Torah min HaShamayim

"'This emanated from Hashem; it is wondrous in our eyes' - This means that the intention to believe in Torah that it is from heaven, and all of its details and particulars, is above our intellectual comprehension..."

-(Vilna Gaon, Kol Eliyahu, Tehillim 118:23)

The Mystery of Revelation

The nature of prophetic revelation is certainly mysterious. I have often said that the most common verse in the Torah is the most mystical: "Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe leimor- And G-d spoke to Moses, saying..."

The statement that "Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe leimor" includes two connected by different propositions. First, that there was a revelation of the Divine that culminated in the written (and to some extent oral) Torah, and, second, that this revelation occured at Mt. Sinai sometime in the late second millenium. When thinkng about faith it is important to distinguish between these two propositions. Is one investigating the "historicity" or "composition" of the Torah objectively or is one really in the pursuit of the denial of revelation? Chief Rabbi Sacks and R. Nathan Lopez Cardozo view the approach(es) of Biblical Criticism as the latter. This is not to say that there are no questions, but it is to say that there are also no answers for the one who a priori denies revelation and the possibility of miracles that the revelation records.

****

I will now present to seemingly opposing views on why modern man has such difficulty in accepting revelation (both of the Divine will and Divine action) and Torah in particular.

R. Shalom Dovber Schneerson writes that in different historic eras there were diferent levels of Divine emanation. During the first Beit ha'Mikdash the normal level of Divine emanation was that of Yetzirah. After the destruction of the Second Beit ha'Mikdash that level disappeared and the level was that of Asiyah (Yom Tov shel Rosh Hashana, b'sha'a sh'hikdimu, pp. 861 and 1440-50, referenced in R. Nachman Cohen, Mirrors in Eternity, pg. 443). Thus, modern man is looking at the Torah from a perspective lower than that in which it was written.

R. Jeremy Kagan (The Jewish Self, pgs. 16-17) further develops this point: "If we find the Torah irrelevant when trying to determine our humanity and how to attain it, we must ask where the fault lies. Is it possible that this document, which has nurtured the soul of man throughout recorded time, has nothing of interest to say on a subject that so troubles the spirit?...If we are incapable of finding guidance in the Torah, perhaps the fault lies with us; perhaps we have lost the ability to read it. The Torah testifies about itself that it "is not an empty thing," to whcih the Talmud adds, "These words are not empty. If they appear empty, the emptiness is in you." Why are we deaf to the Torah's message? What are we missing?

"Our sages would answer that the emptiness which renders us incapable of relating to the Torah derives fro our loss of a natural sense of connection to transcendent Spirit. This sense of connection defined man in an earlier era and incorporated the spiritual dimension of reality into his moment-to-moment awareness. When transcendent Spirit defined experience, the Torah's spiritual perspective on reality was familiar and natural.

"Human awareness of the spiritual center of existence, however, has been fading continiously for more than three thousand years. A criticial juncture was passed when prophecy disappeared almost two and a half thousand years ago. At that point we lost sight of the transcendent Source at the foundation of our individual being and our world, and we can to understand ourselves and our world as essntialy physical. The Torah's spiritual vision ceased to be a natural description of reality."

Closely related to this approach is formulated by John N. Oswalt (The Bible Among the Myths, pg. 12): "But the idea that this world is not self-explanatory and that revelation from beyond it is necessary to understand it is profoundly distasteful to us humans. It means that we are not in control of our own destiny or able to make our own disposition of things for our own benefit. This thought, the thought that we cannot supply our ultimate needs for ourselves, that we are dependent on someone or something utterly beyond us, is deeply troublesome...The turn away from outside authority of all sorts to extreme individual autonomy was utterly inimical to the idea of revelation." In other words, modern man's overemphasis on the "I" has led to his inability to confront the "Thou."

However, there is a different, although not necessarily contradictory, approach as to why we have difficulty relating to the Torah specifically. This approach maintains that, although the message and content of the Torah is eternal, the presentation is very much tied to the historical context in which it was delivered.

