TÔRÂH. — A Hebrew term which in the Bible means an authoritative directive (issued by God, the priest, the prophet, the king, or the sage), and which, after the Babylonian exile, became the customary designation of the Mosaic Law, primarily Pentateuch (v.).
The noun t. occurs 219 times in the Hebrew Bible. Much has been debated concerning its origin and semantic development. Once rejected is the theory of the Assyriologist Frd. Delitzsch (1850–1922), who derived t. from the Akkadian tertu (“mission, divine oracle, commandment, law”); there remains that of W. Gesenius (1786–1842), reaffirmed by S. R. Driver and today by G. Östborn: t. derives from the verb hôrah (hiph'il of jârah, “to throw”), which occurs 53 times in the Hebrew Bible and whose primitive sense would be “to extend the hand or finger in order to show the way,” hence “to indicate” (Gen. 46:28) or “to direct” (Iudc. 13:8). The explanation of J. Wellhausen, followed by W. Nowack and I. Benzinger, according to which t. derives from the specific meaning of jârah and hôrah, “to throw” lots (Jos. 18:6; the arrows: I Sam. 20:30, 36), a usage associated with consultation by means of the ephod or the 'ârimtummim, so that t. would originally denote the “directive” obtained by the priest through the casting of sacred lots, is today considered unfounded by J. Begrich and G. Östborn. T. may be regarded as connected with the participle môrah, “teacher” (Job 36:22), which survives in the names of certain localities that were perhaps ancient seats of oracles (Gen. 12:6; Deut. 11:30; Iudc. 7:1).
There is a close connection between t. and the idea of “path, way” (dêrekh), as implied by the etymology intuitively discerned by Gesenius, “to show the way of life.” Starting from this fundamental meaning (“indication” of the path to be followed), t. passes through three semantic stages: “directive,” “instruction,” and finally “law.” T. occurs in the J document, rarely in E (Ex. 13:9; 16:4; 18:16, 20; 24:12); it becomes frequent in Deuteronomy, in Leviticus, and in the other documents called “priestly,” down to Par.-Eid.-Neh., and increasingly frequent in the later prophetic writings and the later psalms. In Ex. 18:16, 20 (E), secular decisions concerning disputes between neighbors, given by Moses after having “consulted God,” are called God’s “ordinances” (huqim) and his “directives” (tôrôth). The tôrôth were decisions authoritatively imposed by the chief or judge; they formed precedents for similar cases in the future, especially those concerning difficult questions. Thus, perhaps even before Moses, a progressive body of civil and penal laws was formed, preserved and transmitted by tradition. The “directives” were sometimes given in the form of a “divine response,” through the oracular procedures of the priests or the inspiration of the prophets. Among the prophets, t. (usually in the singular) is moral and spiritual “instruction” (Am. 2:4); “the t. of our God” contains the norms of morality in which true service of God consists (Is. 1:10; 5:24; 8:16, 20; 30:9). The prophet is called môrah (“teacher”), from the same root as t. (Is. 9:14; 30:20). In Ier. 6:19; 9:13; etc., t. designates both the preaching of the prophets and the Mosaic tradition. The general sense of “instruction” also appears in the didactic books: t. is given by God to his faithful one (Job 22:22; Ps. 78:1 Heb.), by the wise (Prov. 3:1; 4:2; 6:23; 7:2; 13:14), and by the mother (ibid. 1:8; 6:20; 31:26); Yahweh (or his representative) will give it in the messianic kingdom (Is. 2:3 = Mich. 4:2; Ier. 31:33; Is. 42:4; 51:4). In this second semantic stage, t. (“instruction,” “teaching”) has as its purpose and effect dâ'ath, “knowledge.” The t. dispensed by the priest concerns worship and rites, but also the religion of Yahweh in general; the prophet’s t. is more directly an ethical-spiritual exhortation; the sage’s t., to which the t. given by parents to their children may be related, is the instruction and education of the inexperienced. The t. of “wisdom” relating to practical life and crafts seems likewise connected with Ez. 43:10–15, where t. (well translated by the Septuagint as ἡ διαγραφή) means “the plan of the temple.”
