Talk:Oral Torah

Oral traditions of Islam

I have noticed that the oral traditions of Islaam(see the article titled hadith)contains criticism of the science of Hadith yet Jewish oral history doesn't. Are the Jewish oral traditions above scepticism? Have any sceptic views about the Jewish oral traditions been added to this article, if so where they deleted?

Note: See also Talmud and Mishnah

NPOV

I don't believe in adding or removing critcism for the sake of "balance". If there is notable sourced criticism it should be add, if not we do not need to artifically created it. Jon513 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As of this date, this articles is written strictly from a Hassidic (a particular branch of Haredi Judaism) perspective, in which the whole corpus of Jewish tradition, (Hassidim include the Kabbalah), is regarded as having come from Moses at Sinai. It desn't even reflect the views of all of Orthodox Judaism, let alone more liberal branches. Indeed Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism reject these views entirely and regard Oral Law as essentially consisting of folk tales and folk customs. Conservative Judaism takes a position which takes Oral Law more seriously, but more or less regards it as consisting of revelation subject to extensive historical development. --Shirahadasha 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai

Note: The article Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai was recently copied and redirected to Oral Torah. User:Bloger has been objecting to this move in principle, see his arguments reproduced in full below. All discussion/s should be centralized here. Please add your views if you know something about thgis subject. Thank you. IZAK 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The following was posted on Talk:Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai [1]

Oral Torah

It seems that this topic must be identical to or a subset of Oral Torah. I will move it there if noone objects. --Eliyak T·C 15:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eliyak:

As per your suggestion that the article be merged it has to be pointed out that the reason I made a separate article is that although Halacha l’moshe m’sinai can be referred to as oral torah they are two different things, while oral torah is what is called in Hebrew torah shebiktav, Halacha l’moshe m’sinai is what is referred to as sinaitic commandments.

Bloger 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bloger: Yet, Halacha l’moshe m’sinai although it entails content from "Sinai," is an "oral" teaching, and that's where it belongs. IZAK 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear IZAK:

I disagree! Although Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai is in fact oral given thet it is not written, yet it is not what oral Torah is in Jewish law.

Oral Torah is what we say in Hebrew Torah she-be'al peh and is quite different from Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, both from a factual point of view, and moreover from a halakhic point of view.

For an uninformed reader thet is looking for facts, putting both Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai and Torah she-be'al peh together under oral Torah is confusing and misleading and doesn’t serve the purpose of informing the reader, as should every article in wikipedia.

Bloger 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Call me uninformed, but I've never heard halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai used outside the context of the Talmud, ie, the oral law. At times the gemara will conclude that something is not derivable from the Torah, but is instead halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai. Does this mean it is not part of the Oral Torah? I find that highly doubtful. --Eliyak T·C 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• I am posting this discussion here from my talk page IZAK 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC):

Dear IZAK:

I disagree! Although Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai is in fact oral given thet it is not written, yet it is not what oral Torah is in Jewish law.

Oral Torah is what we say in Hebrew Torah she-be'al peh and is quite different from Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, both from a factual point of view, and moreover from a halakhic point of view.

For an uninformed reader thet is looking for facts, putting both Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai and Torah she-be'al peh together under oral Torah is confusing and misleading and doesn’t serve the purpose of informing the reader, as should every article in wikipedia. Bloger 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloger, Are you by any chance using the Torah in "Oral Torah" in its more general sense of "teaching", so that "Oral Torah" includes rabbinical pronouncements, such as (for example) Pirkei Avot, while Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai consists of that subset of oral rabbinical teaching which is Siniatic in origin? Is this the distinction you are making? If not, a few examples of things that are "oral Torah" but not Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai (and why) would be helpful to clarify how you are defining these two terms. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It may also be that we have a difference between Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism perspectives. Haredi Judaism has the idea that Moses forsaw all the customs people would eventually devise so that these customs are in some sense as much law as law directly from God and cannot be changed. From a Modern perspective there is a core of Halakha that is from Moses, but decrees and customs are human-made, there is no reason to believe Moses foresaw everything, and hence there is somewhat more potential for flexibility. (Moderns make something of a joke about the idea of Moses going up to Sinai eating gefilte fish and wearing a black hat.) --Shirahadasha 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Too POV?

