GOOD MORNING! There is an ongoing debate in American society as to how exactly the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted. Should it be according to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution (this group is known as the “Originalists”) or should it be interpreted (and changed) as the mores of modern society change (“Living Constitutionalism”)? Unsurprisingly, these two groups generally divide according to their politics: conservatives and liberals respectively.

There are many cogent arguments to be made for both sides, but while some issues were initially addressed through the ten constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights, sometimes even those seem a little “off kilter.” For example, the first amendment guarantees, among other things, that all citizens have a freedom to practice the religion of their choice or none at all, without government interference.

Yet, this gave “legs” to the concept of separation of church and state, which led to the banning of school prayers; something that would have been both a shock and anathema to the framers of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) who were deeply religious themselves. Additionally, one can readily imagine what their view on “woke” ideology might be. As Winston Churchill once said, “The greatest argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

By contrast, the Torah, as given to Moses by the Almighty, is the absolute, immutable word of God.

I am quite often asked by both those who attend my classes and by readers of this column, some version of the following question: “Rabbi, this law that you are discussing, is that found in the Torah or is that something that the rabbis made up?” Aside from the disturbing implied disdain for something they presume to be of lesser importance (because it was “only” instituted by the rabbis), this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about the composition of the Torah.

The confusion over what constitutes Torah can perhaps be attributed to the unfamiliarity as to the place of the Oral Law within the context of the Written Law – otherwise known as the Five Books of Moses.

One of the most influential Torah scholars since the closing of the Talmud some 1,500 years ago, was Rabbi Moses ben Maimon – more commonly known as Maimonides (1137-1204). Among his many remarkable accomplishments, Maimonides set about codifying the Talmud and the related works of scholarship from Mishnaic and Talmudic times – the entirety of the Oral Law.

His epic work known as the Mishneh Torah contains over 1,000 chapters and is an exhaustive compilation of all of the Torah’s laws. It additionally includes much on Jewish practices and philosophies. It is virtually impossible to overstate the massive impact of this work of Jewish scholarship.

Maimonides also authored many other influential works – including his classic work on Jewish philosophy known as The Guide to the Perplexed, and a commentary on Mishna (the collection of the various works of Jewish Academic institutions over a 300-year period).

In his introduction to the tenth chapter of the Talmudic tractate Sanhedrin, Maimonides lays out what he considers the thirteen principles of Jewish faith. This compilation alone was a groundbreaking idea; it had never before been considered to articulate and codify the principles that make up the essence of Jewish beliefs. As with many great works of Jewish scholarship, Maimonides had his detractors and some controversy ensued.

But the proof is always in the pudding, and today – some eight hundred years after his passing – Maimonides is widely regarded as one of Jewish history’s foremost codifiers of Jewish law and philosophy. His 13 principles of faith have even been adapted into the daily liturgy – both as a poetic composition known as Yigdal, and as an abbreviated 13 sentences that are often recited at the end of the morning prayers.

In his eighth principle Maimonides writes that Moses was the authentic conveyor of God’s Torah and that both the Written Law “and all its clarifications” (i.e. the Oral Law) were given to Moses at Mount Sinai. In other words, the Oral Law is part and parcel of the Written Law and both the Written Law and the Oral Law were passed down to each succeeding generation.

In his introduction to Mishneh Torah, Maimonides traces the EXACT provenance of the transmission of the Oral Law in each generation succeeding Moses until the close of the Talmud. He lists by name the forty leaders of each generation (and certain eras) responsible for the accurate transmission of both the Written and Oral Law, from Moses’ time until the final editors and redactors of the Talmud.

Bottom Line: You cannot have the Written Law without the accompanying Oral Law. A quick review of some basic laws will bear this out. The common practice of Jewish males thirteen years and above putting on teffilin (phylacteries) is based on a verse in the Written Law, “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as ‘totafot’ between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8). But nowhere does the Written Law, i.e. The Five Books of Moses, explain what ‘totafot’ are. However, the Oral Law explains what this word means and how to create teffilin.

Similarly, other laws like fasting on Yom Kippur, laws of “shechita – ritual slaughter,” what is an etrog, what constitutes circumcision (the Written Torah never says where on the body to perform this), what is a shofar, the definition of an “eye for an eye” – the list goes on and on – can only be understood and fulfilled with the explications found in the Oral Law. Thus, the Written Law and Oral Law are part and parcel of each other.