Alongside this broad use of the term, there was t. in the strict sense: legislation administered by the priesthood. The earlier prophets attest the existence of t. binding upon all, on a moral basis (cf. Ex. 23:1–9; Lev. 19:1–37), which was to bring about in Israel the “knowledge of God.” The priest was to apply and inculcate it; Israel’s crimes were due to the priests’ neglect of t. (Os. 4:1–6). Particularly associated with the priesthood, t. (like the related verb hôrāh) denoted the (oral) directive that the priests gave in Yahweh’s name, especially concerning ritual observance (various sacrifices and their procedures, conditions of ritual purity, criteria for leprosy, etc.), to those who consulted them; cf. Agg. 2:11; Mal. 2:6–9. The custodians and dispensers of t. were the priests: Mich. 3:11; Ier. 2:8; 18:18; Soph. 3:4; Ez. 7:26; 22:16; 44:23 (cf. Lev. 14:57); cf. Hab. 1:2–4 and Lam. 2:9. Entrusted to the priesthood (cf. II Reg. 17:27–28; II Par. 15:3), t. demanded absolute fidelity to certain principles of moral and ritual purity, individual and collective; their neglect or violation constituted the crime, ruinous to Israel, of the unfaithful priests. Ceremonial t. was predominant, but judicial and moral t. were no less real. There can be no doubt that this t., in all its aspects, originated with Moses (S. R. Driver [V. BIBLICA.], p. 66 a); the priests’ task was only to preserve and safeguard what Moses had left (Deut. 33:4, 9 ff.). The critics, with J. Wellhausen, thus trace t. back to Moses, but only as a principle, as an initial oral tradition; the later written t. would be the very late fixation of this tradition.
The sense of “law,” as old as that of “directive” and “instruction,” since t. implied an obligation for the one who received it (Deut. 17:11: “he shall act according to the t. [directive] which the Levitical priests and the tribunal shall have given you”; 24:8: “do everything that the Levitical priests teach you [jōrā]”; 30:10, where mišpāṭim [cf. Ex. 21:1] is synonymous with t.), became predominant in the period called Deuteronomic (ca. 622 B.C.) and even more so during and after the exile (sixth century B.C.). In Deuteronomy, especially in the formula “this t.” (Deut. 1:5 to 32:46: 19 times), the term sometimes indicates the code of laws incorporated into Deuteronomy, and at other times, more generally, the exposition—both exhortatory and legal—of Israel’s duties. In this latter sense t. occurs (“the book of the t.,” “the t. of Moses,” etc.) in the “Deuteronomic” sections of Jos. and Reg. (Jos. 1:7–8; 8:31–34; 22:5; 23:6; I Reg. 2:3; II Reg. 10:31 to 23:24–25: 10 times).
With the passage of time, t. came to denote a body of technical directives on a given subject; this sense is common in the “priestly code” (P), especially in the formula “this is the t. (“body of norms or laws”) of the burnt offering, of the offering, of the leper, of the Nazirite, etc.” (Lev. 6:9–25 to 26:46: 15 times; Num. 5:29–30 to 31:21: 7 times). Here too the primitive meaning of t. must have been that of directives given to the laity, and not (as in Lev. 6–7) of norms regulating priestly practice. In the Psalms, t. often indicates the legislative portions of the Pentateuch in general (Ps. Heb. 1:2; 19:7; 37:31; 40:8; 94:12; 119:1, 18, etc.). This explains why t. was rendered by dāth, “law,” in Aramaic (Esl. 7:12–26; cf. Esth. 1:13; 3:8; etc.), and subsequently by the Septuagint (third–second century B.C.) almost always (191 out of approximately 212 instances) as νόμος (Vulgate lex), even when t. means “directive” or “instruction.”
