Q&A: Torah and the Oral Torah
Torah and the Oral Torah
Question
Hello Rabbi,
There is a dispute between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud about whether there is cooking in a first-cooked food that was removed from the fire. According to the Babylonian Talmud, as long as it is still at a temperature from which one's hand recoils, it still cooks. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, it does not, and the Jewish law follows the Babylonian Talmud. I am trying to understand: what was said to Moses at Sinai? That it could be understood this way and it could be understood that way? At that same time, would a Jew in the Land of Israel and a Jew in Babylonia have had different liability—one liable to karet / stoning and the other nothing? Could you explain the underlying principle? (More generally; this is just one example.) If there is information on this topic, could you point me to it?
Answer
What does this have to do with Sinai? Moses was not told anything about this matter. I am not even sure he was told a prohibition of cooking. He was told that there is a prohibition on doing labor on the Sabbath, and from that point on these are interpretations by the Sages. These disputes are interpretive.
Discussion on Answer
I want to understand something: why do I observe Jewish law? Until now I understood that God commanded me which commandments to observe. If people are interpreting it, then how is that exactly God's commandments and God's will? Who says that He meant what they interpret? Or did He give authority to someone to interpret, along with rules for how to interpret?
Indeed, from Moses onward. I do not know why you observe Jewish law; I can tell you why I observe it.
I observe Jewish law because it is God's will. How do I know what His will is? The Torah that was given at Sinai and the interpretations that were given there are not in our hands. Therefore there is an assumption, very reasonable in my view, that the Sages were given authority and permission to interpret the Torah, and it was given to us on that basis. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) derive this from the verse, “Do not turn aside,” and similar verses. If the Holy One, blessed be He, had not wanted this, He would have had to give something clearer on its face and say that He is not willing for human interpretations to be given to these matters. Anyone who thinks that a text can be given without interpretations is, of course, naive. There is no reading without interpretation.
Let me sharpen this further. I am not claiming that the Sages' interpretation is necessarily correct, meaning that it necessarily hits upon the Holy One's original intent. My claim is that even if it does not, His will is that we act in accordance with their interpretation. At most, you might say that if you have other clear information—meaning it is obvious to you that they are mistaken—then there is room to discuss it. But in any case, that is not the situation.
I very much appreciate the detailed answer. Thank you.
Just for the sake of understanding, which Sages are we talking about? Starting already from Moses' generation? Through the Tannaim and Amoraim?