| The Oral Torah or Oral Law (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh), according to Rabbinic Judaism, is an oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the "Written Torah" (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The traditions of the Oral Torah are believed to be the same as those recorded in the Mishnah and Talmud during the 2nd-5th centuries CE.
According to classical Judaism and the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, Moses and the Jews at Mount Sinai received an Oral as well as a written Torah ("teaching") from God. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the Oral Law are a guide to that interpretation of the Written Law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (הלכה, (nf. law, rule, dogma; theory; Jewish religious laws) includes the premise that the Written Law is inherently bound together with an Oral Law.
The "Oral Law" was ultimately recorded in the Talmud and Midrash.
Early Christian church
There was also an oral tradition in the early Christian ChurchIn that over 90% of the material in the Gospel of John is unique, not found in the other gospels, the question of sources and how John is using them becomes prominent. It is our contention that John's Gospel was written at about the same time as Matthew and Luke, for the evangelist shows virtually no awareness of the material found in the other gospels (typically common oral traditions being an exception). But if John did not get his material from these other sources, where did he get it from and why do they not employ it in their gospels? In particular, how is it possible that Luke, who spent two years in Palestine doing research for his Gospel, did not gain access to John's pre-publication draft? It seems either that John's circle was quite small—hence, the oral traditions generating from him made little impact on the mainstream of the gospel compilers; or else John drastically altered the shape of the material, packaging it for the hellenized audience of Asia Minor. We believe that the truth involves both of these possibilities. Our argument will accordingly be shaped by this consideration.
-Daniel B. Wallace "The very basis of Irenaeus' five volume Against Heresies is that the leaders of the Church knew but one oral tradition, and that oral tradition had been delivered to them by the Apostles. He vehemently argued that anyone who disagreed with the oral tradition of the Church was, by definition, a heretic.".
-Larry D. Harper
Old Testament
Evidence of the existence of the oral law
The existence of an oral tradition is supported by writings in the Torah and the later books of the Tanakh. Many terms used in the Torah are totally undefined, and many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, assuming familiarity on the part of the reader.
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," but the Torah does not record an earlier commandment. Food not in accord with Jewish law is termed treifah or treif טְרֵפָה ṭərēp̄āh) ("torn"); the term originally referred to animals (from a kosher species such as cattle or sheep) which had been either incorrectly slaughtered or mortally wounded by wild beasts and therefore were not fit for human consumption. Among Sephardim, it typically only refers to meat that is not kosher.
Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; they are assumed knowledge in a discussion about when remarriage would be allowed.
Knowledge of the laws of Shabbat and tefillin are similarly assumed by the text.
In other instances, the Tanakh refers directly to the Oral Law or can be seen as consistent only through the existence of an Oral Law.
Examples include:
- The phrase "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot" Exodus 21:22-27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation - as opposed to a literal Lex talionis. Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted literally; it would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders. Further, personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah (Leviticus 19:18), such reciprocal justice being strictly reserved for the social magistrate (usually in the form of regional courts). The Talmud explains this concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. This is the only interpretation consistent with Numbers 35:31. Additionally, this law cannot be carried out in practice, for both practical and ethical reasons;
- The marriage of Boaz to Ruth as described in the Book of Ruth appears to contradict the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3 against marrying Moabites - the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men.
- Ruth also relies on Oral Torah laws on kinsman redeemers and the conversion ritual.
- The leaders of the early Christian Church knew but one Oral Tradition, and that Oral Tradition had been delivered to them by the Apostles.
Dissenting views
Since the era in which the Oral Law was recorded, there have been dissenting views within Judaism regarding it. The general argument made in the Rabbinic Judaism is that Written Torah cannot be understood on its own terms without the Oral Torah; its laws cannot be followed without the interpretations based on the Oral Torah, and that Oral Torah is actually more integral than just interpretation of the written text (according to Maimonides, the law was originally taught in the form of the Oral Torah, and the Written Torah served as notes which helped the generations of rabbis remember the Oral Torah, just as lecture notes can help a professor remember the lecture but by no means constitute the whole lecture).
Galileans
The ancient Galileans were noted as not being strict to oral traditions. Many of the people Galilee, were less strict "The Galileans generally were not such sticklers for tradition as were the Judeans. - Compare with Talmud (Megillah 75a)" "the former are, in fact, charged with neglecting tradition. In this regard it may be noted that Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem  , not from Galilee , were the ones who took issue with the failure of Jesus’ disciples to observe the traditional washing of hands.— Mark 7:1, 5."
