<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>RSRH gives what I consider to be a brilliant explanation of the relationship between Torah she'b'k'sav and Torah she'ba'al peh in his commentary of Shemos pasuk 21:2</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<span class="co_VerseText">Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.</span>
<span class="co_VerseNum"></span><span class="co_VerseText">כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם:</span>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>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”</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
On the whole, the “Book” records not principles of law, <em>k'lalim</em> 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.</p>
<p><br>
The relationship between<em> Torah she'b'k'sav and Torah she'ba'al peh</em> 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</p>
<p>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 reconstruct)<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>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>