Q&A: A Question Regarding the Thirteen Principles
A Question Regarding the Thirteen Principles
Question
To the honored Rabbi:
I would like to know why, in the generations after the sealing of the Talmud, we do not use the principles by which the Torah is expounded in order to derive new laws that do not contradict the words of the Sages. Generally speaking, aside from the principle of an a fortiori inference, one hardly ever hears them mentioned in the study hall. And although one can find some of our rabbis who allow us to anchor laws that are already accepted in verses of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) (for example, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of the chapter “Ha-Hovel,” and the Or HaChaim in various places), and there are also some great sages of previous generations who innovate halakhot on the basis of the plain meaning of Scripture (such as Meshekh Chokhmah), still, it is obvious that nowadays it is absolutely impossible to use these principles. And this despite the fact that in our time there are many day-to-day practical problems that provide fertile ground for deriving laws by means of these principles (advances in the fields of procreation, medicine, engineering, etc., present halakhic challenges that our forefathers never imagined), and yet even the mightiest of the mighty would not dare approach this field. The very idea that it is within our power to generate halakhot through analysis of the Written Torah is so far removed from reason (and from religion!) that it is not even considered. And it has been explicitly stated by the Yad Malachi (section 144) that we cannot expound on our own, and he brings a whole line of halakhic decisors to support this view. This is a very great wonder indeed, for according to many of the greatest sages of the generations (with the Great Eagle hovering above them all), the principles by which the Torah is expounded were transmitted by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses at Mount Sinai. According to those views, this is the path by which a person is to derive new halakhot and legal rulings! So who was it that took the pearl and left us the shard in its place? And how did the sealed wells, the source of our wisdom, simply stop flowing with living waters? And from where did he (or they) get the authority to do so? And why? And when was this agreed upon? And greatest of all, where in the historical record of the People of the Book is this phenomenon documented?
I would also ask your honor to give your opinion on the meaning of Maimonides’ words in Laws of Torah Study 1:11:
…and one-third should understand and discern the end of a matter from its beginning, derive one thing from another, compare one thing to another, and judge by the principles through which the Torah is expounded until he knows what is the essence of those principles and how to derive from the things he learned by oral tradition what is forbidden and what is permitted, and the like. This is what is called Talmud. [1] I have difficulty with his wording (“judge”…”how”…”essence”) — is his position that we are commanded to use these principles?
I have read books and articles that touch indirectly on the core of my question. Even so, I still have not found a source that addresses these questions directly. Has the Rabbi, or one of his acquaintances, already published an article on these matters?
Many thanks,
1
Maimonides’ approach to the status of laws derived from exegesis is complicated: in the second root of Sefer HaMitzvot (and elsewhere in his Mishneh Torah, his commentary to the Mishnah, and in his letters), he proposed that they are not included among Torah laws (“of biblical origin”). It may be that in his view, the tradition is primary, and the exposition only comes to anchor a law already accepted orally in scriptural verses. (Compare the Lechem Mishneh on Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 9:1, that sometimes Maimonides anchors a law in a biblical verse that the Sages did not mention.) However, in Laws of Rebels (1:3, 2:1) and in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, he states that a religious court can derive laws through these principles, and from his words in his introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah it appears that these laws are not in the category of rabbinic decrees and enactments, but their force is seemingly of Torah origin. And here in Laws of Torah Study (1:11) it seems that even an individual can judge by them, while from his words later in Laws of Rebels (3:4) it appears that indeed an individual can do so, but still requires the agreement of a religious court in order for it to be considered binding law. Many have already struggled — both recent and earlier writers — to understand the words of Moses our Teacher correctly, and that is not my aim right now. My question and request of the Rabbi, if I have found favor in your eyes, is only that you translate for me Maimonides’ words here in Laws of Torah Study 1:11 — simply a plain word-for-word explanation.
Answer
Greetings.
There is no special commandment to engage in the Thirteen Principles. It is part of Torah study.
There is no impediment nowadays to using the principles to derive laws, except that we do not have the knowledge of how to do it. We have lost the skill of exposition through these principles, and more generally as well. Whoever feels that he has the knowledge and can do it — should do it. And that is why with an a fortiori inference people really do use it from time to time, because using it is relatively simple.
As for Maimonides’ view, there is no ambiguity and no contradiction in it. See my article on the second root (in the book He Shall Send Forth His Roots), and also in my book, The Spirit of Law:
1. The principles are a law given to Moses at Sinai.
2. There is creative exposition and supportive exposition (Introduction to the Mishnah and in the second root). Most exposition is creative exposition (as he writes in his responsum to Rabbi Pinchas the judge regarding the beginning of the Laws of Marriage).
