A Test for Christians who claim they know the Hebrew bible

A Test for Christians who claim they know the Hebrew bible 

Practically all Christians whether hardcore evangelist or roadside preachers claim to know the entire bible without doubt. They boast the have the Holy Ghost who guides them to understand the biblical texts?. Now it's easy to find out if they speak the truth all you have do is ask the same question regarding a specific bible passage preferably the Old Testament Hebrew bible to 10 different Christians and watch how you get mix answers all contradicting each other, neither will give you the same answer shows how this Holy Ghost they brag is guiding them. But we want to use a different  approach to show Christians they really don't have a clue about the Old Testament. 

Now Christians being Christians will show their high spirits when you ask them about the New Testament since they believe this is their new covenant which is God given to them and only them so asking them regarding the New Testament will only make them go into a trance as if they have the Holy Ghost speaking for them. But how about the Old Testament? We know the Old Testament known as the Tanach to the Jews is believed to be a revelations of books given to the Jews only no one but the Jews. So how so the Christians understand the Old Testament text? We know the Jews use rabbinic commentary  Interpret the Hebrew text. These are found in the Talmud/ Mishna a set of books written by sages and rabbis which is also known as the divine oral law second to the Torah...  Note ask any Jewish student regarding the Hebrew bible on specific verses he will Immediately use the oral law I.e Talmudic commentary to explain that verses or passage.. 

Here's our test to Christians on a few Hebrew bible passages let's see if they can explain them via BIBLE ONLY METHOD which they always use... Below you will find those passages which without the Talmud it's not possible to interpret. 

Also note the Talmud is the oral law and commentary for the Tanak according Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

-----------------------------------

LETS PUT CHRISTIANS TO THE TEST

Gil Student writes: The existence of an oral law that was given to Moses at Mt. Sinai is a fundamental concept in Judaism.  However, the lack of a clear reference to an oral law in the biblical text has led some to deny its existence.  In response to these deniers, a literature has developed to try to prove the existence of an oral law.

Let's ask Christians if they can explain the passages below found in the Hebrew bible:

Theoretical Proofs

1. R. Yosef Albo [Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23] offers the following philosophical proof for the existence of an oral law.  R. Albo states that a perfect text must, by definition, be totally unambiguous and not require any additional information to be understood.  Since the Torah is called perfect [Psalms 19:8], the Torah must not have any ambiguities.  However, it does have ambiguities.  For example, the verse [Deut. 6:4] "Hear O Israel! The L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is one" is understood by Jews to imply absolute monotheism while it is understood by Christians to imply a trinity.  How can a perfect Torah contain ambiguity?  Only if the Torah includes an oral explanation that clarifies all ambiguities can it be called perfect [cf. Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71].  Therefore, R. Albo states, there must have been an oral tradition transmitted along with the written Torah.

2. R. Yehudah HaLevi [Kuzari, 3:35] states simply that it is impossible to read and understand the words of the bible without a tradition regarding the vowelization and punctuation of the words.  A simple reading of the text requires an oral tradition [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Daud, Commentary to Torat Cohanim, Baraita DeRabbi Yishmael sv. R. Yishmael].  Since the only existing tradition regarding the text includes a tradition about the concepts and laws, one who accepts the vowelization and punctuation must also accept the oral law.  It is inconsistent to accept the oral tradition only partially [cf. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz), Magen Avot Hachelek Haphilosophi, 2:3 p. 30b; R. Shlomo ben Shimon Duran (Rashbash), Milchemet Mitzvah, First Introduction].

Textual Proofs

3. R. HaLevi further asks what the Torah means when it says [Exodus 12:2] "This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months"?  To which months is this referring?  Is it referring to Egyptian months (where the Jews were living at the time) or Chaldean months (from where their patriarch Abraham originated)?  Solar months or lunar months?  Without an oral tradition, there is no way to know to what this verse is referring [cf. R. Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary, Lev. 25:9; Rashbatz, ibid.  This, by the way, seems to alleviate the issue of counting January as the first month.  Since the verse is referring to lunar months, there is no prohibition to count January as the first solar month.].

