Breaks In Tradition, Rabbinic Authority, and The Reasons For the Commandments

In Lawrence Schiffman's "Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism." He brings up an idea about biblical interpretation that made me think about the oral tradition and whether it was a truly unbroken chain, given down from teacher to student, from Moses until today. First, let us look at the verses in the Torah that deal with the holiday of Succos (Vayikra 23:40-43):

מ  וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן, פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים, וַעֲנַף עֵץ-עָבֹת, וְעַרְבֵי-נָחַל; וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם, לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--שִׁבְעַת יָמִים.	40 And you shall take on the first day fruit of the beautiful tree, branches of palm-trees, and leaves of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
מא  וְחַגֹּתֶם אֹתוֹ חַג לַיהוָה, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה:  חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי תָּחֹגּוּ אֹתוֹ.	41 And you shall celebrate a celebration unto the LORD seven days of the year; it is a statute forever, for generations; In the seventh month you shall celebrate it.
מב  בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים; כָּל-הָאֶזְרָח, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יֵשְׁבוּ, בַּסֻּכֹּת.	42 You shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths;
מג  לְמַעַן, יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם, כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:  אֲנִי, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם.	43 In order that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

In the current tradition, we know that verse 40 is referring to the commandment of taking the Lulav

and Esrog. Therefore, we know these verses are teaching us that on Succos we have two main commandments, the taking of the Lulav with the Esrog and dwelling in booths. However, what if the interpretation of the verses was that the booths are to be made from the four species? What if these verses were all referring to only one commandment?

This is in fact what happened in the days of Ezra and Nechemia, at the beginning of the return of the exiles, according to Lawrence Schiffman. As it states in the book of Nechemia (8:14-17):

14And they found written in the Torah that the Lord had commanded, by the hand of Moses, that the Children of Israel dwell in booths on the festival in the seventh month.		ידוַיִּמְצְאוּ כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהֹוָה בְּיַד מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר יֵשְׁבוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּסֻּכּוֹת בֶּחָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי:
15And that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the mountain and bring olive leaves and leaves of oil trees, myrtle leaves, date palm leaves, and leaves of plaited trees, to make booths, as it is written."		טווַאֲשֶׁר יַשְׁמִיעוּ וְיַעֲבִירוּ קוֹל בְּכָל עָרֵיהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר צְאוּ הָהָר וְהָבִיאוּ עֲלֵי זַיִת וַעֲלֵי עֵץ שֶׁמֶן וַעֲלֵי הֲדָס וַעֲלֵי תְמָרִים וַעֲלֵי עֵץ עָבֹת לַעֲשׂת סֻכֹּת כַּכָּתוּב:
16And the people went forth and brought [these items] and made booths for themselves, each one on his roof and in their courts and in the courts of the House of God, and in the square of the Water Gate, and in the square of the Gate of Ephraim.		טזוַיֵּצְאוּ הָעָם וַיָּבִיאוּ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם סֻכּוֹת אִישׁ עַל גַּגּוֹ וּבְחַצְרֹתֵיהֶם וּבְחַצְרוֹת בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם וּבִרְחוֹב שַׁעַר אֶפְרָיִם:
17And all the congregation of the returnees from the captivity made booths and dwelt in the booths, for they had not done so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun until that day, and there was exceedingly great joy.		יזוַיַּעֲשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל הַשָּׁבִים מִן הַשְּׁבִי | סֻכּוֹת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בַסֻּכּוֹת כִּי לֹא עָשׂוּ מִימֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן נוּן כֵּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַהוּא וַתְּהִי שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד:

First, in this story there is no mention of the lulav and esrog, which one would expect to find if they are discussing how great the observance of the holiday was. Second, in verse 15 it seems like all the materials they are gathering is only for the building of the Sukkah, not the lulav. Lastly, verse 14 uses the language of "finding," which is used when something new is discovered. Had they possessed a tradition of how to celebrate the Succos holiday, the verse would not have used the language of "finding." Therefore, the Rabbis of the time interpreted the verse as they saw fit, and that is why this holiday was, seemingly, celebrated without the commandment of lulav and esrog.

