Most Jews are aware that Moses received a written Torah from Mount Sinai, known as Torah Shebichtav in Hebrew. However, many Jews are not aware that Moses also received an Oral Law on Mount Sinai, or Torah Shebaal Peh. The Written Law ensures that the law is not forgotten or does not change because it cannot be easily interpreted, but its flexibility is also negative aspect. It is not able to change with the time or be flexible to any situations. This is why many believe the Written Law has its counterpart- the Oral Law, which can be adaptable, but at the cost of it being changed so much that its original form is forgotten. The rigidity of the Written Law along with the flexibility of the Oral Law allow the Reform Jewish people to continue to learn and grow with the times, while still being assured that their learning can bind all Jews across time and around the world together.
The Oral Law affords the Jewish people change with the times, and encourages engagement with one another through interpretation. But this comes at the cost of potentially straying from its original meaning. The Oral law can be compared to a game of telephone, in which from person to person, the story changes, loses details, and also adds details derived from inferences. This change of the story, in this case the law, also happens in the Oral Law, but the consequences play out further than simply a short game: people will spend their lives studying the added, lost and changed details. The Oral law changed so much that when Moses supposedly went into the future into the class of Rabbi Akiva, a famous rabbi during the first and second century CE, Moses hadn’t even recognized the own words that he was supposed to have received from G-d on Mount Sinai. This story is no doubt a display of how susceptible Oral Law is to change. Many people, upon first learning Oral Law, would consider its constant change a negative aspect. However, when Moses heard that Rabbi Akiva said that his teachings came from “law given to Moses at Sinai”, or Halakha L’Moshe M’Sinai, he was relieved. Even though Moses himself was unable to recognize the Jewish law, the law, was in some way or another, derived from G-d on Sinai . Therefore, no matter how much Judaism and Oral law adapts with the times, what we are learning will always be somehow connected with Jews that came thousands of years before us. The Oral law also encourages conversation and learning. When Yehudah HaNassi finally wrote the Oral law down in what is known as the Mishnah, there was enormous amount of commentary on it, so much so that another major Jewish writing was made to comment on it- the Gomorra. Together known as the Talmud, the Mishnah and Gomorrah is central to Jewish study. The Talmud contains two-sided arguments about what the Oral law might mean, and leaves the reader to think for himself and converse with his peers about how we should live our lives according to the Mishnah. The oral law encourages us to discuss with one another, study, and look back at the Tanakh for support. In this way, Oral law, though no longer distinctly oral, highlights Judaism’s emphasis on study and conversation.
Even though Oral law is adaptable and encourages Jews to study it, written law ensures that the law will not change too much. Because it was written down at its origin, there is not as much to interpret from it. Whatever is written should be followed by Jews, and there isn’t much room to debate about it. The idea of interpreting the written law was such an absurd idea that Reform Judaism, who believe in interpretation through knowledge, wasn’t founded until the nineteenth century by Abraham Geiger, about three thousand years after the written law was attained. The consequences of interpreting too much can be seen by the founding of Christianity. The founders of Christianity, who were Jews, simply interpreted the role of Jesus differently than traditional Jews, and were first seen as merely a different, radical sect of Judaism. However, their different interpretation eventually became a religion completely different than Judaism today. If there is too much interpretation, Jews can become too different. Jews can all interpret different things to be true, but then the difficult question arises of what binds us all together. The written laws helps bind us, Jews from all generations, together because we all share the same central text.
As Modern Reform Jews, we take the strengths of both Oral Law and Written Law and apply it to how we act. Just as the Oral Law encourages to interpret and adapt to modern times, Modern Reform Jews also encourage interpretation. For instance, we are encouraged to interpret for ourselves whether or not keeping kosher is meaningful for modern times. However, there are some things that Modern Reform Jews keep set in stone to bind all Jews around the world together, just as the Written Law ensures that Jews are binded from all generations together. However, this taking of the rigidity of the Written Law along with the interpretation of the Oral Law is something specific to Modern Reform Judaism. Classical Reform Jews, Reform Jews of the nineteenth century, relied almost exclusively of interpretation. They made changes seen as absurd to my Modern Reform Jewish history class- switching Shabbat to sunday, and ridding of kippot, Tallitot, and Hebrew services, and condemning circumcision. Now, Modern Reform Jews keep some things rigid - redesignating Saturday as Shabbat, making kippot, tallitot, and circumcision more common, and praying in Hebrew- binding us once again with Jews around the world and across time.
A rabbi once told me that our greatest strengths as individuals are also our greatest weaknesses. I think that statement is also applicable to the Oral and Written Law. The Oral Law’s strength is its adaptability and its plea to be interpreted, but this adaptability and easy interpretation can also lead to so much change that it does not even reflect its original form. And the Written Laws strength is its promise to never be forgotten or changed, but this means less applicableness to modern times and less studying of it. These strengths and weaknesses of the Written and Oral Law are why they need each other. When I realized that our greatest strengths are our greatest weaknesses I became dejected, as I thought that meant that improving my weaknesses would put the best aspects of myself at risk. But I now realize that that isn’t the case- we don’t need to put our strengths at risk. The oral law came with its opposite, the written law, so that the Jewish people could have both timeless interpretation and assurance of tradition. Likewise, we, as humans, can have both our strengths and the hope of ridding of our weaknesses if we work as a team. When a person is with another person who has opposite strengths and weaknesses, together, they have only strengths. Maybe that’s why they say opposites attract.
