Q&A: Forgetting the Torah, and the Torah in the First Temple Period
Forgetting the Torah, and the Torah in the First Temple Period
Question
With God's help
Hello Rabbi Michi,
I wanted to ask what you think about igod's question, from part 10:
There is a question, since we see a break in the tradition in the time of Isaiah, and we encounter this a few other times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), although it does not seem reasonable to me that this means they forgot the very Exodus from Egypt or the revelation at Mount Sinai. After all, from the finding of the Torah scroll itself, it is reasonable to assume that they knew in advance what to expect and were familiar with Moses our Teacher.
But it still sounds like they forgot parts of the commandments, as seems implied there (perhaps Passover?). If so, can one say that there was a break with regard to the Oral Torah? That is, if indeed they did not observe such basic commandments, then one cannot place trust in the concept of the "Oral Torah," because the sages were not given authority to expound the Torah, just as it does not seem that in their period they dealt very much with matters of Torah.
2. Also, how does the Rabbi understand the words of the Sages about Torah study in the First Temple period—for example, that in Hezekiah's time they could not find a boy or girl, man or woman, who was not expert in the laws of ritual impurity and purity?
And likewise, the Sages explain the halakhic give-and-take between Moses and Aaron regarding the goat of the sin-offering, which Moses "diligently inquired" about.
And likewise regarding Othniel son of Kenaz and his dialectical analysis, etc.
How does the Rabbi understand all these statements? Are they literal, or were they meant to express some other idea, and if so, what? Is this an "anachronistic" reading of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)?
Answer
- See the fifth notebook (the fifth talk in the first volume currently available).
- There is no necessity to read them literally. These are aggadic midrashim.
Discussion on Answer
Each thing on its own terms. Maybe it comes to say that from our perspective all the details of Jewish law should be seen as though they came from Sinai. Or perhaps they simply wanted to anchor these laws in history. And maybe the Sages really did believe in this anachronism. It does not seem interesting/important to me.
1. I meant only the Oral Torah, not the Written Torah; there is indeed no difficulty from this regarding that.
2. In any case, I assumed you do not take them literally, so how do you understand them? What exactly does that symbolize?