View source for Oral Torah

{{Short description|Practices not in the Written Torah}}
{{Judaism}}
According to [[Rabbinic Judaism]], the '''Oral Torah''' or '''Oral Law''' ({{langx|he|{{Script/Hebrew| תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל־פֶּה}}|Tōrā šebbəʿal-pe|}}) are statutes and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the Written [[Torah]] ({{langx|he|{{Script/Hebrew|תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב}}|Tōrā šebbīḵṯāv|"Written Law"|label=none}}), and which are regarded by [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] as prescriptive and given at the same time. This holistic Jewish [[code of conduct]] encompasses a wide swathe of rituals, worship practices, God{{endash}}man and interpersonal relationships, from [[Kashrut|dietary laws]] to [[Sabbath]] and festival observance to marital relations, agricultural practices, and civil claims and damages.

According to Rabbinic Jewish tradition, the Oral Torah was [[oral tradition|passed down orally]] in an unbroken chain from generation to generation until its contents were finally committed to writing following the destruction of the [[Second Temple]] in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat, by virtue of the dispersion of the Jewish people.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Schwartz | first1=H. | last2=Loebel-Fried | first2=C. | title=Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2006 | isbn=978-0-19-532713-7 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5psRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PR55 | page=55}}</ref>

The major repositories of the Oral Torah are the ''[[Mishnah]]'', compiled between 200–220 CE by [[Judah ha-Nasi]], and the ''[[Gemara]]'', a series of running commentaries and debates concerning the Mishnah, which together form the ''[[Talmud]]'', the preeminent text of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, two "versions" of the Talmud exist: one produced in the [[Galilee]] {{circa}} 300–350 CE (the [[Jerusalem Talmud]]), and a second, more extensive Talmud compiled in [[Asoristan|Jewish Babylonia]] {{circa}} 450–500 CE (the [[Talmud#Babylonian Talmud|Babylonian Talmud]]).

Belief that at least portions of the Oral Torah were transmitted orally from God to [[Moses]] on [[Biblical Mount Sinai]] during [[the Exodus]] from Egypt is a fundamental tenet of faith of [[Orthodox Judaism]], and was recognized as one of the [[Jewish principles of faith#Maimonides' 13 principles of faith|Thirteen Principles of Faith]] by [[Maimonides]].

There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah, most notably the [[Sadducees]] and [[Karaite Judaism|Karaites]], who claimed to derive their religious practice only from the Written Torah. The [[Beta Israel]], isolated from the rest of world Jewry for many centuries, also lacked Rabbinic texts until they [[Aliyah from Ethiopia|immigrated from Ethiopia]] to Israel, in recent years.<ref>{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 2 |last=Ehrlich|first=Mark Avrum |date=2009 |page=473 |quote=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.|publisher=ABC-CLIO}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience |last1=Appiah |first1=Anthony | last2=Gates | first2=Henry Louis Jr. |date=2005 |page=565 |quote=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. |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

