Saturday, December 7, 2024

A00015 - The Historical and Religious Backgrounds of Early Christianity: The Great Parties of Judaism: Pharisaic Schools: The Hillelites and the Shammaites

 It is well known that in the time of Jesus the Pharisaic party was divided into two opposed schools -- the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai.  The school of Hillel represented the more moderate elements while the school of Shammai was more aggressive. The Pharisees at this time were sharply divided into various sections which were not exhausted by the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai. It is probable that the school of Shammai at this time was in the ascendant, however, later the milder school of Hillel secured the supremacy (after the destruction of Jerusalem).  

There appears to have been a section of the school of Shammai, consisting of extremists, who were bitter and exclusive and were open to the charge of formalism and hypocrisy. It is probable that Jesus' invectives against the Pharisees in the Gospels were primarily directed against the extremists from the school of Shammai.

It is well known that the Shammaites were rigorous to excess in their requirements and were the champions of a narrow and elusive form of legal piety.  Their attitude towards the outside world was also harsh and unsympathetic. The fanatical section of the Pharisees -- the Zealots -- were closely allied with the Shammaites.  It may plausibly be inferred that in the time of Jesus the matter of ritual handwashing before meals became a party issue, championed by the fanatical Shammaites, and that Jesus strongly opposed the Shammaite view (see Mark, Chapter 7).  

That the neglect by Jesus' disciples of the practice of ritual handwashing was not a departure from general lay practice may be inferred from the Gospel account itself.  No protest was raised against the neglect until a deputation of scribes from Jerusalem arrived on the scene. It was this deputation which objected to the fact that the teacher -- Jesus -- should permit his disciples to neglect the ritual.

The influence of the Shammaites, up to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CC, seems to have been in the ascendant.  However, after the destruction of the Temple, the peace loving and milder party of Hillel triumphed, and the Oral Law was revised to accord with Hillelite views.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

The House of Hillel (Beit Hillel) and House of Shammai (Beit Shammai) were, among Jewish scholars, two schools of thought during the period of tannaim, named after the sages Hillel and Shammai (of the last century BCE and the early 1st century CE) who founded them. These two schools had vigorous debates on matters of ritual practice, ethics, and theology which were critical for the shaping of the Oral Law and Judaism as it is today.

The Mishnah mentions the disagreement of Hillel and Shammai as one which had lasting positive value:

A disagreement which is for the sake of Heaven will be preserved, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not be preserved. What is a disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven? The disagreement of Hillel and Shammai. What is not for the sake of Heaven? The disagreement of Korah and his congregation.[1]

In most cases, though not always, Beit Hillel's opinion is the more lenient and tolerant of the two. In nearly all cases, Beit Hillel's opinion has been accepted as normative by halacha, and is the opinion followed by modern Jews.

Halachic disputes

[edit]

Examples

[edit]

Only three (or, according to some authorities, five) disputes are recorded between Hillel and Shammai themselves.[2] However, with time the differences between their respective schools multiplied, to the point that hundreds of disputes between them are recorded in the Talmud. The split between them was so deep that, according to the Talmud, "the Torah (Jewish law) became like two Torahs".[3]

The matters they debated included:

  • Admission to Torah study: Beit Shammai believed only worthy students should be admitted to study Torah. Beit Hillel believed that Torah may be taught to anyone, in the expectation that they will repent and become worthy.[4]
  • White lies: Whether one should tell an ugly bride that she is beautiful. Beit Shammai said it was wrong to lie, and Beit Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day.[5]
  • Divorce: Beit Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but Beit Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[6]
  • Hanukkah: Beit Shammai held that on the first night eight lights should be lit, and then they should decrease on each successive night, ending with one on the last night; while Beit Hillel held that one should start with one light and increase the number on each night, ending with eight. Beit Hillel's rationale is that as a general rule in halacha, one increases holiness, rather than decreasing. Beit Shammai's opinion was based on the halachic principle that allows one to derive law using similarities. The Sukkot Temple sacrifices involved 70 bullocks, reducing by one each day from 13 down to 7.[7]
  • Tu Bishvat: Beit Hillel holds that the new year for trees is on the 15th of the Jewish month of Shevat. Beit Shammai says it is on the 1st of Shevat.[8] Beit Hillel's opinion is now accepted, so the new year is commonly called Tu Bishvat (literally "15th of Shevat").
  • Forgetting to say grace after meals: Beit Shammai says that one who forgot to say Birkat Hamazon, and had left the place where he ate, should return to that place to recite birkat hamazon. Beit Hillel says that one should recite birkat hamazon in the place where he realizes his omission.[9]
  • The Jerusalem Talmud (Hagigah, ch. 2) brings down a dispute concerning whether or not the laying on of hands (semikhah) upon one's sacrificial animal with applied force is permitted to do on a Festival day. A division arose between the School of Hillel and the School of Shammai, the one permitting to do so, the other forbidding the action. The adherents to Hillel’s teaching, who permit the laying on of hands, declared:
כל גומרה דלא כויה בשעתיה לא כויה‎
"Any coal that does not catch afire at the start [of lighting the coals], it will no longer catch afire [when it is lit a second time]." Meaning, if the people are to be saved from error further down the line, that is, as life progresses, they must be set on the proper course from the very outset. If not, they will persist in their errors.
  • Shema: Beit Shammai's opinion is that you say Shema in the evening laying down, and in the morning standing up. Beit Hillel says anyone can say it in any position they prefer.

