TORAH SHEBALPEH------emunas chachomim

n-g Posted - 18 October 2001 14:51

---

How do you respond to someone who says that nowadays we are just as smart as the people who lived in the days of the Gemora.

Therefore, our interpretation of certain matters (aside from Halacha l'moshe misinai) should be just as valid.

Is there any proof that the earlier generations (not necessarily as far back as Talmudic times) were more knowledgeable and therefore more legitimate than anything we can come up with nowadays?

MODERATOR Posted - 18 October 2001 16:48

---

The Torah works differently than other "sciences", l'havdil. Other sciences are discovered, little by little, and every further discovery adds and compounds the previous.

Not so by Torah. Hashem gave Moshe the Torah on Har Sinai. Hashem was the best teacher ever, knew more Torah than humanly possible, and gave this to Moshe in a supernatural manner, so that Moshe knew more than humanly possible.

From there, things got handed down orally and we know that the generations got lower and lower. First there were prophets. Then no more prophets. There used to be open miracles, then no more.

People constantly went down in level. Knowing Torah is not merely an intellectual. its a spiritual accomplishment that involves levels of siyata d'shamaya. Being smart isn’t enough. The validity of a person's Torah is dependent on their connection to Hashem, not merely their IQ. A Sefer Torah that an Apikores writes gets burned. Even with Hashem’s names. Its worth nothing. The great ancients were so close to Hashem, there Torah was proportionately valid.

The smallest of Chazal could resurrect the dead. Can we? They lived their lives on a level that we cannot imagine, and were also closer to the revelation on Har Sinai chronologically than we are. Their Torah was on the same level as they were - everyone’s Torah is on the level that they are.

Since it is obvious based on what we know about Chazal's levels of holiness that we can see from their lives, its obvious we can't compare ourselves to them.

Plus. Plus, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Torah when we should end a "tekufah" and at what point we say "OK, we cant argue with the previous generations". The way this happens is, the generation itself sees that it is no longer able to match the Torah quality of the previous generation, answering their questions or matching their skills. And there is a universal acceptance that we are in a new Tekufah.

That’s what happened between the Rishonim and Achronim, Tanaim and Amoraim, etc. So those great Torah giants who knew Chazal unanimously conceded that they are unable to match them in Torah skill. Even though nobody told them this, or forced this on them. Klall Yisroel decided unanimously that Chazal has ended and we are, relatively, just plain people.

It makes zero sense, after all that, for us, nowadays to say we know better than those who were there.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------lo bashamayim hi

e Posted - 25 July 2001 20:18

---

what does the concept "lo bashamayim hi" mean ? and how does it relate the concept of ultimate truth from Hashem if Halacha is in the hands of the Chachamim?

MODERATOR Posted - 25 July 2001 20:40

---

Ultimate truth is from Hashem, but the Halachah - meaning what Hashem wants us to do - depends on what we discern from the Torah. It's like a father tells his children, "I want you to run this business the way you see fit. Here are the goals, but whatever you guys decide, I will back you."

When Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, He did not give him one Halachic ruling per case but rather different possibilities. Then He said, "These are the choices of what the Halachah can be. You guys decide which way it goes."

The concept of Torah Lo Bashamayim Hi therefore only applies to defining the Halachah. But where physical facts are concerned, prophecy or Ruach HaKodesh may be used.

In other words, let's say someone takes a milchig spoon out of a fleishig drawer. He doesn’t know if the spoon was used for fleishigs or merely misplaced there. If he had Ruach HaKodesh, he could rely on it to tell him how the spoon got there, since that is a fact, not a Halachah. This is true even though the knowledge of this fact will affect the Halachah, for if the spoon was just accidentally put there, he doesn’t have to kasher it, but if it was used for hot fleishigs he does.

The Halachic part of the decision comes from the person's Torah knowledge, but the facts that the Halachah depends on comes from Ruach HaKodesh. That is fine.

But if he does not know how it got there, he may NOT rely on Ruach HaKodesh to tell him whether he has to kasher the spoon or not, since that is paskening a sheailah, and that can only be done by Torah knowledge.

e Posted - 27 July 2001 18:31

---

The truth can and is "changing" and for us is not ultimate- is that right??

