Q&A: Relevance in the Written Torah, Details of Jewish Law, Disparaging Torah Scholars
Relevance in the Written Torah, Details of Jewish Law, Disparaging Torah Scholars
Question
With God's help,
Rabbi Michael, hello!
- In your view, what is the right way to relate to long lists of names in the Torah, census numbers, and similar things, whose relevance is unclear? The Sages said that a prophecy needed for future generations was written down, but I cannot figure out what was needed for future generations in these lists and their lengthy detail (for example, the offerings of the tribal princes). Should one try hard to find meaning in them, perhaps in the mystical realm, or should one simply keep reading the weekly "twice Scripture and once translation" in order to fulfill one's obligation, even without finding any interest in these things?
- When dealing with the details of Jewish law, I often come away feeling that things have drifted from the lawgiver's intent, and that God's intent was not such an exaggerated involvement in details. Is it possible to understand that God left some room for a person's reasonable judgment within a certain range, after a general orientation of the commandment was given, or must one really find precise guidance for every detail of life and try to claim with certainty that this is God's will?
Does protecting against a slippery slope not come at the heavy price of a lack of trust in observing the fine details of the commandments as doing God's will?
- Regarding the Rabbi's wording about Torah scholars: in the Rabbi's discussion "Am I a heretic," the Rabbi rejects the possibility of authority in matters of thought. But the Sages also called one who disparages Torah scholars a heretic, and that would seemingly be an exercise of authority over actions. Why does the Rabbi not accept that authority? Is it because, in your opinion, those you speak out against are not Torah scholars, or because you think sharp wording has value, and for that you are willing to be called a "heretic"?
Answer
- I don't find much interest in the rest of the Torah's text either. What interest do you see in the stories of the plagues of Egypt, Joseph and his brothers, the blasphemer and the curser, and the rest of the narrative episodes in the Torah? I don't find added value in anything that is not Jewish law. I have written more than once that this has the holiness of the Written Torah, which is the holiness of the wording and not the content, unlike the Oral Torah, whose holiness is in the content and not the wording. If you want, attribute it to the esoteric realm and the like.
- I don't think Jewish law finds a norm for every detail in life. There are quite a few details about which it is indifferent. There is no point in trying to find Jewish law in every crack and crevice. Where it exists, it exists, and where it doesn't, it doesn't. This is not a question of what we want to find or what the trend is, but of what is actually there. It is true that in the Jewish law that has come down to us there are quite a few things that seem like there is room to change them or give them up, and there is a problem of authority. What can you do? It's the same in civil law: there are quite a few things that ought to be changed, but there is no authority to do so until the legislator decides. But the bottom line is that it's important to understand that this is not a question of trend but of truth. If we learned from the Torah that there is an obligation, then there is one, not because we want or don't want it. If you have a dispute with the existing Jewish law on this or that detail, then that itself should be addressed on its own merits, and not through the question whether the Holy One, blessed be He, wants details or not. If such a detail exists, then apparently He does want it. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter whether He would have wanted it. It simply isn't there.
- It certainly does. Therefore I have written more than once that one must be very careful with slippery-slope arguments, and certainly not make them ourselves. What has already been established by an authorized institution, the Sanhedrin or the Talmud, and has entered Jewish law, has entered. Beyond that, it is usually very much not recommended and not worthwhile to add more.
- There is no authority in matters of thought. This is not because I want or don't want it. Not because someone is or is not a Torah scholar. Authority does not exist in factual matters. First and foremost because it is logically impossible to define authority with respect to facts. Authority means that I must accept something even though I do not want to. With respect to Jewish law this is well defined: do not select on the Sabbath even though in your opinion it is permitted. The Sanhedrin ruled, and it has authority. That is the meaning of authority. Now try to formulate this with respect to a fact: believe in the coming of the Messiah because the Sanhedrin ruled so. Meaning: even though you think the Messiah will not come, believe that he will. But factually I think he will not come. So what do you want me to do? At most, you can try to persuade me that the Sages were very wise, and if they say so then they are probably right. But that is not authority; it is persuasion. And indeed, if you persuade me, I will be persuaded. An argument from authority means: believe even though you have not been convinced. That is not possible and not even definable with respect to facts, only with respect to norms. Beyond that, as a factual matter, authority over facts was never given to anyone or any body. But as I said, even if it had been given, I would not accept it. Maimonides writes in three places in his commentary on the Mishnah that there is no halakhic ruling in matters that do not pertain to practice. Amnon Neshke, in an interesting article, pointed out that in his halakhic code he does issue halakhic rulings in all three places, but only with respect to the practical implications; see there. On this issue, see my video lectures on the topic of authority: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATfaJ7mgURM&list=PLBFOeyQHoDOqIYuZu8bob8jgpA2REHS9f
I understand that consistency and continuity in numbering belong to those details in which the Holy One, blessed be He, has no interest. But for the sake of convenience and clarity, I suggest that we nevertheless be careful about it. 🙂
Discussion on Answer
Sometimes it's tempting to think that the Torah's instructions are general and so on. But one has to notice that if the commandments were only a general direction, they would be emptied of content very quickly. It also makes the punishments of a religious court ridiculous, and it's not clear why they exist at all. I can always claim that it seems to me one shouldn't be so exacting, and anyway what I did fits the "spirit of the commandment" and that sort of nonsense.
