Talk:Oral Torah

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too POV? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Saducees needs better supportin references 

message: 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)
thread_title: Debate over oral torah

message: * Many of the common Jewish called "am ha-arets".
* Samaritans. (Review their sources). 
* Sadducees. (Review the works of Flavius Josephus: - Josephus (Jewish Antiquities ib. xiii. chapter 10, § 6)
* The Essenes. (Review the works of Flavius Josephus)
* Followers of John the Baptist.
* Followers of Jesus (Yeshua') (Christians).
* The Karaites. (Review their sources). 
* Some of the followers reform Judaism and coversative movements of Judaism rejected the so-called oral law.
* Many of the people Galilee, were less strict "The Galileans generally were not such sticklers for tradition as were the Judeans. In the Talmud (Megillah 75a)" "the former are, in fact, charged with neglecting tradition. In this regard it may be noted that Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, not from Galilee, were the ones who took issue with the failure of Jesus’ disciples to observe the traditional washing of hands.— Mark 7:1, 5."
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)
thread_title:  Those who reject so-called allot of pharisees oral law 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Menorah query 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mishnah and the Talmud

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  boaz to ruth section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No need for a Christian section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Karaite Judaism 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual? 

message: 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:
# The history and interpretations of the term "law given to Moses at Sinai"
# The history of discussions about whether or not the Oral Law was literally given to Moses on Mount Sinai
# 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Law given to Moses at Sinai]] into [[Oral Torah]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oral Torah teaches Reincarnation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creativity in Oral Law 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Achronim bloat & better era structure