Q&A: Regarding Miriam Weitman’s Article
Regarding Miriam Weitman’s Article
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I read Miriam Weitman’s article. It really is a difficult article. What I can’t understand is this: even if we say explicitly that Rabbi Yehuda he-Hasid and his students indeed held this view, what do they do with explicit Talmudic passages? Miriam Weitman’s third suggestion as well—that perhaps they ruled in accordance with a different opinion in the baraita—is a very difficult suggestion.
Thank you very much.
Answer
Regarding what the Talmudic passages say, I would make two comments: 1. The Talmud has authority in Jewish law, but not regarding facts. There can be factual errors. The question whether everything was given at Sinai is a factual question. 2. Most statements in the Talmudic passages can be interpreted as normative statements rather than historical ones. One should relate to the entire Torah as if it was given at Sinai, but not necessarily that this is what happened historically.
Discussion on Answer
And what about Jewish laws that developed over the generations—do they have authority? If the verse “And Lotan’s sister was Timna” was added later, does that break your faith? The additions and editing were apparently also done by prophets according to God’s word, so I don’t see any fundamental problem with that.
As I wrote to you, when people say that everything was given at Sinai, they can certainly also mean a normative statement and not a historical one. But I don’t think it matters which medieval authorities thought this way and which did not.
Hello Rabbi,
It’s a bit hard for me to accept the second claim, because relating to what is written in the Torah as though it was given at Sinai, even though part of it was not, clearly detracts from its divine authority. Aside from those medieval authorities mentioned in the article, are there others who hold this view, or do the rest maintain, like Maimonides, that everything was given at Sinai?