Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Oral Torah

Oral traditions of Islam

I have noticed that the oral traditions of Islaam(see the article titled hadith)contains criticism of the science of Hadith yet Jewish oral history doesn't. Are the Jewish oral traditions above scepticism? Have any sceptic views about the Jewish oral traditions been added to this article, if so where they deleted?

Note: See also Talmud and Mishnah

NPOV

I don't believe in adding or removing critcism for the sake of "balance". If there is notable sourced criticism it should be add, if not we do not need to artifically created it. Jon513 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of this date, this articles is written strictly from a Hassidic (a particular branch of Haredi Judaism) perspective, in which the whole corpus of Jewish tradition, (Hassidim include the Kabbalah), is regarded as having come from Moses at Sinai. It desn't even reflect the views of all of Orthodox Judaism, let alone more liberal branches. Indeed Reform Judaism and Reconstructionist Judaism reject these views entirely and regard Oral Law as essentially consisting of folk tales and folk customs. Conservative Judaism takes a position which takes Oral Law more seriously, but more or less regards it as consisting of revelation subject to extensive historical development. --Shirahadasha 12:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai

Note: The article Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai was recently copied and redirected to Oral Torah. User:Bloger has been objecting to this move in principle, see his arguments reproduced in full below. All discussion/s should be centralized here. Please add your views if you know something about thgis subject. Thank you. IZAK 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted on Talk:Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai [1]

Oral Torah

It seems that this topic must be identical to or a subset of Oral Torah. I will move it there if noone objects. --Eliyak T·C 15:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliyak:
As per your suggestion that the article be merged it has to be pointed out that the reason I made a separate article is that although Halacha l’moshe m’sinai can be referred to as oral torah they are two different things, while oral torah is what is called in Hebrew torah shebiktav, Halacha l’moshe m’sinai is what is referred to as sinaitic commandments.
Bloger 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloger: Yet, Halacha l’moshe m’sinai although it entails content from "Sinai," is an "oral" teaching, and that's where it belongs. IZAK 07:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IZAK:
I disagree! Although Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai is in fact oral given thet it is not written, yet it is not what oral Torah is in Jewish law.
Oral Torah is what we say in Hebrew Torah she-be'al peh and is quite different from Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, both from a factual point of view, and moreover from a halakhic point of view.
For an uninformed reader thet is looking for facts, putting both Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai and Torah she-be'al peh together under oral Torah is confusing and misleading and doesn’t serve the purpose of informing the reader, as should every article in wikipedia.
Bloger 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call me uninformed, but I've never heard halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai used outside the context of the Talmud, ie, the oral law. At times the gemara will conclude that something is not derivable from the Torah, but is instead halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai. Does this mean it is not part of the Oral Torah? I find that highly doubtful. --Eliyak T·C 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IZAK:

I disagree! Although Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai is in fact oral given thet it is not written, yet it is not what oral Torah is in Jewish law.

Oral Torah is what we say in Hebrew Torah she-be'al peh and is quite different from Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai, both from a factual point of view, and moreover from a halakhic point of view.

For an uninformed reader thet is looking for facts, putting both Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai and Torah she-be'al peh together under oral Torah is confusing and misleading and doesn’t serve the purpose of informing the reader, as should every article in wikipedia. Bloger 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloger, Are you by any chance using the Torah in "Oral Torah" in its more general sense of "teaching", so that "Oral Torah" includes rabbinical pronouncements, such as (for example) Pirkei Avot, while Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai consists of that subset of oral rabbinical teaching which is Siniatic in origin? Is this the distinction you are making? If not, a few examples of things that are "oral Torah" but not Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai (and why) would be helpful to clarify how you are defining these two terms. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be that we have a difference between Haredi Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism perspectives. Haredi Judaism has the idea that Moses forsaw all the customs people would eventually devise so that these customs are in some sense as much law as law directly from God and cannot be changed. From a Modern perspective there is a core of Halakha that is from Moses, but decrees and customs are human-made, there is no reason to believe Moses foresaw everything, and hence there is somewhat more potential for flexibility. (Moderns make something of a joke about the idea of Moses going up to Sinai eating gefilte fish and wearing a black hat.) --Shirahadasha 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oral Law provides a path to understanding Torah beyond what is explicit in the written text, based on what are assumed to be G-d given hermeneutics. On rare occasions, the source of a widely accepted law could not be derived using any of the hermeneutics, and this is what is meant by Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai. They are the laws that tradition holds to be true, but for which no rigorous source can be found.Pedantrician (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too POV?