==Components of the Oral Torah==
{{See also|Halakha#Sources and process}}

The term "Oral Torah" should not be understood as a monolith. The ''[[Jewish Encyclopedia]]'' divides the Oral Torah into eight categories, ranked according to the relative level of authoritativeness, which are found within the Talmud, the [[Tosefta]] and the halakhic [[Midrash]]im.<ref name="Jewish Encyclopedia">{{cite book |title=Jewish Encyclopedia |chapter=Oral Law (תורה שבעל פה) |chapter-url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11750-oral-law |date=1906 |access-date=13 June 2013}}</ref>
# Explanations of those laws of the written law, which are not fully intelligible without the explanations, and therefore presuppose an oral interpretation. Such explanations are connected in some way with Scripture.
# Ancient [[halakhot]] which have no connection with Scripture and can not be connected with it, thus deriving their authority only from the tradition which ascribes them [[Law given to Moses at Sinai|to Moses on Sinai]]. (In the case of these two groups, it is impossible to ascertain which elucidations and rules were really given to Moses on Sinai, and which were added later.)
# Laws found in [[Tanakh|the prophetic books]]. Some of these originated at the time of the Prophets; but others are much older, perhaps having been transmitted orally, and committed to writing by the Prophets. They are called also ''"Dibre Ḳabbalah"'' (Words of Tradition).
# Interpretations and regulations defining many written laws, as well as new laws, formulated by the early scribes, beginning with the time of [[Ezra]]. These are called also ''"Dibre Soferim"'' (Words of the Scribes).
# Interpretations and regulations covering the written law, as well as new halakhot, which the [[Tannaim]] deduced from Scripture by means of [[Talmudic hermeneutics|hermeneutic rules]] or by logical conclusions. There are differences of opinion among the scholars in regard to most of these explanations and definitions; but they are of equal weight with the written law, and are called also ''"Debar Torah"'' (Regulation of the Torah).
# Customs and observances (''"[[Takkanah|taḳḳanot]]"'') which were introduced at various times by different scholars. They are ascribed partly to [[Moses]], partly to [[Joshua]], but chiefly to the members of the Great Synagogue or the ''Soferim ''("Scribes"), and are called also ''"Dibre Soferim"'' ("Words of the Scribes").
# Statutes and decisions (''"[[Gezerah|gezerot]]"'') decreed by the [[Sanhedrin]] or court, and generally accepted. Such laws could be abrogated only by another court greater than the first one in numbers and scholarship.
# Statutes and regulations for which the scholars had no tradition or allusion in Scripture, but which they accepted as standards after deriving them from the customs and laws of the country in which they were living. These are called ''"Hilkhot Medinah"'' (Statutes of the Country).

The laws in the last three groups were not considered equal in validity to the written law (''"[[List of Talmudic principles#De'oraita and derabanan|De'oraita]]"''), but were regarded merely as rabbinical regulations (''"[[List of Talmudic principles#De'oraita and derabanan|de-rabbanan]]"'').<ref name="Jewish Encyclopedia" />

==Historical development==

===Source and transmission===
{{See also|Law given to Moses at Sinai}}
According to modern scholarship, the traditions embodied in what later became known as the "Oral Torah" developed over generations among the inhabitants of [[Judea]] and [[Israel]] and were passed down through various modes of [[cultural transmission]], including but not restricted to oral transmission. It is hypothesized that, sometime prior to the [[Babylonian captivity|Babylonian 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."<ref name=Danby />

Such practices experienced exponential growth from the time of [[Ezra]] to the Romans' destruction of the [[Second Temple]] due to the changing social and religious conditions experienced by inhabitants of Judea.<ref name=Danby /> Many of these practices were advocated by the [[Pharisees]], a sect of largely lower- and middle-class Jews who stood in opposition to the [[Sadducees]], the priestly caste who dominated the Temple cult.<ref name=Magness>{{cite book|last=Magness|first=Jodi|title=Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls|year=2003|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-2687-9|pages=41–43}}</ref> The Sadducees rejected the legitimacy of the pharisaic extra-biblical traditions, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of the [[soul]] and [[Divine providence|divine intervention]].<ref name=Magness /><ref>According to [[Josephus]], ''[[Antiquities]]'' XIII. x. 6, "The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers which are not written in the law 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."</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Sanders |first=E. P. |title=Judaism: practice and belief; 63 BCE - 66 CE |date=2005 |publisher=SCM Press |isbn=978-0-334-02470-5 |edition=4. impr |location=London |pages=332–335 |quote=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.}}</ref> Danby notes the following:

<blockquote>
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 the [[Houses 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.<ref name=Danby>{{cite book|last=Danby|first=Herbert|title=The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes|year=2012|publisher=Hendrickson Publishers|isbn=978-1-59856-902-5|pages=xvii–xix}}</ref>
</blockquote>

With the destruction of the Second Temple around 70&nbsp;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 leader [[Johanan ben Zakkai]] (30–90 CE) settled in [[Yavneh]], where he established a school that came to be regarded by fellow Jews as the successors of the Jerusalem [[Sanhedrin]].<ref name=Danby /> Upon this [[Council of Jamnia|Council 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.<ref name=Danby /> Thus, from 70 to 130&nbsp;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|date=November 2023}}

