict Shimon's action away from killing Reuven. Already we have to move away from the literal meaning of the verse.

I have provided two arguments in favor of reading the verse not literally.

Throughout the Torah (contextual), the Torah uses injury in reference to a monetary loss. It therefore means that when the Torah describes physical damage between two parties, the injury caused is monetary in application. (A quick reference to Exo 21-24 will show this point).

The Torah is therefore telling us that compensation should be in equal monetary terms. The verse cannot be therefore read literally.

Dr Brown will ask the following question: But wait, if the Torah really wanted that to be read, let it say that, let it say: an eye for money, a tooth for money....etc.

Dr Brown failed to understand the sources. You see, the reading of the verse literally, cannot be, on a purely logical basis as well as the fact that the verses themselves have limited the criteria for application as well as the verses in Exodus, and repetition in Ex 21:24, 27, Deut 19:21, show that this cannot be the case.

Thus, you're stuck, if you read the verses literally, application becomes inconsitent with reality, and the Torah rejects the proposition (it mentions nothing about murder or death, only injury - implying that injury less than death). If not, the verses are inconsistent with the literal meaning.

If we read it non-literally we will have to deal with a textual difficulty in the text. If we read it literally (according to Brown) we will be faced with a logical or contextual difficulty. Take your pick. This is easily resolved, if we shift the interpretation (as already has been shown to be consistent with the Torah's approach to compensation in general).

1. The reference to eye-for-eye tells me that the injury of the party is directly causational. One cannot claim monies for past damage or other ailments that are not direct causes: Imagine Shimon causes Reuven to lose a leg. The fact that Reuven was going to use that leg as a means to travel to Vegas and win at the slot machines, is not enough direct causes to force Shimon to pay damages for that infraction as well as the direct damage of losing a leg.

2. The approach is important. The Torah is telling us that while monetary compensation is the practical application of the conditions that allowed me to fulfill the words of G-d, my understanding must be that the compensation is in direct consequence of my actions. Shimon's compensation for Reuven must be viewed as though Shimon's limb should have been used as compensation (in theory), but for reasons of practicality could not be substituted.

Those that are interested, will find that this explanation is found in the Talmud. It is not made up, it is not an abrogation of the Torah, but rather a full application of the Torah in reality.

It should be pointed out here that not every verse in the Torah is taken in this sense. We have an Oral tradition and set of rules of interpretation and exegesis in clarifying which verses are to be taken non-literally.

But the real question is: On what foundation is traditional Judaism based? Judaism as we know it today is not the religion of the Torah as much as it is the religion of rabbinic tradition. Without tradition, there could be no traditional Judaism; without the rabbis, there could be no rabbinic Judaism. This is very significant! For many of our people, human tradition is more important than biblical truth.

Dr Brown is incorrect. Judaism's fundamental basis is the Torah - the Torah both written and oral together. Dr Brown however is using word-play to avoid the over-arching problem - "Rabbinic Judaism" as Brown defines it is a western, academic concept to distinguish between Judaism exemplified in the Torah as opposed to Judaism as interpreted by the Sages of the Talmud. This is a gross misunderstanding. Brown fails to address the overarching reality - before Jesus or Brown came along, Jews were following the Torah, and listening to the Rabbis. In fact Josephus records a common practice that was already well-established: Antiquities BOOK IV. Ch. 8, 13: Putting on Phylacteries or Tefillin. I posit to Dr Brown exactly how one is to read the text, and apply it, literally: Exo 13:9 This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that the law of the Lord is to be on your lips. For the Lord brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand. Deut 4:6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Brown also tells us that there are two Judaisms, Judaism of the Torah, and Judaism of the Rabbis. Brown's analysis reveals lack of historicity, a lack of understanding the intricate nature of Judaism and its practice. Brown imagines that somewhere between Ezra and Jesus, a bunch of 17th Century old men in grey beards and long black frocks, who believe that the Talmud is the Divine word of G-d, convinced 2/3rds of Jewry, both in Babylonia/Persia, Israel and Egypt (mainly in Alexandria and Elephantine), that their practices were outmoded, and contrary to the 'Rabbis' understanding of scripture. What is remarkable, is that 200 years later, (that is after Esther, and after the miracle of Chanukah etc.) a new sect formulates under the leadership of Zaddok and later Boethus, conjure up a new idea called "literalist Judaism" and the major belief: "no resurrection of the dead". basically the sect as a religious institution disintegrates, and later the sect re-establishes itself under the leadership of the now corrupted Greek, (and later) Herodian Aristocracy, under the banner of "Sadducees". This group basically takes control of the governance of the country until the late part of the 1st Century. (Antiquities Bk 13 Ch 5.9, making it chiefly a political organization. But note: what we have of their beliefs etc....is all based on the Talmud, Midrashim and other opponents of their position. Fascinating for someone who is trying to prove that Rabbinic (aka Talmudic) Judaism, was an invention long after Jesus. (Cf. (1901) Jewish Encyclopedia "Sadducees", JewishEncyclopedia.com.)

My point is that Brown assertion is completely illegitimate from an historical point of view as well as a logical point view.

How does Brown understand these verses? Literally of-course. I wonder what Brown uses to tie symbols upon his hands, or bind them on his forehead....not to mention the fact that this is a Biblically mandated action, and not some Rabbinical interpretation. I posit to Brown that Phylacteries, as with all things his straw-Rabbis 'made-up' are Biblical injunctions, mandated by G-d. As he puts it so succintly: For many of our people, what G-d says to do is more important than choosing Jesus (aka Paul's writings) over G-d.

My question for Dr Brown is the following. If Biblical Judaism has no relationship to Rabbi's or their interpretation of Scripture, then what do the following verses imply about leaders in position of authority?

Deuteronomy 17:
8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge--whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults--take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. 9 Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. 10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. 11 Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. 12 The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. 13 All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.

Exodus 18:
15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws." 17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain--and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." 24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.

I have a simple question. If all the laws themselves are carefully spelled out in detail, written out as the pure word of G-d, then why does G-d Himself instruct the people to seek out judges, why does G-d accept the advice of Moses' father-in-law, to set about judges among the people? Why does Moses need to teach the Judges the decrees and laws, if everything is so perfectly clear?

G-d tells His people (Leviticus 26:46):

אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, וְהַתּוֹרֹת, אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה', בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַר סִינַי, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה.

These are the decrees, ordinances and teachings (both oral and written) that HASHEM gave between Himself and the children of Yisroel, atop Mount Sinai through Moshe.

The word (תּוֹרֹת) in Hebrew is written a.) defectively and b.) plural. The proper word for laws (in reference to many laws is: (תּוֹרוֹת). The reference here is to the two Torahs given - Oral and Written, together as a complete unit, from G-d at Sinai. This point is further illustrated by the fact that if we argue, as Dr Brown wishes, this statement is rather redundant. Why is it that G-d has to reiterate, over and over that the Torah was given through Moses at Sinai? We know it already from Exodus (19-20, 32-34) and Deuteronomy (4-5). Clearly G-d is intimating that there is more than simply laws written in the Written Torah that was given.

