30

Either what was posted on that forum is about half-correct, or your understanding of what was said was about half-correct. Traditional Judaism does believe that "[H]oly texts are the revealed word of the divine and thus cannot ever be contradicted by modern research, philosophy or belief systems." It is not true "[t]hat it is understood that the scripture ...


25

I agree with the answer Daniel gave, but I would clarify things slightly differently. 1) Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah is the literal Word of G-d. This is one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith as brought down by Maimonides: "We do not know exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. But when it was transmitted, Moses merely wrote it ...


14

The Midrash (Exodus Rabbah 47:1) says that one reason was to maintain one portion of the Torah as a uniquely Jewish possession. The gentiles have the written Torah (ever since, under order of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, it was translated into Greek, and later into other languages); but so long as the Oral Torah remained orally transmitted, it was unavailable to ...


14

The statement "all the words of the Law" is modified by the next phrase "the blessing and the curse". The simple meaning of the verses is that Joshua explained benefits of keeping the law and vice versa. Not necessarily all commandments. There are interpretations of the verse that all commandments were taught, but your question is based on a literal ...


14

The question as currently phrased is asked by, among others, R. Yosef Albo in Sefer HaIkarim 3:23 (which is why I'm unsure as to why it still has a negative score). Since I don't have a better way of doing this, I'm going to just paste here what I wrote to this similar question, with a couple of variations. 1. Idiomatic Expressions Some differences between ...


11

Evidence for an oral torah: In addition to what Hacham Gabriel said, the written torah itself provides evidence that it is incomplete, e.g. in D'varim 12:21 God tells Moshe to slaughter animals "as I have commanded you", but nowhere in the written torah is how to do that discussed. Thus, there must have been some supplementary instruction that Moshe ...


11

There are a few hints to the Oral Torah in the Chumash, but nothing explicit. One of these is found in Devarim 12:21: וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהֹוָה לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִךָ you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you The problem is that we don't find any ...


11

I don't want my answer to come off as insulting, or personal, but my answer has to address the reasons behind your question, as many Christians ask us many versions of this same question, all of these questions stemming from the same thought process.. It's been my observation that Christians tend to feel like they understand the Bible better than the Jews do,...


10

In order for the Torah Shebal Peh to be "added" to the Torah it would be necessary to conclude from independent evidence that it wasn't part of the Torah to begin with. To argue that Torah Shebal Peh is not divine because it was "added" is to either argue in a circle or merely beg the question. The verse does not proscribe adding to the "written" Torah but ...


9

The oldest actual manuscript fragment appears to be the Cairo Genizah scroll fragment in the Cambridge University Library Genizah collection (which can be searched for ALL its wonderful things here-try "Talmud" or "ketubah" or "Rashi" for starters) studied by Professor Shamma Friedman, containing the Bavli's Chullin 101a - 105a. Opinions to the exact date ...


9

Introduction What could be contained in this question, and manner in which we answer it, is going to depend on several things. First of all, we should clarify what we're asking about: your specific question mentioned only phrases that needed 'reinterpretation', but there are many more cases that deserve inquiry, such as gezairah shavas (see the Rambam's ...


9

Your question is based on the assumption that what chazal did was reinterpret. In fact the "Torah" as we know it today that was given at mt. sinai included both the oral and written traditions. when chazzal tells us the meaning of a posuk they aren't redefining it but explaining its intention.


8

Joshua tought the oral law as well. Just because it doesn't specify the MILLIONS of Halachot it doesn't mean he didn't teach them. The Torah is the basic outline for the commandments, but without the Oral Torah we are clueless. Like it says "don Tefilin." What are Tefilin? What shape? What color? How does it stay on my head? He didn't just say "put Tefilin"...


8

I would like to supplement the important answers which precede mine: The "Oral Torah" is mentioned "explicitly" in the sense that [according to our tradition] it is the subject being directly referred to in places such as the verse cited in DanF's answer. On the other hand, the "concept" or "doctrine" of Oral Torah is not stated explicitly in the same ...


7

Pirke Avot 1:1: Moses received the Torah from Sinai and gave it over to Joshua. Joshua gave it over to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets gave it over to the Men of the Great Assembly. That "a generation arose" does not have to mean every single person after Joshua. In fact, the verse you cite makes this distinction. First it says:...


7

The Rambam, towards the end of his commentary to Sanhedrin 10:1, explicitly mentions the oral Torah. ... Similarly, the transmitted explanation of the Torah was also received from G-d. This is what we do nowadays with the forms of the sukah, lulav, shofar, tzitzis, tefilin, etc., which are the exact same forms that G-d gave to Mosheh. ...