===Codification===

====The Mishnah====
The destruction of the Second Temple and the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)#Destruction of Jerusalem|fall of Jerusalem]] in the first and early second centuries CE devastated the Jewish community. The [[First Jewish–Roman War]] of 66–73 CE and the [[Bar Kokhba revolt]] cost hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives, the destruction of leading [[Yeshiva|yeshivot]], and thousands of scholars and students.<ref name=Telushkin>{{cite book|last=Telushkin|first=Joseph|title=Jewish Literacy: Revised Edition|year=2001|publisher=William Morrow and Company, Inc.|location=New York, USA|isbn=0-688-08506-7|pages=[https://archive.org/details/jewishliteracy00telu/page/146 146–152]|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/jewishliteracy00telu/page/146}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Telushkin /><ref>{{cite web |title=Tosefta Eduyot 1:1 |url=https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Eduyot.1.1?lang=bi |website=www.sefaria.org|quote=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.”}}</ref> Thus, around 200 CE, a [[redaction]] of the Oral Law in writing was completed. Both Rabbinic tradition and scholarship ascribe this effort to Judah HaNasi. The product of this effort, the [[Mishnah]], is generally considered the first work of [[rabbinic 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 of [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]], [[Leviticus]], and [[Book of Numbers|Numbers]], all the Mishnaic laws of the Sabbath are located in a single tractate called ''[[Shabbat (Talmud)|Shabbat]]''.<ref name=Telushkin /> 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.<ref name=Telushkin /> Some authority suggests HaNasi made use of as many as 13 separate collections of [[Halachah|Halakhot]] 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.<ref name=Danby />

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 of ''[[Bava Kamma]]'', ''[[Bava Metzia]]'' and ''[[Bava Batra]]''.<ref name=Neusner>{{cite book|last=Neusner|first=Jacob|title=The Perfect Torah: Volume 13 of The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism|year=2003|publisher=BRILL|isbn=9789004130333|pages=2–4}}</ref> 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."<ref name=Neusner /> Just as portions of the Torah reflect (according to the [[documentary hypothesis]]) the agenda of the [[Levite]] priesthood in centralizing worship in the [[Temple in Jerusalem]] and legitimizing their exclusive authority over the sacrificial cult, so too can the Mishnah be seen as reflecting the unique "program" of the [[Tannaim]] and their successors to develop an egalitarian form of Judaism with an emphasis on [[social justice]] and an applicability throughout the [[Jewish diaspora]].<ref name=Neusner /><ref>{{cite book|last=Ska|first=Jean-Louis|title=Introduction to reading the Pentateuch|year=2006|publisher=Eisenbrauns|isbn=978-1-57506-122-1}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Neusner />

====The Gemara====
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 the [[Gemara]], 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, [[Talmudic Academies in Syria Palaestina|Syria Palaestina]] or "Judea" and [[Talmudic academies in Babylonia|Asoristan]] or "Babylonia".<ref name=Telushkin /> The Gemara with the Mishnah came to be edited together into compilations known as the [[Talmud]]. Both the [[Babylonian Talmud]] and the [[Jerusalem Talmud]] have been transmitted in written form to the present day, although the more extensive Babylonian Talmud is widely considered to be more authoritative.<ref name=Telushkin />

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.<ref name=Telushkin /> (See ''[[Aliba dehilchasa]]''.)

==In Jewish tradition==

===Rabbinic thought===
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 and [[Haredi Judaism]] as a fundamental precept of Judaism.<ref name=Gaventa>{{cite book|last=Gaventa|first=William|title=Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability|year=2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-45351-9|pages=109–112}}</ref> The Oral Law was the basis for nearly all subsequent rabbinic literature. It is therefore intricately related to the development of [[Halacha]]. As such, despite codification, interpretation of the Oral Law is likewise required.

====Divine source and transmission====
Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Torah in two distinct ways.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Oral Law and the Jurisprudence of a Textless Text|last=Dane|first=Perry|date=Winter 1991|journal=S'vara: A Journal of Philosophy, Law, and Judaism|volume=2|page=11|ssrn=1718700}}</ref> 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."<ref>Elizabeth Shanks Alexander, ''The Orality of Rabbinic Writing'', in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud, ed. Martin Jaffee, 2007. p. 39. This is attested to in numerous sources, such as Mishnah Avot 1:1. The manner of teaching and memorization is described in B. Eruvin 54b.</ref> 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 the ''oral tradition'' of interpretation, to discover those ("hidden") interpretations not revealed by Moses.<ref>In rabbinic literature this view is exemplified by the story of Rabbi Akiva who expounded heaps and heaps of laws from the scriptural crowns of the letters in the written Torah.