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are, respectively, the eighth and ninth most frequently mentioned halachic authorities in the Mishnah.[10]

Discussion

[edit]

In general, Beit Shammai's positions were stricter than those of Beit Hillel.[11] It was said that the school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.[12] On the few occasions when the opposite was true, Beit Hillel would sometimes later recant their position.[13] Similarly, though there are no records of Beit Shammai as a whole changing its stance, a few individuals from Beit Shammai are recorded as deserting a particular stringent opinion of their school, in favor of Beit Hillel's opinion.[14]

The final law almost always coincides with Beit Hillel, not because they constituted the majority,[15] but because Beit Hillel studied the view of their opponents, and because a Divine voice (bat-kol) was heard in Yavne declaring a general rule of practice. As stated in a notable Talmudic sugya, "Elu ve-elu, these and those are the words of the living God, but the Halakhah follows the School of Hillel." (Eruvin 13b)[16] Accordingly, halachic-practice was decided in favor of Beit Hillel since they were agreeable and forebearing (or more literally, piteous).[17] Not only did they teach Beit Shammai's teachings, but they cited them before their own.[18] The ruling in accordance with the teachings of the School of Hillel was also intended to bring conformity to Jewish practices.

Later in the Elu ve-elu passage (Eruvin 13b) a disagreement is mentioned between the two schools, on whether it would have been more suitable (נוח) for man to have been created or not to have been created, with the school of Shammai taking the position that it would have been preferable if man had not been created. The passage then says something which seems to imply that the position of the school of Shammai was accepted ("נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא").

Modern day Rabbinic Judaism almost invariably follows the teachings of Hillel, but there are several notable exceptions. The Mishna provides a list of 18 matters in which the halacha was decided in favor of Beit Shammai.[19]

According to one opinion in the Talmud, while halacha follows Beit Hillel, one may choose to follow either Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai as long as they do so consistently. However, if they follow the leniencies of both schools, they are considered evil; while if they follow the stringencies of both schools, the verse "The fool walks in darkness"[20] is applied to them.[21]

According to the Rabbi Isaac Luria, in the future messianic era[22] halacha will follow Beit Shammai rather than Beit Hillel.[23]

History

[edit]

Both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud attribute the wide-range of disputes between the two schools of thought to the fact that the disciples of Hillel and Shammai did not fully serve their masters, to the point of understanding the fine differences in Halacha.[24]

The political principles of Beit Shammai were similar to those of the Zealots, among whom they therefore found support.[11] As public indignation against the Romans grew over the course of the 1st century, Beit Shammai gradually gained the upper hand, and the gentle and conciliatory Beit Hillel came to be ostracised from Beit Shammai's public acts of prayer.[25]

As the Jewish conflict with the Romans grew,[26] the nations surrounding Judea (then part of Roman Iudaea province) all sided with the Romans, causing Beit Shammai to propose that all commerce and communication between Jew and Gentile should be completely prohibited.[11] Beit Hillel disagreed, but when the Sanhedrin convened to discuss the matter, the Zealots sided with Beit Shammai.[11] Then Eleazar ben Hanania, the Temple captain and a leader of the militant Zealots, invited the students of both schools to meet at his house; Eleazar placed armed men at the door, and instructed them to let no-one leave the meeting. During the discussions Beit Shammai achieved a majority and were able to force all the remaining individuals to adopt a radically restrictive set of rules known as "Eighteen Articles"; later Jewish history came to look back on the occasion as a day of misfortune.[27] According to one source, Beit Shammai obtained their majority either by killing members of Beit Hillel, or by intimidating them into leaving the room.[28]

However, the fortunes of Beit Hillel improved after the First Jewish–Roman War, which had resulted in destruction of the Jewish Temple; Jewish leaders no longer had an appetite for war. Under Gamaliel II, the Sanhedrin, which was reconstituted in Yavne (see also Council of Jamnia), reviewed all the points disputed by Beit Hillel, and this time it was their opinions which won the Sanhedrin's support; on most issues,[29] it was said that whenever Beit Shammai had disputed the opinion of Beit Hillel, Beit Shammai's opinion was now null and void.[30]

Even though the two schools had vigorous arguments, they greatly respected each other. The Mishnah even records that the constituents of the two schools intermarried—despite their disagreements regarding the laws of marriage and divorce.[31] According to the Talmud, each school kept track of lineages among its members to whom the other school would forbid marriage, and informed the other school of this status when marriage to such a person was proposed.[32]

In later generations, a fast day was observed due to the conflict between the two houses,[33] though this fast day is no longer observed.[34] Various explanations are given of the tragedy which justified fasting: bloodshed which killed 3,000 students;[35] or else the simple fact of the Torah being divided into two incompatible interpretations.[36]

Enactments

[edit]

The Houses of Hillel and Shammai convened to discuss arcane matters of Jewish law and to decide on new measures thought essential to ensure a more universal adherence to Jewish law and practice. Together, they legislated many new enactments and passed new decrees, in an effort to ensure that the people of Israel not transgress the basic laws bequeathed to them by Moses. These enactments were, therefore, seen as safeguards by the rabbinic clergy. While some of these enactments are still binding today, others have been cancelled by scholars of later generations.