R. Kook (Orot ha'Emunah, pg. 25, translated by Yaacov Dovid Shulman) characteristically follows this approach:

"There is such a thing as denial of faith that is like acknowledgment of faith. And there is also such a thing as acknowledgment of faith that is like denial.

"A person may acknowledge that the Torah is from heaven. But his picture of heaven is so distorted that it contains not even a trace of true faith. On the other hand, a person may deny that the Torah is from heaven. But his denial is based only on what he has learned from believers whose minds are filled with empty and confused thoughts. As a result, he decides that the Torah must have a higher source than that. And so he seeks its source in the greatness of the spirit of humanity, in the depth of ethics and in the Torah's spirit of wisdom. Although this has not yet brought him to the heart of truth, such a denial is considered acknowledgment. And it steadily comes ever closer to faith. A confused generation of such people must certainly improve.

"This question as to whether or not the Torah is from heaven is merely one example that illustrates all questions of faith, general and particular: the relationship between how they are perceived and their core being, the latter being the goal of faith."

R. Bachya (Chovot ha'Levavot, Sha'ar ha'Bitachon, Chapter Four; see Marpeh Nefesh there on anthropomorphisms; Ibn Ezra on Devarim 32:39; Rambam, Ma'amar al Techiat ha'Metim; also see Rambam on Karbonot in Moreh Nevukhim III:32, 49) takes this apporach even further and suggests that even the content of the Torah was limited due to the historical context in which the Torah was given. He suggests that the reason why Olam ha'Bah is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah is because Israel at that time was not sufficiently spiritually mature to understand that concept. While I do not believe that this explanation is fully correct, it nevertheless gives us a model with which we can deal with similar issues. Perhaps modern man cannot accept the revelation of the Torah because they seek something yet higher and lofiter. Their spirits do not find satiation in the Torah because they yearn for Torat ha'Moshiach which will dwarf the original revelation (Kohelet Rabbah 11:8).

If we follow this second approach how is modern man supposed to connect to the Torah? This question will be addressed in an upcoming post.

Why is there an Oral Torah I

Now that we have concluded our discussion concerning the importance of learning the Oral Torah, and specifically Gemara, we now turn to the related question of "Why is there an Oral Torah?" To further clarify the question we will ask this on each part of the Oral Torah: Halakha l’moshe m’Sinai and Peirushim ha’Mekubalim, laws created through interpretation or logic, and Gezerot and Takkanot.

Halakha l’moshe m’Sinai and Peirushim ha’Mekubalim

Why did G-d decide to give an incomplete written law while leaving its full explication to oral tradition? This question is particularly strong with regard to Halakha l’moshe m’Sinai and Peirushim ha’Mekubalim which cannot be derived through interpretation. The strength of these laws derive solely from oral tradition.

R. Yehoshua Heller of Telz (Ma’oz ha’Dat, pg. 36) writes that asking why the Torah is split into two is like asking why G-d made it so that the ears and the eyes are on two different parts of the face. We don’t know why but we believe that G-d had His reasons. Nevertheless, in this case, there are plenty of plausible reasons to suggest.

First, there is the practical consideration that the entire Torah is too large to be written down (Eruvin 21b). This is especially relevant in the ancient world which did not benefit from the printing press. Therfore, it was the norm for there to be oral explanations of a written text in ancient times. However, this doesn’t explain why some narratives are extremely long or repetitive while law sections are very short. It was certainly possible for “most of the Torah to be in writing and the minority oral.”

Second, perhaps orality was the norm and the written word the exception. It appears from Tanakh that law was reduced to writing as part of the covenant-making process between G-d and Israel (e.g. Shemot 24:3-8; Yehoshua 24:25-26). Writing law is associated with covenant-making since, in the case of the Torah, the laws are the stipulations of the covenant. At least some of the provisions of the covenant must be written down which serve as a paradigm – “this and all other laws like it.” This approach is further bolstered by the generally accepted theory that Shemot, Vayikra and Devarim are in the form of ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. See R. Shamah's essay.

