Why did Moshe Explain the Torah in Seventy Languages?

Parashat Devarim
Printable Version

The Struggle of Accepting the Rabbinic Authority

I have an extensive email correspondence. I would say, I write between 30-60 emails daily. Several are much longer than a short sentence or a thumb’s up! People ask me all kinds of Torah questions. Some of them may take a bit of research to answer. One reoccurring theme – also from my students over the years – is the struggle of accepting Rabbinical authority. In our tolerant, democratic society, where anyone’s voice and vote have equal value, it is hard to comprehend how the Rabbis – who passed down the Torah from generation to generation – were on such a completely different level than you and me. It is complicated to understand the system of the Oral Torah and its transmission through the greatest Torah giants of the generations. And who, today, has the humility to fathom what it means to be a Torah giant? For me, it took many decades to understand, and to respect, the level of Torah wisdom and holiness that entitles one to such Rabbinic authority. This insight makes it unthinkable to disagree with any rabbi in the chain of the transmission of the Torah, from the Tana’im – rabbis of the Mishna (70-200 CE); the Amora’im – the rabbis of the Talmud (220-500 CE); the Rishonim, (The first ones) – Rabbis like Rashi, Rambam, Ramban all the way to Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (1563 CE). It is, therefore, jarring to receive emails from women – with a superficial Torah background – who have the nerve to blatantly disagree with authoritative rabbinic ruling. It is even harder to try to explain to such women – who lack the humility necessary to give proper respect – that their opinion is not on a par with, for example, that of the Rambam.

Does the Seventy Facets of the Torah Give Anyone Permission to Interpret the Torah?

Having said all this, the dynamic Torah does give leeway for a rainbow of interpretations, and for applying its eternal principles to every modern situation. This process of renewing the Torah was launched by Moshe, our teacher in the Book of Devarim, on the verge of entering the Land of Israel. Moshe elucidated the Torah once again, to ensure that also those who weren’t yet born when he first taught the law, or who were too young to understand, would hear the precious words of the Torah directly from him. Moreover, since many of the Torah laws only pertain to the Holy Land, Moshe needed to repeat these laws, now that they became applicable. This was. unfortunately, also his last chance, as he wouldn’t be leading the Israelites into the Promised Land. Therefore, at the opening of the Book of Devarim, also called Mishna Torah – ‘the repetition of the Torah’ – Moshe explained the Law as it states,

ספר דברים פרק א פסוק ה בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוֹאִיל משֶׁה בֵּאֵר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לֵאמֹר:

“On that side of the Jordan, in the land of Moav, Moshe commenced [and] explained this Law, saying” (Devarim 1:5).

He explained it to them in seventy languages (Rashi, Devarim 1:5; Midrash Tanchuma 2; Midrash Bereishit Rabbah 49; Sotah 32a). Haketav Vehakabbalah’s explanation, that Moshe gave them seventy interpretations to every passage intrigues me. Never having been a ‘black-or-white-person,’ I revel in the concept of the multilayered Torah. “Just as their faces are different, so are their opinions different” (Mishna Brachot 58:72). Thus, the Torah can be compared to a brilliant diamond, sparkling simultaneously in various colors that may appear contradictory. Yet, when we learn to view all these valid perspectives concurrently, we can really marvel at the depths of the truth emanating from the Torah. Each perspective adds its unique melody to the magnificent symphony of the whole, synthesizing not in conflicting dissonance but in holy dialectic: “As a hammer shatters a rock” (Yirmeyahu 23:29) – Just as a hammer can splinter a rock into many different sparks, so does the Torah extend into many different interpretations (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 34a). Yet, does the “seventy facets of the Torah” legitimize anyone to interpret it as he or she pleases? Aren’t there any parameter’s for kosher Torah interpretation? For example, numerous modern, reformed, reconstructionist, or Jewish renewal thinkers take license to reinterpret many Torah statements that differ from the popular sentiment of our times. For example, the following Torah statement, which seems extremely clear, without leaving any room for condoning male homosexual conduct, still elicits surprising modern interpretations: 

ספר ויקרא פרק יח פסוק כב וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא:

“You shall not lie down with a male, as with a woman: this is an abomination” (Vayikra 18:22).