More than 20 years ago, an Orthodox rabbi told me I was reading the Scriptures through rose-colored glasses. In other words, I would always misunderstand the Word no matter how sincere I tried to be. I wasn’t seeing clearly. My vision was distorted.

What Dr Brown views are about Orthodox Rabbis, and what he believed they told him is again irrelevant to the discussion. This is branded as the quintessential expression of Rabbinic Judaism. Why are you appealing to our emotions Dr Brown? What is wrong with stating the facts from actual Rabbinic statements made by clear, accepted Rabbinic opinions, as opposed to your distorted view of what particular individual Rabbis said to you.

Brown's claim that "he would always misunderstand" is true. He has not taken Orthodox Judaism (aka Rabbinical/Talmudic Judaism), with the sincere honest desire to learn. Rather, he as manipulated the facts, created straw-men, and then used it to delegimize and attack Orthodox Judaism, with a bias and desire to ridicule and misrepresent Rabbis. However, just with all fields of inquiry there are standards of evidence with which we use to evaluate the legitimacy of claims levelled against groups etc. The Torah has a standard - that you wouldn't expect to find a clear statement to the effect of: "And G-d gave the Oral Traditions, Torah, Talmud and interpretations to Moses on Sinai, and it was passed down from Moses to Joshua, from Joshua to the elders, all the way down to the Mishnah" in the Torah. The Written Torah was written and the Oral Torah was transmitted Orally. At best you're going to find hints and clues, because its very nature is Oral. To judge that anything less, is to ignore the standard of evidence. In much the sameway Wellhausen ignored the standard of evidence etc...so too Brown suffers the same delusion - the expectation that Brown would have has believe is illegitimate from the Torah's perspective. Brown believes the Talmud contains pithy statements of a bunch of man-made laws made up 1500 years ago to suit the requirements of a few old men in grey beards. He then uses this assumption and throws it at all and sundry and expects a decent answer. What would Brown say if I told him that Wellhausen makes his Old Testament into the work of 5 separate and distinct authors, and that His NT he so cherishes as the living Testament of Jesus was infact the editorial achievements of a bunch of Roman Catholic Monks in the period of 230-405 CE?

That was quite an accusation, and I didn’t take it lightly. I studied the Word from every possible angle, asking myself whether other interpretations were correct, challenging the standard Christian answers with which I was familiar. Now, almost a quarter of a century later, I can honestly say that it is religious Jews—in spite of their sincerity and devotion—who read the Bible with colored glasses. They will be the first to tell you that the Bible says only what the sages tell them it says.

Again, another emotional appeal. Also, your argument is unsourced. Please provide adequate citation of sources to show that you have looked at all of the Bible from different sources. Lets forget about roses and colors and glasses that distort things. Lets see your arguments and your proofs for your assertions.

Not to mention the obvious point - the one angle you failed to address - the religion that you grew up in, and have time and time again, ignored as the illegitimate works of a bunch of pompus men, and yet your academic sagacity compells you to "study from all angles" - only the angles that support your failing position.

Who are they to differ with the great Jewish teachers of the past? Who are they to disagree with the famous rabbinic commentaries of the middle ages? How could they possibly break with the traditions they learned from their fathers? “After all, what can I know? My father learned it from his father who learned it from his father, who learned it from his father, and so on, all the way back to Moses. Are you telling me they made it up? Are you telling me they were deceived? How dare you question our sacred traditions!”

Dr Brown seems to imply that the essential element of Rabbinic interpretation is to leave honest searching and understanding at the door, and blind acceptance in the study halls. If Dr Brown would like to accept other views (since he is open to different interpretations), I have had an entirely different experience of Judaism. Every single point is analysed and discussed and critiqued from all angles. But this is my opinion against Dr Brown's.

Let us entertain Brown's wild assertions about Biblical exegesis. Brown asserts that the writings of Rashi the classical Biblical and Talmudic commentator, are considered the authority on interpretation on the text. The Ramban (Nachmanides) often argues vehemently against Rashi's interpretation. The Maharal, a 16th Century Rabbi, often argues against the Ramban (Nachmanides), in defence of Rashi, or some other interpretation. Indeed the Vilna Gaon (18th Century) often provides a singular and interpretive understanding of the text, which has become normative. The Classical works of Rav Saadia Gaon (10th Century), and Rav Hai Gaon (9th Century) have also been shown to be legitimate and have been discussed and debated. Recent commentators - Rav S.R. Hirsch (19th Century), Rav Dovid Feinstein (20th Century), Chofetz Chaim (20th Century), Rav Chaim Kanievsky (21st Century), have also been accepted. Brown wishes to ignore 2000 years of Jewish scholarship, only marred by persecution and massacre, by Muslims, Christians and antiSemities throughout history, while the academic world, could be viewed as culpable for the Holocaust (yes, Professors and University students who had the opportunity to protest and argue against Hitler's (י"ש) regime, did not, and often joined the SS (the cultural inheritors of the great German intellectuals - Wellhausen, Goethe and Gesenius among others), and for the most part reliant on modern scholarship, due to the Dark Ages in Europe.

But let us ask ourselves the following key question: What is the closest language to Hebrew? Probably, without a doubt, it is Eastern Aramaic (there is some question about Western Jewish Aramaic). The people who spoke and understood this Aramaic, in all fairness, understood the Targums and the ancient text of the Torah far better than anyone else. They were closest to its source, and closest in its interpretation. Brown's derivations in the 21st Century from an archaelogical dig of a few ugaritic shards written by some pagan Ugaritic writer is probably about as legitimate as claiming that 1000 years from now, some linguist from Spain (who may even speak British English fluently), based on the scant scribblings on some Mexican Pottery found in Texas forms the basis of understanding the fundamentals of Chaucer English (that is Middle English from the 15th Century in Anglo-Saxon England), compared with the writings of Shakespeare as a more legitimate comparison. Who has more claim to helping us understand the original text of Chaucer? Shakespeare or pottery shards found in Texas, 1000 years later. Brown is illogical and hypocritical. The redactors of the Talmud, from a logical position, have more weight, since they spoke and lived Aramaic, the closest equivalent to Hebrew. It is well known that they travelled to Israel - they would have spoken Hebrew, since they read it, and knew what it says. Rashi among the other Rishonim, are inheritors of understanding these writers. To disregard their overarching legitimacy is to intimate our Spanish linguist's view has more weight than Shakespeare.

This argument is illegitimate. It stands to reason that Rashi, and even more so, the Talmud has far more legitimacy than any undertakings by more modern scholarship.