According to Mishnah Shabbat 1:4,[37] disciples of Hillel and Shammai met in parley within the home of the astute Hananiah ben Hezekiah ben Garon to vote on many new measures and to make them binding upon Israel. Not all decisions were gladly received by the School of Hillel, but they were compelled to acquiesce unto the rulings by virtue of the greater numbers of the School of Shammai, seeing that they were the unanimous party, and whose vote was the most consequential. The Sages at the time looked with displeasure upon many of these new enactments and decrees, saying that they had gone too far and have "filled-up the measure."[38][39][40] Many of these rulings revolve around Israelites and their relationship to the priests who are required to eat their Terumah (Heave-offering) in a state of ritual purity. Talmudic exegete, Menachem Meiri, who cites Maimonides, lists the eighteen enactments/decrees made by them as follows:[41]

NumberEnactment (E) / Decree (D)Purpose of enactment or decree
1 (D)A Jew who consumes any food defiled by a "Father of uncleanness" (e.g. foods touched by carrion, or by one of the eight dead creeping things, etc. and which foods contracted thereby a 1st-grade uncleanness), his body contracts a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption when touched by him[41][42][43]By making Israelites ever mindful of what they eat, as also the consequences thereof, this ensured that the priests of Aaron's descent would continue to eat their own hallowed bread in a state of ritual purity, without suspecting that it had been defiled unawares
2 (D)A Jew who consumes any defiled food that had contracted a 2nd-grade uncleanness (such as by the food touching a liquid that had been defiled by a dead creeping thing), his body contracts a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption when touched by him[41][44][43]By making Israelites ever mindful of what they eat, as also the consequences thereof, this ensured that the priests of Aaron's descent would continue to eat their own hallowed bread in a state of ritual purity, without suspecting that it had been defiled unawares
3 (D)He that drinks liquids that suffer a 1st-grade uncleanness (Hebrew: tǝḥilah),[45] his body takes on a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption had he touched it[41][46][43]By making Israelites ever mindful of what they eat, as also the consequences thereof, this ensured that the priests of Aaron's descent would continue to eat their own hallowed bread in a state of ritual purity, without suspecting that it had been defiled unawares
4 (D)He that immerses his head and the greater part of his body in water that had been drawn, rather than in water which ran of itself naturally and collected into an Immersion-pool, the person's body contracts a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption when touched by him[41][42][43]Since the people were used to immersing within caves where the water was often fetid and muddy, they would afterwards rinse themselves with drawn well-water from a bucket to clean themselves, from which practice they began to think that the drawn water was the principal act of cleansing, rather than the immersion in the mikveh[46]
5 (D)A ritually clean man upon whose head and the greater part of his body there had fallen 3 logs[47] of drawn water, the person's body contracts a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption when touched by him[41][43]By saying that a "ritually clean man" becomes defiled thereby, even so, the man who is not ritually clean will take heed and not think to bathe himself in water that has been drawn, but rather in a ritual bath of natural rain water or spring water[44][46]
6 (D)Any Jew who touches a Torah scroll, his hands contract a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption by a priest.[41]To prevent Israelites from stashing the Terumah inside the Torah encasement, where mice would often come and consume the bread, but also destroy the Torah scroll in the process.[48][44] Moreover, by saying that hands are defiled by touching a Torah scroll, the reader takes precaution to use a scarf as an interposing object between his bare hands and the scroll itself.[46]
7 (D) + (E)All hands, before they are washed, suffer a 2nd-grade uncleanness, capable of rendering the Terumah unfit for consumption by the priests.[41][44][43] Moreover, all persons must wash their hands before eating common bread.By declaring that all hands suffer a state of uncleanness and requiring them to be washed before eating common bread, so, too, the priests will follow suit and wash their own hands before eating their hallowed bread.[49] Moreover, since hands are normally fidgety, and are prone to touch defiled liquids, removing the suspected impurity through washing can prevent a further spread of defilement to hallowed things.[46][50]
8 (D)A Jew who ate any food that came in contact with a liquid touched by unwashed hands, his body contracts a 2nd-grade uncleanness. The same rule applies to liquids contained in a vessels wherein one of the dead creeping things had fallen[41][51]By saying that a person is capable of contracting defilement from liquids touched by unwashed hands, he will thereby become doubly cautious about liquids wherein one of the eight dead creeping things had fallen. Likewise, by saying that a person is capable of contracting defilement by liquids in a vessel wherein one of the dead creeping things had fallen, he will thereby become doubly cautious about liquids (e.g. spittle, urine, etc.) that issue forth from a zav (i.e. the man who has suffered a running issue from his flesh)[52]
9 (D)He that inadvertently left a vessel beneath a channel that carried water at a time when rain clouds were massing, even though in the interim the clouds dissipated and later returned, the water collected in the vessel is deemed "water that has been drawn" and would disqualify a mikveh (ritual bath) had it trickled down into an Immersion-pool.[41][53][54][55]To prevent Israel from making use of drawn water in a mikveh (ritual ablution for purification).
10 (D)Corpse uncleanness can be conveyed by all movable objects by way of overshadowing when the same movable objects have the thickness of a medium-sized plough-handle (which, although it is less than one handbreadth when measured in a straight line or in diameter, its circumference measures one handbreadth), particularly, whenever one end of that movable object hangs over a deceased person whilst the other end of the same object hangs over a vessel[41][56][57]To instill within the hearts and minds of the people that, by a received tradition from Sinai, corpse uncleanness is conveyed to the person who carries his plough, or like objects, in one hand and passes with it over a grave, on the condition that that very object has the thickness (in diameter) of one handbreadth (ṭefach), or what is approximately 8 cm. (3.1 inches) to 9 cm. (3.5 inches).[58] Had the thickness (diameter) of that object been less than a handbreadth, but its circumference equaled a handbreadth, the same object conveys corpse uncleanness to its carrier and to utensils by a rabbinic decree, whenever it overshadows them and a grave. By being mindful of the measurements prescribed by a rabbinic injunction, one also takes heed to the laws governing overshadowing, as passed down from Sinai[59]
11 (D)He that picks grapes for pressing in the wine press, the grapes immediately become susceptible to uncleanness[60]—even though the picker had taken precaution to keep himself clean from all defilement and had not brought the grapes into contact with other liquids[41][61]By saying that the grapes are immediately rendered susceptible to uncleanness, the owner will be mindful that his harvested grapes are only one step away from contracting uncleanness if not carefully guarded by him. The owner of the grapes, whether over himself or over his hired laborers, will be doubly cautious during the vintage season and avoid having the fruit laid-up within defiled baskets, or else within baskets lined with pitch where he would have, on other occasions, been interested in retaining their moisture content. Moreover, during the harvest season, the gatherers of the grapes are required to make sure that their bodies are ritually clean, otherwise, they may render invalid the portion destined to be Terumah (Heave-offering)[62][63]
12 (D)Produce that had been separated as Terumah unto the priest, although the produce was later defiled and could not be consumed by the priest, whatsover is planted or sown from the original Terumah produce is, likewise, considered Terumah (i.e. has the same sanctity as Terumah)[41][42][64][65]To prevent a priest of Aaron's lineage from taking grain separated unto him as Terumah, which same had become defiled, and replanting it to make use of the second crop in an ordinary fashion, such as by selling it.[66] The rabbinic decree also comes to prevent him from delaying its burning, out of concern that he might inadvertently transgress by eating the defiled grain in the meantime.[67] (This rabbinic decree applies only to defiled Terumah produce in the hands of the priest, but not to untainted Terumah produce in the hand of an Israelite and which may have been resown or replanted)[42]
13 (E)A Jew who is traveling with a Gentile when the sun is close to setting on a Friday evening (Sabbath eve), he gives his purse to a Gentile to carry for him on the Sabbath[41][68]To prevent the Jew (who fails to reach his destination when the Sabbath day begins) from being compelled to walk with his purse four cubits in the public domain on the Sabbath day. (Normally, it is prohibited for a Jew to request a non-Jew to do work for him on the Sabbath day. However, in this case, since the Jew will not voluntarily take leave of his money while on his journey, and runs the risk of carrying it on the Sabbath day, the rabbis permitted him to make use of the Gentile in such extenuating circumstances)[69]
14 (E)Prohibition of eating bread baked by Gentiles[41][70][71]To prevent the development of a bond between a Jewish man and non-Jewish woman and their intermarrying.[72][73][74] In the final analysis, this prohibition also serves to distance the people of Israel from idolatry[75]
15 (E)Prohibition of Jews making use of olive oil prepared by Gentiles[41][76][71]Vessels in which oil is contained thought to have been contaminated by unclean foodstuffs and that the same impurity would be imparted to the oil.[77]
16 (E)Prohibition of drinking wine produced by Gentiles[41]To prevent the development of a relationship between Jew and non-Jew and their consummating a marriage
17 (D)The daughters of the Cuthim,[78] from the moment they are born and laid in a cradle, are as menstruate women, capable of rendering defilement when touched[41][79]To dissuade Jewish males from accompanying with non-Jewish women and girls in a secluded place, and where either one may be tempted into an illicit relationship with the other. (Children born from non-Jewish women are no longer Jewish, even though their father was Jewish).
18 (D)Gentile male children nine-years old and older convey a serious-grade of uncleanness (as one who is a zav) when touched[41]To prevent Jewish male children from interacting with them and being lured into a licentious relationship[80]

