We are a Christian Fellowship meeting in North London with a strong interest in teaching the Bible and understanding our time in
the light of Bible prophecy
Article Titles
Book Chapters
Was there an Oral Torah given at Sinai?
- Were there two Torahs – one written and one oral?
- If so what is the Biblical evidence for this?
- When was the Mishna and Gemara written?
- Does the Tenach need another book to complete it?
Asher Norman states that there are two Torahs, one written and one oral (page 7). Judaism teaches that God gave the Written Torah (Torah she-bi-khtav) which is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, and the Oral Torah (Torah she-be'al peh). The Oral Torah was not written down but was transmitted by Moses in spoken form. Since those times, the Oral Torah has been transmitted orally from teacher to student in an unbroken chain that leads back to Moses. The Tractate Avot 10.1 states: ‘Moses received this law (Oral Law) from Mt Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders (the judges), the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Great Synagogue (the sopherim / scribes in the time of Ezra).’
In around 200 CE Rabbi Judah Hanasi compiled the document called the Mishna. He saw that the conditions for the Jews were going from bad to worse, with the Temple destroyed, the Sanhedrin no longer able to meet and no central authority functioning as Jews fled the land of Israel and endured persecutions. In order to preserve the Oral Torah he decided the time had come to write it down so he went to as many rabbis as he could in order to extract from them their entire memories. He put those recollections together, edited them and the result was the Mishna (which means repetition). A commentary on the Mishna was added called the Gemara, the entire compilation being known as the Talmud.
According to Maimonides (Introduction to Mishneh Torah 1-3), ‘All the commandments that were given to Moses at Sinai were given together with their interpretation, as it is written "and I will give thee the Tables of Stone, and the Law [torah], and the Commandment (mitzvah) (Exodus 24,12). "Law" is the Written Law; and "Commandment" is its interpretation: We were commanded to fulfill the Law, according to the Commandment. And this Commandment is what is called the Oral Law.’
Note that Maimonides uses the word interpretation when referring to the Oral Torah — this is common Rabbinic usage. The use of the word interpretation differs greatly from the common use of this word which is to clarify meaning which is already present, not to add new information. To illustrate what I mean, I give an example from my former work as an English teacher. In the course of a lesson on Shakespeare the class looked at Hamlet’s famous line: ‘To be or not to be that is the question.’ I gave this interpretation: ‘Hamlet is distressed at all the terrible events taking place around him and is questioning whether life is worth living. He is considering suicide.’ In saying this I have added no new information to the text but given a reasonable interpretation of it. If I were to say, ‘Hamlet is here justifying assisted suicide in the case of terminally ill patients if they give their consent,’ I am not interpreting it but adding new information and an opinion not found in the text.
Much of the Talmud adds information not found in the Biblical text. Two well known examples are these.
1. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), God offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. It is true that God gave the Torah to the Jews, but there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that He offered it also to the Gentiles and they rejected it. This is not interpretation but addition.
2. The Mosaic Laws forbid the boiling of a kid (baby goat) in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23.9). Why might anybody want to boil a kid in its mother’s milk? A reasonable interpretation of this would be because it is associated with a pagan fertility ritual. But the Talmudic application gives the interpretation that as a result of this commandment it is forbidden to eat meat and dairy products in the same meal, or even to eat meat products off the same dishes one eats dairy products off. Now you might make a good case for saying that it is good for one’s diet not to eat milk and meat in the same meal, but that is adding information not found in this verse of scripture.
Does the Bible teach that there is an Oral Law which is necessary to understand the written Law?
Rabbinic Judaism teaches that the following are evidences for the existence of the Oral Torah:
The Torah is ambiguous therefore there is a need for the Oral Torah to explain it. In a defence of the Oral Law by Gil Student (http://www.amhaaretz.org/critique-oral-torah/ he says: ‘What does the Torah mean when it [Ex. 20:10] forbids "work" on the sabbath? What work is forbidden and what is not? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid., 30b; Rashbash, ibid.] Without an oral explanation of the details of this forbidden work, it is impossible to know what the Torah means.’ He claims Deuteronomy 17.8-13 is evidence of the Oral Torah because it refers to matters ‘too hard to judge’ which need to be taken to the Levites. He will have access to the Oral Torah which will enable him to make the judgment.
