Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility

by Michael Rosensweig (https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/author/michael_rosensweigou-org/) | May 26, 2011 in Jewish Thought
(https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/religion/jewish-thought/)

Jewish tradition asserts that the greatest moment and most important event in history was not the creation of the world but the
Revelation of the Torah (Matan Torah). Rabbinic sources perceive the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai as both the climax and
telos of Creation. Strikingly, the midrash articulates this view even as it interprets the account of Creation itself, noting that the
very term bereishit (in the beginning) signifies the anticipation of Revelation: For the sake of the Torah, which is called the
beginning. Halachah mandates that the Jewish people maximize their connection to the experience of Revelation and intensify
their commitment to the content of Revelation by means of rigorous Torah study and punctilious Torah observance. Torah life
constitutes a Divine gift to the Jewish people, a cherished opportunity, the gateway to a spiritually rich and meaningful
existence. (See Mishnah, Makkot 23b; Kohelet 12:13.)

The singular character of halachic life can best be apprehended and appreciated in light of the Torahs unique perspective on
the content and methodology of Revelation. Chazal develop the thesis that is axiomatic to Jewish law and thought that Matan
Torah was two-tiered: consisting of oral and written components. Commenting on the unusual spelling of the word vehaTorot,
which conveys both a singular and plural meaning in the verse (Vayikra 26:46) These are the decrees, the ordinances, and the
teachings that Hashem gave, between Himself and the children of Israel, at Mount Sinai, through Moshe, the Sifra comments:
This teaches that two Torahs were given to the Jewsone written and one oral. This principle forms the basis for the pivotal
idea of mesorah, the received tradition of Jewish law and values that complements the Divine text that was given at Sinai.

The two components of Torahmesorah and textseem to represent a study in contrast, but are in fact mutually enhancing.
The Written Torah was revealed as a fixed text whose form was to be preserved unaltered. It is a Divine text that yields multiple
truths and a variety of interpretations, sometimes referred to as the seventy faces of Torah (see also Sanhedrin 34a).
According to the Ramban, the letters of the Divine text embody metaphysical significance as well, recombining into different
manifestations of the Divine name. The oral tradition, in contrast, though equally of Divine origin and authority, was entrusted to
Moshe Rabbeinu and by extension to his successors, the chachmei hamesorah of each subsequent generation, as a received
oral tradition consisting of principles, details, and values. The mesorah was intended to be conveyed by means of a
distinctively human process consisting of painstaking transmission of data and halachic methodology, as well as the rigorous
analysis and application of that tradition.

The two components of Torah operate both independently and in tandem. Often the oral mesorah provides the key to unlock
the mysteries or ambiguities of the Divine text. Content or concepts embedded in the unusual form or spelling of the Written
Torah are rendered accessible or decipherable only by means of the mesorah and methodology of the oral tradition. The
Gemara in Eruvin (21b) describes this phenomenon: His locks are curledthis teaches that it is possible to expound mounds
of laws from every single stroke in the Torahs letters. Clearly, the Torah sees great benefit both in the dual perspectives of the
Oral and Written Torot, as well as in their integration.

It is evident that the respective designations of Oral and Written Torah transcend descriptive labels. Chazal meant to succinctly
convey the importance of two different perspectives. The Written Torah underscores the concept of an unchanging text in which
spelling, structure, and form are invested with halachic and homiletic significance. A sefer Torah that is improperly transcribed
is disqualified even if the changes apparently do not alter the meaning of the text. Indeed, absolute attention to proper form
may come even at the expense of substance, as the phenomenon of kri vktiv, (written one way and vocalized another way)
demonstrates. The Oral Torah reflects a very different emphasis. It derives its special significance from its conceptual content
rather than its specific formulation. Indeed, exaggerated allegiance to a particular formulation may occasionally prove inhibiting
and counterproductive. The thesis articulated by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah, Kuntres Aharon) that one
can fulfill the mitzvah of talmud Torah by simply reading the text of Torah Shebichtav even absent comprehension, while such a
gesture employed with respect to Torah Shebeal Peh would constitute a fruitless endeavor highlights the distinctive character
of these two Torot. The twin halachic injunctions that ideally prohibit the transcription of the oral mesorah and proscribe the oral
citation of the Written Torah (Gittin 60a) demonstrate the indispensability of each dimension.