4. Also, R. HaLevi asks, what does the Torah mean when it says that animals are permitted to be eaten after slaughter [Deut. 12:21]?  Does that mean any kind of killing or only through slitting the animal's neck? [Cf. Rashbatz, ibid.]

5. Furthermore, when the Torah [Lev. 3:17] says "It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood", what exactly is fat?  Are there different types of animal fat, some which are permitted and some which are forbidden?  How are these fats differentiated? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]

6. Also, when the Torah forbids certain birds [Lev. 11:13-19], does that mean that all other birds are permitted?  Or are there sign for birds like there are for animals [Lev. 11:2-8]?  [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]  How can anyone know whether biblical law permits or forbids eating ducks, geese, and turkeys [Kuzari, ibid]?

7. When the Torah [Ex. 16:29] says "Let no man leave his place on the seventh day" to what place is this referring?  Does it mean his home, his property if he has more than one home, his neighborhood, his city, or something else [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]?  In fact, Isaiah [66:23] says "It shall be that at every New Moon and on every sabbath all mankind will come to bow down before Me - said the L-rd" which implies that people will leave their homes on the sabbath and go to worship the L-rd [Rashbatz, ibid., 31a].  Evidently, Isaiah did not understand this verse in Exodus as the simple reading would have it.

8. What does the Torah mean when it [Ex. 20:10] forbids "work" on the sabbath?  What work is forbidden and what is not? [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid., 30b; Rashbash, ibid.]  Without an oral explanation of the details of this forbidden work, it is impossible to know what the Torah means.

9. The sections of Exodus [ch. 21] and Deuteronomy [ch. 21-25] that deal with monetary and physical crimes do not seem to contain enough information to formulate a working legal system.  How can a court legislate with so few guidelines?  Certainly, for courts to function based on biblical law there must have been more information given in the form of an oral law [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

10. The laws of inheritance as stated in Numbers [27:8-11] cannot begin to address all of the many complicated situations that can and have arisen throughout the generations.  Without an oral law, how does a society apply the biblical inheritance laws [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.]?

11. How does one fulfill the biblical commandments of circumcision [Gen. 17:10-14], fringes [Num. 15:38-39], and booths [Lev. 23:42]?  There is not enough detail in the biblical directive to know how to fulfill these commandments properly.  What are fringes?  What is a booth?  How much and where must be cut off in circumcision?  The biblical text is too silent to enable following these commandments unless there was an oral explanation [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

12. A baby must be circumcised on the eighth day [Gen. 17:12].  What if the eighth day falls out on the sabbath?  Can a circumcision take place on a sabbath or is that considered work?  The Passover sacrifice must be brought by every Jew [Ex. 12:47] on the day before Passover [Num. 9:5].  What happens if that day falls out on the sabbath?  Surely, slaughtering and offering a sacrifice is work.  Which takes precedence -- the sabbath or the paschal sacrifice?  There must be an oral law to explain this if these laws were intended to be put into practice [Kuzari, ibid; Rashbatz, ibid.].

Implicit Proofs

13. R. Shimon ben Tzemach Duran points out that the Torah tells us that Jethro advised Moses to appoint judges.  Jethro then told Moses [Ex. 18:20] "Enjoin upon them the laws and the teachings, and make known to them the way they are to go and the practices they are to follow."  What does that mean?  If the written law is all that was given, then there is nothing more for Moses to instruct these judges.  What is Moses supposed to tell them, if not the oral law [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

14. R. Duran also notes the following biblical passage.

Deut. 17:8-11 

If a matter of judgement is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between verdict and verdict, between plague and plague, matters of dispute in your cities -- you shall rise up and ascend to the place that the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose.  You shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement.  You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that G-d will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you.  According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left.

What possible knowledge is there that can be hidden?  If there is no oral law, then the only basis for judgement is in the Torah which is open for anyone to study.  Clearly, the entire need for the above process of going to the central court and following their ruling implies that there is an oral tradition which also serves as the basis for judgement [Rashbatz, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].

