I am writing a chapter about Orthodox Judaism in a book that will be read primarily by non-Jews. Right at the beginning I wanted to put down "Torah miSinai" as one of its defining characteristics. Then I realized I had to define what "Torah" means in this context, since it is not merely referring to the Chumash or the Tanach, which is probably what most people would assume (if they have any familiarity with the word "Torah" in the first place). THEN I realized that defining it here is not such an easy task at all! Torah can also refer to the entire corpus of Jewish law and thinking - but that can't be said to have been given over at Sinai. And it also doesn't seem correct to say that Torah miSinai is referring to whatever portion of the written Torah was actually handed down at that time. So what is it?
R' Eidensohn was gracious enough to let me turn it over to the klal to see what others think. It's an interesting question, at any rate.
[update] I put a number of translations of the classic seforim in the comments section that deal with the issue. They are part of a future volume of Daas Torah which discusses the nature of Torah and the Revelation at Sinai
There is obviously no simple answer to your question. The word Torah in the Pentateuch means teaching or a collection of laws. Only later in the latest neviim it was understood to refer to the Pentateuch. Not that the Torah itself never says it was all given at Sinai (noted by Ramban in his introduction to his commentary), although that belief is the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism and what is known as Orthodoxy. Regarding the Oral Law there are different opinions in the Talmud and Midrashim, ranging from statements that everything was given at Sinai including what a student will later innovate, to minimalistic statements. A J Heschel discusses the topic at length in his book תורה מן השמיים באספקלריה של הדורות: תורה מסיני ותורה מן השמיים. Orthodox Jews today are divided with some taking a very maximalistic view and regarding as heretics anyone who disagrees, and those such as R' Gedaliah Nadel in בתורתו של ר' גדליה נדל who take a much more rationalistic approach.
ReplyDeleteOn this the 1st maamer of the Kuzari--always a good first go-to source for grand questions on Judaism's foundations--is quite clear: Torah = Masorah. That's masorah understood in its most intellectually elitist formulation: what talmidim have learned from their rabbonim dor vedor, all the way back to the time the whole generation of yitzius Mitzraiyim stood before G-d's direct self-revelation at Sinai.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're best off summarizing it as "rabbinical tradition"?
As a Hirschian-wanna-be, I would say that it refers to to the oral law as well as the written one. In that order. In other words, we have an oral tradition from Sinai that governs our lives which is accompanied by a an outline of sorts called the written law.
ReplyDeleteFor more info, see Dayan I Grunfeld's intro to the Hirsch chumash.
Also volume five of R Hirsch's collected writing is devoted to the theme of Torah (she'baal peh) misinai.
Much hatzlacha.
Except that according to many (I don't know enough to say "most" or "all") opinions, neither the Oral Torah nor the Written Torah was given in its entirety on Har Sinai - e.g. the laws of Shabbos; the sheva mitzvos B'nei Noach; the last 8 pesukim of Devarim...
DeleteMaharetz Chajes (Maamer Divrei Neviim Divrei Kabbalah 1): By means of these general rules our Sages derived from the halachos that are explicitly stated in the Torah - the many detailed derivative halachos which were not originally known. Using this understanding resolves many questions that arise in the course of Torah study. In other words by means of the hermeneutic principles received from Sinai as well as the principles and analytic approach which has been in use since the time of Moshe and Yehoshua until modern times – that which is derived by our Sages - all of these laws are objectively and truthfully found in the Torah which was given at Sinai. They are like branches which are potentially in the trunk or like fruit that is potentially in the seed. This is also the intent of the gemora (Berachos 5a), “ ‘To teach’ is referring to the Gemora and it teaches that everything was given to Moshe at Sinai.”. Megila (19b), “It teaches that G d showed to Moshe the details of the Torah and the rulings of the rabbis and that which the rabbis would innovate in the future.” Similarly in the Yerushalmi (Peah 2 & Megila 1) , “G d showed to Moshe that which the competent student would innovate in the future.” The intent of all these sources is that everything was in fact given at Sinai. However the details eventually produced by the principles - while actually contained in that which was given – were only latent and were not known explicitly until they were derived at a later time. In contrast information coming from prophecy or ruach hakodesh or bas kol or Urim v’Tumim – all of these are irrelevant in determining what was given at Sinai because the Torah says – “It is no longer in Heaven.”