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:4) mentions other enactments, besides these. Included therein are the prohibition of eating cheese produced by Gentiles, and the requirement of one who suffered a seminal or nocturnal emission (Hebrew: ba'al ḳeri) to immerse himself in a mikveh before reading from the Torah scroll, a ruling which was later rescinded, and the sweeping declaration that the lands of the Gentiles induce a defilement to any Jew that ventures therein.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Pirkei Avot 5:17
  2. ^ Shabbat 15a; Hagigah 2:2; Eduyot 1:2,3; Niddah 1:1
  3. ^ Tosefta Hagigah 2:9; Sanhedrin 88b; Sotah 47b
  4. ^ Avot of Rabbi Natan 2:9
  5. ^ Talmud, Ketubot 16b–17a
  6. ^ Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 90a
  7. ^ Shabbat 21b
  8. ^ Mishnah Rosh Hashana 1:1
  9. ^ Mishnah Brachot 8:7
  10. ^ Drew Kaplan, "Rabbinic Popularity in the Mishnah VII: Top Ten Overall [Final Tally] Drew Kaplan's Blog (5 July 2011).
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Jewish Encyclopedia, Bet Hillel and Bet-Shammai
  12. ^ This article incorporates text from the 1903 Encyclopaedia Biblica article "BINDING AND LOOSING", a publication now in the public domain.
  13. ^ Eduyot 1:12 etc; compare Weiss, "Dor," i. 179 et seq.
  14. ^ Beitzah 20a; Jerusalem Talmud Hagigah 2 (78a)
  15. ^ Cf. Jerusalem Talmud (Chagigah 2:3 [12a]), where the School of Shammai had grown to be more numerous than the School of Hillel.
  16. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 13b); Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhot 1:4)
  17. ^ Hebrew: נוחין ועלובין היו
  18. ^ Eruvin 13b
  19. ^ Mishnah Shabbat 1:3
  20. ^ Ecclesiastes 2:14
  21. ^ Rosh Hashana 14b
  22. ^ The discussions between Shammai and Hillel are well known and spoken of by many even in modern times; one fact remains: while the predominant Halacha was that of Hillel, today we must opt for that of Shammai partially recognizing the more lenient of his opponent, i.e. Hillel. The prophecies of Kabbalah already warned that in the “future era” the converts (or “foreigners”) would no longer have any “useful function for the Jew”. All the “mass conversions” of the postwar remains for “the Jew” but the holiday of Hanukkah has been fully realized even for the “Hellenes”, who had already foreseen favorable destinies with the translation of the Torah by the 70, the Septuaginta; Edom, to which Rome belonged, has to do for “the Jew” with the change in his favor.
  23. ^ לעתיד לבוא הלכה תהיה כבית שמאי
  24. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 88b); Jerusalem Talmud (Hagigah 2:2)
  25. ^ Jost, "Gesch. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten," i. 261; Tosefta Rosh Hashana, end
  26. ^ H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, The Crisis Under Gaius Caligula, pages 254–256: "The reign of Gaius Caligula (37-41) witnessed the first open break between the Jews and the Julio-Claudian empire. Until then—if one accepts Sejanus' heyday and the trouble caused by the census after Archelaus' banishment—there was usually an atmosphere of understanding between the Jews and the empire ... These relations deteriorated seriously during Caligula's reign, and, though after his death the peace was outwardly re-established, considerable bitterness remained on both sides. ... Caligula ordered that a golden statue of himself be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem. ... Only Caligula's death, at the hands of Roman conspirators (41), prevented the outbreak of a Jewish–Roman war that might well have spread to the entire East."
  27. ^ Tosefta Shabbat 1:16 etc.; Shabbat 13a; 17a
  28. ^ Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4 (3c)
  29. ^ Tosefta Yebamot 1:13; Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:3b
  30. ^ Berakhot 36b; Beitzah 11b; Yevamot 9a
  31. ^ Yevamot 1:4
  32. ^ Yevamot 14b
  33. ^ Halachot Gedolot, laws of Tisha BeAv; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 580
  34. ^ Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim 580
  35. ^ Eliyahu Rabbah 580:7; see also a Cairo Geniza fragment quoted in Margalioth, Mordecai (1973). Hilkhot Erets Yisra'el min ha-Genizah (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. p. 142. OCLC 19497945.
  36. ^ Levush, Orach Chaim 580; see also Cairo Geniza fragments quoted here
  37. ^ Babylonian Talmud, (Shabbat 13b)
  38. ^ Tosefta (Shabbat 1:17)
  39. ^ Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 9a [1:4])
  40. ^ "Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 1:4:2".
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Meiri (2006). Daniel Bitton (ed.). Beit HaBechirah (Chiddushei ha-Meiri) (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Hamaor Institute. p. 28. OCLC 181631040., s.v. Shabbat 13b
  42. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Chananel (1995). David Metzger (ed.). Pirushei Rabbeinu Chananel bar Chushiel Le-Talmud (Tractate Shabbat) (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Machon 'Lev Sameach'. p. 21 (17b). OCLC 122703105.
  43. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Cf. Mishnah (Zavim 5:12)
  44. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Chananel (1995). David Metzger (ed.). Pirushei Rabbeinu Chananel bar Chushiel Le-Talmud (Tractate Shabbat) (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Machon 'Lev Sameach'. p. 17 (13b). OCLC 122703105.
  45. ^ The novelty of this teaching is that, by saying tǝḥilah, it implies a state of uncleanness equal to a first-grade uncleanness. The difference being that things suffering from a first-grade uncleanness had actually made contact with a "Father of uncleanness." The word tǝḥilah which is used here refers to a same defiled state, but where no contact has been made with a "Father of uncleanness."
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Meiri (2006). Daniel Bitton (ed.). Beit HaBechirah (Chiddushei ha-Meiri) (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Hamaor Institute. p. 29. OCLC 181631040., s.v. Shabbat 13b
  47. ^ One log has the capacity of 6 medium-size eggs; 3 logs the capacity of 18 medium-size eggs.
  48. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 14a)
