Can We Really Trace Judaism Back to Sinai? Q&A With Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

Number one, how do we measure rabbinic Judaism sort of one else versus the Karaite? How we practice is so far off assuming that Moshe Rabbeinu or Bais Yisrael practice. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> How do we know that this ultimately, you know, how do we get here based on this? >> You know, you know, there there is no question that even the most traditional person would have to admit if we were to be transposed to the past and see Moshe Rabbeinu keeping the Torah, it would not look the same as we do today and for a very simple reason because we have so many rabbonim and gezeiros and takanos. And so obviously Judaism is very very different. >> [snorts] >> Uh but the traditionalist understanding and this is where you know, let's say Orthodox tradition differs from the academic approach. The academic approach views all of aspects of Judaism as evolutionary and subject to change. So they'll they'll say that uh tefillin, you know, come from the beginning of the second temple period or whatever they would say. Uh we do believe that there was an unbroken continuity. You know, the Rambam in the hakdamah to the Mishneh Torah lists more than 40 generations of people who were in charge of the mesorah. Apparently it was it was almost like a quasi-official position, a baal mesorah, a gadol whose task in was the preservation of the Torah shebaal peh. And just like lawyers have what's called a chain of evidence or a chain of custody or something. So the Rambam says there is a chain, you know, Moshe to Yehoshua then he enumerates all the way down uh to Ravashi. Now indeed after Ravashi there's a little bit of a disintegration of the chain of custody and that's why you get different minhagim, different uncertainties and the like. The mesorah is not as fixed from that point on. But based on our tradition, uh we recognize of course that even then many many Jews were not keeping mitzvahs. Reading the book of Malachim and then and the like and the the the Nevi'im and obviously there were Jews of avodah zarah, giluy arayos, shfichus damim and everything else. But we always believed there was a faithful core that was holding on to those traditions and they were nimser again based on the Rambam's chain of custody, all the way down to the time of the Mishnah, the time of the Gemara, and and the like. And then, after the after the Talmud, we had the Gaonim. There was a great deal of centralization, meaning the Jewish world looked to the Gaonim of Bavel, Sura and Pumbedisa. Although Dr. Haym Soloveitchik posits a third Babylonian Yeshiva. Okay, whatever it would be, but there was a certain centralization that existed. Now, after the Gaonim, that's when we start having real real differences in Ashkenazim, Sefardim, and the like, because there no longer was centralization. Even someone like Rabbeinu Gershom, who was the closest to a centralized authority, that was Ashkenazic. It was not over Sefardim and and and and the like. >> [snorts] >> So, within the branches, you can then have individualized conformity. We can certainly trace Minhagei Ashkenaz, whether it's the German variety, the Polish variety, Lithuanian variety. And then, Sefardim, you have Tunisian, Moroccan, Libyan, Iraqi, Syrian, and [clears throat] the like. So, we can get very definitely trace, as we get closer to our time, we can trace the richness and the particularity of branches of Masorah. But when you're talking about all the way back to Noach, it's very murky. In other words, we have a picture of it, but you have to accept it as a matter of faith, meaning I cannot prove to you from Noach, the text of Noach, that there [snorts] was kind of an unbroken Masorah of Torah She B'aal Peh, because the Noach is more or less relatively quiet about it. So, there are a lot of things we accept about being a Muna. But, as I say, sometimes history itself, the historical continuity of the Jewish people, might be evidence min Hashamayim that we're going the right way. And the fact that, as Rav Saadia Gaon wrote, "Einu umma ela b'Torah." We a nation because of Torah. Without the Torah, we would have disappeared. There wouldn't have been a Jewish people. You know, Mark Twain uh you guys all know you're American. If you're Americans, you know Mark Twain. If you're not, maybe you don't. But famous American non-Jewish writer wrote he was accused at one point in his career of being anti-Semitic. So he wrote a a long article, kind of some of my best friends were Jewish type of thing. But but in that article, and he was a wonderful writer, he talks about the wonder of the Jewish people that the Babylonians and the Romans and all the great world empires of the ancient world tried to destroy this little nation, and this little nation survives. And it's really a miracle. In fact, the Jewish continuity is is one of the reasons that there is a God and etc. And that comes from our connection to the Masorah, you know? So that's what I would say. But obviously um it's much easier to trace the specific Masorahs like Ashkenaz, Sepharad, Temani than than it is to go all the way back to the biblical time. Now, Rav Saadia Again, there seem to be two pictures about this. I want to just mention this to be a little complete. The standard picture we have is the picture drawn by the Rambam in which he basically says