Judaism's Greatest Ideas: Halakhah

"Midrash and the Legal Process" by Joel Roth in Etz Hayim, pp. 1470 - 1471

Normative Jewish tradition is a legal tradition, the foundation of which is the Torah. The goal of the tradition is to make clear in detail the commands of God's revealed will. In the earliest eras, God's will was revealed either directly through the biblical prophets, starting with Moses, or indirectly through other media of revelation in the Temple in Jerusalem, like the Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:30; Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 14:37-41, 28:6). However, "Ever since the Temple was destroyed, God's place in the world has been restricted to the four cubits of the law" (BT Ber. 8a). The entire legal system (halakhah) is based on the conviction that through it God's will becomes known. If that legal system is to remain viable, the Torah must be able to serve as the ultimate source for the resolution of legal questions, even in times far removed from the period of the Torah's composition. In other words, the Torah must be eternally relevant if the halakhic system is to remain vibrant.


The key to understanding the evolution of the legal system, as G. D. Cohen once noted, is midrash. Midrash is the method and process by which the words of the Torah are interpreted, explained, analyzed, and understood. Through the process midrash, the Torah has remained a living document, eternally relevant and able to serve as the basis of an ever-evolving Jewish law ...

Behavior norms at the beginning of the Rabbinic era (through the early 3rd century C.E.) were transmitted in either mishnah form or in the form of legal midrash (midrash halakhah). In mishnah style, norms are presented almost always without their source or basis in the Bible and without the argumentation that led to the conclusion. In midrash style, the norms are linked directly to the biblical verses that serve as their basis, and usually the argumentation is also presented. Many legal conclusions are identical in the works of both styles. They are not the result of conflicting processes that must lead to different conclusions; more accurately, they are different manners of transcription and transmission. Obviously, midrash style highlights the fact that the Torah is at the core of legal decisions. On the other hand, mishnah style (severing the laws from their scriptural basis) allows for organizing the material more systematically, making it easier to follow.

