Q&A: The Sages and the Oral Torah
The Sages and the Oral Torah
Question
I wanted to ask the Rabbi: how did you reach the conclusion that the Oral Torah is authentic and really was passed down from generation to generation from Moses to the Sages and earlier? And how does it seem to the Rabbi that the Sages received rules of interpretation that, according to them too, were passed down from generation to generation from Moses, even though these rules are not mentioned or even hinted at anywhere in the Torah? Also, if these rules of interpretation really existed for the Sages, Moses could have used them in many cases in the wilderness, yet there is no mention that he did so (like the case of the wood-gatherer, and the daughters of Zelophehad and their inheritance), which indicates that they did not exist. And also, it seems that according to this approach the Written Torah has no value, because according to these interpretive rules you can turn the whole text upside down and derive Jewish laws from it from a drop of ink into books upon books, all from a drop of ink through a verbal analogy and the like. Also, how can one believe everything the Sages say about Gehenna, the Garden of Eden, and the World to Come, when all these things are not mentioned in the Torah at all, and apparently these things came from Babylonia?
And within all this, aside from changing the text, there is the extreme addition of Jewish laws that is almost completely disconnected from the Torah. When you look at Judaism today and at the Torah, it is almost heaven and earth apart, in my opinion. And regarding the verse “Do not turn aside,” which people always emphasize on this subject, I am pretty sure the Rabbi knows that the verse continues from what is written before it, meaning that “do not turn aside right or left” applies only in the case of “if a matter of judgment is too difficult for you, between blood and blood…” and not that one must listen to every ruling of a sage.
Thank you, Rabbi
Answer
I do not think authenticity is a condition for obligation. The Torah that was given to us was given, and from that point on we interpret and expand it, and of course we have also made quite a few mistakes. But as long as I have no knowledge of what the source is and what is a mistake, the presumption is that what reached me is what is binding. Not because it is correct, but because this is the Torah that reached me.
A core of the Oral Torah was given together with the Written Torah. Without it there is no way at all to make use of the Written Torah (as stated in the Kuzari). All the developments that were made over the years, including mistakes—the attitude toward them is as I wrote above.
You assume that the Sages did whatever they wanted with Scripture, but at the same time you ask how we know the tools were given at Sinai. If tools were given at Sinai, that means they are not doing whatever they want, but rather using those tools. Your words contradict each other. In my estimation, we have simply lost the skill of using those tools, and therefore the impression is created that everything is arbitrary. The fact is that the Sages often try to do something and want to do something, but do not find a way to do it. That is, it does not let them do just anything.
The Oral Torah is not bound to the Written Torah, and therefore departures from the plain meaning do not trouble me. The two Torahs operate in different ways.
The obligation to listen to the Sages does not come from the verses but from reason. At most it is anchored in the verses (and according to Nachmanides, not even that). And besides, even in the verses themselves one can understand that if they are the ones who rule on what is too difficult for me, then apparently they are the ones authorized to interpret, even when it is not too difficult for me. This too is how we received it in the tradition, and I do not see any problem with that.