Judaism Reclaimed grapples with this sensitive topic at the conclusion of its chapter on parashat Ki Teitze, which examines the functions and broader relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Tradition. Our analysis starts with Ben Sorer Umoreh – the Wayward and Rebellious Son. The written law depicts in vivid detail how the delinquent youth is delivered to and denounced before the Court by his own parents before suffering a stony death. The oral law however presents a surprising alternative:
“R’ Shimon said: …it never happened and never will happen. Why then was this law written? — That you may study it and receive reward. R. Jonathan said: 'I saw [a Ben Sorer Umoreh] and sat on his grave'.”
Having examined several inherent difficulties presented by the Gemara’s presentation of this dispute, the essay progresses to its primary theme: the dissonance between the positions presented (here and elsewhere) by the written and oral components of the Torah. We use Rambam’s dual interpretation of “Eye for an Eye” as a key to resolving these inconsistencies. First, in his Commentary to the Mishnah and Mishneh Torah (“these interpretations are obvious from the study of the Written Law … and have been implemented in every single Jewish court from Moshe until today”) Rambam emphatically rejects the notion that the biblical ruling was ever intended to be implemented literally. When explaining this phrase in Moreh Nevuchim however, Rambam focuses only on the literal measure-for-measure disclosed by the biblical text: “the intention here is to explain the verses [of the Torah] not the words of the Talmud”).
What emerges is a hypothesis based on a two-tier didactic system of Jewish law and values. The first tier is the core divine wisdom contained within the Torah’s written text, while the second is the relative flexibility of the Oral Law to cater – within acceptable boundaries – to the realities and weakness of the human condition. This idea is developed further with the suggestion that the Written Torah represents God’s attribute of strict Justice (which demands a literal “Eye-for-an-Eye” etc) while the Oral Tradition moderates this in light of the frailties of human reality and on the basis of God’s attribute of mercy. (This has a parallel in the writings of Rav Kook, here).
Armed with this principle, the chapter progresses to apply it beyond the Torah’s legal passages. The Talmud teaches that the righteous are judged by God in a truer, more intimate way, “kechut hasa’arah” – in accordance with His attribute of justice. Putting all of this together, the biblical text discloses the very real sins of its heroes, but told from the harshly critical perspective of God’s attribute of justice by which they are held fully accountable for any slight misstep.
By contrast, the attempted justifications and excuses advanced in the Oral Tradition can perhaps be seen as describing the reality of these sins on a level in which the nation as a whole would perceive and relate to them. From this perspective, in the words of Shabbat 56a “Whoever says that King David sinned is surely mistaken”. This means that whoever reads the biblical account literally, failing to make an allowance for its critical agenda when judging the righteous, will be left with an inaccurate impression of what the Torah intended to convey.
This approach bears the potential to shed light on peculiarities and ambiguities from within the written text itself, which uses King David as a gold standard against which subsequent kings – even the righteous Hezekiah and Josiah – are measured. Were David truly the adulterous murderer implied by a simple reading of the text, it would hardly be an accolade to write of these kings that they “followed in all of his paths”. This more balanced approach may also help us to understand subsequent prophetic pronouncements of Divine endorsement of the Davidic dynasty through which King David has become inextricably linked with the very idea of a future utopian Messianic era in Jewish thought.
First posted to Facebook 26 August 2020, here.