It is obvious that this article has an Orthodox Jewish position on the Oral Law/Tradition, and it takes an assuming stance that its premise of "Torah from G-d's mouth to Moses's ear" is true. Perhaps the views of more liberal movements should be included (as with the case of the halakha article, among others)? How about more critical (in the vein of biblical criticism) views? Perhaps some contrarian views are in order, as well. Nonetheless, this article may have to be tagged, as it has only shown the views of one perspective. --OneTopJob6 08:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempted to clarify the view presented, which is not only Orthodox but Hared and Hassidic. Rewrote definition of Oral law and Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai to soften Haredi perspective that the whole corpus of Jewish tradition is regarded as coming directly from Sinai and that not everyone in Orthodoxy accepts the Kabbalah as such, either. Provided "according to"s in some cases. Someone from a more liberal perspective would be needed to supply more liberal views. --Shirahadasha 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the neutrality is a bit compromised by statement such as the presumption Deut 24 (on a supposedly unwritten "slaughtering method", which I see is the common proof-text for tradition) actually inferring some separate oral body of teaching. A simple reading of the context reveals that slaughtering method is not what God was referring to here. God had earlier commanded them to go to a particular place to offer sacrifices (v.11, 13, 14). When their borders increased (v.20), then they may sacrifice somewhere else as He commanded if the original place is too far. He is simply referring to the command to sacrifice He had just given them, and modifying it for a special circumstance. There is no reason to hypothesize on some "slaughtering method", that they even admit is not mentioned, and since we do not see that spelled out for us anywhere, then this and every other practice rabbinic Judaism has that cannot be found spelled out in the Torah (do not boil a kid in mothers milk=do not eat ANY milk and meat together, etc). must be some unwritten command.Eric B 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal Evidence / Rabbinic Laws

I have removed the following two entries from the "Internal evidence" section. They do provide support for the observance of rabbinic laws (mi-d'rabanan) during Biblical times, but not for the Oral Law having been transmitted to Moshe (Torah shebe'al peh – mi-d'oraita):

• Zechariah 7:2 and 8:13 refer to the Rabbinically enacted fasts to commemorate the fall of the first Temple;

• Zechariah 7:2 and 8:13 Dosn't prove anything to support "oral law".--24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nehemiah 13 notes the Rabbinic prohibition against buying or selling on the Sabbath;

• The mention Nehemiah 13 Once there is nothing suggest "oral law" here. Compare Exodus 20:8, 9 " Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work;" (JPS Tanakh, 1912)--24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am not 100% sure that the second is truly an example of a rabbinic law.

--Eliyak T·C 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EvIDENCE OF A LATE ORIGIN FOR ORAL TORAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.220.147 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Some evidence not consider in the article for a late orign (post Second Temple) of the Oral Torah are the works of Josephus and the Christian gospels

Josephus displays no knowledge of the Oral Torah in his writings. Had the Oral Torah really existed in the time of Josephus, he could not have failed to mention it, given the purpose of his writings to defend and explain the traditions of the Jews to the Gentile world.

Also, the Gospels and the letters in the New Testemant also argue for a late date for the Oral Torah. The writers of the Gospels are unaware of an Oral Torah. The Gospels portray Jesus codemning the Pharisee's for allowing their oral traditions to supercede the written Torah, but no where is this oral tradition portrayed as an Oral Torah going back to Moses himself - had that belief existed then, the writers would have made mention of it rather than merely referring to "the traditions of the elders"

Finally, there are no specific reference to an Oral Torah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When you take the lack of evidence in Josephus, the Gospels, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, it all indicates the concept of an Oral Torah was created sometime after 100 CE. While there may have been oral traditions before that, that is not the same thing as an "Oral Torah" that is equal to, and sometimes superior to, the Written Torah. It is easy to see, however, how the oral traditions of the elders refuted by Jesus in the Gospels could overtime change into an oral tradition going back to Moses himself. Claiming that their oral traditions went back to Moses rather than just the "elders" would have bolster the rabbis' authority, and make it easier to get the rest of the Jews to accept these oral traditions. Glenn Beard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.220.147 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing is silly. In the first place, Josephus was, by his own testimony, a dilettante. He was no scholar, and he did not delve into the workings of the Torah in his books. He talked only about history.