there always was this Torah she baal peh and it remained constant etc. It was handed down generation to generation. And therefore, even if it doesn't mention it, it's there. It's behind the scenes. It's always there. It's ever present. But then I don't to say there is an alternative picture a little bit that's not fleshed out entirely by Rav Tzadok of Lublin in which he emphasizes that there is no question that the the personalities of the Torah she baal peh emerge uh during the second Beit Hamikdash and afterwards. Like the earliest Tanna is said to be Shimon HaTzaddik who was a Kohen Gadol in the early years of the Bayit Sheni. And he actually says that religious life in the first Temple period was largely a prophetic religion rather than a rabbinic religion in the sense that there was Ruach Hakodesh, there was prophecy. Uh it was not so much people studying texts and debating and arguing over it. Now, as I say, the Rambam had a deliberate theta to exclude prophecy from the Halakhic process. The Rambam goes over and over again based on Gemaras. A navi does not have permission to add so the Rambam essentially projects backwards in time all of the machloket tanam and discussions. He says it happened in the biblical times as well. Because the Rambam refuses to acknowledge prophecy as a formative influence in Halakha. And that's kind of the standard picture that we've absorbed in Yeshivas. I think that's the standard picture we understand that all there is is Torah Shebichtav and the kind of pilpul and transmission of Torah Shebe'al Peh. But Rav Tzadok suggests that perhaps prophecy had a much more powerful role in religious uh life and in religious decision-making than uh we often give it credit for and rabbinic Judaism is a product of the second Temple and afterwards when there was no prophecy. So there are alternative views to the uh to the Rambam. By the way, Rav Kook points >> Rav Tzadok? Where's the Rav Tzadok? >> Uh it's in a few places. I I can I you know, he has a sefer Divrei Sofrim. I can just Divrei Sofrim. >> [snorts] >> Uh those of you who heard of uh Professor Yaakov Elman uh zichrono livracha was a very very very saintly person at Tal Midrash Chaim as well as a brilliant academic. Uh he has a very very wonderful article on Rav Tzadok's view of Torah Shebe'al Peh in which he summarizes. It's in It's in one of the old Tradition magazine journals. I want to put down an interesting observation of Rav Kook. Rav Kook says, you know, we know there's the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. Both of them are of course products of rabbinic Judaism. But the Bavli is much longer than the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi tends to be very makhtser in sugyas. So, Rav Kook said the following. He says, "Even though the Yerushalmi is certainly a product of rabbinic Judaism, but it is connected to prophecy and ruach hakodesh in the sense that if you analyze a typical Bavli sugya, the Bavli, a product of the galut, reaches its conclusions by process of elimination. As if to say, "Let's consider this possibility. No, can't do it because that contradicts that. This possibility contradicts that." So, the way you get to the truth is not by directly coming to the truth, but by eliminating all the other possibilities. That's the notion of you're looking in the darkness for truth. So, it's not here, not here, not here, not here, not here. Got to be here. The Yerushalmi has more of an intuitive approach to things. A question is asked, an answer is given. All of the steps are not spelled out. All of the alternative possibilities are not considered. Rav Kook said, "That is a type of reasoning that is more intuitionistic, more based on kind of a prophecy or ruach hakodesh. And even though prophecy technically did not exist at that time anyway, but this was a residual within Eretz Yisrael of a certain ruach hakodesh that's operating." So, Rav Kook is saying an idea that's a little bit similar to what Rav Sadoq is talking about. And Rav Kook says, "It's precisely the fact that we are not under madregas of ruach hakodesh and the like that we often don't fathom the Yerushalmi. It's like the Yerushalmi comes from A to Z without spelling out the intermediate links, as opposed to the Bavli that tends to spell out things more because we don't have that intuitionist grasp. Einstein described that was his approach to physics. You know, uh physicists say that part of why the theory of relativity is so hard is because Einstein never worked out all the math, meaning if somebody else would have come to that theory 20 years later, a lot of things would have been worked out. Einstein himself said he thought in pictures. He didn't think in logical linear processes. He just kind of went from A to Z and as a result it's very hard to reconstruct the intervening links. As Cook writes, that is what you shall me is like. So, it's very very interesting that perhaps there are different models of Torah Shebal Peh and Mesorah that that might have existed. Now, this is a very very fundamental question in many many areas of Halacha and that is to what extent can Halacha be adjudicated, reversed based on factual knowledge that may not have been known to an earlier generation or may have been erroneous. And let me just give you a few examples. One example is your very question. The Rishonim are debating a historical question. Was Rosh Hashanah observed one