I don’t understand why the Rabbi refuses to say that the Karaites are mistaken. And if the question had been why the Christian heretics are mistaken, would the Rabbi also have said, “Who says they are mistaken?” It is obvious that the questioner meant that if the Rabbi is not a Karaite then presumably he thinks they are mistaken, and that is why he asked why.

Apparently the Rabbi has no answer.

All right, so now I’ve recovered from the shock (from the knockout blow in the question :)) and still found an answer. I did not refuse to say that they are mistaken. The questioner assumed that they are mistaken and asked me why. I said that if he assumes that, then surely he has an answer for it, and I wondered why he was asking me. (As long as he does not know why they are mistaken, how does he determine that they are mistaken?) If he is asking my opinion, then indeed I confirm that in my opinion they are mistaken (not necessarily historically but normatively. Most of the Oral Torah is not ancient from Sinai, but it is binding), and I explained why.
All the best.

It seems to me this is a dialogue of the deaf.
The Rabbi keeps hammering the same answer, conceptually.
But the questioner wanted examples.

Evyatar, indeed there is a dialogue of the deaf here. But I get the impression that there are three deaf participants here like that (actually four. Before you there was another one) and not two (and if there are two, my son and I are not among them).

The questioner did not want examples at all, but asked a principled question about my attitude to the Oral Torah and to Karaism. He keeps repeating the nonsensical claim that the Oral Torah is not mentioned in the Written Torah, and in response to my repeated question he does not clarify how it was supposed to be included. So I keep “hammering” (as you put it) the same point again and again.

True, in one place he asked me to convince him that the Written Torah cannot be interpreted without the Oral Torah. On that many have already written, and if you really want I will bring a few examples here out of many: there are contradictions, such as regarding the freeing of a slave who refuses to leave (at the Jubilee or forever). “The fruit of a beautiful tree” is not clear what it is. What are “frontlets”? And so on. The Torah itself writes “you shall arise and go up” and “you shall not deviate,” regarding matters “too difficult for you,” that is, when there are difficulties. That is the Oral Torah.

I have a strange tendency to try to answer what I am asked and not what silent onlookers expect me to answer. Another weakness of mine is that I expect clarification of the question (and not its being repeated again and again) so that I can answer it. Everyone has his shortcomings.

I expected more from the Rabbi.
“The fruit of a beautiful tree” means a beautiful fruit. Or at least certainly not an etrog but a lemon and the like. And besides, the Oral Torah is a tradition of reading and understanding???? What does the word “kid” mean—maybe that proves there is an Oral Torah? After all, maybe it means a cow altogether…
Frontlets!? Again, a reading tradition, and besides the commandment of tefillin is metaphorical.
“You shall arise and go up” is speaking altogether about legal matters between man and his fellow, and that is the context of the verse, read it inside.

It seems to me the Rabbi did not bring even one good example. Maybe there aren’t any.

I fear that M is right, the Rabbi really doesn’t know.

It seems to me you’ve never confronted Karaite views, which are nowadays becoming fashionable among heresy…

I’m afraid the Rabbi needs to improve and sharpen his tools.
Because it seems this war was lost by us long ago.
The Christians wiped the floor with us this round. Let’s hope someone makes a video against them.

Now we’ve reached the realm of babble.
Read the verses again and you will see that it says “between plague and plague.” If for you that is monetary law—good for you. And “if a matter is too difficult for you”—is that a monetary dispute? That is a fascinating Oral Torah of yours (maybe you got it from the sophisticated Christians you quote?).
The fact that you offer other interpretations of verses proves nothing. Your suggestions too are interpretations (that is, oral Torah).
Indeed, even a tradition of reading is a tradition. Without a tradition passed on orally, the words of the Torah do not even have literal meaning.
Not to mention that without tradition, even the Written Torah is worth nothing. It could be an invention just like the Oral Torah.

I am sorry I did not meet your expectations, though they are certainly flattering to me. Sharpening one’s tools is, of course, always a good recommendation. I will try to improve.

By the way, if the Christians really raise such crushing arguments, then you should be on your way to becoming Christian (or perhaps becoming Karaite, from Karaism). So I really do not understand why you are longing for a counter-video. What about the truth?