I tell us know nothing about Josephus works. He mainly wrote about the history of Israelite.--24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Gospels". Heh. In the first place, the Sanhedrin was being run by Saduccees at the time they supposedly took place. In the second place, they were written by sectarians who were willing to set the entire Torah aside and worship a man. I don't think they qualify as proof of anything.

Don't attack the Saduccees, who cannot defend themselves here in presense. Give weight to your statements. Pharisees were sectarians if you see the evidance non-bias.

The Dead Sea Scrolls. Again, these were sectarians. Had they not rejected the Oral Torah, they wouldn't have been sectarians. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No they were called sectarians, because they were different. --24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there must have been an oral tradition BUT

Who is to say that all what is claimed to be oral Torah is actually authentic oral Torah? If you believe the Torah was written by G-d for many reasons including Torah Codes, 600,000 witnesses (when most religions claim 1-3 in order to make them easy to carry. 600,000 witnesses is much harder to prove and to carry on if the religion isn't true. For a religion to claim 600,000 wintesses withnessed it's birth, it would be crazy if it wasn't true (see Rabbi Kelleman's book 'permission to believe') But back on the topic of the Oral Torah, just because there is an oral Torah, how do you know if it's true? How do you know that what is told oral Torah to us is not corrupted by men? Men are not perfect. Judaism does not claim that men are perfect. Even are greatest Prophet, Moshe made a mistake. So how are we to accept that the transmission of the oral law is faultless? It makes sense to have an oral law for things that we don't understand such as how to observe Shabbat, how to put on tefillin, etc. for things that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. But what about other things that people claim to be oral law that go against the written Torah? For example, the rabbinical prohibition of Kol Isha (for a woman to sing alone in front of men). In the written Torah, it says that Miriam sung to Moshe. Kol Isha contradicts this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.55.72 (talk • contribs)

This is a page to discuss improvements to the article; this is not a place to discuss to subject itself. If you have particular suggestions on how to improve the article we would love the hear them, if you don't then it would be best if you took this conversation elsewhere. Jon513 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Saducees needs better supportin references

Section on the Saducees needs better references. The article makes a number of claims that run contrary to a lot of the other scholarship on the Saduccees. It seems to take as fact what is merely the opinion of one or at most some scholars. The source where Professor Qimron's agruments were made should be referenced - I did not any document supporting the claims of the article in the wikipedia link. While no scholar, I have read a fair amount on the subject, and from he other sources all I read, which the Saducees did not believe in the Oral Torah, contrary what the article said. The article is aware of these other views, but seems to dismiss them with the unsubstantiated and unreferenced work of just one scholar, which is not adequate.

Glenn Beard, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Josephus (Jewish Antiquities ib. xiii. chapter 10, § 6) --24.57.60.200 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Those who reject so-called allot of pharisees oral law

• Many of the common Jewish called "am ha-arets".
• Samaritans. (Review their sources).
• Sadducees. (Review the works of Flavius Josephus: - Josephus (Jewish Antiquities ib. xiii. chapter 10, § 6)
• The Essenes. (Review the works of Flavius Josephus)
• Followers of John the Baptist.
• Followers of Jesus (Yeshua) (Christians).
• The Karaites. (Review their sources).
• Some of the reform and coversative movements of Judaism rejected the so-called oral law.
• Many of the people Galilee, were less strict "The Galileans generally were not such sticklers for tradition as were the Judeans. In the 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."

The Encyclopaedia Judaica states: “The title rabbi is derived from the noun rav, which in Biblical Hebrew means ‘great’ and does not occur in the [Hebrew] Bible.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 24.57.60.200s

An anonymous ip editor added a long essay arguing that the oral law is a fiction and other related ideas. As the talk pages are to talk about the article itself, not the subject of the article, I have removed it. If anyone would like to respond to the poster comments I recommend finding a forum more conducive to that discussion - Wikipedia is not the place. Jon513 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)`

It was not an argument or an essay it was presenting why some don't believe, otherwise the wikipedia article would be bias only menetiong why, and who believe in it. It was about arguing it was about showing both side. "Freedom of speech"! As regards the article you should have read it: " don't mean offend anyone here. This isn't about a debating; merely presenting and making mention why many reject do not believe oral traditions, for personally reasons. " That why its being put back on.