day in the Eretz Yisrael after the the Hurban or was it two days? So, the question becomes let's assume we could discover conclusive historical evidence that it'll be one day, would that change Halacha? Other example, which is very very striking, the Gemara in Shabbat says and the Shulchan Aruch so paskens that you're allowed to kill a louse, a kina, on Shabbat. I can kill a lice on Shabbat because the issur of taking a life is only for things that reproduce through sexual reproduction, zachar unekeiva, and lice, it is said in the Gemara, do not produce sexually, they produce through decaying matter and it is spontaneous what we call spontaneous generation, therefore it's mutar. That is a ruling in the Gemara. Now, we know that by and large scientists claim that spontaneous generation does not exist. You will not get life from decaying or rotting meat or whatever it would be, and as a result there is a tiny Mr. and Mrs. Lice there that do produce. Now, this is extraordinary because made a halachic kula to mature an issue deoraita based on a scientific assumption that is largely said to be wrong. It's one thing to say we're going to be strict. For example, the two day Rosh Hashanah thing I could give you I could just push you off although I'll give you a better answer and say well, listen, we're stuck with it. The minhag is two days, we're not going to change it. But with the lice it's much more of a problem, you see, because there you're maturing an issue deoraita based on faulty faulty science. All right, so that's another example. Now, a third example which is more systematic is the discovery of new manuscripts, particularly in the 19th century, in the Vatican and in many many libraries. Manuscripts, that's why we have so many Rishonim that that come out of Rishonim and even of manuscripts of the Talmud itself. Now, you go back to classic halachic literature and the Beis Yosef or whoever might say, "We pasken so and so because rov Rishonim say X." Okay, rov Rishonim because he had like, you know, five Rishonim and three out of five. We now discover 25 Rishonim and it turns out instead of being a five to two, it's now a 22 to five. So, should we change the halacha based on the newly discovered information in terms of girsa, in terms of nusach, in terms of Rishonim and the like? Right, that's another example. So, [snorts] let me start with that example because there we there we have the most well documented. So, it was yadua that the Chazon Ish had a shita that he would not rely on any newly discovered evidence to change halacha because he adopted what you might call a counter-mesorah tradition. He said the following. He says, "You know, even if something was wrong, if Hakadosh Baruchu enabled it to enter a certain living tradition of Judaism, the tradition of Beit Yosef and the post game, right? That becomes That becomes That becomes the halacha, even if actually it is not correct, meaning that the kind of hashgacha pratis of God withholding certain information at certain times. Right? So, that That was the Chazon Ish's opinion. Other Others disagreed with that orientation. I will tell you a very fascinating Ramban. You know, the Ramban, as I think I mentioned 2 days ago, came to Eretz Yisrael towards the end of his life, and um he discusses at the at the end of the Chumash, a little note at the Chumash at the end of his parish, that there's a machlokes Rashi and Tosfos, what is the silver weight of a half shekel that you have to give uh for the Beit Hamikdash, and the the five shkalim for pidyon haben. Machlokes Rashi and Tosfos. So, the Ramban writes, he bought a half shekel coin from an Arab that was printed that was minted in the time of the Second Temple, and he carefully weighed it and the like, and he came to the conclusion that Rashi, who had never seen a half shekel coin, Rashi was correct over the Baalei Tosfos, and there you actually see that the Ramban said, "And this is how we're going to pasken, because we have measured it." So, the Ramban was willing to use archaeology to be machria in a machlokes Rishonim. Uh K'zayis is another example. Many of you probably know of uh Rabbi Natan Natan Natan Slifkin. >> All right. >> Uh >> [clears throat] >> controversial guy. I I really really feel sorry for him. He's a obviously a very brilliant accomplished person. Uh and don't tell anybody, most of what he said Most of what he says is correct. Uh I will say that unfortunately, you know, uh this is human nature. A person is attacked, so they attack back. So, so in some ways >> It's too much. >> is attacking back has caused him a lot of sorrow. So, the one 100% I understand why a person would respond that way. Uh but uh one of his big campaigns, and he's not the first one, uh is the idea of kazayis. You know, right I see right uh the shiyurim for all the mitzvahs. Matzah, maror, whatever it is, you got to eat a kazayis. How big is a kazayis? A tennis ball, a bowling ball? What what is a What is a kazayis? A kazayis means an olive. The volume of an olive. Okay, there are big olives, there are small olives. Take your biggest olive. It's a big olive, let's say. Even though halachically it's a middle olive, but let's let's take it a big olive. You're not going to get, you know, a whole matzah shmurah, what what whatever it would be. So, uh they start to paint it, well, we have to posit that the olives used to be gigantic in those days, you know, and