THIS ARGUMENT IS SO FAULTY IT MAKES MY HEAD HURT

[Via The House of Hock]

The essence of [Rabbi Plaut's] argument is this: If you can prove that a certain body of knowledge, call it 'b', is true, and then prove that subsequently a series of parties know with 100% certainty that the proceeding party knew that knowledge 'b' was true, then there is certainty down the line that knowledge 'b' is true. This has an obvious connection with Mesorah, where, if you accept that what was given to Moshe is true, and you are certain that each teacher down the line of Mesorah knew with 100% certainty that what his teacher knew was true, then, we here today, can know, with 100% certainty that our Mesorah is true"

The theory is stillborn. There are conflicting traditions WITHIN the mesorah as to what CONSTITUTES the mesorah. I am aware of at least three theologically valid opinions as to what precisely God gave to Moses. So even if all of Rabbi Plaut's other assumptions are valid (They aren't. Let's save that for another post) we're still forced to muddle through, because we can't say with any certainty what precisely the mesorah contains.