The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Oral Torah:

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 92661
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




Since the Written Torah is ambiguous and difficult to understand, there had to have been more information given in Sinai.

(Exodus 12 : 2) "This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year." To which months is this referring? Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where our father Avraham originated)? Solar months or lunar months? Without an oral tradition, there is no way to know to what this verse is referring.

(Exodus 16 : 29) "See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath. Therefore, on the sixth day, He gives you bread for two days. Let each man remain in his place; let no man leave his place on the seventh day." To what place is this referring? Does it mean his home, his property if he has more than one home, his neighborhood, his city, or something else?

(Exodus 20 : 10) "but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord, your God; you shall perform no labor, neither you, your son, your daughter, your manservant, your maidservant, your beast, nor your stranger who is in your cities." What exactly is labor, and what is not? Without the Oral Torah it would be impossible to know.

(Deuteronomy 12 : 21) "If the place the Lord, your God, chooses to put His Name there, will be distant from you, you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you"" but nowhere in the Written Torah were they commanded to slaughter the animal.

(Exodus 24 : 12) "And the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets, the Law (Torah) and the commandments, which I have written to instruct them."" This implies that more than the Torah was given in Sinai.

(Zechariah 8 : 19) "So said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth [month], the fast of the fifth [month], the fast of the seventh [month], and the fast of the tenth [month] shall be for the house of Judah for joy and happiness and for happy holidays-but love truth and peace." Nowhere in the Tanakh is there a commandment to fast on those months.

These passages show that more information had to have been in given in Sinai.

There is also the argument that the Oral Torah contains information that, at the time, could only have been known through divine revelation.

(Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 25a) "Our Rabbis taught: Once the heavens were covered with clouds and the likeness of the moon was seen on the twenty-ninth of the month. The public were minded to declare New Moon, and the Beit din wanted to sanctify it, but Rabban Gamliel said to them: I have it on the authority of the house of my father's father that the renewal of the moon takes place after not less than twenty-nine days and a half and two-thirds of an hour and seventy-three parts.

(Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Kiddush HaChodesh, chapter 6) "Day and night are constantly considered a twenty-four hour composite, [on the average:] twelve [hours] of daylight and twelve [hours] of night. An hour can be divided into 1080 units. This number was chosen because it can be divided in half, into fourths, eighths, thirds, sixths, ninths, and tenths. Each of these fractions contains many of these units."

If you do the math, you will see that according to the Oral Torah, the minimum number of days in the lunar cycle is 29.53059 days, which is only 1 or 2 thousandths of a second off from modern estimates.
Debate Round No. 1


Here are my rebuttals:
See article 1, it is our objections to the Oral Torah:


Maimonides forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Not so fast, I still have some arguments.

Calendar - The Torah explains when Passover is to be observed, but not how the entire calendar works. You did not cite any verses, and neither did the page you linked.

Sabbath place - The word for place (maqom) means different things in different verses.
(Genesis 1 : 9) "And God said, 'Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place (maqom), and let the dry land appear,' and it was so."
(Exodus 3 : 5) "And He said, 'Do not draw near here. Take your shoes off your feet, because the place (maqom) upon which you stand is holy soil.'"
It seems that a Maqom can be anything from an ocean to a mountaintop. It is not clear whether a man is not allowed to leave his home, town, province, country, continent, planet, etc.

Sabbath labour - It is still very ambiguous. You cannot derive from the Written Torah the answers to these questions: Is "business" (melakha) paid or unpaid work, or both? What exactly is "creating"? Is it only creating the world as in Genesis, or something else? Is it "creating" to make food? Clothes? Other items? Is writing allowed? Drawing? Are there any exceptions? What if there is a life risk? There are so many questions because of the ambiguity of the Written Torah. It is impossible that there is a Written Torah without an Oral Torah to explain it, especially since breaking the Sabbath involves capital punishment.

Slaughtering animals - Leviticus 17 says that the animal's blood must be covered with dust, but it does not explain how to slaughter. There are unanswered questions: Where to cut? With what? By who? When? What is the punishment for not doing it properly?

