Q&A: Who Wrote the Book of Deuteronomy
Who Wrote the Book of Deuteronomy
Question
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Megillah 31b
On fast days one reads blessings and curses, and one does not interrupt in the middle of the curses. From where are these words derived? Rabbi Hiyya bar Gamda said in the name of Rabbi Assi: As the verse says, “My son, do not despise the discipline of the Lord.” Reish Lakish said: Because one does not recite a blessing over calamity. So what does he do? It was taught: When he begins, he begins with the verse before them, and when he ends, he ends with the verse after them. Abaye said: They taught this only with regard to the curses in Torat Kohanim, but in the curses in Mishneh Torah one may stop. What is the reason? Those are stated in the plural, and Moses said them from the mouth of the Almighty; whereas these are stated in the singular, and Moses said them on his own initiative.
It seems to follow from here that Mishneh Torah, meaning the Book of Deuteronomy, was said by Moses on his own initiative.
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 99a
Another baraita taught: “For he has despised the word of the Lord” — this refers to one who says that the Torah is not from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from Heaven except for this verse, which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say, but rather Moses said on his own initiative — this is “for he has despised the word of the Lord.” And even if he says: The entire Torah is from Heaven except for this inference, or this a fortiori argument, or this verbal analogy — this is “for he has despised the word of the Lord.”
From here it seems that to say such a thing is to disgrace the word of the Lord.
I saw various explanations of this, and I tried to find the Rabbi’s treatment of it on the site, but I didn’t find one.
I’d be glad, before the upcoming start of the book, to know the Rabbi’s view on this matter, and whether according to the opinion that says Moses said it on his own initiative there are any practical implications.
Answer
As I understand it, statements like these should be interpreted on the normative plane, not the historical one. Like the saying that everything an experienced student is destined to innovate was said/shown by the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses at Sinai. The meaning is that any such innovation is regarded like the Torah that was given at Sinai, because its interpretations are part of it. Therefore one should not dismiss these things on the grounds that they are not Torah but rather the words of Moses or of that student. If it is said as an interpretation of the Torah, it is part of the Torah and is binding like it. Similarly, there are Talmudic statements about some Jewish law that it is a “law given to Moses at Sinai,” and some of the medieval authorities (the Rosh and Tosafot) write that this is actually a rabbinic law, and the reason they said it was a law given to Moses at Sinai was only to strengthen it — meaning that one should relate to it as though it were a law given to Moses at Sinai.
And in my view, this is how this midrash should be read:
Another baraita taught: “For he has despised the word of the Lord” — this refers to one who says that the Torah is not from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from Heaven except for this verse, which the Holy One, blessed be He, did not say, but rather Moses said on his own initiative — this is “for he has despised the word of the Lord.” And even if he says: The entire Torah is from Heaven except for this inference, or this a fortiori argument, or this verbal analogy — this is “for he has despised the word of the Lord.”
One who says, “The Torah is not from Heaven,” meaning that therefore it is not binding, falls into the category of “for he has despised the word of the Lord.” Why? Because this too is the word of the Lord, even though it was indeed not said to Moses directly by the Lord. And the proof is that this is also said about an inference or an a fortiori argument, which are certainly innovations of the sages of later generations. Therefore there is no obstacle to saying the same thing about a verse that appears at the beginning of the statement.
This seems to me to be the correct explanation, and I don’t see any strain in it. This is the way of aggadah, to express itself in such a metaphorical manner. And one who reads aggadot like these literally belongs to that one of the three sects that Maimonides mentions in his introduction to the chapter Helek.
I didn’t understand which “upcoming start of the book” you meant.
Discussion on Answer
And in general, what then is the distinction between Torah-level law and rabbinic law?
It’s enough just to mention the laws of the Sabbath, which rely heavily on this distinction.
I didn’t understand the question. I said that it was stated by Moses, and therefore one may stop. The fact that it has a status like that of the Torah is regarding the binding force of its content. But the wording is Moses’ wording, and therefore one may stop. What’s the problem here?
If by “the upcoming book” you mean my third book, I explained everything there. Torah-level laws are mostly products of the sages’ interpretation of the Torah. Rabbinic laws are legislation enacted by the sages. But everything is the handiwork of the sages.
More power to you, Rabbi Michi, thanks for the insight.
Why does the fact that the wording is from Moses mean that one may stop, but in Leviticus one may not stop?
As for “the upcoming book” — I meant the Book of Deuteronomy.
Ask the Talmud that. It has nothing to do with our issue.
Didn’t you see Tosafot on the Talmud passage you brought? As best I remember, this is their wording: “Moses said it on his own initiative — and with divine inspiration.” See there.
They answer the question quite clearly.
And in general, in explaining the Talmud passage, look at Rashi — he answers the question, “Why does the fact that the wording is from Moses mean that one may stop, but in Leviticus one may not stop?”