But, perhaps Lawrence Schiffman is incorrect and his analysis is off base. Nevertheless, there are other examples in the bible that appear to say the traditions of Judaism do not proceed from Moses onward in an unbroken fashion. For example, in Kings II (22:8-14) it says:

8And Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the Scroll of the Law in the house of the Lord," and Hilkiah gave the scroll to Shaphan, and he read it.		חוַיֹּאמֶר חִלְקִיָּהוּ הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל עַל שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה מָצָאתִי בְּבֵית יְהֹוָה וַיִּתֵּן חִלְקִיָּה אֶת הַסֵּפֶר אֶל שָׁפָן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ:
9And Shaphan the scribe came to the king and brought back word to the king, and said, "Your servants have melted the silver that was found in the Temple, and they have given it into the hands of the foremen of the work who were appointed over the house of the Lord.		טוַיָּבֹא שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּבָר וַיֹּאמֶר הִתִּיכוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ אֶת הַכֶּסֶף הַנִּמְצָא בַבַּיִת וַיִּתְּנֻהוּ עַל יַד עֹשֵֹי הַמְּלָאכָה הַמֻּפְקָדִים בֵּית יְהֹוָה:
10And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, "Hilkiah the priest gave me a scroll," And Shaphan read it before the king.		יוַיַּגֵּד שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר לַמֶּלֶךְ לֵאמֹר סֵפֶר נָתַן לִי חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ שָׁפָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ:
11And it was when the king heard the words of the scroll of the Law, that he rent his garments.		יאוַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דִּבְרֵי סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה ויִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו:

Here again we have the language of "finding" which implies that some new information was presented. However, with this source we do not need to rely upon our own interpretation. The Radak explains what happened. Radak (verse 8):

ספר התורה מצאתי בבית ה׳. דרשו כי אחז שרף את התור׳ והטמינו מפניו ספר תורה אחת והטמינוהו תחת הנדבך ועכשיו מצא חלק׳ ספר התורה הזח ורחוק הוא זה שחזקיהו שבא אחריו שרבצ תורה בישראל איך לא הוציאו וכמה ספרי תורה הניח חזקיהו במיתו אלא מנשה מלך זמן רב שהרי מלך נ״ה שנה ועשה הרע בעיני ה׳ כתועבות הגוים ובנה מזבחות לע״ג בבית ה׳ ודוא השכיח התור׳ מישראל ואין פונה אליה כי כלם היו פונים אל האלהים אחרים ואל תקית הגוים ובנ״ה שנה נשתכחה התור׳
I found a Torah scroll in the house of G-D. The [background] explanation is that Achaz burnt the Torah and one torah scroll was hidden from him, out of sight. It was hidden under stone wall (or idolatrous temple area) and now Chilkiah found this torah scroll. This incident is difficult to understand, because Chizkiyahu, who came after [Achaz] disseminated Torah throughout Israel, so how could they not find this Torah. Also, how many Torahs did Chizkiyahu leave [in the midst of Israel] when he died? Rather, Menashe ruled for a long time, he was king for 55 years, and he did such evil in the eyes of G-D, like the wicked deeds of the nations, and built alters for idol worship. He caused Israel to abandoned the Torah and they did not turn to G-D, because all of them were turning to idols and to the ways of the nations. So, after 55 years, the Torah was forgotten. 

Here, we can see the Radak claiming that the tradition from Moses had been lost. Clearly, any oral tradition or explanation of the plain meaning of the written text was not found in these days. Thus, showing a broken link in the chain of a tradition from Moses.

This break in the link of tradition is not unique to biblical sources. In the Gemara, while speaking of the tradition of which plant is the Aravos (willow-branch) it states (Sukkah 44a):

 א׳׳ל ר׳ זירא לר׳ אבהו מי א״ר יוחנן הכי והא״ר יוחנן משום ר׳ נחוניא איש בקעת בית חורתן עשר נטיעות ערבה וניסוך המים הלכה למשה מסיני אשתומם כשעה חדא ואמר שכחום וחזרו ויסדום
R. Zera to R. Abbahu, Did R. Johanan really say this? Did R. Johanan not say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Plain of Beth Hawartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the willow-branch and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai’? [The other] was appalled for a moment and then he answered, They were forgotten and then they were re-instituted.

Rashi here states:

  שכחום. בגלות בבל שכחו את התורה והמצות במקצת וזו נשכחה לגמרי.
They were forgotten: During the exile in Babylonia they forgot part of the Torah and the commandments and this [teaching of what the Aravos were] was completely forgot.

This idea is stated in other places in the Gemara as well. The following example is a discussion of when to use the closed form vs the open form of a letter (like a mem sofit vs a regular mem) (Shabbos 104a):

לא הוה ידעין הי באמצע תיבה הי בסוף תיבה ואתו צופים תקנינהו ואכתי אלה המצות שאין הנביא רשאי לחדש דבר מעתה אלא שכחום וחזרו ויסדום
People did not know which form came in the middle of a word and which one at the end, and the Watchmen came and ordained that the open forms should be in the middle of a word and the closed forms at the end. Still, [the text states] ‘these are the commandments’, which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce an innovation hereafter? Rather, [we must say] this law [was in fact from heaven, but] was forgotten and the Watchmen established them again.

The point of this is to show that there is no unbroken chain from Moses to us with regards to the oral Torah. In fact, there are very few laws that were given over to Moses from Sinai. That is why the Gemara only has certain laws that we say they were a Halacha L'Moshe Mi'Sinai (A law given to Moses at Sinai from G-D). The rest of the laws are derived from logical discourse of the Rabbis.

