R. Zadok and the Oral Law
MODERN RABBINIC
THOUGHT
By Rav
Shiur #27: R. Zadok and the Oral
Law
The Oral Law may be the most prominent topic in R. Zadoks writings. He returns to this topic in almost every
work while analyzing it from different angles. What are the strengths and weaknesses of
written and oral communication? Did
the methodology of Halakha change during the course of Jewish history? What distinguishes the Oral Law from
other expressions of human wisdom?
R. Zadok reads several biblical stories in light of these questions. His analysis weaves together a
remarkable amount of halakhic and aggadic material.
One derasha
suggests that the Oral Law begins with Sefer Devarim. According to many commentators, Moshe
himself composed this final volume of Chumash and God chose to
incorporate it into Scripture.
Thus, this work symbolizes the contribution of human effort and
initiative. For that reason, the
word tov only appears in the second account of the aseret
ha-dibrot (the Ten Commandments), which is found in Sefer
Devarim. The goodness
refers to the creative potential of the Oral Law.[2]
Moshe attempts to inaugurate the Oral Law at an earlier point when he
sends the spies. For R. Zadok, the
contrast between life in the desert and the entry into
Life in
The previous
discussion dates the growth of the Oral Law to the time of Yehoshua. This fits with another passage in which
R. Zadok analyzes an aggada about the death of Moshe (Temura 16a). According to that gemara, the Jewish
people forgot hundreds of halakhot during the mourning period for Moshe
until Otniel ben Kenaz restored them with his pilpul. Moshe Rabbeinu represents the
pinnacle of the Written Law. Since
his death brings about the beginning of the Oral Law, the Jewish people do not
receive a new prophecy to clarify the missing material. Instead, Otniel uses human reasoning to
work out the law.[6]
Other discussions in
R. Zadoks writings imply a later date for the full flowering of the Oral
Law. A famous gemara
(Shabbat 88a) states that at Sinai God coerced the Jewish people to
accept the Torah. The gemara states
that we had an excuse for lack of observance until the free acceptance of the
covenant during the Purim episode.
R. Zadok adopts the view of Midrash Tanchuma (parashat
Noach) that coercion was only needed for the Oral Law. Am Yisrael was happy to accept
the Written Law but did not want the work and responsibility that comes with the
Oral Law. Only at the time of Purim
did the Jews joyously accept this burden.[7]
According to R.
Zadok, reluctance to accept the Oral Law is not merely avoidance of hard work;
it reflects a religious value judgment.
The Written Law model allows for tremendous clarity because receiving
guidance directly from the mouth of God removes ambiguities and doubt. On such religious grounds, the people
preferred accepting the Written Law without the Oral Law. Only in later history did they come to
understand that the human component of the Oral Law brings with it certain
advantages as well.
This transition in
modes of Torah misled Haman. He
knew that Moshe had died during the month of Adar; therefore, he correctly saw
it as a month in which Torah ceases.
He did not know that Moshe was also born in Adar; thus, it reflects a
month of Torah growth as well.[8] This month witnessed the sealing of
kitvei ha-kodesh (Holy Scripture) even as it also saw the growth of the
Oral Law.[9]
The Purim episode
coincides with the rise of the Men of the Great Assembly. These scholars start to create
enactments and edicts which reflect the human additions to Torah. In fact, the
very first such addition was the mitzva to read the Megilla on Purim. This episode and the associated
mitzvot do receive mention in Scripture as the final part of the Written
Law. However, in their essence,
they reflect the transition to the Oral Law.[10]
In other passages, R. Zadok portrays Chanukah as the time of the Oral
Laws growth. The gemara (Yoma
29b) describes Purim as the last miracle to find written expression. Chanukah, on the other hand, does not
appear in Tanakh. For R.
Zadok, this distinction lines up with the legal requirement for a festive meal
on Purim but not on Chanuka. The
written word reflects bodily existence, whereas oral material symbolizes lack of
corporeality. The written word of
Purim belongs together with a physical mitzva performance.
The same divide
exists regarding the nature of the persecution. Persecution of the Jewish people prior
to the Oral Law, be it from Egyptian, Babylonian, or other sources, was purely
physical. The first edicts aimed
against Jewish law occur in the Chanukah story. The advent of the Oral Law brought
non-corporeal components to the fore.[11]
This split leads R. Zadok to a remarkable resolution of a famous
question. Many medieval authorities
wonder why the Torah focuses attention on rewards and punishments of this world
rather than focusing on what awaits us in the World to Come.[12] Abravanel lists seven solutions for this
difficulty.[13] R. Zadoks explanation builds upon
the essential physicality of the written word. That corporeality makes it only
appropriate that a written text should highlight physical reward and
punishment. Only the non-corporeal
Oral Law can instruct us about the spiritual compensation of the World to
Come.[14]
Beyond the lack of
written expression, other aspects of Chunuka also emphasize the Oral Law and
human wisdom. As we saw in
last weeks shiur, R. Zadok contends that the priesthood symbolizes human
understanding and teaching Torah.
Thus, the prominence of the priests in the Chunuka story reflects deeper
currents at work. Additionally, the light of the menora represents the
illumination of Torah wisdom.[15]
The same passage describes Purim as a middle ground between the Oral and
Written Laws. The gemara
(Megilla 7a) reports that Esther faced some opposition regarding the
writing of the Purim story. For R.