Ironically, modern scholarhip claims to be more inclusive, and yet, time and time again, it fails to include the classical interpretations of Rashi, the Talmud etc....Modern scholarship is not illegitimate on logical grounds, but also on intellectual grounds - most scholarship often blatantly disregards the Talmud, or any Medieval Jewish sources, and claims to be inclusive. So much for intellectual honesty. Have you ever seen the International Bible Commentary suggest the Malbim (Rabbi Weiser)'s interpretation, or to suggest the Rosh (Rabbeinu Asher)'s. So much for inclusivity, or its claim at internationality.

Brown asserts: "How dare you question our sacred traditions!" Well, regarding this point, whether its true or not, Brown failed to capture the legitimacy of the claim. If he had read Kuzari (by Yehudah Levi), or "The Guide to the Perplexed" (Maimonides), these questions would have been answered. (Click here for more information> Specifically the 5-part series on the Oral Torah as well: Click here for a synopsis by selecting Rational approach to the Divinity of the Oral Tradition)

I would like to take a simple example to illustrate:

The Talmud in Rosh Hashana 2a posits the following Mishnah: The first of Nisan is for the counting of (Jewish) kings.

The argument (presented by Rashi) is that documents of loan and obligation could be misconstrued as already have been taken place, when they have not and render the transfer invalid. This confusion stems from the date on which the document was written. The date is determined by which king reigned/is still reigning.

Tosefos interprets this to refer to a particular day on which the King is to be considered to be reigning or not.

However, the way Tosefos and Rashi both learn is (according to the Pnei Yeshoshua) a logical point in determining the status of the current document in the hands of the judges. The Talmud learns later on that the source for this is various verses based on the establishment of Solomon as king, and the dates of the Exodus from Egypt.

A number of difficulties present themselves, some of which are:

1. Are people really going to make mistakes - everyone is sure of the date when the king started his rule.

2. If the source is learned from verses, what why should the logical inference have any bearing on the reasoning behind the date.

These are answered by the Tosefos and the Pnei Yeshoshua.

It seems from the above example that logical understanding of facts and scriptural interpretation, and questioning rabbinical statements are the order of the day.

In the Talmud, Megillah 2a-3a, there is a discussion about the source for following the rabbinical holiday of Purim. The Talmud questions the sources for following it, and concludes that the source is Esther and Mordechai, who requested that their letter be read.

And so the myth of an unbroken chain of tradition going back to Moses has kept many Jewish people from reading the Bible on their own. This is the heart of the matter.

Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. Dr Brown's experience of what he feels is the claim of Rabbinic Judaism is not logical, without source and documentation, and now, he uses it as a support and justification for reading scripture.

Dr Brown should heed his own advice. Perhaps verses such as these are an eye-opener:

Deuteronomy 5:22
These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Deuteronomy 4:12
Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.

Deuteronomy 4
2 Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of? 33 Has any other people heard the voice of God speaking out of fire, as you have, and lived? 34 Has any god ever tried to take for himself one nation out of another nation, by testings, by miraculous signs and wonders, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, or by great and awesome deeds, like all the things the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes? 35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire. 37 Because he loved your forefathers and chose their descendants after them, he brought you out of Egypt by his Presence and his great strength, 38 to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today. 39 Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other. 40 Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time.

Isaiah 45
4 For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. 5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, 6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. 7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things. 8 "You heavens above, rain down righteousness; let the clouds shower it down. Let the earth open wide, let salvation spring up, let righteousness grow with it; I, the Lord, have created it. 9 "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'? 10 Woe to him who says to his father, 'What have you begotten?' or to his mother, 'What have you brought to birth?'

According to Brown's logic, we should all be Karites, followers of the literal reading of Scripture. If that is true, we should at least acknowledge that G-d has no form, and that He is One and Only, there are no other gods, and that Jesus is not a god.

The Game of Telephone
Rabbinic Judaism believes that God gave Moses a Written Law (found in the Torah, the five books of Moses). But, we are told, most of the commandments in the Law are briefly worded, general statements, something like the headings of a paragraph in a book. They need interpretation. They need to be expanded and explained. So, according to the traditional belief, God also gave Moses an Oral Law that interpreted the Written Law. Moses then passed this on to Joshua, who passed it on to the 70 leading elders in his generation, who passed it on to the prophets of the next generations.

And so it went, but not without lots of additions. This is because the rabbis teach that the Oral Law kept growing, since in every generation, new traditions were developed and new situations emerged which called for new applications of the Law.

Dr Brown is misinformed. The Rabbinical view is not this at all.

Exodus 13.1-2.
And HASHEM spoke to Moses, saying: 'Sanctify to Me all the first-born, the first issue of every womb among the children of Israel, both of man and animal, is Mine.'

G-d says to Moses – sanctify all the first-born; without any explanation or elaboration. Yet we see that what Moses tells the people is much more than what G-d said originally:

Exodus 13.3-10.
And Moses said to the people: '"Remember this day, in which you departed from Egypt, out of the house of servitude; for with the strength of the hand of HASHEM He brought you out from this place; thus you shall not eat leavened bread (chometz). Today you are leaving in month of spring. And it shall happen, that when HASHEM shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, which He swore to your forefathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall keep this service in this month. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread (matzah), and in the seventh day shall be a feast to HASHEM. Unleavened bread (matzah) shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread (chometz) be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen in your possession, in all your boundaries. And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of that which HASHEM did for me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign on you, on your hand, and for a reminder between your eyes, that the Torah of HASHEM may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand HASHEM brought you out of Egypt. You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its appointed season from year to year."

There is information about leaving Egypt, about entering the land of Israel and about keeping the holiday of Pesach (Passover). There is also a part about keeping this all as a sign on the hand and between the eyes. Then after all that Moses continues:

Exodus 13.11-16.
And it shall be when HASHEM shall bring you into the land of the Canaanite, as He swore to you and to your forefathers, and shall give it to you, that you shall set apart to HASHEM every first issue of the womb; every firstling that is a male, which you have coming of animal, shall be for HASHEM. And every firstling of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if thou will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and all the first-born of man among your sons you shall redeem. And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying: What is this? You shall say to him: By strength of His hand HASHEM brought us out from Egypt, from the house of servitude; and it came to pass, when Pharaoh refused to let us go that HASHEM slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man, and the first-born of animals; therefore I offer to HASHEM the first issue of your womb, being males; but all the first-born of my sons I redeem. And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes; for with a strong hand HASHEM brought us forth out of Egypt."

In the middle of this dialogue Moses has with the Jewish people, he mentions the sanctification of the first-born. Moses adds redeeming a donkey and the first-born of the Jewish people's first male-child.