There is no better illustration of this than the story of the Oven of Aknai (Babba Metzeia 59b) where there was a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis:

וזה הוא תנור של עכנאי מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שהקיפו דברים כעכנא זו וטמאוהו תנא באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של ר״א ועדיין מטין ועומדין חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר״א שהלכה כמותו בכ״מ עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה אחרי רבים להטות
This was the oven of 'Aknai.  Why Aknai? Rav Yehuda said in Samuel's name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. He said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. Others say, four hundred cubits. 'No proof can be brought from a carob tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined argued. Again he urged: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: 'When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, how can you interfere?' So they did not fall, in honor of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing this way. Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do you dispute R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him?!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? R. Jeremiah said: The Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because you have already written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.

This story teaches us something incredible, that it doesn't matter what G-D originally intended for the Halacha to be, rather it only matters how the Rabbis interpret the Torah. The tradition that we have is not an unbroken chain of what G-D said to Moses, but of the leadership of the Rabbis telling us what they think the law should be based on the written word using their logic.

This idea is not new, in fact, it is stated straight out in the bible itself (Devarim 17:9-11):

9And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment.		טוּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:
10And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you.		יוְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהֹוָה וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:
11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left.		יאעַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:

Rashi on verse 11 here even tells us (from chabad.org):

either right or left,: Even if this judge tells you that right is left, and that left is right. How much more so, if he tells you that right is right, and left is left!- [Sifrei]

ימין ושמאל: אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, וכל שכן שאומר לך על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל:

To further drive home this point, I will bring in the Rambam in the Sefer HaMitzvos (312th negative commandment):

The 312th prohibition is that we are forbidden from disagreeing with the Sages who pass down the Oral Tradition (may they rest in peace), or from deviating from any of their instructions in Torah matters. The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "Do not stray from the word that they declare to you."

And the 174th positive commandment:

The 174th mitzvah is that we are commanded to obey the Beis Din HaGadol and act in accordance with all their instructions regarding what is prohibited and what is permitted. There is no difference whether it is something they received by Oral Tradition; derived using one of the principle of Torah extrapolation; decreed in order to correct some laxity or in response to some other situation where they found it appropriate and that it would strengthen Torah observance. We are required to obey all such directives and to act in accordance with their words, not to transgress them.The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement (exalted be He), "You must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you [and follow the laws that they legislate for you]."

The Rambam is telling us that the Rabbis are the keepers of the tradition and that, although there is no unbroken chain for all the laws, there is an unbroken tradition of following the great Rabbis of the generation. Those are our leaders and they are the ones we must follow.

Still, why would G-D set up our religion in this manner? Are we not looking for the truth? Don't we want to know what G-D actually said to Moses? This setup seems to be telling us that G-D's original intention when giving the commandments to Moses is irrelevant. So then, what is the purpose of giving the Jewish people the commandments?

There is an argument in Babba Metzeia (115a) that is based on whether the commandents have reasons behind them (like to make us better people) or if they are just for us to perform because G-D told us to perform them:

 אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה שנאמר לא תחבול  בגד אלמנה: גמ' ת״ר אלמנה בין שהיא ענייה בין שהיא עשירה אין ממשכנין אותה דברי ר׳ יהודה ר״ש אומר עשירה ממשכנין אותה ענייה אין ממשכנין אותה שאתה חייב להחזיר לה ואתה משיאה שם רע בשכנותיה למימרא דר׳ יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ור״ש דריש טעמא דקרא והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתניא ולא ירבה לו נשים ר׳ יהודה אומר מרבה הוא ובלבד שלא יהו מסירות את לבו ר״ש אומר אפילו אחת והיא מסירה את לבו ה״ז לא ישאנה א״כ מה ת״ל ולא ירבה לו נשים אפילו כאביגיל לעולם ר׳ יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא ושאני הכא דמפרש קרא ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור מאי טעמא לא ירבה לו נשים משום דלא יסור ור״ש מכדי בעלמא דרשינן טעמא דקרא לכתוב רחמנא לא ירבה ולא בעינן לא יסור ואנא ידענא מאי טעמא לא ירבה משום דלא יסור לא יסור דכתב רחמנא למה לי אפילו אחת ומסירה את לבו הרי זה לא ישאנה:
MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT TAKE A PLEDGE FROM A WIDOW, WHETHER SHE BE RICH OR POOR, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIDOW'S RAIMENT TO PLEDGE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow is rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow we take pledges from, but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disrepute among her neighbors. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ (reason for the commandments), while R. Simeon does? But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learned: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]; R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself? Even such as Abigail! In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away. Thus, why ‘shall he not multiply wives to himself’? So ‘that his heart turn not away.’ And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason: then Scripture should have written, ‘Neither shall he multiply [etc.].’ but ‘and his heart shall not turn away’ is superfluous, for I would know myself that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is ‘shall not turn away’ [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart.

