Frequently Asked Questions


I. Does an Oral Law Supplement Torah, or Is It Impermissible Adding?

  • Torah does not mention an oral law, while repeatedly self-referencing “this law” and “these commands.” God spoke and Moses wrote. If God gave both the written and oral Torah at the same time (both orally), why would Moses only write one but not the other?

    Oral law and later rabbinic interpretations do more than clarify, they add requirements not found in Torah and are to be avoided. (Deut. 4:2, 13:1).

  • God states repeatedly in Torah that these laws are not too hard for any of us to understand and follow. Torah also commands repeatedly that we are to constantly remember these written laws.

    The oral law presents the interpretations of various rabbis throughout the ages that often conflict with each other, essentially arguments between them over hundreds of years. Other times, irrelevant analogies are used to explain a point, which add new considerations not contained in the Torah. Such inconsistent and irrelevant reasoning hardly provides the clarity underlying the stated justification for oral law as necessary.

    If the significantly larger and increasing corpus of ongoing rabbinic tradition and oral law are co-equal to the written Torah, then the command to recall and live by the written law becomes unsustainable at best and meaningless at worst.

    Even if the claim that the written Torah contains no vowels is true, that in itself does not mean that oral law fills those gaps. Torah has been translated into many languages without the need for oral law to provide the proper canons of interpretation.

  • Torah itself requires each of us to read and interpret its meaning. Outsourcing that requirement to a priesthood interferes with, rather than enhances, the struggle we must all make to walk in God’s path.

  • The oral law was either given with the written Torah by God to Moses, or it is a later writing by man. Written Torah repeatedly references “this law” and “this teaching.” Torah further states that Moses wrote down all the words and laws given by God.

    If God gave it to Moses but intended it to remain oral, then it would be disobedient to have written it. Any justification for disobeying such a command based on exigency of the circumstance, that Judea was being exiled, is further reason to avoid it. The Babylonian exile was for a reason, and it was not likely because the Israelites were obeying all God’s commands.

    Furthermore, even if there was such a command to create an oral law and not commit it to writing, there may have been a good reason, such as keeping the law fresh in the Israelites’ minds to avoid codifying the law and preventing the people from keeping the law as a mark on their hand and as a frontlet between their eyes as part of their daily living.

  • Deuteronomy 17:8-12 concerns cases and controversies that should be brought to the Levitical priest or the magistrate (secular) judge in charge at the time. This is not an open invitation for priests and judges to interpret the whole of Torah in advance, or to create a set of written legal rulings that take the place of each of our own reading and interpretation of Torah.  It is only when “a case is too baffling for you to decide” that the parties should resort to the priest or judge to obtain a judgment for them to follow.

    Furthermore, the cases and controversies are limited by the text itself to the place where God will choose, i.e. the place of the tabernacle. Since that no longer exists, that requirement cannot be fulfilled according to Torah. Nor are the priestly lines currently knowable.

  • That phrase is not found in Torah. It is a rabbinic concept, not God’s command. Only Torah contains God’s revelation.

  • Only Torah has binding force by God’s own statements. Anything that adds or subtracts must be avoided (Deut 4:2, 13:1).

    Only by reading Torah itself can each of us determine whether we understand its teaching. The rabbinic tradition attempts to place itself before Torah, so that one does not even read Torah without first learning rabbinic interpretation.

    This is clearly an attempt to place rabbinic tradition as a filter between the Israelite and the Torah, even while claiming it is only to help in understanding written Torah. If it were only there to help understand, then rabbinic authority would show more humility and accept that the Israelite can read Torah and only then consult rabbinic interpretation if and as needed.

  • This is unsupported argument. Where is the proof that Moses ran out of scrolls or had no time to write everything down over 40 years of wandering? What would be the basis for writing down some but not all of what God told Moses? If Moses also received oral law that he did not write in the Torah, wouldn’t he have at least mentioned this in written Torah?

II. Did Jesus Fulfill the Laws of Torah, or is that Impermissible Subtracting?

  • If mankind was fatally flawed from the beginning, as suggested by an original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge, then why would God go to all the effort to wipe out the evil with a flood, to choose Abraham for covenant, to redeem the Israelites in Egypt and lead them to Mt. Sinai and provide the law?