According to traditional Judaism, the laws transmitted to Moses contained in the Written [[Torah]] (or [[Chumash (Judaism)|Chumash]]) were written down on scrolls, but God enjoined Moses from writing down the explanation of these laws. Indeed, the Talmud relays that Moses himself would not understand all of these interpretations, nevertheless, these are also called [[Law given to Moses at Sinai]]. B Menahot 29b. See, Elizabeth Shanks Alexander, op cit.</ref> 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;<ref>See BT Temurah 14b, and, BT Gittin 60b. Also, Y Megillah 4:1</ref> some rabbis kept private notes of their teaching, but only for their personal convenience.<ref>[[Saul Lieberman]], ''Hellenism in Jewish Palestine'', p.87</ref>

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."<ref>Mishna, Avot 1:1; the remainder of chapter 1 identifies further individuals in the chain</ref><ref name=Fackenheim>{{cite book|last=Fackenheim|first=Emil L.|title=What is Judaism?: An Interpretation for the Present Age|year=1999|publisher=Syracuse University Press|isbn=978-0-8156-0623-9|pages=68–71}}</ref> Similarly, [[Maimonides]] provides a generation by generation account of the names of all those in the direct line that transmitted this tradition, beginning with [[Moses]] up until [[Ravina I|Ravina]] and [[Rav Ashi]], the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud.<ref>[https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901656/jewish/Introduction-to-Mishneh-Torah.htm Introduction to Mishneh Torah]</ref>{{bsn|date=June 2022}} The pivotal role of Akiva ben Yosef is discussed in a Talmudic story, when [[Moses sees Rabbi Akiva (Menachot 29b)]], which portrays God as preparing the Torah for Akiva's interpretive skills in [[midrash]].

====The interplay of the Oral and Written Law====
{{Original Research|section|date=September 2021}}
Rabbinic tradition identifies several characteristics of the Written Law, suggesting <ref name="Student"/> the existence of a parallel Oral tradition. 
<ref>See, for an overview:
*[[Nathan Lopes Cardozo]] (1989). ''The Infinite Chain: Torah, Masorah, and Man''. Targum Press. {{isbn|978-0944070154}}
*[[Aryeh Kaplan]] (1979).  [https://aish.com/48943186/ The Oral Tradition] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241127002911/https://aish.com/48943186/ |date=2024-11-27 }}, ch 9 in ''The Handbook of Jewish Thought''. Moznaim. {{isbn|978-0940118492}}</ref>
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 <ref name="Student"/> (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 word ''totafot'', usually translated as "frontlets," which is used three times in the Pentateuch (in [[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] 13:9 and [[Deuteronomy]] 6:8 and 11:18) but only identified with [[tefillin]] in the Mishnah (see [[Menachot]] 3:7).

Similarly, many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, or assume familiarity on the part of the reader.<ref>David Charles Kraemer, ''The Mind of the Talmud'', Oxford University Press, 1990. pp 157–159</ref><ref name="Jewish Encyclopedia" /><ref name="Student">Rabbi [[Gil Student]]: [http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm Proofs for the Oral Torah] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303180308/http://www.aishdas.org/student/oral.htm |date=2016-03-03 }}</ref> 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''," 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 of [[divorce]] in passing; these laws are set forth with great specificity in the Mishnah and Gemara. Another example: the blue string of [[tekhelet]] on the [[tzitzit]] is to be dyed with an extraction from what scholars believe to be a snail; a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah.<ref>See http://www.tekhelet.com {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080130063924/http://www.tekhelet.com/ |date=2008-01-30 }} Ptil Tekhelet</ref> For other examples and further discussion here see ''[[Kuzari]]'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/khz/khz03.htm 3:35].