1. It is reasonable that this changed, but as I wrote, it doesn't matter. Discussion of a halakhic detail should be conducted on its own merits and not on the plane of general questions and declarations like whether details are important. Just as there is no halakhic significance to the question whether some ruling is innovative, conservative, original, and so on. Those are questions for scholars of Jewish law and how it operates. A halakhic discussion should be conducted on the basis of the halakhic arguments themselves. After that, the researchers can come and decide whether there was a change in Jewish law's relation to details or not.
2. What is the connection between the question of Jewish law and facts, and the question of styles of expression? When I criticize a person on the personal level and not only his arguments, I do so when in my opinion he deserves it, and especially when there is desecration of God's name in his words and actions. "In a place where there is desecration of God's name, no honor is given to a rabbi." Sometimes I criticize an argument in sarcastic wording, but then it refers to the argument and not the person, and so there is no disparaging of Torah scholars in that. The sarcastic phrasing does not express contempt for the person but for the argument, and it is only phrasing. There is always an argument that justifies the criticism, except that it is phrased in sarcastic language.
Hello,
I'll try approaching the question from another angle: isn't there, in the lists of names and numbers, a kind of challenge to the entire Oral Torah? There are so many things in the Talmud that are derived from an extra letter, or from the fact that the Torah could have been a bit shorter and nevertheless chose to write out the full sentence, or even the full word. For example, in the Talmud's exposition regarding the meal-offering of the High Priest, they derive something from the letter mem in "the priest who is greater than his brothers" rather than "the priest greater than his brothers"—a phrase whose syntax would have been a bit hard to understand. It sounds like the simple basic assumption of the Sages is that there is not even one extra letter in the Torah. If so, why does the Torah go on at such length in lists and numbers?
Similarly, if the Torah wanted to tell us, for example, that there is a water libation on the festival of Sukkot, it did not need to "hide" this in the letters mem-yod-mem in the passage of the offerings, but could have said it explicitly. Again it sounds like the Torah is economical with words and letters, and there is not even one extra letter in the Torah that did not need to be written.
True, it would certainly be possible to argue that, essentially, the practical matters in the Torah are written in a different mode, where there is reason to expound every letter and every crown, whereas in narrative matters there is no problem with expansiveness—but for that we would of course need to look for a rationale. Likewise, one could argue that essentially the Holy One, blessed be He, wants each Sanhedrin to expound the Written Torah differently according to what suits that generation, and therefore the Torah compressed and did not spell out the matters of Jewish law. Is that answer really convincing enough?
I seem to recall seeing in the name of Gersonides that the lists are there because at the time the Torah was given, that was the style of literature in all cultures, and against that background the Torah was given. To me that is an answer that might satisfy me, though it is still difficult why the Torah, which as said saves every letter that is not needed, prefers to be so lengthy in these matters and did not shorten them despite the cultural gap.
I would be glad for your answer, תודה.
Some have linked this attitude toward the Torah to the dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. According to Rabbi Ishmael, "the Torah speaks in human language," and he does not expound the crowns of the letters the way Rabbi Akiva does. But there is still room to wonder about Rabbi Akiva according to his own view.
I think these lists are actually not difficult for him. It was important to the Torah to spell out these lists, just as it was important to spell out Esau or Laban. I do not know why these things are important, but apparently they are important to it. If you like, perhaps it is for mystical reasons. As long as the description itself does not contain unnecessary words or letters, the content of these things is not difficult for Rabbi Akiva. But you are right that the Torah's formulations do not seem to be quite as minimal as Rabbi Akiva assumes, even apart from these lists. I have no answer to that, other than perhaps that this is an interpretive exposition merely supported by the verse, or an asmakhta.
It reminds me of the saying, "The conversation of the servants of the patriarchs is more pleasing than the Torah of the children," where the Sages base the importance of the matter on the Torah's lengthiness. As is known, Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman explained this as the view of Ran, that laws learned through expositions have a lesser status than laws written explicitly in the Torah, and therefore an oath can take effect with respect to them. Ran, Nedarim 8a. We see that the Torah sometimes elaborates not in order to teach us something, but to show that the subject is important to it. So too emerges from Maimonides in the ninth root, where he explains that the Torah repeats a certain commandment several times only in order to show its importance and not in order to teach something. And Nachmanides, in his glosses there, attacks him for this.
Thank you for the quick response, and sorry for the confusion in the numbering…
1. Regarding the attitude toward details: I'll try asking from a different angle. Is it possible to say that over the generations the approach in the study hall changed regarding how far one should go into the details, or is it simply that over time more and more details became clarified, and there is no principled change of approach here? In other words, it seems that in the days of the Hebrew Bible there was not the kind of attention to the fine points of Jewish law that there is today. Is this a matter of natural development or of a change in approach?
2. Regarding the last point, I'm afraid I wasn't understood. What I meant to ask about was expressions of disrespect toward Torah scholars that sometimes appear on this site. The question was that the Sages' determination that one who disparages Torah scholars is a heretic seemingly belongs to the realm of actions and not to authority in matters of thought. Therefore I asked why the Rabbi nevertheless uses that kind of style. Is it because he thinks that those he speaks against sharply, or with disdain, are not Torah scholars, or because even in this area the Rabbi sees no problem with the determination that one who does so is a heretic, even though this is a practical instruction concerning manner of expression and not thoughts?