re: #99 Sergey Romanov

This is simply not true - the text is available and readily translated, just like numerous other ancient texts - without vocalizations, I must add. Your assertion that we somehow cannot understand the text without a helper in the form of the current Oral Law is prima facie absurd - yes we can.

Utterly wrong! Any translation that gets the milk and meat part correct, already has some of the oral tradition built in.

Why is looking at an obvious linguistic clue so difficult for you to acknowledge? Further, if it is utterly clear that the Oral law goes back a very very long time - because it must, not just because of the linguistic issues, but because of the simple fact that you simply can not define the basic terms once you have them after using the Oral law to even get those words in the first place.

As to yes you can interpret it as you want… Well that is fine, up to a point.

A lot of people can half learn Quantum Mechanics. They read about wave functions and uncertainty principles and the observer problem, and they come out with endless New Age nonsense about electrons having “consciousness.”

The fact that no where is that in the original text of QM does not penetrate to them. If they learned enough math and physics to “get the commentary” they would not make such errors.

Your argument started out by trying to claim that the text was somehow odious and you mentioned certain passages. When confronted by the realities of the Tradition, you have shifted to a stance of “well I don’t need to look at the realities of the Tradition.”

If you wish to say anything accurate about that Tradition, you certainly do.

As to this being some ancient text. It is. However it is not just that. It is OUR ancient text. Don’t tell me that you can tell us what it says.