Existence and Usage
Written texts require some explanation and interpretation. (See, hermeneutics.) The significance of the Oral Torah is that Rabbinic Judaism felt it was given by God along side the Torah to Moses therefore binding. To the Rabbis in late antiquity, the Oral Torah is as authoritative as the written law itself (contrast with Karaism below). For more detail here, see Rabbi Nathan Cardozo, The infinite chain: Torah, masorah, and man (ISBN 0-944070-15-9), and Rabbi Gil Student, Proofs for the Oral Torah.
- Biblical verses assuming an oral tradition: Many verses in the Torah require interpretation. Some even presuppose that the reader understands what is being referred to. Many terms used in the Torah are totally undefined, and many procedures are mentioned without explanation or instructions, assuming familiarity on the part of the reader. Some examples follow. 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," yet the only earlier commandment given by the Torah is "you shall not eat the blood." Similarly, Deuteronomy 24 discusses the laws of divorce in passing; they are assumed knowledge in a discussion about when remarriage would be allowed. Also, that the blue string of tekhelet on the tzitzit is to be dyed with a dye extracted from what some scholars believe to be a snail is a detail only spoken of in the oral Torah.
- Consistency between the oral tradition and biblical verses: 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. This is the only interpretation consistent with Numbers 35:31. Further, personal retribution is explicitly forbidden by the Torah (Leviticus 19:18), such reciprocal justice being strictly reserved for the magistrate. A second example: The marriage of Boaz to Ruth as described in the Book of Ruth appears to contradict the prohibition of Deuteronomy 23:3–4 against marrying Moabites – the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men. A third example: 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. The Targum Onkelos (1st century CE) is largely consistent with the oral tradition as recorded in the midrash, redacted into writing only in the 3rd or 4th century.
- Consistency with archaeological findings: The rabbinic debate of the 1100s between Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi regarding the Parchment scrolls in the Tefillin, was, in fact, current as least as early as the Qumran community, 1200 years before. Likewise, the Mikvah at Masada – see Map - is consistent with the Rabbinic requirements per tractate Mikvaot, but was constructed approx. 120 years before the Mishna was compiled. A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5. The Elephantine papyri 419 BCE include a "Passover letter" which already included many of the pesach observances of today; Among the papyri is the first known text of a Ketubah (Jewish marriage contract) from about 440 B.C.E.
Read more about this topic: Oral Torah
Famous quotes containing the words existence and, existence and/or usage:
“In a sense the world dies every time a writer dies, because, if he is any good, he has been a wet nurse to humanity during his entire existence and has held earth close around him, like the little obstetrical toad that goes about with a cluster of eggs attached to his legs.”
—E.B. (Elwyn Brooks)
“Sometimes I think that the biggest difference between men and women is that more men need to seek out some terrible lurking thing in existence and hurl themselves upon it.... Women know where it lives but they can let it alone.”
—Russell Hoban (b. 1925)
“I am using it [the word ‘perceive’] here in such a way that to say of an object that it is perceived does not entail saying that it exists in any sense at all. And this is a perfectly correct and familiar usage of the word.”
—A.J. (Alfred Jules)