Oral Law

Found 7 Search results

1. On the Resurrection of the Dead - Part 1

   Rabbi Yaakov Medan

   Vague allusions to the resurrection of the dead exist in the Torah. More substantial ones are found in Yeshayahu and Yehezkel. Daniel is the first to mention the resurrection explicitly. The Torah’s war against murder and human sacrifice may be the reason the Torah hid the concept of resurrection in the fear that it might minimize the severity of these sins. However, sacrificing one’s life to sanctify God’s Name that Daniel and his companions introduce in advance of the religious wars waged against the Jews by the Greek empire necessitated the stressing of this concept. The resurrection and other principles of faith that were not existent in an immediate reality needed to be transferred in Oral Law and not in the Torah.

2. Sefer Devarim: The Beginning of the Oral Law

   Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman

   תאריך פרסום: תשע"ב | |

   This shiur will give us insight into the Mesorah and the way we think about Halakha. Sources from Rav Tzadok of Lublin and the Netziv which are not usually taught will help us understand very difficult questions that arise in Tanakh, about various commandments that contradict one another. We explore how we view our relationship, and the Written Torah’s relationship with the Oral Torah, and we find an evolution of the Oral Torah throughout Tanakh.    

3. 'Eikha' and the Oral Law

   HaTanakh.com Staff

4. Inseparable Pair

   Rabbi Ben-Tzion Spitz

5. Individual Torah

   Rabbi Ben-Tzion Spitz

6. R. Avraham ibn Ezra

   Part 3

   Dr. Avigail Rock

   Ibn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages’ halakhic tradition to contradict the peshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanut and exerts great effort to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However, when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages’ tradition in Halakha, ibn Ezra pushes the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages’ view, while striving to have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language.

   Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable authority of the Sages in Halakha, many times ibn Ezra veers in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling.

   ·       It may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling – due to poverty and wandering - is what causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages.

   ·       Alternatively, while the ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by the Sages’ legal authority, the Sages themselves do not believe that this is the verse’s intent, but they tie the law to the verse.

   While ibn Ezra had a profoundly negative view of the Karaites, it is important to note that he does not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. According to his view, the truth of the Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written Torah.

   Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashi’s status in France. Therefore, in his commentary to the Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence despite the fact that he disagreed with him.

   Ibn Ezra conceals issue in his commentary; he embraces the phenomenon of "sod" with regard to deep concepts, issues regarding the authorship of Torah and sins of great Biblical figures.

7. Moshe Began to Explain

   Rabbanit Dr. Michal Tikochinsky