Let us imagine what happened. G-d told Moses about the first-born. It was understood by Moses that when G-d told Moses this, it was the written word of G-d. In addition, G-d told Moses all this other information that Moses relayed to the Jewish people. This was understood to be Oral - that it was not told in the same framework as a 'written word', but rather in the framework as being passed down from G-d to Moses. When G-d then told Moses to write it down (much later), Moses wrote down exactly what G-d said in the 'Written framework' and it was recorded what Moses said to the Jewish people in the 'Oral framework'. In actual practice (in this example), it makes no difference whether G-d wanted it written down, or He wanted it transmitted orally, we still have to do it, and it has the same severity and implication as though it was written.

But how do I know Moses did not make this up? Well it is possible, but unlikely. The fact that G-d spoke to the Jewish people, and told them that this is His servant and that the entire Jewish people accepted his authority is a good estimation of his sanction by G-d. Also, the second he would make something up, surely someone would question it? Indeed there are episodes where Moses' authority is questioned .

In the section entitled: “Korach”, there is a long debate, between Moses and Korach. Moses says, if what you [Korach] say is true, let us see if G-d accepts it. We see clearly that G-d does not accept it at all, and the earth swallows up his followers and himself .
We see then, that the people then believe that Moses did it. At that point, G-d comes down in a cloud and G-d wishes to destroy them all. They are saved through the means of the incense . What was the complaint of the people? It seemed that Moses had told his accusers to offer incense (possibly knowing it would kill them), and then prayed for their destruction (seemingly). However, it was clear to all that Korach was killed through the hand of G-d.

Thus the people thought Moses was instigating to crush rebellion against himself! We see therefore, that the incense that was used in the deaths of the accusers was now used to save the people . We therefore see now that the people became thoroughly convinced that Moses was G-d's servant , and Aharon was the only High-priest that G-d wanted. Why? Because they saw that the means through which the followers of Korach were killed (the incense) was the same mixture (of incense) that was used in saving the Jewish people. This made absolutely clear that Moses was not using the incense for selfish goals .
Had Moses really made something up, G-d and the Jewish people would reject it instantly. When it comes to transmitting G-d's word, both oral and written Moses is a loyal and trustworthy source.

We see from a number of Torah sources that the Oral Torah is intrinsic to the Written Torah - they're inseparable.

To illustrate:

The word Tzitzis in Numbers 15:38, has a very unique definition.

The Gesenius concordance has them as flowers (see here)

You will not find a definition of the word outside Rabbinical sources that has any relationship to the verse in Numbers 15:38. In non-Rabbinic Judaism, the word can mean flowers or fruit or lock of hair. Dr Brown may wish to avoid all Rabbinic Judaism, but then he will have to explain meanings of words with no basis in any other language or culture.

Brown also assumes that Oral information is unreliable,

Maybe he should reconsider visiting his doctor. He should realize that his doctor went to medical school, where he was trained orally with lectures given over orally. In fact, no-one accepts that if you read all the brain-surgeon textbooks or all the flight manuals on amazon, you will subsequently be qualified to operate or fly a Boeing 747. Why not? according to Brown's logic, if all the information is contained in books, it should be a simple matter of applying the information.

The answer is that we rely on information to be transmitted orally. In fact, Dr Brown's own name is dependent on an oral tradition that goes back to his parents. If his parents weren't around, would that negate that his name was Dr Michael Brown?

Lets assume that the Oral Tradition is a Telephone game of misinformation:

Let us assume that maybe an oral tradition could have been invented at some later date, perhaps after the time of Ezra. If this were true, we would expect to see a variety of different communities that would argue against receiving this 'new tradition' that was being imposed upon them. In this respect then, since there is no historical evidence for such a phenomenon; to suggest this position is untenable historically. We would also expect that different communities would have wide variances of laws and customs that would contrast sharply with other communities.

For example, the Torah says:

Leviticus 23.40:
And you shall take on the first day the beautiful fruit, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before HASHEM your G-d seven days.

We would expect the different communities to have a wide selection of different options for 'beautiful fruit'; perhaps grapes in one community, oranges in another etc. We do not see this at all. Every community – Sepharadi (from Spain), Ashkenazi (from Europe), Farsi (from Syria, Iraq, Iran) and Temani (from Yemen), all have the same tradition of using the same fruit of the citron tree ('etrog'). In fact, in Poland, the time of year for the season (October) is not at all ripe for citrons, since the tree is sensitive to temperatures below freezing, which occurs in that time of year. It is quite probable that in Poland, and other northern regions, it would not be possible to acquire citrons for the Sukkos holyday, and yet, no community has decided to adopt its own 'fruit'.

We see from here, that clearly, there must have been an Oral Tradition, together with the Written Torah, given at Mount Sinai, because the Torah is impossible to understand without it, and it would be inconceivable to realistically explain how the Jewish people suddenly acquired a new Oral tradition at any later date, since people would not believe the new tradition (since it would impossible to claim that their ancestors followed these ancient traditions, which would be false and therefore unbelievable), there is no historical evidence for such an occurrence, and the results that one would expect are not there.

This maybe true of the written text, but the Oral transmission of the text could be problematic. For example, everyone knows the broken telephone game , in which a person is told a message, and that message is passed on, until it is repeated at the other end and shown to be a completely different message.

First, it is important to remember that we are not dealing with abstract subjects like Shakespearean drama or how to play the mandolin. We are dealing with subjects of law, with which people have lived by, for thousands of years, every day. If people don't have the laws right, people will lose money, time will be wasted and society will be dysfunctional. This is not esoteric information, but rather practical law, in which people live, it seems far-fetched to say somehow a whole nation, would forget it.

Consider this example: Imagine that for some reason all the books on the traffic code are somehow destroyed. Does that mean now, even after two-hundred years, people will forget that red means stop, and green means go? If people are continually driving in that time, there is no reason to expect that suddenly the definitions, and rules are going to change if they have all been worked out already?

Thus, the society in which the Oral Tradition was transmitted was a society that used and practiced the laws every day, and the laws mattered - if you were not clear in the laws, you would lose money and waste time. For example, if you were not clear on the laws of the first born, you (living in Haifa) would take the first born of your livestock (say a camel), all the way to Jerusalem (a considerable journey by foot), and upon entry, discover that you got it wrong, only the first born of your donkey, sheep and cattle (and other kosher livestock) need to be given to G-d. This would hamper your business, if you relied on your camels for work and transport.

Second, knowing the laws was tremendous source of value. People who knew the laws well, and were able to judge cases received wealth, honor, prestige, respect and power and were considered elite members of the society - in other words, it was valuable to people, to know the laws. People volunteered to be part of this group that could do this, and hence there was competition to be the best. The quality of communication therefore, would be greatly enhanced because of the national priority associated with knowing the Oral Tradition, and transmitting it correctly.