MODERATOR Posted - 27 July 2001 18:35

---

no, the truth is absolute. the halachah is defined as the result of the sages' efforts to interpret the torah. that definition and that truth remains.

her Posted - 28 August 2001 2:50

---

what about Chidushei Torah? How can pieces of Torah be made up by people?

MODERATOR Posted - 28 August 2001 2:59

---

because within each person is a sol, which is literally a piece of Hashem Himself. The soul is what makes the brain function. When a person thinks, it's his soul that is working. And since the soul of a person is part of Hashem Himself, if a person thinks of a Torah "chidush" in the proper manner, it is considered Torah itself since it is the fruit of the Neshomah.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------how it works

Well, there's nothing nonsensical or even strange about Torah shebal peh.

First, when the Midrash says something like the mountains argued, it doesn't mean the mountains literally, and no, it's not merely a teaching tool either. It means that the "sar" of the mountains were fighting with each other. A "sar" is the angel designated to maintain the mountain. Everything in this world, every blade of grass, every stone, every animal, every whatever, has a "sar". They are the media through which Hashem affects the world. Whenever a Medrash talks about inanimate objects talking, it means the "sar" and not the object itself.

Re: Machlokes. When doctors argue over the interpretation of an x-ray it's not the same as when sages argue over the interpretation of the Halachah.

The x-ray has one actual meaning. The doctors argue, each one saying that he is the one who knows that one meaning. The doctors' understanding of the x-ray does not contribute to the meaning of the x-ray, it merely reveals it.

But Halachah is different. There is no intrinsic proper Halachah -- the proper Halachah is created by the sages. The Ritva in Eruvin explains: On Har Sinai, G-d gave to Moses every possible legitimate Halachic opinion on every issue (shivim panim l'kan u'likan). Then Hashem gave a formula to determine what the actual Halachic practice should be. Then Hashem said, To determine the actual Halachic practice, let the rabbis decide according to their knowledge which of these possibilities they believe sit should be.

Whatever they decide, that will be the Halachah.

So the Halachah depends on what the rabbis decide based on the Halachic process that we follow. This includes majority rules, halchah k'basrai, etc.

The reason Hashem did this is because He wanted the Halachah - the Torah - to be part of us literally, not merely stuff that we know from outside. Creating a Halachah internally imparts much more holiness - the amount that Hashem decided is proper - than does merely knowing an externally created Halachah.

So all opinions of the sages are equally holy, since they were all given on Har Sinai. The bottom line Halachah is merely what we happen to be obligated to follow. It does not mean the other opinions are "wrong".

Posted - 08 January 2001 17:19

________________________________________

How does eilu veilu work when the argument is about a specific event that transpired. I.e. two amoraim are arguing about what took place. How can they both be right. Interestingly the gemarah says eilu veilu specifically in this case in gitten.

________________________________________

There, it means both opinions are torah. It does not mean they are both true. Its like a "hava aminah" of the gemorah - it is holy and considered Torah, but it is not correct.

TORAH SHEBALPEH-----basics

What's the difference between Talmud, Gemorah, and Shas?

All of those are part of Torah Shebal Peh ("The Oral Torah"). When G-d gave the torah to Moshe on Har Sinai, He not only gave him scripture, but also many oral explanations of the scriptures, traditions to pass on to the Jews, as well as a systematic methodology to derive laws ands theological principals from the scriptures which would not be apparent by simply reading them on the surface.

These explanations, derivations, and interpretations - everything given to Moshe on Har Sinai besides the scriptures, as well as any derivative teachings that would result from using the G-d-given methodology of interpreting scriptures - is what we call Torah Shebal Peh.

Torah Shebal Peh is part and parcel of our "bible". Its authority is equal to that of the scriptures. In fact, they are not really two "Torahs" but one Torah with two parts. (Technically, laws explicit in scripture have precedence over laws derived indirectly from scripture, but that is not due to any "inferiority" of the authority of the Oral Law.)