3. The laws that emerge from creative exposition are rabbinic law (second root). In supportive expositions the laws are of biblical origin (ibid.).
4. Any individual may make use of the principles (as is explained in the sources you cited), but only an exposition done in the Sanhedrin has authority and binds the entire Jewish people. Exactly as any individual can interpret the Torah, but only an interpretation made in the Sanhedrin binds the public.
Discussion on Answer
Greetings.
It stopped around the time of the sealing of the Talmud (even in the Talmud itself the use is limited; it is mainly among the Tannaim).
If someone prohibits it, that is only because the sages saw that we do not understand how to use it, and therefore determined that it should not be done. Though I do not think there is really room to speak of a prohibition here.
I am also not aware of any acceptance by the Jews upon themselves and their descendants. In practice, true, people hardly ever do it, but whoever knows how should do it. And indeed there are a few here and there who did so (mainly by a fortiori inference).
I checked out your Amazon page and it looks like you speak English, which is great, because I do too! If I may beg your indulgence…
Thanks very much for the timely and learned responses. I’ve asked my question to many a learned man and none were able to provide anything concrete (most of them ignored me). I’m still bothered by the notion that this was the method prescribed by God to extrapolate Jewish law — and we’ve completely abandoned it — but it is what it is. I’m glad I’ve found you. Will you at least admit that Maimonides’ formulation of the law in Torah Study 1:11 is obtuse? There are far clearer ways to articulate what he is trying to convey (if that is what he is trying to convey).
As long as I have your attention, if you don’t mind:
Below you agreed that Maimonides allows individuals to expound; only requiring a religious court to establish it as law. I wonder if an individual is allowed to act on his own according to his own exposition, without requiring the approval of a religious court. In other words, if a question arises in my personal life, and I make an exposition to identify an answer, may I act according to my exposition, or do I need validation from the courts?
The question is not related to a rebellious elder, who acts on his own against the decision of the religious court. I want to know if one even has to go to a religious court in the first place?
Greetings.
Hebrew is easier for me, but I can do English too (preferably simple English).
I didn’t understand what is wrong with Maimonides’ wording. You can cite the passage and ask specifically what is difficult about it.
As for the expositions of a private individual, that is exactly what I wrote. Any person who makes an exposition can and should act according to it. True, the exposition of a private individual does not obligate anyone else. As I wrote, it is exactly like a plain interpretive reading (not using the tools of exposition) by a private individual of the Torah and the Talmud, which obligates him but not others.
This idea is surprising and fascinating — at least to me.
As for the strangeness in Maimonides’ wording, it would have been much simpler to phrase the law like this: and one-third should understand and discern the end of a matter from its beginning, derive one thing from another, compare one thing to another, and judge by the principles through which the Torah is expounded until he knows what is the essence of those principles and how to derive what is forbidden and what is permitted and the like from the things he learned by oral tradition. This is what is called Talmud.
Once again, I am grateful to you.
As is well known, Maimonides includes in his book Jewish law not only for the present time. Therefore he defines the ideal Torah study even if nowadays it is not relevant. In ideal Torah study, these principles are an important part of learning, and that is why this is his definition.
By the way, I think that here by the term “principles” he means all the tools of interpretation.
To the honored Rabbi,
On what basis did the “principles by which the Torah is expounded” receive approval from above?
On what basis was it determined that it is valid and even correct to interpret this way? Is there any parallel to this in the Torah?
There is a tradition that they were given at Sinai. In the second book in the Talmudic Logic series I explained what exactly that means (this is a dynamic tradition. It is not correct that a list of principles was given to Moses). The principles are part of the Oral Torah, so there is no point looking for them in the Written Torah. Only the a fortiori inference appears explicitly in the Torah (and the rule of “it is enough”), and therefore the Talmud in Bava Kamma 25 says, “and ‘it is enough’ is of biblical origin.” The other principles are oral tradition. If I remember correctly, the Raavad noted this in his commentary on the baraita of the principles at the beginning of the Sifra, on the principle of “two verses that contradict one another.”
The principles by which the Torah is expounded are an aggadic idea that is not written in the Torah.
The Torah should be learned only according to the Torah: “And this is the Torah that Moses set before the children of Israel.”
This means this — that which he placed there at that moment — and not what people in later generations will say, that it is not this but that.
Thank you for your response. Do you know when study according to these principles ceased? And why did the Yad Malachi and others prohibit it (including Rashi on Sukkah 31a)?
And regarding what you wrote, that “any individual may make use of the principles” — do you not agree that the Jews have already accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all who join them, without exception, not to produce halakhot by means of these principles?
I acknowledge before you that there is no contradiction in Maimonides’ words. Let that notion be buried and not spoken.