Third, we see that in approximately 200 CE, the Mishnah was written down, and subsequently the Talmud, at a later date, in a period of extended exile and persecution. We see that it is precisely at this point we start to forget the tradition, and it needs to be written down. If this is true, we see that a society that considered it prestigious to know the Oral Tradition, could only fail at its transmission if the laws became disused and were not practiced on a continual basis. Once they are practiced, it is easy to see that it would be difficult to forget them because the constant application and practicability, would ensure constant review of laws. The fact that they wrote down the laws once they started to forget, shows that they must have remembered the laws and application before.
Fourth, it is known that the sages of the transmission kept their own private study notes to maintain accuracy, and they were constantly ensuring accuracy by referring to the originator of the laws and tradition.

Thus, such a scenario is not comparable to the telephone game at all. But lets imagine that the Oral tradition was one such telephone game. At the end, we see that telephone games end in disaster with warped, garbled information that bares little resemblance to the original, and there are many different varieties of the same message. We would expect wide variance in many laws, compared with the material that is known to have no variance. For example, as we said above with regard to the 'beautiful fruit' the 'pri eitz hadar'. Compared with the hundreds of varieties of fruit available, there is only one opinion that holds that it could be a lemon, since the citron and the lemon, according to his line of tradition, are related botanically. However, no traditional community in the entire world, that claims to have a tradition ever uses anything but a citron. Thus there is no reason to consider the Oral Tradition to be like the telephone game.

We see therefore, that the reason why the telephone game fails is that there is no incentive, the game is done in conditions that make it conducive to failing - people are having a good time (partying and drinking), it is whispered (making it difficult to hear) and no-one is interested really in preserving the information. It would be surprising for any telephone game like this to have any degree of accuracy. This is the reason why it is not comparable to the Oral Tradition we have.

It is clear then, that G-d envisaged to have a Torah that was both Written and Oral to give to the people at Mount Sinai - a unique event in human history, and the remnants of this, is here, embodied in the Oral and Written Torah, received together.

The argument for an Oral Torah is the following:

1. The Torah is a closed book without a reliable and accurate Oral Tradition on its preservation and understanding. Everyone accepts that the Written Torah consists only of the letters, in order to precisely pronounce the words, an Oral tradition had to have been present to pronounce and therefore understand the text correctly.

2. The Torah has information and definitions that are not clear and precise. The keys for unlocking these hidden codes had to be given at Sinai (G-d says so).

3. Oral Traditions are reliable sources of information. We rely on Oral traditions in presenting history in other parts of the world. There is much research done on this area, suffice to say that Oral Traditions accurately portray information.

4. The Jewish Oral Tradition is not a telephone game:

Within two centuries after the time of Jesus, this Oral Law was so bulky and complex that it had to be written down lest it be forgotten (that’s right, the basics of the Oral Law were now written). This became the Mishnah, which was expanded into what is known as the Talmud over the next few centuries. After that, according to the rabbinic belief, those who studied the Talmud continued to develop and pass down the Oral Law to each succeeding generation. Every religious Jew believes with all his heart that it is impossible to understand the Scriptures or follow God’s Law without these oral traditions.

Incorrect. The realities of persuction (especially Roman (Christian?) persecution) made impossible for the community to continue as a unified whole. The Oral Torah was compiled in 200 CE, 170 years after the alleged death of Jesus. Brown's criticism is leveled where exactly? At the Rabbis of the Mishnah, Talmud? or subsequent Rabbis?

Brown seems to be unclear of the historical realities and significance of his statements. Brown rejects the historiography of the Talmud. The Talmud claims to be an inheritor of past statements long before Jesus, and yet he wishes to transport it to 500 CE, away from Jesus.

Brown rejects the Talmud and Mishnah, not on their own terms, without any support for his assertions. He simply makes overreaching opinions based on his own preconceived notions of the Talmud. does Brown cite Seder Olam? Only when it suits him - to delegitimize Rabbinic Judaism, he seems to have such an intimate relationship with, he only bothers to cite his personal experience of a few cursory men in gray beards.

So much for academic rigor and critical analysis he craved for in his youth, he now rejects Rabbinic scholarship on the grounds that it is uncritical and has a rose-colored view of scripture, and yet, Brown does the same in his own critique. Now who is the hypocrite?

Has Brown done a social study of religious views? Has he entertained the religious zionist Israeli, or the Rosh Yeshiva (head of a Talmudic Academy)? Maybe Dr Brown has interviewed the head of Lithuanian Jewry, to determine the views of all religious Jews? The irony is that Brown didn't bother to provide the sources and citation because there is none, yet Brown has the courage to speak for all religious Jews, when he himself admits he has no religious upbringing, and has not learned in a Yeshiva. Brown is fundamentally opposed to Rabbinic Judaism, and yet, offers himself as a voice for the religious Jews, he seems to do despise and admonish, who themselves are ideologically opposed to him.

And what happens when an observant Jew is approached by a Jewish believer in Jesus? The believer is regarded as an ignorant newcomer, and his interpretations are totally scorned: “We have an unbroken tradition going back to Moses! How dare you differ with us! How dare you try to teach us!” Yes, tradition carries quite a lot of weight. And it can stop people from thinking for themselves. (I find it amusing, to say the least, when Orthodox Jews tell me that I have been brainwashed!)

The same line again Dr Brown. How sad that your emotional feelings and sentiment block your way to honest searching. The ad hominems are unbecoming to your academic stature. I find it amusing, that you criticize people for their shortcomings, and yet when it comes to academic rigor, you provide no sources, little argument, and a lot of emotional baggage. Not to mention direct violations of verses such as:

Leviticus 19
14 "'Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord. 15 "'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 "'Do not go about spreading slander among your people. "'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord. 17 "'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. 18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Notwithstanding the fact that Dr Brown has distorted how Jews read their own Scripture.

A cursory glance at Christian scriptural exegesis reveals that you can't read scripture without clear analysis. Take for example Genesis 1:1.

The first word: Bereishis / בראשית is in the construct state, as Rashi proves from various readings in Tanakh. Yet, no Christian scholar has provided solid answers to Rashi's arguments, and still translate it in the absolute. Why? The word is construct as is evidenced from many other places in the Tanakh.

Dr Brown. You criticize Jews for interpreting scripture according to an Oral Tradition, which they show to be from Sinai - a direct statement from G-d. You yourself admit that these statements require answers, and you yourself have claimed that these are to be answered in your forthcoming book. If it is true that Jews are 'brainwashed' as you wish to claim, why do you require a whole book devoted to the subject? If they're delusional, there is no need for a legitimate 'scholarly' response.

Now you can better understand why so many Jews with whom believers try to dialog will immediately say: “I have to ask my rabbi. He will tell me what that verse really means. He will look it up in his books.”

Its a tall order Dr Brown to expect every religious Jew to be well versed in every verse in the Tanakh. According to the Christian count of verses is: 23 145 verses. I don't think Christians or Messianic Christians are well-versed in every book of the Bible. How many Christians are aware of the book of Esther or the details listed in Ezra? Christians are very well versed in well-known popular Missionary verses such as Isaiah 53, or Isaiah 7. But what about Isaiah 54? or Obadiah?

