<html>
<body>
In his commentary at the beginning of Parshas Mishpatim RSRH gives a
brilliant and incisive explanation of the relationship between Torah
Sh'B'Ksav and Torah Sh'Baal Peh. This is a somewhat long
read, but it does set down some of the most important fundamentals of
Judaism. YL<br><br>
In part he writes on Shemos<br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=4><b>21:2
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>If you purchase a Hebrew
servant, he shall serve for six years; but in the seventh he shall go out
free, without paying.<br><br>
</i></b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>This is to be the
civil and criminal code of a nation; it is to set forth<br>
the principles and ordinances of justice and humanity that are to
regulate<br>
human relationships within the framework of the state. As to be<br>
expected, the first section of the code deals with personal rights.
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>But<br>
with what does this section begin? With laws applicable if a man
sells<br>
another man, and if a man sells his own daughter as a slave!!!<br><br>
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>This beginning would be
unthinkable, inconceivable, were the Written<br>
Law actually the “book of law” of the Jewish people, the sole
primary<br>
source of “Jewish law.” What a mass of laws and legal principles
must<br>
have already been stated and established, considered and clarified,
before<br>
the Torah could even turn to treat these cases, which surely are
only<br>
exceptional cases! And yet it is precisely with these verses, which
limit<br>
the most sacred of human rights and negate the right to personal
freedom,<br>
that the Law
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>begins!<br><br>
</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>However, the primary
source of Jewish law is not the written word,<br>
the “Book,” but the living teachings of the oral tradition; the
“Book”<br>
serves only as an aid to memory and a resource when doubts arise.
The<br>
Book itself establishes the fact that the whole Torah had already
been<br>
transmitted to the people and impressed upon them and lived by them<br>
for forty years, before Moshe — just before his death — turned over<br>
to them the Book of the Torah. Accordingly, it is primarily the
exceptional<br>
cases that are recorded; for it is precisely from them that the<br>
principles of ordinary life can be derived most clearly.<br><br>
On the whole, the “Book” records not principles of law, <i>k'lalim</i>,
but<br>
individual concrete cases, and they are recorded in such an
instructive<br>
manner that one can easily deduce from them the principles that were<br>
entrusted to the living consciousness of the oral tradition. The
language<br>
of this “Book” was so skillfully chosen that in many instances an
unusual<br>
term, a change in sentence structure, the position of a word, an
extra<br>
or missing letter, and so forth, can imply a whole train of legal
concepts.<br>
This Book was not intended as a primary source of the Law. It was<br>
meant for those who were already well-versed in the Law, to use as a<br>
means of retaining and reviving, ever anew, the knowledge that they<br>
had already committed to memory. It was intended as a teaching aid<br>
for teachers of the Law, as a reference to confirm the Oral Law, so
that<br>
the students should find it easy, with the aid of the written text
before<br>
them, to reproduce in their minds, ever anew, the knowledge they
received<br>
by word of mouth.<br><br>
The relationship between
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>Torah Sh'B'ksav</i>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>and
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>Torah Sh'Baal Peh</i>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>is like that<br>
between brief written notes taken on a scientific lecture, and the
lecture<br>
itself. Students who attended the oral lecture require only their
brief<br>
notes to recall at any time the entire lecture. They often find that
a<br>
word, a question mark, an exclamation mark, a period, or the
underscoring<br>
of a word is sufficient to bring to mind a whole series of ideas,<br>
observations, qualifications, and so forth. But for those who did
not<br>
attend the instructor’s lecture, these notes are not of much use. If
they<br>
try to reconstruct the lecture solely from these notes, they will of
necessity<br>
make many errors. Words, marks, and so forth, that serve the<br>
students who listened to the lecture as most instructive guiding
stars<br>
for the retention of the truths expounded by the lecturer appear
completely<br>
meaningless to the uninitiated. The non-initiate who will attempt<br>
to use these same notes in order to construct (as opposed to
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>reconstruct</i></font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>)<br>
for himself the lecture he did not attend will dismiss what seems
unclear<br>
as baseless mental gymnastics and idle speculations leading
nowhere.<br><br>
</font></body>
</html>