After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Sages of the Talmud observed a profound upheaval in the world, questioning whether the laws of the Torah were still suited to their time. They deliberately set aside the written “Torah of Moses” to conceive a new Torah—this time unwritten—which would gradually supplant the former. Some scholars have argued that the prohibition against writing aimed to preserve the Oral Torah as a dynamic entity, capable of evolving across generations in response to changing circumstances. Others have suggested that the concept of an “Oral Torah” was more of an ideological construct than a tangible reality.

Many Talmudic scholars, such as Nahman Krochmal (1785–1840), Zechariah Frankel (1801–1875), David Zvi Hoffmann (1843–1921), and Hanoch Albeck (1890–1972), engaged in a genuine intellectual competition to determine the period in which the Mishnah was redacted. Their hypotheses ranged from the time of Hillel and Shammai—well before the destruction of the Temple—to the era of Yehuda Hanasi in the early third century CE. They thus faced a complex question: how could the prohibition against writing be reconciled with the necessity of reliably transmitting the oral tradition?

Researchers specializing in ancient texts must first analyze the literary nature of the documents, taking into account their multiple contexts in order to grasp their original perception. They must not confuse legend with history, nor associate historical events with myths. This is particularly crucial since some narratives—such as those concerning David and Solomon—can be misleading, belonging more to the realm of historical fiction than factual testimony. Moreover, it is evident that contemporary Talmudic scholars struggle to reach a definitive stance on a fundamental issue: do the legends of the Talmud reflect an ancient reality, and did its protagonists truly exist, or are they merely narrative figures?

Among modern scholars, Jacob Nahum Epstein (1878–1952) played a crucial role in the study of the Talmud’s redaction. Based on internal textual evidence, Epstein concluded that a written version of the Mishnah must have undoubtedly existed and was available to the sages of the Talmud. Like Maimonides before him, he adopted a rational approach to the limitations of human memory, which is incapable of preserving complex legal debates intact for generations and recalling them when needed. He also questioned the notion of a strict prohibition against writing, asserting that if such a rule had indeed existed, the sages themselves had not always adhered to it.

Like other scholars, Abraham Goldberg (1913-2012) attempted to address the issue in a somewhat opaque manner. According to him, the Mishnah is a compilation of laws and narratives structured by Yehuda Hanasi into a fundamental collection. However, the exact meaning of the term “structured” in a collection remains enigmatic. Was it truly a written text or merely a corpus memorized and transmitted orally? The question of whether, during the time of Yehuda Hanasi, the Mishnah was recorded on scrolls remains unanswered.

The scholar Isaiah Gafni contested Epstein’s conclusions and sought to neutralize the issue by suggesting that Yehuda Hanasi had “organized the Mishnah orally,” in accordance with the prohibition on writing imposed by Rabbi Akiva. However, this explanation does not resolve the dilemma of whether Yehuda Hanasi actually wrote the Mishnah or if its transmission relied solely on memory. Gafni also emphasizes that many midrashim were compiled and written down several centuries after the 7th century,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)