Is every Jew expected to understand everything in the Tanakh, fluently without hinderence? Christians have their own commentators - Matthew Henry, James Fauscett Brown, the International Biblical Commentary. Are Christians expected to know all their sources fluently, above flaw, and without resort to asking their priest? If the answer is no, which I think it is, Brown should adopt the same standards with his Jewish brethren and allow them the chance to ask their Rabbis for help in understanding the text. Then again, Brown is not one for offering objective standards on this issue.

The second point I wish to address is that Brown, equally has to refer to books in understanding the text. Brown's disdain for Rabbis and their understanding, is subterfuge for dishonesty. I can't look at all points of view to understand G-d's intended message? If Brown typifies the height of scholarship, and intellectual prowess, and his love for seeking knowledge is so great, which he seems to loftily imply in his introduction: "So it was that I began to study Hebrew in college. If my faith was based on truth, it could withstand honest academic scrutiny. If Jesus was really the Jewish Messiah, I had nothing to fear. Serious questions deserved serious answers, and I was determined to follow the truth wherever it led, regardless of the consequences."

If the truth takes one on a journey to Rabbinical Scholarship so be it, who is Dr Brown to criticize those that do? Double standards Dr Brown - you want Jews to approach their Rabbis for understanding, but you yourself have studied the major commentators...

You see, the rabbinic Jew believes that the further back in time you go, the closer you get to the original revelation at Mount Sinai (kind of like a thirty-five-hundred-year-old game of “telephone”). And Talmudic tradition teaches that, since the days of Moses, we have been on a steady spiritual decline. This is all the more reason that we have to depend on the views of the earlier generations! They were closer to those who received the original revelation, and they were on a higher spiritual plane. They can tell us what the Scripture means. Talk about reading the Bible through colored glasses!

And Brown's glasses are obviously not colored. Yet, he ignores verses that explicitly tell us that G-d has no form, that G-d is singular, only without definition. G-d requests time and again to follow His laws to do what G-d says, yet does Brown follow what G-d says, or does he opt for Paul's way out in Romans 2? If Brown adopts Deuteronomy 4:2, why isn't Brown ignoring the writings of the apostles who came thousands of years after Sinai, I mean, according to Brown we should all be Bible-literalists. I think Brown is the one who is reading the bible through colored glasses, or more correctly darkened shades.

Are the Traditions True?
“But,” someone might ask, “how can you be so sure that these traditions aren’t true? Why do you say that they don’t provide the correct interpretations?” The answers are simple: 1) They take for themselves an authority that the Scriptures never gave them. 2) They put the voice of earthly reason on a higher plane than the prophetic word from heaven. 3) They contradict the plain meaning of the Scriptures. 4) At times they even contradict the voice of God. 5) There is no biblical evidence for an unbroken chain of tradition and plenty of evidence against it.

Remember - lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
1. Brown didn't provide citation. Exo 13, 18, Lev 26:46, Deut 17:8-12 reveals that G-d indeed provided the mechanism for an Oral Torah. I would also like to point out that the Talmud has on it, on average, 3-4 Scriptural references per folio. That means that the discussions are of a scriptural nature.

2. Who determined earthly reason? Who was it that created the heavens and earth and man, and all that man created? G-d Himself. If logic and reason is to be rejected, in favor of higher heavenly prophetic words, then Brown would have us all being blinded with gouged eyes, and walking around with crutches.

3. But lets take Brown's statement at face value. If there is no Oral tradition, then tell us Brown, who determined a Beis is pronounced "B", who determined that "Tzitzis" means fringes, and the slaughtering as "G-d commanded" how do you do it, and how did Moses know? The reality is that Brown's argument makes little logical sense. The Torah is ambiguous and can be read in a variety of ways, is Brown's way more objectively correct (tainted by the writings of Paul and the Apostles, written 1000s of years after Sinai), any more right than the Rabbis, who have a logical basis and source for their statements? Lets face it, to make the claim that there is no Oral tradition, is like telling a group of Zulus that their King, Shaka Zulu is a figment of their own deluded imagination. Brown's statement is ahistorical, and the biggest support that the Sadducees, even existed is the work of the Talmud, if we fail to admit the Talmud as an historical document on at least equal merit to other cultures (namely the Aztecs and Incas - who had no specific writing or written testimony),then we should give up on most of non-recorded history. Brown has failed to appreciate the historical ramifications of his valueless diatribe against the Rabbis.

Nonetheless, Dr Brown fails to appreciate that the logic exemplified in the Talmud (a fortiori for example) is expressed in the Torah itself (for more elaboration click here).

Exodus 6:12
But Moses said to the Lord, "If the Israelites will not listen to me, why would Pharaoh listen to me, since I speak with faltering lips?"

Moses uses a fortiori - a minor statement deduced from a major statement - If the Israelites - my own people won't listen, all the more so, Pharoah who is not even one of the people of Israel, would not listen to me.

This is what is termed a Kal V'Chomer in Talmudic terms, and is used all over. According to Brown however, we cannot use such logic, since it overrides prophetic wisdom. When it comes to prophetic wisdom, maybe Brown should follow the Torah, and since the Torah allows the usage of fortioris, I think Brown should concede the point that its use in understanding Scripture is certainly permitted.

3. Brown asserts that the Oral Torah contradicts the Written scripture. Before we assess this statement. Brown should understand that Written scripture contradicts Written scripture.

Consider the following:

Leviticus 23.3:
Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation; you shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to HASHEM in all your dwellings.

Leviticus 23.7-8:
In the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work. And you shall bring an offering made by fire to HASHEM seven days; the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.

Imagine I am new to this religion from Sinai, and G-d says to me, that the seventh day is a day of solemn rest, where I cannot 'work'. Aside from the definitional problems inherent in the meaning of the words: 'rest' and 'work', it is quite clear in the text that there is the ability to labor for six days. The next paragraph, tells me, the first day and the seventh days are days of 'holy convocation', and I cannot do any 'laborious work'. Well, which is it? Can I work on the six days or not? Anyone who wishes to follow this rulebook would find it very difficult to put into practice the contradictory statements here and elsewhere.

You cannot say that since the Torah is giving basic guidelines, as long as you fulfill its basic criteria, this would acceptable. You would be unable to explain and justify your not working or working on the 'days of convocation', since the Torah has given two verses with the opposite outcome. It must be that there is some explanation that can resolve these difficulties in the text, if not, you have an inherent problem in determining what to do.

I would like Brown to clarify the words above without the use of Rabbinical statements. The fact that the text itself contradicts itself, is not necessarily a problem in reliability. Imagine that your mother tells you not to talk to strangers. On a different occassion she tells you to go down to the corner store to buy a carton of milk. Is the first statement a contradiction to the second? No. Obviously your mother is referring to a particular context and environment in which she wishes that you do not talk to strangers. If the corner store salesman is a stranger, you may talk to him, to obtain the carton of milk. This is not a contradiction but rather an application of the rules. Your mother said two seemingly contradictory statements that when applied in two different contexts can be shown to be not at all contradictory.