It is obvious that this article has an Orthodox Jewish position on the Oral Law/Tradition, and it takes an assuming stance that its premise of "Torah from G-d's mouth to Moses's ear" is true. Perhaps the views of more liberal movements should be included (as with the case of the halakha article, among others)? How about more critical (in the vein of biblical criticism) views? Perhaps some contrarian views are in order, as well. Nonetheless, this article may have to be tagged, as it has only shown the views of one perspective. --OneTopJob6 08:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to clarify the view presented, which is not only Orthodox but Hared and Hassidic. Rewrote definition of Oral law and Halakha LeMoshe MiSinai to soften Haredi perspective that the whole corpus of Jewish tradition is regarded as coming directly from Sinai and that not everyone in Orthodoxy accepts the Kabbalah as such, either. Provided "according to"s in some cases. Someone from a more liberal perspective would be needed to supply more liberal views. --Shirahadasha 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the neutrality is a bit compromised by statement such as the presumption Deut 24 (on a supposedly unwritten "slaughtering method", which I see is the common proof-text for tradition) actually inferring some separate oral body of teaching. A simple reading of the context reveals that slaughtering method is not what God was referring to here. God had earlier commanded them to go to a particular place to offer sacrifices (v.11, 13, 14). When their borders increased (v.20), then they may sacrifice somewhere else as He commanded if the original place is too far. He is simply referring to the command to sacrifice He had just given them, and modifying it for a special circumstance. There is no reason to hypothesize on some "slaughtering method", that they even admit is not mentioned, and since we do not see that spelled out for us anywhere, then this and every other practice rabbinic Judaism has that cannot be found spelled out in the Torah (do not boil a kid in mothers milk=do not eat ANY milk and meat together, etc). must be some unwritten command.Eric B 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Evidence / Rabbinic Laws

I have removed the following two entries from the "Internal evidence" section. They do provide support for the observance of rabbinic laws (mi-d'rabanan) during Biblical times, but not for the Oral Law having been transmitted to Moshe (Torah shebe'al peh – mi-d'oraita):


Actually, I am not 100% sure that the second is truly an example of a rabbinic law.

--Eliyak T·C 19:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVIDENCE OF A LATE ORIGIN FOR ORAL TORAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.220.147 (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence not consider in the article for a late orign (post Second Temple) of the Oral Torah are the works of Josephus and the Christian gospels

Josephus displays no knowledge of the Oral Torah in his writings. Had the Oral Torah really existed in the time of Josephus, he could not have failed to mention it, given the purpose of his writings to defend and explain the traditions of the Jews to the Gentile world.

Also, the Gospels and the letters in the New Testemant also argue for a late date for the Oral Torah. The writers of the Gospels are unaware of an Oral Torah. The Gospels portray Jesus codemning the Pharisee's for allowing their oral traditions to supercede the written Torah, but no where is this oral tradition portrayed as an Oral Torah going back to Moses himself - had that belief existed then, the writers would have made mention of it rather than merely referring to "the traditions of the elders"

Finally, there are no specific reference to an Oral Torah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. When you take the lack of evidence in Josephus, the Gospels, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, it all indicates the concept of an Oral Torah was created sometime after 100 CE. While there may have been oral traditions before that, that is not the same thing as an "Oral Torah" that is equal to, and sometimes superior to, the Written Torah. It is easy to see, however, how the oral traditions of the elders refuted by Jesus in the Gospels could overtime change into an oral tradition going back to Moses himself. Claiming that their oral traditions went back to Moses rather than just the "elders" would have bolster the rabbis' authority, and make it easier to get the rest of the Jews to accept these oral traditions. Glenn Beard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.220.147 (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The foregoing is silly. In the first place, Josephus was, by his own testimony, a dilettante. He was no scholar, and he did not delve into the workings of the Torah in his books. He talked only about history.