I recently received an email with the following attempt to interpret the above mentioned verse in light of the tolerant spirit of our times: “I’ve done a bit of research, and the prohibition against male homosexuality in Leviticus is due to idolatry. It is only called an abomination due to following the spiritual practices of other nations, which is no longer relevant in today’s society. These days there is no homosexual idolatrous sex worship, so it’s a moot point. Therefore, it is no longer an abomination.”

Why can such a view not be considered a legitimate approach within the seventy facets of the Torah?

 

Parameters of Authentic Torah

Although the Torah is multifaceted, the concept of ‘the seventy facets of the Torah does not legitimize any idea or interpretation that you or I might come up with. There are seventy legitimate facets but not millions, not even hundreds. There are also several parameters that validate a true Torah view about which we say, “both these and those are the words of the living G-d!” (Babylonian Talmud, Iruvin 13b). The first validating fundamental principle is that any kosher Torah perspective must be based on belief in the Divine origin of both the written and oral Torah – transmitted to Moshe and passed down orally from generation to generation. As Rambam clarifies: “There has never been dissension [among the sages] regarding the laws handed down by tradition (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Mamrim 1:3-4). Thus, the Oral Torah that Hashem taught Moshe at Sinai הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי – ‘Halacha to Moshe from Sinai’ remains undisputed. Any halachic ruling or commentary – that contradicts even one of these laws – is automatically disqualified from authentic Torah and is excluded from the seventy facets of the Torah. Together with the written laws given to Moshe at Sinai, Hashem also taught him the Oral Torah which included the thirteen hermeneutical rules, by which the Torah is interpreted. They were passed down and accepted by the Great Assembly in the times of the Mishna (Mishneh Torah, Transmission of the Oral Law 12-14). These thirteen principles of interpretation became the parameter for adapting Torah law to modern situations. The Oral Law eventually became transcribed in the Mishna compiled by Rabbi Yehuda the Prince [at the beginning of the third century CE]. The Talmud comprises an exposition explaining the text of the Mishna… deriving from it what is forbidden and what is permitted… all as it was transmitted orally from person to person, from the mouth of Moshe our Master, who heard it directly from Hashem at Sinai (Mishneh Torah, Transmission of the Oral Law 24).

The Intricate System of Determining Halacha (Jewish Law)

The authority of authentic Rabbinic Torah is decreed in the written Torah itself as the Torah cautions us, “According 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” (Devarim 17:11). With this Torah verse, Hashem endorses the Rabbinic transmission of the Torah. From here, we also learn that just as we may not contradict the Written Torah, so must a Rabbi from the Talmudic period not contradict a Rabbi of the Mishna. Likewise, none of the Rishonim are permitted to disagree with the Amora’im. Neither may an Acharon (any Rabbi who came after the Tur Shulchan Aruch) oppose any of the Rishonim. Therefore, according to Torah law, I am prohibited to disagree with, for example, Rashi. Furthermore, the definition of a Torah observant Jew is to be bound by the Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, explains the intricate system of halacha and how he determined the authoritative halacha which unites Torah observant Jewry:

“Therefore, I thought that I ought to determine what is halacha and I will judge, which of the opinions, is correct because of the following purpose: We should have one Torah and one Law... And who is there that will dare to make new claims and proofs for what the law is. And who lives that will be haughty enough to place himself between the Mountains, the Mountains of G-d [previous scholars]? Who lives that will try to contradict their claims via proofs and claims or determine what is the right formulation of the law, which the scholars were incapable of doing? Indeed, due to our many sins, we have a limited intellect and are incapable of fully understanding what the scholars meant – all the more so, we are incapable of outsmarting them.... Therefore, I concluded that I would decide the halacha based on the  majority opinion of the three pillars upon which Israel leans for legal declarations: the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh” (Hakdamah of Beit Yosef, Introduction to Shulchan Aruch).

If the great Torah scholar and author of the Shulchan Aruch was so cautious to avoid making “new claims in halacha,” expressing the greatest reverence for the Torah sages preceding him, how much more so must we beware of  placing ourselves between the Mountains of prior sages, trying to contradict their ruling with our unverified claims?