Time of renewal of the moon - It is much more difficult to calculate the lunar month to the thousandth of a second than the length of a year to the minute. There are about 525,600 minutes in a year, but over 2.5 billion thousandths of a second in a lunar month. Also, Rabban Gamliel said that he received this knowledge from his ancestors, not from mathematicians or astronomers.

Moses wrote everything - When the Torah says that Moses wrote down everything, it is referring to a very specific portion. For example, in Exodus 24 : 3, Moses wrote down only the commandments of separation and setting boundaries, as implied by two facts: 1. In the previous verse, the rest of the Jews are told not to ascend the mountain. 2. This is before the official giving of the Torah, which is in verse 12.

Haggai - When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity. He asked them the following two questions (Haggai 2 : 12-13): "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?... If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?" The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah. How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition?

The Oral Torah will never be forgotten - (Isaiah 59 : 21) "'As for Me, this is My covenant with them,' says the Lord. 'My spirit, which is upon you and My words that I have placed in your mouth, shall not move from your mouth or from the mouth of your seed and from the mouth of your seed's seed,' said the Lord, 'from now and to eternity.'"
Debate Round No. 3


Sabbath place:

Consistently, Maqom is used to refer to a specific place set apart from another by some geographic way. One has water the other doesn’t, one ground is holy the other isn’t.

Sabbath Labor:

This one is incredibly stupid to argue, it’s like saying “but these tax codes- what defines a dollar?” Work is always used to describe productive labor, something that someone would pay you for, that is what Joseph was doing, that’s what the creation is.

The slaughter of animals

Leviticus 17 set up that the animal has to be drained of all blood, one of the regulations for slaughtering animals. Second it has to be killed humanely, those are the regulations.


Actually, this law is in the Torah, Numbers 19:22 says:

“Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening."

So you said that something is not in the Torah while it really is in the Torah to validate the Oral Torah for the second time.

The Oral Torah will be forgotten:

Isaiah 59:21 is not referring to the Oral Torah, because Joshua 1:8 says:

“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

This verse clarifies that it is the Written Torah that will not leave your mouth, not the Oral Torah.



Sabbath place - You have to be more specific. "A place set apart from another in some geographic way" is ambiguous. Someone would read it and interpret it as "this town", but someone would interpret it as "this island" or "this continent" or "everything on this side of the river." If someone comes and argues for the latter, you will not be able to disprove his claim using only the Written Torah.

Sabbath labour - Again, this is ambiguous. Someone can make the argument that if work is done for free, it is allowed, and you will not be able to disprove this claim. Do you really want to risk breaking the Sabbath?
The Torah says that fire is not allowed. Does that only include fire in the conventional sense, or does it also include electricity?

The slaughter of animals - Deuteronomy 12 clearly speaks of slaughtering animals for food. Draining the blood in Leviticus 17 is only referring to sacrifices that are brought to the Mishkan. About slaughtering for food, Leviticus 17 only says to cover the blood with dust. The questions remain unanswered. How to properly slaughter an animal? Where to cut? With what? By whom? etc.

Haggai - Haggai specifically asks, "Should a man carry contaminated flesh IN THE SKIRT OF HIS GARMENT, if it touches in his SKIRT..." This question is not answered in Numbers 19, or anywhere else in the Tanakh.

The Oral Torah will never be forgotten - Joshua 1 : 8 was referring specifically to the Book of Deuteronomy, which was completed on the last day of the life of Moses. Isaiah 59 : 21 was referring to the Torah as a whole (the Written and the Oral) and so was (Isaiah 51 : 16) "And I placed My words into your mouth, and with the shadow of My hand I covered you, to plant the heavens and to found the earth and to say to Zion [that] you are My people."
Debate Round No. 4


Sabbath place:
Well it's simple, if place is defined as an area which is set apart from elsewhere by some way, since it says you shall not leave your place, possessive, it is refering to the area which is set apart from everywhere else that belongs to you. So you cannot leave your property on Shabbat.

Sabbath Labour:
No, this word is always used to refer to productive activities, something that someone would pay you for, not something that someone IS paying you for.