Now you need one more word to define, and then we're ready to answer your post:

The Mishna (lit. "recitation") is the collection of Torah Shebal Peh teachings mostly in matters of Torah law (aka "halachah"), and sometimes, but much less often, in matters of Torah ethics or theology, compiled and sealed by R. Yehuda HaNasi around the year 200 CE. The Torah authorities cited in the Mishna, including R. Yehuda HaNasi himself, are called "Tannaim" (lit. "teachers").

The reason it is called "recitation" is because the Mishna was taught orally, from mouth of teacher to ears of students, as opposed to scripture ("Mikrah") which was written and learned from texts.

Once the Mishna was created, it was subsequently analyzed, explained, and expounded on according to the G-d-given methodology that was handed down generation-to-generation, by the most skilled Judaic scholars in the world. These great and holy sages were called "Amorayim" (lit. "explainers"), and their discussions about the Mishna, as well as other teachings of theirs, are called "Gemora" (lit. "teachings", in Aramaic, which is the language of the Gemora). The conclusive opinions, explanations, and interpretations of the Amoroyim are also part of Torah Shebal Peh.

The Hebrew word for Gemora, "teachings", is "Talmud". (So "Talmud" and "Gemora" are really synonymous, but often the word Talmud is used loosely to describe the collective body of Mishna and Gemora together.)

The activity of the Amorayim, i.e. the creations of the "Gemora" took place in two locations: Eretz Yisroel, and Bavel (currently Iraq). We therefore have two separate yet related bodies of Gemora - the Talmud Bavli ("Babylonian Talmud"), and the Talmud Yerushalmi ("Jerusalem Talmud"). The Talmud Bavli was completed after about 7 generations (!) of Amoraic activity, and the Talmud Yerushalmi after about 5.

The Talmud Bavli has more authority than the Talmud Yerushalmi, and as a rule, when there is a disagreement between them; the opinion of the Talmud Bavli is binding.

As for "shas" - that's a political party in Israel.

Only joking. The Mishna discusses primarily 6 categories of laws, and is compiled in a way that all the laws of each type is consolidated in its own section. Thus, we have 6 "sedorim" (plural of "seder", lit. "arrangement" or "order" - used to describe an organized, planned approach to something. This word is the same as in the "seder" on Passover night. There it describes an orderly execution of the night's Mitzvos). The six Sedorim are:

Zeraim - laws pertaining to agriculture and produce (such as tithes)

Moed - laws pertaining to events and times (such as keeping shabbos, when to pray etc)

Nashim - laws pertaining to relationship between men and women (such as marriage and divorce)

Nezikin - Civil law

Kodshim - Laws pertaining to sacrifices and Mitzvos performed in the Bais Hamikdosh

Taharos - Laws of purity and impurity (such as result from contact with a dead body)

The word "shas" is an acronym for "Shisha sedorim" - "Six Sections". It is used to collectively describe all 6 sections of Mishna and its accompanying Gemora. To avoid confusion, when we refer to the 6 sections of Mishna without the Gemora, we don’t use the abbreviation, but we simply say "Shisha sidrei mishna", or "shisha sedorim".

So when you hear that so-and-so "know all of shas" it means he knows not only all the Mishnas, but also their accompanying Gemoras as well.

Because the Talmud Bavli is the more authoritative of the two Talmuds, it is learned almost exclusively by Torah students today, with only occasional use of the Yerushalmi. Thus, when you hear someone mention "Shas", it would refer to only the Talmud Bavli Gemora, without the Yerushalmi.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------agadita literal?

The requirement to believe Torah MiSinai includes of course, not only Torah shebiksav but Torah shebaal peh. That includes Midrashim.

However, Agados can be interpreted not literally. Rav Saadia Gaon writes that an Agada can be interpreted as Mesholim in 4 instances: If it contradicts reality, reason, Gemara or Rabbinic tradition.

The Ramchal, in Maamar HaAgadta also writes that some Agados are mesholim. (See also Radak Shmuel I end of ch. 28)

Not accepting a Maamar Chazal is not acceptable - but to reinterpret it in a way that makes it more palatable is OK.

Theoretically, that is. In order to interpret any Chazal - Halachah or Agada - you need to benefit of Rabbinic tradition throughout the ages. If the Rishonim considered an Agada literal, you would be fooling yourself by saying that it is not. They surely had the same measure of common sense as we do, and so if they were not bothered by the credulity of a specific statement of Chazal, we should not be, either.