The same is true of Rabbinic statements that seemingly override the Torah are simply applications of other verses applied in different contexts and scenarios.

4. Rabbinic statements are the voice of G-d. G-d Himself spoke oral dictations to Moses - (Cf. Exo 13). To therefore claim that this is an inherant problem is simply a misunderstanding of the facts. Nonetheless, see 3.

5. Israel was at the height of its greatness for thousands of years. The Tanakh is a remarkably well-preserved document. Isn't it interesting that so few prophets are recorded. Why are Jeremiah and Isaiah favored as leaders over others? Why was Devorah, Samson and Shmuel Chosen as judges and leaders over others? There were thousands of righteous individuals in Israel, why couldn't they equally have rights and abilities? Dr Brown fails to appreciate that there is a chain of tradition, its called the Tanakh, each successive judge/prophet (as listed in Exo 18, Deut 17:8-12), passed down a chain of information to the next generation:

Numbers 11
The LORD said to Moses: "Bring me seventy of Israel's elders who are known to you as leaders and officials among the people. Have them come to the Tent of Meeting, that they may stand there with you.
24 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the Tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again. 26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the Tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses' aide since youth, spoke up and said, "Moses, my lord, stop them!" 29 But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!" 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

We have discussed already that Moses set up judges among Israel to offer the chance of the people to resolve disputes. The chain of Moses's leadership was passed to Joshua -

Numbers 27
15 Moses said to the Lord, 16 "May the Lord, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community 17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the Lord's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd." 18 So the Lord said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in." 22 Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses.

Joshua continues this tradition....I think this establishes a chain of tradition. Nonetheless, Brown's denial of this, needs citation and proof. Denial is not proof Brown, I can also deny the evidence and the truth. So much for academic rigor. Brown neglects to inform his audience, that for every period in history there is a clear named authority (authorities) as sources for the Oral Torah. Please cite evidence that these authorities lied to their communities. Please cite the first person who lied.

Before I give you some examples, I want you to understand that this is not a matter of finding minor contradictions and interpretative difficulties. No. The issues here deal with the very heart and soul of traditional Judaism, a religion which stands or falls on its traditions.

Brown seems to think that Rabbinic Judaism is about traditions 'customs'. Brown is wrong here. Rabbinic Judaism has its basis solidly and firmly in the Torah.

The question that every honest Jew must ask is: What if the Bible says one thing and my traditions say another? Will I follow God or will I follow man?

Should I follow what G-d says to follow, or follow what Brown says to follow? Brown assumes that the Talmud, (aka Rabbinics) is made up man-made statements. Yet, Traditional Judaism argues that these are the Oral directions of G-d Himself. Now Brown is offering double standards - accept the premise Brown, and argue - accept that Rabbinic Judaism is G-d given since this is the standard of evidence to which we are judging, and then show that it is flawed on its own terms! You see Christianity makes the same mistake - we should assume that Christianity is right, because it assumes that Jesus is a continuation of the message...Yet, Brown adopts double standards.

It is not a question of whether these Jewish leaders were evil men and deceivers. Most of them were zealous for their faith. They sought to lead good lives and please the Lord. But were they right? Did their traditions really originate with God or did they originate with man? Let’s take a careful look. None of the examples that follow are taken out of context in any way. They are plain and straightforward.

First, let’s see what traditional Judaism says of itself. According to the contemporary Orthodox scholar H. Chaim Schimmel, the Jewish people “do not follow the literal word of the Bible, nor have they ever done so. They have been fashioned and ruled by the verbal interpretation of the written word ….”

I find it interesting that Brown doesn't cite the actual Talmudic sources, but rather what others say about the Talmud. lets provide some logic please Dr Brown. You see, the arguments presented above are logical arguments, built on logic and reason. They are scriptural, and have solid foundation in the Tanakh.

Nonetheless, What is Schimmel's relevance here? You offered a citation (which I would like to point out is out of context, since you failed to provide the context in which he wrote. Am I to accept your citations Brown? You have not shown your knowledge or field of expertise as qualified to provide information on this subject. Your Ph.D. deals in ancient Semitic languages - granted. But what about Talmudic qualifications? What about your knowledge of Rishonim and Achronim? Have you read שו"ת הרא"ש? A very comprehensive analysis of these issues.

Nonetheless, what is Schimmel's source for his assertion? You simply cited a view. Who is Schimmel you proffer as proof that all of Rabbinic Judaism accepts such a view?

As expressed by Rabbi Z. H. Chajes, a leading nineteenth-century authority, the Talmud indicates that the words “that were transmitted orally” by God are “more valuable” than those transmitted in writing. Chajes goes so far as to say that: “Allegiance to the authority of the said rabbinic tradition is binding upon all sons of Israel …. And he who does not give adherence to the unwritten Law and the rabbinic tradition has no right to share the heritage of Israel ....”

Brown makes things too easy. Again you cite modern scholars who, as you yourself point out are considered with disdain by Rabbinic authorities. Please cite older, more revered scholarship Dr Brown.

But again, you cite scholars, but do not provide their arguments. What is their source for their views?

How can such a claim be made? The rabbis assert that it is the Bible itself that gives them the exclusive authority to interpret Torah and develop new laws. They find support for this in Deuteronomy 17:8-12, probably the most important text in the Bible for rabbinic Judaism. This is what the verses say:

This is one set of verses. Emphasis mine:

If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.

What Moses is clearly saying is that in every generation the Levitical priests and the current “judge” in Jerusalem would function as a kind of Supreme Court, a court of final appeal, the likes of which exist today in many nations around the world, including Israel and the United States. This court would be responsible for settling disputes regarding various legal matters such as homicide, civil law, and assaults. That’s it!

Dr Brown's hypocrisy stands out for all to see. Dr Brown wants us to follow and revere only scripture. Only the words themselves. Then there is no comparison to the Supreme Court. G-d didn't say anything about courts and supreme courts like the nations around the world.

Nonetheless, who told Brown that it refers only civil matters and matters pertaining to lawsuits between parties. Reuven has a meat store, he sells meat to Jews, one day Shimon claims that the meat he bought wasn't kosher, and that he would like his money back. Since Brown's interpretation excludes matters relating to the Spiritual explanations of the law, the judges do not make a judgment. Shimon decides he wants to prove a point and assaults Reuven. According to Brown, this is reason to find Shimon guilty of assault. However the only reason is because the judges didn't act in the first place. A ridiculous point, but nonetheless shows the ridiclousness of Brown's argument. the Judges are there not just for criminal cases, but all cases of dispute and questions of doubt: Cf. Exo 18. Deut 16:18 is a clear admonishment to establish judges in all towns and for all matters (given the context above in Deut 16, it is clear that even spiritual matters are to be decided upon by judges).

