Prove that the Oral Law is Authentic! Rabbi Tovia Singer responds to pressing question

Rabbi Tovia Singer responds to a pressing question at a live Houston lecture: How can you demonstrate that the Oral Torah is from God?
Let’s Get Biblical Study Guide (Volume 1 & 2) outreachjudais....
Help us combat aggressive evangelization in Israel: outreachjudais...
outreachjudais... www.toviasinger...
@NETIV Netiv Torah Center

[@osvaldolopez9972]

I never imagine I was going to hear what Jews had to say.when I was a Christian I had many questions in my mind and I desire so much to hear how Jews interpret the bible.thank God.really nice done tovia

[@SilviaSumberaz1]

Thanks ❤

[@jackflash128]

i have learned much from you especially how to find the hebrew meaning of words thank you אח קטן

[@ChildOfGod-sq7qg]

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the Word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the Commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

[@rightclick7266]

The Oral Law did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

[@ChildOfGod-sq7qg]

@@rightclick7266The law of Moses is the divine Word of Hashem himself Oral Law was never given by Hashem on Mount Sinai, it is nothing more than urban legend.Nowadays, it is simply impossible to keep the commandments of the Torah, as they revolve around the Temple, the Tabernacle, the priesthood, the altar and the heart of it all: Sacrificing offerings to atone for our sins. This has all ceased to exist since the destruction of the Temple, 2000 years ago. Today, the expression “Torah observant represents people who follow rabbinic rules. There is almost no connection to Moses and his original commandments anymore.Truth be told, the rabbis have played the most sophisticated scheme on the nation of Israel: They made us all think that rabbinic rules and traditions, which were invented by them, are in fact “the Law of Moses it proves Deuteronomy 4:2 was right You shall not add to the word which I command you are saying God made mistake rabbi ?

[@BigJFindAWay]

Kind of like Jesus.

[@theburningelement.6447]

Thank you tovia when people say thay lost the original language I'm like oh really lol never lost

[@garlandjones7709]

not completely

[@mitzvahgolem8366]

Since Jesus never wrote anything or had a scribe and no one has the original new testament only koine greek from 125ce.....it in itself is an "oral tradition" Talmud itself..lmao

[@lucienlagarde8093]

The septugint has nothing to do with the MT. The MT is the forgery of the Jews after the destruction of the temple . The church fathers believe the septugint and this is protected word of Moses written by those who believe in the God of Moses the high priest eleazar around the 250 BC that ordained the 70 elders who is the grand son of onais this is what we got from people who believe in God.

[@shortfilmwithpuppets9098]

The oral Torah in multiple places contradicts the written Torah and god cannot contradict himself

[@Isaac5123]

Where does it contradict?

[@ganuv]

If you would study properly you wouldn’t make that comment, there is no contradiction between the written and the oral at all , in fact without the oral Torah you can’t commit 90% of the commandments. So study first before you make foolish comments

[@judahmaccabee2098]

Ben Asher was a Karaite. Karaites are the Masoretes, and maintainers of the written law.

[@npickard4218]

This was a marvelous shiur.

[@MikeJones-lh2rz]

I like his videos, but this is a really weak argument distracting from the issue. It's intentionally misleading and doesn't answer the question.

[@marthagonzalez595]

Whenever he says... "This is very simple.." It's because it's a big problem. Rabinic Judaism or the oral law can not be found anywhere before 200-150 before Christ.

[@barrys.9040]

@@marthagonzalez595 That's not really true. All of it was know to Jews from the time we received the Torah on Mt. Sinai. The Rabbis just wrote it down and debated using written sources to make sure what they transcribed was accurate. They also discussed how to apply it to new situations. They couldn't make up anything.

[@rightclick7266]

How is it misleading? Which question did he not answer? He explained how there must have been an Oral Torah along with the Written One and gave concrete examples why. Even though Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees usage of the Oral Torah he wasn't denying its existence (as shown in that whole part about circumcision.)

[@MikeJones-lh2rz]

There never was an oral Torah. Rabbinic Judaism is a fraud. Do the research people.

