re: #94 Sergey Romanov

But this understanding is not binding upon anyone but followers of Judaism.

The supreme court’s understanding of the US constitution might not be be binding to a person from Tibet. However, if you want to understand the US constitution, you don’t ask the Tibetans what it all means.

Further, unlike the US Constitution, the written law came with a built in commentary in the Oral Law and it was written in a way that Demanded the Law.

From the evidence there are really only two consistent approaches.

1. You can believe that both the Oral and Written Law came at the same time on Sinai (observant Judaism).

2. You can look at the textual analysis and the archeological records, at which point, you must conclude that the majority of the Oral Law is OLDER than the written law.