1

I understand that the Oral Torah is the interpretation of Torah that has been passed down to help us interpret and apply it, like a "fence around the Torah".

משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:

Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.

Pirkei Avot 1:1, Sefaria translation

I understand why Oral Torah is necessary, and I've read many articles with strong arguments that point to texts in Torah that we wouldn't know how to interpret without it. Since the Torah gives some commands without specific details on how they are to be carried out, the necessity of further instructions implies that those instructions were given in the form of Oral Torah.

(An example of one of those articles: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-formation-of-the-oral-torah/amp/)

I say all of that to make it clear that I'm not questioning the need for Oral Torah. But I am looking for specific references to Oral Torah within the Tanakh itself. Are there specific texts in the Tanakh where Oral Torah is directly referred to? Or any other arguments from the Tanakh itself in support of the Oral Torah other than the fact that there are commands within Torah that require further instruction to carry out?

1Sam1223
  • 133
  • 9
  • 1
    A couple of examples: Reish Lakish (B'rachos 5a) points to the expansive wording of Exod. 24:12 ("וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָם") as including a reference to the transmission at Sinai of oral instruction and explication of the commandments to accompany the tablets and the written law. Deut. 32:7 ("שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ") also seems to imply transmission of an oral tradition. – Fred Dec 23 '22 at 09:10
  • @Fred I think the OP is asking for a more explicit ("than the fact that there are commands within Torah that require further instruction to carry out") reference in the Tanakh to the existence of the Oral Torah. Your first example is of "texts in Torah that we wouldn't know how to interpret [as referencing the Oral Torah] without [knowing the Oral Torah itself]". Your second example implies an oral tradition (specifically one of past events, as the verse starts "זכר ימות עולם בינו שנות דר ודר"). The OP is asking for evidence of the Oral Torah, not just any oral tradition. – Tamir Evan Dec 23 '22 at 10:59
  • 1
    Related (duplicate?):"Is there a mention of the Oral Torah in the Written Torah?" (The body of that question asks: "Is there an explicit mention mention of the Oral Torah in the Chumash? If not, why not?") – Tamir Evan Dec 23 '22 at 11:29
  • @TamirEvan If you look at the precise manner in which Reish Lakish expounded Exod. 24:12, I agree that it is more 'al derech d'rash, and we would be employing an oral teaching if we used that exact breakdown of the verse. However, if a reader approaches that verse independently and seeks to analyze it carefully to reach the עומק הפשט, they are very likely to come to the same general conclusion as Reish Lakish that the expansive wording includes reference to the transmission at Sinai of oral instruction and explication of the commandments to accompany the tablets and the written law. – Fred Dec 23 '22 at 17:30
  • @Fred "However, if a reader approaches that verse independently and seeks to analyze it carefully to reach the עומק הפשט ..." Why should anybody [not acquainted with the Oral Torah] be inspired to embark on such an endeavor, rather than sticking to simpler meanings of the words? One doesn't seek out a deeper פשט when one is unaware of such a thing needing to be found. – Tamir Evan Jan 13 '23 at 05:13
  • @TamirEvan One doesn't require knowledge of the Oral Torah to recognize the style of the text as embedding subtle yet perceptible layers of meaning. R' Sa'adya Gaon, for instance, takes "אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי" as a reference back to "לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן" (since that was the only thing written by HaShem rather than dictated to Moshe), "וְהַתּוֹרָה" as a reference to the Written Torah, and "וְהַמִּצְוָה", sticking out like a redundant sore thumb, to most reasonably imply an oral companion with which to instruct the Jews in the details of how to perform the commands enumerated in the Written Torah. – Fred Jan 13 '23 at 06:22
  • As @TamirEvan said, when approaching Exodus 24:12 without the prerequisite idea that "commandments" is a reference to Oral Torah, it is not a compelling text in that direction. Unless someone enlightens you to the transmission of Oral Torah in the text, it seems to be speaking of the tablets of stone alone: before "mitzvah" it states the phrase "tablets of stone", and immediately afterwards it says "written"-- I.e., not merely spoken. – 1Sam1223 Jan 14 '23 at 06:41
  • It must be granted from the face value of the text that there was oral transmission. It seems clear that the tablets were the ten commandments; the rest of the written Law must not have been written at that moment, for that would take more stones than the two men could carry. But that does not assist the argument from Exodus 24:12 for "mitzvah" being a reference to Oral Torah, for if we know that the portions of Torah that weren't written yet were only spoken, any apparent reference to oral transmission could be referring to the remainder of Torah that was not on the tablets. – 1Sam1223 Jan 14 '23 at 06:58
  • @1Sam1223 You said, "...I'm not questioning the need for Oral Torah." In that case, for you, it's a matter of faith and you will only hear things that bolster that faith. My experience is that truth welcomes the questions, and questions do not intimidate God in the least. I spent half a lifetime serving the dead, false messiah of my forefathers until I had enough faith in God to question what cannot be questioned. If the Oral Torah can't survive the questions, maybe it wasn't living in the first place. – Paul Walker Feb 21 '24 at 00:04