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" {{bibleverse||Ex|21:22–27|131}} is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal ''[[Lex talionis]]''.<ref>The Talmud explains this concept entails monetary compensation in [[tort]] cases. 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 {{bibleverse||Ex|21:22–27|131}}. The [[Talmud]] (in ''[[Nezikin|Bava Kamma]]'', 84a), based upon a critical interpretation of the original [[Hebrew (language)|Hebrew text]], explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in [[tort]] cases. (Additionally, this law cannot be carried out in practice, for both practical and ethical reasons; see also [[Emor#Leviticus chapter 24|parashat Emor]]). Since the Torah requires that penalties be universally applicable, the phrase cannot be interpreted literally; it would be inapplicable to blind or eyeless offenders.</ref> Note also that the interpretation as "monetary compensation" is borne out by {{bibleverse||Num|35:30–31|131}}, implying that ''only'' in the case of murder is ''Lex 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 of [[Boaz]] to [[Ruth (biblical figure)|Ruth]] ({{Bibleverse|Ruth|4:8-9|HE}}) appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of against marrying Moabites ({{bibleverse-lb||Deuteronomy|23:3–4|HE}}); however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite ''men''. Similarly, the [[Counting of the Omer#The count|rabbinic practice]] for the [[Counting of the Omer]] ({{bibleverse-lb||Leviticus|23:15–16|HE}}) is at odds with the [[Counting of the Omer#Karaite and Samaritan practice|Karaite practice]], which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by {{bibleverse-lb||Joshua|5:10–12|HE}}.<ref>Tim Hegg: [http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/CountingTheOmer.pdf "Counting the Omer: An Inquiry into the Divergent Methods of the 1st Century Judaisms"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120704053615/http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/CountingTheOmer.pdf |date=2012-07-04 }}.</ref> 

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; see {{slink|Gemara |Biblical exposition}}.
Relatedly, the 1st century [[Targum Onkelos]] is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the [[midrash]], redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Michaelis |first=Omer |date=2020-01-01 |title=Crisis discourse and framework transition in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah |journal=Open Philosophy |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=664–680 |doi=10.1515/opphil-2020-0140 |issn=2543-8875|doi-access=free }}</ref> 

Complementary to the above textual and [[internal evidence]], [[archaeologist]]s 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 at [[Qumran]] ([[Dead Sea Scrolls #Caves 4a and 4b|Cave 4]]) have yielded specimens of ''[[tefillin]]'' and [[Tefillin#Parchment scrolls|parchment scrolls]] which reflect later Talmudic discussion.<ref>See for example, [[Yigal Yadin]]: [http://dailydaf.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/teffilin-from-qumran-yigal-yadin.pdf Tefilin from Qumran] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131228192636/http://dailydaf.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/teffilin-from-qumran-yigal-yadin.pdf |date=2013-12-28 }}.</ref> Likewise, the structure and placement of [[Mikvah|ritual baths]] at [[Masada]] appears to be consistent with the [[Mikvah#Requirements|rabbinic requirements]] per the Mishnaic tractate ''[[Mikvaot]]'', although they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.<ref>Rabbi Yosef Back: [http://torahtourguide.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/southern-mikveh-on-masada/ "Southern mikveh on Masada"].</ref>{{bsn|date=June 2022}} A [[Seal (emblem)#Ancient Near East|clay seal]] discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate ''[[Shekalim (Talmud)|Shekalim]]'' [http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%94 chapter 5].<ref>[https://www.jta.org/2011/12/25/israel/clay-seal-from-second-temple-period-unearthed Clay seal from Second Temple period unearthed]</ref> The [[Elephantine papyri]] include a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of the [[Passover|Pesach observances]] of today,<ref>Schiffman, Lawrence. [http://classical.rabbinics.org/Elephantine%20Passover%20Papyrus%20-%20translation.pdf Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131225134558/http://classical.rabbinics.org/Elephantine%20Passover%20Papyrus%20-%20translation.pdf |date=2013-12-25 }} Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1998.</ref> and the first known text of a [[Ketubah]] (about 440 BCE). The Qumran [[4QMMT|''Halachic Letter'']],<ref>''Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah''/ Qumran Cave 4</ref> which records approximately a dozen disputes regarding the application of halakha, also testifies to the evolutionary process of the Oral Law.

