THE CREATION OF THE TRADITION OF "ORAL LAW" IN RABBINIC JUDAISM

[rosends]

@Clear

Again you are making my point. Maimonides existed approx. 2500 years after Moses and Maimonides refers to TEXTS that he is organizing and codifying. (Not an ORAL law, but TEXTS). TEXTS DID exist by Maimonides’ time and he was dependent upon texts and the interpretations of the texts and his own interpretations.

So, again, you have supported my proof against your claim. I thank you for that. You concede that Maimonides is simply organizing text which already existed, not that he is innovating or adding. So since you accept that the text had laws in it that he could organize, you admit that more than 10 existed in the text so your claim that (post 11) “Moses was given the 10 commandments but not the 613 commandments that were innovations and additions by the later rabbinical Jewish religion” is proven as false. Unless you want to claim that the verses which Maimonides referenced when citing each commandment don't exist.

And who produced those texts? Historically, it was Rabbis and Sages of an earlier age produced those texts, Not Moses.

Really? How can you prove that? We are talking about the written Torah here. If you want to say that it holds no divine/Sinaitic origin then you are arguing not against the Oral law, but against the written one.

That is the problem for the claim. There is evidence that Rabbis and Sages passed on Written text but there is no historical evidence of an ORAL Law dictated by Moses that is the same set of laws presented by Rabbinic Judaism.

But you are acknowledging the 613 laws as listed in the WRITTEN text. That’s fine.

2) AGAIN, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS A DEARTH OF HISTORICAL DATA SUPPORTING A DICTATED, ORAL TORAH BUT NO LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT MANY OF THE RABBINICAL RULES AND TEACHINGS WERE CREATED BY EARLY RABBIS (THE TRADITIONS OF MEN)

Yes, that is your claim. However, there is ample evidence that the oral Torah existed via the experiential references made in the text, and no real proof that anyone created the rules (speaking of the aspects of oral law that were contemporaneous with the written one). There are certainly opinions about this, but those ignore that textual evidence that people practiced the religion in a way consistent with Pharisaic understanding.

The reason the thread started out talking of Halivni because that was the reference Jayhawker Soule suggested to me.

Yes, and had I brought a rabbi who disagrees with Halivni, such as, for example Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, what would you have done with him?

Multiple historians have brought up the concept of Oral Torah and what historians are looking at (including multiple historians who ARE Rabbinic Jews). The problem is that the claim to have an oral law which was dictated by Moses and handed down by memorization is HISTORICALLY incoherent.

Multiple sides to the debate exist, including historians and rabbis. Instead of hitching your horse to a voice that supports your position to the exclusion of others, you might want to read up on the ideas and luminaries who espouse the various positions

https://18forty.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Lindell-Origins-of-Judaism-Full-Series-1.pdf

I’ve asked for any historical information from before the classical period, ANY evidence that an Oral Torah existed and the fact that there is a dearth of supporting evidence for an oral Torah but much against it is the historical problem.

And I have pointed out that the evidence is in the text regarding how people practiced. In the absence of the oral law, they could not have done so. Without an oral law, why would Daniel (1:8-16) limit himself to vegetables and water?

The problem is if Rabbis interpreted the small amount of laws such as the ten commandments and created additional rules and additional commandments by their own interpretation and exegesis and then presented these man-made traditions as having been dictated by Moses (as Maimonides said), then this is historically incoherent.

Then you are not familiar with what Maimonides said and did. Mishneh Torah, Transmission of the Oral Law 3

I understand your logic that rabbis felt they HAD to make some sense out of unclear or illogical text. That is not a problem because I agree with you on this specific point. The problem is creating these rules and then presenting them as a dictation from Moses when they were really created by rabbis.

You don’t understand my point. I am not arguing that the rabbis had to make sense, but that because there was sense before there were rabbis, they must only have been transmitting what was already known.

In fact there were so many rules about washing the hands, ritual impurity, etc that their lives and ritual expectations were spelled out by rabbinical laws in even the minutiae of their lives.

Ah, but you have put your conclusion in your presupposition again. You have already decided that rules about washing hands are “rabbinical laws” and not Oral laws that rabbis passed down.

Instead, what history points out is that these rules and laws and rituals were created by the rabbis and sages, etc and were not, historically, a set of oral laws on minutiae dictated by Moses.

No, that is what history, as related to you by people like Halivni (ironically, a rabbi who is innovating ideas but this time you are OK with it…) claim.

I am looking for historical evidence to show these Rabbinical traditions were dictated by Moses and transmitted by memorization to other sages or rabbis rather than created over time by rabbis and sages and then presented as having come from the Mouth of Moses.

So you want historical evidence other than the fact that people followed laws and practiced a complex religion? That’s what you won’t find because it is a function of actual performance which is recorded, not the function of historical essays which contemporaneously record anything.

Do you have any evidence FROM ANY HISTORICALLY PARALLEL TIME PERIOD to show the 613 commandments of Rabbinic Judaism AND all of the minutiae of rules and traditions were actually dictated by Moses and memorized by Sages who passed them on?

Well, the 613 are listed in the written text, so we can ignore that repeated mistake. But as to the authenticity and lineage of the Oral law, there is no way to prove or disprove it. A lack of historical documents doesn’t prove it didn’t exist any more than it proves it did exist. I don’t have any evidence from anything parallel that my own great-great-great grandfather ever existed. That doesn’t mean he didn’t.

The classical period stretches into the 5th century after Jesus’ supposed existence and not only do we have artifacts (like phylacteries, whose structure is purely a function of the oral law) from that period but we have statements from historians of the era that people wore phylacteries which would indicate a practice that could only exist via an extant oral law.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A minority of one that has the truth is still right regardless of the legions without it. I am quite correct in my rejection of the term "rabbinic Judaism" based on etymology.

See Wikipedia: Etymological fallacy ...

Posturing as a "minority of one that has the truth" bolsters neither your position nor your credibility.

 

[RabbiO]

Maimonides, in his itemizing of the 613 laws cites written verses for each one, so to say that the 613 were later innovations is wrong. The claim to the number 613, and the specific understanding of what counted towards that might have been a later wrinkle, but the written text explicitly lists hundreds of laws. So to dismiss the idea of more than 10 (not called commandments textually, but statements) is wrong.

The text, though, makes reference to laws that are not written in it (the most famous being in Deut 12:21) and uses words and concepts that are not defined within when it lists its commandments, and yet there is no record of the written explanation or any question by the people, demanding explication. Therefore, there must have been a complementary set of explanations and rules which made the written text make sense. To dismiss that is to say that people lived only by a written text which lacked specificity and clarity on its face.

When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying. They had already been living by those laws. References to certain non-textual practices in Proverbs and Ezekiel show that ritual existed in the practical sense so there had to be an understanding that put theory into the real world. If you want to consign any and all of this to a conspiracy of people to invent and retcon, feel free. Judaism is a religion of faith -- in the texts, oral and written.

There are, of course, additional categories of law that ARE clearly rabbinic. Much discussion in the talmud centers around the distinction between those types of laws and the implications. But you are starting from a position which dismisses an entire religious approach because you have decided that your vision of scholarship holds sway. That's fine, but you will be disappointed if you look at something guided by thousands of years of faith and demand a type of explanation that satisfies you in a non-faith context. Good luck.

 

[John D. Brey]

Does anyone know much about how the tradition developed regarding Rabbinic Jewish "Oral Law" as it relates to the rabbinic claim that traditions and writings created by the rabbis of rabbinic Judaism (e.g. Mishna, Talmud, etc) were an unwritten (i.e. oral) set of laws Given to Moses on Sinai at the same time he received Torah. That is, the claim that these writings were an "oral Torah" as the same times as the "written" torah was given.