The text does not give any authority to subsequent generations of rabbis around the world (where does it even mention rabbis?), nor does it give anyone authority to tell all Jews when to pray, what to pray, how to slaughter their cattle, what to believe about the Messiah, when to visit the sick, whether or not one can write on the Sabbath, and on and on and on. Nothing of the sort! Yet, it is from this little text that the sages have derived so much power.

Rabbi means teacher, there have always been teachers in Israel. Cf. Deut 17:8-12.

Ezr 7:21 Now I, King Artaxerxes, order all the treasurers of Trans-Euphrates to provide with diligence whatever Ezra the priest, a teacher of the Law of the God of heaven, may ask of you--

the word Rabbi occurs as the concept of Officer, promotion, and increase:
Daniel 2:48, Jer 39:13.

But so what if we use an Aramaic word to describe a teacher. Its biblical: Deut 17:8-12 - these are the Rabbis of the Torah, and we have our Rabbis (teachers) today. 'Rabbis' includes Judges. Most of the Rabbis' statements of the Talmud, are really judgments made by the Great Sanhedrin etc.

And Brown has a problem with power control? The issue isn't whether or not Rabbis have power or not. The issue is whether or not Rabbinical instruction is biblically mandated.

Brown's statement really echo Korach's arguments:

Numbers 16
1 Korah son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and certain Reubenites--Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, and On son of Peleth--became insolent 2 and rose up against Moses. With them were 250 Israelite men, well-known community leaders who had been appointed members of the council. 3 They came as a group to oppose Moses and Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" .....9 Isn't it enough for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the rest of the Israelite community and brought you near himself to do the work at the Lord's tabernacle and to stand before the community and minister to them? 10 He has brought you and all your fellow Levites near himself, but now you are trying to get the priesthood too. 11 It is against the Lord that you and all your followers have banded together. Who is Aaron that you should grumble against him?"

12 Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, "We will not come! 13 Isn't it enough that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it over us? 14 Moreover, you haven't brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you gouge out the eyes of these men? No, we will not come!" ....

They were rejected and swallowed up:

31 As soon as he finished saying all this, the ground under them split apart 32 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, with their households and all Korah's men and all their possessions. 33 They went down alive into the grave, with everything they owned; the earth closed over them, and they perished and were gone from the community. 34 At their cries, all the Israelites around them fled, shouting, "The earth is going to swallow us too!"

Korach's argument was based on greed, and ego driven for the selfish motivation of power and control. Brown's attack seems to suggest that he doesn't like it when the Rabbi's have control, even though it is biblically mandated.

As for verse 11, which says, “Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left,” this was actually interpreted by the thirteenth-century commentator Nachmanides to mean: “Even if it seems to you as if they are changing ‘right’ into ‘left’ ... it is incumbent on you to think what they say is ‘right’ is ‘right.’” Why? Because the Spirit of God is on them, and the Lord will keep them from error and from stumbling.3 This is quite a claim! If the sages tell you that left is right, you are to follow the sages.

Let us analyze the Ramban's statement:

פסוק יא
ימין ושמאל. אפילו אם אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל או על שמאל שהוא ימין, לשון רש"י. וענינו, אפילו תחשוב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו, וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם ר"ג ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (ר"ה כה.):
והצורך במצוה הזאת גדול מאד, כי התורה נתנה לנו בכתב, וידוע הוא שלא ישתוו הדעות בכל הדברים הנולדים, והנה ירבו המחלוקות ותעשה התורה כמה תורות. וחתך לנו הכתוב הדין, שנשמע לבית דין הגדול העומד לפני השם במקום אשר יבחר בכל מה שיאמרו לנו בפירוש התורה, בין שקבלו פירושו עד מפי עד ומשה מפי הגבורה, או שיאמרו כן לפי משמעות המקרא או כוונתה, כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן (ס"א לנו) להם התורה, אפילו יהיה בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל, וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין, כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו, לעולם נשמרו מן הטעות ומן המכשול. ולשון ספרי (שופטים קנד) אפילו מראין בעיניך על הימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין שמע להם:

Right or left. Even if [the judge of the Great Sanhedrin] says right, that it is left, or left and it is right [you must obey him] (according to Rashi). In my eyes, even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is clear in your eyes, just as you know the difference between your righthand and lefthand, you should do as they commanded you and do not say: how could I eat this [forbidden] fat or execute this innocent man. But rather say: this is how I was commanded by the Master of the commandments that I shall perform all his commands, in accordance with all that they, who stand before Him in the place that He shall choose, teach me to do (v. 10). The implication is He gave me the Torah as taught by them, even if they were to err. this is the case of Rabbi Yehoshua with Rabban Gamliel on the day of Yom Kippur that fell on what he calculated (See Rosh Hashanah 25a).

Now the need for this commandment is very great, for the Torah was given to us in written form and it is known that not all opinions concur on newly arising matters. Disagreements would thus increase and the one Torah would become many Torahs. 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, wether 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 [the judgment] appears to you to exchange right for left. And surely you are obligated to think that they say "right" what is truly right, because G-d's spirit is upon the ministers of His Sanctuary, (Ezekiel 45:4) and He does not abandon His saints; they are preserved forever (Psalms 37:28) from, error and stumbling. In the language of the Sifre (Shoftim 154): "Even if they show you before your own eyes that right is left and that left is right - obey them!"

Brown failed to mention a few critical points.

1. The verses are referring to the Great Sanhedrin (Court), and not all judges and courts of all time for all places.

2. The Great Sanhedrin (Court) which was seated on the Temple Mount partly inside the Temple Area. Indicating that this is G-d's intention that holiness and G-d's law are synonymous. By implication the Divine will rests on the judgments that were passed by these courts. The Ramban has sources for these assertions - the context of Deut 17, Ezekiel 45:4 and Psalms 37:28).

3. When it comes to the Great Sanhedrin, what seems contrary to you, you should follow them. The obvious point is that they're doing what is just and what G-d wants, but it seems to you that the jugdmemt is the opposite.

4. Brown failed to include the Ramban's interpretation of the Gemara he cited in Bava Basra 12a related to this point:

אלא הכי קאמר אע"פ שנטלה נבואת הנביאים שהוא המראה והחזון, נבואת החכמים שהיא בדרך החכמה לא נטלה, אלא יודעים האמת ברוח הקדש שבקרבם.

The Ramban writes that the level is not the same attributed to that of the prophets of Tanakh afforded to the Rabbis, and wise of Israel - they receive Ruach Hakodesh - a Holy Spirit in the form of wisdom from G-d.

5. Brown failed to address the point that the citation of Bava Basra 12a-b is referring to the period after the destruction of the Second Temple. Whereas the argument from Deut 17, is talking about when the Temple is standing.