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...]