Saducees
In the 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE existed an influential group among Jews, Sadduccees, who allegedly denied the authority of the Rabbinic interpretation of the Written Torah and did not believe that there was any Torah besides the Written Torah (going as far as literally interpreting the "eye for eye" passage which is often quoted as the classical proof that Torah cannot be understood literally).
Their existence poses a problem to the position that the Written Torah cannot be understood without the Oral Torah, and that the Oral Torah always existed in the Jewish society alongside with Tanach. The existence of the Saducees becomes even more strange (if one is to assume that Oral Torah is integral to understanding the Written Torah) in light of the fact that the only instructions in the Written Torah that give authority to interpret its text to the later generations come from Deuteronomy 17:6-12 that charges the judges and the Kohanim (priests) of the Levitic origin (the lineage to which Saducees themselves belonged) with the passing of judgement.
An example to the difficulty is that of a group of modern Israelis deciding to stop using the nekudot (vowel signs that are written under the consonants but do not appear in the written text of Torah and in most printed modern Hebrew texts, except the texts for beginner learners of Hebrew that do not know the correct pronunciation already, children, and in poetry; they are actually part of the existing oral tradition of the Hebrew language which came to be expressed in a written form relatively recently). Today it is impossible to learn and understand Hebrew without the nekudot (although people are eventually able to read Hebrew without them, initially it is impossible to do so). So it is difficult to imagine how the Israelis would decide to stop using them, even on political or cultural grounds.
The difficulty can be explained in one of the following ways:
- The Oral Torah is not really integral to the understanding of the Written Torah (at least clearly so), and possibly came into existence not with giving of the Written Torah but during the time of Pharisees (at least in its particular form). This view is accepted by non-traditional movements and is rejected by traditional Orthodox Judaism (also, this view does not explain the above-mentioned problems in understanding the Written Torah, indeed, any written document, without an existing Oral Tradition creating a context).
- Sadducees did not trully reject all of Oral Torah (one must remember that these claims are made by the Pharisees that prevailed over the Sadducees, and few of the latter's writings actually exist) but only parts of it or just the authority of the Sages (Pharisees) to interpret the Torah on political grounds. Perhaps they doubted spiritual ability of the particular generation of the Sages to interpret the Written text (see below).
- Oral Torah was indeed integral to understanding the Written Torah, but the Oral Torah that exists today and is the product of the Rabbinical interpretation by the Pharisees and their descendants (resulting in the Talmud) was not the original Oral Torah which could be, for example, a more general set of traditions that accompanied the Written Torah. This does not mean that the Sages added something from their imagination which is not necessarily G-d's will -- the role of the rabbinic interpretation of the written text of Torah is actually postulated by the Written Torah itself (mystical kabbalistic tradition explains that when ordained and upon reaching a certain level of holiness, Sages intuitively understood the halachic opinions as they existed in the spiritual realms). One, however, can accept the validity of a rabbi's interpretation only if one accepts his worthiness and accepted spiritual level to be an interpreter. Therefore, while the Sadducees accepted the more general version (e.g., the aforementioned nekudot or general rules of pronunciation of the written text, or the midrashic explanations which created context for many of the Biblical stories) or the earlier-existing version of Oral Torah, they rejected the more specific product of the Pharisees' interpretations whose examples are usually given (the afterlife, the angels, eruv, etc.).
Another possible scenario of the specific part of phariseic tradition that Sadducees rejected: the Oral Torah was always an evolving part of Judaism -- in any generation, Sages could look in the Written Torah and interpret the laws according to the Oral traditions of interpretation (supposedly received at Sinai together with the Written Torah) and their own opinions. That way, a rabbi could make a decision in particular context of time and location with great flexibility and precision -- this trend has always existed in Judaism, albeit to a more limited degree, even until modern times. At some point, the Sages felt that the quality of interpretive abilities has degenerated, so they decided to preserve in memory the existing interpretations of earlier generations, instead of creating new ones at will. So, instead of passing down more generalized rules of interpretation that could be used by any rabbi as he saw fit, the Sages promoted in addition passing down of actual decisions. It was this trend against which the Sadducees rebelled feeling that the flexibility of interpretative process has been damaged (the same sentiment was actually expressed when, centuries later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi decided to create Mishnah by writing down the existing information of the Oral Torah).
- Just like the Reform movement in modern times, Sadducees made a conscious break from the existing traditions on the political, social or emotional ground; they knew that the Written Torah existed only in the context of the Oral Torah but consciously rejected the existing system and set out to create an almost separate religious system (akin to the Pauline Christianity later).
