October 24, 2004

Pirkei Avot on the origin of the Oral Torah [ Critique ]

The Oral Torah is, supposedly, a Divinely-sanctioned ever-evolving system of law. As such, anything that the Orthodox Rabbis of today say, given that there is enough consensus among them, is automatically part of the Oral Torah. Their statements need not come from any written source -- hence the designation "oral".

Nevertheless, the Rabbis agree that most of the Oral Torah has been written down. Judah ha-Nasi ("the Prince") (135 - 220 Common Era) is the premier redactor of the written portion of the Oral Torah. More specifically, he wrote down, or started writing down, the Mishnah, which is the central portion of the Talmud. The Talmud itself was not fully completed until about 700 CE.

According to the Oral Torah itself, it was given (in its initial form) to Moses by God at Sinai, at the same time as the Written Torah. The origin of this belief is unknown to me. One would think that such a fundamental belief would be clearly recorded in the Talmud. Yet, I do not know where specifically in the Talmud the belief is stated. The usual cite that is given is the beginning of Pirkei Avot ("Ethics of the Fathers"). But does Pirkei Avot really say that the Oral Torah originates with Moses?

Pirkei Avot records maxims of various (Rabbinic) Sages. It begins with:
[1] Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the Elders; the Elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment; develop many disciples; and make a fence for the Torah.

[2] Shimon the Righteous was among the survivors of the Great Assembly. He used to say: The world depends on three things -- on  Torah study, on the service [of God], and on kind deeds.

[3] Antigonus, leader of Socho, received the tradition from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward; instead be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward. And let the awe of Heaven be upon you.

[4] Yose ben Yoezer, leader of Tz'redah and Yose ben Yochanan, leader of Jerusalem, received the tradition from them. Yose ben Yoezer, leader of Tz'redah, says: Let your house be a meeting place for the sages; sit in the dust of their feet; and drink in their words thirstily. (Pirkei Avot 1:1-4)
And so it continues, each verse giving a maxim from a Sage. Many of these maxims are excellent words to live by. But that is not the issue. The issue is, does Pirkei Avot claim that the Oral Torah started with Moses? It does no such thing!

1. In 1:1, it says that Moses received the Torah "from Sinai". It doesn't say "Written and Oral". It just says "Torah". The commentaries say that Torah, "in reality", means both Written and Oral. But the text itself never says this. If this is the "real" meaning, why doesn't the text plainly state it? Especially, when just a few verses later, it admonishes scholars to be clear, lest they cause misunderstanding among their students:
Avtalyon says: Scholars, be cautious with your words, for you may incur the penalty of exile and be banished to a place of evil waters [heresy]. The disciples who follow you there may drink and die, and consequently the Name of Heaven will be desecrated. (Pirkei Avot 1:11)
If it is so important to be clear, and if the doctrine of the Oral Torah is so fundamental, why isn't the text clear? Why doesn't it say "Written and Oral"? Why is that one clarification relegated to much later commentaries?

When, in the Tanakh, it says Torah, the Rabbis also claim that it refers to the Written and the Oral. They can reason that, at the time that the Written Torah was set down, it was obvious to everyone that Torah refers to both Written and Oral. Therefore, there was no need to clarify. But, when Pirkei Avot was written down, around 200 CE, it was clear that there was a large number of Jews who rejected the Oral Torah, and that this rejection has been around for many years. So it was quite clear that the word Torah, with no qualifiers, would mean Written Torah to a lot of Jews. This would, from the Rabbinical point of view, lead them to heresy, which is exactly what 1:11 warns against. And yet, 1:1 simply says Torah.

2. According to 1:1, Torah was transmitted, from Moses, to the Men of the Great Assembly. (Traditionally, the Great Assembly was convened by Ezra after the return from the  Babylonian captivity, and ruled until the Greek invasion under Alexander the Great.) The verse then simply states an opinion of the Great Assembly. It never says that the opinion is from the Torah.

3. Verse 1:2 gives an opinion of Simon the Righteous. Specifically, it does not say that the opinion is from the Torah, or that it was transmitted from Moses or even from the Great Assembly. Note also that Simon appears to be the only link to the Great Assembly. How do we know what they said (in 1:1) if not from him?

4. Verse 2:3 says that Antigonus received from Simon. Again, no connection to Moses. This continues in all of the following verses. A Sage is said to have received from the previous Sage, or Sages. The chain goes back to Simon, and stops with him.

5. Further, the maxims themselves are not even claimed to have originated with Simon, or the Great Assembly, or Moses. The formula is "X received from Y. X says". All this means is that X was a student of Y. It does not mean that X is speaking on behalf of Y. If a statement was claimed to be from Moses, why doesn't it say "X received from Y. X says in the name of Moses"? After all, the book does use similar language. For example: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai..." (Pirkei Avot 6:8).