Third, an oral tradition forces a student to learn from a teacher. This is important for a number of reasons. This ensures a close-knit relationship with a teacher which in turn ensures a close-knit community; the Torah is personal, not just an intellectual topic and thus can only be kept and understood within a covenantal community and culture. Orality also insures that the covenant remains the private treasure of the covenental community; the Nations of the world only have access to the written word, not the oral teachings (Tosefot on Gitten 60; Pachad Yitzchak, Chanukah 1:2).

Lastly, the Rambam (Moreh Nevukhim 1:71), R. Tzadok (Likkuitei Ma’marim 104b), Maharatz Chayes and R. Hirsch in his letters, teach that oral transmission is a more reliable form of communication because it includes personal involvement with the teacher (gestures, tone of voice, context etc.).

Laws created through interpretation or logic and Gezerot v'Takkanot

Why did G-d leave His will partially obscured and unrevealed from Israel? Why are many of the details concering Biblical laws left to the Sages to discover and determine? This is particularly bewildering in light of the amount of disagreement among the Sages.

There are two basic approaches to this question. The first approach suggests that human interpretation is necessary in order to maintain the fluidity and adaptability of the Torah. R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner (Hakdama l'Dor Revi’i based on Midrash Shmuel; Sefer Ikkarim 3:23; See See Sota 5:2 and Ketav v’Hakaballah Devarim 23:3) argues that the purpose of the Oral Law was to allow the judges and sages of each generation to adapt the halakhah to contemporary circumstances (Devarim 17:8 -11). It was to preserve this adaptability that writing down the Oral Law had originally been forbidden. A written text of the Oral Law, necessarily embodying a particular set of interpretations of the Written Law, would have greatly narrowed the power of the Sanhedrin to reinterpret the Written Law. R. Glasner writes:

“Even though the Torah was given complete and one is forbidden to add to it or subtract from it… [even] a prophet may not innovate anything--this refers only to adding to, or subtracting from it, but permission is given to every authorized court to interpret it and derive new laws. This too is similar to the Creation, for though no human has the ability to create ex nihilo, but he [has the ability] by combining separate [already existent] forces and elements to provide a hidden internal combination. Creation and the Torah are similar in this; the only difference is that while Creation was given to all mankind to manipulate, the Torah was given only to the Chosen People, the Israelites; it is ours, to love and perfect, to meditate on it with self-sacrifice in order to attain the light in it that will reveal to us new lights which give content to our spiritual lives.”

and,

“For it is true that it was the will of the blessed Commander to divide the Torah into two -- written and oral -- so that the spirit of each generation would achieve realization by understanding the holy Torah and its commandments. In this sense there is a partnership between Man and G-d. But only the spirit of the nation and its sages when dwelling on its land, and living a full national life, secure in its independence from every direction, with no admixture of the spirit of the nations of the world. For, only when the holiness of the Jewish nation could develop securely in its own land was the Torah given over to be explained and interpreted according to the understanding of the contemporary judges whose judgments were to be followed even if they said "right is left" or "left is right," but not when the nation is scattered among the other nations and its sages oppressed by the yoke of physical and spiritual exile, when all the influences of the nations of the world are buffeting them and destroying the holy spirit within them."

The purpose of writing down Mishna and later the Gemara was to create an authoritative and binding source for halakha. Thus, when the Mishnah was redacted the Sages no longer disagreed with their predecessors (See Kesef Mishna, Hilkhot Mamrim 1:2).

The second approach focuses on the importance of interpretation in religious life. As Susan Handelman points out, the thirteen hermenutical principles are a part of the prayer service - interpretation is part of Divine service! Interpretation and application of the law insures that Torah will be an all-consuming task (Devarim 6; Yehoshua 1:8; Tehillim 1, 19, 119). Furthermore, in order for Divine service to be internalized Man must be active (see Seforno on Bamidbar 28:6). In Kabbalistic terminology, the Oral Law is “hitaruta d’l’tata” – awakening from below (see Tanchuma, Noach #3).

However, human interpretation almost by definition means that there will be disagreement and confusion; apparently, G-d values creativity over clarity!

The Skverer Rebbe

"Merely seeing the face of Tzadikim is beneficial" (Sefer ha'Midot, 6)











Painting by Yona (acrylics on marble)