For example, when Sherira Gaon collates early rabbinical literary sources, he attempts (in his famous letter to the north African Jewish Community) to connect the rabbinic traditions with Moses and Sinai. As far as I can tell, this is the earliest successful attempt to create the tradition that the rabbinic traditions were part of a sinaitic oral "torah" given to Moses. Maimonides carries this tradition even further such that these rabbinic traditions become an "oral Torah" for him as well (and for many of the Jews that read maimonides opinions).

I understand the need to try to create an aura of "authenticity" and "authority" to rabbinic writings, but am wanting to find out more about how the traditions of the early rabbis acquired a mantel of being given to Moses and Ezra, etc. as an "oral torah". The motive for creating the claim is obvious (to increase credibility for rabbinic writings), but it is the history of how such a tradition started and evolved that is somewhat obscure and in what I am interested in.

Any historians on the forum who know much about how this tradition of oral torah was created and evolved?

Clear

We did a long thread on this back in 2009. And though my mind is foggy about everything we discussed, I, like Foghorn Leghorn, keep all my messages counted (and filed away) for just such an occasion.

In a nutshell, the written text of the Torah was given as a cipher, and not as a readable text with its meaning decipherable in the normal way we read English. The text was delivered as a string of undecipherable consonants with no spaces between words, punctuation, end-stops and the like. The Pentateuch was one long string of Hebrew consonants that required some kind of key in order to determine where one word stops and another starts, where one sentence ends and another starts. Without that key you can stare at the text, or shrink it in formaldehyde and store away as an idol, but can't read it.

Furthermore, God commanded that no key, no given punctuation, ever be placed on the sacred text as though it were the only way to read the text. The cipher-text can be read more than one way such that God can give Israel, or whomever he wants to give it, one key to deciphering the text, and then give some other covenant recipient another key (for another covenant), i.e., another way to read the text. Some Jewish sages read Isaiah 51:4 to imply that a new Torah will proceed from Messiah.

To answer your question more directly, the key God gave to Israel to decipher the text is an "oral" funeral dirge, the song, found in Deuteronomy chapter 32. The words were delivered to Israel in a song, and the cantillation of the song (memorized for all posterity) is transferred into punctuation (each note of the song represents some flavor, or tone, of punctuation) with witch to decipher a particular (and particularly dark) reading of the text.

The decipherment come from that cantillation, or chantillation (the written Torah is chanted to this day) is a harsh reading (come from an oral, chantillated, song, given/memorized, with the words of Deuteronomy 32) full of curses, commandments, failure, and punishments. But the same text/consonants can be read, sung, another way, a joyful way, as good news (gospel) rather than harsh news (Deut. 32). That joyous reading was first hidden in David's Psalms (which were originally a pentateuch, five books), and then more fully when a new way to read the Torah did in fact, and historical truth, proceeded from the mouth of Messiah as gloriously good new: the first, dark, reading of the text, has come to its prophesied end, salvation has arrived.

. . . Btw . . . fwiw, in the essay linked to above (edited from the noted thread from back in 2009), the end-notes have all the documentation required to justify the factual legitimacy of how the "oral Torah" is laid bare in the discussion-essay. As the little girl said to her father after reading a 300 page book on platypus, so too, I suspect is the case regarding the linked-to essay: "Daddy I now know far more about platypus than I should ever have liked to know."




John

 

[Clear]

Hi Rosends

1) REGARDING “WRITTEN” TORAH (i.e. the Bible) VERSUS RULES OF THE RABBIS

Rosends said : "So, again, you have supported my proof against your claim. I thank you for that. You concede that Maimonides is simply organizing text which already existed, not that he is innovating or adding." (post #22)

You are confused. “text which already existed” is WRITTEN text, not ORAL tradition of Rabbinic Judaism. Maimonides IS innovating. Let me give you an example :

For example, when Maimonides said

“Know that every commandment that God gave to Moses our Master he gave with its explanation. God would speak the commandment to him, and afterwards speak the explanation and its deeper meaning and all that was included by that particular wise verse.” _(Maimonides)

If no one else was with Moses and, historically, Moses did not tell individuals this happened in this way, then by what right does Maimonides innovate history and present it as actual history. Why not simply say, “I don’t know the details of what happened between Jehovah and Moses”.


2) THE INNOVATION OF INACCUATE HISTORY AND THE ADDITION OF NON-HISTORICAL HISTORY IS PROBLEMATIC

For example Maimonides says

“For example, I may say to you that God dictated to Moses, “In booths shall you dwell seven days”, and afterwards gave him to know …that this matter of booths is incumbent upon males but not upon females …and that it’s roofing must be of material grown from the ground; and not to roof it with wool or silk, and not with useful articles, even such as are made from material grown from the earth, such as mats and clothing; and…this commandment and its explanation were given to him –and so too for all the six hundred and thirteen commandments, they and their explanations, the verses written upon scrolls, and the explanation transmitted orally. (maimonides)


It is perfectly fine for Maimonides to wonder how such things happened (most of us haves such ponderings).
However, his interpretation and attempts to codify this specific history go beyond wondering or offering opinions, he is offering minute details that are not in Oral Torah.

Maimonides claim that the entire essential law (as practiced by the Jews of HIS age) were given to Moses in detail, partly in written form and partly in an incorruptible oral tradition are historically incoherent.

The problem is that this is not coherent history, but it is codifying opinion as history.

When historians tell us that there is little relevant historical evidence of a vast oral law given to Moses which was passed down by memorization they are not speaking of written transmission, but of Oral transmission.

For example, historically, historians point out that even the term “oral law” does not appear in the old testament anywhere but was the term was created and started to be referred to (tangentially) more than 1500 years later (in the classical era) than Moses. No Mosaic Oral law existed in the form it is claimed by later Rabbinic Judaism.

Do you have any actual historical evidence for your claim that Moses was given the vast rules and regulations the rabbis of the peri c.e. era claimed was Oral Torah?


3) REGARDING MAIMONIDES’ EFFORTS TO CODIFY THE RULES OF THE RABBIS AS “TORAH”

Clear said : "And who produced those texts? Historically, it was Rabbis and Sages of an earlier age produced those texts, Not Moses. (post #20)

Rosends replied : "We are talking about the written Torah here. If you want to say that it holds no divine/Sinaitic origin then you are arguing not against the Oral law, but against the written one. (post #22)"

Again, you are confused.

Non prophetic Rules created by the rabbis and Jewish leaders of the classical period are not Torah, they are simply rules created by the rabbis and Jewish leaders.

If a modern rabbi has the opinion that one should not wear sunglasses, this is a personal opinion, but not torah. So with the ancient Jewish leaders.

We are talking about the rule and regulations presented to the populace as Orah Torah dictated by Moses. Once these rules and regulations and traditions created by Jewish leaders became written down, they did not become “Written Torah”, but they remained rules and regulations created by Jewish leaders with the CLAIM that they were Torah.

Torah, revealed by God to Moses or another prophet have greater authority than rules created by men and then offered up as Torah.

