The Kuzari Principle 2.0

Parshas Chayei Sarah disproves Xtianty

Note: I intended on publishing this last week but was unable to complete it in time for Shabbos. It’s only tangentially related to the Parsha so hopefully it's still worth your time.

Kuzari 1.0

The Ramban and Rambam famously argue about the first of Aseres Hadibros. Rambam defines the commandment to believe in Hashem as an inductive, ontological belief. In contrast Ramban ties the commandment of Anochi to it’s full context (אָֽנֹכִ֖י֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֧ר הוֹצֵאתִ֛יךָ מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרַ֖יִם) as an empirical, deductive exercise - we accept the testimony of our ancestors who witnessed the Exodus and so saw Hashem’s full dominion over creation.

Why do we accept the testimony of our ancestral forefathers? To this we apply some variation of the Kuzari Principle - here is ChatGPT summarizing R’ Dovid Gottlieb's¹ presentation of the Principle.

1. Mass Witnessing Claim:

   • The Torah describes an event where an entire nation (approximately 600,000 adult males, along with women and children) directly experienced God’s revelation at Mount Sinai.

   • This kind of mass witnessing is unique among world religions, which often rely on private revelations or small group claims.

2. Transmission of the Event:

   • The Sinai revelation story would have been passed down through generations in an unbroken chain, starting with the people who allegedly experienced it.

   • If the event had not occurred, the story could not have been successfully fabricated and accepted as truth because a false event of such magnitude could not be retroactively introduced into a nation's history.

3. Challenge of Inventing National History:

   • It would be implausible to convince an entire nation that their ancestors experienced a divine revelation if they had no such tradition prior.

   • For the event to be fabricated, one would need to convince a large population of something contrary to their collective memory, which Gottlieb argues is highly unlikely.

4. Verification through Memory:

   • The ongoing practices and laws in Jewish life (e.g., Shabbat, Passover) are tied to this national historical event, reinforcing its memory.

   • These practices would serve as continuous testimony to the event’s authenticity.

5. Contrast with Other Religious Claims:

   • Other religions often begin with the testimony of a single founder or a small group, making them less historically verifiable.

   • The Kuzari Principle asserts that the large-scale claim of the Sinai event is uniquely credible and unprecedented.

I note that in his book Reason to Believe², R’ Gottlieb makes the point that if it were possible to synthetically invent a mass revelation ala the Torah, we would expect that another civilisation or religion would have done the same, since it would strengthen their religious claims maximally. The fact they don’t seems to indicate that isn’t possible to manufacture, leading to the conclusion that the Torah’s account is true.

It seems that this is essentially the position of Ramban - and Rambam would also accept some variation of this logic, since his own philosophy only proves the existence of a First Cause, but not necessarily the prophecy of Moshe.

In addition, we frum Jews are very familiar with the mythos of our culture - the moral and intellectual (derech eretz kadma l’torah³) greatness of our current generation of Torah leaders, the superhuman levels of devotion they achieved - as well as the superlative levels of previous generations - stories that have passed down through the ages by unimpeachably trustworthy sources. For those born into and familiar with the culture, this point does not need elaboration, and this logically and rationally leads us to trust in the tradition that we have received.

And so we have two legs of our footstool - the rational argument from the Kuzari, as well as our personal and societal experience. To this I⁴ always add a third leg - a rational argument that it is essentially impossible that the Torah sheba’al Peh (henceforth TSBP) is fraudulent - and since it is not a fraud, it is ipso facto true and correct.

Kuzari 2.0

The TSBP is a wide ranging concept, generally encompassing both Talmuds as well as accompaniments like the Baraisas, Toseftas and Sheiltos, as well as various Midrashim, Sifra Sifri etc, as well as the copious commentaries written on theses works. For this essay I am focusing on Halachic aspects of the TSBP, and specifically the exposition and exegesis of Torah via the 13 middos of Rabbi Yishmael.

The skeptic’s position on the written Torah is generally some version of the Documentary Hypothesis, that the Torah is man made by various authors in different eras and was redacted at some point in time. According to that hypothesis, the TSBP would have arisen at some point after that, and would have been a retconned, retrospective revision that asserts the exposition of an implicit meaning that was there all along, but in reality was invented post facto (perhaps inspired by contemporaneous Roman legal scholarship ).

