THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM

Rothberg International School

The Pentateuch`s Testimony

Against the Oral Law

Student: Cristina Sandulache

Stud. I.D. 777430992
Course: The Documentary Hypothesis (01854)
Instructor: Dr. Baruch Schwartz

April 2016

1
2
 Table of contents

Introduction
Chapter I: The Case for the Oral Torah
Exod 24:12
Exod 34:27
Lev 26:46
Deut 17:11
Chapter II: Arguments against the Oral Law
1. The Elohistic narrative (E)
2. The Yahwistic narrative (J)
3. The Priestly narrative (P)
4. The Deuteronomic narrative (D)
Conclusions
Bibliography

3
 Introduction
The Oral Law and Jewish Tradition

Traditional Judaism states that when Moses was on mount Sinai for 40 days and nights, he not only
wrote the words of the Torah, but also received from God additional explanations, not explicitly
incorporated into the biblical text. These explanations of the written Torah are now known under
the name “Oral Torah”, or ​Torah shebeˁal peh​ ( ‫פ‬ ), in contrast to the words committed
to writing by Moses, called ​Torah shebikhtav ​( ). Thus, according to this view, Moses
actually received ​two ​Torahs on Sinai: the written Torah and the oral Torah.
The oral Torah was allegedly not written down, but was transmitted by Moses in spoken form and
then passed on orally from teacher to student in an unbroken chain that is said to lead back to
Moses. Although, says Frankel, “[t]his tradition [...] is not to be taken literally to mean that God
imparted to Moses the whole of the Torah as developed in the course of time” , Rabbi Joshua ben
1

Levi “has even gone so far as to claim that the essence of all the later rabbinical teachings were all
given to Moses on the mountain” (see Berachot 5a).
2

In around 200 CE Rabbi Judah Hanasi decided that the time had come to write down the Oral Law.
He wrote down what the rabbis remembered of the oral traditions. He put those recollections
together, edited them and the result was the Mishna. A later commentary on the Mishna was added
- called the Gemara - the entire compilation being known as the Jerusalem Talmud, which was
completed in around the year 350. In around 500 CE a second Talmud was completed in Babylonia
and was called the Babylonian Talmud.
The doctrine of the Oral Torah is explicitly stated in the opening verse of the ​Pirkei Avot ​(1:1), a
tractate of the Mishnah:

“Moses received the Torah [the Oral Torah] from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua;
Joshua to the Elders [judges]; the elders to the Prophets; and the prophets handed it
down to the Men of the Great Assembly [the sopherim; the scribes in Ezra`s time]. They

1
​ eshaṭ: Plain Exegesis in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature (Toronto: La Salle
Israel Frankel, P
Press, 1956), 46.
2
John J. Parsons, “Torah Shebaˁal Peh. The Oral Torah and Jewish Tradition”, accessed March 21,
2016, h​ ttp://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Oral_Torah/oral_torah.html​.
4
 said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples and make a fence
around the Torah”.
3

During time, with the rise of the Rabbinical Judaism, the Oral Torah came to be considered a legally
binding commentary on the written Torah, and actually “one-half of the Torah” , the claim for
4

authority being based on the statement that the essence of all the later rabbinical teachings were all
given to Moses on the mountain. The Babylonian Talmud (Masechet Berachot, 5a) explicitly states
that both the Mishnah and and the Gemara were given to Moses on Sinai:

R. Levi b. Hama says further in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: What is the meaning of
the verse: And I will give thee the tables of stone, and the law and the commandment,
which I have written that thou may teach them? [Ex. 24:12] ‘Tables of stone’: these are
the ten commandments; ‘the law’: this is the Pentateuch; ‘the commandment’: this is
the Mishnah; ‘which I have written’: these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; ‘that
thou may teach them’: this is the Gemara. It teaches [us] that all these things were
given to Moses on Sinai.
5

In spite of these grandious statements, “the character of the Mishnah, with its general indifference
to proof-texts of Scripture” , along with the countless contradictions between the interpretations of
6

the Oral Torah and the simple meaning of the biblical texts “provoked the problem of defining the
Mishnah`s relationship to Scripture” .
7

Faced with the need to prove the authority of the Oral Torah, the Traditional Judaism brought in its
support many arguments, most of them philosophical, as the fact that “many of the Torah`s laws are
recorded only in fragmentary form, and they plainly must have been supplemented by instructions
that were transmitted orally” or that “[r]ead without any oral tradition, there are passages in the
8

Bible which appear contradictory” . However, the Jewish Tradition also claims to have its roots in the
9

biblical (written) text itself, by bringing several verses as proofs for the validity of its pretense of
authority.

3
Rabbi A. H. Rabinowitz, ed., ​The Mishnah, Seder Nezikin​, vol. 4: Avodah Zarah (Jerusalem: Eliner
Library, 1987), 7.
4
Jacob Neusner, Introduction to ​The Oral Torah. The Sacred Books of Judaism. An Introduction ​(San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), xiii.
5
English Babylonian Talmud, accessed April 3, 2016, ​http://halakhah.com/pdf/zeraim/Berachoth.pdf
6
Neusner, ​The Oral Torah​, 171.
7
​Ibidem​.
8
Rav Chaim Navon, “Philosophy of Halakha. Lecture 12: The Written Law and the Oral Law”,
Yeshivat Har Etzion, Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash (VBM), accessed March 5, 2016,
etzion.org.il/en/download/file/fid/4463.
9
Harry C. Schimmel, ​The Oral Law: A Study of the Rabbinic Contribution to Torah She-Be-Al-Peh
(Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1971), 22.
5
The purpose of this brief paper is to demonstrate the lack of textual support of the Oral Torah in the
Written Torah (the Pentateuch). More specifically, the paper will ultimately demonstrate that such
evidences cannot be found in neither of the four main documentary strands of the Pentateuch - J, E,
P or D - according to Baruch Schwartz`s view of the sources in the documentary hypothesis.
10

In the first part, the paper will analyze (and refute) the validity of the Traditional Judaism`s claimed
textual evidences, while in its second part it will discuss in extent the numerous arguments against
the existence of an Oral Torah in all the documentary layers of the Pentateuch.

10
As presented in the article Baruch J. Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?”, accessed
​ ttp://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/#text​.
31 March, 2016, h
6
 Chapter I: The Case for the Oral Torah

The present chapter will bring into discussion four main verses from the Pentateuch - each one of
them belonging to a different documentary layer - used by the Traditional Judaism as prooftexts in
support of the Oral Law, analyzing in which measure they indeed sustain the case for the Oral Law.