For example : Keilim from the Mishna is full of very minute rules regarding vessels and what must be done before a Jew can use them. Below is Rabbi David Cohen explaining some of these rabbinic rules to individuals. (I simply cut and pasted from an internet example)

This portion of the oral law says : “Tevillah is required for a barbecue spit or the food pan used with a chafing dish. The cover of a chafing dish must also undergo tevillah; although it seemingly does not have contact with the “actual” food, it is considered to have food contact because of the considerable amount of steam that rises up from the food to the cover. A glass cake tray requires tevillah even if the cake is always placed in cupcake holders or on a doily (i.e., never touches the actual tray), because the doily etc. is considered tafel/negligible to the food. A can opener does not have (intentional) food contact, and therefore it does not require tevillah. The tray in a toaster oven or microwave requires tevillah, because people put food right onto it, but the chamber of those appliances does not require tevillah, since they do not have (intentional) food contact. The following are some other examples of items which have no food contact and therefore do not require tevillah: corkscrew, dishwashing basin, knife sharpener, and TEVILLAS KEILIM napkin ring.”


It is, historically, incoherent to claim Moses dictated all of these laws regarding aluminum, can openers, pyrex and how these things must be baptized ("without labels") in Mikvah.

My point is that both anciently as well as nowadays, Rabbis and Jewish leaders have opinions regarding ritual purity and such minutae are their opinions.

However, to present such minutae as Oral Torah dictated by Moses is, historically, incoherent.



4) HISTORIANS DISCOVER AND INNOVATE, BUT THEY DO NOT CLAIM THEIR INNOVATIONS ARE LAWS OF GOD OR "TORAH"

Rosends said : "No, that is what history, as related to you by people like Halivni (ironically, a rabbi who is innovating ideas but this time you are OK with it…) claim." (post #22)


I agree with you that historians like religious historians such as rabbi Halivni, ito, Elman, glasner, Jaffnee, neusner, etc. DO come up with new historical ideas and historical theories (i.e. innovate).

BUT, they do not innovate moral rules and traditions on a large scale and then present those those theories as “Oral Torah dictated from God” and require people to live by them.

I am NOT against rabbis who innovate and come up with theories.

I think that innovation and trying to figure out what God wants of us is necessary (since not all things are clear in the biblical text). Thus the rabbis HAD to come up with their own interpretations and rules regarding behaviors that were not clearly spelled out in the Biblical text.

Nor am I blaming the rabbis and leaders for doing this necessary thing. In my opinion, the Jewish leaders were simply doing the best they could given lack of textual clarity.

The problem comes when they present these man-made rules and traditions and then present them as actual Torah, from God and dictated through Moses.

There is a difference between having an honest opinion and creating a rule based on that opinion and the act of claiming that your unwritten opinion is Torah and dictated from God. Can you see what I am saying?

In any case Rosends. I appreciate your ideas and discussion on this history. IF you actually DO have any historically appropriate support for your case, I would very much like to see it.


Clear
ειτωακω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Shaul

1) REGARDING WHETHER THE DICTIONARIES AND SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS ARE CORRECT IN THEIR HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE REGARDING "RABBINIC JUDAISM"

Shaul said : “Actually many of the sources you cite agree with my definition, particularly the non-Christian sources. “ (post #21)

Really? How many of them and which ones?



2) SHAUL FEELS HE IS CORRECT UNLESS THE DICTIONARIES AND SCHOLARS AND HISTORIANS ARE "TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE" JUDAISMS

Shaul said : “To wit, it refers to the branches of Judaism which have rabbis. Since all extant branches of Judaism (ignoring perhaps Karaites) have rabbis, the term is a pleonasm unless one is trying to differentiate it from Priestly, Sadducean, Essene, or Karaite Judaism. “ (post #22)

The Irony can’t be any thicker.

The term IS “trying to differentiate it from Sadducean, Essene, and Karaite Judaism”.

Did you not notice this?


One of the problems with constructing your own definitions and your own artificial language with arbitrary meaning is that it obscures rather than enhances understanding between individuals.

You cannot understand specific religious history you read if you will not use the scholars or historians historical nomenclature. You cannot simply assign your own personal meaning to someone elses words.

The same is true of almost any area of study. Arbitrarily assigning different meanings to historical nomenclature will cause confusion and misunderstanding and delay accurate understanding.



Shaul said : “The real issue is how Christians want to delegitimize the authority of the Oral Law and the Talmud.” (post #21)

It does seem to me that this is a personal issue for you. I doubt most Christians even know what the “Oral Torah” is.



Shaul said : “Yet the Oral Law is scripture.” (post #21)

I am sure this is your firm belief and honor that. However, since this is an attempt at a HISTORICAL discussion, Do you have ANY historically coherent data from any period before the classical period to offer readers to support this claim?


In any case Shaul, whatever meanings you want to apply to the words of others, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful in this life.

Clear
ειακσεω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

You are confused. “text which already existed” is WRITTEN text, not ORAL tradition of Rabbinic Judaism. Maimonides IS innovating.

I am aware of this – the 613 are all sourced through verses in the WRITTEN text so when Maimonides lists the 613, he grounds them in the written text. Therefore to say that the text only has 10 is wrong.



And when Maimonides makes his statement it is based on a continuing chain of transmission from generations before. What proof do you have that he is innovating on his own?

However, his interpretation and attempts to codify this specific history go beyond wondering or offering opinions, he is offering minute details that are not in Oral Torah.

You are confusing his writing down an oral tradition with “his own opinions” and your claim that certain details are not in the oral Torah is steeped in a lack of understanding about what is in the oral Torah.

Maimonides claim that the entire essential law (as practiced by the Jews of HIS age) were given to Moses in detail, partly in written form and partly in an incorruptible oral tradition are historically incoherent.

No, they are historically coherent and essential to understanding how the religion was practiced for generations before he was alive. Claiming that these details didn’t exist until he innovated him then begs the question of how people practiced their Judaism when the written text, alone, would not provide the guidance needed.

For example, historically, historians point out that even the term “oral law” does not appear in the old testament anywhere but was the term was created and started to be referred to (tangentially) more than 1500 years later (in the classical era) than Moses. No Mosaic Oral law existed in the form it is claimed by later Rabbinic Judaism.

You go from pointing out that a term did not exist to a claim that (therefore?) the concept described by the claim didn’t exist. That is an unfounded conclusion to draw. If the text makes reference to laws that are not spelled out, then even without calling it by a specific term, it is clear that the body of content must have existed.

Do you have any actual historical evidence for your claim that Moses was given the vast rules and regulations the rabbis of the peri c.e. era claimed was Oral Torah?

As stated, had the material not been handed down the people would have been unable to practice the religion, and yet there are textual instances which refer to their practicing things not found in the written text.

Non prophetic Rules created by the rabbis and Jewish leaders of the classical period are not Torah, they are simply rules created by the rabbis and Jewish leaders.

This is in error on a couple of fronts. Maimonides organized the list (though he wasn’t the only one to do so) of the laws found in the WRITTEN text. He then ALSO wrote up a code of laws which combines elements of the written and the oral laws, sourced in the the oral texts. Included in this codification are some laws that are called “rabbinic” in origin. Some are steeped in written and oral Torah discussion and some are of other sorts, based on the textual (written Torah) statement that gives the rabbis of each generation the authority to craft laws. These additional laws are also called “Torah” as the word has a variety of meanings and applications.

We are talking about the rule and regulations presented to the populace as Orah Torah dictated by Moses. Once these rules and regulations and traditions created by Jewish leaders became written down, they did not become “Written Torah”, but they remained rules and regulations created by Jewish leaders with the CLAIM that they were Torah.

Yes, they stay the Oral Torah, which is no less part of the Torah than the written text. You wish to deny its existence and that is your prerogative, unpersuasive as your claims are. Your cynical view of the veracity of the statements of leaders over the last 3000+ years which detail the chain of transmission is your particular position.

Torah, revealed by God to Moses or another prophet have greater authority than rules created by men and then offered up as Torah.