It tells us you know nothing about Josephus works. He mainly wrote about the history of Israelite.--24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Gospels". Heh. In the first place, the Sanhedrin was being run by Saduccees at the time they supposedly took place. In the second place, they were written by sectarians who were willing to set the entire Torah aside and worship a man. I don't think they qualify as proof of anything.

Don't attack the Saduccees, who cannot defend themselves here in presense. Give weight to your statements. Pharisees were sectarians if you see the evidance with no bias.

The Dead Sea Scrolls. Again, these were sectarians. Had they not rejected the Oral Torah, they wouldn't have been sectarians. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they were called sectarians, because they were different. --24.57.60.200 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the survival of this supposed 'oral law' contra-indicated by Tanakh verses such as those in M-lakhim Bet 22:8-20 (2 Kings) and Divrei-HaYamim Bet 34:14-25 (2 Chron) which seem to show that even the written Torah was forgotten for a period of possibly 50 years? Should this not get a mention in the article since, if the written Law was lost for 50 years (longer than the 'generation' spent in the wilderness), why would anyone be able to recall perfectly this oral Law? 81.110.126.221 (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there must have been an oral tradition BUT

Who is to say that all what is claimed to be oral Torah is actually authentic oral Torah? If you believe the Torah was written by G-d for many reasons including Torah Codes, 600,000 witnesses (when most religions claim 1-3 in order to make them easy to carry. 600,000 witnesses is much harder to prove and to carry on if the religion isn't true. For a religion to claim 600,000 wintesses withnessed it's birth, it would be crazy if it wasn't true (see Rabbi Kelleman's book 'permission to believe') But back on the topic of the Oral Torah, just because there is an oral Torah, how do you know if it's true? How do you know that what is told oral Torah to us is not corrupted by men? Men are not perfect. Judaism does not claim that men are perfect. Even are greatest Prophet, Moshe made a mistake. So how are we to accept that the transmission of the oral law is faultless? It makes sense to have an oral law for things that we don't understand such as how to observe Shabbat, how to put on tefillin, etc. for things that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah. But what about other things that people claim to be oral law that go against the written Torah? For example, the rabbinical prohibition of Kol Isha (for a woman to sing alone in front of men). In the written Torah, it says that Miriam sung to Moshe. Kol Isha contradicts this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.55.72 (talk • contribs)