Is this position tenable? I think not. The TSBP (even limited to the Halachic system of exposition as per the 13 middos) is too elaborate, sophisticated and self consistent to be a retrofitted system. If the written Torah were truly man made, and the system of thought developed by the TSBP invented afterwards, then any attempt to reconcile the two would fall apart under scrutiny.

As we know, the Talmud and meforshim do the opposite - they steelman every difficulty that arises for Halachic exposition. And the end product is a system that holds up. Sure, there are some intractable teiku’s, but only a vanishingly small subset of sugyos end that way. But if the reality were that Bereishis and Devarim were written by different authors in different eras - then there is little doubt that the Gemara’s attempt at synthesis would collapse under it’s own weight, and quickly.

Can we test that assumption of little doubt? Fortunately, yes. At the same time that the Baraisa of Rabbi Yishmael was being redacted, a new religion was invented that claimed a very different interpretation of the same written Torah - Christianity. And so, we can apply Rabbi Gottlieb’s logic here as well - if it were possible to fraudulently graft a system on of thought onto the Torah, that actually held up to scrutiny, the way that the Talmud does - than you’d expect Christianity to have a similar level of success, or perhaps even greater, given it’s a far larger, wealthier and politically powerful religion than Talmudic Judaism.

But a cursory analysis if the Christian religion shows that it does not hold up to scrutiny at all. It’s a transparent hoax, that owes its success to a host of psychological tricks that are generally common to all cults and religions, as well as prodigious use of sleight of hand - specifically the purposeful mistranslation of Biblical Hebrew and wilful ignorance.

The Virgin Hoax

Rabbi Tovia Singer⁵ (is the Director of the counter-missionary organization, Outreach Judaism. He is well known as the Founder and Director of Outreach Judaism, an international organization dedicated to countering the efforts of fundamentalist Christian groups and cults who specifically target Jews for conversion. He is an erudite and charismatic speaker with almost 100k followers on Youtube. Tovia has incredible knowledge and an endearing style, and apart from enjoying him ‘dunk’ on christians, I also learned a lot of Tanach and history, and was inspired to dive deeper into Tanach in my own learning.

The main point that he proves in his teachings, is that the average Christian lacks the tools to see the fraud because the don’t know Hebrew, so have no choice but to rely on translators and scholars who are engaged in wilful misdirection. This is exemplified in this last week’s Parsha.

In the first book of the Xtian Bible, Matthew, the first chapter describes Jman’s genealogy, how a woman named Mary was betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant, Joseph wanted to divorce her, but an angel told him that she is still a virgin but was impregnated by the holy spirit, and that the child will save people - and that all this is based on the passuk in Yeshaya (7:14):

לָ֠כֵ֠ן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל

This is a problematic verse for Christians, because in reality it does not say virgin (בְתוּלָ֥ה) but almah, which means young woman. There are other issues as well, but they are not the focus here⁶.

Here is a list of Xtian apologetics on this topic. I am no expert and this is just basic Google/AI research, but I really did my best to understand their perspective:

1. IN DEFENSE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH (link)

2. Is “virgin” or “young woman” the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14? (link)

3. Isaiah 7 virgin birth - single OR double fulfillment? (link)

To summarise, they claim that עַלְמָ֗ה can mean virgin, and isn’t used in Tanach to describe a non-virgin⁷. Since a young, unmarried woman in those days was expected to be a virgin, any descriptor of a young, unmarried woman implies a virgin. At the same time, besulah does not always mean virgin - for example, this last week’s parsha: וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ טֹבַ֤ת מַרְאֶה֙ מְאֹ֔ד בְּתוּלָ֕ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל (Bereishis 24:16) - the fact that the verse has to explicitly mention that she had not known a man shows that besulah does not mean virgin. Plus, Yoel 1:8 states: אֱלִ֕י כִּבְתוּלָ֥ה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂ֖ק עַל־בַּ֥עַל נְעוּרֶֽיהָ׃ - which seems to imply a married besulah. So Matthew was within his rights to translate almah to virgin.