Exod 24:12
A key text used by the Traditional Judaism as a biblical proof of the existence of an Oral Law is Exod
24:12:

The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may
give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written
for their instruction.”

ֲ , ְ‫ְ מּ‬ ְ, ֻ- ְ ְ ְ; - ְ -- ֲ, - ְ ‫יּ‬
. ְ, ְ

As seen in the previous section, the Rabbinic interpretation of this verse (Masechet Berachot 5a)
implies that not only the Ten Commandments, but also the whole of the Pentateuch, the Mishna,
the Prophets and the Writings, and the Talmud were given to Moses at Sinai. However, not only that
a plain reading of the text (once again) doesn`t support such an interpretation, but also a simple
(chrono)logic analysis proves such a view as a technical impossibility. The logical implication of this
interpretation is that that Moses received the whole of the Jewish Bible, the Tanach, at Sinai; but
how could Moses have received historical details of events which would take place hundreds of
years after this event – for example of the reign of King David, the fall of Jerusalem and the exile, the
return and rebuilding of the Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah? It is more than obvious that such an
interpretation is far from being loyal to the plain biblical text (part of the E narrative), which states
only that Moses received laws and commandments written on the two tablets of stone. Thus, this
text does not constitute a proof for Moses` receiving an Oral Law from God on mount Sinai.

7
Exod 34:27
Another prominent biblical verse used is Exodus 34:27:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I
have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

‫ְ ְבּ‬ , ‫ְדּ‬ ‫פּ‬- : ‫ ְדּ‬- ְ- ְ, - ְ ‫יּ‬

. ְ - ְ

According to Chazal , the expression “ˁl pi” ( ‫פ‬ ) is derived from the Hebrew word “pe” ( ‫)פ‬,
11

“mouth”, so this verse constitutes, according to their claim, a clear proof that God gave to Moses an
Oral Law, in addition to the written one.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Nachmani expounds: “The verse states - ​Write you these words​, and it is written:
for after the tenor ​[lit., by the mouth] ​of these words​” I have made a covenant with you.” The Rabbi
concludes: ​“These” you may write, but you may not write [orally transmitted] laws ​(Gittin 60b). In
other words, the Rabbi insists that the meaning of the text is that teachings that are in writing you
are not permitted to transmit orally, while teachings that are oral you are not permitted to transmit
orally.
J. R. Haggai even goes as far as to say that based on this verse we not only understand that “[s]ome
teachings were handed on orally, and some things were handed on in writing”, but also that “the
ones which are handed on orally [ˁL PH] are more precious” .
12

However, a plain reading of the text indicates not only that this interpretation cannot be valid, but
that, actually, the opposite is true. The meaning of the expression “ˁl pi” ( ‫פ‬ ) - both in Biblical
Hebrew and in Modern Hebrew - is “according to”. Thus, God`s emphasis in the verse is on a
covenant made “according to” a ​written ​text, and not according to any oral instructions.
Thus, this text, belonging to the J narrative, not only that does not support the Rabbinic claim that
God gave Moses an Oral Law, but, on the contrary, it clearly demonstrates that the divine covenant
with the people of Israel was made “according” ( ‫פ‬ ) to a Written Law.

11
​"​ akhameinu ​Z​ikhronam ​L​iv'rakha" ( ​‫​ל‬ ​ ​ ​ ​), a general term that refers to all Jewish
sages of the ​Mishna​, ​Tosefta​ and ​Talmud​ eras, spanning from the times of the final 300 years of the
Second Temple of Jerusalem​ until the 6th century CE.
12
Neusner, ​The Oral Torah​, 185.
8
Lev 26:46
The next text brought into discussion as a claimed proof from the part of the Rabbinical Judaism of
the presence the Oral Torah in the Pentateuch is Lev. 26:46:
These are the statutes and rules and laws that the Lord made between himself and
the people of Israel through Moses on Mount Sinai.
. - ‫ ְבּ‬, ‫בּ‬--
ְ ְ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫וּ‬ ‫בּ‬, ְ ֲ, ְ, ‫ְ מְּ פּ‬ ‫ֻקּ‬
Regarding the words “And the Torahs” ( ), Chazal states that “this teaches us that Israel was
given two Torahs, one written and one oral” (Sifra, Bechukotai 12:8).
However, the plain meaning of the text, concerning the word “laws” ( ), makes no specific
reference to a Written and an Oral Law, and also doesn`t limit the number of laws to two; more laws
could be referred to in these verse, and actually, by analyzing the book of Leviticus up until chapter
26, we discover that this is indeed the case, as we find references to many types to laws, of which
we mention below only a few: the laws of the burnt offering ( ) (Lev. 6:2), of the meal
offering ( ) (Lev. 6:7), of the guilt offering ( ) (Lev. 7:1), of the sacrifice of
well-being ( ) (Lev. 7:11), the rituals concerning her who bears a child ( ) (Lev.
12:7) or the ritual concerning eruptions ( ) (Lev. 14:57).
Is is thus more than clear that this text, part of the P document, definitely cannot serve as a proof of
the presence of the Oral Law within the text of the Written Law. Once again, the plain meaning of
the text does not allow such an interpretation.

Deut 17:11
The last biblical verse chosen from among the prooftexts used by the Rabbinical Judaism comes from
the D document and concerns the Oral Law not directly, but indirectly, as it supposedly supports the
rabbinical judicial authority to interpret the Law and even to make additional laws. Their alleged
double authority - Interpretation and Legislation - is claimed from the provisions of Deut. 17:11,
where Moses instructs the Israelites:

According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce
to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the
right hand or to the left.

9
Based on this verse, taken in its context (Deut. 17:8-13), the Rabbinical Judaism argues that
“legislative authority was granted only to the Rabbis, undercutting the validity of independent legal
exegesis” . Maimonides explains this argument more fully in ​Mishneh Torah:
13

The Supreme ​Sanhedrin​ in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of
instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. Concerning
them, the Torah promises ​Deuteronomy 17:11​: "You shall do according to the laws which they shall
instruct you...." This is a positive commandment. [...]
Any person who does not carry out their directives transgresses a negative commandment, as ​Ibid.
continues: "Do not deviate from any of the statements they relate to you, neither right nor left."
We are obligated to heed their words whether they:
a) learned them from the Oral Tradition, i.e., the Oral Law,
b) derived them on the basis of their own knowledge through one of the attributes of Biblical exegesis
and it appeared to them that this is the correct interpretation of the matter,
c) instituted the matter as a safeguard for the Torah, as was necessary at a specific time. These are the
decrees, edicts, and customs instituted by the Sages.
14

Thus, according to the Rabbinical Judaism, Deut. 17:11 grants exclusive legislative-interpretative
authority to the rabbis, as the Oral Law is considered as the Scripture`s transmitted interpretation,
coming from God Himself.