While each component of Revelation is crucial, it is noteworthy that it is the Oral Law, entrusted to the chachmei hamesorah,
shaped and enhanced by human effort and input, that is preeminent. The Gemara (Gittin 60b) articulates this unambiguously

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 1 of 7
Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

both with respect to it being a prerequisite to the covenantal bond with Hashem, as well as with regard to its inherent spiritual
value: God only established a covenant with Israel for the sake of the Oral Torah. The Midrash Tanchuma (Shemot 24:7)
explains that the reluctant posture of the Jewish people to accept the Torah without some measure of coercion (Covered them
with a mountain like a barrel) stems from the higher demands and more intense commitment of the oral mesorah, which are
depicted as the ultimate manifestation of love of Hashem: Because no one learns it who does not love God with all his heart,
soul and might.

What accounts for the axiological priority of the Oral Law? We may better appreciate the special character of the oral tradition
by briefly examining its comprehensive scope and singular nature. The continuation of the Midrash Tanchuma provides some
direction. The midrash perceives the Written Torah as a repository of broad values and general religious principles. However,
as a fixed and finite text lacking great detail, it does not impose excessive religious obligations or intrude pervasively on the
apparently neutral aspects of ones life. The fledgling Klal Yisrael could easily embrace this level of commitment. It is the Oral
Law, both in interpretive conjunction with the Written Torah and independently by means of the halachic content that exclusively
stems from the mesorah, that is responsible for an extremely ambitious halachic system that regulates every aspect of life,
suffusing the neutral and secular with sanctity, kedushah. Chazal articulate these themes clearly (Tanchuma, op cit; Gittin 60a):
The majority of Torah is oral and the minority written; the Written Torah contains generalities and the Oral Torah specifics . . .
You will not find the Oral Torah among one who seeks the joys of this world, desire, honor and greatness in this world rather
only among one who kills himself on it. While the Written Torah gives direction and provides inspiration, the mesorah of the
Oral Torah imbues the vision with detail and substance.

While this perspective explains some aspects of the dialectical relationship between the two components of Revelation, the
need for both elements, and the preeminence of the Oral Law, it does not yet explain adequately why the Torah was structured
in this manner, nor does it illuminate why the mesorah of Torah Shebeal Peh occupies so central a role in the interpretation
and determination of the most basic and fundamental categories of Jewish law and life. Furthermore, considerations of
efficiency and comprehensiveness do not sufficiently explain the prohibition to document the massive material of the oral
tradition, nor do they justify how the idea of mesorah as a chain of transmission entrusted to the chachmei hamesorah across
the generations came to be perceived as an important value and sensibility beyond the specific content of transmission, as we
shall soon elaborate.

Even a cursory survey demonstrates that the Written Torah intentionally obscured
many of the most central aspects of Jewish life forcing reliance upon the methodology
The greatest moment and
and content of mesorah. I refer not to the more esoteric realms of kodashim and
most important event in taharot, but to the most ubiquitous and basic categories of halachic life encountered
history was not the routinely. The institution of Shabbat, the temporal telos of Creation, the foundation of
creation of the world but the Jewish week (see Ramban, Shemot 20:8; derashah Rosh HaShanah) and the
the Revelation of the paradigm-framework for all of the moadim and the very concept of sanctity of time
(First among the holy days of assembly) would be unrecognizable absent the
Torah. mesorah input. The foundational component of the thirty-nine categories of work
depend exclusively on the oral tradition. (See Shabbat 49b, and Tosafot and Ramban
ad loc.) The central principle of melechet machshevet, skillful labor that governs the application of melachah and is therefore
crucial to Shabbat observance, is not explicated in the Written Torah. The Gemara (Chaggigah 10a) succinctly encapsulates
this thought when it remarks that the laws of Shabbat are barely hanging by a thread: The laws of Shabbat . . . are like
mountains hanging from a hairfew verses but many laws. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the
Written Torah treats the topic of Shabbat at least a dozen times!

The same phenomenon exists in varying degrees with respect to every other festival. Without the input of mesorah, we would
have scant or inaccurate or misleading information about tekiat shofar on Rosh Hashanah, the proper protocol and order of the
avodah on Yom Kippur, the precise date of Shavuot, the requisite amount of days for eating matzah, and the physical
requirements and dimensions of a sukkah.