Indeed, the first link above states: In defense of the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 being applied to Jman, the Protestant leader Martin Luther pledged to a pay a hundred pieces of gold [gulden] to the scholar who could show any passage where almah referred to a married woman in the Old Testament. So far, to my knowledge, no one has collected on the pledge (The Book of Isaiah, Edward Young, volume I, page 287, note 35).

The author of that book, a Xtian scholar, states: Almah seems to be the only word in the Hebrew language that unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

There are many logical fallacies within these arguments⁸. Indeed, reading these apologetics, one gets the feeling that they are playing three card Monty with skilled practitioners. But I’d like to focus on two specific points.

The first is rank dishonesty. In none of their writings do the apologists bring up the point that בְתוּלָ֥ה shares the same root as the wordבְּתוּלִֽים ⁹, which unequivocally refers to the physical, biological hymen - a sign of virginity. Any honest attempt at parsing the true meaning of the text would have to acknowledge this, but none of them do.

Another example of dishonesty is completely ignoring Shmuel 1:17:56 וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ שְׁאַ֣ל אַתָּ֔ה בֶּן־מִי־זֶ֖ה הָעָֽלֶם, where the masculine עָֽלֶם refers to a young, already anointed but not yet crowned King David. This point completely disembowels the Xtian argument, as it definitely proves that almah is not referring to sexual status at all, and purely refers to gender and age. I was unable to find any example of an Xtian apologist even accepting this difficulty, let alone attempt to apologize for it.

The second overall point is more philosophical. The entire system of Xtian exposition and apologetics is post hoc - it assumes that the religion is true, and then seeks out interpretations that justify it. There is no system upon which the exposition is built. If they choose to interpret almah based on ‘‘cultural context’’, it is purely arbitrary - there is no systematic examination of this principle and an attempt to see if is true elsewhere in the text.

The Talmudic system is completely different. Whilst it too assumes post-hoc as axiomatic that the Torah’s text is true - and so too with the meforshim when attempting to understand Chazal - there is no innovation in a systemic sense¹⁰, and all exposition and exegesis is part of a system that has been thoroughly cross referenced over 2000 years.

Indeed, if we look at how the Talmud relates to this parsha, then everything fits into one holistic whole. Words have one meaning, and when they are used in an odd manner, it contains a lesson or shows further depth. Almah always means young woman (and elem merans young man). Besulah always means virgin. Yoel’s בְתוּלָ֥ה חֲגֻרַת־שַׂ֖ק עַל־בַּ֥עַל נְעוּרֶֽיהָ is refering to a woman who is no longer a virgin, but longs for the husband of her youth when she was a virgin, since that bond is stronger than that of a widow who marries a man¹¹. This explanation fits into the words without stretching and the distinction is not arbitrary - it fits directly into the sugyos in Kesubos 7a and 10a, where the Talmud defines both the simcha and dowry of the kesubah of a virgin as greater and ties it back to the text of the Torah itself.

Same with וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ טֹבַ֤ת מַרְאֶה֙ מְאֹ֔ד בְּתוּלָ֕ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ. The fact that the first word tells us her age and gender add to the obvious transaltion of בְּתוּלָ֕ה as virgin. As for the extraneous וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ, Rashi explains that she even kept herself from lo kedarka. Again, this concept is not arbitrary - the Talmud in Sanhedrin 54a proves from the plural in Vayikra (20:13) וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִשְׁכַּ֤ב אֶת־זָכָר֙ מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה עָשׂ֖וּ שְׁנֵיהֶ֑ם מ֥וֹת יוּמָ֖תוּ that there are two forms of intercourse recognised in the Torah.

Comparative Analysis

This is just one example of Xtianity’s malfeasance. Rabbi Singer and other counter- missionaries have documented hundreds more. In many cases, apologists have no response at all, but even when they do, they have no choice but to invent arbitrary interpretations that are often at complete odds with one another. In contrast, in my experience at least, the more Torah I learn, the greater the synthesis and the more answers I get.

Whilst our main focus should be on achieving greater wisdom in Torah leaning, it seems to me that studying the flimsiness of Xtian apologetics can be a great exercise in דַע מַה שֶּׁתָּשִׁיב לְאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס.

Have a great Shabbos!