Reasons why don't many accept so-called "oral law"

I don't mean offend anyone here. This isn't about a debating; merely presenting and making mention why many reject do not believe oral traditions, for personally reasons.

• The bible highlights expressions indicating the law covenant mediated through the prophets Moses was already written - 2 Kings 14:5; 2 Kings 22:8, 11, 13; 23:1-3, 21, 24 1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 17:9; 2; 25:4; 34:14-17, 21, 24, 30, 31; 35:12, Nehemiah 8:1,3,5,8,18;9:1 Exodus 34:27; Exodus 24:3, 4, Deuteronomy 17:8-11, Joshua 8:35.
• The biblical term “reminder” indicates the God of the Israelites would not use human memory to preserve sacred information without means of a written back up.
• Modern constitutions of large nation are in written form for a good reason.
• Oral law usually interprets things literally, and does not acknowledge that Hebrew can express things in figurative language, e.g., Exodus 13:9 compare with Proverbs 7:2, 3.
• Much is self-explanatory e.g., “You must not commit adultery." - Exodus 20:14.
• In any other important matters that seemed obscure, to receive God’s answer, the nation was directed, not to an oral law, but rather to the Urim and Thummim in the hands of the priests.—Exodus 28:30; Leviticus 8:8; Numbers 27:18-21; Deuteronomy 33:8-10.
• Oral sources of preservation are unreliable, e.g., the game le téléphone arabe.
• "There was no doubt some traditions passed down as to how to carry out specifically certain aspects of the law. But the fact that a tradition is long-standing doesn't prove divine inspiration, e.g., note the tradition that developed regarding the bronze serpent. —Numbers 21:8, 9; 2 Kings 18:4."
• The bible already set a creed for the biblical interpretation, “Do not interpretations belong to God? (Genesis 40:8).

"Most often, pieces of information passed on orally are subject to additions & subtractions, modifications, distortions, exaggerations, & confusions, so that it is often difficult to separate the truth from the fiction." - The book West African Traditional Religion.

• The ancient Israelite people were a literate people, & nation (Deuteronomy 6:8, 9; 31:19) and had scribes whom acted as public notaries, - Nehemiah 139:16; Jeremiah 32:12; Ezra 7:6, 7, 11. Thus it would seem illogical and absurd for them to even imagine an oral law system.
• Evidence seems to show "oral law" was actually started during 200-100 B.C.E, and not in 1513 B.C.E.
• "Errors & discrepancies in Seder ‘Olam Rabbah and other Talmudic chronological works have caused much embarrassment and considerable discussion among Jewish scholars."
• The sages' "preserving" this information character is in question. - Zephaniah; Jeremiah 6:13; Malachi 2:7, 8;
• "Written records speak for themselves, but could men who were so unfaithful be depended on to preserve faithfully an oral tradition?"
• All people knew the information regarding the law. Deuteronomy 30:11, 14; Nehemiah 8, 8. No need for Rabbis.
• The term rabbi does not occur in the holy Tanakh. The Encyclopaedia Judaica states: “The title rabbi is derived from the noun rav, which in Biblical Hebrew means ‘great’ and does not occur in the [Hebrew] Bible.”
• Many of the common Jewish people "am ha-′arets ", the Samaritans (later had some followed some non-biblical rules), Sadducees (had some followed some non-biblical rules), Essences (had some followed some non-biblical rules), Followers of John the Baptist, Followers of Jesus (Yeshua') the Christians, the Karaites (later had some followed some non-biblical rules), Some of the reform and conservative movements did not accept much of so called "oral law" (many had non-biblical rules).
• "It is well known that this new prominence given to fraternity of the rabbis rather than to the priests and prophets caused the so-called "oral law" to be the new centerpiece of Judaism. As long as the temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish worship, however, the issue of an oral law was secondary." "The services at the synagogue, led by the rabbis, replaced worship at the temple, supervised by the priests. Prayers, especially those on the Day of Atonement, replaced sacrifices."
• The Talmud contradicts itself.
• The Encyclopedia of Judaism comments: “The Oral Law is not a definitive code; it includes many diverse and even conflicting opinions.
• Many have passages in the Talmud shocking and offensive.
• The interpretation of the Talmud is much debated, so-called "oral law" was a claim solution to avoid debate.
• The Talmud full of fables.*

“that the Talmud contains “a large assortment of pointless naïvetés, taboos, superstitions, demonic lore, myths,”" - The Book of Jewish Knowledge, by Nathan Ausubel.