Another thing: There are people who refuse to accept what seems to them incredulity even in Pesukim of the torah and they therefore interpret them allegorically. That is Apikorsus for sure. And to say that well, I will trust the Torah and the prophets but not Chazal makes no sense. Chazal didn’t make up stories. But rather the Agada was said, sometimes, as a Moshol. But to know when it is a Moshol and when it is literal is as difficult as properly interpreting any Torah passage.

And here, too, the same logic that tells you the literal meaning of the Chazal is hard to accept also tells you in even stronger tones, that we are nothing but foolish to reject the opinions of our Rishonim, who understood both reality and Chazal much better than we do.

I have a better idea, then, for such cases, when you come across such a Chazal. Invoke Rav Chaim Brisker's dictums: "Fun a kasha shtarbt mir nisht". You won’t die from a [an unanswered] question. And "S'iz besser to bleiben by a kasha vi tzu zogen a krumer teretz" - "It’s better to remain with a question than to have the wrong answer."

So say simply, "I don’t understand this Chazal." You don’t have to interpret it any way at all. Maybe one day you’ll see something in a sefer or someone will explain it. In the meantime, there is no need to jump to conclusions that our predecessors did not reach.

The Ramban at his Barcelona dispute disagreed with you. He said there is no requirement to believe midrashim.

The Ramban doesn't say that. Please see the footnote by Rabbi Chavel on that statement (p.308).

First, there is the Shvil Hazahav who points out that what the Ramban said to the Chirstains in response to their problems with a Medrash does not mean he really believed it. He was answering Chrstians - not Jews. What's he suppsoed to say - that the Medrash that says Moshiach was born in the days of the Bais Hamikdash is actually explained al pi kabbalah? The Ramban had to lie to them in order to protect himself and Judaism, which is quite understandable. Such statements will not be found in the Ramban's serious writings.

Secondly, all the Ramban says, in context of his statement comparing it to sermons as opposed to Talmudic authority, is that it doesn't have to be meant literally - like he says he doesn't believe that Moshiach was born 2000 years ago. But that doesn't mean the Medrash is just baloney - all it means, is that the Medrash isn't to be taken literally, as we all know already.

(Chavel quotes a statement from Rabeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam which, to tell you the truth, I dont see as having any relevence to the Ramban, but then he quotes a SHiltei Hagiborim in Avodah Zorah (which NREE613 submitted but his post didnt get up yet) that says, too, that Medrashim dont mean to explain the literal pshat in the posuk but rather to add taamei hamikrah, drush, and remozim. Fine. But none of that means they're not true, just that their intent is not literal. And that we have seen already from Rav Saadia).

TORAH SHEBALPEH-----the zohar

The Zohar was indeed written by Rav Shimon bar Yochai, as confirmed by all our Torah experts, including the Arizal, who was the greatest expert in Kabbalah ever.

The Gra, too, as well as all other experts in this topic, agree that the Zohar is for real.

It is quoted by the Bais Yosef in Ch. 140, and by the Ramah in Shulchan Aruch in a number of places. It is also quoted countless times in the Poskim, throughout the generations.

(There was one Rav who questioned the authenticity of the Zohar, but his opinion has been dismissed as an overreaction to the Shabsai Tzvi debacle, because of the above reasons, plus the fact that he had not one shred of evidence to back up his position).

You are correct that we do not learn Kabbalah because it is the "inner sphere" (see the Kabbalah topic elsewhere on these boards), but it is more than 100% legitimate. There is no Torah authority after the above authenticating authorities who have chas v'sholom rejected the Zohar. The whole idea is nonsensical, and a product of non-religious, anti-Torah elements.

You're confusing two issues. Rav Yaakov Emden held that parts of the Zohar were written by the "students and students' students" of Rav Shimon bar Yochai without a doubt, but it is as if Rav Shimon bar Yochai himself wrote it" (M'tpchas Sforim I p.31).

