| Part ofa series on |
| Judaism |
|---|
 |
According toRabbinic Judaism, theOral Torah orOral Law (Hebrew: תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל־פֶּה,romanized: Tōrā šebbəʿal-pe) are statutes and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the WrittenTorah (תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב,Tōrā šebbīḵṯāv, '"Written Law"'), and which are regarded byOrthodox Jews as prescriptive and given at the same time. This holistic Jewishcode of conduct encompasses a wide swathe of rituals, worship practices, God–man and interpersonal relationships, fromdietary laws toSabbath and festival observance to marital relations, agricultural practices, and civil claims and damages.
According to Rabbinic Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah waspassed down orally in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of theSecond Temple in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat, by virtue of the dispersion of the Jewish people.[1]
The major repositories of the Oral Torah are theMishnah, compiled between 200–220 CE byJudah ha-Nasi, and theGemara, a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together form theTalmud, the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in theGalileec. 300–350 CE (theJerusalem Talmud), and a second, more extensive Talmud compiled inJewish Babyloniac. 450–500 CE (theBabylonian Talmud).
Belief that at least portions of the Oral Torah were transmitted orally from God toMoses onBiblical Mount Sinai duringthe Exodus from Egypt is a fundamental tenet of faith ofOrthodox Judaism, and was recognized as one of theThirteen Principles of Faith byMaimonides.
There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah, most notably theSadducees andKaraites, who claimed to derive their religious practice only from the Written Torah. TheBeta Israel, isolated from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries, also lacked Rabbinic texts until theyimmigrated from Ethiopia to Israel, in recent years.[2][3]
The term "Oral Torah" should not be understood as a monolith. TheJewish Encyclopedia divides the Oral Torah into eight categories, ranked according to the relative level of authoritativeness, which are found within the Talmud, theTosefta and the halakhicMidrashim.[4]
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").[4]
According to modern scholarship, the traditions embodied in what later became known as the "Oral Torah" developed over generations among the inhabitants ofJudea andIsrael and were passed down through various modes ofcultural transmission, including but not restricted to oral transmission. It is hypothesized that, sometime prior to theBabylonian exile of 586–530 BCE, in applying the Mosaic code to daily life and Temple worship, "a multitude of usages arising out of practical necessity or convenience or experience became part of the routine of observance of the code, and, in the course of time, shared the sanctity and authority which were inherent in the divinely inspired code itself."[5]
Such practices experienced exponential growth from the time ofEzra to the Romans' destruction of theSecond Temple due to the changing social and religious conditions experienced by inhabitants of Judea.[5] Many of these practices were advocated by thePharisees, a sect of largely lower- and middle-class Jews who stood in opposition to theSadducees, the priestly caste who dominated the Temple cult.[6] The Sadducees rejected the legitimacy of the pharisaic extra-biblical traditions, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of thesoul anddivine intervention.[6][7][8] 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 theHouses 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.[5]
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 leaderJohanan ben Zakkai (30–90 CE) settled inYavneh, where he established a school that came to be regarded by fellow Jews as the successors of the JerusalemSanhedrin.[5] Upon thisCouncil 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.[5] 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.[citation needed]
The destruction of the Second Temple and thefall of Jerusalem[broken anchor] in the first and early second centuries CE devastated the Jewish community. TheFirst Jewish–Roman War of 66–73 CE and theBar Kokhba revolt cost hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, the destruction of leadingyeshivot, and thousands of scholars and students.[9] At that point, it became apparent that the Hebrew community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.[9][10] Thus, around 200 CE, aredaction of the Oral Law in writing was completed. Both Rabbinic tradition and scholarship ascribe this effort to Judah HaNasi. The product of this effort, theMishnah, is generally considered the first work ofrabbinic literature.
