Product Code Database
According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Torah or Oral Law () are statutes and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the Written Torah (), and which are regarded by Orthodox Judaism as prescriptive and given at the same time. This holistic Jewish code of conduct encompasses a wide swathe of rituals, worship practices, Godman and interpersonal relationships, from Kashrut to Sabbath and festival observance to marital relations, agricultural practices, and civil claims and damages.
According to Rabbinic Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was oral tradition in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat, by virtue of the dispersion of the Jewish people.
The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE by Judah ha-Nasi, and the Gemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together form the Talmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in the Galilee 300–350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and a second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Asoristan 450–500 CE (the Babylonian Talmud).
Belief that at least portions of the Oral Torah were transmitted orally from God to Moses on Biblical Mount Sinai during the Exodus from Egypt is a fundamental tenet of faith of Orthodox Judaism, and was recognized as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith by Maimonides.
There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah, most notably the Sadducees and Karaite Judaism, who claimed to derive their religious practice only from the Written Torah. The Beta Israel, isolated from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries, also lacked Rabbinic texts until they made Aliyah en masse in recent years.
The laws in the last three groups were not considered equal in validity to the written law ( "De'oraita"), but were regarded merely as rabbinical regulations ( "de-rabbanan").
Such practices experienced exponential growth from the time of Ezra to the Romans' destruction of the Second Temple due to the changing social and religious conditions experienced by inhabitants of Judea. Many of these practices were advocated by the Pharisees, a sect of largely lower- and middle-class Jews who stood in opposition to the Sadducees, the priestly caste who dominated the Temple cult. The Sadducees rejected the legitimacy of the pharisaic extra-biblical traditions, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of the soul and divine intervention.According to Josephus, Antiquities XIII. x. 6, "The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the Written Word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers." Danby notes the following:
It is a reasonable hypothesis that a result of this controversy—a controversy which continued for two centuries—was a deliberate compilation and justification of the unwritten tradition by the Pharisean party, perhaps unsystematic and on a small scale in the earlier stages, but stimulated and fostered from time to time both by opposition from the Sadducees and by internal controversy (such as, e.g., the disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai) within the ranks of the Pharisees, culminating in the collections of traditional laws ( Halakoth) from which the present Mishnah draws its material.
With the destruction of the Second Temple around 70 CE, the Sadducees were divested of their main source of authority, without which their theology could not survive. On the other hand, the Pharisees became the progenitor of the rabbinic class, who formalized the traditions of their predecessors. Following the fall of the Temple, it appears that the Pharisaic leader Johanan ben Zakkai (30–90 CE) settled in Yavneh, where he established a school that came to be regarded by fellow Jews as the successors of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. Upon this Council of Jabneh fell the duty of administering and interpreting religious law, conserving tradition, and solving problems that arose by the past dependence of numerous observances on the existence of the Temple and priesthood. Thus, from 70 to 130 CE, when the Bar Kochba revolt further decimated the Jewish community, the Oral Law experienced a significant period of development and an unprecedented level of legal and religious authority among the populace.
"Mishnah" is the name given to the 63 tractates that HaNasi systematically codified, which in turn are divided into six "orders." Unlike the Torah, in which, for example, laws of the Sabbath are scattered throughout the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, all the Mishnaic laws of the Sabbath are located in a single tractate called Shabbat. Moreover, the laws contained in the 24 chapters that make up that tractate are far more extensive than those contained in the Torah, reflecting the extensiveness of the Oral Law. Some authority suggests HaNasi made use of as many as 13 separate collections of Halachah from different schools and time periods, and reassembled that material into a coherent whole, arranged it systematically, summarized discussions, and in some cases rendered his own rulings where alternative traditions existed.
The Mishnah does far more than expound upon and organize the Biblical commandments. Rather, important topics covered by the Mishnah "rest on no scriptural foundations whatsoever," such as portions of the civil law tractates of Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia and Bava Batra. In other words, "To perfect the Written Torah, the Oral tradition had to provide for a variety of transactions left without any law at all in Scripture." Just as portions of the Torah reflect (according to the documentary hypothesis) the agenda of the Levite priesthood in centralizing worship in the Temple in Jerusalem and legitimizing their exclusive authority over the sacrificial cult, so too can the Mishnah be seen as reflecting the unique "program" of the Tannaim and their successors to develop an egalitarian form of Judaism with an emphasis on social justice and an applicability throughout the Jewish diaspora. As a result, the Talmud often finds the rabbis combing scripture for textual support to justify existing religious practice, rather than deriving the practice organically from the language of scripture.
The Talmud's discussions follow the order of the Mishnah, although not all tractates are discussed. Generally, a law from the Mishnah is cited, which is followed by a rabbinic deliberation on its meaning. The discussion often, but not always, results in a decision regarding the more persuasive or authoritative position based on available sources or anecdotal evidence. (See Aliba dehilchasa.)
According to traditional Judaism, the laws transmitted to Moses contained in the Written Torah (or Chumash) were written down on scrolls, but God enjoined Moses from writing down the explanation of these laws. Indeed, the Talmud relays that Moses himself would not understand all of these interpretations, nevertheless, these are also called Law given to Moses at Sinai. B Menahot 29b. See, Elizabeth Shanks Alexander, op cit.