Here, the Gemara is introducing us to a fundamental argument, do the commandments have underlying LOGICAL reasons? Rebbe Shimon believes they do and Rebbe Yehuda does not. This leads to a statement made by Rambam (The Guide for The Perplexed in Part 3 Chapter 48):

When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion [that the Laws have reasons].

The Rambam is telling us that, as a general rule, we follow the commandments and interpret them with the idea that they have underlying reasons, not just that G-D told us to do them. This is further elucidated by the Rambam (Guide for the perplexed Part 3 Chapter 31 Friedlander translation):

 There are persons who find it difficult to give a reason for any of the commandments, and consider it right to assume that the commandments and prohibitions have no rational basis whatever...  On the contrary, the sole object of the Law is to benefit us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage, "for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day" (Deut. vi. 24). Again, "which shall hear all those statutes (ḥuḳḳim), and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (ibid. iv. 6). He thus says that even every one of these "statutes" convinces all nations of the wisdom and understanding it includes. But if no reason could be found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise, reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations? But the truth is undoubtedly as we have said, that every one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to diminish evil, to train in good manners or to warn against bad habits. All this depends on three things: opinions, morals, and social conduct. We do not count words, because precepts, whether positive or negative, if they relate to speech, belong to those precepts which regulate our social conduct, or to those which spread truth, or to those which teach morals. Thus these three principles suffice for assigning a reason for every one of the Divine commandments.

 The commandments are there to make us morally, socially and emotionally better people. This is why the Rabbis are given such great power over the law, because they are supposed to guide us as to how best to understand the laws in a way that will improve us and update our morals and social constructs with an evolving society. The best example of the Rabbis doing this can be found in the Gemara in Babba Kamma (83b):

אמאי?  עין תחת עין אמר רחמנא אימא עין ממש לא סלקא דעתך דתניא יכול סימא את עינו מסמא את עינו קטע את ידו מקטע את ידו שיבר את רגלו משבר את רגלו ת״ל מכה אדם ומכה בהמה מה מכה בהמה לתשלומין אף מכה אדם לתשלומין ואם נפשך לומר הרי הוא אומר לא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח אשר הוא רשע למות לנפש רוצח אי אתה לוקח כופר אבל אתה לוקח כופר לראשי אברים שאין חוזרין
Why [pay compensation]? Does the Divine Law not say ‘Eye for eye’? Why not take this literally to mean [putting out] the eye [of the offender]? — Let not this enter your mind, since it has been taught: You might think that where he put out his eye, the offender's eye should be put out, or where he cut off his arm, the offender's arm should be cut off, or again where he broke his leg, the offender's leg should be broken. [Not so; for the Torah] comes to teach , ‘He that smiteth any man. . .’ ‘And he that smiteth a beast . . .’ just as in the case of smiting a beast compensation is to be paid, so also in the case of smiting a man compensation is to be paid. And should this [reason] not satisfy you, note that it is stated, ‘Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer, that is guilty of death’, implying that it is only for the life of a murderer that you may not take ‘satisfaction’, whereas you may take ‘satisfaction’ [even] for the principal limbs, though these cannot be restored.’

Here we see the Rabbis using one of the logical principles for biblical exegesis to teach that a barbaric act, taking an eye for an eye, should not be followed. They instead reinterpret the verse in a non-literal way in order to morally improve this law. This could only be done if we believe that there are reasons for the commandments, because then man can use his logic to try and figure out the reason. With the goal being moral, social and emotional improvement, that Rambam tells us, the Rabbis can then interpret the law following these guidelines.  (Also, other laws that point out this idea are multiple wives and slavery that are no longer acceptable in Judaism)

Lastly, I want to share the words of the Meiri in his Sefer Hamidos: 

Fulfilling the Mitzvos (Commandments) with the intent that they are being performed to serve the creator is sufficient for the masses and the nation. However, it is proper for individuals to try and understand all that is possible, according to their capabilities, [with regard to what are the reason for the Mitzvos]. As it says in Psalms (119:66), "Teach me good reason and knowledge; for I have believed in Your Mitzvos (commandments)." What [Psalms] means is that even though I believe in Your Mitzvos and I fulfill all of the Torah, I request to know the reason and wisdom [behind] them. This is not in order to doubt the witnesses that have testified that these Mitzvos are true, because I already believe in them. Also, my belief (emunah) does not rely on the study of these things to the extent that if I found a good connection I would believe or if I found something I considered a lie I would deny them, because this is Kefira (Heresy) and a removal of the religion completely.