Without existing unbiased literary evidence, however, none of the hypotheses can be proven. Although the last explanation seems plausible and within the boundaries of the Orthodox Judaism, there is no evidence that such a conscious break happened (while there is evidence that the conscious break happened in the cases of Pauline Christianity, Reform Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism -- latter breaking not from the mainstread Halacha but from the existing traditional norms of application of less lenient opinions and cultural and intellectual separation of Jewish communities from the secular world). In addition, it is difficult to imagine that priests that participated in the services in the existing Temple could honestly decide to break away from the existing Oral tradition if it were indeed so evident that the latter was so integral to the Judaism. Therefore, if one was to look for an explanation which would not contradict the tenets of Orthodox Judaism, the necessity of the Oral Torah (according to the above-mentioned inability to understand the Written Torah without it), and the break of the Sadducees, the third explanation seems the most logical.
- The church leaders counsel Paul to combat words with action. Four pious but indigent men in the congregation have taken on themselves a Nazirite vow of limited duration (Num 6). By abstaining from products of the vine, not cutting their hair and avoiding ritual impurity, they have been showing thankfulness for past blessings, earnestness in petition or strong devotion to God. The multianimal sacrifice and cleansing ceremony at the end of the vow period, when the hair is cut and offered to God, is financially prohibitive (Acts 6:13-20). Paul is asked to bear the expenses of the four. This was a commonly recognized act of piety (Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 19.294). To do so he must go through a seven-day ritual cleansing himself, because he has recently returned from Gentile lands (m. Oholot 2:3; 17:5; 18:6; Num 19:12). The intended result is that the rumors about Paul will be shown to be baseless and he will be seen living in obedience to the law. Lest Paul's action be misunderstood in another direction, as making Jewish custom normative for Gentile Christians, the elders hasten to add that the Jerusalem Council decree is still in place (see discussion above at Acts 15:20, 29). It is repeated here in essential detail.
The next day Paul begins his own ritual purification and declares to temple authorities the date that the Nazirite vow, here called the days of purification (Num 6:5 LXX), would be completed through a sacrificial ceremony (m. Nazir 6:7).
What does the elders' counsel to Paul say about Luke's view of Christians and their religious past? Before we can draw general principles, we must deal with unique and theologically significant factors concerning the Jewish law. At its core was divine revelation in three aspects: moral, civil and ceremonial. Surrounding that were oral tradition and rabbinic exposition. Luke's use of terminology often prevents us from easily distinguishing which aspects of the law he is referring to. Still, Luke's use of the term customs does seem to show he is aware of the difference between divine revelation and human tradition (15:1; 21:21; 26:3; 28:17). And there may be a distinction in Luke's thinking between the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects which will enable us to make decisions about normativeness based on content (Lk 10:25-28).
Essenes
Essenes, a monastic group of people, had a “monastic organization”. Though they had non-biblical rules, and customs, they reject much of the oral traditions.
"Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus's, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this manreproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and a lish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them. From this source arose that hatred which he and his sons met with from the multitude: but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws 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. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essens [emphasis added], I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs." –Antiquities of the Jews 10.6
Christians
Christians generally reject a notion of any oral Torah as they see most of the laws in Tanakh as completed or fulfilled by Jesus (Matthew 5:17). According to some, Jesus rejects some oral traditions as seen in Matthew 15:1-2, 7-11; and Mark 7:4-8.
Karaites
Main article: Karaite Judaism
Karaite Judaism or Karaism is a Jewish denomination characterized by the sole reliance on the Tanakh as scripture, and the rejection of the Oral Law (the Mishnah and the Talmud) as halakha (Legally Binding, i.e. required religious practice). The word "Karaite" comes from the Hebrew word קָרָאִים (Standard Qaraʾim Tiberian Qārāʾîm), meaning "Readers [of Scripture]". This name was chosen by the adherents of Karaite Judaism to distinguish themselves from the adherents of Rabbinic Judaism.
When interpreting scripture, Karaites strive to adhere only to the p'shat (plain meaning) of the text. This is in contrast to Rabbinical Judaism, which employs the methods of p'shat, remez (implication or clue), drash ("deep interpretation," based on breaking down individual words i.e. breaking down "be'ra'shit" to "beit" "ra'shit" which means 2 startings of) and sod ("secret," the deeper meaning of the text, drawing on an esoteric form of Jewish mysticism, the Kabbalah). In modern times Karaite Judaism has formed its own independent Jewish organization, and is not a member of any Rabbinic organization.
At one time Karaites were a significant portion of the Jewish population. However today there are left an estimated 2,000 Karaites in the USA, about 100 families in Istanbul (Constantinople), and about 12,000 in Israel, most of them living in Ramlah, Ashdod and Beersheba.