  49. ^ Jerusalem Talmud (Hagigah 13a (2:5))
  50. ^ Cf. Tosefta (Berakhot 6:3), where the School of Hillel disagreed with the School of Shammai and argued that if there was a doubtful case of defiled liquids on the hands, the hands were still clean.
  51. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 14b)
  52. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 14b)
  53. ^ Babylonian Talmud, (Shabbat 16b)
  54. ^ Mishnah (Mikwaoth 4:1)
  55. ^ The novelty of this saying is that, normally, it takes a willful intent to collect rain water, or to collect natural water runoff, in order for the water within that vessel to be considered drawn water and capable of disqualifying a mikveh. In this case, there was no willful intent to collect the water after the clouds had dissipated, although it had later fallen into the bucket. The School of Hillel strongly disagreed with the School of Shammai regarding this ruling, but were required to accept the ruling since the vote was unanimous in favor of the ruling.
  56. ^ Babylonian Talmud, (Shabbat 16b–17a, Rashi)
  57. ^ Maimonides (1967). Mishnah, with Maimonides' Commentary (in Hebrew). Vol. 3. Translated by Yosef Qafih. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. p. 195. OCLC 741081810., s.v. Ohelot 16:1
  58. ^ An allusion to Numbers 19:14, where it is inferred that all men and utensils who are under the same 'tent' or roof as a corpse, or who are overshadowed by something which also overshadows a corpse, they would also suffer corpse uncleanness and remain unclean for seven days.
  59. ^ Chananel (1995). David Metzger (ed.). Pirushei Rabbeinu Chananel bar Chushiel Le-Talmud (Tractate Shabbat) (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Machon 'Lev Sameach'. p. 20 (17a). OCLC 122703105.
  60. ^ An allusion to Leviticus 11:38, namely, foodstuffs (e.g. grain, fruit, etc.) cannot become unclean unless moisture has first fallen upon them after being harvested; also, this moisture must be such as the owner of the foodstuffs desires. The seven liquids which can render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness are a) wine, b) honey, c) oil, d) milk, e) dew, f) blood, and f) water. In the case of vintage grapes, the Sages decreed automatic susceptibility upon them.
  61. ^ According to BT Shabbat 17a, the school of Hillel greatly opposed this ruling, but were compelled to accept it, for fear of the School of Shammai making a similar ruling against harvested olives.
  62. ^ BT Shabbat 17a
  63. ^ Cf. Mishnah (Terumot 10:3)
  64. ^ Maimonides (1963). Mishnah, with Maimonides' Commentary (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Translated by Yosef Qafih. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook. p. 191. OCLC 741081810., s.v. Terumah 9:4
  65. ^ Cf. Mishnah (Terumah 9:4)
  66. ^ Rabbi Ovadiah of Bertinoro's Commentary on Mishnah Terumot 9:4
  67. ^ Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 9:4), s.v. Commentary Pnei Moshe
  68. ^ Cf. Mishnah (Shabbat 24:1)
  69. ^ Six Orders of the Mishnah (Shisha sidrei mishnah), Eshkol Publishers: Jerusalem 1978, s.v. Commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel on Shabbat 24:1
  70. ^ The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesahim 2:2) makes it clear that this enactment was not accepted by all Jews in all places. In some places of Jewry, they continued to eat bread baked by non-Jews. The Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.) says that leaven belonging to gentiles, which had been in existence during the Passover and which was left over after the Passover, may be eaten by Israel after the Passover in those places where it was customary for Israel to eat bread that was baked by gentiles. Where it was not customary for Israel to eat bread baked by gentiles, Israel could not eat of their leaven which remained after the Passover. Maimonides, in his commentary on Mishnah Pesahim 2:2, writes that, by this, the matter of eating bread baked by gentiles depends upon local custom. Maimonides writes further (Hil. Ma'achaloth Asuroth 17:12) that, in Spain, while it was not a custom to eat gentile bread which was baked in their homes, it was, however, a custom to eat gentile bread taken from the public bakery. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 10a) permits the consumption of bread baked by the local non-Jewish baker where bread cannot otherwise be found for consumption, and that one's sustenance depended upon it. Cf. Shulhan Arukh (Orach Chayim 603:1).
  71. ^ Jump up to:a b Cf. Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6)
  72. ^ Maimonides, Mishne Torah (Hil. Ma'achaloth Asuroth 17: 9-12), who wrote: "The bread of gentiles baked within their homes is forbidden, an enactment made by the early Sages in order that Israel might be kept at a distance from non-Jews, and, especially, from consummating marriages with them.
  73. ^ Meiri (2006). Daniel Bitton (ed.). Beit HaBechirah (Chiddushei ha-Meiri) (in Hebrew). Vol. 7. Jerusalem: Hamaor Institute. p. 61. OCLC 181631040., s.v. Avodah Zarah 35b, והפת
  74. ^ Cf. Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 35b)
  75. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36b)
  76. ^ This prohibition was strictly observed during the time of Josephus (early-mid 1st century CE), as evinced by The Jewish War (2.590) and Vita § 13. See also Eric M. Meyers, et al., Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Ḥalav, American Schools of Oriental Research: Winona Lake 1990, p. 17. The prohibition of making use of oil produced by Gentiles was later cancelled by R. Judah HaNasi (late 2nd century CE). Cf. Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36a), where it writes: "As for [olive] oil [produced by non-Jews], Rabbi Judah and his court conducted a vote over it and permitted its use."
  77. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 35b–36a)
  78. ^ Often, the word "Cuthim" (literally, "Samaritan") refers to Gentiles in general.
  79. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 16b)
  80. ^ Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 17b; Avodah Zarah 36b–37a); Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 9a–b)