This is then a personal opinion of yours based in what you think happened and what it should mean. Judaism as a religion disagrees with you in many cases.

It is, historically, incoherent to claim Moses dictated all of these laws regarding aluminum, can openers, pyrex and how these things must be baptized ("without labels") in Mikvah.

You are confusing the application of rules and the generating of rules. The material you cited discusses the application of rules. The rules are sourced in the written text. If the text discusses metal objects then the specific type of metal needn’t have existed. Once it does exist, the law can be applied to it. If the law is written about natural vs. man made then the law has to be applied to later materials based on classifying them. This is then not about the source but the application of law.

My point is that both anciently as well as nowadays, Rabbis and Jewish leaders have opinions regarding ritual purity and such minutae are their opinions.

And their opinions are supported by citations from the written and oral laws. A simple opinion holds no sway in Jewish law. Calling the details of the application “minutae” is a choice you make. Jews don’t see these as minutae. To present them as minutae is therefore reflective of your personal bias.

BUT, they do not innovate moral rules and traditions on a large scale and then present those those theories as “Oral Torah dictated from God” and require people to live by them.

OK, and other historians who claim that the oral law is Sinaitic are not innovating either.

The problem comes when they present these man-made rules and traditions and then present them as actual Torah, from God and dictated through Moses.

No, the problem comes when you decide that their claims that something is from God must be wrong and you let that preconceived notion drive your analysis.

IF you actually DO have any historically appropriate support for your case, I would very much like to see it.

I have already presented the textual evidence, mentioned the historical references and explained the logic, plus I pointed out that you are looking for historical data which need not exist for something to be true.

 

[Clear]

1) PROBLEMS WITH AN IMPERFECT ORAL LAW OF RABBINIC JUDAISM : EXAMPLES FROM THE MISHNAH

Rosends said : “You are confusing his writing down an oral tradition with “his own opinions” and your claim that certain details are not in the oral Torah is steeped in a lack of understanding about what is in the oral Torah.” (post #28)

I very much agree that there is a great deal of confusion in Oral Law.
However, the amount and type of confusion in these traditions which are claimed to be a dictation to Moses is not typically a characteristic associated with Scripture (there are exceptions).


2) SOME RABBINICAL RULES HAVE LITTLE DATA AND LOGIC AND BIBLICAL SUPPORT
Another problem with the "dictation" theory is that the written version of the “Oral Law” itself says that there are rules for which the Bible is unclear. Though the leadership imposes rules, these are described as a halakhot that "fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah".
For example, Chagigah (in the Mishnah)1:8 says :

“Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition. The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous.



3) Oftentimes Rabbinic rules and traditions seem to be based on the merest whisps of relevance and relationship to the Torah.
For example, in a Midrash, the prohibition against an inquiry is a good example. The Midrash says : " It is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. iv. 32): "Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth." Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation. "


While given the opinion that Jews are forbidden to discuss what conditions were before creation, it says “Moses distinctly tells us”, and then we are given a scripture which makes no such prohibition. Such rules are dependent upon the reading of the rabbi, their interpretation and then Jews were given prohibitions based on tenuous interpretations of Jewish leaders.





4) REGARDING THE PROBLEM OF CONFLICT IN RULES IN RABBINICAL GUIDANCE

Another problem is that, because rules were often based on the opinion of the leadership, and because the leadership often interpreted the text differently, then Jewish leaders frequently disagreed regarding what certain rules should be. For example, the Mishnah describes multiple opinions from various Rabbis which conflict. From Chagigah 2 :

“Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival.
His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them;
Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them;
Nitai HaArbeli says to place them;
Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shataḥ says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.”

Remember, I have taken this quote directly from the Mishnah....

To present such rabbinic material as revealed from God to Moses and then to adherents as though it had the authority of scripture is historically incoherent, bizarre even.



Rosends said : Maimonides organized the list (though he wasn’t the only one to do so) of the laws found in the WRITTEN text. (post #28)

I agree with you very much. Maimonedes wasn’t the first, but was using WRITTEN texts collated and organized and created earlier. (It was not at Orah law that Maimonedes was working with) For example

Two centuries before Maimonides introduced his commentary Sherira Gaon, had created a collation of rules and tradition (which Maimonides seems to use as a partial source….). And before him was Rabbi Judah who created a partial list of rules and traditions.

Of R. Judah, the patriarch, Sherira says : “He decided to arrange the halakhah so that thereafter all the rabbis would use the same phraseology and no longer teach each in his own phrasing. The early masters who lived prior to the Destruction of the Temple did not need this uniformity since it was oral teaching. (It is the Spanish version of this letter which claims the Mishnah was recorded by dictation “as Moses” recorded the written Torah.)

Just as the example in the Mishna of Rabbis who could not agree on doctrine (leaving the Mishna offering multiple opinions….), this “lack of uniformity” in rabbinical teaching Rabbi Gaon speaks of, reflects the reality that oral teaching is often undisciplined and non-formulaic. That is the nature of Oral Communication. Now, write it down and it loses flexibility with the text. (Not flexibility with interpretation, etc.)

Thus as Rabbi Jaffee explains : “There is little reason to assume that rabbinic tradition – whatever it was – was preserved verbatim in oral form. Similarly, the assumption that reducing oral tradition to written form left the message unaffected is problematic. “



Clear said : “IF you actually DO have any historically appropriate support for your case, I would very much like to see it.” (post #26)

Rosends said : “I have already presented the textual evidence, mentioned the historical references and explained the logic, plus I pointed out that you are looking for historical data which need not exist for something to be true.”


You have not offered HISTORICAL evidence that I can see.

You have repeated the dogma and given me some logic but no evidence.

For examples : in post #14, you said regarding rabbinical rules and an Oral Torah that there was “ no record of the written explanation or any question by the people, demanding explication. Therefore, there must have been a complementary set of explanations and rules” (Rosends, post #14)

Here you are offering me logic, but it is not HISTORICAL evidence and does not consider the further historical logic : There was already a set of rules from the Bible and from traditions and rules from Jewish leadership.


In post #17, you said that “Maimonides pointed to textual evidence and citation of black letter law.” (post #17)
Again, this is a bare claim but this is not historical evidence or a evidential text.



Rosends. I honestly appreciate your willingness to discuss this important historical issue and I understand no one wants their beliefs to undergo any criticism. Please, Did you actually offer any objective historical evidence that I missed? If so, I will apologize.

If so, can you point out the historical evidence to support an Oral Torah, dictated to Moses and passed through the generations by memory?


Good Journey rosends.


Clear
τωτζακω

 

[rosends]

@Clear

I very much agree that there is a great deal of confusion in Oral Law.

In what sense are you “agreeing” if that isn’t something that I said?

that there are rules for which the Bible is unclear.

I’m glad we agree that the text, on its own, is unclear.

Though the leadership imposes rules, these are described as a halakhot that "fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah".

Yes, exactly – the essence of the oral law. And since the people practiced the religion and yet these laws are not found in the written text, there must have been an accepted oral set of laws to guide them. Thank you for agreeing.

While given the opinion that Jews are forbidden to discuss what conditions were before creation, it says “Moses distinctly tells us”, and then we are given a scripture which makes no such prohibition. Such rules are dependent upon the reading of the rabbi, their interpretation and then Jews were given prohibitions based on tenuous interpretations of Jewish leaders.

Now you are citing a non-existent prohibition from a midrash. You don’t seem to understand how Jewish law is sourced and works.

Remember, I have taken this quote directly from the Mishnah....