• Many believe that "Great Synagogue" was misguided:

"Some teachers of the Law claimed to follow in Ezra’s footsteps and formed what came to be termed the “Great Synagogue.” Among its sayings was the directive: “Make a fence around the Law.” These teachers reasoned that the Law was like a precious garden. In order that no one should trespass in this garden by transgressing its laws, they created further laws, the “Oral Law,” to prevent the people from coming close to such error." To combat the influence of Greek philosophy and culture, groups of religious leaders arose among the Jews. (See box, page 10.) In time some of these groups came to rival and even surpass the Leviticus priesthood as teachers of the Law.

• "While much of the Talmud was highly legalistic, its illustrations and explanations reflected the clear influence of Greek philosophy."
• There are no majestic signs and miracles in them, and the Oral laws lack the formula: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron." - (See Canto II) - http://www.karaite-korner.org/salmon_ben_yeruham.shtml#canto1.
• Historians reject the idea or view of the Talmudic had of the Sanhedrin. "They say that not until the Persian domination of Israel did something resembling the first-century Sanhedrin come into existence. Historians also hold that the learned academy of the Talmudists seems to fit in better, not with the Sanhedrin, but with 2nd and 3rd-century rabbinic assemblies."
• If the oral law system was meant to be kept then why was written? Does that "break" God's orders? —Why Was It Put in Writing? Especially since the oral system was to be a great system.
• The works of the Talmud seems very extreme in some aspects:

e.g., “He who lightly esteems hand-washing will perish from the earth.” - The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I. pages 68, 69; Code of Jewish Law, 1927, Rabbi S. Ganzfried, pages 125-129.

• The works or “oral law” based on the pharisaic traditions show an improper view or down regard to the common people so-called “‛am ha•’a´rets” – Proverbs 21:3; Hosea 6:6.

“The Pharisees and scribes treat common people like dirt under their feet. In fact, they use the Hebrew expression ‛am ha•’a´rets, “people of the land [earth],” to show the disdain they have for such ones.”

* There would have been gaps between information meaning a “broken chain” of information. – 2 Kings.

• Oral law biggest supporter is itself which is view by some as non-creditable, and does not seem to get any support whatsoever from the Holy Tanakh.
• During the more than a thousand years of recording the Hebrew Scriptures? From Moses to Malachi, there is no convincing mention of the existence of such an oral law code.

As an example of one of these false stories, consider this from the Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud: “R. Samuel b. Nahman in the name of R. Jonathan said: The tables [on which Moses received the Ten Commandments] were six hand-breadths long and three wide: and Moses was holding two hand-breadths, and God two, so that there were two hand-breadths interval between their fingers; and when the Israelites were adoring the calf, God sought to snatch the tables away from Moses’ hands; but Moses’ hands were so powerful that he snatched them from Him.” The story continues that then “the letters flew off” the tablets; as a result, since “the writing was sustaining them,” the tablets “became too heavy for Moses’ hands, and fell, and were broken.”—Ta‛anit, V, pp. 116, 117, translated by A. W. Greenup.

• Wikipedia article mentioned: "The discussion of shechita (kosher slaughter) in Deuteronomy 12 states...but the Torah does not record an earlier commandment." The verse somewhat quoted is

Deuteronomy 12:21 as an argument pro-oral law: It is not really accurate, this seen by reading the start of the chapter (Deuteronomy 12:6-21). And the knowing Hebrew expression it is better rendered "just as I have commanded you" (NW) rather "an earlier commandment". The Jewish Publication Society rendering in the Jewish Tanakh (1917) rendered it as follows, "as I have commanded thee,”

Feel free to write more reasons why many reject oral law. Remember this not about arguing here merely present a different viewpoint.