But from the fact that the Rabbi wrote that the real explanation of the Talmud in Sanhedrin is as follows: one who says, “The Torah is not from Heaven,” meaning and therefore it is not binding, falls into the category of “for he has despised the word of the Lord.” Why? Because this too is the word of the Lord, even though it was indeed not said to Moses directly by the Lord. And the proof is that this is also said about an inference or an a fortiori argument, which are certainly innovations of the sages of later generations. Therefore there is no obstacle to saying the same thing about a verse that appears at the beginning of the statement. End quote. I understand that the Rabbi’s view is that Moses did not write this with divine inspiration [otherwise there is no question and the whole responsum disappears]. But my question is: if so, then why does the Torah have authority if Moses wrote it himself??? And it’s also clear that this is not the view of the sages of the Talmud, but rather that Moses wrote it with divine inspiration, as Tosafot wrote, and likewise from Rashi and the other medieval authorities. Therefore Tosafot’s explanation of the contradiction seems correct.
Not true. Moses wrote with divine inspiration, and there is still a difference between that and what was said directly by the Holy One, blessed be He. No connection.
Fine. What the Rabbi just wrote now is exactly the view of the medieval authorities and Tosafot that I mentioned. But if that is the Rabbi’s view, then what is the contradiction? [If that is the Rabbi’s view, then what is the contradiction that was raised to Aviv Levy??? Since Moses said it on his own and in his own wording, but with divine inspiration, as Tosafot answered.] And from the fact that the Rabbi explained that the Talmud in Sanhedrin is what Aviv Levy didn’t understand, but rather the meaning is as the Rabbi wrote: “One who says, ‘The Torah is not from Heaven,’ meaning and therefore it is not binding…” — then the Rabbi answered the question by saying Moses did not write it with divine inspiration, but still it is binding, and that is the meaning in Sanhedrin. But now the Rabbi writes that Moses said it with divine inspiration — so what is the contradiction and what is this whole responsum about????????? I don’t understand!
I don’t understand this hair-splitting. I explained everything, and it all seems completely clear to me.
Moses spoke with divine inspiration, and still one may stop because it is Moses’ language and not the language of the Holy One, blessed be He. What was said — that everything is from Sinai — is only on the normative plane. That’s all.
Why do we need to get to the point that it’s on the normative plane?????? הרי the Rabbi holds that Moses spoke with divine inspiration, so the difficulty isn’t difficult at all!!!! Just as Tosafot wrote. I really don’t understand — why is the Rabbi giving two answers?!
Because this is not something that the Holy One, blessed be He, said directly, but rather Moses said with divine inspiration. We’ve exhausted this.
If it’s not on the normative plane, then what’s the difficulty? In short, what is this responsum dealing with?
Sorry, when I wrote that I hadn’t seen this.
But in the Rabbi’s words I don’t understand — divine inspiration is not from Heaven? That’s exactly the same thing, and that’s Tosafot’s answer.
Torah from Heaven — that means it was written with divine inspiration.
What is divine inspiration according to the Rabbi?
Not true. Divine inspiration is indirect prophecy (which in a certain sense exists even among sages who are not prophets). What Moses said with divine inspiration is a human formulation. Torah from Sinai was given in the language of the Holy One, blessed be He.
And from “from Heaven” one can say (and this is Tosafot’s view) that “from Heaven” means in human wording — that divine inspiration is also from Heaven. In short, Tosafot’s view is that divine inspiration is enough for “from Heaven.” If not, how does the Rabbi explain Tosafot?
Or does the Rabbi disagree with Tosafot? (But if we hold like Tosafot, then it’s resolved.)
In short, indirect prophecy also comes from Heaven, and therefore Tosafot is right that “Torah from Heaven” means that it was written with divine inspiration.
Tractate Bava Batra 15a:
The Master said: Joshua wrote his book and the last eight verses of the Torah. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that Joshua wrote the last eight verses of the Torah, as it was taught: “And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there” — is it possible that Moses died and then wrote “and Moses died there”? Rather, up to this point Moses wrote; from here on Joshua wrote. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda, and some say Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Is it possible that a Torah scroll would be missing even one letter, when it is written, “Take this book of the Torah”? Rather, up to this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote; from here on, the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses wrote in tears, as it says elsewhere: “And Baruch answered them: He proclaimed all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them in ink in the book.” According to whom goes this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: The last eight verses of the Torah are read by an individual? Shall we say it is Rabbi Yehuda and not Rabbi Shimon? Even if you say Rabbi Shimon, since they are different, they are different.
You don’t need proofs that the view of the sages is that Moses wrote it with divine inspiration, but this is an example.
Thanks for the answer.
I’ll keep going and ask: if “it is part of the Torah and is binding like it,” why does the Talmud in Megillah distinguish and say that in the curses in Mishneh Torah one may stop?