Lest one speculate that absolute reliance upon mesorah is limited to areas of ritual or religious law, one only need to peruse
Parashat Mishpatim, the locus of dinei nezikin, the laws of damages. Nothing is more universal and inherently rational than
rules governing human conduct and responsibility in this most elemental of social interaction. And yet, the Written Torahs
extensive delineation of the various categories of these laws is simply incomprehensible without the authoritative traditions of
the mesorah. The intricate halachic categories of aish (fire), bor (the pit), and keren (goring), to name just a few, are
indecipherable and inconceivable without the companion Oral Torah.

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 2 of 7
Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

indecipherable and inconceivable without the companion Oral Torah.

It is evident that the preeminent role of the Oral Law was designed to insure that the Torahs laws, values and insights would
not be trivialized, historicized, marginalized, or otherwise corrupted by being too accessible to non-initiates lacking the requisite
depth of yirat Shamayim and halachic commitment. The midrash (Bereishit Rabbah, Shemot 47:1; see, also Tosafot, Gittin 60b
sv atmuhi; Semag, introduction to lavin) exemplifies this approach, underscoring that the Oral Torah secured the Torahs status
as a special legacy of the Jewish people, not to be usurped or corrupted by other nations.

Furthermore, the indispensability of mesorah guarantees that Torah will be studied and applied within a traditional framework
that accentuates its roots in the experience of Revelation (see Ramban, Devarim 4:9; Sefer HaMitzvot, shichechat lavin 2), as
well as its stature as an immutable system of laws and values (see Rambam, ikkarim 7,9) relevant to all periods of history and
in all geographic settings. Moreover, mesorah anchors the Torahs laws and principles in wider internal context by providing
additional detail and insight, particularly regarding the interrelationship of various variables and factors. Precisely the most
universal and basic institutions of halachic life demand the framework and perspective of mesorah, lest the singular Torah
perspective on these issues become confused or simply blurred.

The vigorous opposition to the Tzedukim and later to the Karaim, who denied the authority of the Oral Law mesorah, should be
assessed in this light. The halachah takes extraordinary steps to convey its absolute, vehement rejection of this ideology
(Mishnah Parah 3:1; Yoma 2a). The denial of mesorah constitutes not merely a falsehood that facilitates erroneous conclusions
applied to critical issues, but more significantly, an ideological and methodological challenge to the very character and unique
quality of halachic law and life. Thus, it was appropriately perceived and confronted as an insidious heresy (Rambam, Hilchot
Teshuvah 3:8; Hilchot Mamrim 3:1-3; responsa [Blau edition], 449).

Perhaps the most important function of an indispensable mesorah is the projection of both an historic and an ongoing vital role
for chachmei hamesorah who are entrusted with preserving, furthering and applying that ancient yet living tradition. The
Talmud formulates the obligation to master the entire corpus of Torah knowledge (Kiddushin 30a). The Ritva and Maharsha
(Gittin 60a) emphasize that the prohibition to record the oral tradition mandated greater dedication to attaining this lofty
ambition. Undoubtedly, it served as an important catalyst stimulating greater intensity both in quantitative and qualitative Torah
study. However, the symbolic and substantive impact of entrusting authentic Torah interpretation to the sages of each
generation certainly transcended the incentive for chachmei hamesorah to immerse themselves in both the minutiae and
principles of the halachah.

It highlighted the singular halachic perspective, also reflected by the doctrine of it is not in heaven . . . A prophet is not allowed
to add anything henceforward (Temurah 16a) and parallel concepts that the chachmei hamesorah are not only the passive
recipients and repository of the halachah, but as its authentic interpreter, are also partners with Hashem in the application of
timeless, immutable Torah law to all circumstances in all generations. Many of the commentators explain that the phrase in
Birkat HaTorah: gave us the Torah . . . and implanted internal life within us refers to Torah Shebeal Peh, precisely because of
the responsible and substantive role of the chachmei hamesorah in interpreting and applying the Torah (Tur, OH 139). The
Aruch HaShulchan (Leil Shimurim commentary on the Haggadah) explains that the phrase in the Haggadah: If He had only
brought us before Mount Sinai and had not given us the Torah, it would have sufficed us refers to the fact that in addition to
entrusting the Torah to Klal Yisrael as passive recipients, Hashem included the chachmei hamesorah in the process of halachic
decision making, and, by extension, in the advancement of Torah itself.