This is not the issue. The issue is whether the Zohar was "written centuries later", which alludes to the old, disproved opinion of Gershom Sholem, a heretic who knew not much about Judaism, despite - or actually, in line with - his title of "Professor of Kabbalah" at Hebrew University.

This man decided, about 60 years ago, that that he understood Kabbalah better than the Arizal, the Ramak, and the other masters, and that really Kabblah is not part of Torah but rather an alien outgrowth from Gnosticism and philosophy.

This is not, c"v, the view of Rav Yaakov Emden, the Chasam Sofer, or any other clear headed Jew. R. Yaakov Emden writes about the Zohar:

"Holy is the Sefer HaZohar ... cholilah to question it! The worthy reader will see in it holy light and the path to righteousness ... " (ibid, intro.)

Said R. Yaakov Emden, "The Seforim that I authored are full of Kabblah, based on the Zohar" (Adus B'Yaakov p. 21)

While it is true that Rav Yaakov Emden did on occasion change the text of the Zohar to conform to what he held was the original, or remove some later insertions - and it should be mentioned that even this opinion of his was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars - he writes, "Cholilah that I should erase even one letter from the Zohar except where it is absolutely necessary" (MS I p.31). (See also Teshuvos Teshuva M'Ahava I:13, and I:26).

So out of touch was this G. Sholem, and that he even went on a campaign to publicize his "discovery" that Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L was a closet follower of Shabse Tzvi! I promise this is true.

Of course, Rav Yonason was accused of that, in his day, by Rav Yaakov Emden, but the accusation was subsequently found to be a total mistake. But the fact that the Vilna Gaon himself found only pure Torah in Rav Yonason's Kabalistic writings did not impress Sholem. I guess it was because The Gra was did not have a PhD from Hebrew U in Kabalah.

Of course, all serious scholars at that time such as Rabbi Reuven Margolis ZT"L did a chain saw massacre on Sholom's "discovery", exposing it for nothing more than ignorance and distortions.

Sholem latched on to a statement of Rav Yonason quoting "Drush Tanini" regarding the Kabalistic concept of "the holy nachash" and that Moshiach is Gemtria "nachash", which, the professor of Kabblaah said, is obviously referring to a work of Noson Ha'azasi, the notorious student of Shabse Tzvi.

Of course, Rav Margolis pointed out that in the Zohar (Bo) there is a "Drush Taninim" and that is what Rav Yonason was referring to.

Sholem insisted that his opposition doesn’t know what they are talking about, and "anyone who understands the Zohar knows that this is an open lie, that we do not even have to deal with".

He writes: "Every single commentary on the Zohar without exception agrees with me".

This is what happens when someone tries to learn Kabbakah from the printed word without a mentor, thus misunderstanding everything he sees.

Well, the professor, of course, turned out to be wrong. The Kabbalistic explanation of Rav Yonason Eyebushitz ZT"L turned up --- guess where? -- in the commentary of Rav Yaaov Emden on that very Zohar!

Kind of a Kiddush Hashem, when something like that happens. (See Zaharei Yaavetz p.125 - 132 for details)

Even the phony secular pseudo-Kabbalists have begun to give up on Sholem's ideas. Moshe Idel, "professor of Jewish thought" (sic) in Hebrew U (he has a "PhD in Kabbalah" (sic). I am not kidding) has proven Sholem wrong. In his "Kabblah, New Perspectives" (SIC!) he shows that Kabalah is really ancient and that the Gnostics actually were influenced by Kabbalah, not vice versa.

Well, duh. At least someone takes Sholom seriously enough to bother disproving him.

No, sorry, all so-called "scholarship" trying to discredit Kabbalah has already been discredited, and if you present any particular tidbit of such "scholarship" I will show you why it doesn’t work.

Or perhaps you can find a "Professor of Truth" somewhere in Hebrew U that can explain it.


...That RSHBI didn’t write the Zohar, meaning, that, all the exact words are not written by him is pretty clear - and yes, you don’t need to swear to that. The Zohar was clearly edited by students of RSHBI, or even Geonim (the Steipler said that). Like the Mishna was edited by R"Y Hanasi.

That doesn’t mean at all that it doesn’t have the authority of RSHBI any more than the fact that the Mishna was edited means c"v it doesn’t represent the opinions of the Tannaim quoted there.