However, a brief look at Deut. 17 brings to light at least three critical problems with the rabbis` claim
to have received exclusive authority of biblical interpretation.

1. The rabbis are not mentioned here

Deut. 17 does not confer judicial authority on the rabbis, as appointed custodians of the Law. Deut.
17 does not mention anyone by the title of rabbi, and no other passage in the Scripture makes any
reference to a scholastic class within Israel`s theocratic society. In other words, “[t]here is neither
place, position, nor authority for the rabbis in the Bible. They are not even mentioned” .
15

13
Mordechai Z. Cohen, ​Opening the Gates of Interpretation: Maimonides Biblical Hermeneutics in
Light of His Geonic-Andalusian Heritage and Muslim Milieu ​(Laiden: Brill, 2011), 258.
14
Moses Maimonides, ​Mishneh Torah​, Hilkhot Mamrim, 1:1-2, accessed April 4, 2016,
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181852/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-1.htm​.
15
Daniel Gruber, ​Rabbi Akiba`s Messiah: The Origin of Rabbinic Authority ​(Hanover: Elijah
Publishing, 1999), 29-30.
10
 2. The rabbis do not exercise authority from the Temple

The authority given in Deut. 17:11 could be exercised from the Temple alone, according to v. 8 - “If
any case arises requiring decision [...] then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your
God will choose”. The Talmud itself ​recognizes that the authority given in Deuteronomy 17 could not
be exercised from anywhere but the Temple (Sanhedrin 52b). As a further proof, when, forty years
before the Temple’s destruction, the Sanhedrin wished to purposely avoid its power to impose the
death penalty, it did this by moving its courtroom out of the Temple precinct. Therefore, the fact
that the rabbinical decisions are not made from the Temple nullifies ​all ​verdicts not pronounced
from there.
Despite this, the bulk of rabbinic pronouncements originate not from Jerusalem, but from the
rabbinic academy at Yavne, and the rabbis later presumed even to impose the death penalty from
localities outside of the Temple and Jerusalem.

3. The rabbis’ verdicts - based on personal understanding, not on divine revelation

The priests, levites and judges were invested with authority in order to apply God`s revealed law, not
to become lawgivers themselves, and certainly not in order to create human laws that contradict
God`s revealed law.
The rabbis, however, consider that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law - “from
Heaven” - at Sinai, it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the
scholars of the Oral Law, who are free to give halachic ruling according to their understanding.
Practically, God is not permitted any further role.
In the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzia 59b, we read of the story of the “Oven of Akhnai”. In this
story, R. Eliezer had argued a point of doctrine, the truth of which was attested to by miracles. His
rabbinic opponents, however, dismissed his various proofs. Finally we read:

In response, R. Eliezer said to the Sages: “If the Halakhah agrees with me, let it be proved
from heaven”. Sure enough, a divine voice cried out: “Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer,
with whom the Halachah always agrees?” R. Joshua stood up and protested: “The Torah is not
in heaven!” (Deut. 30:12). We pay no attention to a divine voice because long ago at Mount
Sinai You wrote in your Torah at Mount Sinai: “After the majority must one incline.” (Ex. 23:2)

11
 R. Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah and asked him: “What did the Holy One do at that
moment?” Elijah said: “He laughed [with joy], saying: “My children have defeated Me, My
children have defeated Me!”

In other words, the Rabbinical Judaism doesn`t even make a minimum effort to hide its absolute
despise of the divine authority. In their view, when God allegedly gave Moses the Oral Law on Mount
Sinai, all the legislative authority was transferred from Him to them, from Heaven to Earth.
Nonetheless, the simple reading of Deut. 17:11, both in its near and its larger biblical context, clearly
indicates that God appointed the priests, the levites and the judges to teach the people the laws that
He established and to give verdicts in all judicial matters in accordance to the Law received from God
through Moses. The only reason why the people was instructed to strictly obey the decisions of the
priests, the levites and the judges was that their verdicts were based exclusively on the divinely
received laws. According to the plain meaning of the text, the people of Israel was expected to obey
the divine voice transmitted through the priests, the levites and the judges, and not to blindly obey
arbitrary human decisions, as the Rabbinical Judaism claims today.

Derash
The rabbinic literature “abounds in examples of such exegesis, which does not interpret the text in
its ordinary meaning” , but the four examples above are enough in order to demonstrate that the
16

arguments of the Rabbinical Judaism concerning the presence of the Oral Law in the Pentateuch
have no textual basis, but rather contradict the Written Law.
However, they do give rise to an important question: How can Rabbinical Judaism reach an opposite
understanding of the plain biblical text and use it as an argument in support of the Oral Law? The
answer is very simple: as a direct consequence of their exegetical method, called ​derash​, which
allows the rabbis to take words out of context and read meaning into them, methods which, in
Halivni`s words, is “not against their exegetical conscience, even though it may be against ours” .
17

As Berger notes, for the Rabbinical Judaism, “[s]uperfluous words, juxtaposed sentences, and even
variant spellings” are all “legitimate grounds for legal inference, even to the extent of supplanting
the simple meaning of the verse entirely” ​.
18

16
Frankel, ​Pesha​ṭ, 56.
17
David Weiss Halivni, ​Peshat and Derash. Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinical Exegesis
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 9.
18
Michael S. Berger, ​Rabbinic Authority ​(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5.
12
“The conceptual foundation of this freedom”, adds Maori, “lies in the acceptance of the principle
that `there are seventy facets to the Torah` (Numbers Rabbah 13:15)” , i.e., that a verse has more
19

than one meaning, a principle which Rashi associates to the verse “God spoke one which I heard as
two” (Ps. 62:12) .
20

A classical example in this matter is Ex. 23:2, a text used by the rabbis in order to claim that the Bible
teaches us to follow the interpretation of the majority (the rabbis), and not our own logic when
trying to understand a biblical text.
The teaching that you should “incline after the majority” is based on the Babylonian Talmud (Baba
Metsia 59b):
“Thou has long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, after the majority must one incline.” In
other words, the Torah gives the rabbis the right to give the correct interpretation of scripture by
a majority vote. So where does it say this in the Torah? The answer given in the Talmud is Exodus
23:2 - “You shall not go after the majority to do evil, neither shall you testify in a matter of strife
to incline after the majority to pervert justice.”
Explaining how this unexpected conclusion is reached, Michael Brown writes: “The explicit message
of Exodus 23:2 is ‘Don’t follow the majority to do evil!’ The Talmud takes the last three words out of
context, incorrectly interprets the Hebrew verb to mean ‘follow’ rather than ‘pervert’ and comes out
with the meaning ‘Follow the majority!’” This, adds Brown, “is an extraordinary misuse of the
21

biblical verse, and it is all the more extraordinary given its Talmudic context in which it justifies the
rabbinic majority’s overruling the voice of God.’”
22