[@Webin4rm]

The oral law is alluded to a number times in the prophets. Check out Rabbi Singers you tube channel for examples.

[@user-tr4op2fm7v]

Entire New Testament is an oral tradition.

[@Dogeathotdog1]

In idolatry

[@lucienlagarde8093]

@@Dogeathotdog1 what is idolatry ?

[@blake4013]

@@lucienlagarde8093worship of any god(s) that are not G-d (this is the religious, at least in Judaism, perspective and definition)

[@blake4013]

No it’s not

[@rza221]

Nope. It all affirms the Torah

[@gokhan_duran]

Second. Thank you Rabbi.

[@ChristianHaner-d3h]

Where can I download your lecture of the oral Torah?

[@fidelcatsro6948]

Third catso here . Gracias amigo!

[@saimbhat6243]

Regarding absence of signs/symbols for vowel sounds in old hebrew. Only thing needed to remedy that would have been the knowledge of correct pronunciations of the words in hebrew passages. Certainly the pronunciation of words has to be unambiguous and unique??

[@AbrahamsBridges]

We know that oral Torah existed well before the split of the kingdom. The Samaritan Israelites have many of the same practices as Jews that can only be found in oral Torah, such as not eating meat and dairy. So, we can assume that oral Torah has been around at least for a really long time.

[@ladybistre9596]

How can people really think that G-d has to write down every minutia detail? How cumbersome. G-d gave his statutes but how to interpret it into context or apply for a given situation needs further detail that our rabbis help determine. It's like teaching a pilot to fly a plane with just a book and no teacher or class. You need a teacher who will teach you the knowledge and expound it.

[@Sam-fp8zm]

He is talking about the Niqqud, and not the talmud. He dodged he question successfully.

[@ladybistre9596]

Did you miss the part that the vowel system came from the oral torah? Before it was written down later it was maintained in the mesorah - the oral torah.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

"Without the Oral Torah ruth could not have converted to Judaism". This is such a flimsy statement. Did ruth exist, when was the text of ruth written, if this is so important why is this not mentioned in Judges.

[@Justin-hs2kf]

Rabbi's king!

[@RoseSharon7777]

Sir, Can you explain why Elohim in Genesis is not referring to YHWH and his 7 spirits (Isaiah 11). It seems to make sense that this is why Elohim is a plural noun. Thank you very much.

[@ToviaSinger1]

I answer this question in this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5yaZYemhaimftU

[@haztochekacharon6353]