ReplyDeleteMalbim (Introduction Toras Cohanim):In fact these ancient Torah scholars claimed that halacha was not learned from textual analyses but were known from oral tradition. However this answer seems very far-fetched because we see that Chazal were always asking where a particular halacha was learned from and they always answered with specific Torah verses. And there often was a dispute with one saying that verse was incorrect and a different one was the source. The typical interchange involved attempts by all parties to justify their verse and to show that the verse and proofs chosen by others was wrong. It makes no sense that Chazal would engage in such intensive arguments concerning something which was merely an allusion or mnemonic device!.. It is clear therefore that the verses are in fact the sources of the halacha and are not mere mnemonic devices. In fact the Rambam (Introduction to Mishna) distinguishes between those Halachos which are not derived from verses which he calls Halacha LeMoshe and between those halacha which are derived from verses. These two categories are different from each other for a number of reasons… The Rambam counts the halachos which are Halacha LeMoshe and shows that they are few. The vast majority of Halachos are in fact learned from Torah verses and grounded in them. Thus these two explanations of halacha being learned from Tradition and being learned from verses are simply incompatible. This matter is not only astonishing to the masses but Jewish heretics utilize this contradiction to cause difficulties and to undermine the validity of our Tradition. However even amongst scholars it causes severe difficulties because they end up with two opposing paradigms which they are constantly switching between. Sometimes they focus on the language of the verses and the interpretation of drash is viewed as external and artificial. But other times they are drawn after the drash and Tradition and argue with those who focus on the rules of syntax and understanding of the verses. Thus there is a constant fight of the brothers - the meaning of the verse and the drash. Both sides murmur in their tents and there is no reconciliation….
ReplyDeleteShaloh (Zos HaBaracha Torah Ohr #1): G d gave Moshe general principles … as it states in Shemos Rabbah (41:6). From these general principles Moshe understood the Oral Torah. That is why G d told him, “It is true just as you understood it.” Consequently the Oral Torah was given Moshe’s name [i.e., The Torah of Moshe] and was regarded as his wife. Moshe separated from his physical wife and the Oral Torah was considered his wife.
ReplyDeleteShemos Rabba (41:6): R’ Abahu said… did Moshe in fact learn the entire Torah on Sinai? But isn’t it written it is greater in measure than the earth and wider than the sea so how could he have learned in a mere 40 days? But in fact Moshe was only taught the general principles by G d…
ReplyDeleteTorah Temima (Shemos 24:12.28): Look at Megila (19b) that learns that G d showed Moshe dikdukei Torah and dikdukei Sofrim and what the Sofrim would generate in the future…. The intent of these statements is that the halachos which would be generated in the future by means of hermeneutic principles and intellectual analysis were in fact inherently contained within the Torah that was given to Moshe. They do not literally mean that also the analyses that were used to generate these halachos were actually said to Moshe as some fundamentalist try to insert this meaning into the drashos I cited. They use these drashos as a banner and insist that the Talmud is saying that all the intellectual analysis as well as the discussion and evaluation that a student would say in the future - were literally already given to Moshe at Sinai. Even though it is self-evident that the intent of these statements is that only the basic laws that were used to generate the details in the future were given to Moshe and not the analysis itself and there is no need to prove this – nevertheless a reliable source that this is true is expressed by our Sages in Menachos (29b). There the greatness of Rabbi Akiva is described in the following manner. “When Moshe went up to Heaven to get the Torah he was shown the sages of every generation. He saw Rabbi Akiva interpreting every detail by means of intellectual analysis and Moshe did not understand what was going on and he got upset. However at some point Rabbi Akiva’s students ask him how he had derived a particular point, he answered that it was the halacha given to Moshe at Sinai. When Moshe heard this he felt better.” Thus we see an explicit proof that our Sages understood that only the fundamental halachos were said to Moshe… and that is why Moshe felt better when Rabbi Akiva said it was halacha given to Moshe at Sinai because that is superior to that which is generated by analysis… A clearer proof that Moshe was not literally given the intellectual analysis that would be used to generate the new halachos is found in Bamidbar Rabba (41), “Did Moshe in fact learn the entire Torah in 40 days. That is not possible since the Torah is described as being greater in size than the earth. Therefore what is meant is that Moshe learned the general principles at Sinai.” This doesn’t need further explanation. There is more to discuss about this general topic but what I have written is sufficient here.