    God even says He expects the Israelites to fail, be dispersed, and yet He will receive us back into covenant if we turn back to Him and obey His laws. That is inconsistent with God considering man unable to follow His laws given them at Sinai, or absolving man by a later permanent atonement by sacrifice.

    This concept also comes from outside Torah, and fails to distinguish, as God does, between those for whom the Torah law applies and the rest of the world for whom it does not.

  • The only proof of that is by reference to the additions to Torah found in later books. If Christianity chooses to appropriate Torah because it is of such magnificent divine provenance, then it should provide proof of its new concept through Torah, not by self-reference to Christianity’s own New Testament.

    Torah plainly states that God never shows His face, never shows Himself in the form of man, and that He will test His people with a false prophet to see if they can be led astray to follow other gods. (Deut. 13:1-5). The trinity concept makes a mess of monotheism through semantic obfuscation using words developed specifically for the task.

    Torah repeatedly states its requirements for the chosen Israelites is eternal, and even after being disobedient and getting exiled from the promised land, can still come back to obedience and find God’s favor in covenant. That is entirely inconsistent with Jesus providing the Israelites a new path toward covenant.

  • The covenant in Torah was only with Israel and those traveling with them. Jesus as messiah is a construct rejected by the Israelites of his day. Belief that Jesus was a sacrifice ending the need for obedience to law was adopted as the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire as the Roman Empire fell. Isn’t it interesting that this new religion based on people, events and scripture from Israel was founded in Italy rather than Israel?

    Paul/Saul argued that the law was too burdensome to the Jew and Gentile alike. That is hardly a theological rationale and sounds more like better marketing to the pagans in Rome where he was traveling to bring the gospel. It also represents a resounding missed opportunity, at a very key moment. Instead of relating Jesus as a sacrifice representing fulfillment of the law, he makes a secular argument about the burden of Torah law.

    The reason that modern Jews do not spend a lot of time arguing against Christian theology, based as it is on our Torah, is because proselytization is not a part of Judaism and it does not matter what others believe. Torah itself speaks of the Israelites being His treasured people from among all the peoples to act as His priests. Being chosen is to judge our obedience for blessing or curse, not because we are better than anyone. People covet our covenant when we are winning Nobel prizes but not when we are being hunted through Europe for extermination. Torah makes clear that non-Israelites are part of God’s plan, and from a Torah perspective they can believe as they wish. When the Israelites are again blessed, we will be a blessing to other nations, fulfilling the final covenant promise to Abraham.

    I very much appreciate those Christian allies who defend modern Israelites against antisemitism, and attacks by some with Christian replacement theology. I have always believed there is nothing wrong with Christianity for you. The only issue arises when someone argues I need to join with it from Judaism.

    Finally, the concept of a messiah is not textually grounded in Torah. While other books of the Old Testament may discuss the concept, only the Torah contains the actual words of God. The closest Torah comes is to describe future prophets like Moses to carry the words of God. Nothing is stated that a figure will appear to save us. At best, Deuteronomy 30:1-5 describes God Himself gathering us back from the ends of the earth following our curses if we should faithfully return to Him and His teaching. In that case, we save ourselves by circumcising our hearts and loving God, not by anyone other than God then coming to redeem our relationship.

  • The argument is made by some as proof that Jesus provided the final atonement after Israelites were expelled from the land. That is unsupported by Torah, which makes Israelite obedience an eternal requirement. Atonement itself is stated to be an eternal annual requirement. (Lev 16:29, 31, 34). Deuteronomy specifically predicts that the Israelites will be disobedient, be exiled from the land, and God will hide His face from us. Even then, being away from the land, being away from the Temple, and having no way to sacrifice, if we turn back to God and become obedient, God will show us favor again, gather us back from the corners of the world to the promised land, and restore our blessing. (Deut. 30:1-5). That is inconsistent with Jesus atoning for all our sins for all time.

    This argument elevates atonement, and the inability to fully atone during exile, as making obedience unnecessary. But the first requirement is to be obedient, and the need to atone only arises after our failure to obey. So, even if we cannot sacrifice as part of our atonement, we are still required to obey, and to afflict ourselves and seek atonement for our failure as best we can according to the current circumstance.