15. R. Yehudah HaLevi points out that Daniel [Dan. 6:11] risked his life to pray.  However, nowhere in the written Torah do we see a commandment to pray [Kuzari, ibid.; Rashbash, ibid.].  While there is argument regarding the source of the obligation to pray [cf. Maimonides, Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment 5; Nahmanides, ad. loc.] and whether there is an obligation to risk martyrdom for prayer [cf. R. Nissim ben Reuven, Commentary to Rif, Shabbat 22b sv. Umakshu] , the question remains -- how did Daniel know whether or not to offer his life for this commandment?  Without an oral law to explain the details of martyrdom, there is no way of determining when and where to become a martyr and when not to.

Proofs Through Contradiction

16. R. Duran notes that after King Solomon had the Temple built, he sanctified the interior of the courtyard by personally offering sacrifices [1 Kings 8:64].  How could Solomon offer these sacrifices in the Temple when every indication in the Torah is that only priests may offer sacrifices?  From where did Solomon know that a non-priestly king can offer a sacrifice to sanctify the Temple if not from an oral law?  It certainly is nowhere in the written law [Rashbatz, ibid.].

17.  Similarly, R. Duran points out that Elijah offered a sacrifice on Mt. Carmel [1 Kings 18:3-38].  However, the Torah forbids bringing sacrifices outside of the Temple [Deut. 12:13-14].  From where did Elijah receive permission to violate this prohibition unless he knew from an oral law that in his case it was permitted [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

18. Consider the following passage.

Jeremiah 26:20-21 

There was also a man prophesying in the name of the L-rd, Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath-Jearim, who prophesied against this city and this land the same things as Jeremiah.  King Jehoiakim and all his warriors and all the officials heard about his address, and the king wanted to put him to death.  Uriah heard of this and fled in fear, and came to Egypt.

Uriah was scared for his life so he fled to Egypt.  However, the Torah says in three separate places [Ex. 14:13; Deut. 17:16, 28:68] that it is forbidden for a Jew to return to Egypt.  How did Uriah know that his action was permitted?  Even to save his life, how did he know that it is permissible to violate a biblical commandment to save his life if not through an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

19. When the Jews returned to Jerusalem with permission from the Persian government to rebuild the Temple, Haggai tested the priests on their knowledge of the laws of purity.  He asked them the following two questions [Haggai 2:12-13]: "If a man is carrying a sacrificial flesh in a fold of his garment, and with that fold touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any other food, will the latter become holy?...  If someone defiled by a corpse touches any of these, will it be defiled?"  The answers to these two questions are not in the Torah.  How were the priests to know the answers if not from an oral tradition [Rashbatz, ibid.]?

Why Did G-d Give An Oral Torah?

Now that it has been established that there is an oral tradition regarding the law, the question remains why G-d intentionally gave the Torah in two parts -- a written part and an oral part.

20. As we said above (1), any written book is subject to ambiguity [Maimonides, Moreh Nevuchim, 1:71].  Since that is the case, had G-d only given us a written Torah, its interpretation would have been debated due to vagueness.  Therefore, G-d also gave a tradition that would be taught orally from teacher to student so that the teacher could clarify any ambiguities [Rashi, Eiruvin, 21b sv. Veyoter; R. Yosef  Albo, Sefer HaIkkarim, 3:23].  R. Yair Bachrach [Responsa Chavat Yair, 192] and R. Ya'akov Tzvi Mecklenburg [Haketav Vehakabalah, vol. 1 p. viii] dispute this argument and claim that since G-d is omnipotent, He could have created a totally unambiguous book.  However, it seems to this author that the original argument was assuming that any written book is, by definition, ambiguous.  It is a logical impossibility to have a completely unambiguous book.  In fact, the example that R. Bachrach offers of an unambiguous book is Maimonides' Mishneh Torah which, despite its clarity and brilliance, has dozens if not hundreds of commentaries that try to clarify its ambiguities.

21. It is also suggested that the entire corpus of law that governs every possible case that could arise would be endless and would certainly not fit in one or even five books.  The Talmud itself has over 2,700 double-sided pages.  To put all of this detail into the bible would have made it a very cumbersome book that, inevitably, would have left out details that cover a future case [Sefer HaIkkarim, ibid.; R. Yehudah Loewe, Gur Aryeh, Ex. 34:27].

sayings of Moses not found in the Torah?

Let me alone, so that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven. And I will make you into a nation stronger and more numerous than they." (Deuteronomy 9:14)

According to the talmud " Moses said to himself: This depends upon me, and straightway he stood up and prayed vigorously and begged for mercy. "( Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth Folio 32a)

The statement of Moses can not be found in Deuteronomy, which means the oral tradition, captured what Moses said. For a Jew that’s normal, however a Christian would dismiss what the Talmud says. According to Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

-------------------------

The passages above are sufficient to mute any Christian who claims to know the Hebrew bible without using any oral law commentary. Try it out!!!!!

not everything Moses said or done was not recorded in the Torah.

----------

Let me alone, so that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven. And I will make you into a nation stronger and more numerous than they." (Deuteronomy 9:14)

According to the talmud " Moses said to himself: This depends upon me, and straightway he stood up and prayed vigorously and begged for mercy. "( Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth Folio 32a)

The statement of Moses can not be found in Deuteronomy, which means the oral tradition, captured what Moses said. For a Jew that’s normal, however a Christian would dismiss what the Talmud says. According to Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

same goes for circumcision

According to the "Torah" God spoke those words to Abraham. In order to keep his "covenant" all males from the descendent of Abraham shall be circumcised. Note Yahweh made it clear by saying "This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you". The question is, was Moses not the descendent of Abraham? If he was can anyone show us from the Torah where and when Moses was circumcised? Please cite us the chapter and verse.

Beat afflict strike yourself/ oral law

“On the tenth day of this seventh month you shall have a holy convocation and afflict yourselves. You shall do no work, (Numbers 29:7)

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Also check Leviticus 23:27 and  Leviticus 16:29 you are to afflict your soul on yom kippur 10th day 7th month you are to afflict yourself.  5 things you cant do on yom kippur

• No eating and drinking.
• No wearing of leather shoes.
• No bathing or washing.
• No anointing oneself with perfumes or lotions.
• No marital relations.

That's fine, just show us from your bible where it says wife beating is prohibited and we'll end it here right now. Below is a Christian response.

 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church (Ephesians 5:28-29)

Our Christian friend probably didn’t read what Paul wrote to the Corinthians as Ephesians

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

(Ephesians 5:22-23)

Notice how Paul strikes himself to make his body his own slave? So if we take Ephesians and then add Corinthians, then we have a two way road. One love them other beat them.  Funny part wives must submit to their husbands ? Wait what happened to love his wife like himself?

Deuteronomy 12:21 says to sacrifice an animal, but the Torah does not say how to? This can only be found in the oral Torah. Thus, the oral Torah is needed alongside the written Torah.

First, if the Oral Tradition truly came from Sinai then it would have been completely supernatural that it was passed down for over one thousand years unchanged. If my wife sends me to the store to buy five things, unless I write them down, not only will I forget to buy what she asked me to, but I will return home with things that she didn’t ask me to buy! So if it was supernatural, then there would have been no need to write out the Oral Torah as Rabbi Judah Hanasi did in 200 CE. If God had watched over it since Moses, surely He could continue.

Secondly, there couldn’t have been an Oral Law because in the time of King Josiah, they had lost the Book of the Law and it appears that they didn’t even know what Passover was or certainly how to celebrate it! 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.

The king gave this order to all the people: “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 22:21-23)

To summarize, the Torah had been lost as the Temple was in ruins. The king of Israel and the priests did not even know what Passover was—or at least, the details of proper Passover observance. Since the Mishna (the Oral Law in writing, as part of the Talmud) 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 had to have been created after the time of Josiah. (In fact, the instructions are so detailed, that it becomes ridiculous to think that God is that mechanical. If you want a brief look, check this out.)

In addition, had there been an Oral Law passed down from Moses it was certainly forgotten. And unlike like a Written Torah, that could be found in the ruins of the Temple, it would be impossible to recover an Oral Torah.

Third, we find an interesting passage in the Torah that refutes the idea of a non-written Torah.

When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. (Exodus 24:3-4a)

Could it be any clearer? God shared all His laws with Moses and then Moses wrote down everything. In the Hebrew it says Kol Div’re Adonia—all the words of the Lord.There was no secret Oral Tradition; all was written. (Here are a few more passages you can reference: Deuteronomy 30:10, 31:9, 24, 26, and Joshua 1:8).

And fourth, one primary reason the Word of God needed to be put down in words was to protect Israel from deception. An Oral Torah would have led to all kinds of duplicity and many would have changed it for their own purposes. Keep in mind, the Children of Israel, my ancestors, went through many periods where they forsook the Lord. Not only would an Oral Law have been abused by leaders during such a time—it would have been eventually ignored and utterly forgotten.

The idea of an Oral Law is not unique to Judaism. Virtually every religion has an Oral Tradition. The Pope’s rulings become the Oral Law of the Catholic church. Catholics claim the Holy Spirit guides their magisterium—that is, the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Islam not only as the Koran, but also the Hadith, ‘the collections of the reports of the teachings, deeds and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammed.’ (Wikipedia) Hinduism is based on an every evolving oral tradition.

So Where did the Oral Law come from?

One of the most respected Talmudic scholars in the world, Michael Rodkinson, writes in the very first sentence of his highly respected The History of the Talmud:

The name Written Law was given to the Pentateuch (Torah), Prophets and Hagiographa, and that of Oral Law to all the teachings of the sages consisting of comments on the text of the Bible.

In other words, the Oral Tradition was merely the customs, teachings and opinions of Jewish leaders throughout the centuries. It would be no different then the teaching of a popular author today… had he lived millennia ago.

For instance, recently in Israel one of the most influential religious leaders, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, 84, declared that iPhones and other smartphones are immoral (because of ease of ability in obtaining pornography) and that Orthodox Jews cannot own one. In Judaism these types of declarations are binding because it is taught that God has given the rabbis the authority to make these pronouncements. Now if this had happened around 300 CE (when iPhones were still in the first generation) it would have been recorded in the Talmud.

Not everything in the Talmud is bad and not everything good. It is opinions and traditions. That’s it.

The Tradition of the Elders

Yeshua cleary did not believe that the Oral Law came from Sinai, as He referred to it as “The Traditions of the Elders.” In fact, the Pharisees themselves referred to it as “The Traditions of the Elders” (Matt. 15:2). Yeshua rebuked the Pharisees for putting these traditions above the Word of God. (Mark 7:9) To be clear, Yeshua was not against all tradition, but against the elevation of mere tradition to Scripture status—and sometimes above it.

While there are many beautiful components in Judaism, there is no Scriptural support for the idea that an Oral Torah accompanied the Torah.

There seems to be things within the New Testament that are not found in the written Torah. Here is a list from Messianic Publication:

Matt. 9:14, 15 – The argument of Yeshua, in which He defends the manner in which His disciples fast, is based upon a recognized halakah that it is improper to fast in the presence of a bridegroom. This is not found in the written Torah. Cp. b. Sukka 25b; t. Ber. 2.10.

Matt. 10:24 – A saying of the Sages, perhaps proverbial

Matt. 12:5 – The teaching or halakah which states that the priests break the Sabbath but are innocent is not found in the written Torah. Cp. b. Shabbat 132b. For other instances where the Sabbath may be profaned, cp. m. Ned. 3.11 (circumcision); m.Pesah 6.1-2; t. Pesah 4.13 (Passover sacrifices).

Matt. 15:1 – Pharisees are inquiring about the disciples of Yeshua: why do they transgress the traditions of the elders by not washing their hands according to halakah before eating? Yeshua rebukes them, citing also their use of korban to “hide” their wealth from aging parents who needed their support. In both cases, it is clear that the Pharisees consider the halakah, based on oral Torah, as binding. Cf. m. Hag. 2.5; b.Sabb. 13b-14a; y. Sabb. 1.3d; b. Yoma 87a.

Matt. 15:36 – There is nothing in the written Torah about giving thanks before eating. Saying the berakah before eating is part of the oral Torah.

Matt. 22:40 – Yeshua quotes the Shema and Lev. 19:18, stating that upon these two preceptshang (krevmatai, krematai)[55] the Law and Prophets. The terminology of the Law and Prophets hanging from something is derived from oral Torah, cp. m. Hagiga 1.8; b. Ber. 63a.