Maybe that’s because you don’t understand the scope, content and method of the oral law. Since you are starting from not knowing, your conclusions will be flawed.

To present such rabbinic material as revealed from God to Moses and then to adherents as though it had the authority of scripture is historically incoherent, bizarre even.

That is your opinion. Somehow, thousands of years have passed and generations have lived by the religion not sharing your opinion.

I agree with you very much. Maimonedes wasn’t the first, but was using WRITTEN texts collated and organized and created earlier. (It was not at Orah law that Maimonedes was working with)

Great – I’m glad you admit that your claim about the written text and the 613 laws was wrong. We can move forward, then.

Just as the example in the Mishna of Rabbis who could not agree on doctrine (leaving the Mishna offering multiple opinions….), this “lack of uniformity” in rabbinical teaching Rabbi Gaon speaks of, reflects the reality that oral teaching is often undisciplined and non-formulaic.

Actually, it speaks to the exact opposite. The oral law is highly consistent and formulaic which is why it was possible to establish sets of rules for deciding the actual, practical laws based on the stated opinions. That the text has opinions has to do with the method and structure of the oral law which you seem to be unaware of.

You have not offered HISTORICAL evidence that I can see.

Because events that were recorded as happening aren’t history? I pointed to historical events and facts. You just haven’t dealt with any of that. That’s your choice, I guess.

Here you are offering me logic, but it is not HISTORICAL evidence and does not consider the further historical logic : There was already a set of rules from the Bible and from traditions and rules from Jewish leadership.

Actually, that’s exactly what it considers. It just doesn’t assume that those earlier laws were innovated by Jewish leadership, just that the leadership passed them down for people to practice. Assuming they made these things up is your position.

Again, this is a bare claim but this is not historical evidence or a evidential text.

Sure it does – Maimonides cited the text. Did you not see that? You have ignored so much of what I have presented and I have to wonder why – is it because, though you like to discuss things, you feel that your position is untenable in the face of facts so you simply ignore the facts? Does it work better for you to repeat your request and simply claim that nothing has been presented that satisfies your narrow needs and parameters? When I see you misinterpret things I wrote (and say we “agree” on a point I never made) it makes sense to me that you would not understand the proofs I have given. Your blinders seem to prevent your assimilating new data or accepting the limitations on your understanding.

Best of luck to you in your studies, but I would suggest coming at new information from a position acknowledging a lack of information, not starting with a foregone conclusion.

 

[Harel13]

Do you think your reluctance to use this standard nomenclature of Universities and scholars and dictionaries, etc. is appropriate?

Do you want examples of other terms still touted by scholars worldwide despite being highly inaccurate?

One example: In Late Bronze-early Iron Age Israel we find a type of house called "the four-room house". In time, it turned out that there were also three-room houses, two-room houses, five-room houses or more-room houses. Despite these discoveries, all of these houses are still clustered together under the uniform title of "four-room house". Recently, some scholars opt for the term "pillared house", because these houses often feature pillars in one of the rooms. Is the usage of of the term "pillared house" "inappropriate" as well, simply because most of the world still refers to two-room or more houses as "four-room houses"?

To say we must stick to a term simply because the majority of scholars use it impedes progress of research. In my opinion, it's a backwards way of thinking. If a solid argument can be made for usage of a different term, there is nothing wrong with hearing the argument and allowing it to stand. It is also okay to reject the argument, provided a proper counter-argument can be made. That many people with shining degrees say something that is incorrect or inaccurate does not make it any less incorrect or inaccurate.

I am also reminded of a story I read last week in a paper describing the discovery of Khirbet Qeiyafa's second gate, a unique anomaly in Iron Age Israeli archaeology. The paper, which can be read here, recounted that the original version of the paper was rejected by BAR's editor Hershel Shanks, simply because Shanks did not believe that the person who discovered the gate was the non-archeologist monetary backer of the excavations at Qeiyafa and for this, was credited in the paper. The paper proceeded to explain how exactly this non-archeologist managed to find the location of the second gate.

I mean, is your theory even relevant to the historical question I am asking in the O.P.?
Do you actually have significant historical data regarding the earliest form of the Oral Torah you say existed?

Considering that the Sages did not use the term "rabbinic Judaism" or "Judaism" at all, that makes the term thoroughly ahistorical, which really makes any term equally viable. @Shaul's and @rosends's arguments carry weight in that they reflect the mentality of the Sages: In their eyes, they were not creating a new religion, as you yourself suggest.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi @rosends

1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT MOSES DICTATED ORAL RULES THAT WERE PASSED DOWN BY MEMORIZATION

Rosends said : “When the sages set the oral law (that had been passed down, dating back to Sinai) they were not innovating but codifying. They had already been living by those laws.”

Of course they were codifying their traditions and rules. The definition of codify is to “arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code.”
Or to “arrange according to a plan or system.”

For example, Sherira Gaon, describing the editing of the Mishna by Rabbi Juda points out that the early Leaders living before the destruction of the temple did not need (nor did they have) uniformity of phrasing but, luckily, “help came” ("from heaven” and “they arranged and wrote down these words of the Mishna ‘as if at the dictation of God as a sign and a miracle’”.
This tradition of God dictating multiple different Mishnas is a historical problem.

The historical issue was not whether Jews lived by ancient traditions existing before each tradition is written down.
The issue was whether Moses himself dictated the many traditions in Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) as opposed to the other Jewish denominations that believed the laws created and organized (“Codified”) were not divine.



2) REGARDING THE ADMISSION THAT ADDITIONAL LAWS ARE CLEARLY RABBINIC

Rosends said : “There are, of course, additional categories of law that ARE clearly rabbinic.”

I strongly agree with this and it has been my point all along.

Almost ALL of the laws in the Mishna “ARE clearly rabbinic”.
They were NOT dictated by Moses but were created by Jewish leaders themselves.
Anyone who reads the Mishna will see they were clearly NOT dictated by Moses but have a rabbinic character.
Many of the rules are derived secondarily through interpretation of the sages, yet were claimed to be dictated by Moses.




Rosends said : “You concede that Maimonides is simply organizing text which already existed, not that he is innovating or adding. (post #22)

You and I seem to agree that the majority of what Maimonides is writing down exists in textual form.
For example, he seems to have used prior Mishnaic texts in creating his own Mishnah

This is not the issue.
The issue is the claim that that there was, historically, a set of vast Oral legislation and law dictated by Moses in Oral form and passed down by memorization over the generations without changes in the form and function.



Rosends said : “Yes, that is your claim. However, there is ample evidence that the oral Torah existed via the experiential references made in the text…”

Is there actual HISTORICAL evidence of Oral Torah dictated by Moses?
Really?

Even earliest Classical rabbinic literature does not hold the historical belief that rabbinic tradition in it’s entirety represents a dictation from Moses in any original form.


3) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THERE IS NO PROOF ANYONE CREATED THE RULES...

Rosends claims there is “… no real proof that anyone created the rules (speaking of the aspects of oral law that were contemporaneous with the written one). (post #22)

So, the traditions and written rules appeared magically out of thin air?

The mere existence of written rules tells us SOMEONE created them and SOMEONE wrote them down.
The mere fact that rules exist about how to wash utensils made of pyrex and aluminum and to take the labels off before washing means SOMEONE created those rules and it wasn’t a dictation from MOSES but is instead, a newer innovation.

For example, the Judaisms that do not believe the Mishna is divine dictation from Moses believe the Hand Washing rules of Rabbanism (Rabbinic Judaism) were created by Rabbinic Judaism rather than a dictation from Moses.