====In rabbinic literature and commentary====
The Oral Law's fundamental <ref>Rabbi Baruch Gigi (2017).  [https://www.etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/issues-jewish-thought/topical-issues-thought/written-law-and-oral-law The Written Law and the Oral Law], [[Yeshivat Har Etzion|etzion.org.il]] </ref> connection to the written Law, as evident in [[Oral_Torah#The_Mishnah|its 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, the [[midrash]] provides a verse-by-verse discussion of the entire Tanakh, thereby recording both [[aggadic]] and [[halakhic]] 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 the [[Mishnah]] - it is linked [[Gemara#Prooftexts|to the relevant verse(s)]] in almost all cases.)

[[Image:Sapirstein Rashi.jpg|thumb|200px|A modern translation of Rashi's commentary on the [[Chumash (Judaism)|Chumash]], published by [[Artscroll]]]]
Early [[Rabbinic 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 the ''[[Rishonim]]'' sees the Oral Law incorporated into the first formal [[Torah commentaries]], where the biblical text is discussed and / or analysed based on the various Midrashic and Talmudic traditions. The chief of these is perhaps [[Rashi]]'s [[Rashi#Commentary on the Tanakh|commentary on Tanakh]]. This work clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text, by addressing questions implied<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/bonchek/intro.htm|title=What's Bothering Rashi?|website=www.shemayisrael.com|access-date=6 April 2018}}</ref> 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., [[Nahmanides#Commentary on the Torah|Ramban]]) and super-commentaries (e.g., [[Elijah Mizrachi#Works|Mizrachi]]), all similarly drawing on the Oral Torah, and widely studied to this day (see ''[[Mikraot Gedolot]]'', {{slink|Yeshiva |Torah and Bible study}}).

[[Image:HaKsav VeHaKabalah.jpg|thumb|150px|Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg's ''Haketav VeHaKabbalah'' deals with the relationship between the written and oral Torah.]]
In more recent ''[[Acharonim|Acharonic]]'' times,<ref>See general discussion under: Rabbi Y. Kaganoff (2016). [https://mishpacha.com/a-new-commentary-for-a-changed-world/ A New Commentary for a Changed World], [[Mishpacha|mishpacha.com]]</ref>
several ([[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]]) commentaries have been produced, which, in some sense, ''reverse'' the direction of the analysis. These originated in response to the (erstwhile) challenges of ''[[haskalah]]'' and [[Biblical criticism]], and were intended "to demonstrate the indivisibility of the written Torah and its counterpart, the oral Torah",<ref>{{cite book|title=Haketav Vehakabbalah: Torah Commentary by Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Mecklenburg, Demonstrating the Indivisibility of the Written & Oral Torah|first=Yaakov Tzevi|last=Mecklenburg|date=1 January 2001|publisher=Lambda Publishers, Inc.|isbn=9657108292}}</ref> and in so doing, "showing the organic relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.torah.org/advanced/netziv/|title=Parshas Acharei Mos & Kedoshim - Laws and Decrees, Decrees and Laws • Torah.org|website=torah.org|access-date=6 April 2018}}</ref> often in the light [[#The interplay of the Oral and Written Law|of the above]]. Given this purpose, these provide a further detailed and explicit analysis here. The main of these:
* ''[[Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin#Bibliography|Ha'amek Davar]]'' ("Delve into the matter") on Torah, and ''Davar Ha'amek'' on ''[[Nevi'im]]'' and ''[[Ketuvim]]'', by [[Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin]], the "Netziv"
* ''[[Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg#Works|Haketav VehaKabbalah]]'' ("The Written [Torah] and the [Oral] Tradition") on Torah, by [[Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg]]
* ''[[Malbim#Methodology and style|HaTorah vehaMitzva]]'' ("The Torah and the Commandment") by Meïr Leibush, the "[[Malbim]]", covers all of ''[[Tanakh]]'' except ''[[Kohelet]]'' and ''[[Eicha]]''.
* ''[[Samson_Raphael_Hirsch#Commentary_on_the_Torah|Uebersetzung und Erklärung des Pentateuchs]]'' ("Translation and Commentary of the [[Pentateuch]]") by [[Samson Raphael Hirsch]].
* ''[[Torah Temimah]]'' ("The Perfect Torah") on Torah, by [[Baruch Epstein]].