The Meiri points out that the most learned of the people (aka the Rabbis) should try and understand the reasons behind the commandments. The reason for this is clear now, the Rabbis need to understand the reasons for the commandments in order for them to interpret the law appropriately. The oral tradition is based on the guiding principle that the Rabbis will lead us to a morally, socially and emotionally improved law. There is no unbroken tradition that teaches us what G-D actually said at Sinai, because it doesn't matter. Lo bashamayim hi, it is not in heaven. The Rabbis are here to guide us in the principles of Judaism through the laws that they interpret in a manner that is forever being tweaked based on our improved understanding of the reasons for the commandments. 

Meiri On Taamei Hamitzvos (Reasons for the Commandments) and Rationalist Judaism

There are some very important points that the Meiri brings down in his Sefer Hamidos (Book of Characteristics). The best way to discuss this is to translate the first paragraph on page 61 of his book where the Meiri discusses the reasons for Mitzvos (Commandments). I will interject when I feel it is appropriate. The Meiri says:

Fulfilling the Mitzvos (Commandments) with the intent that they are being performed to serve the creator is sufficient for the masses and the nation.

The Meiri is subtly telling us something very important. The lowest level of performing Mitzvos (commandments) is to fulfill them WHILE having in mind to serve THE CREATOR. I think this language was not callously chosen. I believe that the Meiri is telling us that the most basic reason for the Mitzvos that a person needs to understand in order for their performance to have any value is appreciation. G-D created us and, therefore, when He asks us to do something we do it because He asked. This is important because anyone who realizes that the Mitzvos, at the very least, exist to show appreciation will be more aware of what others do for him or her. This is the most basic character trait a person needs, the trait of appreciation, to be a good person.

The Meiri continues:
However, it is proper for individuals to try and understand all that is possible, according to their capabilities, [of what are the reason for the Mitzvos]. As it says in Psalms (119:66), "Teach me good reason and knowledge; for I have believed in Your Mitzvos (commandments)." What [Psalms] means is that even though I believe in Your Mitzvos and I fulfill all of the Torah, I request to know the reason and wisdom [behind] them. This is not in order to doubt the witnesses that have testified that these Mitzvos are true, because I already believe in them. Also, my belief (emunah) does not rely on the study of these things to the extent that if I found a good connection I would believe or if I found something I considered a lie I would deny them, because this is Kefira (Heresy) and a removal of the religion completely.   

I think the Meiri sums up rationalist Judaism very well here. Judaism is based on laws that were given by G-D. One can not follow Judaism if he or she does not believe this idea no matter what. Without this simple tenant of faith there is no Judaism to follow. Once a person accepts the idea that G-D gave the laws then one must follow these laws whether or not they understand them. However,  the Meiri is telling us that a person SHOULD strive to understand the laws, but not make their beliefs contingent on their understanding of the laws.

This is what, I believe, Rationalist Judaism is all about, understanding the laws, understanding why we do things. In the end of the day everyone, from the Rambam to the Maharal, agrees that Jews follow the laws, simply, because G-D said we should follow them. However, the disagreement comes when we discuss the understanding of the laws. Some say we should not strive to understand the Mitzvos because they are not capable of being understood properly, rather they are just decrees made by G-D that we must follow. The other side is that we should strive to understand the Mitzvos on the deepest level that we can so that we can learn what G-D wants from us. The difference between these two opinions is, in my mind, clear. In a situation where the law goes against what G-D actually wants from us then we would go against the law and follow G-D's will. The best example is Pikuach Nefesh (When a life is in Danger). The law says straight out that we can not violate Shabbos. However, the Rabbis learn out that a person is supposed to desecrate Shabbos in order to save a life. This would, seemingly, be a situation where we use the idea of Reasons for the Mitzvos to contradict a straight out law.

I know, this is said in the Gemara, but the idea still stands. Would the Tannaim or Amoraim that hold there are no reasons for the Mitzvos also say that Pikuach Nefesh does push off the sanctity of the Shabbos? This is something worth exploring, but I don't know enough yet to adequately conclude anything with authority. However, the Torah Temmimah quotes the source for this idea, that Pikuach Nefesh pushes off the sanctity of Shabbos, and it is an Amorah in Tractate Yoma (85b):

וחי ב הם. תנ יא, מנין לפקוח נ פש שדחה את השב ת , אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, דכתיב
ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי ב ה ם , ולא שימות בהם
And live by them- We learned in a Braisa, from where do we know that Pikuach Nefesh (A life in danger) pushes off [the sanctity of] Shabbos? Says Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel (an Amora), it is written (Vayikra 18:5) And you shall guard my ordinances and laws that you shall do them and LIVE BY THEM and not die by them.

If there is no alternate understanding, why does only one Amora say it?

