Q&A: Methods by Which the Torah Is Interpreted
Methods by Which the Torah Is Interpreted
Question
Hello and blessings,
It is explained in the words of the Sages that there are methods by which the Torah is interpreted, and in that way legal rulings are derived from the Torah.
Question:
A. By what criterion did the Sages sometimes use these interpretive methods, and other times simply explain the verse?
B. There is a concept that when one learns from the Writings it is called sacred matters—what is the source for this? And what authority does such a law have?
Thank you
Answer
A. There are no criteria. There is the plain meaning and there is exposition. If it fits to use an interpretive method, then one uses it. That does not contradict also explaining it according to its plain meaning in parallel.
B. I didn’t understand. Do you mean a sacred matter regarding bringing it into filthy alleyways?
Discussion on Answer
A. I answered that. Every method—among the textual methods, as distinct from the logical ones, such as an a fortiori inference and prototype constructions—begins with some textual structure in the Torah, like a generalization and specification, or a verbal analogy. When there is such a structure, it is expounded according to the relevant method. There is no choice or decision here. This is done everywhere that such a structure exists. All this is alongside the plain-meaning interpretation.
B. I’m not familiar with the term “sacred matters.” You didn’t invent it, did you? My view of learning the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)—all three parts—is that there is nothing to learn from them. But one who does learn from them thinks he is learning Torah. I don’t deny that it is Torah; I deny that this is learning.
There are nice homiletic ideas, and there are actual laws, but they are not Torah-level; rather they are “words of tradition.” Except for mere clarification of a term—terminology that is based on a verse from the Prophets or Writings—which can create a Torah-level law.
If you want to discuss it, bring an example; otherwise we’ll remain at the level of slogans.
A. But according to the Rabbi’s approach to learning the Hebrew Bible, how can one derive a law from the Hebrew Bible if it is on the level of the plain meaning? After all, one can explain it however one wants.
B. How does one know whether it is a Torah-level law or just a non-binding nice homiletic idea? Is there a criterion?
My approach to learning the Hebrew Bible is explained elsewhere. But that is in the non-halakhic parts. In Jewish law there is learning, and a large part of it is based on tradition. Don’t expect formulated criteria. It doesn’t work that way.
When the Rabbi writes “tradition,” does he mean a law given to Moses at Sinai, or a tradition of how to derive things from verses? And if it is the second option, where is that tradition today—has it been lost?
The second. It has been lost to us.
A. Yes. But why are there verses from which the Sages chose to derive a law by means of an interpretive method, while there are verses explained according to the plain meaning? Based on what did they see in the verse which way it needed to be interpreted?
B. There is Torah, Prophets, and Writings; I mean the Writings—sacred matters—like Proverbs, and I asked whether one derives teachings from the Writings, and what their authority is: a nice homiletic idea, rabbinic, or Torah-level.