"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 ofExodus,Leviticus, andNumbers, all the Mishnaic laws of the Sabbath are located in a single tractate calledShabbat.[9] 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.[9] Some authority suggests HaNasi made use of as many as 13 separate collections ofHalakhot 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.[5]
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 ofBava Kamma,Bava Metzia andBava Batra.[11] 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."[11] Just as portions of the Torah reflect (according to thedocumentary hypothesis) the agenda of theLevite priesthood in centralizing worship in theTemple in Jerusalem and legitimizing their exclusive authority over the sacrificial cult, so too can the Mishnah be seen as reflecting the unique "program" of theTannaim and their successors to develop an egalitarian form of Judaism with an emphasis onsocial justice and an applicability throughout theJewish diaspora.[11][12] 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.[11]
HaNasi's method of codification, in which he often included minority viewpoints and citation by name to rabbis who championed different viewpoints, became a template for theGemara, a compendium of discussions and commentaries on the Mishnah's laws by generations of leading rabbis during the next four centuries in the two centers of Jewish life,Syria Palaestina or "Judea" andAsoristan or "Babylonia".[9] The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as theTalmud. Both theBabylonian Talmud and theJerusalem Talmud have been transmitted in written form to the present day, although the more extensive Babylonian Talmud is widely considered to be more authoritative.[9]
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.[9] (SeeAliba dehilchasa.)
Rabbinic tradition considers the Oral Law to be of divine origin. The divinity and authoritativeness of the Oral Law as transmitted from God to Moses on Mount Sinai, continues to be accepted by Orthodox andHaredi Judaism as a fundamental precept of Judaism.[13] The Oral Law was the basis for nearly all subsequent rabbinic literature. It is therefore intricately related to the development ofHalacha. As such, despite codification, interpretation of the Oral Law is likewise required.
Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Torah in two distinct ways.[14] First, Rabbinic tradition saw the Oral Torah as an unbroken chain of transmission. The distinctive feature of this view was that Oral Torah was "conveyed by word of mouth and memorized."[15] Second, the Rabbis also viewed the Oral Torah as an interpretive tradition, and not merely as memorized traditions. They saw the written Torah as containing many levels of interpretation. It was left to later generations, who were steeped in theoral tradition of interpretation, to discover those ("hidden") interpretations not revealed by Moses.[16] 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;[17] some rabbis kept private notes of their teaching, but only for their personal convenience.[18]
Jewish 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."[19][20] Similarly,Maimonides provides a generation by generation account of the names of all those in the direct line that transmitted this tradition, beginning withMoses up untilRavina andRav Ashi, the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud.[21][better source needed] The pivotal role of Akiva ben Yosef is discussed in a Talmudic story, whenMoses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b), which portrays God as preparing the Torah for Akiva's interpretive skills inmidrash.
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Rabbinic tradition identifies several characteristics of the Written Law, suggesting[22] the existence of a parallel Oral tradition.[23]Here, the Oral Law must have been disseminated at the same time as the Written Torah because certain Torah commandments would be indecipherable without a separate explanatory codex[22] (and, presumably, God would not demand adherence to commandments that could not be understood). Many terms used in the Torah are left undefined, such as the wordtotafot, usually translated as "frontlets," which is used three times in the Pentateuch (inExodus 13:9 andDeuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18) but only identified withtefillin in the Mishnah (seeMenachot 3:7).
Similarly, many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, or assume familiarity on the part of the reader.[24][4][22] For example, the discussion ofshechita (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 ofdivorce in passing; these laws are set forth with great specificity in the Mishnah and Gemara. Another example: the blue string oftekhelet on thetzitzit is to be dyed with an extraction from what scholars believe to be a snail; a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah.[25] For other examples and further discussion here seeKuzari3:35.