Thus, the unavoidable conclusion can only be that the rabbinic claims concerning the presence of the
Oral Law in the Pentateuch is based on ‘the majority opinion of the sages’. In other words, this
“doctrine of human authority” holds that the only reason that a teaching is correct is because this
23

is what the rabbis teach. Even though it is not what the verses mentioned above actually say
according to any plain logical process of interpretation.
As surprising as it may seem, the exegetical method of “drash” found supporters even among the
biblical scholars, as for example Halvini, who even comes with an ingenious explanation for the
discrepancies between scriptural peshat and rabbinic drash, suggesting that “in cases where derash

19
Yeshayahu Maori, “The Approach of Classical Jewish Exegetes to Peshat and Derash and its
Implications for the Teaching of Bible Today”, ​Tradition​, vol. 21, no. 3 (1984), 43.
20
​Ibidem​.
21
Michael L. Brown, ​Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus​, volume 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Publishing Group, 2010), 67.
22
​Ibidem.
23
Baruch J. Schwartz, “On Peshat and Derash, Bible Criticism and Theology”, review of David Weiss
Halivni, ​Peshat and Derash, Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis​, in Prooftext: A Journal
of Jewish Literary History, The John Hopkins University Press, vol. 14, Number 1 (Jan. 1994), 78.
13
seems to depart radically from peshat, an act of restoration, and not revision, has taken place” .
24

According to his theory, the rabbinic derash allegedly restores the original meaning of the verse
which became corrupted through the historical process of , the sinning of the Jews
through idol worship and their consequent neglect of the biblical text during much of the
post-Mosaic and First Temple periods; consequently, according to his view, “the derash was
originally the peshat of the verse” .
25

However, the critical method, and specifically the Documentary Hypothesis, which is “grounded in
the fundamental denial of such midrashic attempts to understand the text” , and is not ready to
26

accept any artificial harmonization between the mutually exclusive methods of “Peshat” and
“Derash”, cannot accept under any circumstances the hermeneutic approach of derash.
The critical method rather holds that the Pentateuch represents the redaction into one document of
distinct “literary works expressive of points of view and schools of thought that had actual historical
provenance in biblical times” ​, documents that were certainly “not corrupted in themselves” .
27 28

Conclusions
In the present chapter we discovered that, instead of supporting the case for the Oral Torah (as the
rabbinic authorities claim they do), the verses from all the four documentary layers of the
Pentateuch, according to their plain meaning, actually reject the theory of the Oral Law. Contrary to
the midrashic interpretation, Ex. 34:27 (J) strengthens the written character of the law on the basis
of which the covenant was made, Ex. 24:12 (E) simply states that God gave to Moses laws and
commandments (that he eventually also wrote, not secret oral instructions), Lev. 26:46 (P) makes
reference to numerous previous laws for which Moses already received instructions and not to two
specific laws (the written and the oral one), while Deut. 17:11 (D) records the investment with
authority of the priests, levites and judges to apply the divine laws, and not to legislate by
themselves.
Had the biblical text added a few hints that would have led us in the directions of interpretation that
the Rabbinical Judaism leads us to, we could have understood the verses as they interpreted, and
the case for the Oral Torah would have been indeed strong. But the biblical text doesn`t add these
hints. Not only that the plain reading of the text does not encourage us to understand the texts as

24
Halivni, ​Peshat and Derash​, 132.
25
​Idem​, 133.
26
Joel S. Baden, ​The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis ​(New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 12.
27
Schwartz, “On Peshat and Derash, Bible Criticism, and Theology”, 83.
28
​Ibidem.
14
the rabbis propose us, but it actually leads us to an opposite meaning. Although each of the four
examples would have constituted excellent opportunities for each of the documentary layers to give
credit to the Oral Law, none of them supports the theory, but rather rejects it. To be more precise,
their midrashic reading supports it, while the plain meaning rejects it completely.

15
 Chapter II: Arguments against the Oral Law

In the previous section we have analyzed the key prooftexts used by the Rabbinical Judaism in order
to sustain their claim that the existence of the Oral Law is attested in the Written Law, and the
definite conclusion was that these alleged proofs have no actual textual basis.
In the present section we will discuss the main proofs against the claim of the Rabbinical Judaism,
demonstrating that none of the four documentary layers of the Pentateuch knew of such an Oral
Law, but rather they all testify against such a view.
Moreover, also a few texts describing the post-mosaic period shall be used in order to demonstrate
that the Written Law of Moses remained the point of reference during the whole Old Testament,
with no indication whatsoever to any Oral Law allegedly received by Moses on Mount Sinai.

The Pentateuch: Four separate law codes, no Oral Law

According to the source-critical theory in its classical form, the Torah is made up of four independent
documents (J, E, P and D) that “were gathered by an editor who combined them and merged them
together” . This aspect has a special relevance concerning our topic, as we are not dealing with a
29

single law code.

If, as Schwartz observes, the laws given on the mountaintop and immediately conveyed to the
30

people as part of a covenant (Ex. 20:19-23:33), the laws given to Moses as part of a different
covenant when he went up to have the new tablets inscribed (Ex. 34:11-27), the laws conveyed to
Moses in the Tabernacle over a 40-years period (Lev. 1:1-Num.36:13) and the laws given on the
mountaintop but conveyed to the people only 40 years later (Deut. 6:1-28:69) constitute four
separate law codes, the direct implication is that we have to show that the Pentateuch doesn`t
record in any of its four strands that an Oral Law was given to Moses in addition to the Written Law.
Each of the four accounts tells the story of how the laws were given to Moses, how they were
transmitted to the people and how (and if) they were written down, as we shall see below.

