Originally published 5/2/07, 9:49 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Rabbi Zvi Lampel, in his fine work "The Dynamics of Dispute", asks the question: "Why didn't the Sages always spell out exactly what they meant and leave no question about their intentions?" This question could be posed to God as well? Why leave room for interpretation, and even possible misunderstanding? Why not be clearer?
Rabbi Lampel, in the presentation of his answer to his question, writes the following: 'All this was meant to train the scholars in quick, deep and profound reasoning and in mastering the sources. The goal of learning Torah is not merely to know the answers but even more important, to master the methods of arriving at them." This response in itself (and it should be noted that Rabbi Lampel devotes a chapter of his book to essentially this question and the lines quoted simply, in a certain way, introduce his more extensive answer) demands further deep and profound consideration. In my Nishma Introspection article "The Cloud of Revelation" I also contend that the lack of clarity we find in Torah sources was intentional. We are supposed to think. But a consequence of this lack of clarity is also the possibility of mistakes.
Is the process thus to be understood as more important than the conclusion? Is this issue connected to the famous question in the gemora in Kiddushin regarding which is more important -- Torah study or mitzvah action? And how would the famous answer that 'study that brings to action is greatest' connect with this extended issue? The bottom line is that Torah is not clear. Furthermore, to gain any insight demands great intellectual effort. Why? What does this say about God's purpose in Torah? I think this is something we may wish to ponder.
I just want to mention, since I referred to Rabbi Lampel's book, that I do highly recommend it. While I would not say that I agree with everything that he presents, I found this work to be a most honest presentation of what Torah She'b'al Peh really is, especially in contradistinction to the often poor and misleading presentations of Torah She'b'al Peh that usually are found.
6 comments:
My rebbe once asked me why the Talmud was such a confusing book. "Don't you think," he asked, "that they could have made it a bit more orderly? The Rambam and the Mechaber were able to write books on halachah that were orderly. Why was the gemara written the way it was?"
His answer was simple but ingenious: The only way to learn Torah properly is to go to a Rav who, in turn, learned from a Rav, who in turn and so on, all the way back to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi and beyond. In this way, there could be an element of quality control. Having seen what the Christians did with their translations of the Bible, the Chachamim were in no mood to create an easy-to-understand handbook on Jewish law that just anybody could crack open. By being forced to learn with a Rav, the student learns not only the text but the proper interpretation of the words within, something you can't just get from reading it straight. Indeed, there are lots of answers to confusing parts of the Gemara that aren't written down in it but you need a Rav to guide you through to those. That's why the Torah was written in an incomplete and somewhat confusing fashion.
drmike's comment explains the need for a rebbi and why the text of the gemara is difficult. It also may explain why even the Torah text is difficult, again demanding the need for a guide, ie. somewhat with the full knowledge, the Torah She'b'al Peh, that can explain it. But that's not really the question I am addressing in my post. The Torah She'b'al Peh itself is not clear -- beyond the way it was written down, beyond the question of forgetting. God in giving over this system, from its outset, presented it in such a manner that demanded thought and intellectual work in order to grasp it -- even by the rebbi
RBH
There are a few reasons I can think of for why the Oral Law is unclear.
First of all, Chazal tell us that when the first luchos were given, the Oral Law was quite clear. It was only with the Second Tablets that the Oral Law became more difficult, in order to provide a greater reward to the Bnei Yisrael for studying it.
Secondly, the Oral Law itself went through some very hard times over the centuries, having to survive a long period of decentralization (Judges), hostile rulers who loved slaughtering BGU-fearing people (Kings), exile, Hellenism and Roman persecution. Indeed, although the Mishnah was written because Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi was worried that the Oral Law would be forgotten, it was already quite late in the process when he did so. If 30000 halachos were forgotten just during the mourning period for Moshe Rabeinu when there was no other strife or stress upon our ancestors, how much more so over the centuries with all the troubles that found their way to us.
Thirdly, there is the interface of the physical, spiritual and mystical portions of the Oral Law. True comprehension of the entire thing requires a perfect understand of all three facets. Each of the laws has its physical component, its spiritual component and its mystical component. Some of those facets may have more importance than others in certain mitzvos. How can one completely understand a mitzvah without completely understanding the three facets?
Finally, it should be remembered that although the Written Law tastes great, the Oral Law is less filling.
There is some value to each comment- no doubt. I just think the Torah is not a finished product. It is more of an ongoing process. {Karaites and other Fundamentalists see things differently of course!}
Consider a programming language. Let’s say JAVA {I grew up with COBOL but that is another story - smile} JAVA has rules and regulations of proper syntax and when you enter certain commands or terms you get certain results, etc.
But, the AUTHOR of JAVA did not author the actual programmer’s program. He just set up the rules of syntax etc. Just like there is a creator of Java there is a CREATOR of Torah. But that is NOT the product per se, it is the tool for the PROCESS. The finished process – like a JAVA program is a function for each individual who engages interactively with that processor. There is no point in giving definitive answers. Each Torah action is a segment of that process.
Think of your annual Passover Seder. You use the SAME Haggadah every year but I’ll bet there is a LOT of new material discussed and certainly a different experience had at each and every Seder. Certainly the same questions every year SHOULD yield the exact same answers if the data is the same. But it is not the programming is the same but the data differs, hence the output varies every time.
KT
RRW
I have enjoyed reading this discussion very much.
Regarding the issue of why the system was given to us (both by God and Chazal) in a grey manner:
1.Our lack of certainty in relation to the halacha engenders apprehension as to whether our actions are correct or not. The apprehension leads to an intense level of humility - humility not only by a student who is forced to learn with a Rav, but also a national humility by a community who must answer to a higher authority.
This line of though could lead a person to think that the humility attained by the system is more important than its specific actions. How does one still justify the significance of specific actions?
2. It is precisely because we don’t know specifically what our actions should be, that studying becomes an essential act. Assuming that our actions are reflective of our intellect, if we knew with clarity how we should act, wouldn’t study become unnecessary and seemingly frivolous? Maybe this relates to the famous answer 'study that brings to action is greatest’ could be interpreted: study that is directed towards knowing how to act is the greatest type of studying.
Studying the simple laws of how to do something is a pre-requisite to the "na'ashe"
Reflecting upon the mitzva via its experience is a form Of Nishma- Fro exmpale the senses are engaged in Mitzvoth such as the 4 minim.
Furthermore, the Intellecutal refelction by reading into the preformance of a mitzva is also a part the Nishma.
So Na'ashe can be divided into 2 aspects
1) the act
2) reading the handbook to know how to act
And the Nishma can be dual-natured,too!
1) the sensual/emotional experience
2) the intellectual contemplation of above by study or by reflection.
This is loosely Based upon RSR Hirsch's writing e.g. his "Horeb".
Hirsch dealt with an Orthodoxy performing mitzvoth via rote w/o any meaning and a Reform that substituted meaning for performance. Hirsch demanded them no shortcuts i.e. both Na'aseh AND Nishma!
To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Webster:
Nas'ashe AND Nishma!
Now and forever!
One and Inseparable!
Post a Comment