As far as the disproofs of Gershom Sholem, my point is that since there is a clear tradition and expert testimony to the authoritativeness of the Zohar, the onus would lie on those who dispute that. Once their claims are disproved, the default value so to speak of this issue is the traditional one.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------eilu v'eilu

-
The Ritva explains how "ailu vailu divrei elokim chaim" works as follows:

When Moshe on Har Sinai asked Hashem a Halachah, Hashem responded not with a clear cut answer but with numerous possibilities. Seventy possibilities for "tahor" and 70 possibilities for "tameh". Then Hashem said, "All these are possible to be the Halachah. Let the Rabbonim study Torah and decide the Halachah based on the Halachic process. Whatever they decide among these possibilities will be the actual halachah."

Therefore, we study all legitimate Halachic opinions since they, too, were created by hashem and given on Har Sinai, meaning, they too are part of the Torah. The bottom line directive for us to follow is a separate issue.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------indispensable

-
The Oral Torah - Torah shebal peh - was given at the exact same time as the written Torah (Torah shebiksav). The Oral Torah is the explanation of the Written Law. Without the Oral Law, the Written Law, simply put, makes no sense.

This, among other reasons, is why other religions, such as Christianity, Islam, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist "Judaism", and Jews for Jesus will never have any serious basis for their religious beliefs, since they all attempt the impossible: To base a religion on the Written Law only, to the exclusion of the Oral Law. That’s impossible, since without the Oral Law, the Written Law is meaningless. It is clear as day from the Written Torah that an Oral Torah goes along with it.

Example: "In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy assembly, all actions of work you shall not do; a day of blowing it shall be for you" (Bamidbar 29:1).

Ookay. Now, just based on this written verse, what in the world does this mean?

Proclaim a holy day, abstain from work, blow the shofar -- why? What is the meaning of this holiday? What is it in honor of? Do you think G-d told them to celebrate without telling them what it is they are celebrating?

Don’t you think G-d explained this to Moshe?

In Shemos 23:15 we read: "The festival of Matzos you should keep. Seven days you shall eat Matzos and I commanded you, in the designated time in the spring month, in which you went out of Egypt."

We understand that a "month" means the lunar month ("chodesh" - month - comes from the word "chodosh" - "new", as in new moon. The solar "month" is not really a month but a random division of the year into 12 parts with no real rhyme or reason. A solar month could have had 20 30 40 50 or 150 days - it’s just a random number).

But the problem is, the lunar year is 354 days and the solar year is 365. That means, every year, the lunar year slips 11 days behind the solar, so that this "spring month" will not be a spring month anymore in a few years, and will come out as often in the winter as it does in the summer or spring or fall (Ramadan of the Moslems comes out different times of the year because of this). So what in the world is a "spring month"??????

Don’t you think G-d explained this to Moshe? Yet there is not a peep in the Torah about what this mean or what to do when Pesach comes out in December!

"You shall afflict yourselves" (Vayikra 16:31) on Yom Kippur. How? By standing on your head? Sticking needles into your skin?

"You shall take for yourselves (on Sukkos) a good-looking fruit" (Vaiykra 23:40) - which one???

Despite the total non-committal nature of the Torah on these issues, no Jew in history ever questioned the fact that Pri Eitz Hadar means an Esrog, and affliction on Yom Kippur means fasting. Even the "Messianic Jews" who believe in Yoshka, fast on Yom Kippur! Not that they have any idea what they’re doing, but he question is, why does everyone in the world think without any disagreement that these verses refer to these particular things?

The Torah nowhere says you must fast on Yom Kippur!

And check this out: "And they shall be Totafos between your eyes" (Devarim 6:8).
What in the world are totafos? What does this word mean? It has no real translation, even.
Don’t you think that Moshe, when G-d told him this, asked "Please explain?"

All this information - and more - was given to us by G-d Himself to Moshe on Mt. Sinai, orally.

That is the Oral Law.

Without this Oral Law, the whole Torah just makes zero sense. Its clear form the Torah itself that there is Oral "notes" that accompany it.