The slaughter of animals:
What meal are we supposed to eat for dinner if it is the 17th of may on a leap year? The Torah doesn't contain instructions for how to celebrate leap year! How amigous the Torah is! It doesn't tell you how to cut the animal because it just doesn't, just like what to eat for dinner on the 17rth of may, it isn't an instuction. The Torah says to kill animals as G-d commanded us to, what is that? Drain all the blood out and kill it humanely, that's IT.

No, it says if something touches something unclean hat thing is unclean, including skirts.

Can you prove that Isaiah 59:21 is refering to the Oral torah? It says "the words I've put in your mouths," which is also used to refer to the written Torah in Joshua 1:8, all this is is circumstantial evidence.


Sabbath place: You are inconsistent with your explanation of this verse. In your Google Docs response you say, "Thus it means your town," but in your last response you say, "So you cannot leave your property." Which one is it? Property or town? This only demonstrates the verse's ambiguity.

Sabbath labour: "Melakha" is not always used for something you would pay for. When King Solomon built the Temple, it is called "Melakha." (2 Chronicles 5 : 1) "Now all the work (Melakha) that Solomon did for the House of the L-rd was completed, and Solomon brought his father David's hallowed things, and the silver and the gold and all the vessels he deposited in the treasuries of the House of G-d." Building the Holy Temple in Jerusalem is not something that is done for money.

Also, a person who was born into slavery and worked his entire life for no pay would not understand, "Something that someone would pay you for."

Slaughtering animals: Leviticus 17 is about slaughtering animals for sacrifice. Deuteronomy 12 is about slaughtering animals for food. (Deuteronomy 12 : 20-21) "When the L-rd, your G-d, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, 'I will eat meat,' because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul. If the place the L-rd, your G-d, chooses to put His Name there, will be distant from you, you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the L-rd has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat in your cities, according to every desire of your soul." Leviticus 17 does not explain how to slaughter an animal for food.

Haggai: Numbers 19 says, "Whatever the unclean one touches," which is referring to a person. Haggai says, "and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food," which is referring to an object. Haggai"s question is not, "If the priest touches bread, will it become holy?" but rather, "If the priest touches bread WITH THAT FOLD (of his garment), will it become holy?"

Perhaps I cannot prove that Isaiah 59 is specifically referring to the Oral Torah, but it certainly eliminates any doubt about whether or not the Oral Torah will never be forgotten.

New arguments:

(Leviticus 26 : 46) "These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the Torahs (Torot) that the L-rd gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses." The word "Torah" is in its plural form (Torot), which implies that more than one Torah was given.

(Nehemiah 13 : 15-17) "In those days, I saw in Judea [people] treading winepresses on the Sabbath and bringing stacks [of grain] and loading them on donkeys, and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all types of loads and bringing them to Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, and I warned them on the day they sold provisions. And the Tyrians [who] sojourned there were bringing fish and all [types of] merchandise and selling on the Sabbath to the people of Judea and in Jerusalem. And I quarreled with the dignitaries of Judea, and I said to them, "What is this bad thing that you are doing-profaning the Sabbath day?" They are profaning the Sabbath day by either selling or carrying things. Neither selling nor carrying is a restriction from the Written Torah, so it could only be from the Oral Torah.

When the Jews returned from Babylon, some of them brought non-Jewish wives and children. (Ezra 10 : 3) "And now, let us make a covenant with our G-d to cast out all the wives and their offspring, by the counsel of the L-rd and those who hasten to [perform] the commandment of our G-d, and according to the Law it shall be done." This implies that the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers are non-Jews. Ezra says that this is according to the Law (Torah), but it cannot be found in the Written Torah.

(Numbers 8 : 4) "This was the form of the menorah: hammered work of gold, from its base to its flower it was hammered work; according to the form that the L-rd had shown Moses, so did he construct the menorah." How are we to know how the menorah was made if the only description is, "according to the form that the L-rd had shown Moses"?

(Exodus 12 : 1-2) "The L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year." When is this? How are we to know when the first month is?