He says that Isaiah 58.13-14, Jeremiah 17.21-22 show evidence for the Oral Torah in that they say how to keep the Sabbath giving reference to instructions not given in the Torah. The passage in Isaiah tells people not to do their own pleasure on the Sabbath and to delight in the Lord. Jeremiah tells people not to ‘bear a burden on the Sabbath day nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem.’
Asher Norman says Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 6 is evidence of the Oral Torah. Daniel prays three times a day publicly in the sight of the Babylonians and is thrown into the lions’ den for disobeying the order not to pray to anyone except the king (Daniel 6.10-17). This is quoted as evidence of the Oral Torah since the written Torah does not say you have to pray 3 times a day, so Daniel must have known from the Oral Torah that he should pray 3 times a day.
He also claims Zechariah 8.19 as evidence of the Oral Torah. This verse mentions the fasts of the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months. This points to the Oral Torah since there is no mention of these fasts in the Torah.
None of these are particularly convincing evidences. The Rabbis state that the Jewish Bible is ambiguous and so there must be another revelation that reduces the ambiguity. They then say that the Oral Torah is this other revelation. But this is circular reasoning based on their own presuppositions rather than the facts of the matter. We can also test whether it is true that the Oral Torah reduces ambiguity. Ami Hertz who writes from the point of view of a Jew who wants to follow the Torah but rejects the Oral Torah says, ‘As it turns out, the statement is patently false. The amount of ambiguity in the Oral Torah is massive, and is much greater than any possible ambiguity in the Jewish Bible. Thus, even if we do accept that ambiguity reduction is a good thing, which the Rabbis do not prove, then that is actually an argument against the Oral Torah, not for it.’ ‘Critique of the Oral Torah.’ www.amhaaretz.org/critique-oral-torah/ambiguity-argument.html
The verses from Isaiah and Jeremiah can be explained as the prophets addressing issues about the keeping of the fourth commandment which were relevant to the people they were speaking to. Both verses are consistent with Exodus 20.8 ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ In Jeremiah’s day it may have been that people involved in construction work in Jerusalem were not actually doing the building on the Sabbath but were carrying the materials they needed for the work to the site so they could be ready to start building on the next day. This would have been violating the spirit of the 4th commandment.
In the passage in Daniel, the text actually says about Daniel’s prayers ‘as was his custom since early days’ (Daniel 6.10) implying that this was his personal custom as a godly Jewish man rather than a requirement of the Law. In fact if it was a requirement why were not all the Jews in Babylon thrown to the lions as a result of their prayers?
In the passage in Zechariah the context is the returning exiles from Babylon rebuilding the temple. They are asking if they should keep the fasts associated with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple now that the exile was over and the work of reconstruction had begun. A requirement for a fast commemorating the destruction of the Temple could not possibly have been given when Moses was on Mount Sinai as there was no Temple and Jerusalem was in Canaanite hands. In the context of Zechariah 7-8 it is clear that the four fasts mentioned in Zechariah 8.19 were not commanded by God. In fact in this verse the Lord says they should be joyful feasts.
What are the main objections to the existence of the Oral Torah?
There are no verses which really support it. Surely if God gave the Oral Torah at the same time as He gave the written Torah there would be something in the written Torah stating that this is the case. In fact there are a number of passages which speak of the words which were written and read to Israel, but none about passages which were unwritten. Consider the following:
‘And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. … Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in hearing of the people. And they said, ‘All that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient.’ Exodus 24.4, 7.
‘Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ Exodus 34.27.
‘So it was when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book when they were finished that Moses commanded the Levites who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord saying, ‘Take this Book of the Law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God that it may be a witness against you.’ Deuteronomy 31.24-26.
‘This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate upon it day and night that you may observe to do all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous and then you will have good success.’ Joshua 1.8
The Book of Joshua goes on to tell us that Joshua (to whom Moses is supposed to have communicated the unwritten oral Torah) possessed a written word, which he read to the people of Israel as they entered the Land. This written word contained all that Moses had passed down: ‘And afterward he (Joshua) read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the Book of the Law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them. (Josh 8:34-35)
It is hard to reconcile these verses with the idea of an unwritten oral Torah, which precedes the written Torah and is equally inspired given by God at Mount Sinai.