Instead, Moses was obligated to impart the explanations orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus forbidden to write and publish the Oral Torah;See BT Temurah 14b, and, BT Gittin 60b. Also, Y Megillah 4:1 some rabbis kept private notes of their teaching, but only for their personal convenience.Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, p.87Jewish tradition identifies the unbroken historical chain of individuals who were entrusted with passing down the Oral Law from Moses to the early rabbinic period: "Moses received the Torah and handed it down to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly."Mishna, Avot 1:1; the remainder of chapter 1 identifies further individuals in the chain Similarly, Maimonides provides a generation by generation account of the names of all those in the direct line that transmitted this tradition, beginning with Moses up until Ravina I and Rav Ashi, the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud. Introduction to Mishneh Torah The pivotal role of Akiva ben Yosef is discussed in a Talmudic story, when Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b), which portrays God as preparing the Torah for Akiva's interpretive skills in midrash.
Similarly, many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, or assume familiarity on the part of the reader.David Charles Kraemer, The Mind of the Talmud, Oxford University Press, 1990. pp 157–159Rabbi Gil Student: Proofs for the Oral Torah For example, the discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states "you shall kill of your herd and of your flock which God Lord has given you, as I have commanded you," without any clear indication of what had been "commanded"; only in the Oral Torah are the various requirements of ritual slaughter explicated. Similarly, Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; these laws are set forth with great specificity in the Mishnah and Gemara. Another example: the blue string of tekhelet on the tzitzit is to be dyed with an extraction from what scholars believe to be a snail; a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah.See http://www.tekhelet.com Ptil Tekhelet For other examples and further discussion here see Kuzari 3:35.
Moreover, according to the rabbinic view, without an Oral Law, blind adherence to the plain text of certain Torah commandments would cause the practitioner to violate a commandment elsewhere in the Torah or could lead to unethical acts, and thus, a priori, a set of supplementary "instructions" must have been provided. A classic example involves the phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal Lex talionis.The Talmud explains this concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. The Torah's first mention of the phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" appears in . The Talmud (in Nezikin, 84a), based upon a critical interpretation of the original Hebrew text, explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. (Additionally, this law cannot be carried out in practice, for both practical and ethical reasons; see also parashat Emor). Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted literally; it would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Note also that the interpretation as "monetary compensation" is borne out by , implying that only in the case of murder is Lex talionis applied (per logic of following paragraph).
The Oral Torah is similarly needed to explain commandments - as well as actions of biblical actors - seemingly discordant with other verses. For example, the marriage of Boaz to Ruth () appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of against marrying Moabites (); however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. Similarly, the rabbinic practice for the Counting of the Omer () is at odds with the Karaite practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by .Tim Hegg: "Counting the Omer: An Inquiry into the Divergent Methods of the 1st Century Judaisms" .
Re the preceding paragraph, note that much Talmudic analysis demonstrates how the Mishnah's rulings, and / or disputes, in fact derive from — and are hence consistent with — the much earlier Biblical texts; see . Relatedly, the 1st century Targum Onkelos is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.
Complementary to the above textual and internal evidence, have uncovered also physical evidence relating to religious rituals and practices which were current prior to the codification of the Mishnah; from which, it can be inferred that Judah HaNasi and his contemporaries recorded, rather than innovated, normative Judaism as practiced during the 1st century CE and prior. For example, excavations at Qumran (Cave 4) have yielded specimens of tefillin and parchment scrolls which reflect later Talmudic discussion.See for example, Yigal Yadin: Tefilin from Qumran . Likewise, the structure and placement of Mikvah at Masada appears to be consistent with the rabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractate Mikvaot, although they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.Rabbi Yosef Back: "Southern mikveh on Masada". A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5. Clay seal from Second Temple period unearthed The Elephantine papyri include a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of the Passover of today,Schiffman, Lawrence. Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1998. and the first known text of a Ketubah (about 440 BCE). The Qumran Halachic Letter, Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah/ Qumran Cave 4 which records approximately a dozen disputes regarding the application of halakha, also testifies to the evolutionary process of the Oral Law.
Early Rabbinic literature builds on these works, where - reflecting the relationship as outlined - discussion of the Written Law is in light of the Oral Law. The era of the Rishonim sees the Oral Law incorporated into the first formal Torah commentaries, where the biblical text is discussed and / or analysed based on the various Midrashic and Talmudic traditions. The chief of these is perhaps Rashi's commentary on Tanakh. This work clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text, by addressing questions implied by the wording or verse or paragraph structure, by drawing on the Midrashic, Talmudic and Aggadic literature. It has given rise to numerous counter- (e.g., Ramban) and super-commentaries (e.g., Mizrachi), all similarly drawing on the Oral Torah, and widely studied to this day (see Mikraot Gedolot, ).
In more recent Acharonim times,See general discussion under: Rabbi Y. Kaganoff (2016). A New Commentary for a Changed World, Mishpacha several (Orthodox Judaism) commentaries have been produced, which, in some sense, reverse the direction of the analysis. These originated in response to the (erstwhile) challenges of haskalah and Biblical criticism, and were intended "to demonstrate the indivisibility of the written Torah and its counterpart, the oral Torah", and in so doing, "showing the organic relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law", often in the light of the above. Given this purpose, these provide a further detailed and explicit analysis here. The main of these:
Contemporaneous with, and complementary to these commentaries, were specific, monograph-like works discussing the Oral Torah in concept and historically, as following. These had been preceded by, two earlier (less modern) discussions: Maimonides' Introduction to the Mishnah — dealing with the nature of the Oral Law, the distinction between the prophet and the sage, and the organizational structure of the Mishnah; and Isaiah Horowitz's Introduction to the Oral Torah in part 2 of his Shenei Luchot HaBerit. These works are:
Other major works discussing the Bible as based on the Oral Torah, and drawing on their interrelationship, include:
Traditional Material
|
|