  • Torah repeatedly states otherwise, that the commandments, statutes and rules are eternal requirements. This reasoning would also justify murder, idolatry and other things prohibited in Torah, yet no Christian theology allows its followers to violate these commands.

    This argument also conflates Torah as a requirement for all people. It is not, it is specifically restricted to the Israelites and those living among them (Exod. 12:49; Lev. 20:26). If Christians choose to borrow our Torah and change it to encompass Jesus as fulfillment of the law for them, that is fine for them because that law never applied to them in the first place. Israelites, however, are eternally bound to obey Torah law, and be subject to its curses and blessings depending on how they comply.

  • Perhaps that is true for non-Israelites, but God still requires obedience to His laws by the Israelites. God also states that His commands are not beyond the Israelites’ ability to understand and obey.

III. Does Torah Still Apply Today?

  • Murder, idolatry and dishonor of parents apply as much today as ever. If you are not doing those things, then make your Tzitzit, love your neighbor as yourself, and don’t covet your neighbors’ things.

  • That is partly true. Each Israelite must interpret God’s commands according to the world we live in. It is for God to judge the hidden things, which would seem to include how you interpret His laws. This should include engaging with the written Torah and making an honest effort at interpretation and observance.

  • Creating a set of interpretations by Rabbis through history prevents us from considering Torah on God’s own terms. An orthodox Jew today is encouraged to spend years learning the interpretations, but not to read Torah itself, or consider on ones’ own interpretation how it applies.

    Those interpretations command additional practices. They might only clarify Torah if the rabbinic authorities were not adamant that they are binding. Being binding makes them impermissible additions.

    The danger from being binding is twofold. First, it creates a seemingly binary choice of being observant on all the additions, or considering oneself non-observant. The 613 laws or even thousands of laws in rabbinic tradition, not all contained in written Torah, are oppressive and can discourage one from engaging with Torah directly to find proper observance. Second, binding interpretation without regard to particular factual circumstance freezes the law in time which does not allow for interpretation according to different or changing circumstance.

  • Torah addresses what it addresses. How it is characterized should not prevent you from reading it. While some laws regard ritual practice, others regard ethical and moral law. All are God’s laws, and we are not really in a position to distinguish which are more important and which are less.

  • That is too vague a statement to address. The commandments seem clear and God says they are not beyond our understanding. (Deut. 30:11-14). If a case or controversy is too baffling, the parties may resort to a priest or magistrate judge to issue a verdict. In the modern day, if we find portions that we honestly believe are contradictory or arbitrary, the best course of action would be to find a rabbi who can provide context or a better interpretation to help your understanding.

  • Torah acknowledges that evil exists. In fact, the knowledge of evil in the story of Eden comes right after creation, which God said was good at each step, and very good with the creation of man. Conceptually, if evil is part of mankind, then the potential for evil was baked into the cake so to speak. God did not create a perfect man devoid of the potential for evil. God even confirms this after destroying most of mankind in the flood, that He would not do so again “since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth;” (Gen 8:21).

    While not stated directly in Torah, many believe that evil things, or at least those that are not good, are necessary to test our hearts. That if we lived in a perfect world without adversity, we would not be truly free to decide between good and evil.

    God may allow bad things to exist for particular reasons. For example, Joseph says “Although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result—the survival of many people.” (Gen 50:20). I often cringe when I hear someone thank God for medical recovery, which might imply God chooses not to intervene in other cases. But we cannot know when or why God chooses to allow bad or evil to continue, or when He chooses to intervene. What we do know is that there could be no Exodus without the prior slavery, and there will be no blessing before we first suffer curses for our disobedience. (Deut. 31:16-21).

    Whether necessary or just foreshadowed, each promise by God becomes fulfilled after some tribulation or suffering by us. An heir after being asked to sacrifice Isaac. Nationhood after suffering 400 years of slavery in the blast furnace of Egypt. The promised land after 40 years of wandering. And being blessed and a blessing after suffering exile and curses and returning to God.

IV. Is what Torah Says True?

  • Torah is God’s description of His efforts to bring life into existence, to bring about order through commands, judgment, reward and punishment. It describes, from God’s own perspective, why and how He did these things.