After the time of Ezra, t. indicates, in an even more general sense, the Pentateuch as a whole. The priest Ezra, “a scribe skilled in the t. of Moses” (Esl. 7, 6), was venerated by later generations as the restorer of the Mosaic t. The collection of the five Mosaic books was collectively called t. as early as the 5th century B.C. The entire Pentateuch is called hat-t. or sēpher hat-t. or sēpher tōrāth Mōleh in I Par. 16, 40;
II Par. 31, 3; etc.; Eul. 3, 2; Neh. 8, 1-3. At the time of Christ, t. designated the 5 Mosaic books (ὁ νόμος; Lc. 10, 26; ὁ νόμος Μουσέως; Lc. 2, 22) and sometimes, by extension from its principal part, all the ancient Scriptures (ὁ νόμος; I Cor. 14, 21).
The code, testimony (Deut. 31, 26), synthesis and foundation of Jahweh’s covenant with Israel, the t. of Moses—that is, the first 5 books of the Bible—develops around a unifying general theme, which may be expressed in the following thesis: there exists an eternal divine plan (cf. Eph. 1, 10; 3, 9: “economy”) that is progressively realized, in the face of every obstacle, and whose goal is the creation of the chosen people as a theocratic nation, with the Mosaic law as its directive and the promised land as its reward. A religion essentially founded upon Revelation, Judaism believes that Revelation is contained in the T., in which everything is included, even the subsequent Scriptures of the prophets. Of unique and transcendent importance, the supreme gift of God (“the gift of the t.” [mattēn 1.] in the dazzling theophany of Sinai is the capital event in the history of Israel), the T. is the direct and exclusive bond between Jahweh and his people. The revelation of God’s will to Israel, it is the absolute objective rule of individual and social life: the whole of this life is reduced to “observing the T.” of God, as the devout Psalmist never ceases to repeat (Ps. 118 [119]). The Israelite who transgresses the T. breaks the yoke of the kingdom of God; as in the Gospel (Mt. 19, 17), so also in the apocrypha (Testam. XII Patr., Iubil., IV Esd.), the supreme norm for salvation is to “observe the commandments” of the T.
Little by little, in Judaism, the T. took the place of Wisdom. Already in Sirach, Wisdom, an emanation that is almost a divine hypothesis, is connected with, or even identified with, the T. (Eccl. 19, 16; 24, 22; 32, 15; 33, 2; 34, 8; 39, 8). Subsequently the identification becomes more pronounced, and the T. assumes divine attributes, appears beside the Creator, as God’s firstborn and preexistent (Prov. 8, 22 is applied to it): Iubil. 3, 10; Test. Aser. 2, 10. At the time of Jesus, the religious teacher was called “man of the t., teacher of the t.” (νομικός; Mt. 22, 35; Lc. 7, 30, etc.; νομοδιδάσκαλος; Lc. 5, 17; Act. 5, 34). For the rabbis of the 1st century, wisdom consists in knowledge of the T. ('Abōth, III, 9); hence the rabbi is today called “sage” (ḥākhām). Most of the sayings of the earliest rabbis ('Abōth) are devoted to glorifying the study of the T. Eternal and immutable, the T. will remain in force in the messianic kingdom; the holy work par excellence, the study of the T., will be the reward of the righteous in Eden; such rabbinic affirmations revive the divine promise: “I will put my t. within them and write it on their hearts” (Ier. 31, 32 [Volg. 33]; cf. Is. 54, 13; Ps. 37 [36], 31).
