Q&A: Do the Sages Intentionally Change the Torah’s Intent?
Do the Sages Intentionally Change the Torah’s Intent?
Question
In a number of areas, especially in the realm of capital law, the Sages turned the Torah’s commands into something entirely theoretical— the wayward and rebellious son, and the apostate city (according to one opinion), “never existed and never will exist”; the requirement of prior warning given immediately before the act (and more) makes punishment almost impossible; and even a person’s own confession is disqualified (“a person cannot render himself wicked”), so that in general it becomes impossible to punish at all, and so on. According to the Sages, all these things were written only so that one should “expound and receive reward.” Does that convince you? To claim that the Torah gives so many commands that are entirely theoretical (or almost entirely so) requires very strong evidence, and the Sages’ derivations from the verses are really not convincing. It just seems blatantly unreasonable.
For example, Rabbi Yehuda says that the wayward and rebellious son requires that his mother be identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height. He derives this from the fact that it says “in our voice” — implying a single voice — and if the voices have to be the same, then the appearance and height must also be the same. ????
From all this it seems that the Sages themselves consciously changed the Torah’s intent and turned the penal laws into theory because they did not like them.
That also seems to be the implication of the story of the Oven of Akhnai, where a heavenly voice itself says what the Holy One intended, and the Sages rule otherwise. If they have direct knowledge that this is the Torah’s intent, then why don’t they rule that way? Don’t they want to aim at the truth?
This issue has been bothering me for a long time, so I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response (or a reference if he has already addressed it). Does the Rabbi agree with me that in many cases the Sages are not aiming at the Torah’s truth and just do what seems right to them? And if not, how does the Rabbi see the matter?
Answer
I agree that this is how it appears, but in my view it is unlikely that this is actually the case. Let me begin by saying that midrashic interpretation is not bound to the plain meaning, so the fact that its outcome does not fit the plain meaning is not a difficulty. True, it is not clear how the tools of interpretation are applied, but that is true of all midrashic interpretations, not only of those that contradict the plain meaning. So it is likely that we have simply lost the skill of this kind of interpretation. That is why these interpretations seem strange and unfounded to us. As stated, this is true of very many interpretations, not only of those that contradict the plain meaning.
Discussion on Answer
Because there I do understand what is going on. Even if there is something unclear, it looks like a local problem and not the loss of the basic tools altogether.
And how do we know that the skills of reasoning and plain-sense reading were not also lost? Why is it that when talking about interpretive methods and exegesis, the Rabbi accepts that we do not know how to expound because it was an old skill that disappeared, but when it comes to arguing against things that do not suit us, that is fine? Maybe that disappeared too.