    Does archaeology disprove the story of creation in six days and the seventh day being set aside for rest? Or does it invite one to consider that God gave mankind His description at an early time in human development, perhaps in a way that man then could easily understand? Maybe Torah would be revealed in better detail if God gave it to Moses in 2025.

    Would we really expect to find archeological evidence of the Exodus, even though on its face the Israelites are not portrayed to have created physical structures while wandering? Their clothes and shoes did not wear out (Deut. 8:4, 29:4). They are described as wandering, not settling. Should we really expect to find piles of fossilized quail bones? The absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence.

    Neither is Torah meant to be a science or history book. It is a specific story given to a specific people at a specific time in history for a specific religious purpose.

    That said, there are archaeological finding supporting Torah. The Merneptah Stele contains the earliest known reference to Israel. It was found in Egypt and has been dated to about 1207 B.C.E. Unlike the other groups discussed around them, the Israelites are referenced as a people, not a city-state. The inscription says: “Israel is laid waste—its seed is no more”. Imagine if that was a premature boast by the pharaoh who ordered the death of all the Israelite males (Exod. 1:16, 1:22). If that is the reference, then the Exodus would come sometime after. That timeframe also coincides with two other accepted archaeological findings: the late Bronze Age collapse colloquially dated by Eric Cline in his book to 1177 B.C.E. (30 years after the stele boast, perhaps while the Israelites were still wandering), and the Israelite Highland Settlement in the late 12th century BCE during the late Bronze Age collapse. As with all archeology, one must take conclusions with a dose of humility in that we cannot draw definitive conclusions.

  • Not through archaeology, but what purpose would Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah or Abraham have had to write an essay about their encounters with God? According to Torah, Moses only did so at God’s command. The cited lack of proof is preceded by an unreasonable expectation that it should exist for us to find thousands of years later.

  • That may describe other religions, and even Judaism as seen through the lens of the oral law, rabbinic tradition, and rabbinic authority. But Torah is a sufficient and complete law in itself. It places God’s teaching directly before each of us, without intermediation by a clergy. If you want to know what God wants from us, read the source material, the only scripture attesting to be His direct word, the Torah.

    If you are concerned with religious institutions controlling you, consider the direct relationship discussed in Torah as the sole religion that creates a direct relationship between us and God, without any intermediation.

    So great is Torah, that instead of creating their own founding text, each of the next big religions decided to adopt it and add their own next chapter, although written by man. It is those manmade additions that assert control by man through religious institutions over the word of God.

  • Textual analysis of writing styles is a pseudo-science for people trying to disprove God’s authorship via Moses. It is based on unproven assumptions, for example doublets in which two stories describing the same event are said to prove two authors. But in every instance, the first story portrays the broader scope of the event, while the second story then focuses in on particular details.

    Adam and Eve are first described being created on the sixth day. The second telling drills down into details of Eve’s creation in the Garden of Eden and gaining knowledge of good and evil. The doublet appears to just be a narrative style, not proof of two different authors.

    Torah is like no other literature from its time. Its length, cohesiveness, and complexity are a true marvel from a time when such narratives were written on long scrolls. Imagine if it was simply a manmade narrative, having to write a rough draft and then needing a whole new scroll to make revisions. How many rough drafts would even our most talented modern authors need for such a grand story arc with such rich detail? Imagine getting multiple authors and editors to agree on narrative, language, and character development, to do so over time and different locations, but to only come out with one final draft and no schisms (and remember, these are Israelites who love to argue). And even after it came to be known, no one copied its style or dared to narrate the direct speech of God ever since. Then ask yourself, is a manmade narrative more likely than what Torah represents itself to be, the direct word of God written by Moses?

  • It has always seemed a fools errand to try judging the past through the lens of the present

    It is true that Torah provides rules for and condones conduct we currently find abhorrent. But Torah does not mandate slavery. It simply provides rules for ethical conduct in a period of time when there were slaves. Where God commands the Israelites to kill all of a certain group after conquer, that is God’s judgment alone. It does not authorize man to make such judgments going forward.

    Neither is man fit to judge God’s judgments. Ignore all of God’s words based on your distaste over a few of those words at your own peril.

  • There is no objective morality without adopting God’s morality. Smart people struggle to find purpose and meaning in life, while Torah gives exactly that. Torah is a gift, and smart person should at least read its 260 pages before deciding to reject it.