Seems youtube wont post in the original thread of 3weeks ago. Lechvod Harav Singer, Shana Tova, Veiter. Mesechta Shabbat Daf 88 Amud B, is totally Midrashic. "If you want to recognize the One who spoke and the world came into being, learn aggada." (Sifrei, Devarim 49) So Midrash Aggada has a place, and in my humble opinion should have more attention paid to it and the lessons it teaches and often new Chidushim it may inspire within the person himself who is reading it. But Midrash is not Torah. . As far as the fatherless daugthers, we see that Hashem answer was like the terms of a Will. No sons, give it to the daughter, No children at all, give it to the Fathers family, his brothers for example if the deceased had siblings etc and failing all of these, give it to whoever come closest to the father in his family This example would have come to Moshe using Avraham Avinus plea with Hashem for the righteous that might be living in Sdom. 50 devolved to ten, so Moshe on this concept could in his wisdom have conceived of a devolving system of inheritance. Of course the tribe of Mannashe were concerned about them marrying into another tribe and their land would belong to the collective of the other tribe, an Island of one tribe in the middle of another. Again the answer to them to marry withing their own tribe, was very sound and logical, Chochma and Sechel would have answered this whole issue. I feel Hashems inclusion here was already a violation of "Lo Bashamayim Hee" and that Moshe and all involved would have come to the same answers as Hashem had when given time and serious thought. 2. Simply put, a hidden matter of justice was really the whole reason for writing the Talmud. Precedent. Many Machlokets are adjucated based on earlier examples from the Talmud and Torah. The Talmud is the minds of our wise ones. Not an Oral Torah. Again we know "Lo Bashamyim etc...." was invoked as a reason to disregard a loud and clear Bat Kol from Hashem to follow one Rav over the majority in the case at hand. Now Sukkot: An example. You shall dwell in Sukkot seven days, every citizen in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot, so that your descendants shall know that in sukkot I caused the Children of Israel to dwell when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. And there are all sorts of dinim as to how what and where to build it. We would know how to build a Sukkah just as we know what a tent is and dont need a Oral Torah as regards an Ohel. In the Torah, all mentions of habitation talk about an Ohel, and this is part of my limud to understand what the true meaning of this pasuk is. Bnai Israel dwelt in Tents, we always use the word Ohel, but never do we hear that somebody went home to his Sukkah. So there must a different reason for this Mitzvah then saying because we dwelt in booths when we came out of Egypt, no we dwelt in tents and herein my search among the Chachamim for clarification yet to be found. In the second box I will post a Polemic I found between Frum Yid and Karaiim regarding the Ba'al Peh. It brought up a lot of points in my view to clear the fog that asks questions and points out inconsistency's in the story of the origin of the Talmud itself. I see from listening to you shows that you are someone who is well read in Theology of many religions and therefore can understand why I am at odds with some of the Hashkafah we use as regards the Torah. And Im not a Karaite either, nor an atheist nor a Messianic Jew. Hashem has been ever so good to me and my family in way you wouldn't believe, I have great Emunah in Hashem, but you would have to walk in my shoes to feel the Chesed he has shown an ordinary Jew like myself when it happens its heartstopping when you realize Hashem has answered a Tefillah for ezrah that you made and forgot about till he grants it to you. For the record, I studied for some time with Harav Wasserman Simcha bin Elchonon and with others in Kollels and home limud as well with chaverim. With Kol Kavod to the Rav, Hakodesh Baruch Hu Haer Einecha Bechol Maasei Breisheit and thank especially you for what you are doing to rescue Neshamot of Klal Israel.

[@haztochekacharon6353]