Regarding the etrog and frontlets, I understand that the Rabbi retracted, thank God, right?
Regarding the Rabbi’s claim that a reading tradition is the Oral Torah, it seems to me the Rabbi still hasn’t found the distinction…..
Regarding tradition, there was always a tradition from Mount Sinai without the Oral Torah, from the House of Zadok until our day. (And also the Ethiopian tradition)

“Between blood and blood” — you don’t have to be a great genius to understand that it means injuries; do you still want to claim that it means between impure and pure blood? And similarly plague—it means a blow: “And the Lord plagued Pharaoh’s house.”

Why am I not a Christian? I did not understand what the connection is between watching impressive and deep videos against the Oral Torah and being Christian. A logical mistake.
Why am I not a Karaite? I’m in the process. In any case, the arguments of the rabbinic side nowadays are not impressive.

“Matters of dispute in your gates,” by the way, is from the language of quarrel.
Seems to me that’s enough from here to infer the rest.

I did not retract anything. My words are written, and in my opinion they are entirely reasonable, but if you disagree, then no.

Of course various verses can be interpreted differently, and I am not claiming that these interpretations are necessarily correct. I am claiming that they are binding.

The new oral Torah that you are proposing here is also oral Torah, and I do not see how it is preferable to the existing one. For example, your interpretation of “and He plagued” is completely baseless. From where do you get that “He plagued Pharaoh” means monetary damage? Why not that it is speaking of plagues like leprosy? Because you decided so? Plagues in the Bible are leprous plagues. You decide that for Pharaoh plagues mean monetary damage, and now explain that the plain meaning (without oral Torah) of the verse “between plague and plague” is monetary damage. And even if with Pharaoh plague means monetary damage, surely you will not deny that plagues in the Bible are usually leprosy. So why did you decide that “between plague and plague” is interpreted specifically as monetary damage? That is a more twisted move than the strange moves of the Sages that you criticize.

Though even regarding what you did address, in my opinion you are mistaken, but for some reason you chose not to address what I brought regarding contradictions in the verses.

Bottom line: part of the Oral Torah is what was given at Sinai, and what developed out of what was given there is also binding, just like the acceptance by the public that took place at Mount Sinai itself.

And just one note about logic. As is known, this is admittedly a rather weak field for me, but still, in my meager opinion, if the videos convince you then the conclusion ought to be that they are right (and you should become Karaite or Christian), not that you should burst into fervent prayer and express hope that high-quality counter-videos will be presented.

As I wrote in the twin thread here (perhaps it is the same person? looks quite similar), if you do not accept the tradition then one cannot convince you of anything (including the authenticity of the Written Torah). It is difficult to change a person’s basic assumptions. And if you do accept it—then it also brought us the Oral Torah. Of course this does not mean that the entire Oral Torah was given at Sinai. On the contrary, almost nothing was given there. On the other hand, certainly the foundations were given there (at least the meaning of the terms, otherwise the verses have no interpretation).

We are not the same person.
Maybe this is another one who came across the deep Christian videos.
Regarding plagues, it is from the language of blows, “a man who strikes his fellow.” It is not critical in what way. And it says “matters of dispute,” not matters between man and God.

In any case I did not understand the proof from tradition; I would be glad if the Rabbi would explain.

So we are speaking about someone who gives his fellow leprosy and they go up to the religious court. Very interesting and creative interpretation, but I do not think it is more reasonable than the accepted one, and certainly not more anchored in the language of the text (that is, this is an oral Torah of your own, far less reasonable in itself and far less grounded in considerations of authority. So this is the “deep” alternative you offer to the accepted interpretation?).

This is not a proof from tradition. It is what the tradition says. Our tradition passed down to us that there is an Oral Torah. If you accept the tradition regarding the Written Torah (that it was given at Sinai and that this is the Torah that reached us), I do not see why not accept the tradition regarding the Oral Torah. That is all. I do not see in your words a shred of argument against this (other than repeated declarations about deep Christian videos), and therefore it is not clear to me what I am supposed to answer here.