Zadok, this reflects Purims ambiguous place on the margins of the oral/written
divide. Along similar lines, the
Purim episode contains no direct reference to God and can be read as a purely
naturalistic tale. Such a story
would belong to the human initiative associated with the Oral Law. On the other hand, God clearly
orchestrates the events of Purim so that we could see it more in line with the
Written Law.[16]
On the other hand, this approach has certain limitations as well. Cases were addressed on an ad hoc basis
without developing a concrete code of law.
Aspiring students stopped learning Torah from their masters once they
achieved their own prophetic ability; instead, they listened for their own
prophetic message.[18] The case-by-case nature of prophetic
rulings meant no possibility of formulating general principles of law.[19] Furthermore, the ability to achieve some
form of answer when God does not offer direct assistance and the strength to
find light among darkness reflects a higher level of revelation. The gemara (Sanhedrin 24a)
associates the Babylonian Talmud with darkness. For R Zadok, as for Netziv, this
statement does not criticize the Babylonian sages. Quite the contrary! It praises their ability to illuminate
the passageways of divine law in the darkness that lacks clear revelation.[20]
The desire to
experience a full Oral Law in the
R. Zadok sees several
advantages to oral communication over the written word. A written text can convey ideas but not
the vitality of the speaker. Thus,
something invariably gets lost when concepts are put on paper. God represents the single
exception to this rule, since He is capable of expressing His vitality in
writing. Humans cannot, so oral
transmission allows for a more intensive expression than a written text.[23] Furthermore, oral communication includes
a host of tones and gestures that help to clarify the speakers intent. The written word lacks comparable aids
to communication.[24] If so, we can easily understand
why the Torah prohibits writing down the Oral Law. However, once circumstances dictated the
writing of this material, it became a mitzva to do so. R. Zadok suggests that the mitzva to
write a Torah scroll now includes writing the Oral Law.[25]
R. Zadoks emphasis
on the Oral Law might be understood as an expression of the great value he
places on human initiative. Indeed,
he refers to the Oral Law as the essence, the glory, and the splendor of
Torah.[26] However, R. Zadok constantly reminds his
readers that these human accomplishments truly come from God. As we have seen, he describes this
realization as the essential test of the Oral Law. Will the scholars take personal credit
or will they attribute the insight to God?
R. Zadok apparently means more than just the idea that God gave humanity
intelligence with which to analyze.
Rather, God actively helps bring about the insight in an ongoing
fashion. R. Zadok refers to the
ruach ha-kodesh that animates the Talmudic scholars[27]
and also cites the opinion that prophecy now belongs to the sages (Bava
Batra 12a).
This helps
distinguish the Oral Law from the products of human reason. Secular wisdom stands detached from God,
whereas the Oral Law comes from above.
R. Zadok gives a novel explanation for the term chokhmot
chitzoniyot. This wisdom is on
the outside in the sense that it remains divorced from God.[28] R. Zadok insists that the wisdom of
Chazal is not the product of human reason. In this regard, he even distinguishes
between the Talmud and other Jewish works:
The words of
Chazal and their laws are not like the set customs found in an ethical
work based on human estimation because, if so, how would our holy Talmud differ
from other works by the sages of
And all of
[Chazals] wisdom is to comprehend that there is a wisdom above human
reason and that all of their understanding does not come from the human
intellect at all.[30]
Another important
factor divides the Oral Law from other types of wisdom. For R. Zadok, true wisdom affects the
heart. Knowledge means more than
knowing facts or analytical ability; it means the wisdom that edifies and
affects who we are. Doeg Ha-adomi
knew a great deal of Torah information but he lacked this internalized
wisdom. Thus, the gemara says that
his wisdom was from the lips outward (Sanhedrin 106b).[31]
Strikingly, R. Zadok
has no problem with Rambam saying that Aristotle knew the esoteric material of
maaseh bereishit and maaseh merkava. He even thinks that the Athenian sages
knew some of the kabbalistic ideas of the Zohar. Yet they lacked the most important
aspect of wisdom. Their wisdom was only intellectual, not internalized in a way
that fully impacts on ones being.[32]
[1]
[2] Pri Tzaddik, Kedushat
Shabbat 7.
[3] See Rashi
Bemidbar 13:2.
[4] See Rashi Bemidbar
13:16.
[5] LIkutei
Maamarim, pp. 84-87.
[6] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 139.
[7] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 142; Resisei Layla, p.
158.
[8] Megilla
13b.
[9] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 138.
[10] Resisei Layla, p.
84.
[11] Resisei Layla,
pp. 158-159.
[12] See Vayikra 26,
Devarim 11, Devarim 28.
[13] See his commentary on
Vayikra 26.
[14] Resisei Layla,
pp. 159-160.
[15] Resisei Layla,
pp. 162-163.
[16] Resisel Layla, p.
159.
[17] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 142; Resisei Layla, p.
160.
[18] Resisei Layla, p.
161.
[19] Resisei Layla, p.
162.
[20] Machshavot
Charutz, pp. 139-140.
[21] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 142.
[22] Resisei Layla, p.
84.
[23] Resisei Layla, p.
156.
[24] Likutei
Maamarim, p. 104.
[25] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 113.
[26] Resisei Layla, p.
158.
[27] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 140, Resisei Layla, p.
158.
[28] Likutei
Maamarim, p. 83.
[29] Resisei Layla, p.
14.
[30] Machshavot
Charutz, p. 143.
[31] Divrei Sofrim,
no. 15; Resisei Layla, p. 13.
[32] Likutei
Maamarim, p. 109.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!