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"Ex 21:22–27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literalLex talionis.[26] Note also that the interpretation as "monetary compensation" is borne out byNum 35:30–31, implying thatonly in the case of murder isLex 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 ofBoaz toRuth (Ruth 4:8–9) appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of against marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy23:3–4); however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabitemen. Similarly, therabbinic practice for theCounting of the Omer (Leviticus23:15–16) is at odds with theKaraite practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out byJoshua5:10–12.[27]
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; seeGemara § Biblical exposition.Relatedly, the 1st centuryTargum Onkelos is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in themidrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.[28]
Complementary to the above textual andinternal evidence,archaeologists 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 atQumran (Cave 4) have yielded specimens oftefillin andparchment scrolls which reflect later Talmudic discussion.[29] Likewise, the structure and placement ofritual baths atMasada appears to be consistent with therabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractateMikvaot, although they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.[30][better source needed] Aclay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractateShekalimchapter 5.[31] TheElephantine papyri include a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of thePesach observances of today,[32] and the first known text of aKetubah (about 440 BCE). The QumranHalachic Letter,[33] which records approximately a dozen disputes regarding the application of halakha, also testifies to the evolutionary process of the Oral Law.
The Oral Law's fundamental[34] connection to the written Law, as evident inits initial "recording" in the Midrash and Talmud, is reflected in subsequent rabbinic works - particularly those discussed below - which draw on and reinforce this relationship.Here, themidrash provides a verse-by-verse discussion of the entire Tanakh, thereby recording bothaggadic andhalakhic tradition.Similarly, the Talmud reports in detail (mainly legal) discussion and analyses of the written Torah. (Although the discussion does not proceed verse-wise as with the Midrash - the structure is provided by theMishnah - it is linkedto the relevant verse(s) in almost all cases.)
EarlyRabbinic 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 theRishonim sees the Oral Law incorporated into the first formalTorah commentaries, where the biblical text is discussed and / or analysed based on the various Midrashic and Talmudic traditions. The chief of these is perhapsRashi'scommentary on Tanakh. This work clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text, by addressing questions implied[35] 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 (seeMikraot Gedolot,Yeshiva § Torah and Bible study).
In more recentAcharonic times,[36]several (Orthodox) commentaries have been produced, which, in some sense,reverse the direction of the analysis. These originated in response to the (erstwhile) challenges ofhaskalah andBiblical criticism, and were intended "to demonstrate the indivisibility of the written Torah and its counterpart, the oral Torah",[37] and in so doing, "showing the organic relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law",[38] often in the lightof 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; andIsaiah Horowitz'sIntroduction to the Oral Torah in part 2 of hisShenei Luchot HaBerit.These works are:
Other major works discussing the Bible as based on the Oral Torah, and drawing on their interrelationship, include:
From the Second Temple era, there has always been some level of opposition to the concept of a "Dual Torah" within the umbrella of Judaism, although today only the small Karaite sect formally opposes the incorporation of any extra-biblical law into their practice.
Sadducees rejected thePharisaic oral traditions. They based their interpretations on their own traditions emphasizing a more literal understanding of the verses. In many respects, this led to a more severe observance than that of the Pharisees especially as regards purity laws andtemple practice. Most aspects of Sadduceean law and methods of interpretation are not known.[39]
Essenes, a monastic group of people, had a "monastic organization". Though they had non-biblical rules and customs, they differened significantly from the mainstream Rabbinic tradition.[40]
TheSamaritans, an ancient sect that has survived in small numbers to the present day, have their own rich interpretative tradition, as reflected in the Medieval Samaritan legal collection called theHilukh, which shares etymological roots with the termHalakhah. However, the concept of a divinely ordained Oral Law having equal value with the written one is foreign to Samaritan theology.[41]
Karaite Judaism or Karaism is aJewish denomination that began in eighth centuryBaghdad to form a separate sect that rejected of the Oral Torah andTalmud, and placed sole reliance on theTanakh asscripture.[9] Thus, for example, Karaites understood Exodus 35:3 ("Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day") as forbidding the use of any kind of fire on the Sabbath, including fires lit before the start of the Sabbath, which are permitted by the Oral Law.[9] Karaites also do not adhere to widespread customs such as the donning oftefillin and the prohibition against eating milk and meat together on the grounds that such practices are grounded in the Oral Law.