1 Answers1

1

In his introduction to the Mishne Torah, Rambam brings a couple of pasukim.

Firstly, he brings a quote why he is able to teach the whole Oral Law (which is the raison d'etre of MT)

אָז לֹא אֵבוֹשׁ, בְּהַבִּיטִי אֶל כָּל מִצְו‍ֹתֶיךָ:

"Then I will not be ashamed when I gaze at all Your mitzvot" (Tehillim 119:6)

Since he can "gaze at all Your mitzvot" - i.e., has the knowledge of the entire Oral Law available, he is able to teach it (see Hilchot Talmud Torah 5:4 (Yayin Malchut).

The proof pasuk he brings:

וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת־לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן, וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה

And I will give you the tablets of stone, the Torah, and the mitzvah. (Shemot 24:12)

He explains:

"The Torah" refers to the Written Law; "the mitzvah," to its explanation. [God] commanded us to fulfill "the Torah" according to [the instructions of] "the mitzvah." "The mitzvah" is called the Oral Law.

See also Rambam's Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, where he elaborates on the same concept.

He also brings Moshe's exhorting Yehoshua:

אֵת כָּל־הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם – אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת

Be careful to observe everything that I prescribe to you. (Dvarim 13:1)

He writes on this:

He commanded it [verbally] to the elders, to Joshua, and to the totality of Israel...For this reason, it is called the Oral Law.

Rabbi Tovia Singer has many pasukim that, through the same holy logical rules of learning that the Oral Torah transmission uses (logic is available to all to critique). Crystal clear, the pasuk in Dvarim 12:21:

וְזָבַחְתָּ֞ מִבְּקָרְךָ֣ וּמִצֹּֽאנְךָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֤ן יְהֹוָה֙ לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוִּיתִ֑ךָ

You may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that יהוה gives you, as I have instructed you.

It is not written anywhere how to slaughter. This is purely an Oral Torah transmission.