Can you provide any actual DATA that shows the oral Torah was dictated by Moses and passed down over many generations by memorization?


4) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT PHARISAIC JUDAISM PRACTICED PHARISAIC JUDAISM ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING

Rosends said : “There are certainly opinions about this, but those ignore that textual evidence that people practiced the religion in a way consistent with Pharisaic understanding.”

The fact that adherents to Pharisaic Judaism practiced according to Pharisaic understanding is irrelevant.
The Sadducees also practiced according to their understanding, and the Essenes also practiced according to their understanding, and the Samaritans also practiced according to their understanding, etc.
You must remember that Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism / Pharisaism) was simply one Jewish denomination among others.

While it became the dominant form of Judaism, it doesn’t mean they get to claim Moses dictated Pharisaic religion without question.

Your comment is not actual historical support for the claim that Moses dictated an Oral Torah of vast rules and regulations that was passed on by memorization over many generations.




Rosends said : “Yes, and had I brought a rabbi who disagrees with Halivni, such as, for example Yitzhak Isaac Halevy, what would you have done with him?”

If you had brought a rabbi that disagrees with the scholars and historians, I would still ask him if HE had any historical data supporting the claim that Moses dictated a vast Oral set of rules that were transmitted orally by memorization over many generations of time.
Yitzhak Halevy would of course not be able to prove Moses dictated the rules of the Mishna.



Rosends said : “I am not arguing that the rabbis had to make sense, but that because there was sense before there were rabbis, they must only have been transmitting what was already known.”

Your logic here fails.

I’ve already demonstrated the concept that modern Rabbis innovate by making modern rules about washing pyrex and aluminum dishes, removing labels, etc.

While the concept of “washing” existed prior to these interpretations, still, modern Rabbis had to innovate rules according to their interpretation of prior tradition. This was one of the controversies the non-rabbinical (non rabbanism) Jews had against the rabbinic Jews.
This seems to be one of the motives for creating the myth that Moses dictated the rabbinic Mishna so as to claim greater authority over other Judaisms.

Even the modern Jewish rules regarding how to wash aluminum and Pyrex dishes or whether to remove the Walmart labels or not is not a dictation from Moses. These are Jewish leaders trying to figure out additional rules that relate to modern conditions.
This pattern is a model for what has always happened in creating rules.
Leaders simply do the best they can at creating rules for living according to their best understanding.

The same sort of process is presumed to have been utilized anciently. Jewish leader have always had to figure out how to apply rules for which there was no clear instruction. People who believed in the rabbinic leaders lived by these rules created by Jewish leaders.





POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

5) REGARDING THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MOSES HAVING DICTATED THE VARIOUS MISHNAS

Rosends said : “And when Maimonides makes his statement it is based on a continuing chain of transmission from generations before. What proof do you have that he is innovating on his own?” (post #28)

Which statement are you referring to?
Can you give me a quote?

In arranging his sources into an arrangement of rules for his Mishna, there is no proof that Moses dictated this hypothetical vast amount of rules and laws that were passed down by memorization over 1600 years.
Halivni and multiple other Rabbinic and non rabbinic scholars have pointed out many problems with the Rabbinic leadership claim that the Mishna was divine dictation by God to Moses.

Secondly, we do have historically coherent models of how Jewish leadership has to innovate to accommodate for unclear text.
Just as the modern Rabbis have to decide how to wash Pyrex and aluminum and whether to remove labels first, ancient Rabbis had to deal with similar questions.
Just as Moses did not dictate whether to remove labels from pots and pans, he did not dictate the rules created by rabbis anciently which were placed into the various Mishnas that have been created in the past.

Thirdly, the Content of Oral laws are distinctly Rabbinic.
They are a rabbinized version of earlier material which reflects the views of the sages who transmitted it. (Havilni, Neuser, et al.)

Forthly : The content and traits of the tradition in its written form have late origins (no earlier than the late second century or early third century). The tradition that Moses dictated Mishnaic Oral Torah did not exist in the earliest classical rabbinism. It was a later invention.

Fifth : As Halivni pointed out, In recoverable rabbinic tradition, written texts are the foundation of, rather than the crystalization of oral tradition. Maimonides, who can be partly blamed for the popularization of this claim that God dictated the Oral Law/Mishna to Moses, was using written sources, not oral sources he or another had memorized. His sources show no evidence Moses dictated them.

Sixth : As scholars have pointed out, In classical Rabbinic literature, we find terms for material passed on as tradition, but no term for “Oral Tradition”.
The term for Oral tradition does not make an appearance until the late third century (and even then indirectly).
Once the concept becomes popular, then we see it become commonplace AFTER that.
Again, evidence that Moses “dictation” of Oral tradition is a late invention.

Seventh : Oral Torah is a reference (primarily) to rabbinic norms.
It is the claim that they are Oral “TORAH” is the mechanism by which they claim enhanced authority. In the great Karaite controvery, Rabbanism needed a Mechanism to win and settle the controversy between Jews that did not believe the Mishna was divine and the Rabbinic Jews who wanted to assert their dominance.
Claiming Moses dictated their rules (e.g. Handwashing, etc) was a mechanism that could accomplish this rabbinic goal IF individuals could be made to believe the claim.

Eighth : Even the Talmud itself does not describe how traditions passing orally through individuals over eons of time can do so in an unaltered form.
No one in the world has ever seen this actually happen, but instead, human nature creates oral alterations in the retelling vast amounts of information.
This claim that Moses’ vast dictation was transmitted oral over eons has no known example, yet there are many examples that demonstration change (evolution, alteration, etc) occurs with oral transmission between people.

Ninth : Even the term “Oral Torah” is seen in homiletical and polemical settings as a “short hand” term for the authority exercised by rabbinic sages.
As scholars have pointed out, even Hillel and Shammai, assume the teachings of rabbinic sages are ‘Oral Torah” and important parts of the covenant between God and Israel 61)

Tenth: Some halakhic traditions have almost no basis in Scripture but are still considered the “essence of torah” (and some of these are core rabbinic traditions).

Eleventh : Scholars point out that the Empirical anthropological models demonstrate it’s implausible to assume rabbinic tradition was preserved verbatim in oral form.

Twelve : While the Jews had multiple schools of thought, most principle schools had their own Mishnah.
It is implausible to assume Moses dictated multiple diverging Torahs.
Divergences in Mishnas of the Rabbinic School remained fairly narrow since the head of multiple schools had the same master.
For example of multiple Great Mishnas are those of R. Hiyya, R. Hoshaiya, and Bar Kappara (the Mishna of R. Akiba is sometimes mentioned).



POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE



Clear said : “Maimonides’ claim that the entire essential law (as practiced by the Jews of HIS age) were given to Moses in detail, partly in written form and partly in an incorruptible oral tradition are historically incoherent.”

Rosends replied : “No, they are historically coherent and essential to understanding how the religion was practiced for generations before he was alive. Claiming that these details didn’t exist until he innovated him then begs the question of how people practiced their Judaism when the written text, alone, would not provide the guidance needed.”

As I’ve pointed out in the above examples, it IS historically, incoherent to claim Moses dictated the Mishna in oral form 1500 years earlier in an unchanged condition without innovation or change.

No one claimed “details” in the form of rabbinic traditions did not exist.
The claim is that the rabbinic traditions called the Oral Torah (e.g. Mishna) was not dictated by Moses.




Clear said : “Just as the example in the Mishna of Rabbis who could not agree on doctrine (leaving the Mishna offering multiple opinions….), this “lack of uniformity” in rabbinical teaching Rabbi Gaon speaks of, reflects the reality that oral teaching is often undisciplined and non-formulaic.”