Caveat. This is a Karaite response, a little bit testy in some places, I was referred to during my studies and though I have no opinion on Karaites either way, all Bnai Israel are precious to me I cant ignore them just because of their beliefs. Their is a book "The Influence of the Catholic Theologian Alfonso Tostado on the Pentateuch Commentary of Isaac Abravanel (The Library of Sephardic History and Thought." An interesting look at Don Itzchak, proving that its possible anyone studying Abarbenel may also be studying a Christian influenced viewpoint on the Torah. But I still hold him very dear. And some Rebbeim consigned Rambams books to the fire when he came out with his Haskafah. So Rabbinic, Karatic or wherever, I try and keep an open mind. Origin of the Oral Torah. With a background on how the President of the Sanhedrin narrowly kept his autocratic role, we can now progress and see how this document was produced. It is claimed by the rabbis that the “oral law” was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, together with the Torah. That alleged “oral law” is supposedly the Mishnah, or contained therein. It is the main purpose of these posts to demonstrate the fallacy of the rabbinic claims. Rashi's commentary on the Talmud is regarded as canonical, so that is how the Talmud is generally understood. The following is a description by Rashi of how the Patriarch, Judah, composed or redacted the Mishnah. Rashi In Bava Metzia 33b “When the students of Shammai and Hillel multiplied… disputes in Torah also multiplied, and it appeared as if there were two different Torahs. This was a consequence of the oppressive decrees of the empire. As a result it became impossible to have the clarity to understand the underlying reasons for halachic disputes. Then, when God showed favor to Rebbi in the eyes of Antoninus, the Jewish people were able to take respite from their oppression. Rebbi then sent for, and gathered, all the scholars in the land of Israel. Up until that time the laws were not arranged according to tractates, but rather each student heard laws orally from someone greater than him, would repeat it, and would label it; halachot A and B I heard from Rabbi C. When all of the scholars were gathered by Rebbi everyone recited what he had heard. Then, they took the effort to understand the underlying reasons for each opinion in each dispute and decided which opinions to preserve. These were then ordered and arranges according to separate tractates… [In addition] Rebbi would anonymously quote the halacha of an individual sage which he approved of in order to establish the Halacha according to him.” This statement is quite contrary to the marketing and flashy advertising of the so-called oral law! It is making several statements which seriously undermine the veracity and authenticity of the rabbinic claims. Here are some of the reasons why: 1) The “Mishnah” is not something that existed in oral form, and was simply put down on paper. It is a collection of disparate statements or claims made by a group of rabbis in a specific time. 2) The alleged oral law was not known to any individual or group of people, in its entirety. There was no mass tradition, not even in the period immediately before the Mishnah was written. 3) Yehudah HaNasi, or “Rebbe” did not know the “oral law”, he had some things he had learned or recorded. He sent out to collect statements from the rabbis as to what they knew or had allegedly heard. 4) There is no proof or even reasonable probability that each of the “gospels” (gospel is used in the New Testament in precisely the same manner, i.e. what each of the authors recalled about the Jesus event) faithfully transmitted what he heard. Perhaps he embellished the story or added his own creations, for personal reasons. 5) Even if the collection of stories did reflect what they had heard from their teachers, this is no proof that it came from Sinai. The Gospels told their recollections of Jesus, but that is not a proof to their claim that Jesus was the Messiah etc. Similarly, the various Hadiths tell of their stories about Mohammed, but this is not a proof that Mohammed was a prophet or that the Koran was a God given successor to the Torah. These are various collections of discussions, stories etc. To sell such a story, giving it a “divine” claim will help in gaining adherents. 6) The rabbis tell us that to practice Judaism, we need the oral law, and that it is not possible to do so without it. Thus the general public would have had to have known the oral law, just like today the orthodox public know the Shulchan Aruch. But this is not the case, and never was. The public who were Torah observant, did not know the oral law, even at time of writing, and certainly not during the 2nd temple period. Thus, if the claim of the rabbis was indeed true, the public would also know all the various laws, yet they were not approached to refresh the memory of the rabbis. However, there were certain practices which went back to the early Pharisees, and these would have been known, eg the Omer, the Etrog etc. These only go back to the emergence of the Pharisees, which is around 150 BCE, or at the time of their conflict with the Maccabees. In the early 2nd Temple period, even these were not known, and Ezra was not a party to the Oral law. 7) Rashi states “When the students of Shammai and Hillel multiplied…disputes in Torah also multiplied, and it appeared as if there were two different Torahs.” The rabbis claim that the Oral Law was handed down by the Prophets, for over 1000 years prior to the destruction of the Temple. They claim that Torah practice is simply not possible without the Oral Law. If there was an uninterrupted transmission, as they claim, and the people were all practicing the Torah according to the oral law, how could disputes arise among the greatest rabbis in history? If the written Law is ambiguous, and the oral law is clear, why were the sages unclear about what the actual oral law was? And had the practice of the masses been changing or divided? It is ironic that the very people who allege the Torah is ambiguous, are suddenly saying the oral law was ambiguous and in danger of being lost! Furthermore, the same problem occurred even before Hillel vs. Shammai - when the Pharisees emerged, they made a 2nd Torah, to buttress their dispute with the Kohanim. 8) He further attributes this alleged loss of oral law to “This was a consequence of the oppressive decrees of the empire.” How then, did it supposedly survive when the Torah itself was lost and then found by Josiah? Or during the Babylonian exile? 9) A classic argument of the Karaites is that if the oral law was meant to be orally transmitted, why then did it have to be written down? And there is not evidence of its existence in the time of the TNK. The reason given by the rabbins is that it was at risk of being forgotten! But the rabbis state that it was given in such as way that it wouldn’t be forgotten! And once written, it did not solve the disputes it was purportedly going to resolve. Thus every few years even more is written: the Talmud; the Rif; Rambam, Zohar, Shulchan Aruch etc. What is the point of having had an oral law if it has been in writing for the past 200o years? 10) The Rabbis claim a chain of transmission from Moses to the redactors of the Mishnah and Talmud, for example Maimonides does this in his introduction to his legal work “Mishneh Torah”. This claimed transmission can be shown to be false in a number of ways, but the statement of Rashi disproves this claim internally. It is saying that Yehuda HaNasi did not receive the Oral Tradition, but had a limited set of data. He had to gather various contradictory sets of data from a few dozen other rabbis, and then create a book called the Mishnah. 11) Just like an oral contract isn't worth the paper it is written on, so a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. This particular link is already broken, hence there is no way to verify the authenticity of the oral tradition. There are many other weak links, which are being explored on this blog. However, going back in time, you cannot make the argument of an unbroken chain of transmission, when in fact the texts that rabbis rely on describe a broken link. 12) [new] Rashi states that "Rebbi would anonymously quote the halacha of an individual sage which he approved of in order to establish the Halacha according to him" So Yehuda Hanasi is not faithfully transcribing the tradition, he is inserting unnamed sources that he favours, and setting them up as being "halacha". In other words, the claim of an unchanged tradition is false, since the power-broker can make whatever changes he likes, and he will not be challenged because of his political position. This comment by Rashi further undermines the credibility of the Rabbis. To conclude, there is a serious credibility problem surrounding the authenticity of the oral tradition and the veracity of the claims made by rabbis regarding its nature and origins. The statements made by a limited group of rabbis, who were eager to have their names externalised, are nothing more than gospels of a newish rabbinical testament.