29
Alexander Rofé, ​Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch ​(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999), 128.
30
Baruch J. Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?”, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/#text​.
16
 1. The Elohistic narrative (E)
In this account, the laws are initially presented to Moses in oral form, but, afterwards, “Moses wrote
all​ the words of the Lord” ( ) before reading the Torah to the people (Ex.
24:3-7).
While it`s true, as Parsons notices, that the word “all” here might be qualified to mean “all the words
that God commanded ​Moses to write”, “there is still a question about how the claim that the oral
Torah was given might be substantiated” .
31

However, says Alter, the two terms used in Ex. 24:3 “are strategically precise” : “words” ( )
32

refers to the Ten Words, or Commandments, while “laws” ( ‫פ‬ ) is the term that announces (Ex.
21:1) the catalogue of legal injunctions that constitutes the Book of the Covenant.
As Noth notices, “[t]he people are only included in the covenant after a now final obligation to the
‘words of Yahweh’, which have in the meantime been written down as law and are read out as the
basis of the covenant” .
33

Things couldn`t be more clear. Moses not only t​ old ​the people “all the words of the Lord” (
) (v. 3), but he also w
​ rote ​in the Book of Covenant “all the words of the Lord” ( ) (v.
4). Thus, according to the E document, there was no Oral Tradition; all was written.

2. The Yahwistic narrative (J)

The story in J tells of Moses` lonely climb on the cleft of the rock, where God revealed Himself to him
(Ex. 33:12-23; 34:2-3,5-9) and made a covenant based on the laws contained in Ex. 34:10-26.
Schwartz suggests that this “story of Moses` lone ascent to Sinai is part of another episode in J” ,
34

the covenant at Sinai being made in this narrative “as a mark of reconciliation in the wake of some
crisis, the complete story of which has been lost” .
35

31
Parsons, “Torah Shebaˁal Peh. The Oral Torah and Jewish Tradition”, 6.
32
Robert Alter, ​The Five Books of Moses​ (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004), 455.
33
Martin Noth, ​Exodus: A Commentary ​(London: SCM Press, 1962), 198.
34
Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?”,accessed March 25, 2016,
http://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/#text​.
35
​Ibidem.
17
Also according to this narrative, the law is clearly referred to as being written. In Ex. 34:27, the Lord
specifically asks from Moses to “write down these commandments, for in accordance with these
commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel”. As discussed in the first section of the
paper, the words “ ‫פ‬ ”, far from indicating an Oral Law, they rather strongly emphasize the ​written
character of the covenant between God and the people of Israel.

3. The Priestly narrative (P)

The P document records the Israelites` arrival at Sinai in the third month after the Exodus (Ex. 19:1),
followed by Moses` entering the cloud, where God gives him not the laws, as in the previous two
documents, but the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle, adding however that he will be
given an (Ex. 25:16) to place in the tabernacle ark that he is to make.
God also announces him that the actual lawgiving will begin only after the Tabernacle will be ready
(Ex. 25:22). Once set up, the Tabernacle served as “the locus of all legislation ever after” , a process
36

which commences in Lev. 1:1 and continues intermittently for the next 40 years, until the end of the
Israelites` sojourn in the wilderness (Num. 36:13). Technically speaking, the passages that can safely
be attributed to the Sinai events in P`s version consist, according to Schwartz , of: Ex. 19:1-2a;
37

24:16-31:18; 32:15a; 34:29-40:38 and Lev. 1:1ff.

Unlike the previous two documents, not only that “in the surviving P text there is no account of a
covenant at Sinai” , but also, P doesn`t make reference to the writing of the law. As Schwartz notes,
38

“in P, Moses is said to have received the laws and to have conveyed them orally to the people, but
nowhere is he charged with writing them down, and nowhere is it related that he did so. P knows of
no written Torah” .
39

However, in spite of the fact that no direct mention to the writing of the law is made, substantial
indirect proofs can be brought from this document that Moses did not receive any oral instructions
aside from the written material recorded in the P document itself.
As we shall see below, four stories related in the P document clearly show that, unlike the Rabbinical
Judaism, that has a halachic answer for any type of faith-and-practice question (basing their

36
Simeon Chavel, “‘Oracular ​Novellae​‫ צ‬and Biblical Historiography: Through the Lens of Law and
Narrative”, Clio 39:1 (2009), 12.
37
Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”, in ​Texts,
Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ​eds. Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz,
Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak (Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1996), 114.
38
Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O`Brien, ​Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions,
Annotations​ (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 43, note 55.
39
Schwartz, “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?”, accessed March 25, 2016,
http://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/#text​.
18
supposed authority on the alleged oral instructions received by Moses), Moses himself refused to
give any instructions concerning issues for which he had not received information from God. In other
words, Moses never claimed to have received any oral law, in the virtue of which he could give
answers and instructions in matters not legislated by the written law.
The four stories in discussion - the cursing of God in Lev. 24:10-23, the creation of the Second
Passover in Num. 9:1-14, the punishment for gathering wood on the Sabbath in Num. 15:32-26, and
the assignment of the paternal estate to daughters in Num. 27:1-11 - are “a distinct, coherent group,
recognized long ago by Philo and a single Targumic midrash” .
40

They are defined by Chavel as “oracular novella” , and represent very short stories with a legal
41

climax, in which divine adjudication and legislation resolves human complication, and this point
definitely demonstrates that the human spiritual authority of that time - Moses himself - did not feel
empowered by any oral law to give any verdict in the matters at hand.
In these stories, Yahweh is presented as the Judge and Legislator, while the figure of Moses is
presented “not as a supreme court judge or repository of and authority on judicial lore, but rather as
the oracle, the prophetic medium and herald consulted when the judiciary reaches its limits and the
people must seek divine illumination and guidance” .
42

3.1. Lev. 24:10-23: The verdict for cursing the deity

This pericope, one of the only two narratives in the book of Leviticus (aside the story of Nadab and
Abihu, 10:1-11), “is of a piece with the major priestly blocs containing law and narrative, which
utilizes narrative to provide a specific case for the promulgation of a general law” .
43

According to the story in Lev. 24:10-23, a man of mixed Israelite-Egyptian origin engaged in a fight
with a certain Israelite; during this conflict, the Egyptian Israelite pronounced the name of God in
blasphemy. As no specific instruction had yet been received from Moses on the matter, the
onlookers placed him in custody, until they would find out how to deal with the challenging
situation.
It is very important to notice here that Moses doesn`t give them a straight answer, as if he had
already received oral instructions on mount Sinai concerning all halachic matters, but waits upon the
Lord Himself in order to know how to deal with the matter at hand. In this case, emphasizes

40
Simeon Chavel, “Numbers 15:32-36 - A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary
Production”, in ​The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions​, eds.
Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden​ ​(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), 46.
41
Simeon Chavel, ​Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah​ (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2014), 261.
42
Chavel, “Oracular ​Novellae​”, 17.
43
Jacob Milgrom, ​Leviticus 23-27​,​ ​The Anchor Bible, vol. 3b (New York: Random House, 2000), 2102.
19
Milgrom, “Moses clearly did not know the punishment” , as the prohibition against blasphemy (Ex.
44

22:27) contained no penalty.