It is surely no coincidence that the halachah places a great premium on the rebbe/talmid relationship, as well as on the proper
approach to talmidei chachamim generally, the gatekeepers of the mesorah. Strikingly, the Rambam refers to halachic scholars
as the transmitters of the tradition, person to person, from Moshe our master (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:9), even when he
discusses the daily obligation to learn, accentuating this motif. These interactions clearly transcend other academic or
intellectual mentor-disciple models. The laws of kavod and moreh rabbo, patterned after and in some respects surpassing the
parent-child relationship, demonstrate that the connections are existentially and not merely academically crucial. The fact that
the rebbe/talmid chacham constitutes the source and link with mesorah and that mesorah includes not only information but
values and a methodology and a global perspective toward halachic life underpins this central emphasis. The institution of
semichah, rabbinic ordination, the source of independent rabbinic authority, which in its classical form requires an unbroken
chain of chachmei hamesorah linking back to Yehoshua and Moshe Rabbeinu (Rambam, Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:1) highlights this
theme.

The dialectic of dependence and independence that defines the interactions of halachic disciples and their mentors also
magnificently reflects the singular halachic posture on mesorah. The halachah codifies the importance of deference and even
initial acquiescence to the rulings of mentors and predecessors. At the same time, there is room for, and occasionally
https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 3 of 7
Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

initial acquiescence to the rulings of mentors and predecessors. At the same time, there is room for, and occasionally
obligation to express conscientious objection and principled opposition to the halachic status quo ante properly formulated and
pursued (YD 242:2, 3 and commentaries). Chazal valued chiddush, innovative ideas and halachic-hashkafic initiative, but also
insisted that these be anchored in the framework of mesorah. This subtle and ambitious stance is crystallized in challenging
rabbinic formulations such as Anything that an assiduous student would innovate in the future was told to Moshe from Sinai
(Yerushalmi Peah 2:4; see also the celebrated story told in the Gemara in Menachot 29b).

The same perspective can be invoked to reconcile other apparent discrepancies. The
statement by Rebbe Eliezer (Sukkah 28a) that he never initiated a halachic ruling or
Chazal valued chiddush,
expounded an innovative idea that did not originate from his rebbe, for example, is
innovative ideas and evidently belied by the legal record of Rebbe Eliezers innovative contributions.
halachic-hashkafic However, Rebbe Eliezers declaration is undoubtedly to be understood as an emphatic
initiative, but also confirmationendorsement of the concept of mesorah. Rebbe Eliezer credited even his
insisted that these be personal halachic rulings or Torah insights to his mentors because from his perspective
he was merely applying the methodology and sensibility of mesorah that was faithfully
anchored in the and painstakingly transmitted to him. A detached observer might be impressed by
framework of mesorah. Rebbe Eliezers novelty, but his self-image was one of a faithful link in the chain of the
mesorah. These two viewpoints are consistent with the theme of a dynamic mesorah
that is firmly anchored in the traditions of Sinai. In the same vein, Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik would alternately describe his
grandfather, Rabbi Chaim of Brisk, as a revolutionary halachic thinker who transformed the landscape of halachic analysis in
the modern era, but with equal passion he would assert that Rabbi Chaim represented the continuity and served as a link in the
rich tradition of other great halachic innovators like Rabbeinu Tam, the Rabad, the Ramban, the Netivot, et cetera. A true
student of the concept of mesorah perceives no contradiction in these assessments.

The phenomenon of mesorah highlights an important distinction between external and internal halachic innovation. This is
exemplified by the contrasting events recorded in Parashat Shemini. Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, were put to death
notwithstanding their prodigious spiritual status, their piety, and their sincerity because they offered ketoret zarah, an
unauthorized and untraditional ketoret offering (Vayikra 10:1. The fact that they did not feel obligated to consult Moshe
Rabbeinu regarding the propriety of this innovation constituted more than a breach of halachic etiquette or even an implicit
rejection of his preeminent halachic authority. As the initial recipient, and quintessential gatekeeper of the mesorah, Moshe
Rabbeinu was endowed not only with additional halachic knowledge but with more profound halachic wisdom and intuition, as
well. Bypassing Moshe Rabbeinu in the context of initiating a new halachic practice reflected a total disregard for the vital
transcendent functions of mesorah, and was not to be countenanced, especially from men of immense spiritual stature. Hence,
the tragic decree: I will be sanctified through those who are nearest Me, thus I will be honored before the entire people
(Vayikra 10:3).

While Nadav and Avihu tragically lost their lives due to improper external innovation, the remaining sons of Aharon, who
surmised that it would be inappropriate to partake of the Rosh Chodesh chatat offering in their state of aninut, were vindicated
in their independent conclusion despite Moshe Rabbeinus initial consternation that they, too, had overstepped. Moshe heard
and it was pleasing in his eyes.

