Thinking Torah 
By Rav Alex Israel aletal@netvision.net.il, http://thinkingtorah.blogspot.com/
5767

Parashat Bo:
Torah Shebichtav vs. Torah Sheb'al Peh

After having read through the entire book of Bereshit, and the first 11 chapters of Shemot (Exodus) we have become accustomed to the narrative style of the Torah. Up until this point, the Torah has been a master storyteller. And now, as we reach Chapter 12 in Sefer Shemot, we encounter that other genre of Torah literature: the legal sections, with their painstaking deliberate legalistic formulations that give attention to each and every detail.

As we begin the legal passages in the Torah, we are going to dedicate this week's class to thinking about the way in which the Torah teaches us Halakha. We shall raise a fascinating dispute between the Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam regarding the manner in which the written text links to the Halakhic normative tradition, the connectedness between Torah Shebichtav and Torah Sheb'al Peh.

Chavruta Mekorot

Please examine the commentaries to Shemot 13:9
1. See Rashi

2. How does Rashbam see the "omek hapeshat"? What are his proofs? (look up the pesukim in Mishlei. They are fascinating!)

3. See the Ibn Ezra. What are his objections to Rashbam's reading?

4. See commentary of Bekhor Shor to Devarim 6:9 (and also in Bamidbar 12:8)

Shiur:

A SIGN ON YOUR HAND … THAT YOU MAY KNOW.

The passages at the end of parashat Bo are filled with symbolic mitzvot that are designed to preserve and evoke the memory of the Exodus. Time after time, we see parents engaging with children to retell and transmit the legacy of the miraculous events in Egypt. One of those particular devices that further the collective and individual memory is depicted here in these pesukim (Shemot 13:7-9):

 (ז) מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל גְּבֻלֶךָ: (ח) וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה יְדֹוָד לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם: (ט) וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְדֹוָד בְּפִיךָ כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה הוֹצִאֲךָ יְדֹוָד מִמִּצְרָיִם:

"Matzot shall be eaten for seven days…You shall explain to your son on that day, 'It is because of what the Lord did for me when I went free from Egypt.; And this shall serve you as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead – in order that the teaching of God may be in your mouth – that with a  mighty hand the Lord freed you from Egypt."

In a reading that would seem quite expected, Rashi interprets the phrase of "as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead" as referring to the Mitzva of Tefillin:

"Write down these passages and tie them to your head and to your arm."

And indeed, this parsha (Biblical passage) is one of the four texts that are included in our Tefillin. The Torah mentions this idea of "a sign on your hand and totafot in between your eyes" in three other places. In the Tefillin that we wear, all four texts are written on parchment and inserted into the leather boxes that are bound to the arm and the head.

THE RASHBAM'S METAPHORICAL  READING.

But the Rashbam reads this command in a particularly metaphorical manner:

"A SIGN UPON YOUR HAND: According to the deep peshat, it should be for a constant state of consciousness as if it were written on your very hand, just like the phrase (Shir Hashirim 8:6) 'Place me as a seal upon your heart.'"

The Rashbam adopts a symbolic reading here. After all, the text talks of a "sign upon your hand and a reminder on your forehead." It is referring to a state of consciousness that is continual, constant. The literal meaning of the words does not refer to Tefillin, but rather to a certain state of mind. 

The Ibn Ezra follows Rashi's reading:

"There are two possible readings here: The first is in the manner of "tie them over your heart always; bind them on your neck." (Mishlei 6:21) and "for a sign" means as a symbol …. The second reading would be literally, to make Tefillin for the hand and head. Now that the Rabbis have a adopted this (second) explanation, the first is obsolete, for there are no proofs for the first interpretation that compare with the supports for the second." (short commentary 13:9)

But in a later commentary he argues more vociferously:

"Some (commentators) dispute our holy ancestors (i.e. Chazal - the Rabbinic tradition) when they say that "for a sign… a reminder" is to be understood in the manner of, 'They are a wreath upon your head, a necklace upon your throat." (Mishlei 1:9) They also say that "you shall tie them to your arm" (Devarim 6:8) is similar to 'tie them to your heart always' (Mishlei 3,3)… All this is incorrect! For at the beginning of the book it states: 'The parables of Solomon.' All that is mentioned there is by nature of metaphor and parable. But in the Torah it is not written as parable - God forbid! It is to be understood literally. And hence we shall not draw the passuk out of its peshat meaning, in that its understanding does not contradict logical thinking…. And the way of tradition is strong and needs no strengthening." (the long commentary 13:9)

THE IBN EZRA AND HIS COMPLEX APPROACH TO CHAZAL

The Ibn Ezra rejects the metaphorical understanding of Rashbam quite absolutely.  But we have to understand more about the Ibn Ezra's methodology to fully appreciate what is happening here.

In the narrative sections of Torah, the Ibn Ezra pursues the peshat, the reading of the text based upon logic, grammar, context, and other linguistic rules. "The human mind is the angel that mediates between man and God," he writes. And hence he uses rules of language to interpret the Biblical text. In general he is wary of added, imposed readings attached to the story, even of they come from Midrashic, Rabbinic sources. He prefers to read the text "as is." In the case of famous Midrashim that do not clash with the text, he frequently concedes them as one possible reading, but only if they are an authoritative tradition. One could say that the Ibn Ezra is a fanatic for the raw text, untouched even by the Rabbinic tradition.