Where is the source in the Mishna/Gemara for this argument of whether there is a reason for the Mitzvos or not? It is found in Babba Metzia (115a) among other places:

MISHNAH. A MAN MAY NOT TAKE A PLEDGE FROM A WIDOW, WHETHER SHE BE RICH OR POOR, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT NOT TAKE A WIDOW'S RAIMENT TO PLEDGE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whether a widow be rich or poor, no pledge may be taken from her: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: A wealthy widow is subject to distraint,but not a poor one, for you are bound to return [the pledge] to her, and you bring her into disreputeamong her neighbours. Now, shall we say that R. Judah does not interpret the reason of the Writ,whilst R. Simeon does?17 But we know their opinions to be the reverse. For we learnt: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, [that his heart turn not away]; R. Judah said: He may multiply [wives], providing that they do not turn his heart away. R. Simeon said: He may not take to wife even a single one who is likely to turn his heart away; what then is taught by the verse, Neither shall he multiply wives to himself? Even such as Abigail! — In truth, R. Judah does not Interpret the reason of Scripture; but here it is different, because Scripture itself states the reason: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, and his heart shall not turn away. Thus, why ‘shall he not multiply wives to himself’? So ‘that his heart turn not away.’ And R. Simeon [argues thus]: Let us consider. As a general rule, we interpret the Scriptural reason: then Scripture should have written, ‘Neither shall he multiply [etc.].’ whilst ‘and his heart shall not turn away’ is superfluous, for I would know myself
that the reason why he must not multiply is that his heart may not turn away. Why then is ‘shall not turn away’ [explicitly] stated? To teach that he must not marry even a single one who may turn his heart.

We see from here, as well as many other places, that Rebbe Shimon learns out that there are reasons for the Mitzvos whereas Rebbe Yehuda does not. However, according to the Rambam in the Moreh Nevuchim (The Guide for The Perplexed) in Part 3 Chapter 48 we Poskin (rule) like Rebbe Shimon. As he says:

When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their prayer the phrase, "Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely, that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will. We follow the other opinion [that the Laws have reasons].

This is, most likely, why we decide the Pekuach Nefesh is Docheh Shabbos (Life Endangerment pushes off the sanctity of Shabbos), because we follow the opinion that the laws have reasons. One of the basic reasons for the Mitzvos is in order that we, as Jews, observe them. If the Mitzvos lead to our death then we can not observe them, therefore, we desecrate the Sabbath in order to live another day and observe the Mitzvos.

Getting back to the topic of Rationalist Judaism, if we truly hold of the idea that the Mitzvos have reasons, then doesn't it follow that everything in Judaism, stemming from the fact that Judaism is solely based on the written and oral Torah, should have a reason? This is what Rationalist Judaism is based on, finding reasons and questioning ideas that are, seemingly based on faulty logic. For example, science has shown that it is highly likely that the world is older than 5771 years old. Is Judaism forced into the position that the world must only be 5771 or is that just some idea that cropped up in the past that some antiquated people cling to as if it were a religious dogma? If reason and understanding is desired in our religion, as the Meiri points out, why are there people who call any form of reason and understanding Kefirah (heresy)?

It bothers me that some people make a topic, like the age of the universe, into such a big deal when, in truth, it matters very little to the Jewish religion. If the universe is 13-15 billion years old does that mean G-D didn't create it? That G-D did not speak to the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai? That none of the prophets spoke to G-D? All this does is make the people who refuse to discuss these issues look foolish. Worse, it makes the pseudo-scientific explanations look idiotic. I dislike when people try to make their pseudoscience look like real science. Why am I so against it? Because I once fell for pseudoscience until someone actually took the time to explain to me why those pseudo-scientists were spewing nonsense. If one takes a logical approach then they can never go wrong.

The Meiri and the Rambam (my two favorite Rishonim) teach us a very valuable lesson with this whole reason for Mitzvos. True, one must follow the Torah whether they understand the reasons or not. However, we should always search for the true meaning. Why? Because, it is only through the true meaning that we will come to be better people and correct our character traits. It is only through understanding the deeper meaning of the Mitzvos that we can truly understand what it is that G-D wants from us. That does not come from closing our eyes and just doing what we are told, but rather it comes from opening our minds and ears and figuring out the deeper meanings of this complicated and intricate religion.

Think of it like this. A person who just performs the Mitzvos without understanding their deeper meanings is more likely to lie and cheat than someone who actually researches and understands the deeper meanings behind the Mitzvos. The former does not understand that lying and cheating in a way that is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah is still abhorrent to G-D. He figures there is a "loophole" for him to comfortably do these despicable atrocities in. However, the latter realizes that lying and cheating, whether explicitly stated is abhorrent to G-D and he or she will not allow themselves to take that evil path.

What is The Blessing and The Curse G-D is Giving Us?