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]]' [[Maimonides#Other Judaic and philosophical works|''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; and [[Isaiah Horowitz]]'s ''Introduction to the Oral Torah'' in part 2 of his [[Isaiah Horowitz#Works|''Shenei Luchot HaBerit'']].
These works are:
*[[Isaac Hirsch Weiss#His Dor Dor we-Dorshaw|''Dor Dor v'Dor'shav'']] ("Each generation and its Scholars"), by Rabbi [[Isaac Hirsch Weiss]], a five volume history of the Oral aw, Halakha and Aggada, from [[Biblical]] times until the composition of the ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]''.
*[[Zvi Hirsch Chajes#Works|''Mevo Hatalmud'']] ("Introduction to the Talmud") and ''Torat Neviim'' ("Teachings of the Prophets"), by Rabbi [[Zvi Hirsch Chajes]]. The first, a detailed history and classification of the Talmud and its underlying oral tradition, formulating the nature, extent, and authority of tradition. The second, treatises on the authority of Talmudic tradition, and on the organic structure and methodology of the Talmud. 
*[[David_Zvi_Hoffmann#Writings|''Die Erste Mishna'']] (The First Mishna), a historical and linguistic analysis of the Mishna by [[David Zvi Hoffmann]], positing an early, uniform, undisputed, and therefore authoritative collection of the Oral Law. (R. Hoffmann also authored a Torah commentary addressing some of the same issues as those mentioned.)
*''Matteh Dan'' (or ''[[Kuzari]] Hasheini''; London 1714) written by Rabbi [[David Nieto]] demonstrates the authority of the Oral Law, and defends the tradition against attacks by [[Karaite Judaism|Karaites]] and skeptics.
*Several works by Rabbi [[Immanuel Aboab]], especially his ''Nomologia'', defend the traditional law and discuss its chronology.

Other major works discussing the Bible as based on the Oral Torah, and drawing on their interrelationship, include:
*[[Menasseh Ben Israel#Writings|''El Conciliador'']] ("The Conciliator"), by Rabbi [[Menasseh Ben Israel]], a work written to reconcile the apparent contradictions in numerous passages throughout the Bible by utilizing "an astounding range of sources", primarily the Talmud and the classic Jewish commentaries. It was written in Spanish, in Amsterdam, 1632, primarily to strengthen the faith of the [[Marranos]].
*Weiss' ''Dor Dor v'Dor'shav'' similarly discusses apparent divergencies in the Pentateuch and the various books of the [[Nevi'im|Prophets]].
*''[[Me'am Lo'ez]]'', begun by Rabbi [[Yaakov Culi]] in 1730, a detailed explanation of each chapter of the Torah, explaining it from "countless approaches", especially according to the [[Midrash]] and [[Talmud]]; also discusses the relevant ''[[Halacha]]'' as based on the ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]'' and ''[[Mishneh Torah]]''. The work was intended as a "compendium" of the major fields of Torah study, for the [[Judaeo-Spanish|Ladino]]-speaking community.
*The recent ''[[Da'at Miqra]]'',  a voluminous Bible commentary combining a traditional outlook with the findings of modern research and archeology, and implicitly addressing biblical criticism.  Here, see also {{slink|Mordechai Breuer |Literary contribution}}, {{slink|Umberto Cassuto|Origins of the Pentateuch}}, and the work ''Da'at Sofrim'' by [[Chaim Dov Rabinowitz]].

===Dissenting viewpoints===
[[File:Jewish oral law.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A relief depicting the development of the Oral Law at [[Diaspora Museum, Tel Aviv]]]]
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====
[[Sadducees]] rejected the [[Pharisees|Pharisaic]] 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 and [[temple]] practice. Most aspects of Sadduceean law and methods of interpretation are not known.<ref>Ken Koltun-Fromm, ''Abraham Geiger's liberal Judaism'', Indiana University Press, 2006. p 53</ref>

====Essenes====
[[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.<ref>Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ''The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls'', Paulist Press, 2009. p 56</ref>

====Samaritans====
The [[Samaritans]], 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 the ''Hilukh'', which shares etymological roots with the term ''Halakhah''. However, the concept of a divinely ordained Oral Law having equal value with the written one is foreign to Samaritan theology.<ref name=Lowy>{{cite book|last=Lowy|first=S.|title=The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis|year=1977|publisher=Brill Archive|isbn=9789004049253|pages=25–28}}</ref>