ReplyDeleteBaal HaTanya (Likutei Torah Acharei 27b): Concerning this matter we find the statement of our Sages, “These and those are the words of the living G d.” [Eiruvin 13b] That means that the words of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel as well as the words of Abaye and Rava are not literally their words. Rather they are G d’s words that are in their mouths. This is just as the Magid said to Rabbi Yosef Karo, “I am the Mishna which speaks through your mouth.”
ReplyDeleteDerashos HaRan (#7): How is it possible that the disparate views of all the disputing parties were given to Moshe by G d? For the disputes of Shammai and Hillel…? In truth one of the two views is in agreement with the truth and the other must be the opposite of truth. So therefore how can it be said that a view which is not true issued from G d’s mouth? But the matter can be explained as follows. It is an established fact that the entire Written Torah and Oral Torah were given to Moshe as it says in Megila (19b)…G d shows Moshe the minutiae (dikdukei) of the Torah and that of the Scribes as well as all the new conclusions that the rabbis would discover in the future such as the reading of the Megila. The minutia of the Scribes is referring to the disputes and arguments of logic between the Sages. All of these disputes were learned by Moshe from G d but without any decision as to which was the final halacha. However Moshe was given a principle to know the truth i.e., majority rule. He was also taught the halachic rule that the Sanhedrin must be obeyed. Therefore when there was an increase in disputes amongst the sages, when it was a minority against the majority – the majority view was established as the final halacha. However in a case of where both views were equally supported or there were just minority views – then the authority was given to the sages of that generation to decide as it says, “And you shall go to …the judges who will be in those days and do not deviate from what they tell you…” This shows that contemporary rabbis have the authority to decide disputes according to what they think is appropriate even if earlier generations, who were wiser and greater than they, decided otherwise. Nevertheless we are commanded to follow after the decision of contemporary authorities whether they agree to the truth or to the opposite. This is the explanation of the events of the dispute of R’ Eliezar HaGadol (Bava Metzia 59b). R’ Yehoshua stood up and said the Torah is no longer in Heaven.” That means that the Torah was already given to Moshe at Sinai and it states that one must follow the majority view. Therefore even thought that everyone was fully aware that R’ Eleazar’s view was in fact more in agreement with truth than the others because the miraculous signs he had presented showed that Heaven agreed with his views – nevertheless they decided that the halacha followed their own view. That is because they viewed that it made more sense that it was impure even though they knew that Heaven’s view was the opposite and thus they did not want to declare it pure. They would have in fact transgressed the Torah if they had declared it to be pure since it made more sense to them that it was impure. Thus the final decision is given to the authorities in each generation and that which they decide is correct - is that which G d commands us to do.
ReplyDeleteLeshem (Shaarei Leshem 2:4:19): The critical point is that every Jew is obligated to believe with perfect faith that all which is found in the words of our Talmudic Sages - both in halacha, Talmudic agada and medrashim - are in their entirety the words of the living G d. That is because everything that they say is with ruach hakodesh (Sanhedrin 48:). This includes even that which isn’t relevant to halacha and deed…Also all their decrees and statutes are not the product of human intellect at all but rather are the result of ruach hakodesh in which G d has expressed Himself through them. This is the great sound that doesn’t end (Devarim 5:19) of the giving of the Torah at Sinai and it expresses itself in the Oral Torah…. Thus, the Sages are just like messengers in what they say…. This is why the Baal Halachos Gedolos includes the Rabbinic mitzvos with the Torah mitzvos since all of them were given by G d (Chagiga 3b)…We can conclude from all this that anyone who tries to analyze the words of the Sages in order to establish the nature of their truth places himself in great danger. That is because man’s intellect cannot properly comprehend this matter and thus a person can come to heresy from the endeavor. This is what Koheles (7:16) states: Don’t make yourself too wise - why destroy yourself? A person who gets involved in this matter will find it very difficult to resist following his human understanding. He will end up going back and forth between the view of the Torah and that of his own understanding…. The righteous person lives by his faith because that is the foundation of the entire Torah….
