Q&A: Rabbinic Laws
Rabbinic Laws
Question
Hello Rabbi,
There’s a question that has been bothering me for a while. Why, when they enacted rabbinic ordinances and decrees, didn’t they write them down in an orderly way?
I can understand that with Torah-level laws it’s more complicated, and they didn’t want to leave them “fossilized,” so they transmitted them orally. But if they instituted a new decree or ordinance, why not write it down clearly and systematically (and save the “headache” of wondering whether a given law is Torah-level or rabbinic)?
Answer
I’m not sure I understood the question. The Torah was transmitted orally. It was not written down, so I don’t know what the original formulation of the various ordinances was.
What I find difficult is Maimonides’ statement that if a religious court does not say that something is an ordinance or a decree, then they violate "do not add". But in the Talmud it usually is not clarified whether a given law is Torah-level or rabbinic, and there are in fact many disputes about this.
Discussion on Answer
These aren’t specific disputes. There are many disputes among halakhic decisors about whether a given law is Torah-level or rabbinic. Every such dispute points to an ambiguity that, according to Maimonides, should not have existed.
I assume they did not write down the ordinances for the same reason they did not write down the Oral Torah. There is a prohibition against writing down the Oral Torah. I’m not sure the ordinances are really included in that prohibition (I’m not even sure they are part of the Torah or the Oral Torah. They are part of Jewish law, of course), but apparently that is what they thought at the time.
In any case, a law book could not really have existed because of the Torah-level laws. So I don’t see much value in a partial law book that would include only decrees and ordinances.
Is there anyone who reconciles this Maimonides with the fact that the Talmud does not indicate that something is rabbinic?
I don’t know. I would look in the Frankel key volume.
Thank you very much. Could you point me to those disputes?
My question is why, in your opinion, they decided to transmit the ordinances and decrees orally as well, instead of writing them down in a kind of law book.