This is a page to discuss improvements to the article; this is not a place to discuss to subject itself. If you have particular suggestions on how to improve the article we would love the hear them, if you don't then it would be best if you took this conversation elsewhere. Jon513 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the subject of the article is a highly dubious tradition, the article requires a section about critical analysis of the origin of the tradition that postulates something as unlikely as an Oral Torah (since the Exodus is ahistorical and there was no Moses, and no transport of literary content without writing has ever produced anything meaningful). The question of authenticity is indeed central and must be dealt with in the article at sufficient length. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CUSH—in response to your post here, how would one authenticate a tradition that is not only many hundreds of years old but in this case might not even leave records as in this case it is a tradition that is not even written down? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me?? It is the responsibility of those who propose an Oral Torah to find the reliable sources that demonstrate the evidence and establish authenticity. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CUSH—by the way, we have articles on Oral history and Oral tradition and you are saying "no transport of literary content without writing has ever produced anything meaningful." By way of explanation, couldn't a large body of work be broken down into 100 parts, with each part being assigned to 5 men? (That would only require 500 men.) Even if some of those men died prematurely there would be a backup copy of the work which could then be reassigned (prematurely) to additional men. (I'm only leaving out women because they may not have been included.)
Furthermore, your edit summary[2] is reading "to claim an oral tradition is always a convenient way to add arbitrary stuff after one's own gusto" but the "oral tradition" being referenced in this article was already over many hundreds of years ago. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is the responsibility of those who propose an Oral Torah to find the reliable sources that demonstrate the evidence and establish authenticity. This is an encyclopedia with certain rules, and I have no interest in your thought experiments. Either you can establish some historical accuracy in the article or you cannot. In the latter case Oral Torah is but an insubstantial Jewish claim and the article will have to present it as such. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CUSH—the article is well-sourced, or should I say appropriately-sourced. We do not have a reliable source from 200 CE but allowances should be made for the passage of time. Your edit summary[3] is saying that "an oral tradition is always a convenient way to add arbitrary stuff". But what kind of "arbitrary stuff" could have been added 1,800 years ago that has applicability today? You are Tilting at Windmills. Don't forget that the "oral Torah" was no longer an "oral Torah" as of 200 CE, at which point it became a "written-down Torah". Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The biblical Torah existed in written form 200 BCE at the latest, parts of it may have existed in written form as early as 600 BCE. The thing about an Oral Torah is that it allegedly was passed on since the time of Moses himself, conventionally assumed 1400 BCE or earlier. But of course since there are no sources for the time period from 1400 to 200 BCE for an Oral Torah the entire tradition becomes highly dubious. Overall, none of the biblical narratives about anything prior to circa 850 BCE have any historical credibility whatsoever. For an Oral Torah all we have is what Jewish authors say, but there are no non-Jewish sources that refer to such a Jewish tradition as it would have been observed/witnessed by others. The expectation would be that there are some Egyptian or Levantine sources that tell about Israelites passing on their sacred laws in non-written form. The facts, however, are that such sources do not even mention Israelites to begin with (that is prior to circa 850 BCE, and only one occurrence on the Merneptah stele is insufficient to establish the whole story). ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Saducees needs better supportin references

Section on the Saducees needs better references. The article makes a number of claims that run contrary to a lot of the other scholarship on the Saduccees. It seems to take as fact what is merely the opinion of one or at most some scholars. The source where Professor Qimron's agruments were made should be referenced - I did not any document supporting the claims of the article in the wikipedia link. While no scholar, I have read a fair amount on the subject, and from he other sources all I read, which the Saducees did not believe in the Oral Torah, contrary what the article said. The article is aware of these other views, but seems to dismiss them with the unsubstantiated and unreferenced work of just one scholar, which is not adequate.



Glenn Beard, Michigan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Josephus (Jewish Antiquities ib. xiii. chapter 10, § 6) --24.57.60.200 (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over oral torah

There could be an article entitled the debate over oral Torah. Including research on groups that reject the rabbinic oral law code. But it should be professional, and not anti-semitic, It should help represent groups as Sadduccees, Christians, Karaites & others but without any degoratory statments.--Standforder (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who reject so-called allot of pharisees oral law


The Encyclopaedia Judaica states: “The title rabbi is derived from the noun rav, which in Biblical Hebrew means ‘great’ and does not occur in the [Hebrew] Bible.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menorah query

An IP made this query in the article so I'm moving it to talk:

The menorah shown in the right hand pane about Jews and Judaism has seven candle holders. That's not a menorah. Menorahs have nine (see wikipedia, plus I'm jewish). It would be nice if you change the picture here and elsewhere that pane is used.