7

This question is dealt with at great length in the Sefer "The 13 Principles of Faith" (Gutnick edition) by Rabbi Chaim Miller in the Eighth Principle, Lesson Seven, based on the teaching of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. He summarizes the chapter as follows: The Sanhedrin of each generation was authorized to overrule any of the derived laws of the previous ...


7

The Talmud addresses this issue in Bava Kamma 41a: ת"ר ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקל יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה ת"ל לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה From the fact that it says "the bull shall be stoned" do I not know that it is neveilah (unslaughtered), and neveilah is forbidden to eat? So ...


7

The verses before and after 21 point out that blood can't be eaten -- it has to be spilled on the ground. They also point to which animals can be eaten. But no where in them are there any explanations of how one is to slaughter the animal. So if verse 21 says "as I have commanded" but the laws of slaughter are not in the written text (does one have to use a ...


7

The Oral Torah being passed down orally, it is naturally subject to certain amounts of corruption via malicious distortion, improper application, simple forgetfulness, etc. The existence of a Written Torah can be seen as a protective measure against this. When someone forgets something, distorts something, or misapplies something from the Oral Torah it is ...


7

The simplest answer would probably be that they only reject the specific Oral Torah of Rabbinic Judaism; they don't reject interpretation altogether. This is essentially what R. David Ibn Zimra writes in his responsum about Karaite Torah scrolls: Shu"t Radvaz 2:774 ואני שאלתי את פי הגדול שבהם והוא בקי בכ"ד ספרים על עניינים הרבה שאינם מפורשים בתורה כעין ...


6

One might ask: if, as we established in Chapter One, all the basic explanations if the laws of the Torah were received from Moses, (the general wording of the laws {written in the Torah} and also the particulars and details of all the laws of the entire Torah were spoken on Sinai- the Tora Kohanim, B'har) then what is that special class of laws ...


6

See Yerushalmi Peah Perek 2 Halacha 4, Shmos Rabbah Begining Parsha 47, Vayikrah Rabbah Begining Parsha 22 where it says that it was all said to Moshe at Har Sinai. ריב"ל אמר עליהם ועליהם כל ככל דברים הדברים מקרא משנה תלמוד ואגדה אפי' מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד להורות לפני רבו כבר נאמר למשה בסיני For a lot on this subject please see this and the following pages


6

According to the introduction to Rambam's Mishnah Torah the Torah does mention the Oral law in the verse Shmot (Ex) 24:12. My loose translation: "... I shall give you the stone tablets, the Torah and the mitzvah that I have written to teach them". Ramba"m explains that the word "Torah" means the written law, and the word "mitzvah" means the Oral Law. Yes, ...


6

The First Temple period is still covered by Tanakh. Tanakh finishes off just as they've gotten the Second Temple going. Yes, there are broad categories. Timewise, we refer to the following periods, very roughly: Tannaim -- those who wrote the first stage of the Talmud (e.g. the Mishna). This starts in the early second Temple period (though we don't have a ...


6

The comments, above, approach the correct analysis. This question is discussed in detail in Talmud Shabbat 23a, near the middle of the page (as seen in the Sefaria site). There is a statement that says that one makes the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the Chanukah light." It is a given that Chanukah, itself,...


6

This is answered directly by Rambam in his introduction to the Mishna Torah. This authority to make new laws was taught directly by Moshe Rabbeinu as cited below from Deuteronomy 17:11. "The mitzvot given to Moses at Mount Sinai were all given together with their explanations, as implied by [Exodus 24:12]: "And I will give you the tablets of stone, the ...


6

Sources For Rabbinic Authority There are several divergent approaches to this. Rambam (Introduction to MT: 26) is of the opinion that Rabbinic legislation falls under the rubric of "Do not stray from all that they tell you" (Deut. 17:11): וכן יתבאר מהם המנהגות והתקנות שהתקינו או שנהגו בכל דור ודור, כמו שראו בית דין של אותו הדור, לפי שאסור לסור מהם, ...


6

This is found in Shaarei Teshuva ch. 84 לרבינו האי ז"ל וששאלתם צורב"א מרבנן הוא כמו צרב'ת השחין דבר חם המתחמם באשה של תורה האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח אורייתיה קא מרתחא ליה שנאמר הלא כה דברי כאש ד"א צורבא מרבנן קשה בערבי קורין לחטים הקשות חנטא צריבא (צ"ל מנוגה) (מובהק) נגדו בערו גחלי אש ותרגם מזיו יקריה מבהקין גרסינן בשקלים תבוא מארה לאשה שיש לה בעל ואינה ...


6

Your question presents contradictory ideas. Anyone that accepts the validity of the Oral law has inherently acknowledged that he is not translating the Written Law literally. That's the whole reason for having the Oral Law. As an example - The Torah says, "An eye for an eye". Literally, that means if I take out your eye, you take out mine (assuming you can ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible