See this table?
These are all the things Halakha (Jewish religious law) says Jews are not allowed to do on Shabbat.
Actually, these aren’t all the prohibitions – just the categories, under which innumerable additional prohibitions are gathered.
But the Torah simply says general things like “Observe the Shabbat day to sanctify it.” How did we go from such a simple verse to the enormous and unreasonable pile of laws we know today?
Here’s how:
Desert. Sand stretching out for miles and blowing in the wind. Under a small, nondescript mountain a loud group of people, children, and livestock gather. These are the Children of Israel, who have been wandering this place for close to two months.
While everyone’s getting ready below, Moses ascends the mountain.
Clouds, lightning, fire, drama!
It’s not entirely clear what’s going on but when Moses comes back down, he’s holding the Torah.
Sorry – the Torahs. Both of them.
The Jewish sages tell us that at Mount Sinai, two Torahs were brought down from on high: the one we’re familiar with from Bible class, and the Oral Torah.
They are described as bride and groom, salt and pepper, wheat and flour…you get the idea.
In other words – they complement each other, or at least one serves as the raw material from which a finished product is made.
But what’s wrong with the written Torah? Why do we need another one?
Well, the Torah on its own is not entirely practical and not entirely clear.
The Oral Torah is there to bridge those gaps.
Let’s examine this concept with the help of a well-known verse:
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot.”
To understand what the Oral Torah does, we need to do a little thought experiment:
It’s a strange question, sure, but try and think of the advantages of “an eye for an eye”.
From my perspective: The principle of “an eye for an eye” contains an element of justice. Revenge is a powerful human emotion, one that is best regulated by authority, with this sort of practice likely to deter wrongdoers.
Bu that about the drawbacks?
In my view, the justice achieved here is not true justice. A person who has just lost an eye gains nothing from taking another eye out, and revenge does not generally lead to a better society.
So perhaps…this specific commandment should be changed?
Maybe, but if you look at the Torah from a traditional point of view, you’ve got a problem.
After all, according to Jewish tradition, everything written in the Torah is sacred, and the rules of the game mean no changes are allowed.
What can be done? – Interpret the heck out of the verse!
And that’s precisely what the Oral Torah does.
Since this verse was written, Jews have never literally practiced “an eye for an eye”. Never. It doesn’t exist. Not in reality or in written Halakha.
The transition appears to happen in the Mishnah – a sort of screenshot of the Oral Torah at a particular moment in time. The sages of the Mishnah state that if you took someone’s eye out, that person doesn’t get to take yours out, too. Your obligation as the one causing harm is to pay *monetary compensation* to the one you harmed. Or as the sages put it: “An eye for an eye – [means] money.”
This is one of the starker examples of the gap between the Written and Oral Torah. But there are also many simpler cases of issues which are simply not understood. Which takes us back to the question of observing Shabbat.
In all, we have but a few fairly simple verses speaking about Shabbat. But when you examine them closely, they’re not actually all that clear.
What does it mean to “observe” Shabbat? Seriously – what does that mean?
We as modern people have a general idea, but there was a moment in history where this wasn’t so clear.
To answer this question, the sages would use a technique that can be translated as “a matter learned from its subject” (דבר הלמד מעניינו). They looked at the verses dealing with observing Shabbat and when the verses weren’t clear they did what any bright student does: attempt to understand the context.
Take a look at the verses below:
“Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever performs work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.”
“You shall not kindle fire in any of your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.”
These verses reside within a Torah portion dealing entirely in the matters of the Mishkan or Tabernacle, the earlier and mobile version of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.
So the sages took a look at the surrounding verses and said “Hey! Maybe it’s not clear exactly what observing Shabbat means, but it’s certainly related to the Mishkan.”
How is it related? While English translations of the above verse have often used the word “work”, the text of the Hebrew commandment regarding Shabbat uses the word melacha (מלאכה) , which generally indicates “craft”.
The verses covering the Mishkan use the same term – melacha (craft) – in reference to all the things done in order to keep the Mishkan in operation – sowing, sewing, writing, lighting a fire, etc. The sages concluded that these were the crafts (or “work”) referred to in the commandment, and that what was done in the Mishkan is precisely what may *not* be done on Shabbat.
Sound credible? Hmmm… I’m not sure about that. But this was acceptable logic for the sages.
Sound exaggerated? They also thought so. In a moment of self-awareness, they said: “The rules of the Sabbath […] are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules.” In other words, not much is actually written here and a very large number of Halakhic rulings came out of it.
So what do we have here? Unclear or impractical verses, alongside an Oral Torah clarifying the unclear, adapting what needs to be adapted and maintaining dynamism. And it does all that without breaking the rules.
The books documenting the Oral Torah are the Mishnah, Tosefta, Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, midrashic books like the Mekhilta, the Sifre, Midrash Rabbah, and Midrash Tanhuma. You can also add the responsa literature which continues to be written to this day as part of the Oral Torah.