etc. etc. And therefore we got to go with the original size of kazayis. But then we have, you're 100% correct, we have archaeological evidence that the kazayis were either the same or maybe were smaller. Right, we don't find like super gigantic olives or or whatever it is. So, what does that mean? Does that mean a kazayis should be, you know, a little piece of matzah? Now, the truth of the matter is in in the old Lithuanian tradition, it's it's recorded Chaim Volozhin, Chaim Volozhin told people if you take a piece of matzah that covers your palm your palm, not even your fingers, that's a kazayis. Kazayis, which roughly would be, you know, a big olive if you crush it up and the like. So, it's very confusing. Again, some say once it becomes part of the mesorah, you got to follow it. Others say realistically, these things ought to be changed by facts. Now, with respect to kinnah, kinnah is probably analytically the most difficult problem. And let me just point out that Rav Dessler adopts what you might call a mystical theory of halacha. Rav Dessler says Hashem would never allow Khazal to make mistakes and mislead Am Yisrael. >> What about the power of El Am Davar? El Am Davar is not >> Yeah, well, we do Yeah, you're right. That That's one instance where where it does happen. Um but at least maybe when there's no base on mikdash, he says, you know, there's no corrective mechanism. So, he says, if Khazal matir kina, it must be that it is mutar even though the reason they gave was an incorrect reason. It It's a very reminiscent of a famous maaseh involving Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, the great uh gaon of Brisk, known for his deep but the deepest of analytical thinkers. Rav Chaim notoriously hated the pasken shailos. He refused to pasken even He was the rav of Brisk, he would not pasken shailos in Brisk. He had dayanim. And when Rav Chaim had a difficult shaila, he would send it to the posek hador, who was Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor. Why you was named after Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor. So, legend has it, I can't say that it's true, that whenever he would send the shaila to Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, he would say, "Please give me your psak. Just tell me mutar or assur. Don't give me I don't want to hear any reasons." Why? Because your reasons I'll probably argue with. Your logic is probably faulty based on my Brisk amkus and the like, but I believe as posek hador, you'll come to the right answer even if you have the wrong reason. That's a very mystical theory of halakha, but it's kind of what Rav Dessler was saying about having gas kina. So, this is a very long-winded non-answer to your question. I mean, I realize your question basically is, "Can we change halakha based on factual discoveries?" It really depends on the idea of whether errors in the mesorah get assimilated into the mesorah itself, and do I regard that as a hashgacha pratit, that it was the ratzon Hashem that halacha move in a certain direction, even if that was not a factually accurate situation. >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me, the Chazon Ish I think would take the position that things don't change. Others might be a bit more more progressive. Now again, even if you believe things change, God forbid, don't confuse that with reform. It's a very much I mean it's very much the opposite. Reform is changing. Here we're trying to come in connection to what was the original matius. It's it's it you know it's superficially it may sound like a reform type of thing, but analytically it's exactly the opposite a process. It's la hachzara Torah atara liyoshna. So, it's a hard it's a hard it's a hard question. Oh, let me give you another example that's very fascinating. Comes up a lot. Those of you maybe some of you have learned this. Uh the status of stainless steel pots and ble'ah. >> [clears throat] >> You know, it's actually axiomatic, right, the first law you learn in hilchos kashrus is that a pot absorbs that which you cook in it, whether it's treif, or whether it's milchik or fleishik. And as a result, if you [clears throat] cook you know, meat in a milchik pot, or you cook kosher in a treif pot, the that which is absorbed goes into the food, and unless you have 60, etc., right? This is the the basic structure of why you need separate milchik fleishik stuff, why you have to kosher treif kitchens. So, scientists now say that stainless steel they've they test it, actually does not absorb any detectable food residue bichlal. Like the whole concept of modern I you know, cast iron does, right? If you have There are materials that do. The materials in Chazal's time did, but tempered steel actually does not seem to have absorbent properties. So, the question now becomes, so are we going to now take the position I can use a stainless steel pot for milchiks and fleishiks, because there's no milk that was absorbed, there's no meat that was absorbed. I don't have to kosher stainless steel. It's a lively debate. Um There are those who actually take the position that stainless steel does not have to be koshered at all. That's a minority position, as you would say. Others say, you know, we have this masorah that everything that's metal is bole'ah. We are not allowed to kind of make changes in those assumptions. So, the controversy comes across in many, many, many, many areas.