In any case, what then of rabbis like Hillel and Shimmei and Simeon the Just, who died before Yeshua's ministry? Should they be tarred with the same brush as those who in far latter centuries wrote bitter recriminations against a "Jesus" whose followers were persecuting them? What about Gamaliel, the teacher of Sha'ul, who spoke on behalf of the Apostles Kefa (Peter) and Yochanan (John)? What about Nachdimon ben Gurion, who is most likely the Biblical Nicodemus? Should we reject both of them as well? What about the Mishneh, which was compiled in the second century, but which contains material from much, much earlier? Should we cast away the insight it gives us into first-century Judean society?
What then do we do with perfectly valid data about what the Feastdays meant to and how they were celebrated by the first century Jews which included Yeshua and all of the Apostles? Well, if we were great fools, so full of our pride that we thought we couldn't possibly learn anything new about a Jewish Messiah through (gasp) Jewish sources, I suppose we might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For my part, I'll go down the road that many commentators (see my previous post to Jude) have gone down before, and humble myself enough to learn something new once in a while.
I'm cool with utilizing these sources. I'm also alright with using the Mishnah and Talmud for the limited purposes of figuring out what First Century Judaism thought.
I asked my question, admittedly a bit roughly, knowing you'd give a good answer, even if I don't agree with it. You did not disappoint, my friend.
My concern is, however, that reactionary Judaism has little to teach us of any exegetical value. I will stipulate it may have some valuable insights into First Century Judaism, however. To use those insights to exegete the Old Testament, however, is fallacious.