Q&A: Between the Oral Torah and the Written Torah
Between the Oral Torah and the Written Torah
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have a question regarding the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, and the relationship between them. A common view (this is how many people wearing a kippah think) is that Moses received two Torahs at Mount Sinai: the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, with the Oral Torah being the interpretation of the Written Torah. According to this view, it comes out that the Written Torah is basically a cryptic book of Jewish law (I am assuming the Oral Torah and Jewish law are identical). That does not seem at all reasonable to me. Another view I have heard is that the Oral Torah and the Written Torah are two different branches (that Moses received at Sinai) with different functions. The Written Torah is a book of history with a certain message, and the commandments that appear in it are also part of the story. And the Oral Torah is the Jewish law that was transmitted by tradition, telling us what the commandments are and how they are to be observed. And whenever it seems that the Sages derive laws from verses, that is not really what is happening. Rather, their purpose is to show that there is a connection between the two Torahs, since after all both were received from the Holy One, blessed be He. This view seems much more reasonable to me. In my opinion this is an important question that should be clarified even before studying Torah (before learning something, one should know what one is learning). When I asked many religious people this question (as someone who did not grow up in the religious world), it seemed that there is a lot of confusion on the subject. I would be happy to hear the Rabbi's opinion on this.
Answer
Hello Neria.
Indeed, there is a lot of confusion on this subject.
I seem to recall having once seen that Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh discusses this in one of his books and has an original approach (I do not remember the details. As I recall, he argues that these are two Torahs, and not that one is the explanation of the other. If this interests you, it is worth looking up).
As for me, I am not bothered at all by these questions, because in my opinion this question is based on a mistaken picture. In my estimation, at Sinai we were not really given another Torah. What was given there was the Written Torah (or at least part of it, or most of it), explanations of words, a few basic methods of inference (the hermeneutical principles, and even those not in the form familiar to us today, and not all of them), and a few laws given to Moses at Sinai. And perhaps there are a few other things I have omitted. Everything else, which is the vast majority, was developed by the Sages throughout history. This is not my own innovation, of course, and to anyone familiar with the material, especially the words of Maimonides, it is clear that this is the reality. What causes confusion are the slogans we grew up on and were educated with, that its details and generalities were given at Sinai (by the way, that refers only to the general and particular rules written in the Torah, contrary to the common understanding that it refers to the entirety of Jewish law), and so on and so on. But that is a misunderstanding. When people say that everything was given at Sinai, this is a normative statement and not a historical one; that is, everything is binding like what was given at Sinai (or as though it were given at Sinai). If you are interested, in the second book in the Talmudic Logic series (on general and specific rules, the intuitive definition of sets in the Talmud. Only on Amazon, but it is in Hebrew) we discuss this and demonstrate the process in detail.
In light of this picture, the question does not really arise at all. The Written Torah certainly contains laws. Even if they are presented as part of the story (and that is not always the case), it is clearly evident from the text that its intention is to command. The Oral Torah expands, details, and defines those laws, and even adds to them (rabbinic laws, which are also considered part of the Oral Torah, though it seems to me that this is accepted terminology but not precise).
——————————————————————————————
Neria:
So according to the Rabbi, the Written Torah is indeed the source for some of the laws? I would be glad to get a few examples of such commandments.
Can a law given to Moses at Sinai not be classified as part of the Oral Torah? That is, laws that are not derived from the Written Torah.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello.
Why are examples needed? There are many of them. Do not do any labor on the Sabbath, do not wear wool and linen together, and many more.
I wrote that a law given to Moses at Sinai (like the hermeneutical principles) is part of the Oral Torah. So what is the question?