WereSpielChequers 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Menorah mandated in the Torah for use in the Tabernacle/Temple had seven branches (Numbers 8:2). The Chanukah menorah, based on the specific details of the Chanukah story, has nine branches. Many people refer to the Chanukah menorah as a chanukiyah to distinguish it from the real Menorah. The Hebrew word menorah merely means "a lamp", from the same root as ner, a light, often a candle in modern times.Pedantrician (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Megilla 75a - the last page is 32a  [ Unsigned comment added by Ckinbar (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Mishnah and the Talmud

It is redundant to say that "'oral law' was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and...", since the former is a major component of the latter.--Wcris (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

boaz to ruth section

"The marriage of Boaz to Ruth as described in the Book of Ruth appears to contradict the prohibition of De 23:3-4 Deuteronomy 23:3-4 against marrying Moabites - the Oral Torah explains that this prohibition is limited to Moabite men."

The link goes to an italian translation of the OT. Seems like it should be in English since its being linked from an English language article.

The phrasing seems odd, with the same citation being stated twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.16.68 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even matter what the Talmud says about Ruth she converted to Judaism as the Tanakh says, she was no longer a moabite but an Israelite woman. No need for a Talmud. --Teacherbrock (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. A Moabite man isn't permitted to convert. The reason Ruth was able to convert was that the actual law, as noted in the Oral Torah, is that only Moabite and Ammonite men are forbidden to convert. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbinic Judaism believed that the traditional interpretations received through the Oral Torah were binding. This belief, however, was not accepted amongst all segments of Judaism and religions which grew out of the Jewish Bible. As background, Christians refer to the Torah (Jewish Bible) as the "old testament" but this is not how Jewish people prefer to have their Torah referred called. They call it the Torah (Bible) since Jewish people believe there has only been one Testament, the Torah. Christians, on the other hand believe the Revelations made to Jesus (Jewish name: Yeshuo ben Yosef) were a "new testament" and the Jewish bible was therefore referred to as the "old testament".

The origin of the phrase New Testament is based on the abrogation of the Torah by Paul (not Jesus). Paul rejected the idea that the Hebrew Bible contained commandments that his (Pauline Christian) followers had to keep. Some of them, but not all. Paul introduced a new sacrament - that belief in Jesus would lead to forgiveness of sin. One of the hundreds of rabbis put to death by the Romans would serve as an eternal sacrifice to stand in for animal sacrifices in the Jewish temple.

Testament here means covenant. The Old Testament meant the covenants made to Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The New Testament is Pauline Christianity. The abrogation of the Hebrew Torah (which Jesus knew nothing of) is explained by Paul in the Christian New Testament.

I think these ideas are those of the late Hyam Maccobee, but many others concur.

All this is nothing to do with Judaism or the Oral Torah and does not belong to the article. So I am moving it here. RPSM (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a Christian section

The section on Christianity doesn't even mention the oral torah only the canonical hebrew scriptures. Its not on topic and I don't think an on topic section can be written as the oral torah is not important to Christianity. I don't think anything in the New Testament reflects knowledge of the oral torah at all. An example is the number of Noachide laws given in Acts of the Apostles, the number varies from the talmudic tradition.

Its usually said the Christians didn't even know the Talmud, which the oral torah eventually became, existed until Jewish converts during the Renaissance told them. No, I don't have the reference on hand. Anyway, the New Testament displays no knowledge of the oral torah and the oral torah has no impact on Christianity and Christianity was unaware of its existence for more than half its history and got by just fine. So there is no reason for a section on Christianity. Its worth mentioning that Christianity was begun before the oral torah is said to have been written down and so knowledge of it would be less widespread than after it was written down. I believe the Jews who founded Christianity had so little knowledge of it that no argument claiming an influence from the oral torah can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.54.137 (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karaite Judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oral_Torah&diff=725559768&oldid=725450086

I removed the words 'attempt to' from this sentence. There have also been historical dissenters to the Oral Torah in its entirety, including adherents to Karaite Judaism, who attempt to derive their religious practice strictly from the Written Torah, using Scripture's most natural meaning to form their basis of Jewish law. They are clearly POV. If someone was to say that Rabbinic Judaism attempts to derive its religious practice from the Written and Oral Torah that would be marked as POV. Wikipedia does not affirm one branch of Judiasm over another. The change should be reverted as 'attempt to' is POV. It is also OR without an RS.Maureendepresident (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Factual?