(Exodus 21 : 24) "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot." Is this to be interpreted literally or metaphorically?

(Jeremiah 17 : 21-22) "So said the Lord: Beware for your souls and carry no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring into the gates of Jerusalem. Neither shall you take a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day nor shall you perform any labor, and you shall hallow the Sabbath day as I commanded your forefathers." Should we not literally carry a burden on the Sabbath day, or not figuratively carry a burden? Without the Oral Torah, you can only speculate about the answer to this question.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
ten in their books...and they would tie them up in vinebranches and incinerate them till they turn into ashes! [Minhat Qena' ot (Pressburg, 1838) vol. 20 pp. 11-12] Rabbeinu Yonah (c. 1200-1263)"one of the most venerated men in Jewish pietistic circles - the instigator of the public burning of Maimonides' writings by order of the authorities at Paris in 1233.

"Look! Most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by R. Moses of Egypt who wrote heretical books! You exterminate your heretics, exterminate ours, too!" [Iggerot Qena"ot, in Qobes Teshubot ha-Rambam (Leipzig, 1859), III, 4c. Cf., History of the Jews, vol. 3, pp. 542-544.]
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
It is a generally accepted truism that in his endeavor to explain Judaism "philosophically," Maimonides "established principles whichdid not by any means bear a Jewish stamp on them, nor were theyin consonance with the Bible, and still less with the Talmud." It isreasonable therefore to argue that those, "whose learning was entirely confined to the Talmud" would oppose him. [Graetz, History of the Jews, vol 3 p. 522]

To support this assess-ment, it was pointed out that some Maimonidean doctrines, such asthose regarding "miracles," "prophecy," "immortality," and particu-larly the status of the non-legal elements of the Talmud (
),were "in the eyes, not only of the strict Talmudists, but also of moreeducated men, a heretical attack upon Judaism, which they believedit was their duty to energetically repel." [ibid p. 523].

To further substantiate this view, scholars point out to the high level of assimilation, heresy, andapostasy befalling Iberian Jewry. "There were many, it would seem,in Spain, who found in Maimonidean philosophy convenient sup-port for their extreme liberalism," remarked a celebrated historian."These men accepted only a faith of reason and rejected popularbeliefs. They put rational understanding ahead of the observance of the commandments." In addition, they "denied the value of talmudic aggadot ." [Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Xtian Spain vol 1, p. 97]

The anti-Maimonideans are credited with stopping the tide of assimilation and standing in the front line against "philosophy" and other "rationalistic" pursuits that, as it is well known, lead to religious laxity and apostasy. [ibid. vol 1, p. 96 - 110]
R. Solomon ibn Adrete (ca. 1235-ca. 1310)for the ban against the Maimonideans. On July 26, 1305, he wrote: Go into the far away lands inhabited by Canaanites [a code term for"Christians"] and all gentiles! They would condemn them [the Rambam side] as heretics, even for a single heresy and abomination that they had writ
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
From the Maimonidean perspective, the mystical and theological notions introduced as "kabbala" were disjointed hallucinations experienced by emotionally troubled spirits: an index of mental dislocation and nothing more. Ramban was gifted with a sharp and quick mind, and understood quite well the implications that denial of kabbala meant, both for him personally and for the brand of spiritualism (ruchnios) that he was promoting.

Another major rebuke to the Rambam, he did not bring the sources for his halacha. This represents an undeniable fact. All commentaries on the Rambam acknowledge this error. The Eiyn Mishpat nar mitzvot on the side of every page of Gemara testifies to the error the Rambam made - his failure to tie his halachic rulings to the page of Gemara wherein he made his halachic posok.