Chazal (Zevachim 101a; Rashi, Ramban, Vayikra 10:16-20) explain that Moshe Rabbeinu was quick to accept their compelling
halachic analysis once he realized that their initiative constituted an internal albeit unanticipated independent application of the
received halachah, rather than an external challenge to halachic norms and traditions. Precisely because he embodied the
instinct and intuition of mesorah, Moshe recognized the authenticity of this independent conclusion that was grounded in
proper halachic methodology. The Ramban (Vayikra 9:2) considers yet another explanation for the burning of the Rosh
Chodesh offering that also highlights the issue of internal chiddush and the role of authority. Rashi notes that in sharp contrast
to Nadav and Avihu, Elazar and Itamar were reticent even to engage in halachic discourse with Moshe Rabbeinu; their
argument had to be articulated by Aharon.

The determination that the vast tradition of halachah remain predominantly in oral form accomplished a dialectical purpose. On
the one hand, it preserved the moment and experience of the Revelation at Sinai as the eternal foundation of authority, content
and sensibility of halachic law. It guaranteed that the halachah remain forever anchored in its authentic and authoritative
origins. It fostered a sense of identification with the halachic past that would serve as a guidepost to a responsible application
of the halachah in the future. At the same time, by promoting significant responsibility and authority for the chachmei
hamesorah, this structure equally provided the basis for the capacity to address new halachic challenges that would inevitably

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 4 of 7
Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

surface as Jewish life evolved in different eras and geographic locations. The cultivation of Torah wisdom or halachic instinct
consequent upon a total exposure to the details and received values and sensibilities of the halachah is a particularly vital
aspect of this system. The metaphor of the authoritative chacham as a walking sefer Torah (based on Makkot 22b; Kiddushin
33b) aptly captures this theme. It is noteworthy that the midrash (cited also by Rashi, Devarim 30:14) links the relevance and
accessibility of the halachah to all situations with the Torahs dual form, written and oral. Commenting on the verses that
declare that the Torah is neither distant nor in heaven (It is not in heaven . . . nor is it beyond the sea), but is, in fact, fully
accessible and applicable (in your mouth and your heart that you may do it), the midrash emphasizes the role of mesorah
alongside that of the Written Torah.

This perspective on the role and impact of mesorah, particularly as it relates to the
cultivation of a halachic personality who is more than the sum of his actual knowledge,
The Oral Law, entrusted
has significant implications regarding the status of halachic conviction or even intuition
to the chachmei that cannot be analytically demonstrated. There are surely significant differences
hamesorah, shaped and between rigorous halachic rulings grounded in the examination and analysis of specific
enhanced by human sources, and conclusions that invoke broader halachic considerations and values, or
effort and input, is that rely primarily upon strong halachic convictions in issues for which halachic
precedent is insufficiently compelling. Yet, the history of halachic thought demonstrates
preeminent. that each of these models constitutes an important element in halachahs encounter
with new realities and challenges. Moreover, Rav Soloveitchik developed the idea that
mesorah incorporates the Torah sensibilities of great men, as well their more analytical halachic conclusions (Iggerot haGrid
87-88). Indeed, he argues that the Rambams heresy category of machish magidehah (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8) refers to the
improper rejection of precisely this group of values and sensibilities.

This perspective on the role and impact of mesorah, particularly as it relates to the cultivation of a halachic personality who is
more than the sum of his actual knowledge, has significant implications regarding the status of halachic conviction or even
intuition that cannot be analytically demonstrated.
Masechet Avot, which primarily records the general aphorisms and wider wisdom of the chachamim, begins by recounting the
history of mesorah. Both the need for a mesorah to justify these particular values and sensibilities, as well as its application to
these broader and more universal themes is noteworthy. Moreover, some of the mefarshim note that the verb masar is utilized
twice in this rendition of the links in the chain of mesorah, perhaps implying particularly noteworthy, even innovative
methodological contributions within the unfolding mesorah itself, notwithstanding the very concept of mesorah as a mechanism
that primarily preserves and insures continuity. We may now appreciate that mesorah constitutes a broad and ambitious
approach to Torah study and observance that includes but is not limited to specific content. Long after Chazal neutralized the
injunction against recording the detailed content of the Oral Law as a concession to human frailty on the basis of It is time for
the Lord to work; they have made void Your law (Gittin 60a; Temurah 14b; see Rambam, Hilchot Mamrim 2:4), the concept
and impact of mesorah continues to prevail. As always, it is manifest in the more subtle questions of deeper conceptual
comprehension and perspective, of the interplay between and priority of different halachic principles and in the translation of
halachic law into values. The need for and relevance of mesorah particularly resonates precisely when halachic values address
more universal concerns and motifs, as previously noted. The failure of relativistic secular ethics affirms the halachahs
approach that ethics and general wisdom must be grounded in the experience and sensibilities of the Revelation at Sinai. The
introduction to Masechet Avot reflects that asserting the authentic and authoritative voice of mesorah is equally if not more
urgent in matters of wider perspective. The varied substantial contributions of different chachmei mesorah and their halachic
schools of thought represent an important dimension in this process and underscore this aspect of the significance of mesorah.