The midrash is puzzled about the inability of Moses to decide the issue on his own, and explains it as
follows (correctly grouping the four cases that we shall also analyze hereinafter in a single category):

This was one of four legal cases that came up before Moses, and he decided them in
accordance with the understanding from above; in two of them (Num. 9:1-14; 27:1-11) Moses
was quick, and in two of them (Lev. 24:10-23; Num. 15:32-36) Moses was slow. In the latter two
(cases) he said: “I have not heard (the like).” In (the judgment of) impure persons (who were
not able to perform the Pesa [sacrifice; Num. 9:1-14], and in the judgment of the daughters of
Zelophehad (Num. 27:1-11) Moses was quick, because their cases were civil cases. (In the
judgment) of him who gathered wood (and thereby) desecrated the sabbath willfully (Num.
15:32-36), and (in the judgment of the blasphemer who expressed his Holy Name with
blasphemies Moses was slow, because their cases were capital cases, so that those would not
be killed quickly, who were worthy before him in judgment to be killed, lest acquittal be found
for him from another angle in the trial. And lest they be ashamed to say “we have not heard (a
similar case),” Moses their master said “I have not heard (a similar case)”. And they shall guard
him in prison until it is declared to them from before the Lord with which judgment they shall
have to kill him.
45

Obviously, such an explanation has no textual basis. Both in the two cases in which Moses` reaction
is defined as “quick”, and in the cases in which his reaction is defined as “slow”, the reality is that the
plain reading of the text leads us to understand not that Moses was modest and empathic, but that
he was simply unable to make an immediate decision, due to lack of previous instructions
concerning those issues. In all four cases, he turned to the Lord for guidance.
In the specific case in discussion now, concerning the punishment for the blasphemer, as Chavel
notices, “Yahweh responded in a two-fold manner, first rendering a verdict for the specific case at
hand [death by stoning for the curser], then, with an eye towards the future, formulating a statute”
46

. Thus, not only that Moses didn`t feel empowered by supposed additional oral instructions to give a
verdict in a matter not mentioned in the law already received, but also “the decision was produced
[...] through a direct `speaking` of Yahweh to Moses” , proving both that Moses had received no
47

44
Milgrom, ​Leviticus 23-27​, 2011.
45
​Targum Neofiti 1, Leviticus​, vol. 3,​ ​trans. Martin McNamara (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1994), 197.
46
Chavel, ​Oracular Law​, 23.
47
Martin Noth, ​Leviticus: A Commentary​ (London: SCM Press, 1965), 179.
20
secret Oral Law and that, in the Priestly conception, “the laws come directly from Yahweh and He
alone legislates” .
48

48
Chavel, ​Oracular Law​, 48.
21
3.2. Num. 9:1-14: The secondary day for performing the Pesa
In this second case, we are dealing “with a purely cultic problem” . This passage refers to a situation
49

which occurred in the beginning of the second year from the Exodus (v. 1). The Tabernacle had just
been finished and inaugurated (Ex. 40:17), and the time had arrived for the Israelites to celebrate
the Pesa again, the first in the wilderness.
Yahweh commanded the Israelites to celebrate the Pesa on the fourteenth day of that month (v.
2-3), but when the day of Pesa arrived, several people approached Moses and Aaron, explained to
them that, because they had recently been made unclean by reason of a corpse, they will be
excluded from participation in the Pesa (vs. 5-7) - risking thus elimination from the community -
and asked for their instructions concerning the matter.
Once again, Moses does not give them a halachic answer himself, based on alleged oral information
already received from God, but responds: “Stand by, and let me hear what instructions the Lord
gives about you” (v. 8). Answering him, Yahweh provided the formal legislation concerning the
matter, so, thus, “to the Passover legislation of P (Ex. 12:1 ff.) [...] there is added the rule that, in
cases where the celebration is prevented, the Passover should be kept exactly one month after the
appointed time” .
50

Just as in the previous case, God proves once again to be perceived by Moses and the people as the
only legislative authority; He is the only one that can give halachic instructions.

3.3. Num. 15:32-36: The punishment for gathering wood on the Sabbath
This story deals with the case of a man caught gathering wood on the Sabbath. Those who found him
gathering wood brought him before Moses, Aaron and the community in order to deal with his case.
However, nobody knew how to deal with the situation, so he was placed in custody. As Levine
notices, “[i]n biblical law, as in the ancient Near East generally, incarceration was not part of the
penal system, as such, but was used primarily for detention” , which was necessary in this case
51

because it had not been yet specified how the offender was to be punished.

49
Frank Crüsemann, ​The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law ​(Egingurgh: T &
T Clark, 1996), 99.
50
Martin Noth, ​Numbers: A Commentary ​(London: SCM Press, 1968), 70.
51
Baruch A. Levine, ​Numbers 1-20​, The Anchor Bible, vol. 4a (New York: Random House, 1993)
,398.
22
Neither Moses, nor Aaron, nor anyone else from the community had any halachic suggestion
concerning the matter at hand, “due to the lack of available legal provision” ; instead, “a divine
52

instruction given to Moses passes a judgment which will henceforth [...] be determinative” .
53

Moses is certainly baffled by the case, and the scholars usually “debate which point eluded him: Was
he unsure as to whether was disallowed altogether? Did he know it fell under the ban on
forms of work, but not at which precise level, namely, whether it was a capital offence? Or was
death clear to him but not the manner?”
54

Whatever the case, the supposition of an Oral Law is once again excluded indirectly from the Priestly
text. Moses doesn`t know how to deal with the halachic issue at hand, and the one to give the
verdict in this case was once more God Himself, who said to Moses that the guilty man should be
stoned to death outside the camp.

3.4. Num. 27:1-11: The inheritance of daughters

At the very beginning of the division of Canaan among the Israelites, the five daughters of the
prematurely deceased Zelophehad raise the problem that their father had no son to carry on his
name, so their father`s land would be parceled out among his generation of immediate kin and his
name would go to oblivion unless the five daughters themselves would receive the inheritance (vs.
3-4). Basically, what the five daughters ask is that the land would go out of the family with them
when they marry (v. 8).
This case, brought before the congregation and the authorities, “cannot be settled on the basis of
legislation given hitherto” , so, once again, God is the one to give a verdict: “Zelophehad`s
55

daughters are right!” Summing up the whole story, God practically says: “You shall give them an
estate alongside their father's kinsmen, and this shall become for the Israelites a civil law”.
Thus, also in this fourth case in discussion, Moses had no automatic halachic answer based on a
supposed Oral Law, but “brought their case before the Lord” (v. 5), who played once again a double
role: supreme judge and legislative authority.

