5783/2023
The Neighbor who Denied the Oral Law
A few days after receiving my Semicha (rabbinic ordination)
from RIETS/Yeshiva University in 1989, a neighbor approached
me seeking evidence for the divine origin of the Oral Law. He
asked where the Written Law states that there is an
accompanying Torah She'B'al Peh.
I replied by citing Devarim 12:21, where Moshe
Rabbeinu mentions that we "slaughter an animal in the manner
I commanded you." Where did Moshe Rabbeinu teach us how
to slaughter? The Written Torah never presents the many rules
regarding slaughter. Rashi (citing the Sifrei) explains that this
refers to the Oral Law received at Sinai that Moshe Rabbeinu
conveyed to us.
The neighbor rejected the proof, arguing that the
Pasuk refers to slaughtering Korbanot in Sefer VaYikra. Since
this is how Ramban presents the Peshat explanation of this
Pasuk, I did not know how to respond to this gentleman and
prove Torah She'B'al Peh's authenticity to him. He argued that
the Torah only expects us to kill the animal before eating it.
Therefore he felt justified eating meat from any source
provided it came from a kosher animal (since the Torah
explicitly sets forth the signs of kosher and non-kosher
animals).
Years later, I realized how to formulate a much more
effective response supporting Torah She'B'al Peh. Let us
present some standard answers and new supplementary
arguments for the divine origin of the Oral Law.
Argument #1 – The Argument from Near Eastern Law
Codes
An interesting argument is that Near Eastern law codes assume
that there was an "oral law" accompanying the "written law." If
so, the neighbor's question is anachronistic. He believed the
written law needed to allude to the existence of an Oral Law.
However, since this was common practice when Hashem gave
us the Torah, there was no need for such an allusion. Moreover,
the Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim explains several Mitzvot
based on the cultural context in which Hashem gave us the
Torah. Accordingly, this argument might enjoy validity
according to some traditional sources.
Argument # 2 – Reading and Vocalizing the Torah
Hillel sets a classic argument for the divine origin of the Torah
She'B'al Peh in his dealing with a conversion candidate
(following Maharsha's interpretation) who rejected belief in
the Oral Law (Shabbat 31a; translation from the William
Davidson edition of the Talmud):
A gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you
have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the
Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard to the
Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the
Oral Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on
condition that you will teach me only the Written
Torah. Shammai scolded him and cast him out with
reprimand. The same gentile came before Hillel, who
converted him and began teaching him Torah. On the
first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and
said to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he
reversed the order of the letters and told him that an
alef is a tav and so on. The convert said to him: But
yesterday you did not tell me that. Hillel said to him:
You see that it is impossible to learn what is written
without relying on an oral tradition. Didn't you rely on
me? Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard
to the matter of the Oral Torah, and accept the
interpretations that it contains. If one cannot even read the Torah without the
guidance of a Rebbe, then the book alone cannot tell the entire
story. In addition, without an oral tradition, we cannot vocalize
many words in the Torah (since it has no vowels). Often, the
way one pronounces words makes a profound difference. For
For .לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו teaches) 14:21 (Devarim Sefer ,example
example, we might vocalize the word בחלב BaChaleiv, meaning
"in the milk of," or BaCheilev, "in the fat of." In other words, we
might understand this Pasuk as teaching that one may not cook
milk in fat or that one cannot cook meat in milk. But, without
an accompanying Oral Law, how is one to know how to vocalize
בחלב and many other words like it?
Argument #3 – The Written Law's Vagueness
The Kuzari (3:35) adds that the Torah is quite vague about
many matters. How can these vague directives alone provide a
comprehensive guide on how to live? For example, the Torah
(Shemot 16:29) teaches, "One may not leave his place on
Shabbat." To what does "his place" refer? Does it mean his
home, neighborhood, city, or country? Sefer Devarim 6:9
teaches us to write words of Torah on the sides of our doors.
How are we supposed to know what this means? Devarim 24:1
pithily presents the divorce procedure, "he shall write her a bill
of divorce, and he shall place it in her hands." How can
something as serious as divorce occupy only one brief
directive?
Obviously, there must be much more to these
directives. But, clearly, the Written Law is a summary of a
vastly larger supplementary discussion in the Oral Law.
Correcting My Neighbor's Error
The neighbor was considerably mistaken in his primitive
understanding of the Torah. He understood that the Torah in
Devarim 12:21 only demands that we not eat meat from a live
animal. However, the Torah long before commanded all
humanity (Breishit 9:4), "Meat taken from an animal that is still
alive you may not eat (the prohibition of Eiver Min HaChai)."
The command to slaughter is undoubtedly a higher
demand than simply not eating meat from a live animal.
Otherwise, there would be no need to add to the existing
prohibition of eating from a live animal. Thus, the Torah
expects us to slaughter the animal in a specific way. However,
the Torah does not outline this particular way. For these details,
we need the Torah She'B'al Peh.
Even the Ramban, who explains Devarim 12:21's "as I
commanded you" as referring to Korbanot, agrees. Moshe
Rabbeinu is saying to slaughter Chullin (non-holy animals)
following the details I commanded you when teaching you the
laws of slaughtering a Korban.
Since Moshe Rabbeinu refers to the Mitzvot he
commanded, Ramban must interpret the Pasuk in this manner.
Moshe Rabbeinu describes the Oral Law he relayed as "He
commanded." Ramban cannot understand the phrase "as I have
commanded you," referring only to Hashem's command, as
Moshe Rabbeinu should have said, "as Hashem commanded
you."
The neighbor's argument, though, sheds light on why
the written Torah alludes to the Oral Law in the context of
slaughtering. It is most tempting to rationalize eating
improperly slaughtered meat (and eating hamburgers at
Mcdonald's) as (sadly) did my neighbor. Therefore, the Torah
specifically indicates the Oral Law in the context of animal
slaughter to clarify beyond reasonable doubt that the Shechita
is invalid unless it conforms to the Torah She'B'al Peh.
[To be continued in next week's edition...]