Of course throughout Jewish history there have been certain sects that disputed parts of the Oral Law, but even these philosophical arguments are generally misunderstood.

For example, the 24th gatekeeper of the Written Law and Oral Law from the times of Moses was known as Antignos from Socho. He is recorded in Pirkei Avot – Ethics of Our Fathers – as having taught the principle that we should serve the Almighty as servants, and not as employees waiting for a reward (all the while knowing that there will be recompense in the world to come). Two of his students (Tzadok and Baisus) were so disappointed with this principle that they left their teacher, broke with Torah tradition, and founded their own schools of thought.

Tzadok is “credited” with the foundation of the break-away group known as the Sadducees (a derivation of his name). They were a formidable force, both in size and influence, in the times of the Second Holy Temple. But while it is commonly believed that they rejected the Oral Law and strictly held to the Written Law, this is a fallacy.

The Sadducees, as hard as it is to believe, were an attack on Rabbinic Judasim not from the left, but rather from the right! They absolutely believed in the authenticity of the Oral Law, because, as we explained above, it would be impossible to fulfill many mitzvot like fasting on Yom Kippur, circumcision, or teffilin without it. Rather, their argument on Rabbinic Judaism stemmed from laws in which the Oral Law seemed to contradict the Written Law. For example, based on the Oral Law the rabbis ruled that when the Torah says “an eye for an eye” it refers to monetary compensation.

To the Sadducees this was an unacceptable contradiction, and they rejected it and all other instances that the Oral Law, in their opinion, contradicted the simple reading of the text of the Written Law. Thus, “an eye for an eye” meant exactly that. Like most radical factions, they eventually disappeared completely though, as we shall soon see, their effect on Judaism remains to this very day.

One of the classic examples of the Sadducees break from Rabbinic Judaism appears in this week’s Torah reading. “Do not kindle any fire on Shabbat, no matter where you may live” (Exodus 35:3). According to the Rabbis this meant to ignite a fire on Shabbat. However, the Sadducees interpreted this according to the literal translation of the verse: “You shall not have a fire burning on Shabbat.”

Thus, according to the Oral Law, it is permitted to have a fire burning on Friday night as long as it was ignited prior to sundown. But the Sadducees prohibited having any fire whatsoever – thus no lit candle could be in their homes on Friday night, nor could they have any hot food when they got home from synagogue because all fires had to be extinguished prior to sundown. It also meant that during the winter their homes on Friday nights would be fairly miserable; they’d have to sit in a dark, cold house eating cold food.

Yet for many hundreds of years the Sadducees had an outsized influence, and their subtle change in some customs caused many issues, including their interpretations of the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur. Because of this, every year the High Priest was made to swear that he wasn’t a Sadducee and that he wouldn’t deviate from the accepted Jewish Tradition as elucidated in the Oral Law.

Today, we too have a custom to show that we aren’t Sadducees. According to many early sources, this is the origin of the custom of eating hot foods on Shabbat day that have been cooking all night. Ashkenazic Jews have the custom to eat cholent (some say the word comes from the Old French “chalant – hot cooked”) and Sefardic Jews have the custom to eat “hamin – hot food.” The codifiers of Jewish law (Bal Hamaor, Rema, and others) all say it is important to follow the tradition of eating hot foods on the Shabbat day to show that we are not Sadducees.

In other words, we permit fires (and the foods that are placed on them) before sundown Friday night to continue burning throughout Shabbat. So, enjoy your cholent (or hamin) knowing that this simple food has its roots in a two and a half thousand-year-old dispute – one that we get to address in a most delicious way!

Vayakhel, Exodus 35:1 - 38:20

Moses relays the Almighty’s commands to refrain from building the Mishkan (the Tabernacle) on Shabbat, to contribute items needed to build the Mishkan, to construct the components of the Mishkan, and the appurtenances of the Cohanim. The craftsmen are selected and the work begins. The craftsmen report that there are too many donations and, for the first and probably the only time in fundraising history, the Jewish people are told to refrain from bringing additional contributions!