I truly do not understand the questioner. Did he come to ask sincerely or to pick a fight? If to ask—
1. There is good evidence for the antiquity of the Oral Torah—let him look into the scholarly literature, which is not suspected of Orthodoxy, and he will see that there is a real dispute whether in the Second Temple period the Sadducees preceded the Pharisees or vice versa. The answer is that we do not know. There is evidence specifically for the Pharisees. And then… given that there is such a dispute, it is preferable to decide in accordance with the majority of the Jewish people and the tradition (and the burden of proof would be against that). Please study the scholarly literature on the subject. It really is a dispute. (Regarding the First Temple period, the scholars also do not accept the Torah, so the discussion is not relevant. Besides, 90% is late.)
2. There is a real need for oral interpretation (“he shall deal with her according to the law of daughters” — what is that???). A conceptual lexicon and so on. Even Rabbi Michi agrees that there was one in his view in its time, very thin indeed. The Karaites too have such agreed-upon interpretations (and the Sadducees admitted this as well. And it is a common phenomenon among all peoples). So what is the argument about—whether it contains 20 Pharisaic clauses or 20 other Sadducean clauses? Even if we ignore the shortcomings of the Sadducees (and there are such), this is what was accepted by the majority of the Jewish people even in ancient times, so this is the best basis we have for truth.
3. If there is a dispute about how to interpret verses, logic says one should listen to the sages of the nation. Most of the sages of Israel were Pharisees. And they also brought proofs for their interpretations.
4. As for the Ethiopians—as far as I remember they also have customs like a Sabbath lamp and other Pharisaic customs… where did they come from? At the time they split off, the Oral Torah was very limited. It is very likely that part of it was lost (because of persecutions, less documentation, etc.).
5. As for the Karaites. Everyone agrees that their method and interpretations are very late. As far as I remember there is no disagreement about this in scholarship….
6. If you want to learn about the way Judaism and the Oral Torah developed, go to professors who deal with it, like Halbertal, and not to missionary videos. It seems to me the latter are less serious than he is (would you also go learn physics from them, or would you ask at a university?).
7. Even if the Oral Torah is late (and it does not sound that way)—how will you explain that the prophets mentioned Jewish laws that were not in the Torah?? Such as enactments concerning the destruction, Purim, cessation of labor on the New Moon, and more…. So either they had a tradition, in which case we will acknowledge tradition… or these are rabbinic enactments. In the scholarly literature they bring examples of such enactments and of ancient “hidden halakhot” in the books of the prophets. Meaning, even if there were no Oral Torah, or there were several such traditions, if the people decided to create one or legislate it in one way or another, it is binding! (Both from the language of the verses and from reason, and also because the prophets complained about the people over things that do not appear in the Torah.)
8. By the way, that is also exactly the meaning of the verse “you shall not deviate.” We both have a question—there is or is not an Oral Torah.. is the interpretation of the Sages correct…. and is it permitted to establish enactments… how will we know what is correct? (Suppose I was not convinced.) We will ask the religious court of all Israel… the last Sanhedrin ruled that yes. So we are obligated to it!

In short—there is a need for an Oral Torah as for every people. There may have been several such traditions. It is not clear which came first, though there is good evidence in scholarship for the Pharisaic Oral Torah over the Sadducean one. This is the Oral Torah accepted by the majority of the sages and the people. It has evidence. Part of it already appears in the Hebrew Bible itself, and even if not… the people can produce a binding constitution for themselves, as prophets did. And more than anything, it is part of the tradition. Do you have proof that it is false?

From here I do not understand what the problem is… Sages of all generations have discussed the claims of the Sadducees and the Karaites. What is new here?

If you truly want to learn and not attack, there is a book called “The Oral Torah, Its Authority…” published by Mossad Harav Kook. It gathers material from the scholarly literature on the subject. It is admittedly somewhat defensive, but it brings proofs for all its claims.

I don’t know whether Evyatar is a prophet, but yesterday a video against the missionaries came out:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVOd4qAnxA

To Moshe,
The Christians took it down from YouTube…

But they uploaded it to Facebook on the page “Exposing the Lies of the Mission.”