[@lightworker4512]

Good post. I am Jewish, but the more I study Judaism, the more I think the Torah is all man made.

[@npickard4218]

Acharon, your entry is the length of a book. Can you respond to the Rabbi's response clearly and methodically without bring up more issues? I'm sure you are a good person with intentions but it appears as though you are deliberately obfuscating. You said, "nowhere in the Talmud" and the Rabbi gave you references from the Talmud. Respond to his response directly.

[@user-fc6tv8rv9f]

Shalom Rabbi, Please let me know if this is correct. The word "Rabbi" (for Teacher/Preacher) is not used in the Old Testament but only in the New Testament. Is the word ""Rabbi" (for Teacher/Preacher) is used in the Oral Law? Thanks

[@Justin-hs2kf]

The term, "rabbi" is the same as "pharisee." It is used countless times in the Talmud (oral law). Also, "judges" as in the Torah, is the prerequisite of the rabbis, so yes.

[@user-fc6tv8rv9f]

+Justin 123 : "Pharisee" is derived from Ancient Greek Pharisaios (Φαρισαῖος) according to Wikipedia. Pharisee is not same word "Rabbi". Is the word Rabbi is used in "judges"? Please let me know which verse.

[@ToviaSinger1]

The word rav or rabbi appears many times in Tanach. It is generally translated as "great" or "great one." See Daniel 2:48, for example. However, it is not used as a title in Tanach. As it turns out, these sort of titles weren't conventionally used very much in Tanach. However, at least as early as the Second Temple Period, this title was formally used to convey that someone is a great teacher, a judge, and Torah scholar. It appears throughout the literature that recorded the Oral Torah. It may have been used conventionally by the Jewish people at an earlier stage in Jewish history, however, almost no extra-biblical literature from the First Temple period survived.

[@khan30905]

RABBIS ARE ALSO MENTION IN QURAN. Q 5-44 >> Indeed, I sent down the Torah, in which is guidance and light. The prophets who submitted judged by Torah for the Jews, as did the rabbis.

[@ToviaSinger1]

Wikipedia is not correct on this matter. The word Pharisees is derived from the Hebrew word פרושים‎, which means those who separate themselves. The common Hebrew root is פרש, which means to seperate. The Greek word Φαρισαῖος is just a transliteration. The ascription פרושים was similar to the term "Orthodox" Jews that we conventionally use today.