Rashi and the Baali Tosafot. The foundation upon which the Talmud stands - the Chumash. The sh'itta of p'shat developed by Rashi on the Chumash directly mirrors the warp and woof of the Talmud codified by Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina. Verse/Aggadita ... Halacha/Aggadita. Rashi's explanation of p'shat on the Chumash defines P'shat in the Talmud. Meaning, Aggadita makes a drosh from the T'NaCH literature. The T'NaCH literature teaches mussar. Grasp the Mussar learned within the context of the T'NaCH - the 7th rule of hermeneutic of Hillel - and derive the p'shat of why keeping the halachot affixed to a specific Mishna. Meaning the mussar of T'NaCH joins with the halachot of Talmud as the reason why Jews observe the halacha! This defines P'shat in learning the Talmud according to Rashi.

The Rambam's failure to give his sources effectively ripped apart the halacha from its aggadita! This action violated the sealing of the Sha's made by Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina. To what does the Mishna Torah compare? To a man holding a dead rat and going to the mikveh to make himself tohor!
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
ooops correction 7 rules not 17 rules.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
Galut Jewry lost the tradition of how to learn and interpret the Written Torah employing the 13 Oral Torah middot which Moshe the prophet orally heard at Horev 40 days after the sin of the golden calf on Yom Kippor.

The l7 hermeneutic Rules of Rabbi Hillel the Elder (late First Century BCE to the early First
Century CE), the middot of Rabbi Akiva, the thirteen rules of hermeneutics of Rabbi Yishmael and the 39 middot of Rabbi Yossi HaGlili used by the anti-Rambam Rabbis pertain not only to this methodology but also to whatever was obtained through them. Therefore, according to anti-Rambam group, there can be no divergence between Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.

The Rabbis stipulated the principle that hermeneutics, mentioned above, cannot displace the peshat or "sensus communis" of Scripture, Ramban argued that since the "truth" is one, what divergence would it make whether something is explicit in the text or learned through hermeneutics. [see Hasagot le-Sefer ha-Misvot, Shoresh II, [3], s.v. ve-"akshav].

Because the hermeneutic theory underlying R. Asher"s position was not fully understood, how it worked in conjunction with the 13 Oral Torah middot revelation of Horev, some insisted that R. Asher meant to say that in addition to writing a scroll of the Torah, one should also write the commentaries, etc., see Maran Joseph Caro, Shulhan "Arukh, Yore De"a CCLXXX, 2. For a summary discussion of this view, see R. Hayyim Palaggi, Birkat Mo"adekha le-Hayyim (Izmir, 1868), vol. 1, 50a v.]

Joseph Caro favored the pathway of reliance upon commentaries rather than making Torah logic the king by which all generations interpret the Torah. Rabbi Caro cemented the path walk of faith established by the Rambam and the Tur halachic codifications!

The anti Rambam/Tur/Shul'kan A'ruch path rejects reliance upon secondary source commentaries as the primary tool to understand and interpret the Torah.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
Rabbi Jonah Gerondi (c. 1200-1263)"one of the most venerated men in Jewish pietistic circles"went first to the Franciscans and then to the Dominicans, imploring them:

"Look! Most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by Rabbi Moses of Egypt [Rambam] who wrote heretical books! You exterminate your heretics, exterminate ours, too!" [see Iggerot Qena"ot, in Qobes Teshubot haRambam (Leipzig, 1859), III, 4c. Cf., History of the Jews, vol. 3, pages 542-544.

Rabbi Solomon ibn Adrete, a student of Rabbi Jonah, [see Hiddushe haRishba, Shabbat, Bruner ( Jerusalem, 1986), Shabbat 50a v"rab, col 247; Rabbi Shem Tob ibn Gaon, Migdal "Oz, on Mishne Torah, Sisit 1:15] applauded the spirit of ecumenicalism exhibited by the Church, and wrote the following:

"Could I blame people who are not of the covenant [Xtians] if they would stretch their hands against this corruption and blaspheme by the people of our Law, and they [Xtians] just like us, would open their mouths [against them]?[see Teshubot haRishba, Dimitrovsky ( Jerusalem, 1990), vol. 1, page 398 (ll. 47-48)]

Essential to the anti-Rambam crusade was the axis "French Rabbis"/"kabbala." "French" Rabbis meant those circles in France and Germany sympathetic to the anti-Rambam policies. "Our French Rabbis," announced Rabbi Joseph ben Todros Abul"afya (12th and 13th centuries), one of the earliest Spaniards to join the anti-Rambam group in Castile, are those who "from their waters we drink, and in all the confines of the land, we live by their mouths."

