How would you characterize the relationship between the Torah, the rabbinical teaching and the Tradition in Judaism, especially around 1c, in general?
More specifically, how accurate would be the contention that the Law of Moses prohibited forcing a self-incriminating testimony?
I'm not sure why you're asking me these questions or how you want them answered. Are you wanting some sort of "higher critical" answer that confirms that Jewish Oral Tradition is not authentic? You won't get any such answer from me.
I am neither a scholar nor even Jewish but a simple Noachide. All I know is that the Torah--Written and Oral--was given by G-d to Israel on Mt. Sinai. If you're seeking some sort of answer to a problem you're having reconciling "the new testament" with the Oral Torah then you have come to the wrong person, since I accept the Oral Torah and reject "the new testament" completely and utterly (which means contradictions between Oral Torah or Rabbinic rulings and the "word of G-d" in the NT don't bother me in the least).
I am sure any of the Orthodox Jewish FReepers could answer your question(s) better than I if you give them a better idea of what you are asking about.
This is the point I wanted confirmed, thank you.
The controversy we had with Marlowe was whether something analogous to the Fifth Amendment is a part of the Law of Moses. Marlowe says, it is not a part of the written Torah, and I contend that the Law of Moses is not restricted to the written Torah, so the absence of such written commandment does not prove anything.