This week's parsha starts off with talk of a blessing (Bracha) and a curse (Klala). However, what are the mysterious blessing and curse? The Torah only tells us (Devarim 11:26-28):

כו  רְאֵה, אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם--הַיּוֹם:  בְּרָכָה, וּקְלָלָה.	26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse:
כז  אֶת-הַבְּרָכָה--אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, הַיּוֹם.	27 the blessing, that you shall hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day;
כח  וְהַקְּלָלָה, אִם-לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ אֶל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, וְסַרְתֶּם מִן-הַדֶּרֶךְ, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם:  לָלֶכֶת, אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים--אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יְדַעְתֶּם.	28 and the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

These verses seem to tell us that there is a blessing and a curse that the Jewish people will receive, however, the Torah does not tell us what the blessing or the curse is, or does it? If the verse is telling us what the blessing and curse are then what exactly are the blessing and the curse?

Even though the verse seems to just be saying that the blessing will be given if one follows the commandments and the next verse seems to be telling us that a curse will be given if the commandments are not followed, I believe these verses are speaking about what the actual blessing and curse entail. Meaning, a superficial understanding of these verses seems to be that G-D is just telling us a condition, that we must follow His commandments in order to receive some blessing that is not specified and if we do not follow His commandments then we will receive some curse that is not specified. However, these verses seem to be telling us the actual blessing and curse and not some condition.

The verse about the blessing states, "The blessing, that you shall hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day." And the verse about the curse says, "And the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." This is reminiscent of a Mishna in Pirkei avos (4:2) that says:


בן
עזאי אומר: הוי רץ למצוה קלה כבחמורה, ובורח מן העבירה,שמצוה גוררת מצוה, ועברה גוררת עברח. ששכר מצוה מצוה,
ושכר עברה עברה:


Ben Azzai said: One should run to perform a lenient commandment like it is a stringent one and one should run away from a sin. This is because a mitzva (performance of a commandment) leads one to perform more commandments, while a sin (transgression) causes one to perform another sin, because the award for performing a commandment is the ability to perform another commandment and the reward for the performance of a sin is the performance of another sin.

With this Mishna we can now understand the blessing and the curse that G-D is telling to the Jewish people. The blessing that G-D is giving us is that if we are deserving of blessing, aka we are following all the mitzvos (commandments), then our blessing will be to be able to perform many more mitzvos (commandments). However, the curse is that if we are underserving, aka we have not been faithful to G-D's commandments, then we will be punished by being led astray and committing even more sins. This is what the blessing and curse are all about, G-D will give us the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the right thing and He will drain us of the strength to do the right thing if we want to do the wrong thing. Basically, G-D will reinforce the decisions that we make in our heart. In the case of us wanting to perform Mitzvos, it is a blessing that G-D reinforces our desire, however, in the case that we want to sin, it is a curse for Him to reinforce our desire.

There is a very valuable lesson that I think we can all learn from in this idea. G-D's most valuable blessing and His most feared curse work through the human will. G-D's curse is if man wants to sin, then man will be allowed to sin. Not only will man be allowed to sin, but since human nature is such that man continues to act in the way that is normal for him, the man that sins will continue to sin. On the reverse side, if a man follows G-D's word then those positive actions will be reinforced and the man that follows G-D will continue to do so.

In essence, G-D is not telling us that He will intervene in a miraculous way to give us a blessing or a curse. He is telling us a reality that exists in the human condition. If we allow ourselves to sin and transgress the commandments it will be very difficult to turn ourselves around and start to follow the ways of the Torah again. In fact, we can see throughout the Tanach that when the Jewish people start sinning they turn themselves around only after great hardships. Many examples of this can be found in Shoftim, every time the Jews start sinning, they are oppressed by a foreign power and only then do they repent and merit a savior. Therefore, G-D warns us in this week's Parsha by telling us to be careful not to fall in this cycle of transgression.

However, the question comes to mind, why must we follow the commandments if the reward is that we will continue to follow the commandments? Doesn't that seem circular? The same is true by the curse. How is it a curse if the punishment is just that we will perform more transgressions?

There are two possible explanations that I can think of, one according to those that say the commandments were given with reason and the other idea is according to those that say the commandments were given and we can't understand their reasons.

According to the Rambam and Ramban, there are reasons for the commandments. What are they? For simplicities sake I will group them together and say that the reason for the commandments is in order that a Jew become a good person. Now, if the commandments lead a Jew to become a good person then following the commandments obviously makes one a good person. Therefore, if one does not follow the commandments they will not become a good person. This would then be the curse, if you do not follow the commandments, you will not be a good person. However, if you do follow the commandments, you will be a good person. Also, the Rambam and Ramban would say that only a good person is able to connect to G-D and live in the afterlife. (For a more thorough discussion of this see the Maharal's Tiferes Yisroel Chapters 6-8).

If we do not say there are reasons for the commandments then there is a simple explanation. The commandments were given to us by G-D. One who follows them will be close to G-D and live in the afterlife. However, one who does not, can not possibly live in the afterlife or come to know G-D. Therefore, one who follows the commandments is blessed and one who committs sins and transgressions is cursed.