"the Bar Kokhba revolt cost more than a million Jewish lives": Seems excessive. Source is from a book on Jewish literacy rates. I gather the number was taken from Josephus, who claims 1,100,000 for Jerusalem alone -completely unlikely. Cassius Dio has 580,000 Jews slain. Even that number appears rather high considering projected world populations at the time and causality figures for other larger and better documented wars. See Historical Jewish population comparisons. Just a quibble, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "hundreds of thousands" based on the Bar Kokhba revolt article. That doesn't technically contradict "more than a million" :) Ar2332 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Law given to Moses at Sinai into Oral Torah

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, there is substantial overlap in the scope of these articles. I see a few possibilities of scope for a continued separate article:

  1. The history and interpretations of the term "law given to Moses at Sinai"
  2. The history of discussions about whether or not the Oral Law was literally given to Moses on Mount Sinai
  3. A list of halakhic laws explicitly declared to be a "law given to Moses at Sinai "

If either of the first two options is chosen, it should probably be excerpted in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE in the Oral Torah article. I would gladly defer to the preferences of any editor eager to work on this; merging is the option requiring the least editor effort. Daask (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Against merger for the very reason that "Oral Torah" is much more general in its scope, which includes late rabbinic enactments, whereas Law given to Moses at Sinai are only those teachings explicitly enumerated as such.Davidbena (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The oral tradition here is a broad subject, as above, while the laws of Moses event is a highly discrete subject with a quasi-mythological context. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oral Torah teaches Reincarnation

I tweaked the introduction with... One of the most important teachings of the Oral Torah is reincarnation which is not found in the written Torah or any other part of the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures/Bible. Kabbalah embraces reincarnation and today, most Jews believe in it. 2603:3020:190B:5A00:C15F:E0BF:3631:4F02 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this addition were to be added you would need to reference it to reliable sources. Without references to reliable sources verifying it, such a statement of fact cannot be added to Wikipedia. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity in Oral Law

The section Orthodox Judaism simply states that Oral Torah is divine, but I think it might be important to mention several Orthodox sources and scholarship on creativity in the Halakhic process. For instance, the Dor Revi'i's introduction to Hulin, Tanur Akhnai, Eliezer Berkovitz's "Not in Heaven", Christine Hayes' "What’s Divine about Divine Law? Early Perspectives", and more.

I want to get a sense of where this discussion should be put in the page. Should it go in the Orthodox Judaism section? Or should it be a separate subsection within the Jewish tradition section? Would love to hear your thoughts! too_much curiosity (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achronim bloat & better era structure

There seems to be some bloat in the section describing the Achronim. I think it can prevent a reader from getting the most important pieces of information. Should some of the content be removed?

Additionally, the "halakhic eras" are not conveyed in an easy-to-read manner. Maybe the construction of a timeline would be helpful? too_much curiosity (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is misleading

Oral toral implies that the torah was passed down orally. But its not passed down orally becauae the Septuagaint was written before the "Oral Torah" was wrriten down after Jesus Christ. Maybe some editor should put it in brackets or put some kind of emphasis on this obvious fact. 2600:100F:B1A4:2785:0:25:94EF:3801 (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The Septuagint is a version of the Written Torah, not of the Oral Torah. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharisees did not believe in the Oral Torah

Contrary to what is written in the article, no primary source whatsoever says that the Pharisees supported the concept of Oral Torah or even knew about it. In fact there is not one mention about this concept before the Mishnah. According to Josephus, the Pharisees were opposed to the Saduccees on the question of the validity of popular traditions that had risen in the people over the centuries. But this is very different from the Oral Torah that came directly from Moses. In fact this same question about the validity of traditions was debatted later among the rabbis. Anyway this opinion - from many historians of Judaism like for example Prof Martin Goodman from Oxford - should at least be mentionned.2A06:C701:99E7:8600:C829:CD18:2E67:E6D7 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oral_Torah