ReplyDeleteMegila (19b): Rav Yochanon said, What is the meaning of Devarim (9:10), “Written on the Tablets according to all the words which G d spoke with you on the mountain?” This verse teaches that G d showed to Moshe dikdukei Torah (the details of the Torah) and dikdukei sofrim (the details of rabbinic decrees) and that which the rabbis would decree in the future i.e., the reading of the Megila.
ReplyDeleteShaloh (Toldos Adom Beis Chochma): All that which the sages of all generation have discovered was in fact received at Sinai from the Kol (sound) and it is not the result of human intellect and analysis. Thus in truth it was commanded in the Torah by means of Moshe (Devarim 17:11), “According to the Torah which you were taught and the laws which you were commanded to do, do not deviate from that which you were told right or left.” A person who doesn’t obey is deserving of death (Devarim 17:12). This Kol was the great sound with did not end (yasaf)…In the Yerushalmi Peah (2:6) the Sages said that even what an experienced student would decide before his teacher was said on Sinai. Thus it is clear that all the words of the sages in every generation and all that they innovated and all their analysis is from Sinai. It is not from human intellect but from the divine intellect. They served merely to actualize the potential Torah which had been given at Sinai.
ReplyDeleteShaloh (Torah Ohr 67): The beracha on the Torah is “Who gives the Torah” rather than “Who gave the Torah”, because G d is still giving the Torah. This is based on the verse “The great sound which didn’t yasaf.” This verse has two different explanations depending on how the word “yasaf” is translated. The first translation is that there will be no additional Torah given. The second translation is just the opposite - that the Torah will never stop being given. In fact both are truth because in fact there will not be an additional revelation concerning that which was revealed at Sinai. However the revelation will not stop because the prophesy of the prophets and all the new insights of scholars in every generation etc., and even all that a student will innovate – everything was given in potential in the original sound of Sinai. However when the appropriate time comes according to the generation - it will manifest itself in actuality. Thus we find that all the words of our rabbis and their decrees and protective measures and practices – all were given at Sinai. See what I wrote before because it is all relevant here.
ReplyDeleteToras Chaim (Bava Metzia 85a): It says in Devarim (5:19), “G d spoke these things to the entire community at the mountain, a great Sound that didn’t stop (yasaf).” There is a view that this Sound did not stop and is eternal. This is astounding. What is the significance of having an eternal Sound from Sinai? It would seem that because at the time of the Giving of the Torah there was a Divine Influence that manifested itself on Mt. Sinai, that means that the entire Torah – the Written Torah, the Oral Torah, Medrash, and Agada - was said to Moshe at Sinai and that Divine Influence is eternal. Consequently every serious student who engages in Torah study for pure motivation this Divine Influence returns to him and he thereby merits to produce new insights because it is like ruach hakodesh…. That is what is meant by the assertion that the Sound of Sinai has not stopped even today and it lasts to eternity.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Raffi Bilek said:
ReplyDelete"I am writing a chapter about Orthodox Judaism in a book that will be read primarily by non-Jews."
RESPONSE:
Teaching non-Jews about Orthodox Judaism may violate the prohibition against teaching Torah to Gentiles.
It's always interesting to come to understand how others see themselves religiously. It would appear that "Mr. Cohen" understands himself to be part of one very wide-ranging & ancient secret society.
ReplyDeleteSuch a standpoint, once elucidated, makes it hard not to cede some credence to the theory set forth by the anonymous author of that insidious pamphlet, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--still a rampant best seller after over a century of loyal readership.
If merely talking about Judaism to an interested non-Jew or educatively presenting Jewish views on current issues should strike a religious observer like "Mr. Cohen" as falling within the bounds of what we are prohibited from doing, it is hard to understand how he could view mattan haTorah or avodas am Yisroel as something the Gentile world ought be grateful for, which presumably they ought be (as we allude to thrice daily with every Aleinu).
Is a religion unexamined worth observing...?