Where does it say that God allows us to interpret the Torah?

שו”ת › Category: faith › Where does it say that God allows us to interpret the Torah?

asked 3 years ago

Hello Rabbi,
Please make a few assumptions and then I will ask.
Fact 1:
The Torah does not explicitly state anywhere that Hashem gave us the Oral Torah.
Fact 2:
The Torah does not state anywhere that God authorizes us to interpret the Torah (including adding and/or subtracting), moreover, it says: “All the word that I command you, you shall observe to do, you shall not add to it or subtract from it ” (Deuteronomy 13:45-46).
Reality:
Our Pharisaic Judaism is largely built on the Oral Torah and is full of interpretations.

The accepted explanation for assumption number 1:
“These are the statutes, judgments, and laws that God gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.”
The word “Torah” means the written Torah and the oral Torah.
Accepted explanations for assumption number 2:

It is written in the Gemara that we are permitted to interpret the Torah (I am not versed in the Gemara, but I have been told this several times by people who I understand are sufficiently knowledgeable).
The Torah itself is obscure and cannot be understood without interpretation, and therefore it makes sense that if it is obscure, it requires interpretation.

Questions :

How can we interpret the word “Torah” to mean the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, if at this stage, we have not yet received permission to interpret (after all, the permission for interpretation is found in the Oral Torah)?
That is, in terms of the order of operations, first we must receive approval for interpretation and only then can we interpret that there is such a thing as oral Torah, or in other words, it is impossible to use interpretation to receive approval for interpretation (a logical fallacy of the circular reference type).
If you answer question number 1, “That both Torahs were given together and therefore the chronological request is invalid,” that also does not advance us, due to the one-way connection we have between the Torah and the Oral Torah.
For example, when a lawyer writes a document and wants to attach appendices/extensions, etc., it is necessary to have a two-way declarative link between documents, meaning that in document A it is explicitly stated that document B exists, and in document B it is explicitly stated that document A exists.
Between the Torah and the Oral Torah we have only a one-way connection, in that seemingly the Torah (Document A) does not explicitly state Document B (the Oral Torah), but the Oral Torah does refer to the Torah.
As we know, a one-way connection is a meaningless connection, since anyone can refer to the Torah and say, “I am the one who is connected to the Torah,” whether it is the Oral Torah, Christianity, or the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
How do you resolve this issue?

As far as I understand, these questions undermine the entire logical stability that sustains our religion.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 3 years ago

You assume that we need a source that authorizes us to interpret the Torah. But I assume the opposite: if we are given a text, especially one that really doesn’t close the corners and leaves a lot of room for interpretation, then he assumes that we will interpret it for him. And if he wants us not to, he should have said so. I will clarify that I am not talking about addition or deletion, but about an interpretation that reveals what is in the text itself. Regarding addition and deletion, if you were right that the Sages conspired here to add to the Torah, the first thing I would do is not to clarify the matter of the addition and deletion and not to define it as a lie. They were not afraid to focus on this and define two such lies. The Sages’ additions are rabbinic laws, and indeed they have an obligation to clarify that these are different laws and not from the Torah in order not to cross the line of Bel Tasif. Adding rabbinic laws is not an addition to the Torah. Beyond that, there could be an oral tradition that has been handed down to us with the option of interpretation, and there is no need for a verse. You can, of course, be suspicious of any such tradition, but I see no need for this suspicion. Third, if our commitment to the Torah is by virtue of the contract we signed, “we will do and we will listen,” then we are the ones who determine the scope of the commitment. Therefore, there is no need for permission to interpret, since the contract was signed with that in mind. Fourth, the Torah does authorize the Sages to interpret the Torah, not in the verse you mentioned, “My teachings,” but in the verses that deal with the authority of the Sages: “For a matter will be strange to you between blood for blood, between judgment for judgment, between injury for injury… and you arose and went up to the place…” The Sages are the ones who are authorized to interpret the Torah that we have received. After all this, it is clear that sermons like “Torahei” and even what I quoted from “Ki Yafla” are not the source that gives us permission to interpret. Perhaps on the contrary, after it is clear that there is permission, we anchor it with one reference or another. It has little meaning. I will just add that in every legal system there is a top of the pyramid that determines its own authority. The same applies to the Knesset and the Supreme Court. This is built into such systems and there is no other option. Therefore, I do not see a problem in principle with the Sages determining their own authority. And finally, I don’t know what you mean by the term “the logical stability of our Torah,” but if you mean something that is logically necessary, you are not in the right field. Nothing in the world, and certainly not legal and normative systems, is “logically stable” in that sense.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

דורון replied 3 years ago

Nir
If you are looking for logical problems in the Torah, you may be satisfied with a parallel discussion that I am trying (without much success) to have with Miki. It is found in the responses to his last column, “Two Notes for Talmud Torah”.
In a nutshell: There I expand your question about the interpretation of the Torah in terms of details (such as what is a reasonable interpretation of the word “Torahs”) to the interpretation of the Torah itself as a comprehensive body of knowledge. My question: What does the Torah really say about its logical status as a complete and binding whole from the perspective of God? The question can also be formulated in another way: Does the Torah allow us, even just by implication, to substitute if God Himself reveals Himself to us and commands us to do so?
In my opinion, no. That is also where I began to justify my answer.