Iggerot Qena"ot, III, The point of Qamhi"s argument is that by deauthorizing their Gaonic tradition of how to interpret Aggadita, and treating Rambam and his supporters as heretics, the anti-Rambam Group were, in fact, bringing down the entire edifice of Israel.
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
Although he had never laid an eye on any of Aristotle"s works, he could ascertain that Rambam "was steadfastly (committed) to each of Aristotle"s words." He then went on to compare Rambam to a child being carried on the bosom of a nursing-father (see Nu 11: 12), following him in every step. Every one of his judgments and principles are stamped with his (Aristotle"s) stamp. The Rosh declared: And although I do not know your secular knowledge, blessed be the Lord who saved me from it! And the sign and proof came [that it] had apostatized man from the fear of God and from His Law!" [Teshubot ha-Rosh, 55: 9. Rabbi Asher"s thesis was incorporated in Zohar, vol. 2, 124a].

Rabbi Solomon ibn Adrete (Solomon ben Abraham ben Samuel), also known as "Solomon of Montpellier", was a Proven"al rabbi and Talmudist of the first half of the 13th century. He was rabbi at Montpellier, and leader of the movement against Rambam and his supporters. Two of his students, Rabbi Jonah Gerondi (Nahmanides' cousin) and David ben Saul, joining Solomon in his anti-Rambam Crusade. These three men pronounced (in 1232) a sentence of excommunication on Rambam"s works, on those who studied them, and on those who construed the texts otherwise than literally - and interpreted the Aggadah at variance with Rashi. Several rabbis of northern France subsequently confirmed this sentence of excommunication (Herem).
Posted by mosc 4 months ago
Bunk you challenged me to a debate, and never made the challenge in reality. So I challenged you to a debate: Did the baali tosafot place the Rambam into Charem? And once more you never responded.
Silly fool the Catholic Poop and the French King ordered the burning of the Talmud in France not Spain.

The Rosh, like the Rashba, maintained that the study of philosophy (specifically, the study of non-Jewish philosophical works) should be restricted to mature students (over the age of twenty-five). The Rosh is also noted for his opposition to those who would issue halachic decisions based purely on the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, without a thorough understanding of the Talmudic background.

In the Middle Ages the controversy surrounding Rambam and his works, had four distinct episodes:

1) during the last years of Rambam"s life, following the publication of his Mishneh Torah in 1180 until his death in 1204;

2) around 1230 - 35, involving David KimM17;i , Solomon ben Abraham of Montpellier , NaM17;manides and others, centered in Provence ;

3) the years 1288 - 90 in the Near East, involving Solomon Petit and Rabbi Isaac of Acre;

4) around 1300 - 06, involving Abba Mari ben Moses (Astruc) , Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adrete , Asher ben Yehiel (The Rosh) , Yedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi (haPenini, and Menahem ben Solomon (Meiri), and centering in Christian Spain and Provence.

A case in point is the use of this term in a responsum issued by Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel "The Rosh"; he sympathized with the anti-Rambam group"s ideology, he was outwardly moderate and judicious - but behind the scenes he worked his wiles through his sons. The Rosh never read a line of philosophy in his life. In a responsum written when he first came to Spain, he acknowledged: "that I am lacking any proficiency in these writings (philosophy)."
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
@Ketuvim ,

I wanted to debate you but you never responded. harrytruman, you're knowledge of Oral Law is limited. Karaite arguments? Very weak. Very, very weak. Your founder made it all up to avoid death, it was a feud that put him in prison, he was jealous. Follow that if you will, the guy couldn't even get a doctor to heal him when death was upon him!
Posted by judaism 4 months ago
The French rabbis didn't place him into charem, it was the Spanish rabbis, and they only banned his philosophic writings. Mosc just can't see to understand simple logic here. He rejects Rambam, Zohar, and our Klal Yisroel. What a joke!
No votes have been placed for this debate.