From the office entrusted to the priests of adapting the t. to life (Deut. 17, 8-12, 18; Ier. 2, 8; 18, 18; Ez. 7, 26; 22, 26; Os. 4, 6) arose the oral t., associated with the activity of Ezra (5th century), and regarded from the beginning of Pharisaism (2nd century B.C.) as inseparable from the written t. When the scribes and rabbis appropriated this task, legislating also concerning priestly functions, the progressive adaptation of the t. through casuistry was called the “oral t.” (t. feb-bā' al peh), an expression that goes back to Hillēl (Šabbāth, 31 a) or at least to Gamaliel II (Siphrē Deut. 33, 10) and supplants the term “traditions” (παραδόσεις; Mt. 15, 2 = Mc. 7, 5; Mt. 15, 3-6; Gal. 1, 14). The oral t., presented as the will of God revealed to Moses and proceeding from Moses through an unbroken chain of teachers ('Abōth, I, 1-3), developed and prevailed, especially in the juridical sphere, until it formed the Mišnāh, and thereafter the twofold Talmud; the gē'ōnīm (v.) and later the pōsāqīm or “decisors” (v.) also appeal to II. The twofold t. is discerned in the biblical plural tōrōth (Siphrā': Lev. 26, 46), in the two edges of the sword in Ps. 149, 6 (Pēsīqā', ed. S. Suber, p. 102 b). The oral t. is a dogma of Judaism, from the time of the first tannaim onward ('Abōth, I, 1; III, 13). Manipulated through the hālākhāh (v.), which, in the frequent controversies underlying the deliberations of the rabbinic sanhedrins, restricted, broadened, or transformed the written t., this arbitrary oral t. led to the formalistic and inhuman nomocracy of the Pharisees (Mt. 23, 1-37). Not content with attributing to the oral t. the same divine authority as to the written t. (Siphrā' Lev. 19, 340; Pal. Bērā-
khôth I, 7), the zealous maintained that violating or contradicting the decisions of the scribes and rabbis was more serious than violating or contradicting the T. (Sandedhrln, X, 3).
Materially, in synagogue worship, the T. is a long strip of parchment, approximately 30 m. long, which is rolled and unrolled around two wooden rods. It is calligraphed by special copyists (sôphêrîm), who write it while wearing the insignia of prayer (tâfîth, têphillîm) and uttering many “blessings.” Every synagogue takes pride in possessing several scrolls of the T. in the “holy ark” (‘ârôn haq-qqâdhet), each in a sumptuous velvet or silk case; every scroll is carried in procession during the feast of the T., “the crowned bride.” The Israelite believer feels very deeply “the joy of the T.”
The t. (tavcât), or Pentateuch, is also of great importance in the Qur’an. It is often placed alongside the Gospel as a written source of faith (3, 43, 58; 7, 156; etc.). It contains the “judgment” (hukm), or divine command: it is guidance and light, and the prophets (who were muslim) judged for the Jews according to the t.; “the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, is a confirmation of the preceding t., and is a direction and an admonition for the God-fearing” (5, 47-50). “Those upon whom the t. was imposed and who thereafter did not observe it are like the donkey carrying books” (62, 5).
BIBLI.: S. R. Driver, Law (in O. T.), in Dict. of the Bible, III (1900), pp. 64-73; S. Schechter, Some aspects of rabbinical theology, I, Londra 1900, pp. 148-69 (on “the joy of the t.”); S. Zuckrow, Adjustment of Law to life in rabbinic literature, Boston 1928; S. H. Blank, The LXX renderings of O. T. terms of law, in Hebrew Union College annual, 5 (1930), pp. 259-83; J. Bonsirven, Le judaïsme palestinien au temps de J.-C., I, Parigi 1935, pp. 247-72; II, ivi 1935, pp. 69-80; A. Cohen, Il Talmud, trad. it., Bari 1935, pp. 158-98; J. Begrich, Die priesterliche Thora, in Werden und Wesen des A. T., di P. Volz, F. Stummer; J. Hempel, Berlino 1936, p. 63 seg.; J. P. Hyatt, Torah in the book of Jeremiah, in Journal of biblical liter., 60 (1941), pp. 281-96; B. J. Bamberger, Revelations of T. after Sinai, in Hebrew Union College annual, 16 (1941), pp. 97-113; W. Gutbrod, Nôgô, in Theol. Wörterbuch zum N. T., IV (1942), pp. 1029-50; G. Ostborn, Tôsîa in the Old Testament, A semantic study, Lund 1945; D. Daube, Studies in biblical Lur, Cambridge 1946; A. R. Hulst, Beljiden en loven, Nijkerk 1948; A. E. Guilding, Notes on the Hebrew Law Codes, in The journal of theol. studies, 49 (1948), pp. 43-52. Antonino Romeo