Hello Rabbi.
I see that Evyatar disappeared, so I’ll replace him:
1) “Plague” means between man and his fellow, not monetary law (I think Evyatar meant that too. I don’t know where the Rabbi inferred otherwise). The verse says “matters of dispute,” that is, a quarrel between one person and another, so clearly it means a person who strikes his fellow, and this is the example Evyatar brought, “And the Lord plagued Pharaoh’s house.”
In monetary law it is obvious that you need judgment.
2) Does the Rabbi really not know that the plain meaning of “the fruit of a beautiful tree” is a beautiful fruit? Or does the Rabbi also think the plain meaning is that it dwells from year to year?
3) “Frontlets” is a piece of jewelry. The Rabbi did not even address what Evyatar argued, that a tradition of words is very far from the Oral Torah. Can one prove that there is an Oral Torah from the fact that without it one cannot know the meaning of the word “kid”?
4) The Rabbi claims that the overwhelming majority of the Oral Torah is not from Sinai, and it is known that most of our people loudly proclaim every so often that the entire Oral Torah was given at Sinai, with the Shakh and the Taz, and surely the entire Talmud.
You can see that human inventions easily enter consciousness as though they were from Sinai. That is persuasive grounds not to accept the Oral Torah.
5) The Rabbi claimed that the Oral Torah does not necessarily take verses out of their context. What does “not necessarily” mean? Not always? What difference does it make? There are dozens of verses where it is obvious to every observer that that is not what the author intended.

1. I can only repeat again that I disagree.
2. Really not.
3. I already explained. Indeed yes.
4. I already explained why it is reasonable that there is an Oral Torah.
5. I explained to you in the parallel thread that the existence of an authorized institution is proven from the places where there is doubt and a need for it. Once such an institution exists, it also has authority to take a verse away from its plain meaning (that is, to determine an interpretation that is clear to you is not correct).
As far as I am concerned, we are done. This comes back again and again over large intervals of time, and I do not see anything new here. What I explained, I explained, and in my opinion it is entirely reasonable, but if it does not seem so to you—then it does not. It will not help to repeat the same things over and over.

I feel that the Rabbi has no desire to answer the questions, so I’ll focus one last time.
1) What is the meaning of the verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” according to the Rabbi? Is it not clear to any sensible person that it means a beautiful fruit? It is really intellectual dishonesty to say that is not the meaning.
2) If interpretations of words prove tradition, then the Rabbi has just now created an Oral Torah for every book in the world.
After all, how would we know the meaning of the word “dice” (in the important book “God Plays Dice”) without tradition? Proven—there is an Oral Torah! One that transmitted details to us that are not written in the book. And also the thirteen hermeneutical principles for how to understand the book! Everything is proven and the story is over.
Does the Rabbi think this is reasonable? If possible, a reasoned answer and not just “indeed.”

It is not a matter of desire but of usefulness. I feel that the repetitions over and over are not helping, and that your questions express a stubbornness that I do not find worthwhile to discuss. I am saying things that are completely simple (in my eyes), and you insist on not accepting them. So what am I supposed to do with that?

1. It is not at all clear to me. On the contrary, that is not the plain meaning of the verse. If it had said “the fruit of a beautiful tree,” then perhaps that would be the meaning. And what about “the branch of a thick tree”? Does that mean a fat branch? And if so, then why are “willows of the brook” defined as a specific plant? And this is, in your opinion, the plain meaning (the intellectually honest one)? Then apparently our definitions of intellectual honesty are very different.
2. Indeed. Every book is interpreted within an interpretive, lexical, and cultural tradition. Without a doubt. If you were not living within a living tradition of contemporary Hebrew, then the book “God Plays Dice” would be Chinese to you. That is exactly what is called the Oral Torah. It is not only interpretations of words but also connotations and interpretive principles beyond literal meaning. Whether in such a tradition there are specifically thirteen hermeneutical principles, or any principles of exposition at all, is another question. Specifically with regard to the Torah, once we have reached the conclusion that there is an oral tradition, we look at the tradition that reached us alongside the Torah and find in it hermeneutical principles. So in this tradition there are such principles. Other traditions around other books will not necessarily include hermeneutical principles.

I truly cannot understand what is so difficult here. It sounds completely simple to me. I have encountered significant difficulties regarding our tradition, but here I really do not see any. I must say again that this just seems to me like sheer stubbornness.