Rosends said : “Actually, it speaks to the exact opposite. The oral law is highly consistent and formulaic which is why it was possible to establish sets of rules for deciding the actual, practical laws based on the stated opinions. That the text has opinions has to do with the method and structure of the oral law which you seem to be unaware of.”


It is too late for you to claim the oral law is highly consistent since readers have already been given examples of the lack of uniformity.
Readers have already seen this is incorrect in prior examples.

For example, regarding the offering of an animal the text says :
“Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival.
His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them;
Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them;
Nitai HaArbeli says to place them;
Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shataḥ says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them.”

"Place them"...."don't place them"...."place them"...."don't place them....etc.
Such texts are anything BUT consistent.

God did not dictate such inconsistency to Moses and Moses did not dictate such inconsistency to the Jewish leaders of Rabbanism. This partly explains why other Jewish denominations did not believe your rabbinic Mishna text was divine dictation from God.



Clear said : “For example, historically, historians point out that even the term “oral law” does not appear in the old testament anywhere but was the term was created and started to be referred to (tangentially) more than 1500 years later than Moses. No Mosaic Oral law existed in the form it is claimed by later Rabbinic Judaism.”

Rosends replied : “You go from pointing out that a term did not exist to a claim that (therefore?) the concept described by the claim didn’t exist. That is an unfounded conclusion to draw. If the text makes reference to laws that are not spelled out, then even without calling it by a specific term, it is clear that the body of content must have existed.

Having a law mentioned that is not spelled out is only evidence that a law was not spelled out in the text you are reading.
It tells us nothing about a hypothetical oral law.





Clear asked : “Do you have any actual historical evidence for your claim that Moses was given the vast rules and regulations the rabbis of the peri c.e. era claimed was Oral Torah?”

Rosends replied : "As stated, had the material not been handed down the people would have been unable to practice the religion, and yet there are textual instances which refer to their practicing things not found in the written text. (post #28)

You and I agree that the Rabbinic Jews practiced things not found in the written text.
This is another reason the non-Pharisaic, non rabbinic Jews criticized the Rabbanists (rabbinic Jews) for claiming these “things not found in the written text” were innovations and they did not believe Moses dictated these things to the Rabbanites (rabbinic or pharisaic Jews).


In any case, the O.P. is asking for historical data regarding justification of the claim that God dictated the Mishna to Moses who dictated it to others who committed it to memory and passed it down for eons in an oral form, memorized and unchanged to end up at a specific text. If you do not have actual historical data to support this tradition, it is a good time to tell me so as not to waste readers time.

@rosends , I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful and insightful. Thank you so much for your insights.


Clear
τωσενεω

 

[Shaul]

Jesus affirmed and approved of the Oral Law. Jesus said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you." The scribes and Pharisees taught the Oral Law. Jesus also followed the Oral Law by example. In John chapter 10 Jesus participated in the Festival of Dedication, which is Hannukah. There is no mention of Hannukah in the Written Law. It is only proscribed in the Oral Law. Jesus, who said to neither add to nor take away from the Law, observed Hannukah as proclaimed in the Oral Law. Jesus by word and deed said the Oral Law is to be followed.

 

[metis]

Jesus affirmed and approved of the Oral Law. Jesus said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you." The scribes and Pharisees taught the Oral Law. Jesus also followed the Oral Law by example. In John chapter 10 Jesus participated in the Festival of Dedication, which is Hannukah. There is no mention of Hannukah in the Written Law. It is only proscribed in the Oral Law. Jesus, who said to neither add to nor take away from the Law, observed Hannukah as proclaimed in the Oral Law. Jesus by word and deed said the Oral Law is to be followed.

That depends on how one looks at it because the oral law has a great many differing interpretations and applications. Hillel the Elder stated his well-known response when asked what Torah was really about, and even though his response wasn't too different from Jesus' teachings, without a doubt Jesus definitely took it a major step further by narrowing the 613 down to 2 Commandments.

 

[Shaul]

That depends on how one looks at it because the oral law has a great many differing interpretations and applications. Hillel the Elder stated his well-known response when asked what Torah was really about, and even though his response wasn't too different from Jesus' teachings, without a doubt Jesus definitely took it a major step further by narrowing the 613 down to 2 Commandments.

No it doesn't. The question is how did Jesus view the Oral Law? The fact is that Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

 

[metis]

No it doesn't. The question is how did Jesus view the Oral Law? The fact is that Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

Actually, not by any indication as he simply doesn't use the accepted standard of citing the teacher and then giving affirmation or some dissent to an opinion or application. He never cites any recognized sages who lived prior to him after the prophetic age, which is a no-no.

But what he did do is to have his own oral law that went much further than any previous sage.

 

[Clear]

Hi @metis and @Shaul
I don't have any interest in entering into your debate but just wanted to make a single grammatical point and make clear Jesus did not support the Rabbanite sect of Jews and their religious rules.


1) REGARDING THE DESIRE TO MAKE A TEXT SUPPORT A POSITION IT DOES NOT SUPPORT

Shaul said : “Jesus affirmed and approved of the Oral Law. Jesus said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you." (post #35)


Of course the messiah Jesus did not approve of either the oral law of the Pharisees nor of the hypocrisy and motives of the Rabbis.
You are quoting the text incorrectly.
The original Greek text for “to sit” in this sentence is aorist indicative active (Μωυσεως καθεδρας εκαθισαν) and so the corrected verse is “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.”

Thus the several corrected versions read similarly :

New American Standard Bible - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses.
NASB 1995 - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
NASB 1977 - saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
Legacy Standard Bible - saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
Amplified Bible - saying: “The scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in Moses’ chair [of authority as teachers of the Law];


2) JESUS WARNS THE PEOPLE NOT TO FOLLOW THE ACTUAL ACTIONS OF THE RABBANITE SECT

Not only does the Messiah NOT accept the various rules created by the rabbis, but he chastises them for their hypocrisy and warns the people against doing what the Rabbis and Scribes are DOING.

1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. 3Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and [a]comply with it all, but do not do Matthew 23 New American Standard Bibleas they do; for they say things and do not do them. 4And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger. 5And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people; for they broaden their [c]phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 7and personal greetings in the marketplaces, and being called [d]Rabbi by the people. broaden their [c]phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the seats of honor in the synagogues, 7and personal greetings in the marketplaces, and being called [d]Rabbi by the people.


Clear
δρειτζω

 

[Shaul]

Actually, not by any indication as he simply doesn't use the accepted standard of citing the teacher and then giving affirmation or some dissent to an opinion or application. He never cites any recognized sages who lived prior to him after the prophetic age, which is a no-no.

But what he did do is to have his own oral law that went much further than any previous sage.

Jesus did quote from rabbis, although paraphrase is more precise. Jesus said, "do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law". Which is found (among other places) in the sayings of Hillel, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah". While the Christian New Testament doesn't acknowledge that he is quoting Hillel it is clear that he is. The people he was speaking to would certainly be familiar with Hillel one of the greatest rabbinic sages. Of course the Christian New Testament has a bias, as it acknowledges. So it would have reason to omit the fact that Jesus is quoting a rabbi.

 

[rosends]

@Clear

This tradition of God dictating multiple different Mishnas is a historical problem.

Why do you say that God dictated the Mishna? God gave Moses the oral law. Do you think they are identical and synonymous?

The issue was whether Moses himself dictated the many traditions in Rabbanism (rabbinic Judaism) as opposed to the other Jewish denominations that believed the laws created and organized (“Codified”) were not divine.