1. https://www.dovidgottlieb.com/

2. https://mosaicapress.com/product/reason-to-believe/

3. See this thread for the background and context of this teaching

4. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי שָׁקוּד לִלְמֹד תּוֹרָה, וְדַע מַה שֶּׁתָּשִׁיב לְאֶפִּיקוֹרוֹס (Avos 2:14). Some of the meforshim explain that this. refers to the apikorus latent in one’s self.

5. https://outreachjudaism.org/

6. The passuk also was talking about a very different context 700 years before Jman - Yeshaya was offering an ois to Achaz, King of Yehudah, and the context of the chapter proves the ois was the birth of a child in the near future. The tense is also wrong, with הָרָה֙ being past tense, and Matthew applying a future tense. Claiming a double prophecy is difficult (something some Xtians claim, itself never seen elsewhere in Tanach), because it means there is another virgin birth in Achaz’s time (whether Achaz’s or Yeshaya’s wife) and therefore that the one in Achaz’s time was also conceived from the holy spirit and is thus quasi-divine like Jman. Yet this is not mentioned ta all in Yeshaya. An additional issue would be that a virgin birth is a terrible example of an ois, or sign, as it isn’t a public miracle. Those viewing would simply assume that the woman was not, in fact, a virgin.

7. דֶּ֤רֶךְ הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר ׀ בַּשָּׁמַיִם֮ דֶּ֥רֶךְ נָחָ֗שׁ עֲלֵ֫י־צ֥וּר דֶּֽרֶךְ־אֳנִיָּ֥ה בְלֶב־יָ֑ם וְדֶ֖רֶךְ גֶּ֣בֶר בְּעַלְמָֽה׃ (Mishlei 30:19) is explained ‘midrashically’ or otherwise handwaved away.

8. For the record, here is Claude AI’s breakdown of the first apologetic:

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

• The text relies heavily on quotes from specific scholars (Edward Sri, Edward Young) without necessarily providing independent verification of their claims.

• Martin Luther's challenge about gold is presented as evidence, which is an appeal to authority rather than a logical argument.

• Cherry-Picking Fallacy

  • The author selectively interprets the occurrences of the word "almah" to support a predetermined conclusion.

  • The analysis of the word's usage is curated to fit the desired interpretation, ignoring potential alternative meanings.

• Confirmation Bias

  • The text approaches the biblical text with a predetermined belief, interpreting evidence in a way that confirms existing beliefs about the virgin birth.

  • Every instance of "almah" is interpreted to mean "virgin" without considering alternative linguistic or historical contexts.

• False Dichotomy

  • The argument presents only two interpretations of "almah" - either it means "virgin" or it means "young married woman" - without considering more nuanced linguistic possibilities.

• Circular Reasoning

  • The text uses the Septuagint's translation as evidence of the original meaning, while the Septuagint itself was interpreting the text.

  • The argument circular references itself: Matthew's interpretation is used to prove the interpretation's validity.

• Etymological Fallacy

  • Assuming that the meaning of a word can be definitively determined by examining its historical uses, without considering contextual and linguistic evolution.

• Selective Evidence

  • The text claims that "almah" is never used to refer to a married woman, but this is a strong absolute statement that would require comprehensive proof.

• Post Hoc Reasoning

  • The interpretation assumes that because Matthew used this prophecy, it must have been originally intended to mean exactly what Matthew interpreted it to mean.

• Argument from Ignorance

  • The text suggests that because no one has claimed the gold for proving "almah" means a married woman, this proves its interpretation is correct.

• Anachronistic Reasoning

  • Applying modern interpretative standards to ancient texts without considering the historical and linguistic context of the original writing.

9. וְשָׂ֥ם לָהּ֙ עֲלִילֹ֣ת דְּבָרִ֔ים וְהוֹצִ֥א עָלֶ֖יהָ שֵׁ֣ם רָ֑ע וְאָמַ֗ר אֶת־הָאִשָּׁ֤ה הַזֹּאת֙ לָקַ֔חְתִּי וָאֶקְרַ֣ב אֵלֶ֔יהָ וְלֹא־מָצָ֥אתִי לָ֖הּ בְּתוּלִֽים׃ Devarim 22:14

10. I am referring here to basic pshat - not drush, remez and sod.

11. See Radak, Metzudas David and Metzudas Tzion.