Rabbi Kaii
  • 9,499
  • 3
  • 10
  • 50
  • All the examples you bring, except for the last one, require already having the Oral Torah in order to know that they say it exists. The last one is yet another case of the Torah giving "some commands without specific details on how they are to be carried out", with the necessity of further instructions implying "that those instructions were given in the form of Oral Torah", that the OP stated in the question that he already knew about. How does this answer his question? – Tamir Evan Dec 23 '22 at 10:56
  • @TamirEvan I apologise, I was under the impression that the last one was a "direct reference to Oral Torah". Other examples the OP may have been talking about are things that we don't know how to do, but they don't necessary say directly "which I have instructed you", but this one does. I'm not 100% sure about all the other one's I brought requiring Oral Torah, but that's a wider discussion so I accept the point without complaint – Rabbi Kaii Dec 23 '22 at 11:04
  • "Other examples the OP may have been talking about ... don't necessary say directly 'which I have instructed you', but this one does." Why translate "כאשר צויתך" as "as/which I have instructed you", rather than "as I have commanded you"?... – Tamir Evan Jan 13 '23 at 05:01
  • ...Why translate "וזבחת" as "you may slaughter", rather than "you may sacrifice"? – Tamir Evan Jan 13 '23 at 05:01
  • @TamirEvan ...Why translate "וזבחת" as "you may slaughter", rather than "you may sacrifice"? "Sacrifice" is not the exclusive sense of the root זבח. R' Yosef Ibn Kaspi, for instance, points to Sh'mu'el I 28:24 as an example where it seems to refer simply to slaughtering an animal. The repeated emphasis on בשר תאוה in the passage in D'varim 12 suggests this is the meaning there, too. – Fred Jan 13 '23 at 08:55
  • @Fred I realize that 'sacrifice' isn't the exclusive sense of the root זבח. I'm suggesting neither is 'slaughter', and the use of 'וזבחת' in Shemot 20:21 suggests 'sacrifice' as an easier translation (if not for the Oral Torah saying otherwise). Regarding "בשר תאוה", Vayikra 17:3-7 also seems to be talking about "בשר תאוה" (otherwise, why would one legitimately slaughter an ox, lamb, or goat outside the tent of meeting?), and says that they needs to be properly sacrificed as זבחי שלמים. – Tamir Evan Jan 13 '23 at 11:17
  • @RabbiKaii I hear this proof text often, but I'm not sure it's a good one. "...as I have instructed you..." But He referred to something pre-Torah, or at least pre-Devarim. Wouldn't it also be just as true that this was instruction that the Israelites already had, before either the Written or the Oral Torah? It doesn't refute the existence of an Oral Torah. But it doesn't have to be speaking ONLY of the Oral Torah. My ability to point to such an instruction has nothing to do with validating an Oral Torah concept. – Paul Walker Feb 20 '24 at 23:56
  • @PaulWalker it sounds like you agree with the premise that this can only be referring to an extraneous instruction, just that you don't see how this is proof that that instruction came on Har Sinai, but could have come at another point. Ok, that's certainly probable, but why if we are admiting Hashem gave us some extraneous instructions, won't we be convinced that He at least re-iterated those at Har Sinai? What was Moshe doing for 40 days? BTW, this is just my fun response, this has all been dealt with at length elsewhere, likely with very different arguments – Rabbi Kaii Feb 21 '24 at 09:38
  • @RabbiKaii What is clear to me is that when Moses delivered the Written Torah, the Israelites were already familiar with it. There are many laws that people and even cities were judged by pre-Sinai that are not recorded in the Torah. Even when Cain killed his brother, the Torah doesn't record that the act of murder was forbidden at that point. And how did Abraham know how to circumcise? How did Noah know how to make an offering? This text you mentioned does not at all prove an Oral Torah. It only alludes to a pre-existing relationship with Hashem. – Paul Walker Feb 21 '24 at 14:54
  • @PaulWalker I'm not sure I see a huge difference! It still seems we are mainly asking if the Oral Torah was only given at Sinai, or only given before, or both. – Rabbi Kaii Feb 21 '24 at 15:05
  • @RabbiKaii The circumstantial arguments for a Divine origin of the Oral Torah have been made ad infinitum. It's a matter of faith. – Paul Walker Feb 21 '24 at 15:28
  • @PaulWalker I am confused. You said it is clear to you that Avraham knew how to circumcise. How did He know if not through Divine origin? – Rabbi Kaii Feb 21 '24 at 15:30
  • @RabbiKaii You are having fun now with me now! Israel had thousands of prophets that Hashem spoke through, yet only a few remain in writing. In both cases, we have what Hashem determined that we needed. The plain understand is that not all commands that Hashem issued before the Exodus are recorded. There are some assumptions of understanding. It is a giant leap from trying to fill that small gap to what the Oral Torah is presented as today. I just have some doubts. – Paul Walker Feb 21 '24 at 16:33
  • 1
    @PaulWalker let's leave it at that, and also apologies definitely not making fun. I did enjoy the conversation thank you, and I appreciate your feedback! – Rabbi Kaii Feb 21 '24 at 16:35