OK, that’s your issue. Can you cite any historical proof that Jews before the destruction of the first temple who were, as you say, following ancient traditions, believed the laws were not divine?

Almost ALL of the laws in the Mishna “ARE clearly rabbinic”.

No, that is your contention but is simply a matter of your opinion. Judaism recognizes many types of laws and some (but only a few) are purely rabbinic. You wish to expand this to more than is the case based on your opinion.

They were NOT dictated by Moses but were created by Jewish leaders themselves.

Again, that’s your position but is an empty claim.

Anyone who reads the Mishna will see they were clearly NOT dictated by Moses but have a rabbinic character.

That’s fine since the Mishna was not dictated by Moses. I suspect you are using your words incorrectly.

For example, he seems to have used prior Mishnaic texts.

Oof. Swing and a miss. It is like you haven’t looked at the text I am pointing to.

The issue is the claim that that there was, historically, a set of vast Oral legislation and law dictated by Moses in Oral form and passed down by memorization over the generations without changes in the form and function.

Well, actually, the issue was not this. It was that the written text has 10 laws and not 613. And then your other claim is that there was no other set of laws passed down orally. (as to the “without changes in form and function” comes out of left field as no one would disagree that they changed in form and function and still do).

Is there actual HISTORICAL evidence of Oral Torah dictated by Moses?
Really?

Yes, in both the direct reference to it by biblical text and in the mention of practice by the people who would not have anything to practice were there no oral law. Feel free to disregard the authority of the written law as divine, and of the Prophets and Writings as not accurate. At least then you would be consistent in disregarding the whole instead of trying to accept some and not other parts.

Even earliest Classical rabbinic literature does not hold the historical belief that rabbinic tradition in it’s entirety represents a dictation from Moses in any original form.

No one said that it does “in its entirety.” Putting a claim into play that has not been made, just so that you can deny it is not helpful.

So, the traditions and written rules appeared magically out of thin air?

If you can accept that the Torah text appeared that way then why not accept that the complementary oral texts also appeared that way. Seems rather selective of you to accept one and not the other.

The mere existence of written rules tells us SOMEONE created them and SOMEONE wrote them down.

OK, yeah: “God.”

The mere fact that rules exist about how to wash utensils made of pyrex and aluminum and to take the labels off before washing means SOMEONE created those rules and it wasn’t a dictation from MOSES but is instead, an interpretation.

This is all true and speaks to the structure, method and purpose of the oral law and the halachic process.

For example, the Judaisms that do not believe the Mishna is divine dictation from Moses believe the Hand Washing rules of Rabbanism (Rabbinic Judaism) were created by Rabbinic Judaism rather than a dictation from Moses.

Actually, no one believes that hand-washing was a dictation from God to Moses. You should study up on the laws of Judaism.

Can you provide any actual DATA that shows the oral Torah was dictated by Moses and passed down over many generations by memorization?

Besides the attestation of the written text and the references to practices that are in the oral law? Nope. Sad that the text isn’t enough proof for you but I can live with it.

This is not actual historical support for the claim that Moses dictated an Oral Torah of vast rules and regulations that was passed on by memorization over many generations.

Well, people were practicing following an oral law before the advent of “Pharisaic” anything. The text says so. So where does the conspiracy of creativity begin?

Yitzhak Halevy would of course not be able to prove Moses dictated the rules of the Mishna.

In the same way that Halivni can’t prove the opposite. But instead of your saying “there are 2 competing theories, neither of which can be proven” you hitch your horse to one and say the other can’t be right. That’s not very good academia.

I’ve already demonstrated the concept that modern Rabbis innovate by making modern rules about washing pyrex and aluminum dishes, removing labels, etc.

No, you have made that claim. I have said that understanding leads to novel application in most cases not innovation of new rules.

While the concept of “washing” existed prior to these interpretations, still, modern Rabbis had to innovate rules according to their interpretation of prior tradition. This was one of the controversies the non-rabbinical (non rabbanism) Jews had against the rabbinic Jews.

Again, no. There is no controversy. Rabbis innovated the rules for hand washing before eating.

Even the modern Jewish rules regarding how to wash aluminum and Pyrex dishes or whether to remove the Walmart labels or not is not a dictation from Moses.

No one says it is.

These are Jewish leaders trying to figure out how to apply prior traditions to modern conditions.

Yes! Application, not innovation.

This current pattern is a model for what has always happened in creating rules. Leaders simply do the best they can at creating rules for living according to their best understanding.

You have now conflated application and creation. And yet you were doing so well…

In arranging his sources into an arrangement of rules for his Mishna, there is no proof that Moses dictated this hypothetical vast amount of rules and laws that were passed down by memorization over 1600 years. Halivni and others have pointed out many problems with the Rabbinic leadership claim that the Mishna was divine dictation.

So your argument is that since there is no proof that something happened, it must not have happened even though there is reference to the fact that it happened. That’s fine. There is no proof to the contrary but you just want to see your position. Halivni is opposed by Halevy. Equal and opposite.

Secondly, we do have historically coherent models of how Jewish leadership has to innovate to accommodate for unclear text.

You have put the cart before the horse again. We have models for how leadership applied material. You are imputing the notion of innovating and then deciding that that’s what must have happened. You are also taking the exigent needs which developed later and required the creation of rabbinic laws (which, yes, exist) and then worked backwards and said that this replaces any other process before it. That's highly specious.

Just as the modern Rabbis have to decide how to wash Pyrex and aluminum and whether to remove labels first, ancient Rabbis had to deal with similar questions.

True.

Just as Moses did not dictate whether to remove labels from pots and pans, he did not dictate the rules created by rabbis anciently which were placed into the various Mishnas that have been created in the past.

That’s where you jump the shark. The fact that pyrex isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that nothing else was mentioned. The fact that laws are applied to new situations doesn’t mean that laws are created for new situations.

They are a rabbinized version of earlier material which reflects the views of the sages who transmitted it. (Havilni, Neuser, et al.)

Conceding “earlier material” means acknowledging the prior existence of pre-written content. You know…an oral law. Thanks.

written texts are the foundation of, rather than the crystalization of oral tradition.

Some are, some aren't. Claiming all or nothing is doomed to fail.

Maimonides, who can be partly blamed for the popularization of this tradition, was using written sources, not oral sources he or another had memorized. His sources show no evidence Moses dictated them.

He was using written sources because he was using the Torah text and the oral law which, by his time had been written down. His sources make claim to earlier versions passed down orally. He makes accepting that as a core tenet.

The term for Oral tradition does not make an appearance until the late third century (and even then indirectly). Once the concept becomes popular, then we see it become commonplace AFTER that. Again, evidence that Moses “dictation” of Oral tradition is a late invention.

You have 2 different claims here. One is linguistic – since the words “oral law” don’t exist, THE oral law did not exist. That’s a silly argument to make, especially as you have already conceded “earlier material.” The second claim is that evidence of Mosaic origin is a late invention because the words don’t label it the way you want. That’s similarly ridiculous. The evidence exists textually without the label. World War One existed before it was called that.

It is the claim that they are Oral “TORAH” is the mechanism by which they claim enhanced authority. In the great Karaite controvery, Rabbanism needed a Mechanism to win and settle the controversy between Jews that did not believe the Mishna was divine and the Rabbinic Jews who wanted to assert their dominance.

You should be talking about the Saduccees and not the Karaites. They held the contemporary position denying the specific oral law that the Pharisees taught. They had their own. The Karaites came on the scene well later.

No one in the world has ever seen this actually happen, but instead, human nature creates oral alterations in the retelling vast amounts of information.