INSIGHT
5766 - #28
TORAH SHE'B'AL PEH
Throughout Jewish
history, a major source of theological dissension within
the Jewish People concerned the belief in the Torah
She'b'al Peh, the Oral Torah. The Sadducees and the
Karaites both challenged its existence. Fundamental,
though, to Pharisaic/Rabbinic/Orthodox Judaism -
depending on which term one may wish to use -- is
the belief in Torah She'b'al Peh,1 also given on
Sinai with the Torah She'b'ktav, the Written
Torah. Simply, a distinguishing aspect of Orthodoxy is
the belief that Revelation did not solely consist of a
written text but included an accompanying body of Divine
knowledge to be passed on orally.2 For various reasons,
even to this day,3 this belief has always been an area of
great controversy, challenged both within the Jewish
world and outside of it.
In response to
these many challenges, proofs are often presented, from
the written text itself, in support of the necessary
existence of an Oral Torah. These various proof texts
demonstrate the impossibility of understanding the
written text without some commentary or explanation.4 The
problem is that those who opposed Torah She'b'al Peh
never really negated the necessity of a commentary and
explanation for the Biblical text or do they necessarily
reject a reality of an oral tradition. It was, and is,Chazal's,
the Rabbis', specific understanding of the oral tradition
that was, and is, under attack...and not without reason.
Torah She'b'al Peh does not just explain the text. It
fundamentally redefines Revelation,5 the nature of
the tradition and the text itself.
In technical terms, one usually finds two critiques of
Chazal's presentation of Torah She'b'al Peh.
One attack was that the parameters delineated by the
Rabbinic view of the oral tradition limited possible
understandings of the Biblical text. Torah She'b'al
Peh is limiting; its rules and statements, almost by
definition, reject variant possible meanings of the text.
In contrast, Karaite commentaries on the text reflect a
wide tolerance toward different readings of the text; in
fact, Karaite theology actually called upon each
individual to find personal understanding and meaning
within the text. To the Karaite, the only parameters on
understanding were one's own unique individuality and, of
course, the text itself. Finding one's own personal
understanding of the Bible, the Karaites argued, was what
God wished each person to achieve. The Rabbinic Torah
She'b'al Peh, with its strict parameters on textual
analysis and meaning, undermined this.
This, however, was
only a secondary irritant for the Karaites. Another
problem with Torah She'b'al Peh was that it seemed
to override the text. While Karaism offered tremendous
flexibility in the interpretation of the text, it still
demanded full loyalty to the text. They still demanded
that the meaning fit the words. An acceptance of Torah
She'b'al Peh demands of one to understand the text's
meaning pursuant to Torah She'b'al Peh regardless
of what the text actually says,. It is Chazal's
words that are paramount, not the text.
An excellent example of this is Bamidbar
12:1 which describes Miriam and Aharon discussing the
Cushite woman that Moshe took. Rashi, voicing the
thoughts of Chazal, states that this reference is
to Tzipora and concerns Moshe's separation from relations
with her. This is clearly not the simple reading of the
text.6 While Chazal;s reading of the text can be
worked into the text,7 such workings are always a bit
strained. This is not because these presentations lack
merit; as can be expected, there is always great wisdom
in the workings to connect Torah She'b'al Peh to
Torah She'k'ktav. Powerful insights into the language
of the text also often emerge. The difficulty is that,
while usually in textual analysis, the text is paramount,
an acceptance of Torah She'b'al Peh declares the
explanation paramount. In the normative study of
texts, we read the text and try to explain its meaning.
In reading Torah She'b'ktav with Torah She'b'al
Peh, we declare what the meaning is and try to show
how it fits into the words. Miriam and Aharon are talking
about Tzipora; the challenge is to figure out how the
text is conveying this message. And the reality is that,
without such directive, one would never offer such an
understanding based solely on the text itself.
This is
precisely the problem for so many people. The text is
seen as being overridden by the Rabbis; isn't our faith
in the Divine text and not the human rabbis? Torah
She'b'al Peh basically declares that our trust must
ultimately be in the transmission of the thoughts of
Chazal and not even the text. This, of course, is not
to say that the origin of the text is not Divine.
Orthodoxy clearly believes in the Divine origin of the
text. But what Orthodoxy ultimately is declaring is that
the understanding of this text, in fact our fundamental
link to Sinai, is not through the text but the human
transmission of the Rabbis. The result can perhaps be
summed up by the famous words of Hillel in T.B.
Shabbat 31a: "If you are to rely upon me to
explain the letters to you, rely upon me as to the
truth of Torah She'b'al Peh." Ultimately
truth flows from person to person even in regard to the
nature of a certain text. The call ofTorah She'b'al
Peh is to recognize this simple fact and to accept
the ultimate authority of the human chain of Sinai.
The
acceptance of this principle may, indeed, be daunting. We
are so immersed in the concept of the Divine origin of
the Bible that we may be somewhat at odds with a concept
that challenges the paramount nature of the text. We also
may find it difficult to accept Divine significance to
that which may be tainted by human fallibility. Yet, as
Hillel points out, even the acceptance of Torah
She'b'ktavsuffers these weaknesses. The text is only
seen as holy because one was informed as such by another
person. The authenticity of this text, furthermore, is
also dependent upon the human diligence extended in
protecting it. The daunting nature of this principle,
though, may actually emerge from another concern A
commitment to a text, while limiting to some extent, also
presents much freedom of expression. A text cannot
respond to us, critique us, direct us. To declare the
human link to Sinai to be paramount is to declare that
knowledge of tradition most flow through the human being,
which for any person means his/her teacher. It is a sad
fact of our generation that we lack in the development of
therebbi-talmid, teacher-student, relationship. To
accept Torah She'b'al Peh demands an
acceptance of the need for a teacher -- a living human
being who can relay the truth of Torah, respond to
us, critique us, direct us. To accept Torah She'b'al
Peh means to accept such direction. This indeed can
be daunting.Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail
Notes
(1) While people usually quote
Rambam's Eighth Principle of Faith (as found in his
Commentary to the Mishna, Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek,
Introduction) in regard to the necessary belief in
Sinai as the source of the Written Torah, Rambam clearly
includes the Oral Torah in this principle, both in regard
to its origin and its accuracy, at least in regard to
matters clearly enunciated at Sinai.
(2) The exact nature of Torah
She'b'al Peh is a matter of discussion within the
commentators. See, further, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht,
Forum: Torah She'b'al Peh, Nishma
Journal VI.
(3)
Upon reflection, many of the modern issues between
Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy, in fact, do parallel the
historical disagreements regarding the relationship of
the text and the tradition. I thankMichael Schweitzer
for this insight.
(4) A
classic example of this is Devarim 12:21. See,
further,Rashi, Ramban and the comments of Rabbi
J.H. Hertz.
(5)
See, for example, Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, The Cloud of
Revelation, Nishma Introspection 5763-1.
. (6) Even within the
Rabbinic tradition, see the comments of Rabbi Yosef
Bechor Shor on this verse.
(7) Rashi, in fact, does do so, to
some extent. See, also and perhaps more
extensively, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch..Further on this
general point, see Kuzari 3:41 which, in the
context of a general discussion and critique of Karaism,
explains how the Rabbinic understanding of the count of 7
weeks leading up toShavuot fits into the text.
Bottom line, Orthodoxy also insists that Torah
She'b'al Peh or the meaning of the text connect with
Torah She'b'ktav. The question is how.
Return to top
|