Regarding linguistic tradition.
This proves that one must accept interpretations of words; I agree to compromise on “the fruit of a beautiful tree.”
I do not understand how from here one gets to the rest of the traditions that were passed down from Sinai that completely contradict verses, for example the thirteen hermeneutical principles.
Would the Rabbi accept a tradition that had been passed down claiming that “God” in your book means a tiger? Even though throughout the whole book you see that this is not the meaning.
After all, it was passed down in tradition. And just as without the tradition we would not know what “dice” are, so too we should accept that “God” means tiger. Never mind that it does not fit the context, because that is how it was passed down in tradition.
This seems very strange to me, this exaggeration. In my opinion it is a strange inference.
I can barely understand how this satisfies the Rabbi.
But even if I say that I understand his words, it is not clear how the Rabbi sees this as more reasonable than not accepting traditions that crudely contradict the plain meaning.
It seems to me the Rabbi has never seriously considered being a Karaite.
I have not even begun to speak about the stranger things, such as accepting the Talmud as binding? Where did the holy rule disappear that only the Sanhedrin has authority? Since when can we accept upon ourselves a book that takes verses out of context right and left?
Sorry for the sharpness; I’m just frustrated that the Rabbi does not even see a problem here.
Someone whose outlook is that he wants to do God’s will, and is not afraid to confront the question whether the Talmud is God’s will, will see these questions as at least serious questions.

The sentence that symbolizes the failure: “The book ‘God Plays Dice’ would be Chinese to you. That is exactly what is called the Oral Torah. It is not only interpretations of words.”
In the book “God Plays Dice,” the tradition is words alone.
Anything beyond that needs a logical basis if it contradicts the straightforward understanding.
And yes, for interpretations that completely uproot the plain meaning (not ones that can be squeezed in somehow; with those one can manage), this is exactly like “telling you that left is right.”
If the Sages were to interpret that it is permitted to light a fire on the Sabbath, because the verse “you shall not kindle fire” means: “No! Kindle fire!” then that is exactly like left being right. If that is not left being right, I do not know what left being right is.
There are plenty of examples of this kind of interpretation in the Sages, and the Rabbi insists as if the whole Talmud is a reasonable plain meaning; that is what I call intellectual dishonesty. (Something for which the Rabbi is usually not known.)
Regarding piggul, tereifah, and many other things that the Rabbi surely knows.

Yair, you are completely mistaken. Do you really think that anyone who knows the meanings of the words will understand the book? Great mistake. Around the words there is a collection of connotations and meanings without which it has no meaning. Do you really think there is such a thing as a “straightforward understanding” without those connotations? See Rabbi Weitman’s article in HaMa’ayan 5737-8 for a good many examples of this.
I will repeat again: the need for there to be an oral tradition (and for there to be an authorized institution) is obvious. Once we have reached the conclusion that there is such a tradition, its content is a factual question. Go and see what this tradition actually includes, and that is the tradition (not what you want to find in it). So if this tradition passed down to me the thirteen hermeneutical principles, or if the authorized institution decided to take the written text away from its plain meaning, that is what we have and it has validity.
And again I repeat: to take the written text away from its plain meaning is not to tell you that left is right. The tradition we received is that the Torah should be read on both the plain and the interpretive levels simultaneously. Derash is not an alternative plain meaning but a parallel interpretation. Therefore when the Sages take the text away from its plain meaning they are doing interpretation, but they are not canceling the plain meaning. Again, see Henshke’s three articles in HaMa’ayan there (Rabbi Weitman’s article is a response to them).
Therefore intellectual honesty in an interpretive reading is not measured by its fit to the plain meaning. That is simply a mistake. Intellectual honesty regarding derash should be evaluated against the rules of derash (and not against the plain meaning). I worked on this for quite a few years. I made progress, but there is still work to do. One clear conclusion I have from those years is that you are mistaken: moving away from the plain meaning is not intellectual dishonesty.
Accepting the Talmud as binding is valid just as the revelation at Mount Sinai is valid. Rabbi Kook calls this “the acceptance of the nation,” and Rabbi Shmuel Fisher also discusses this at length in his sermons, siman 15, see there.

Indeed, I never seriously considered becoming a Karaite. It seems to me patently mistaken and rooted in misunderstanding (mainly of the point I stood on here). On the other hand, it seems to me that you are considering it a bit too seriously. These are very shaky arguments based on misunderstanding. If these are the problems, then I think we are really in good shape.
I am sorry for the frustration I am causing you, but really, although I try to understand your words, and although you repeat them again and again, I do not see here even the slightest problem. Try reading what I write with a willingness to accept it, and I think you will be able to see why.

What does it mean that the tradition passed down to us that there is derash?

And what is included in “left being right”? After all, one can force anything into a verse.

The tradition that reached us contains methods/principles of derash and the fact that there is derash.