וַאֲשֶׁר֩ יָבֹ֨א אֶת־רֵעֵ֥הוּ בַיַּ֘עַר֮ לַחְטֹ֣ב עֵצִים֒ וְנִדְּחָ֨ה יָד֤וֹ בַגַּרְזֶן֙ לִכְרֹ֣ת הָעֵ֔ץ וְנָשַׁ֤ל הַבַּרְזֶל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ וּמָצָ֥א אֶת־רֵעֵ֖הוּ וָמֵ֑ת ה֗וּא יָנ֛וּס אֶל־אַחַ֥ת הֶעָרִים־הָאֵ֖לֶּה וָחָֽי׃
For instance, a man goes with his neighbor into a grove to cut wood; as his hand swings the ax to cut down a tree, the ax-head flies off the handle and strikes the other so that he dies. That man shall flee to one of these cities and live.—
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי לַחֲכָמִים: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״וְנָשַׁל הַבַּרְזֶל מֵעֵצוֹ״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״מִן הָעֵץ״! וְעוֹד, נֶאֱמַר ״עֵץ״ לְמַטָּה וְנֶאֱמַר ״עֵץ״ לְמַעְלָה, מָה ״עֵץ״ הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ, אַף ״עֵץ״ הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה מִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ. אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וְנָשַׁל הַבַּרְזֶל מִן הָעֵץ״, רַבִּי סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, ״וְנִישֵּׁל״ כְּתִיב, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, ״וְנָשַׁל״ קָרֵינַן. וְרַבִּי, יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן רוֹעֵץ, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירִי לְהוּ יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא! הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ ״וְעוֹד״.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: Is it stated in the verse: And the blade displaces from its wood handle? But isn’t it stated: “And the blade displaces from the wood” (Deuteronomy 19:5), indicating that it is a wood chip from the tree that causes the death of the person? And furthermore: Etz is stated below: “And the blade displaces from the etz,” and etz is stated above, earlier in the same verse: “And his hand wields the ax to cut down the etz.” Just as the term etz stated above is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, so too, the term etz stated below is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, not to the wood of the ax handle. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, interpreted one verse to arrive at their rulings. The verse states: “And the blade displaces [venashal] from the wood.” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the manner in which the words are written, not on the manner in which they are vocalized. And it is written venishel, a transitive verb, indicating that the blade displaced wood chips from the tree. And the Rabbis maintain: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and we read the term as venashal, an intransitive verb indicating that the blade is displaced from its wooden handle and kills a person. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative? But doesn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, not the manner in which it is written? How can Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi ascribe Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling to the contrary opinion? The Gemara answers: That is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: And furthermore. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: If the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, that supports my interpretation of the verse; if not, there is an additional proof.
חָזַר וְאָמַר לָהֶם: אִם הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתִי – מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם יוֹכִיחוּ. יָצָאתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מָה לָכֶם אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: ״לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא!״ מַאי ״לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה מֵהַר סִינַי, אֵין אָנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל, שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתַבְתָּ בְּהַר סִינַי בַּתּוֹרָה ״אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת״. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי נָתָן לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי עָבֵיד קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא חָיֵיךְ וְאָמַר, ״נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי! נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי!״
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.
עֵ֭ת לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת לַה׳ הֵ֝פֵ֗רוּ תּוֹרָתֶֽךָ׃
It is a time to act for the LORD,
for they have violated Your teaching.
אמרי דלמא מילתא חדתא שאני דהא רבי יוחנן ור"ל מעייני בסיפרא דאגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה׳ הפרו תורתך אמרי מוטב תיעקר תורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל
They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְחַדְּדִין זֶה לְזֶה בַּהֲלָכָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַצְלִיחַ לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲדָרְךָ צְלַח״. אַל תִּקְרֵי: ״וַהֲדָרְךָ״, אֶלָּא ״וַחֲדָדְךָ״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁעוֹלִין לִגְדוּלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צְלַח רְכַב״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל דְּבַר אֱמֶת״. יָכוֹל אִם הֵגֵיס דַּעְתּוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעַנְוָה צֶדֶק״. וְאִם עוֹשִׂין כֵּן זוֹכִין לַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בְּיָמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתוֹרְךָ נוֹרָאוֹת יְמִינֶךָ״.
Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Two Torah scholars who sharpen one another in halakha; the Holy One, Blessed be He, ensures success for them, as it is written: “And in your majesty [vahadarkha] prosper, ride on, in behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness; and let your right hand teach you tremendous things” (Psalms 45:5). The Sages said:
Do not read “and your majesty [vahadarkha],” rather, by changing some of the vocalization and the letters, read it as and He will sharpen you [veḥidedkha], and ultimately you will be successful.
Moreover, they who act in that manner will rise to prominence, as it is written: “Prosper, ride on.”
I might have thought even if one engages in the study of Torah not for its own sake; therefore, the verse states: “On behalf of truth.”
I might have thought that one would be rewarded with prosperity even if he became arrogant; therefore, the verse states: “Meekness and righteousness.”
And if they do so in the proper manner they merit the Torah that was given with the right hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written: “And let your right hand teach you tremendous things” (Psalms 45:5).
ר' יצחק נפחא פתח (ש"ה ב) סמכוני באשישות אלו הלכות המאוששות רפדוני בתפוחים שריחן יפה כתפוחים כי חולת אהבה אני אמר ר׳ יצחק לשעבר כשהיתה הפרוטה מצויה היתה נפש אדם מתאוה לשמוע דבר הלכה ודבר אגדה:
R. Isaac Nappaḥa began his discourse as follows: Stay me with dainties refers to the well-founded halakoth; refresh me with apples refers to the ’aggadoth whose fragrance is pleasant like that of apples. For I am love-sick—R. Isaac said: In the past when money was plentiful one longed to hear a word of the halakah, but now that money is scarce one longs to hear a word of ’aggadah.