ABSTRACT
This chapter shows that at times in the history of rabbinic opinion, the supplementary and corrective traditions of the oral law have been held to emanate from the written text itself. Even the most conservative scholars concede that the literal surface of the scriptural Torah is such that adjunct nonscriptural traditions are required to enable actual observance. Critical scholarship maintains that the canonical Torah was assembled as a composite work, drawing on several distinct strands of preexisting Israelite tradition and arriving at its present form in the period of Ibn Ezra. Despite the accumulated maculations of the written word, Ezra and his fellow leaders were able to institute uniform and coherent practice among the returnees from exile. Ezra’s work retained the people’s Torah, even if that meant canonizing a given law in two or more divergent forms. Such occasional inconsistencies were overcome through oral instruction, fostering unity while preserving holy writ intact.