But when it comes to reading Halakhic texts, the Ibn Ezra swings in the opposite direction:

"… if we find two readings to the text and one accords with the opinion of the Rabbis – who were all righteous - we shall rely upon their truth with no doubts."

In other words, whenever it comes to Halakhic texts, even if the peshat meaning is stretched somewhat; the Ibn Ezra prefers a reading that accords with normative Jewish Law, and the Halakhic readings of Chazal.  In this situation he abandons his pursuit of strict textual rigour and allows a certain fluidity

A second classic example is the verse in Parshat Mishpatim (21:23-5) that issues a directive regarding personal injury: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The Rabbis interpreted this verse, according to the Torah Sheb'al Peh that the verse required monetary payment exclusively. No physical retribution was to be exacted. And the Ibn Ezra with his tendencies to textual precision has a hard time reading "and eye for an eye" other than the way it translates – literally! At the end, he says:

"The rule is that we cannot interpret the legal passages of the Torah adequately unless we rely upon the tradition of the Rabbis. As we received the Torah from our ancestors, we also received the Oral Law, there is no difference between them. In which case we shall say in explaining "an eye for an eye" that it would be befitting for him to pay an eye for an eye were it not for the monetary compensation."

Now when we begin to explain the Ibn Ezra's view, we must probe this dichotomy between his approach to narrative and Halakhic Torah passages. Why does he adopt a totally different approach to the two genres of the Torah? I would like to suggest a few possible theories.

EXPLAINING IBN EZRA

The first relates to the Karaites who were a prominent school of thought in Ibn Ezra's period and a threat to traditional Judaism and its observance. The Ibn Ezra felt a responsibility to keep their readings at a distance, to delegitimise their understandings of Tanach and he did this by being careful to interpret no verse in a direction that could possibly support Karaite leanings. 

A second possibility simply goes to the heart of Jewish Halakhic observance. Quite obviously, if the Torah text contradicts or challenges a traditional reading in a narrative section, if it is a mere matter of interpretation; no harm is done, However if it engenders incorrect Halakhic observance, that is more severe. It might lead to a weakening of Halakhic norms. And hence the Ibn Ezra was wary and ensured that his commentary did not undermine Halakhic observance in any form. 

Of course a third possible approach is theological. If God's revelation is one integrated whole, and that revelation envelops both the written and oral Torah, then no contradictions are possible between the written and oral tradition. Hence, even if the text leads in a particular direction, an approach that unifies the written tradition with Halakha is preferred, thereby unifying the two "branches" of revelation.

BACK TO THE RASHBAM

But let us return to the Rashbam and his metaphorical interpretation. At the outset, let me make it clear here that of course, the Rashbam did wear Tefillin. He was not suggesting that one belittle the Mitzva of Tefillin. What then is the basis of his explanation? 

In our example of the passuk that refers to Tefillin, due to the particular wording of the text, the Rashbam decided that this verse in particular was expressing a metaphor about the inner purpose of Tefillin. Tefillin is worn on the outside, but its intent is to effect the inside. It is to be a reminder, a constant presence. The "sign on the hand" indicates that the message should be before the person at all times, present during their every activity. And the reminder between the eyes is clearly a constant state of awareness.

But why does the Rashbam interpret at variance with the Halakhic tradition?

Maybe we might suggest that for the Rashbam, there are times when the Halakhic-Oral  tradition contains one understanding, whereas the written tradition presents a complementary but alternative aspect. Here, the Halakha talks of Tefillin to be bound upon hand and head, but the deeper philosophical dimension refers to a certain consciousness, awareness, state of mind, a Kavanna, a powerful impact that the Tefillin will give. The two readings are complimentary, and yet in translation terms, they are contradictory. In the final analysis, the Torah Shebichtav has an independent message that is closer to the inner philosophy of the mitzvah, whereas the Torah sheb'al Peh is concerned more with the Mitzva's pragmatic fulfillment.

In other words, the disparity between the "peshat" of a passuk and its' Halakhic application is quite deliberate. Neither may be abandoned for they both reflect a dimension of truth.

Clearly, the Rashbam was capable of making a dividing line to separate the textual reading and his Halakhic practice! Sometimes Torah Shebichtav SHOULD be read differently than the understandings of Torah Sheb'al Peh. 

And so, according to the Rashbam, the dissonance between peshat and Halakha is not a problem. It is necessary in order to describe the Mitzva its truest form.

IN CONCLUSION.

In our shiur this week, we have presented a dispute between two of the great Biblical commentators: the Rashbam and Ibn Ezra. Both commentators are proponents of the "peshat" school. And yet this argument is fundamental in nature. Do we interpret solely on the basis of the text, or do we allow the Torah Sheb'al Peh, the Halakhic tradition to influence our reading of the text. Behind the scenes might be a fundamental dispute regarding the nature of revelation through Torah. Does Torah have a single view that is revealed through Torah Shebichtav and Torah Shebe'al Peh together, or might there be a duality in revelation, a dialogue between two different truths expressed through the independent channels of Torah Sheb'al Peh and Torah Shebichtav? 

Shabbat Shalom!