[@khan30905]

SHALOM -- RABBI WAY NOT ONLY THE VERSES OF GOD WAY WE NEED INTERPRETATIONS I MEAN THE MAN WORDS THE MAN WORDS ARE TAKING US FAR FROM VERSES OF ALONE. BY FOLLOWING THE INTERPRETATIONS AND THE MAN WORDS MEANS ! WE ARE DOUBTING IN HIS VERSES. Quran 6-154 >>Then I gave Moses the Scripture, making complete My favor upon The one who did good. AND AS A DETAILED EXPLANATION OF ALL THINGS.And as guidance and mercy that perhaps in the meeting with their Lord they would believe. 21-48 >>And I had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion and a light and a reminder for the righteous. One God -- One Book.

[@ToviaSinger1]

Shalom alaychem, dear Khan, As it turns out the Quran is filled with information that only appears in the Oral Torah. This is a fascinating topic.

[@Justin-hs2kf]

Oral law is the same Torah as the written one.

[@khan30905]

IF SAME IS THEN WAY NOT -- ORIGINAL ONE ?

[@Justin-hs2kf]

I'm sorry, you're typing in all caps, kind hard to read? You're saying why there has to be two Torahs? Simple, without the oral Torah, we could not understand the written one. For example, let's take Sabbath. Hashed (G-d) demands we keep it. But He doesn't goes on to explain the "how." Without the ora Torah, Jews the world over would have no knowledge how to please HaShem. Both the oral and written Torah are the same one, the same, original Torah Moses brought down from Sinai. Think of it as two sides of the same coin, one Torah complements the other, without it, we wouldn't be able to observe the Sabbath. Hope this helps.

[@ameenthetrueisraelite8883]

Tovia Singer I was actually going to say that Rabbi! The Quran is filled with stories from the Talmud. So denying the Talmud from a Muslim perspective is pretty dumb.

[@mrhollywood7387]

It was nice having them in Calif. It nice to think before you snack.

[@lesleyncede9781]

Rabbi Singer's response is not convincing. He seems to be confusing the method of transmission (oral) with the thing transmitted (Mosaic Law). But how does the method of transmission become another Law? The Oral Law can be nothing else but the Mosaic Law transmitted orally before the Mosaic Law was written. Once the Mosaic Law was available in a written form, presumably the oral transmission was no longer necessary. But the two forms of the Law continue to exist side by side. Why? The so-called Oral Law has been used by the Rabbis as the spectacles through which to read the Mosaic Law. The tragic result is that the word of God has been set aside for the traditions of man. No wonder the Rabbis are not able to see Jesus Christ in their Hebrew scriptures. The truth is that the Oral Law is a devise invented by Rabbinic Judaism to eliminate Jesus Christ from the collective memory of the Jews.

[@npickard4218]

Lesley, the entire New Testament is an oral tradition. Jesus did not write it himself, nor did he have a scribe. If you have no regard for oral traditions then you should leave Christianity and denounce it.

[@Webin4rm]

There is no way to understand the written Torah without the oral instructions that accompanied it. There are many hints in the written Torah to the existence of an oral Torah. Only the orthodox Rabbis still have and learn the oral Instructions from Sinai. Even today!!

[@heatblair]

Lesley, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

[@RedDwarfism]

You do what they tell you regarding there authority at that time as long as they didn't ask you to do something that God had asked of them.

[@haztochekacharon6353]

Nowhere in the Talmud is it mentioned that Hashem spoke to Moshe Rabbeinu. The Mishnah and Gemrar quote a lot of Rabbis but never quote Moshe verbatim or God verabatim as regards oral Torah. Which is why the issue of the daughters of zelophachad had to go to ask Moses who had to ask God about the inhertiance issue. He surely had no Oral Torah to answer them. He need Hashem to tell him what is up after all that time on top of Sinai Moshe had no answers to this issue.