====Karaites====
{{Main|Karaite Judaism}}
Karaite Judaism or Karaism is a [[Jewish denominations|Jewish denomination]] that began in eighth century [[Baghdad]] to form a separate sect that rejected of the Oral Torah and [[Talmud]], and placed sole reliance on the [[Tanakh]] as [[sacred text|scripture]].<ref name=Telushkin /> 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.<ref name=Telushkin /> Karaites also do not adhere to widespread customs such as the donning of ''tefillin'' and the prohibition against eating milk and meat together on the grounds that such practices are grounded in the Oral Law.

====The Reform Movement====
Influenced by the [[Haskalah]], 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.<ref>Goldscheider, Calvin; Zuckerman, Alan (2004) [1990]. "The Judaic Reformation as a Sociopolitical Process". In Goldscheider, Calvin; [[Jacob Neusner|Neusner, Jacob]] (eds.). ''Social Foundations of Judaism'' (Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publ. pp. 83–93. {{ISBN|1-59244-943-3}}</ref><ref>[[Michael A. Meyer|Meyer, Michael A.]] (1988). ''Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism''. New York: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0195051674}}.</ref><ref>Daniel R. Langton, "A Question of Backbone: Contrasting Christian Influences upon the Origins of Reform and Liberal Judaism in England", in: ''Melilah; Manchester Journal for Jewish Studies'' 3(2004), pp. 1–47.</ref>

===Modern perspectives===
====Torat Eretz Yisrael====
According to [[Torat Eretz Yisrael]] and [[Siddur#Minhagei Eretz Yisrael|Minhagei Eretz Yisrael]],<ref name="MachonShilo-BavlySupremacy">{{cite web |last1=Bar-Hayim |first1=HaRav David |title=Is the Halacha Based Exclusively on the Talmud Bavli? The Chafetz Chayim Did Not Think So. |url=http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/component/content/article/34-featured/1001-is-the-halacha-based-exclusively-on-the-talmud-bavli-the-chafetz-chayim-did-not-think-so |publisher=Machon Shilo |access-date=29 June 2016}}</ref> it is important to notice that Torah sages can err, just as the [[Sanhedrin]] could (Leviticus 4:13).<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3869641,00.html|title=Rabbis: 'Kitniyot rebellion' continues|work=Ynetnews|access-date=2017-03-22|archive-date=2022-11-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221119070922/https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3869641,00.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Conservative Judaism====
[[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.<ref name=Danzger>{{cite book|last=Danzger|first=M. Herbert|title=Returning to Tradition: The Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism|year=1989|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-10559-9|page=101}}</ref> Jewish scholar and philosopher [[Ismar 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.<ref>{{cite book|title=Who Owns Judaism?: Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel|year=2001|publisher=9780195148022|isbn=978-0-19-514802-2|page=54, fn. 56|author=Alan Silverstein|author-link=Alan Silverstein|editor=Eli Lederhendler}}</ref> Rabbi [[Zecharias 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.{{cn|date=May 2024}}

==See also==
* [[Aggadah]]
* [[Hadith]]
* [[Law given to Moses at Sinai]]
* [[Oral tradition]]
* [[Oral history]]
* [[Oral law]]
* [[Traditional Jewish chronology]]
* [[Traditional knowledge]]
* [[Uncodified constitution]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
'''Traditional Material'''
* "[[Maimonides]] introduction to the [[Mishnah Torah]]" ([http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0000.htm English translation])
* "[[Maimonides]] introduction to the [[Maimonides#Works and bibliography|Commentary on the Mishnah]]" ([https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/hakdama/tohen-m-2.htm Hebrew Fulltext])
'''Bibliography'''
* ''The Essential Talmud'', [[Adin Steinsaltz]], Basic Books; 1984
* ''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

==External links==
* {{CathEncy|wstitle=Massorah}}
* [https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11750-oral-law Oral Law], [[Jewish Encyclopedia]]

[[Category:Oral Torah| ]]
[[Category:Jewish law]]
[[Category:Talmud]]