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.
And I fully understand that concern. The rabbis are a pretty smart bunch, but they of course have an enormous blind spot when it comes to the Messiah.
On the other hand, I could also question the exegetical value of much of Christian tradition for similar reasons.
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.
Actually, done carefully, it's not. You are familiar, of course, with the concept of a hostile witness. When a person admits something that is not to their advantage, that's often the strongest sort of testimony. For most of our history, the Christians and the Jews have worked hard at definining themselves to be as separate as possible. Therefore, when one finds a Jewish tradition that is in complete agreement with the NT, one has to take special note.
Therefore, when I see a (as far as I've been able to determine) universally-accepted tradition that the Resurrection of the dead will occur on the Feast of Trumpets, using very similar terminology to that of Yeshua and Sha'ul, I consider that an important piece of testimony from a hostile source.
The other thing we have to remember is that the Scriptures are all high-context documents: They assume that the readers share a core of culture, language, idiom, and foundational teaching, that they all already have the context necessary to understand the author. The more we learn about the culture and idioms of those to whom the Scriptures were written, the better we understand the Scriptures.
There are passages in Sha'ul's epistles which make use of Greek references: For example, his teaching of grace was built on the then well-known patron-client relationship.
Likewise Yochanan's (John's) opening chapter, in which he titles Yeshua the Word of God, was apparently not based primarily on subtleties of the word logos, but on the Aramaic Targums' use of the term Memre Dei, "the Word of God," to describe the "part" of God who met with His people (see Lightfoot's Talmudic Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, pardon the lack of a page number). God's Word (Heb. D'var) is not simply His logic, but that by which He takes action (cf. Isa. 55:11). Likewise, Yochanan's assertion that by the Word everything was made that has existance has parallels in the rabbinic literature, where God creates the world by means of an eternally-existant Torah.
I don't think we realize how much of the NT has its origination in first-century Jewish rabbinical thought. That's hardly surprising, since Yeshua Himself was regarded as a rabbi (despite a lack of formal training and ordination) and taught like one, even engaging the Pharisees in rabbinical debate over halakha (applying the Torah; tradition).
Trust me, I don't just take anything the rabbis wrote as gospel--any more than I do the ECF or Calvin--and I've found both sides to be equally guilty of creative exegesis under the influence of the sacrimental wine, so to speak. I regard them all as useful sources for historical background, linguistic study, and ideas, but it is ultimately the Bible to which we always return as our final authority.
And I think we're both agreed on that.
I appreciate, as always, your ability to voice a concern or objection without being contentious. God bless, and L'shana tova u-metukah.