[@ToviaSinger1]

Your claim is factually incorrect. We find many instances where Moses is quoted in a conversation with the Almighty in the Talmud that is found nowhere in the Torah. Famously, and in context of Mt. Sinai (see Talmud Shabbat 88b) where Moses is quoted as he engaged God and the angels in conversation. Look it up for yourself. Your second point is even more problematic: If everything that we need to know was explicitly in the Torah that God gave Moses, and there was no Oral Torah that could mitigate the written Torah, why would Moses have to consult God about the daughters of Zelafchad? Why didn’t Moses know the answer from the written Torah? Furthermore, the Torah relates that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges. Jethro told Moses, Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go, and the practices they are to follow. (Exodus 18:20). What did Jethro’s suggestion mean? If the Written Law is all that was given, then there would have been nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges. What was Moses supposed to tell them, if not the Oral Law? Moreover, the Torah states: If a matter of judgement is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities-you shall rise up and ascend to the place that the Lord, your God, shall choose. You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement. You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that God will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you. According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left. (Deuteronomy 17:8-11) What knowledge could possibly be “hidden” if the Written Torah was the only revelation conveyed at Mt. Sinai? If there was no Oral Law, the only basis for judgement is contained in the Written Torah, which is available and open for anyone to study.

[@ToviaSinger1]

Shalom Khan

[@khan30905]

Shalom Rabbi Muslims Are Also Doing Samething With Quran. THEY ARE SAYING you cant understand quran without hadith books.WICH IS 1000% WRONG. RABBI WE ARE BROTHERS -- BECAUSE OF HIS VERSES.BUT HADITH BOOKS ARE APPOSITE THE QURAN. HADITH FOLLOWERS ARE SAYING TORAH IS CORRUPTED. ZAKIR NAIK IS BUSY TO CONVERTING THE PEOPLE OF BOOKS TO HIS GROUP.THIS IS BECAUSE HE DONT UNDERSTAND QURAN.HE IS FOLLOWING HADITH BOOKS AND IMAMS. Quran 5-48 >>To each of you I prescribed a law and a method. Had God willed, He would have made you one nation. But God intended to test you in what He has given you So race to good things with another . To God is your return all together, and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ. Quran 2-62 >>Indeed, those who have believed and those who are Jews or Christians or Sabeans - Those among them who believed in God and the Last Day and did righteous - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve. THATSWAY GOD SAYS -- O Mohammad , I have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know. Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are standing on nothing until you FOLLOW YOUR OWN BOOKS.The Torah and The Gospel.And that which has been revealed to you from your God. Quran 34-28 & 5-68

[@ToviaSinger1]

Thank you Khan. I appreciate your comments. As you know, I have friends and listeners who follow all Muslim sects. You also know that this Jew is smart enough not to get in the middle of these intra-Islamic disputes. Perhaps that is why Jews and Muslims got along fairly well over the centuries. We stayed out of the crossfire~ Asalum alechem

[@khan30905]

Salaam / Shalom -- Bro Follow, [O mankind], what has been revealed to you from your Lord and do not follow other than Him any allies. Little do you remember. Verses of Alone Q 07-03

[@cindystevens4035]

The dead sea scrolls belong on a ash heap

[@yodhin79]

I think Torah-only Judaism is the real deal.

[@uriel7203]

Could you please wxplain to me Zachariah 7: 4-6? What fasts are being referenced here? Thanks.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

According to the bible the Torah was written in the 15th century BCE by moses, "everybody knows there were no vowels in there" 1. Paleohebrew did not exist until the 9th century. 2. The protoSiniatic as known by its earliest form was a vernacular script much like runes in norse culture. At that time it was encapable of creating the torah. 3. The lingua franca among people who wrote diplomatic documents, anf the written language of the law code found in Hazor is Akkadian cuneiform, a semetic written language. 4. There is no evidence the Israelites after (or before) the LBAC used cuneiform. 5. At the time moses was supposed to have left Egypt, "Israel" WAS part of Egypt and continued to be part of Egypt until the 11th century. What written script was the law of moses written in? 1. Did moses exist? 2. What century did he live in? 3. How is it possible that moses inscribed the entire torah on stone tablets and that these tablets were carried around Israel for 400 years? (Cuneiform was written in a much condensed format on clay tablets, but the Torah would required Papyrus or Parchment). 4. There are numerous anachronisms in the Torah. 5. The book of Deuteronomy was almost certainly written in the 7th and 8th century.

[@ameenthetrueisraelite8883]

Just as in Islam you need hadith to know what Quran is saying you need Oral Torah to know what written Torah says.