Codification
Original prohibition to write the Oral Torah
The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).
After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved; see Timeline of Jewish history.
Thus, around 200 CE, Rabbi Judah HaNasi took up the redaction of oral law; it was compiled into the first written work of rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah.(There is also a tradition that the Midrashic-Mystical book "Pirke deRabi Eliezer" is the oldest Jewish book after the TaNaCh.) Over the next four centuries this body of law, legend and ethical teachings underwent debate and discussion, or Gemara, in both of the world's major Jewish communities (Israel and Babylon). The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as the Talmud.
Ramification of Jewish law
Because halakha (Jewish law) must include codes of law and behavior applicable to virtually every imaginable circumstance, this body of teaching has subsequently developed throughout the generations in a constantly expanding collection of religious literature based on the Talmud. In antiquity, the Sanhedrin functioned essentially as the Supreme Court and legislature for Judaism, and had the power to create and administer binding law on all Jews - rulings of the Sanhedrin became halakha. That court ceased to function in its full mode in the year 40 CE. Subsequently, the boundaries of Jewish law have been determined through "the halakhic process." Thus, although the Oral Law has been in a written form for almost 18 centuries, it is still referred to as Torah she-be'al peh.
Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai
The term Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, literally "Law [given] to Moses from Sinai", is used in classical Rabbinical literature to refer to oral law regarded as having been of direct Divine origin, transmitted to Moses at Mount Sinai at the same time as the Ten Commandments. It is distinguished from the written Torah, on the one hand, and Rabbinical decrees, customs, and other man-made laws on the other land.
One such law is the requirement that tefillin be dyed black.
Hidden mystical aspects of Torah
According to Rabbinic literature, Torah knowledge, in addition to its "revealed" component ("nigleh" נגלה, v. to reveal; expose; be banished, expelled; adj. visible; exoteric) as discussed above, comprises a "concealed" component ("nistar" נסתר adj./n. hidden, latent, underlying, secret, covert, veiled, latescent, recondite, veiled, cabalistic, cabalistical, cryptic, larval, larvate) today recorded in the Aggada (and, according to some, in Kabbalistic literature). The nigleh deals with the mitzvot and halakha, as outlined; the nistar, on the other hand, discusses esoteric subjects such as creation, prophecy, the world to come, the Jewish Messiah, and similar abstruse themes.
Although the "nistar" is regarded as a component of the oral tradition, it is not always regarded as part of the "oral law". This is because this material was not recorded in an explicit, mishnah-like, medium; instead, it is presented in a "concealed mode" and via "paradoxes". The difference, according to Orthodox Judaism, is that halakha is to be taken literally, while Aggadah can be allegorical in nature. According to Maimonides and other classical commentators, when expounding halakha, the sages spoke in distinct, understandable terms. On the other hand, higher and mystical ideas are not, necessarily, meant for the masses, and the mode of transmission here thus departs somewhat from that of the halakhic material. The aggadot are therefore presented as tales, folklore, historical anecdotes, moral exhortations, and business and medical advice, but may, generally, be interpreted allegorically. For Hasidic Judaism and other branches which accept it, the Kabbalah, is regarded as dealing with deeper, esoteric knowledge, further concealed and transmitted to elect individuals, and preserved only by a privileged few. In Chassidic communites, customs and choices between Halachic rullings are made according to Kabbalah (e.g., according to the Third Lubavitcher Rebbe Tzemach Tzedek, wearing a beard is not a custom but a Halacha for all Jews despite existing more lenient opinions); in Sephardic communities, if there is a dispute between a Kabbalistic and Halachic rulling, the validity of the former is accepted.
References
- 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 Ex 21:22–27]. The Talmud (in Bava Kamma, 84a), based upon a critical interpretation of the original Hebrew text, explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases.
- /Oral Law @ JewishEncyclopedia.com
- "Maimonides introduction to the Mishnah Torah" (English translation)
- "Maimonides introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah" (Hebrew Fulltext)
- "The Encyclopaedia Judaica", Keter Publishing (available in print or in an updated CD-ROM version.)
- "The Talmud", Adin Steinsaltz
- "Introduction to The Talmud and Midrash" H.L. Strack and G. Stemberger, Fortress Press
- Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 19, sec. 2
- Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 20, sec. 1-2
- "The infinite chain : Torah, masorah, and man" Nathan T. Lopes Cardozo, Targum Press Distributed by Philipp Feldheim; 1989
- Larry D. Harper, The AntiChrist 2nd Edition, New Matter, 2002 Mesquite, Texas ISBN 1-880761-06-8
|