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Torah or Oral Law (Hebrew: תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל־פֶּה‎, romanized: Tōrā šebbəʿal-pe) are statutes and legal interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses, the Written Torah (תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב‎, Tōrā šebbīḵṯāv, '"Written Law"'), and which are regarded by 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–man and interpersonal relationships, from 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 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.[1]

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 c. 300–350 CE (the Jerusalem Talmud), and a second, more extensive Talmud compiled in Jewish Babylonia c. 450–500 CE (the 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 Thirteen Principles of Faith by Maimonides.

There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah, most notably the Sadducees and 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 made Aliyah in mass in recent years.[2][3]

Components of the Oral Torah

[edit]
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 Midrashim.[4]

  1. 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.
  2. 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 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.)
  3. Laws found in 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).
  4. 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).
  5. Interpretations and regulations covering the written law, as well as new halakhot, which the Tannaim deduced from Scripture by means of 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).
  6. Customs and observances ("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").
  7. Statutes and decisions ("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.
  8. 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 ("De'oraita"), but were regarded merely as rabbinical regulations ("de-rabbanan").[4]

Historical development

[edit]

Source and transmission

[edit]
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 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."[5]

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.[5] 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.[6] The Sadducees rejected the legitimacy of any extra-biblical law or tradition, as well as increasingly popular notions such as the immortality of the soul and divine intervention.[6][7] Danby notes the following:

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.[5]

With the destruction of the Second Temple around 70 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.[5] Upon this 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.[5] Thus, from 70 to 130 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]

Codification

[edit]

The Mishnah

[edit]

The destruction of the Second Temple and the 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 yeshivot, and thousands of scholars and students.[8] 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.[8][9] 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 Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, all the Mishnaic laws of the Sabbath are located in a single tractate called Shabbat.[8] 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.[8] Some authority suggests HaNasi made use of as many as 13 separate collections of 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.[5]

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.[10] 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."[10] 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.[10][11] 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.[10]

The Gemara

[edit]

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, Syria Palaestina or "Judea" and Asoristan or "Babylonia".[8] 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.[8]

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.[8] (See Aliba dehilchasa.)