Therefore, one who believes in G-D and an afterlife would most definitely consider these verses in the beginning of our Parsha to be discussing a most severe curse and a most magnificent blessing.

Mishpatim- Understanding the Reasons

In this week's parsha G-D starts enumerating many of the laws that govern Judaism. However, when describing how G-D gave over these commandments to the Jewish people, the Torah gives us a very unique description. It says (Shemos 21:1):

וְאֵלֶּה, הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים, לִפְנֵיהֶם. 1 Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt set before them.

The Torah tells us that G-D wanted Moshe to set these commandments before the Jewish people. In fact, the Torah used this language previously when discussing how Moshe was supposed to tell over the laws and commandments to the elders of the Jewish people (Shemos 19:7):

ז וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם; וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֵת כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ, יְהוָה.	7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD commanded him.

Also, when Moshe was giving his final speech, in Devarim, the Torah describes his teaching of the Torah in a similar manner. This verse can further help us understand why this type of language is used and can be found in Devarim (4:44):

מד וְזֹאת, הַתּוֹרָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׂם מֹשֶׁה, לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.	44 And this is the law which Moses set before the children of Israel;

These verses show that when the Torah is taught the language of "setting" the Torah "before" the pupil is used. What is the significance of this type of language? How is it being taught by the teacher and how is it being absorbed by the student? Perhaps this language is used to teach us how one should teach, or perhaps it is teaching us about how one should learn the Torah? The question is, simply put, what is the significance of setting the Torah before the Jewish people, why not say that Moshe taught (Lilmoed) the Jewish people Torah or anything similar to that?

To answer this question we must bring down a Gemorah found in Eiruvin (54b) that states: (Soncino translation)

R. Akiba stated: Whence is it deduced that a man must go on teaching his pupil until he has

mastered the subject? From Scripture where it says: And teach thou it to the children of Israel.32 And whence is it deduced that it must be taught until the students are well versed in it?33 From Scripture where it says. Put it in their mouths.34 And whence is it inferred that it is also his duty to explain to him the reasons?35 It has been said: Now these are the ordinances which thou shalt put before them.36

((32) Deut. XXXI, 19; emphasis on ‘teach’.

(33) Lit., ‘arranged in order in their mouth’.

(34) Deut. XXXI, 19: emphasis on ‘put . . . mouth’.

(35) Lit., ‘to show the face’. . . that it is not enough to teach dogmatically.

(36) Ex. XXI. 1, emphasis on ‘put before’ (cf. Rashi). )

Rabbi Akiva is telling us something very unique about the words "set before" (or put before). G-D, in his infinite wisdom, realized that man must understand before he can perform actions. There are different levels of understanding, but in order to do something worth anything, there must first be understanding. Without any type of understanding, there is no purpose to the action. This is why we see that G-D commanded Moshe to set the Torah before the Jewish people. Moshe had to explain and give the reasons for the laws in the Torah.

This is one of the reasons why I believe even the laws that we have nowadays, like ritual slaughter, that seemingly have no reason, must have originally been taught with the reason. Everything in Judaism needs to make sense, logic is an integral part of the Jewish religion. Without logic there is no understanding and without understanding there is no true learning.

People nowadays are all to content with just learning the basic halacha, how to pray and go through the motions without ever understanding what they are doing. These actions are essentially worthless without deeper understanding. That is why G-D gave the Torah and specifically told Moshe, "Place it before the Jewish People." G-D was saying make sure they understand what they are doing and the reasons behind these actions. Knowledge leads to a closer connection to Torah and to G-D.

Ramban on the Reason for Mitzvos

The Ramban speaks extensively on the reason for the commandments in Parshas Ki Saitzay (Devarim 22:6). He says that the reason for the commandment of Shiluach Hakan (sending away the mother bird before taking the eggs) was given in order that man not be cruel. Also, the reason for not being able to slaughter an animal on the same day as its child (Vayikra 22:28) is so that a person should not be cruel. What is the Ramban trying to tell us here? According to the Ramban, what, precisely, is the reason for all the commandments. These specific reasons are easy to see, but what is the underlying basis for all the commandments? What one idea will be able to explain all the commandments?

The Maharal explains that the Ramban is saying that the commandments were given for our, man's, benefit. Their purpose is to refine man and to purify him like pure silver. The commandments are not for the benefit of G-D or to be merciful to animals, but rather they are to keep harm, evil beliefs, or bad character traits away from man in order that man's soul be cleansed and brought to completeness. The whole reason for the commandments is so that man should stay away from wicked characteristics like cruelty, but they have nothing to do with having mercy on animals and the like, rather they are guidelines of how to reach good character traits which ultimately lead us to the correct path of life.