Q&A: The Authority of the Sages Against the Written Text
The Authority of the Sages Against the Written Text
Question
Hello,
I wanted to ask a question.
When the Written Torah gives us an explicit command to do act x, and the Sages interpret it differently as y, why should we follow the Sages and not the Torah? After all, the Torah was written from the mouth of God, while the Sages said this on their own authority. Or perhaps it is reasonable to assume that an error crept in over the generations, if that Jewish law was said to go back to Sinai.
I haven’t heard a good answer to this question. I’d be glad if the Rabbi could help.
Just as an example: the Torah says, “Then his master shall bring him to the judges; and he shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever,” whereas the Sages interpret this as the door adjacent to the doorpost.
Answer
The tradition says that the Oral Torah was given together with the Written Torah. Beyond that, the midrashic interpretation can contradict the plain meaning, and there is still no contradiction. The plain meaning stands in its place and the midrashic interpretation stands in its place, and both are binding. Beyond that, the Sages who offered such an interpretation also understood that it goes against the plain meaning. There is no reason to assume that a corruption occurred, though one can discuss why they interpreted it this way and not according to the plain meaning. And I already answered that above.
Discussion on Answer
What I meant in the first part was: how can one say that both are binding? After all, in the end the religious claim is that only the midrashic interpretation is binding for everyday observance of Jewish law.
Matanel, I wrote an article establishing the authority of the Oral Torah, and I addressed at length, among other things, the contradiction between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. You can see it here in chapters 6 and 7:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mK1MZ7j0Y0fB5ljZpVqSw5beZZwIYuN6/view
Thanks, I’ll look into it on Saturday night.
Do you have a resolution there for the example I raised? I mean, bore his ear at the door or at the doorpost?
I’m familiar with the answers to basic contradictions like “an eye for an eye,” where it speaks about what would be fitting to impose on the injurer, as a kind of ideal reality, for example.
But in my example there doesn’t seem to be any possibility of that kind of resolution.
Yes. It’s not a specific resolution for this or that contradiction, but rather general explanations for why one should not reject the Oral Torah because it contradicts the Written Torah (for example, that the Written Torah represents the earlier Jewish law from the wilderness period, while the Oral Torah represents the later Jewish law from the time of entering the Land). Overall, I want to equate the status of the tradition with the status of the written text, and therefore when there is a contradiction between them, one should not automatically reject the tradition.
Indeed, when it is impossible to fulfill both, the midrashic interpretation is decisive. In many cases both are implemented together. I already answered the question.
You wrote:
Beyond that, the midrashic interpretation can contradict the plain meaning, and there is still no contradiction. The plain meaning stands in its place and the midrashic interpretation stands in its place, and both are binding. — How can both be binding, if we follow both the plain meaning and the midrashic interpretation together?
Beyond that, the Sages who offered such an interpretation also understood that it goes against the plain meaning. — That’s part of the problem….
There is no reason to assume that a corruption occurred, though one can discuss why they interpreted it this way and not according to the plain meaning. And I already answered that above. — Where did you answer that above?