And there is but one - and only one - version of the Orla Law in existence. Nobody - no religion, no professor, no historian - even claims in their wildest dreams that there may be another version of Torah shebal peh. It’s either the Talmud or nothing.

And clearly it’s not nothing.

You can’t forge a Torah shebal peh.It has to be a generation-to-generation tradition from Mt. Sinai down. That can’t exist unless everyone knows about it from the moment it was given - after all, its supposed be the religious authority of the entire nation. That’s why nobody could claim another Oral Law.

Besides the explanatory notes that G-0d gave moshe on Mt. Sinai, He also taught Moshe formulas for deciphering the Torah on their own. Using G-d's formulas, as well as instructions explicit in the Torah, we can find instructions in the Torah on how to deal with disagreements among the sages and other such issues.

The Torah also gives us guidelines of the authority of the sages regarding enacting decrees, the formation of customs, etc.

But you cannot take half of the Torah and leave out the other half - the Oral Law and the Written Law are one entity. Taking one without the other is like taking the odd pages of the Torah and leaving out the even. It’s either all or nothing.


Q: What was the point in both, shebaal peh and shebichsav. why didn’t hashem just make it together. why make a torah that makes no sense and you have to look up what it means. why not just straight out?



A: We needed both.

The purpose of the Oral Law being unwritten was to protect it from abuse by other religions - the way they abused Tanach by making it into the "Old Testament" etc. The Oral Law is the private connection between the Jews and G-d, and nobody else can have access to it - it’s the private relationship between us and Him.

However, one of the characteristics of the written Law is that it is "aidus" - "testimony" to the world of the events that happened - the creation of Klall Yisroel, the giving of the Torah, etc. Kind of like the official marriage documentation between us and Hashem. And as testimony, must be public and written. The Oral Law is our private relationship with G-d, but the written law is the documentation that we are His.

TORAH SHEBALPEH------yeridas hadoros

How do you respond to someone who says that nowadays we are just as smart as the people who lived in the days of the gemarah. Therefore, our interpretation of certain matters (aside from halacha lmoshe misinai) should be just as valid.

Is there any proof that the earlier generations (not necessarily as far back as talmudic times) were more knowledgeable and therefore more legitimate than anything we can come up with nowadays?


The Torah works differently than other "sciences", l'havdil. Other sciences are discovered, little by little, and every further discovery adds and compounds the previous.

Not so by Torah. Hashem gave Moshe the Torah on Har Sinai. Hashem was the best teacher ever, knew more Torah than humanly possible, and gave this to moshe in a supernatural manner, so that Moshe knew more than humanly possible.

From there, things got handed down orally and we know that the generations got lower and lower. First there were prophets. Then no more prophets. There used to be open miracles, then no more.

People constantly went down in level. Knowing Torah is not merely an intellectual. It’s a spiritual accomplishment that involves levels of siyata dshamaya. Being smart isn’t enough. The validity of a person's Torah is dependent on their connection to Hashem, not merely their IQ. A Sefer Torah that an apikores writes gets burned. Even with Hashem's names. It’s worth nothing. The great ancients were so close to Hashem, there Torah was proportionately valid.

The smallest of Chazal could resurrect the dead. Can we? They lived their lives on a level that we cannot imagine, and were also closer to the revelation on Har Sinai chronologically than we are. Their Torah was on the same level as they were - everyone’s Torah is on the level that they are.

Since it is obvious based on what we know about Chazal's levels of holiness that we can see from their lives, its obvious we can't compare ourselves to them.

Plus. Plus, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Torah when we should end a "tekufah" and at what point we say "OK, we can’t argue with the previous generations".

The way this happens is, the generation itself sees that it is no longer able to match the Torah quality of the previous generation, answering their questions or matching their skills. And there is a universal acceptance that we are in a new Tekufah.

That’s what happened between the Rishonim and Achronim, Tanaim and Amoraim, etc.

So those great Torah giants, who knew Chazal, unanimously conceded that they are unable to match them in Torah skill. Even though nobody told them this, or forced this on them. Klall Yisroel decided unanimously that Chazal has ended and we are, relatively, just plain people.

It makes zero sense, after all that, for us, nowadays to say we know better than those who were there.