Q&A: Torah from Heaven
Torah from Heaven.
Question
As a Haredi who grew up and studied in Lithuanian yeshivas, I was educated to believe that the Torah was given at Sinai down to the finest detail, including the Talmud and even the discussions and developments of the medieval authorities, later authorities, and yeshiva heads.
I heard the Rabbi (on the Radical podcast with Jeremy Fogel) argue emphatically that the Oral Torah was not given at Sinai.
I would appreciate an elaboration on the subject, and also an explanation of how one can disagree so emphatically with all the great Lithuanian Torah scholars (and the Hasidim) throughout the generations, who firmly claimed and taught their students that the entire Torah, written and oral, in its plain sense and by allusion, was given to Moses at Sinai.
Answer
How can one disagree? Carefully. I say what I think, and whoever chooses will choose.
Every sensible person can see in the Talmud that these things were not given at Sinai, but rather developed over the generations. The very concept of “a law given to Moses at Sinai” implies that the rest was not given there. If this matters to you, many medieval and later authorities wrote this explicitly as well. The fact that many people blindly follow the education they received is indeed a regrettable fact. I try to judge them favorably and say that they present this as a noble lie—that is, in order to prevent damage among the masses who were raised on this flawed education. What the Sages meant when they said that everything was given at Sinai is that we should relate to all of it as though it was given there, and not belittle our obligation to things that developed later.
Discussion on Answer
A basic distinction is needed between the foundational assumptions of Jewish law, its system, the infrastructure of its definitions, and the process of inference, deriving conclusions, extending them longitudinally and laterally (the depth dimension is the above), analytically and synthetically—the logic of Jewish law, whose role is only to uncover its hidden content.
Now, to say that Moses did not receive the basis of the Torah system in full is absurd, because that would mean that not the whole Torah itself was given to us, and that there are things we invented independently. As for the extension and inference, there is no need for those to be given, whether because they will come later on their own or because they were in fact given, only hidden within the foundation. So what does it mean to say that Moses did not receive the Oral Torah—that he did not receive tablets?
And one should note their statement: “…everything that an experienced student will one day innovate”
That statement was explained in my remarks above. What exactly are you adding here?
There is a practical difference, because this is only a presumption and it can be challenged with counterarguments; also, one may hesitate to apply it when the moral or other cost is too high.
David Meshi, the question is too general. Obviously some sort of foundation was given. So what?
I was replying to the questioner—that the development not only can be independent, but has to be. That’s all.
Thank you for the quick response.
Is there any practical difference, in the Rabbi’s view, between saying that these things were actually given at Sinai and saying that we only need to relate to them as if they were?