Q&A: The Role of the Oral Torah and the Written Torah
The Role of the Oral Torah and the Written Torah
Question
With God's help,
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask the Rabbi what he thinks is the correct definition of the Oral Torah, in relation to the Written Torah. And likewise the other way around.
As is well known, the Oral Torah is not always the plain meaning of the verses, and it is also not clear to me whether it is the deeper plain meaning of Scripture. If so, then insofar as there is an Oral Torah, why do we need the Written Torah? Just in order to remember? That sounds rather strange.
Also, one can continue and ask: if you say that at its origin the Oral Torah is not learned from the Written Torah, then there is something a bit strange about the fact that the thirteen hermeneutical principles are in fact learned from the Written Torah.
Nowadays there are some who explain this by saying that the Written Torah represents the ideas, as opposed to their practical implementation in actual Jewish law, which is the role of tradition and authority in the Oral Torah. They like to bring the example of "an eye for an eye" for this.
But in my humble opinion there is a fair difficulty with that, because from a superficial look the Written Torah does not seem all that allegorical.
On the other hand, it also does not seem to be especially a legal book, given that the passages are scattered throughout the Five Books, and many times it seems that laws are written after incidents involving the children of Israel, and so on. There are also contradictions between passages, additions, and more.
Thanks,
K
Answer
In principle, this distinction has no importance whatsoever. There is no halakhic difference between what is called the Written Torah and what is called the Oral Torah. It refers only to the source of the matters, not to their validity. Therefore this is a conceptual-philosophical question, but it has no halakhic significance and no practical consequence. However, according to Maimonides there is an identification between the Torah-level/rabbinic distinction and the Written Torah/Oral Torah distinction. I discussed this at length in my article on the second root and in my book Ruach HaMishpat. So according to Maimonides it is indeed a halakhic question.
The simple definition of the difference is that what is written in the Torah is Written Torah, and what is not is Oral Torah. Now we have to discuss what counts as something written in the Torah. Does what emerges from plain-sense interpretation count as written in the Torah? Not necessarily. The question is to what extent the interpretation is literal, and whether we see the interpretation as uncovering layers that exist within the Torah or as something that expands it. Beyond that, even if it uncovers, there is room to view it as Oral Torah, because in the end it is not actually written there, and it was the Sages who extracted it from there.
And what about laws derived through interpretive exegesis? Are they written in the Torah? It is quite clear that they are not. Maimonides' view (as I showed there and there) is that the derivations are expansions of the Written Torah and not the uncovering of deeper layers that exist within it. Other medieval authorities probably disagree with him on this, but even according to their view, it seems to me that such derivations are part of the Oral Torah.
By the way, rabbinic laws of all kinds are, in my opinion, not part of the Oral Torah. The distinction between Written Torah and Oral Torah exists entirely within the sphere of Torah-level laws. Rabbinic laws are not really Torah in the pure conceptual sense of the word.
But as stated, this is a semantic discussion and really not important.
Discussion on Answer
See my article on the first root (in the book Yishlach Sharashav).
The difference is between what Moses our Teacher wrote and what he did not write. And Joshua was commanded:
"Only be strong and very courageous, to observe and do according to all the Torah that Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may prosper wherever you go. This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, and you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful, and then you will prosper."
And the laws are learned through understanding the Torah. For that you need "and you shall meditate."
By the way, what does the Rabbi think about the question of why there is an obligation to obey rabbinic commandments according to Nachmanides, who does not derive this from a verse, and why according to Maimonides, who does derive it from a verse, this still does not have Torah-level force (for example, in a case of doubt regarding a rabbinic law one rules leniently, and the like)?