6. But doesn't it say "X received the tradition from Y"? Which tradition did X then receive, if not the Oral Torah?

No, that is only the translation -- the Hebrew does not say this. It says "Moses received / kibel Torah from Sinai", and then "X received / kibel from Y". The text does not explicitly say what X received from Y. All that is clear is that X is a student of Y. Or, if we connect all the received's back to its use in 1:1, all it says is that the Sages received the Torah. But again, the text does not claim that the Torah that they received is oral.
Posted by Ami at October 24, 2004 07:50 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Ami

i would say that the mishna in Avot alone is not sufficient - you need to learn the whole mishna, and then read it from the perspective of the Talmud, to understand what claims it makes.

There is some difference between the mishna and the talmud - Neusner calls this the "Transformation of Judaism". But that is just his view =)

Posted by: Eddie at November 2, 2004 02:50 PM

Eddie,

***You seem to be reinterpreting the mishna, denying that it makes such a claim!***

It makes the claim about "Torah". All I'm saying is, how do we know that, in the claim, "Torah" means "Oral Torah"?

Posted by: Ami at October 30, 2004 06:06 AM

Nir,

1. ***but doesn't seem to deal with challenges to the concept of the oral law.***

Interesting. This has been the Rabbinical strategy in later times as well. They simply ignore that there is intellectual opposition, and set themselves up as the authority. The strategy has worked well for them.

2. No organized opposition, possible Galilean lack of opposition.

Makes sense. In the beginning, Pharisees were a small sect. They probably didn't apply their rules to others. So other Jews naturally would say "live and let live". Especially given that there were many sects at the time. Plus life wasn't that grand either, most people probably didn't have time to have arguments with no practical significance.

Posted by: Ami at October 30, 2004 05:59 AM

zachi,

***The term 'TORA' in the Mishnah refers to the Oral and Written Torah together.***

Yes, but how do we know this? As I explain, not from Pirkei Avot.

***The concept 'Torah' in the bible, refers to guidance (oraly or written).***

How do you know?? I have not found *anything* in the Bible points to an Oral Torah. On the contrary, all of the Torah was written down:
http://www.amhaaretz.org/2004/10/all_of_the_torah_was_written_down_at_the_time_of_moses.html

By the way, this link on your website does not work
http://www.miac.com/zachi/torah

Also, you list your research as "Using DataMining Techniques for pottery analysis". Could you tell me more? How specifically do you use datamining? Do you have anything on that in English?

Thanks.

Posted by: Ami at October 30, 2004 05:48 AM

The term 'TORA' in the Mishnah refers to the Oral and Written Torah together. The written torah was also transmitted by tradition. This is why is does not mention this specificly.

The concept 'Torah' in the bible, refers to guidance (oraly or written).

I personally don't give creditbily to the introduction of Pirkei Avot. There are many histrocial problems in that description.

Posted by: zachi at October 27, 2004 03:16 PM

Ami,

You make a rather good point. The Mishna does not try much to defend the concept of an oral law - it just takes for granted that the rabbis can decide laws, formulate new laws, and cite Scripture more or less out of context in support. Why is that?

Eddie refers to Jacob Neusner's The Mishna, a good book, which if memory serves argues that the Mishna's rhetorical strategy is just presume its authority and never explicitly respond to challenges. this can't be the whole story though because the Mishna mentions disputes with and enactments against Christians and gnostic dualists (e.g. Brakhot 5.3, 9.7; Megila 4.7), as well as Samaritans and pagans, but doesn't seem to deal with challenges to the concept of the oral law.

Possibly the reason is that, while many people didn't follow provisions in the Mishna, at the time there was no organized ideological movement against the oral law; Galilean Jews who practiced a more closely scripture-based form of Judaism were perhaps of the non-confrontational sort and could be lumped among the amei ha'arets of defective religious observance.

We do know that later, whenever there was an explicit challenge on the oral law, Rabbinic defenders were forced to be much more systematic about their beliefs and about attributing the origin of the Rabbinic tradition to the Sinai revelation. Thus we have the theologies of Sa'adia Gaon, Rambam, and the others writing in response to the Karaites, and Samson Raphael Hirsch and the other Orthodox writing in response to the Reform movement's criticism of Rabbinic law as a cumbersome invention. So my guess is that at the time and place of the Mishna, this sort of strong challenge didn't exist, and there was no need to develop a systematic ideology of an oral law.

It would be interesting to try determine how this ideology developed historically, since, as you mention, it seems to be only rudimentary in the Mishna.

Posted by: Nir at October 26, 2004 07:53 AM

I don't think this methodology works with the Mishnah, If you learn it within the Yeshiva system, you will understand more clearly what it means.

The way mishna is learned , and analysed is an art in itself. Your approach is reminiscent of Neusner's, who argues that the Gemara is a sucessor system to the mishna, and i fact has transformed its true meaning.

However, i think one needs mastery of the talmud before being able to make such statements.

The whole transmission story is actually an attempt to verify the oral law as part of an unbroken chain. You seem to be reinterpreting the mishna, denying that it makes such a claim!

If tis claim ws valid, it is strange that it only first appeared at this time, and not in the time of the Neviim - prophets! Their times were more tempestuous than later times, yet they made no claim for an oral law, nor did they impose thousands of new laws to "prtoect" the Torah!!

Posted by: Eddie at October 25, 2004 12:04 AM