In Jewish tradition

[edit]

Rabbinic thought

[edit]

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.[12] 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

[edit]

Rabbis of the Talmudic era conceived of the Oral Torah in two distinct ways.[13] 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."[14] 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.[15] 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;[16] some rabbis kept private notes of their teaching, but only for their personal convenience.[17]

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."[18][19] 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 and Rav Ashi, the rabbis who compiled the Babylonian Talmud.[20][better source needed] 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

[edit]

Rabbinic tradition identifies several characteristics of the Written Law, suggesting [21] the existence of a parallel Oral tradition. [22] 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 [21] (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 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.[23][4][21] 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.[24] For other examples and further discussion here see Kuzari 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" Ex 21:22–27 is held in the oral tradition to imply monetary compensation – as opposed to a literal Lex talionis.[25] Note also that the interpretation as "monetary compensation" is borne out by Num 35:30–31, 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 (Ruth 4:8–9) appears on its face to contradict the prohibition of against marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3–4); however, the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. Similarly, the rabbinic practice for the Counting of the Omer (Leviticus 23:15–16) is at odds with the Karaite practice, which appears to accord with a more literal reading of these verses, but is in fact borne out by Joshua 5:10–12.[26]

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 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.[27]

Complementary to the above textual and internal evidence, archaeologists 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 (Cave 4) have yielded specimens of tefillin and parchment scrolls which reflect later Talmudic discussion.[28] Likewise, the structure and placement of ritual baths at Masada appears to be consistent with the rabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractate Mikvaot, although they were constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.[29][better source needed] A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5.[30] The Elephantine papyri include a "Passover letter" (419 BCE) which already included many of the Pesach observances of today,[31] and the first known text of a Ketubah (about 440 BCE). The Qumran Halachic Letter,[32] 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

[edit]

The Oral Law is recorded in the Midrash and Talmud; at the same time, these source, "oral", documents, are intimately connected to the written. Thus, the midrash provides a verse by verse discussion of the entire (written) Tanakh, per the oral Torah. Similarly, the Talmud, although applying a different framework, discusses and analyses the written Torah—both from an aggadic and halakhic perspective—drawing from (and recording) the oral tradition; here the discussion is organized around the Mishnah, and the discussion does not proceed verse-wise as with the Midrash.

A modern translation of Rashi's commentary on the Chumash, published by Artscroll

Early Rabbinic literature builds on these works, where - reflecting this overlap - 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 commentary on Tanakh. This work clarifies the "simple" meaning of the text, by addressing questions implied[33] 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., Ramban) and super-commentaries (e.g., Mizrachi), all similarly drawing on the Oral Torah, and widely studied to this day (see Mikraot Gedolot, Yeshiva § Torah and Bible study).

Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg's Haketav VeHaKabbalah deals with the relationship between the written and oral Torah.

In more recent times, Acharonic times,[34] several (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",[35] and in so doing, "showing the organic relationship between the Written Law and the Oral Law",[36] often in the light of the above. Given this purpose, these provide a further detailed and explicit analysis here. The main of these:

Contemporaneous with, and complementary to these commentaries, were specific, monograph-like works discussing the Oral Torah in concept and historically. These included:

  • Dor Dor v'Dor'shav ("Each generation and its Scholars"), by Rabbi Isaac Hirsch Weiss, a five volume history of the Oral Law, Halakha and Aggada, from Biblical times until the composition of the Shulchan Aruch.
  • 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.
  • 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 Karaites and skeptics.
  • Several works by Rabbi Immanuel Aboab, especially his Nomologia, defend the traditional law and discuss its chronology.

Other well known works here, if perhaps less modern in orientation, include Maimonides' (Rambam's) 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—as well as Isaiah Horowitz's ("The Shelah") Introduction to the Oral Torah in part 2 of his Shenei Luchot HaBerit

Finally, other major works discussing the Bible as based on the Oral Torah include the following.

  • 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 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 Ladino-speaking community.

The recent Da'at Miqra is a voluminous Bible commentary combining a traditional outlook with the findings of modern research and archeology, and implicitly addressing biblical criticism. See also Mordechai Breuer § Literary contribution, Umberto Cassuto § Origins of the Pentateuch, and the work Da'at Sofrim by Chaim Dov Rabinowitz.