In the later history of Israel there are many references to the written word as God’s commandments to His people (for example 2 Kings 2.3, 2 Kings 22.8-13, Nehemiah 8.1-8, Daniel 9.10-13). There are none to an unwritten word passed on from generation to generation.
The Bible also records long periods of failure in Israel to keep the written Torah, with some of its commands being forgotten for generations. See Judges 2.7-12, 21.25, 1 Samuel 3.1-3, 2 Kings 22, 2 Kings 23.21-23, 2 Chronicles 15.3-7, Nehemiah 8.13-18. Nehemiah 8.17 actually states that the Feast of Tabernacles / Succoth had not been kept since the days of Joshua. Obviously it is easier to keep commandments which are written down than those which are not. So if Israel did not keep written commandments for long periods of history are we to believe that it was possible to keep a chain of continuity through all these generations passing on unwritten commands?
So where did the Oral Law come from?
After the return from Babylon the leaders of the people were aware that previous disobedience to God’s law was the cause of the punishment of exile in Babylon. Ezra set about educating Israel concerning Mosaic Law. He read it and expounded it in public (Nehemiah 8). He started the school of Sopherim (scribes) whose function was to teach and explain laws of Torah. After Ezra’s death a later generation said this was not enough and proposed that a ‘fence’ be put up around the 613 laws they derived from Torah to prevent Israel from inadvertently breaking one of the laws. For example over 1500 laws added to Sabbath regulations. Milk and meat laws forbidding people to eat dairy products in the same meal as they ate meat products arose from interpretation of Exodus 23.19 ‘You shall not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk’.
Scribes said these fence laws were man made while laws given to Moses were God given. A later generation came along known as Tannaim (teachers). They said that fence erected by scribes had too many holes in it so they added another layer of laws to fill in these holes. For example they added the regulation about separating dishes used for milk and meat in respect of Exodus 23.19. In the process they said that the fence laws given by the scribes as well as the Law of Moses were given by God.
So they made man made laws into God given laws. In this way they fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 29.13: ‘Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths and honour me with their lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men.’ When the commandments of men are turned into the word of God, you have the basis of a man made religion which will always end up obscuring the truth of God in His Word. The same thing happened in Christianity with the development of the Roman Catholic Church.
Since the Talmud has over 2700 double sided pages and is extremely difficult to read, it follows that only those who have spent years studying it will be able to give rulings on its teachings. Ordinary people will have to accept what they say. In this respect it is bit like the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union (the document which replaced the rejected EU Constitution). This document contains thousands of pages of obscure legalese which the average person has neither time nor inclination to read. So they will have to rely on the rulings of learned lawyers and politicians who are then able to give rulings which affect their lives.
In practice what then happens is that the word of man becomes more binding than the Word of God. When there is disagreement between the two, the word of man prevails. According to Orthodox belief, the Written Torah can neither be understood nor followed without the Oral Torah. Since the Oral Torah is in the mouths of the Rabbis, whatever the Rabbis say, one must do, regardless of what the text of the Written Torah says or seems to say. In this sense, the Oral Torah overrides the Written Torah — if the text of the Written Torah says one thing while the Rabbis say the opposite, it is the Rabbis who must be obeyed. ‘It is more punishable to act against the words of the Scribes (Sopherim / Oral Law) than those of the Scriptures.’ Tractate Berachot 3.2, Tractate Sanhedrin 11.3. ‘Give more heed to the words of the Rabbis than to the words of the Law.’ Tractate Eruvin 21b.
In modern Judaism the Talmud is treated as more important than the Bible. I once attended a lecture at a Jewish outreach centre in London during which the rabbi spoke about the Oral Torah. He told the following story: found in the talmudic tractate Bava Mezia 59b. This follows a discussion according to halakha (halakha means the body of Jewish law supplementing the scriptural law and forming the legal part of the Talmud) in which the rabbis debated whether an oven that had become impure could be purified. While almost all the sages felt it could not be, Rabbi Eliezer, a lone voice but a great scholar, disagreed:
"On that day, Rabbi Eliezer put forward all the arguments in the world, but the Sages did not accept them. "Finally, he said to them, 'If the halakha is according to me, let that carob tree prove it.' He pointed to a nearby carob tree, which then moved from its place a hundred cubits, and some say, four hundred cubits. They said to him 'One cannot bring a proof from the moving of a carob tree.'
