Q&A: A Contradiction Between Midrashei Halakha and the View That Not All of the Torah Is from Sinai
A Contradiction Between Midrashei Halakha and the View That Not All of the Torah Is from Sinai
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I seem to remember that the Rabbi said that, in his view, something was given at Sinai, but not necessarily the entire Torah in the form in which it is written today. On the other hand, the Rabbi accepts (if I am not mistaken) the halakhic midrashim, some of which are based on close readings of the precise way the verses are written. But if those verses were simply written by human beings, there is no reason to assume that they contain halakhic interpretation in that way.
Let me sharpen the question a bit:
A. The Rabbi wrote in the third book of the trilogy (if I remember correctly) that the interpretive rules developed over time, and gave as an example the Talmudic passage in Pesachim about interpreting every occurrence of the word "et" in the Torah. This became a kind of test of whether that was in fact a valid interpretive method, and when Rabbi Akiva found that there was no counterexample in the verse "You shall fear the Lord your God," it seems that this interpretive method was not refuted and therefore is indeed valid. But even so, that still does not solve the contradiction, because if the verses of the Torah were really written by a human being, then it would be sheer coincidence that they managed to find an interpretation for all the occurrences of "et."
B. I assume that saying the halakhic midrashim are not really correct and that we accept only their results (that is, the halakhic rulings) because of the authority of the Sages is a poor solution. That pulls the rug out from under the entire method by which the Sages issue halakhic rulings, and besides, I am not sure there is any difference between this and laws that were ruled on the basis of an incorrect scientific fact—if there is a factual mistake at the foundation of a halakhic ruling, perhaps it needs to be reexamined. So that does not seem like a good solution to me.
Does the Rabbi have a solution to this contradiction?
Answer
I have written more than once that, in my assessment, only small parts were added later, if any at all. Therefore, the presumption is that the text is original unless proven otherwise. Beyond that, even what was added later was added by prophets through divine inspiration (apparently those who edited the original scrolls). So the assumption is that everything can be interpreted. That was the doubt regarding the Scroll of Esther—whether it was given to be interpreted or not. And the conclusion is yes, even though it certainly did not come from Mount Sinai.