Matt. 23:16, 17 – The Pharisees found a way to deny certain oaths (those sworn by the temple) and to allow others (those sworn by the gold of the temple), cf. M. Nedarim 1.3, 4;[56] cp. alsob.Tem. 32a-33b. Yeshua argues that the Temple actually sanctifies the gold. This is not found in written Torah.

Matt. 23:23 – The matter of tithing very small amounts of produce from volunteer seedlings is not taken up in the written Torah, but is part of the oral Torah, cp. m. Maasarot 1.1; b. Yoma 83b;b.Nidah 5a; b. Rosh HaShanah 12a; b.Shabbat 68a.

Matt. 24:20 – The whole issue of travel on the Sabbath is defined in oral Torah, not written Torah. There are no specific prohibitions in the written Torah restricting travel on the Sabbath. [The prohibition of Ex. 16:29 cannot mean that one is restricted to stay within his dwelling (the Hebrew has אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ, “each man from his place” not אִישׁ מִבֵּיתוֹ, “each man from his house”). Yet the written Torah does not define the dimensions of one’s “place.” It was the oral Torah that developed, for instance, a “Sabbath-day’s journey.”] cf. b. Erubin 4.5; Acts 1:12. Jer. 17:19-22prohibits the carrying of loads out of one’s house, but this is clearly defined as “work.”

Matt. 26:20 – Reclining is the position of eating at the Pesach meal, but is not prescribed in the written Torah. Cf. m. Pesachim 10:1. Reclining is an halakic requirement before one can eat the Passover.

Matt. 27:6 – The written Torah prohibits the wages of a temple prostitute to come into the Temple treasury (Deut. 23:19). Of interest is b. Aboda Zera 17a where Jacob, a disciple of Yeshua of Nazareth, is said to have had an interaction with R. Eliezer over a saying of Yeshua based onDeut. 23:19. The oral Torah expanded this to include any money obtained for unlawful hire (cf.b.Temurah. 29b).

Lk. 6:9 – Cp. m.Shabbat 22.5. The issues of healing (see the parallel in Matt. 12:10) on the Sabbath are part of the oral Torah, to which Yeshua no doubt refers.

Lk. 11:44 – The written Torah declares that a person is unclean from a corpse if he touches it or is in the same room with it (Nu. 19:11-15). The Pharisees extended the communication of impurity to any object overshadowed by a corpse (or part of a corpse) or any object whose shadow contacts a corpse or tomb (m.Oholot 16.1,2). The oral Torah further elaborates the means by which impurity is transmitted from a corpse to an object. It appears that Yeshua accepted at least some of this oral Torah as grounds for His illustration of the Pharisees as concealed tombs that rendered those who overshadowed them unclean.

Jn. 7:51 – The written Torah suggests that a matter of law be carefully examined, but does not specifically say that the accused must be given the right to speak (cp. Ex 23:1; Deut. 1:16; 17:4). Oral Torah, however, required that the accused be given the opportunity to speak for himself (Ex. Rabbah 23.1)

Ac. 18:13 – Paul is accused of teaching the Jewish community to worship contrary to the law, but by his own testimony he did not teach contrary to the written Torah (Ac 21:24; 22:3). He is accused of bringing Greeks into the Temple (Ac 21:28), and the issue in Ac 18:13ff consists of issues relating to “words and names and your own law” (v. 15). This must be oral Torah, not written.

Ac. 21:21 – The phrase “walk according to the customs” (toi`~ e[qesin peripatei`n) is the equivalent of halakah—life regulated by issues of oral Torah.

Ac. 23:3 – What law was violated when Paul was struck? The idea that a person was innocent until proven guilty is a function of oral Torah, not written Torah.

Ac. 25:8 – The threefold designation, “law of the Jews, or against the Temple or against Caesar” seems to define the three most powerful arms of law: Pharisees (law of the Jews), Sadduccees (against the Temple) and Rome (against Caesar). Each of these is referred to by the term “Law” in this instance.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.(Matthew 5:28) Talmudic saying: "Whosoever looketh on the little finger of a woman with lustful eye is considered as having committed adultery" (Talmud Berachoth 24a)