Dissenting viewpoints

[edit]
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

[edit]

Sadducees rejected the 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.[37]

Essenes

[edit]

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.[38]

Samaritans

[edit]

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.[39]

Karaites

[edit]
Main article: Karaite Judaism

Karaite Judaism or Karaism is a 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 scripture.[8] 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.[8] 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

[edit]

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.[40][41][42]

Modern perspectives

[edit]

Torat Eretz Yisrael

[edit]

According to Torat Eretz Yisrael and Minhagei Eretz Yisrael,[43] it is important to notice that Torah sages can err, just as the Sanhedrin could (Leviticus 4:13).[44]

Conservative Judaism

[edit]

Conservative Judaism (also known as "Masorti" outside North America) 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.[45] 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.[46] 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.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Schwartz, H.; Loebel-Fried, C. (2006). Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford University Press. p. 55. ISBN 978-0-19-532713-7.
  2. ^ Ehrlich, Mark Avrum (2009). Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. p. 473. 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.
  3. ^ Appiah, Anthony; Gates, Henry Louis Jr. (2005). Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. Oxford University Press. p. 565. 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.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Oral Law (תורה שבעל פה)". Jewish Encyclopedia. 1906. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Danby, Herbert (2012). The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Hendrickson Publishers. pp. xvii–xix. ISBN 978-1-59856-902-5.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b Magness, Jodi (2003). Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 41–43. ISBN 978-0-8028-2687-9.
  7. ^ 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."
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Telushkin, Joseph (2001). Jewish Literacy: Revised Edition. New York, USA: William Morrow and Company, Inc. pp. 146–152. ISBN 0-688-08506-7.
  9. ^ "Tosefta Eduyot 1:1". www.sefaria.org. 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."
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Neusner, Jacob (2003). The Perfect Torah: Volume 13 of The Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism. BRILL. pp. 2–4. ISBN 9789004130333.
  11. ^ Ska, Jean-Louis (2006). Introduction to reading the Pentateuch. Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1-57506-122-1.
  12. ^ Gaventa, William (2012). Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability. Routledge. pp. 109–112. ISBN 978-1-136-45351-9.
  13. ^ Dane, Perry (Winter 1991). "The Oral Law and the Jurisprudence of a Textless Text". S'vara: A Journal of Philosophy, Law, and Judaism. 2: 11. SSRN 1718700.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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) 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.
  16. ^ See BT Temurah 14b, and, BT Gittin 60b. Also, Y Megillah 4:1
  17. ^ Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, p.87
  18. ^ Mishna, Avot 1:1; the remainder of chapter 1 identifies further individuals in the chain
  19. ^ Fackenheim, Emil L. (1999). What is Judaism?: An Interpretation for the Present Age. Syracuse University Press. pp. 68–71. ISBN 978-0-8156-0623-9.
  20. ^ Introduction to Mishneh Torah
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b c Rabbi Gil Student: Proofs for the Oral Torah
  22. ^ See, for an overview:
  23. ^ David Charles Kraemer, The Mind of the Talmud, Oxford University Press, 1990. pp 157–159
  24. ^ See http://www.tekhelet.com Ptil Tekhelet
  25. ^ 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 Ex 21:22–27. The Talmud (in Bava Kamma, 84a), based upon a critical interpretation of the original Hebrew text, explains that this biblical concept entails monetary compensation in tort cases. (Additionally, this law cannot be carried out in practice, for both practical and ethical reasons; see also 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.
  26. ^ Tim Hegg: "Counting the Omer: An Inquiry into the Divergent Methods of the 1st Century Judaisms" Archived 2012-07-04 at the Wayback Machine.
  27. ^ Michaelis, Omer (2020-01-01). "Crisis discourse and framework transition in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah". Open Philosophy. 3 (1): 664–680. doi:10.1515/opphil-2020-0140. ISSN 2543-8875.
  28. ^ See for example, Yigal Yadin: Tefilin from Qumran.
  29. ^ Rabbi Yosef Back: "Southern mikveh on Masada".
  30. ^ Clay seal from Second Temple period unearthed
  31. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence. Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1998.
  32. ^ Miqsat Ma'ase Ha-Torah/ Qumran Cave 4
  33. ^ "What's Bothering Rashi?". www.shemayisrael.com. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  34. ^ See general discussion under: Rabbi Y. Kaganoff (2016). A New Commentary for a Changed World, mishpacha.com
  35. ^ Mecklenburg, Yaakov Tzevi (1 January 2001). Haketav Vehakabbalah: Torah Commentary by Rabbi Yaakov Tzevi Mecklenburg, Demonstrating the Indivisibility of the Written & Oral Torah. Lambda Publishers, Inc. ISBN 9657108292.
  36. ^ "Parshas Acharei Mos & Kedoshim - Laws and Decrees, Decrees and Laws • Torah.org". torah.org. Retrieved 6 April 2018.
  37. ^ Ken Koltun-Fromm, Abraham Geiger's liberal Judaism, Indiana University Press, 2006. p 53
  38. ^ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paulist Press, 2009. p 56
  39. ^ Lowy, S. (1977). The Principles of Samaritan Bible Exegesis. Brill Archive. pp. 25–28. ISBN 9789004049253.
  40. ^ Goldscheider, Calvin; Zuckerman, Alan (2004) [1990]. "The Judaic Reformation as a Sociopolitical Process". In Goldscheider, Calvin; Neusner, Jacob (eds.). Social Foundations of Judaism (Reprint ed.). Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publ. pp. 83–93. ISBN 1-59244-943-3
  41. ^ Meyer, Michael A. (1988). Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195051674.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ Bar-Hayim, HaRav David. "Is the Halacha Based Exclusively on the Talmud Bavli? The Chafetz Chayim Did Not Think So". Machon Shilo. Retrieved 29 June 2016.
  44. ^ "Rabbis: 'Kitniyot rebellion' continues". Ynetnews. Retrieved 2017-03-22.
  45. ^ Danzger, M. Herbert (1989). Returning to Tradition: The Contemporary Revival of Orthodox Judaism. Yale University Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-300-10559-9.
  46. ^ Alan Silverstein (2001). Eli Lederhendler (ed.). Who Owns Judaism?: Public Religion and Private Faith in America and Israel. 9780195148022. p. 54, fn. 56. ISBN 978-0-19-514802-2.

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)