Influenced by theHaskalah, and under sociological pressure to assimilate to the Protestant and secular culture of European and North American urban elites,Reform Judaism came to reject the binding authority of the Oral Torah and systematically stripped its liturgy and practices of Rabbinic tradition.[42][43][44]
According toTorat Eretz Yisrael andMinhagei Eretz Yisrael,[45] it is important to notice that Torah sages can err, just as theSanhedrin could (Leviticus 4:13).[46]
Conservative Judaism takes an intermediate approach between the Reform Movement and Orthodoxy, claiming that the Oral tradition is entitled to authority, but regarding its rulings as flexible guidelines rather than immutable precepts, that may be viewed through the lens of modernity.[47] Jewish scholar and philosopherIsmar Schorsch has postulated that Conservative Judaism is tied to "sensing divinity both in the Torah and in the Oral Law," but not in a literalist manner.[48] RabbiZecharias Frankel, considered intellectual founder of Conservative Judaism, was respected by many Orthodox until writing in 1859 that the Talmudic term "Law given to Moses at Sinai" always meant ancient customs accepted as such. His opponents demanded that he issue an unequivocal statement of belief in the total divinity of Oral Law, yet he refrained from doing so. He was consequently ostracized and declared a heretic by several authorities.[citation needed]
Traditionally, the Beta Israel were monotheistic and practiced a Torah-based Judaism, without observing Oral Law, or knowing the Talmud, known to other communities of Jews.
In terms of their religious beliefs, the Beta Israel have always identified themselves as exiles from the land of Israel and believers of the faith of Moses. For almost 2,000 years, however, they were completely isolated from the rest of the Jewish world. They never learned of the Talmud, the codification of Jewish oral law, or any of the traditions that arose after biblical times, such as the holiday of Hanukkah.
Things cannot have been quite this simple; strict adherence to the written law is not an adequate explanation of the Sadducees' views. As Daube put it, that the Sadducees are to be explained as 'literalists' 'is a myth'. What is in the Bible partially depends on what spectacles one wears. Later, the rabbis wished to argue that the doctrine of the resurrection is in the law (Sanhedrin 10.1), and so they found it there. According to Matt. 22.32, Jesus 'proved' the resurrection by quoting Ex. 3.6. We may be certain that the Sadducees accepted at least some practices that are not in the law. I do not mean that the Pharisees forced them to follow their views, but that the Bible does not give enough detail about various matters to allow anyone to follow it without supplementing it. It seldom, for example, correlates crimes and punishments. 'Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death' (Ex. 21.12). How? When it came to the actual execution, the guilty party had to be killed in some particular way. The Bible mentions various modes of execution (stoning, burning and so on), but these are only sometimes related to particular crimes. The Mishnah tries to straighten all this out (tractate Sanhedrin). The present point is that anyone who was actually in power had to decide one thing rather than another. Since some people who followed the Sadducees had authority over life and death before Pompey's conquest (e.g. Hyrcanus I), they must have had non-biblical rules about execution. Similarly the Sadducean high priests had to accept some calendar or other. The Bible gives hints about calendar arrangement, but it does not prescribe a calendar. The Sadducees must have been conscious of this fact, since the Qumranians, and possibly others, had a calendar different from the one accepted in Jerusalem. Again, the Sadducees had to follow a particular practice that was not explicitly prescribed in the Pentateuch. It cannot be the case that they accepted no non-biblical practices and beliefs at all.
When the sages entered the vineyard at Yavneh, they said, "In the future there will be an hour when a person will search for a matter among the words of Torah and will not find it in, in the teachings of the scribes and will not find it. As it says, 'Behold, days are coming, says the Lord... they will seek out the word of God and they will not find it' (Amos 8:11-12). 'The word of God,' this is prophecy. 'The word of God,' this is [knowledge] of the eschaton. 'The word of God,' that one matter in the words of Torah is not similar to another." They said, "Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai."
Traditional Material
Bibliography