The P document testifies against the Oral Law

The four cases discussed above clearly demonstrate that the Priestly narrative is completely
unaware of any Oral Law received by Moses in addition to the instructions that were eventually
recorded in the P document as we have it today.

52
Noth, ​Numbers​, 117.
53
​Ibidem.
54
Chavel, “Numbers 15:32-36”, 45.
55
Noth, ​Numbers​, 211.
23
Challenged with situations for which he had not received instructions, Moses admits that he doesn`t
have an answer. Practically, “[t]he common denominator in these four cases is that Moses cannot
resolve the legal problem either on precedent or on his own, so he seeks divine [...] intervention” .
56

Thus, the four passages, which mark each one of the significant periods of the Priestly History - the
beginning and end of the time in which the Tabernacle stands at Sinai (Lev. 24:10-23 and Num.
9:1-14), the wilderness period (Num. 15:32-36), and on the plains of Moab immediately before the
crossing into Canaan (Num. 27:1-11) - represent a clear indirect proof to the fact that the Priestly
57

document rejects the theory of the Oral Law.

4. The Deuteronomic narrative (D)

In the D document, Israel`s history is contained in Moses` farewell speech to the Israelites.
According to D, Moses received the laws after the theophany at Horeb, but the covenant based on
them was made with the people only 40 years later, just before Moses` death (Deut. 28:68).
Right before he dies, Moses writes down the Torah: “Moses wrote down this Teaching and gave it to
the priests, sons of Levi, who carried the Ark of the Lord`s Covenant, and to all the elders of Israel”
(Deut. 31:9). Moreover, he also gives instructions to read this (written) Law to the people every
seven years, so that the people “may hear and so learn to revere the Lord your God and to observe
faithfully every word of this Teaching” (v. 12).
Moreover, the written Torah in the D version also warns not to add or subtract to any of its words
(Deut. 4:2; 12:32), while “Jewish tradition regards the oral Law as equally authoritative in matters of
faith and practice, thereby effectively ‘adding’ to its words” .
58

The post-mosaic period: Still no Oral Law

According to Rabbinical Judaism, the Oral Law was received by Moses and transmitted to the
generations to come through Joshua. However, the biblical text testifies against such a view, as
Joshua was commanded to abide exclusively by the book of the Law written by Moses, without
reference to oral Torah: “​This Book of the Law ​shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall
meditate upon it day and night that you may observe to ​do all that is written in it​. For then you will
make your way prosperous and then you will have good success.” (Joshua 1:8)
We also find out that Joshua (to whom Moses supposedly communicated the unwritten oral Torah)
possessed a written word, which he read to the people of Israel as they entered the Land. This

56
Milgrom, ​Leviticus 23-27​, 2112.
57
Chavel, “Oracular ​Novellae​”, 26.
58
Parsons, “Torah Shebaˁal Peh. The Oral Torah and Jewish Tradition”, 6.
24
written word contained​ ​all that Moses had passed down: “And afterward he [Joshua] read ​all the
words of the law​, the blessing and the curse, ​according to all that is written ​in the Book of the Law.
There was not a word of all that Moses commanded that Joshua did not read ​before all the
assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the sojourners who lived among them.”
(Josh 8:34-35) Needless to say, if Joshua did not leave out a word of all that Moses commanded, no
place remains for the oral Torah.
Again and again we read about what is ​written ​in the Law of Moses. The Written Law was the basis
of God’s covenant with Israel. According to the biblical text, obedience to the commands contained
in the law brought God’s blessing on Israel, disobedience brought His judgement, and the following
verses bear witness to this: Exodus 24:4-12; Leviticus 26:46; Numbers 36:13; Deuteronomy
17:18-20; 27:2-26; 28:52-62; 29:20-29; 30:8-10; 31:9-13,24-26; Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31-35; 23:6; 1 Kings
2:1-4; 2 Kings 22:13-16; 23:2-3,21-25; 1 Chronicles 16:39-40; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 30:5-16; 31:3;
35:12; Ezra 7:1-10; Nehemiah 8:1-18; 10:28-29; Daniel 9:3-13. None of these passages makes
reference to the need to obey any oral instructions, secretly received by Moses.
When the exiles returned from Babylon to Judea, Ezra reminded the people of the importance of
keeping the commands of the Torah, so he read it to them: “Now all the people gathered together as
one man in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to
bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel. So Ezra the priest
brought the Law before the assembly of men and women and all who could hear with understanding
on the first day of the seventh month. Then he read from it in the open square that was in front of
the Water Gate from morning until midday, before the men and women and those who could
understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.” (Nehemiah 8:1-3)
The reading of the Book of Law lasted for eight days (Nehemiah 8:18), time during which Ezra was
helped by the levites, who ​read ​directly from the Book of the Law and helped them understand the
meaning of what was being read. This exercise of reading the words of the Torah and giving some
instructions concerning them alongside the reading could easily have been completed in eight days.
However, not only that there is no mention here of reading or reciting the Oral Torah, but we should
also take into account that if Ezra had given them the Oral Law which in its Talmudic written form is
an immense library of books, not eight months and not even eight years would probably have been
long enough for such a task.
Also in the time of Josiah, all the evidences show that there couldn’t have been an Oral Law. If there
had been a continuous Oral Law, how could the Israelites have not known how to celebrate Passover
even if the Written Torah was lost?

25
The Temple was in ruins and the King ordered its restoration. In the midst of this great undertaking
the Torah was recovered. Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the
Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” (1 Kings 22:8)
The king called all the people together and they read the Book of the Covenant. Together, they
renewed the covenant with the Lord. King Josiah ordered that the Passover be celebrated.
“`Celebrate the Passover to the Lord your God, ​as it is written in this Book of the Covenant​.` Neither
in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah
had any such Passover been observed. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was
celebrated to the Lord in Jerusalem. (2 Kings 23:21-23)
Since the Mishna speaks of the Passover at length—in fact it has an entire tractate (major section)
called Pesachim (Passovers) that teaches in incredible detail how to correctly celebrate Passover—it
must have been created after the time of Josiah.
Last, but not less important, had there been an Oral Law passed down from Moses, it was certainly
forgotten. And unlike a Written Torah, that could be found in the ruins of the Temple, it would
certainly been impossible to recover an Oral Torah.