Rabbeinu Yonah (Avot 1:1) addresses the need for mesorah in the context of Masechet Avot and its broader teachings. He
exemplifies the contribution of mesorah by noting that without the oral tradition, one would not have known that damaging
property constitutes an act of theft, as this insight is not explicated in the Written Torah. It is noteworthy that Rabbeinu Yonahs
perspective on damages is neither explicit nor is it uniformly accepted. The notion that nezek comes under the rubric of gezel is
not documented anywhere in the Talmud. Other halachic authorities assign the prohibition against inflicting damage to different
sources and principles. Rabbeinu Yonahs perspective evidently stems either from his personal mesorah or from his nuanced
global understanding of these halachic categories and concepts. Rabbeinu Yonahs intriguing illustration accentuates how the
concept and process of mesorah significantly advance and enhance Torah understanding. Ironically, Rabbeinu Yonahs highly
personal perspective on damages truly highlights the special character and contribution of the mesorah component of Torah.

Life is always in flux. The challenges of our era are particularly acute. The capacity to halachically navigate the ambiguities of
modern life and to assess halachic status or determine halachic policy regarding various new phenomenacultural and

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 5 of 7
Mesorah as Halachic Source and Sensibility - Jewish Action 3/8/17, 7:59 PM

modern life and to assess halachic status or determine halachic policy regarding various new phenomenacultural and
technologicalrequires immersion in all facets of the halachic system. If rabbinic authorities are to effectively confront and
constructively address contemporary issues, it will only be on the basis of an abiding commitment not only to the received
information but also to the methodology and sensibility of mesorah. Building a thriving halachic community in any and every
geographic and historic setting requires not only rigorous analysis of explicit halachic sources and precedents, but also the
ability to cultivate halachic values that are anchored in but also extend beyond the details of the norm. The leadership of
master halachic diagnosticians whose stature and experience determine when halachic analysis should not be reduced merely
to the examination of texts is crucial. The intuitions and deeply held convictions of such chachmei hamesorah that necessarily
augment more concrete halachic texts are an indispensable part of the mesorah itself. The two-tiered Torah remains fully
accessible in your mouth and your heart that you may do it.

Rabbi Dr. Michael Rosensweig occupies the Nathan and Perel Schupf Chair in Talmud at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary and is a rosh yeshivah in the Yeshiva Program/Mazer School of Talmudic Studies of Yeshiva University.

This article was featured in Jewish Action Summer 2011 (https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/issues/summer-

20115771/).

Find out when the next Jewish Action goes online!

Enter your email Subscribe

Tags: 30th-archive (https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/tag/30th-archive/)

Hey guest, welcome to Orthodox Union! Sign up and become a member.

Facebook Google Twitter Email

Popular In the Community

Catherine Spielberger GoldPopsicle PurpleTag

25 Apr 17 Jul 2 Jun

CHAG SAMECH TO MISHPACHA IN ALL Great article! Success stories with To lose weight: watch your meals ... "an impo
CHAI ISRAEL! details of the process are very instead of eating them. average w
heartening and inspiring. month, th
Is that a m
poverty e
know.

WHY DO WE COUNT SEFIRAT HAOMER BETWEEN FINANCIAL SQUEEZE: HOW ONE SHUL OVERCAME A THE HIDDEN TRICKS TO LOSE WEIGHT | EVERYDAY A COLOMBIA
PESACH & SHAVUOT? $50,000 DEFICIT AND RAISED OVER $1 MILLION - JEWISH LIVING | OU LIFE | EVERYDAY

Conversation Log In

Be the first to comment...

https://www.ou.org/jewish_action/05/2011/mesorah_as_halachic_source_and_sensibility/ Page 6 of 7