[@khan30905]

I Dont need Hadith To understand The Quran. Q 11-01 >>This is a Book whose verses are perfected and then presented in detail from Wise and Acquainted.

[@yildirimehind4421]

Oh, come on, that is a wrong comparison. The preservation method of hadith is outstanding. The chains of narration are extremely examined and verified about the life history of each narrator. While in Talmud, you have 120 chain of narrations. You have no idea about some of the narrators. Talmud definitely contains forged narrations attributed Moses PBUH.

[@ameenthetrueisraelite8883]

Yildirim E Hind False? How do you know they're false? Your Quran contains stories from the Talmud as well. That's Muhammad's "divine inspiration." Maybe if your Quran didn't have stories from the Talmud I will take what you say seriously.

[@ameenthetrueisraelite8883]

Khan Afghan I responded to you about hadiths last time and you had no more answers. Stay quiet.

[@ameenthetrueisraelite8883]

Yildirim E Hind Who do we have no idea about? List the names please.

[@hesedken]

The Greek Septuagint has much older translations of the Hebrew Scripture in their time than the Masoretic text. Every eclectic Torah student must recognize the power of parallel languages. Thank the one reverently called Κύριε for that! At about 9 minutes or so, Mr. Singer, you mention Ruth. Ruth was blessed and an exception to the rule of Numbers 36:5-13. Through Boaz, nevertheless, her children obtained patrilineal succession--a necessity to be a Hebrew and have tribal/national inheritance. She was a Moabite but women of other lands were not acceptable: "And that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons:" (Nehemiah 10:30) "Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you." (Joshua 23:13) In Ezra a covenant was made: The faithful put away their non-Hebrew, illegitimate wives and children. "Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law" (Ezra 10:3). (See) 1 Esdras 9:36 "All these had taken strange wives, and they put them away with their children." (The King James Version Apocrypha). Today, in modern Israel, there cannot anyone be found with Hebrew patrilineal succession, no priests with the required genealogy, and the children of the occupiers of the land are as polluted (yegoahlu): Ezra 2: 61-63. They cannot produce a Hebrew messiah, which we know has already come-the Lord Jesus Christ. No, my theological adversary, the oral Torah is not sufficient. For instance, Yevamot 77b does not have the authority. The Moabite rule did not apply only to men as you propose so as to accept female racial/tribal miscegenation: for at least one reason because that would contradict the commandment of Numbers 36:5-13, Nehemiah 10:30, the warning of Ezra 10:14, and the covenant and law (Ezra 10:3), which gave amicable expulsion to non-Hebrew women. Having said that, the oral torah is useful in some ways, but not all. It is inconsistent. It is contradictory at times. Some of the commentators may be wise and others not. Good doctrine cannot be established in a quantity of words of commentators who cannot agree with one another (50 volumes or so more than the bible); it must be established upon the authoritative, written torah.

[@saul2491]

No the Septuagint doesn't. Only had 72 scholars translate the 5 books of,Moses. Not other books of tanach.,that was lost,in a fire and it was edited and reedited non stop for the next 600 years. It is corrupt. Original Hebrew is what we use.

[@hesedken]

@@saul2491 Greek manuscripts were found with Hebrew manuscripts... way before masoretic text

[@ToddDWebb]

The arguments made here for the "oral law" are absolute nonsense. The niqqued are not "oral law". That's just flat out wrong. The niqqud are simply a way to illustrate how to pronounce the hebrew for non-hebrew speaking peoples. Vowels are not mitzvot. This dude should really learn what a mitzva actually is. Vowels are just a sound. Not a mitzva. That's it. The "oral law" is a fairytale made by "rabbis" to try and maintain control and by doing so they nullify the Torah by adding to the Torah.

[@ToddDWebb]

@Element Tradition is not the same thing as oral law. Tradition is non-binding. The "oral law" IS considered to be binding even though the entire concept is invented.

[@heatblair]

I think you should re-watch the video because what you wrote is utter nonsense.

[@ToddDWebb]

Who and what are you referring to? Thanks.