26
 Conclusions

Things couldn`t be more clear. The analysis of every one of the four documentary layers of the
Pentateuch leads us to the same conclusion: none of them supports the rabbinical concept of Oral
Law, supposedly received by Moses in addition to the instructions that were ultimately put in writing
in the Pentateuch as we have it today.
J, E and D specifically mention the fact that Moses put in writing the instructions received from God;
the only difference between them is that “E and J presume that the writing took place soon after the
laws were given to Moses”, while D “delays the writing until the laws have been transmitted to the
people, just prior to the entry into Canaan” .
59

In P, on the other hand - although the putting in writing of the laws is not mentioned - we have
plenty of indirect evidences that Moses and the people judged and acted according to a package of
laws that was well defined and known to everyone, so every new situation, for which there were no
instructions or precedent, needed a direct divine guidance.
Unlike the Rabbinical Judaism today, the people of Israel in ancient times acted upon the revealed
laws alone. Neither Moses, nor any other religious leader dared to give halachic instructions
concerning issues not clearly legislated by God. In all the four narratives of the Pentateuch, God is
the only Judge and Legislator, and the Law represents a collection of instructions well defined and
known to the leaders as well as to the people of Israel in the same extent.
Neither in the Pentateuch, nor outside of it, in the rest of the OT, is there any mention of the Oral
Law. Had Moses been given an Oral Law, ​we would have expected to read about it thousands of
times. However, Moses himself not only that never made use of it, but he also​ never mentioned it,
and neither did Joshua, Ezra or any other person in the Bible. Moreover, if it existed, it was not part
of God’s covenant with Israel. Nor was it relevant concerning the blessing or judgement of God. No
priest, prophet or king either mentions it or demonstrates any concern to know it or obey it. In other
words, on the basis of the four documentary narratives of the Pentateuch and also the rest of the
OT, there was no Oral Law given by God to Moses.

59
Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”, 132.
27
All the evidences point to the fact that the beginning of the Oral Law was not in the time of Moses,
and was not contemporary with any biblical book. It appeared 1500 years after the Bible, as a
rabbinic means of providing for themselves the authority needed to reinvent the Judaism in the
absence of the Temple.

28
 Bibliography

Books
Alter, Robert. ​The Five Books of Moses​. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

Baden, Joel S. ​The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis​.​ ​New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.

Berger, Michael S. ​Rabbinic Authority. ​Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Brown, Michael L. ​Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus​. Volume 5. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Publishing Group, 2010.

Campbell, Antony F. and Mark A. O`Brien. ​Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions,
Annotations​. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Chavel, Simeon. “Numbers 15:32-36 - A Microcosm of the Living Priesthood and Its Literary
Production”. In ​The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions​,
edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden, 45-55. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009).

Chavel, Simeon. ​Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah.​ Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2014.

Cohen, Mordechai Z. ​Opening the Gates of Interpretation: Maimonides Biblical Hermeneutics in Light
of His Geonic-Andalusian Heritage and Muslim Milieu​.​ ​Laiden: Brill, 2011.

Crüsemann, Frank. ​The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law​.​ ​Egingurgh: T & T
Clark, 1996.

​ eshaṭ: Plain Exegesis in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature.​ ​Toronto: La Salle Press,
Frankel, Israel. P
1956.

Gruber, Daniel. ​Rabbi Akiba`s Messiah: The Origin of Rabbinic Authority. ​Hanover: Elijah Publishing,
1999.

Halivni, David Weiss. ​Peshat and Derash. Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinical Exegesis. ​Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.

Levine, Baruch A. ​Numbers 1-20​. The Anchor Bible, vol. 4a. New York: Random House, 1993.

29
McNamara, Martin, trans. ​Targum Neofiti 1, Leviticus​, vol. 3.​ ​Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press,
1994.

Milgrom, Jacob. ​Leviticus 23-27​.​ ​The Anchor Bible, vol. 3b. New York: Random House, 2000.

Neusner, Jacob. ​The Oral Torah. The Sacred Books of Judaism. An Introduction. ​San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1986.

Noth, Martin. ​Exodus: A Commentary​.​ ​London: SCM Press, 1962.

Noth, Martin. ​Leviticus: A Commentary​. London: SCM Press, 1965.

Noth, Martin. ​Numbers: A Commentary. ​London: SCM Press, 1968.

Rabinowitz, Rabbi A. H. ed. ​The Mishnah: Seder Nezikin​, vol. 4: Avodah Zarah. Jerusalem: Eliner
Library, 1987.

Rofé, Alexander. ​Introduction to the Composition of the Pentateuch. ​Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1999.

Schimmel, Harry C. ​The Oral Law: A Study of the Rabbinic Contribution to Torah She-Be-Al-Peh​.
Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1971.

Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai”. In ​Texts,
Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ​edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor
Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak, 103-134. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996.

Journal Articles
Chavel, Simeon. “‘Oracular ​Novellae​‫ צ‬and Biblical Historiography: Through the Lens of Law and
Narrative”. ​Clio​ 39:1 (2009): 1-27.

Maori, Yeshayahu. “The Approach of Classical Jewish Exegetes to Peshat and Derash and its
Implications for the Teaching of Bible Today”. ​Tradition​, vol. 21, no. 3 (Fall 1984): 40-53.

Schwartz, Baruch J. “On Peshat and Derash, Bible Criticism and Theology”. Review of ​Peshat and
Derash, Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis, ​David Weiss Halivni. ​Prooftext: A Journal of
Jewish Literary History​, vol. 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1994), 71-88.

Website
English Babylonian Talmud. Accessed April 3, 2016. ​http://halakhah.com/pdf/zeraim/Berachoth.pdf​.

30
Maimonides, Moses. ​Mishneh Torah​: ​Hilkhot Mamrim​. Accessed April 4, 2016.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181852/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-1.htm​.

Navon, Chaim. “Philosophy of Halakha. Lecture 12: The Written Law and the Oral Law”. Yeshivat Har
Etzion, Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash (VBM). Acessed March 25, 2016.
etzion.org.il/en/download/file/fid/4463

Parsons, John J. “Torah Shebaˁal Peh. The Oral Torah and Jewish Tradition”. Accessed March 21,
2016. ​http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Oral_Torah/oral_torah.html​.

Schwartz, Baruch J. “What Really Happened at Mount Sinai?”. Accessed 31 March, 2016.
http://thetorah.com/what-happened-at-mount-sinai/#text​.

31