"Said Rabbi Eliezer, 'If the halakha is according to me, may that stream of water prove it.' The stream of water then turned and flowed in the opposite direction. They said to him, 'One cannot bring a proof from the behavior of a stream of water.'
"Said Rabbi Eliezer, 'If the halakha is according to me, may the walls of the House of Study prove it.' The walls of the House of Study began to bend inward. Rabbi Joshua then rose up and rebuked the walls of the House of Study, 'If the students of the Wise argue with one another in halakha," he said, "what right have you to interfere?' In honor of Rabbi Joshua, the walls ceased to bend inward; but in honor of Rabbi Eliezer, they did not straighten up, and they remain bent to this day.
"Then, said Rabbi Eliezer to the Sages, 'If the halakha is according to me, may a proof come from Heaven.' Then a heavenly voice went forth and said, 'What have you to do with Rabbi Eliezer? The halakha is according to him in every place.' Then Rabbi Joshua rose up on his feet, and said, 'It is not in the heavens' (Deuteronomy 30:12).
"What did he mean by quoting this? Said Rabbi Jeremiah, 'He meant that since the Torah has been given already on Mount Sinai, we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, for You have written in Your Torah, 'Decide according to the majority' (Exodus 23:2).
"Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah. He asked him, 'What was the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing in that hour?'
"Said Elijah, 'He was laughing and saying, "My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.""'
The British-Jewish scholar and writer Hyam Maccoby has commented: "This extraordinary story strikes the keynote of the Talmud. God is a good father who wants His children to grow up and achieve independence. He has given them His Torah, but now wants them to develop it...."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Halakha_&_aggadata_&_midrash.html
Hyam Maccoby actually misses the real point of this story. It means the Sages of Israel are treated as being a higher authority than God Himself and that the words of the Oral Torah are greater in importance than the words of God in the Bible.
The Oral Law and the New Testament.
This was the issue Jesus faced with the religious leaders of his day. It is also the issue today when the writings of men and traditions become of greater importance than the word of God. Jesus appeared on the scene shortly after the so called fence laws of the Oral Law had been declared to be given by God and therefore binding. In Mark 2.23-28 the accusation that the disciples were doing something unlawful by plucking heads of grain as they walked through a grain field is based on the Oral Law, not the written Torah. In Matthew 23.23 Jesus accuses the scribes and Pharisees of neglecting the ‘weightier matters of the law; justice, mercy and faith’ in order to keep minutiae of the additional commandments given by the Oral Law. This was the source of His dispute with the Pharisees. He quoted Isaiah 29.13 about ‘teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’ in Mark 7.6-7 to illustrate the point of this conflict.
In his book on the Oral Torah Ami Hertz writes: ‘Most Jews today, whether they see themselves as religious or not, believe that the Oral Torah — the vast body of Rabbinical laws and traditions — is inseparable from Judaism. I myself think that this view is extremely flawed. Regardless of the intentions of the Rabbis, I see the Oral Torah as a great burden, created and imposed by humans, and never sanctioned by God. I hope that free from this man-made burden, more Jews will come to appreciate and follow the Teaching that God actually did give to us through Moses and that this will reinvigorate the people.’
Ami Hertz rejects Christianity, but in fact he agrees with Jesus about the burden of man-made laws. Jesus said of the scribes and Pharisees of His day ‘they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders.’ Matthew 23.4. Jesus said, ‘Come to Me all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.’ Matthew 11.28-30.
According to rabbinic Judaism the Torah on its own needs another book to be added to it, namely the Talmud. Actually there is a truth that the Torah needs another book to be added to it. On its own there are issues in the Jewish Bible / Old Testament which cannot be resolved. We will look at the reasons for this in the next section.
To page top