Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Oral Torah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Oral Torah, Oral Law, or Oral Tradition (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 (Jewish law) 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.
Contents |
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.
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.[citation needed]
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" Ex 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 (Lv 19:18 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.[1] 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 (see also parashat Emor);
- The marriage of Boaz to Ruth as described in the Book of Ruth appears to contradict the prohibition of De 23:3 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.
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 Rambam, 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).
In the 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE existed an influential group among Jews, Saducees, 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:
1) 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).
2) 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).
3) 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. -- see on Saducees).
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).
4) 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 Christians 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.
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 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[citation needed]. However today there are left an estimated 2,000 Karaites in the USA[citation needed], about 100 families in Istanbul[citation needed], and about 12,000 in Israel[citation needed], most of them living in Ramleh, Ashdod and Beer-Sheva.
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.
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.
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 written Torah, but not included in the Oral Torah's exposition of it. 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.
According to Rabbinic literature, Torah knowledge, in addition to its "revealed" component ("nigleh" נגלה) as discussed above, comprises a "concealed" component ("nistar" נסתר), 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.
- ^ 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
- "The infinite chain : Torah, masorah, and man" Nathan T. Lopes Cardozo, Targum Press Distributed by Philipp Feldheim; 1989
- The Oral Tradition, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
- The Torah She’Baal Peh, Rabbi Herschel Schachter
- On the Matter of Masorah, Rabbi Herschel Schachter
- Proofs Of An Oral Torah, Rabbi Gil Student
- FAQs about The Oral Law
- The History and Transmission of the Jewish Traditions, Mordechai Housman
- What is the Oral Law?, faqs.org
- The Oral Torah - The Oral law in Judaism