“Left being right” is something that is clearly not correct. I explained that derash does not try to force anything into the verse (it does not pretend to be plain meaning), and therefore one cannot speak about strained derash.

All this has already been said, and interpretations of words can be found in a dictionary (although I am beginning to think that here there is an example of just how much word meanings require the Oral Torah).
In any case, I will not answer here anymore.

If possible, just to finish with one small thing: an example of left being right.

All right, never mind then.
In any case, thank you very much for the help.

Y – Yair, Evyatar, SFS – the questioner,
so what’s going on with you today—did you convert to Islam, or become Karaites, or become Christians?

A- Regarding “the fruit of a beautiful tree,” why don’t the Karaites say that it refers to the fruit of a citrus tree?
B- How do the Karaites interpret the continuation of the verse, “and you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a beautiful tree…. and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days”?
C- Someone showed that the Karaites are a religion later than the Pharisees, so how did the Karaites actually formulate their interpretations? After all, they have no Oral Torah and no determining authority, so what are you doing?
D. From the Talmud’s standpoint, why wasn’t it written there “etrog” instead of “the fruit of a beautiful tree”—that way a dispute would have been avoided.
E- Rabbi Michi, what you claimed—that it should have said “the fruit of a beautiful tree”—is not precise, because perhaps the known Karaite interpretation that it means a beautiful fruit is itself a mistaken interpretation. I have never heard of fruits being defined as beautiful in that sense. What is this, beautifying commandments by means of extra-beautiful fruits (the most scrupulous of the scrupulous… haha).
Now seriously.
F1. Why couldn’t the Written Torah have been clear and spared the Oral Torah and the Karaites unnecessary “thoughts and arguments”?
Or alternatively,
F2. Why didn’t the Written Torah write “the fruit that dwells on the tree,” instead of “the fruit of a beautiful tree,” and spare others a lot of headaches? Then we would have understood that “hadar” means fruit that remains from year to year.
What was the original thinking of the Giver of the Torah in preventing quick and precise clarification so easily? Why, in order to explain it, do I need the Oral Torah? What exactly do I need to hide, and why, and from whom? What practical difference does it make to me?

Mosheh (why with a vav?).
The Written Torah does not need to spell out everything. It uses a certain language, and alongside it an oral interpretive tradition passes down to us the meaning of the language. And so when it says “the fruit of a beautiful tree” we understand that it means a citrus fruit (an etrog). Even texts in Hebrew can be interpreted in several ways, and only context and understanding the ways of the language teach us which way is correct. There is no text that does not need an Oral Torah alongside it. It is not a question of brevity or detail, but of being written in a known or unknown language. Someone who does not know Hebrew can always ask why the writer did not explain that “harkavat” is interpreted as assembling something and not as train.

The purpose of the Written Torah is not to state the Jewish law. If that were indeed the goal, then the Torah is a bad book. After all, huge portions of it are not connected to Jewish law at all.
Rabbi Michi, I only have one small difficulty with you. The Oral Torah does not explain the Torah at all. Midrashim are not plain meaning, and the commentators who explain plain meaning do so based on their own intellect, so that is not part of the Oral Torah at all.

I no longer remember the whole discussion here. If there is a concrete question, please spell it out here.
As emerges from Rashi’s very first comment, the purpose of the Torah is indeed Jewish law. No matter how large the other part is, it is still secondary. It probably has its own purposes, which I do not understand.
The Oral Torah definitely explains the Written Torah and expands it. Explanation does not have to be by way of the plain meaning. There are several different modes of explanation—there are seventy faces to the Torah.

I only wanted to sharpen the point that one cannot implement the Torah without the Oral Torah, but one can understand the plain meaning without it. Maybe with the exception of a few verses that really need the Oral Torah for them, but the main understanding of the Torah comes from intellect and not from tradition. In order to derive Jewish law from the Torah, for that you need the Oral Torah. Because the Torah is not written in the form of a law book, how would you know when to study for practical Jewish law and how? That is also why the Karaites make use of an oral tradition, while the missionaries do not need the Oral Torah because they are not careful about the commandments, so it is very logical that they would not need the Oral Torah.

P.S. I do not think that is the conclusion from Rashi. In my humble opinion (as I heard from Rabbi Cherki), Rashi means to say that everything written there has to have implications for our lives. Not necessarily in a halakhic form. Like the answer he gives—that it is for the nations of the world.