Q&A: Regarding: How the Torah Is Perceived in Our Eyes
Regarding: How the Torah Is Perceived in Our Eyes
Question
Hello and blessings,
The prevalent view among mitzvah-observant Jews is that our Torah is essentially the 613 commandments, and that they are the main thing in the Torah. But this seems difficult to me:
A. What need is there for all the stories in the Torah, the elaboration and expansion of various matters (the stories of the patriarchs, the story of building the Tabernacle, the journeys of the Israelites, etc.)? a0
B. This has practical implications—people tend to value actions only because they belong, categorically, to certain commandments. For example: if I do such-and-such an act, I thereby fulfill such-and-such a commandment. But from the stories of the Torah we see that this is not so. The patriarchs did things even though these were not commandments, because they saw them as acts of value: Abraham brought the masses to faith in God (apparently not because there is a commandment of faith), Abraham also performed kindness, and so on with the other deeds of the patriarchs, which there is no need to detail. a0
C. Does the Rabbi generally agree that the Torah itself is primarily the 613 commandments?
I wanted to know the Rabbi’s opinion on this subject. Does the Rabbi agree with these points or disagree?
I’d be glad to hear.
Answer
A. Indeed, I too agree with this conception. See Rabbi Yitzhak’s question in Rashi’s very first comment on the Torah, which assumes the same thing and raises your question. The other things are there to teach other matters, but their status is secondary. In the language of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin in Gate 4, this is the difference between the word of God and the will of God. And indeed, I do not see great value in studying the other parts of the Torah (except perhaps some sort of intrinsic/symbolic value. But it does not teach very much).
B. I do not think that what lies outside the commandments has no value. It has value, but not a halakhic one. See Maimonides at the end of chapter 8 of the Laws of Kings.
See also a bit in column 15 here on the site.
Discussion on Answer
A. It’s hard for me to believe too. So you explain to me why it was written and what we learn from it.
B. I meant: what is outside the commandments. Maimonides explains there that performing commandments on the basis of rational judgment has human and moral value (placing one among the wise of the nations), but not religious value (not among their pious). That is an example of the distinction I made here.
I’m not at all sure that the Torah scroll came to teach us how to observe the commandments.
After all, the Torah is phrased as a book that tells only the history of Israel.
It says, “And the Lord said to Moses, Speak to the children of Israel,” etc.
Seemingly, the biblical book we have in our hands was not written by Moses, since it says in it, “And Moses wrote this Torah and placed it in the Ark,” “And Moses died,” etc.
That implies there was another book, which has been lost to us, and that is what Moses wrote.
No?
It’s not only in the Torah. The book of Ecclesiastes speaks about Kohelet in the third person. The Scroll of Esther speaks about Esther (who is said to have written this Purim letter..) in the third person. All the prophets speak about themselves in the third person.
Ecclesiastes sometimes does speak in the first person; that could teach that the rest of the book is his too, and this was simply a writing style that was accepted.
It’s a bit difficult that you bring proof from Rashi’s initial assumption, when apparently the conclusion rejects that initial assumption.
If we formulate the question formally, the initial assumption rests on two premises:
A. Torah means instruction.
B. The first part of the Torah lacks instructions.
Conclusion: the first part is not Torah.
Rejection: the Torah is not a book of instructions but a revelation of the Divine Presence that justifies the Jews’ unique policy.
For some reason, the Rabbi accepts the first premise and ignores its rejection in the answer.
Y.D., read again. Following Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, I argued that it is secondary, not that it is not Torah. That is the conclusion, not the initial assumption. Rather, as in many cases, understanding the initial assumption sharpens the point.
In short, you presented my words incorrectly: correct the formulation of the conclusion, and everything will fall into place.
Hello and blessings, Rabbi,
A. It is hard to believe that God gave the Torah and spelled out and expanded on certain subjects even when there is no direct reference to laws. Entire stories about the deeds of the patriarchs, the establishment of the Tabernacle, and the journeys of the Israelites in the wilderness really do not fit the Rabbi’s approach, which sees the Torah scroll as the 613 commandments and nothing more.
B. “What is outside the commandments” — I didn’t understand those words. And I also didn’t understand the reference to Maimonides.
Thank you.