Why is it ever okay to write down oral Jewish law?
Rabbi Moshe Baruch Morgenstern was a descendant of the famed Rabbi Menahem Mendel of Kotzk (1787-1859). He was the last hassidic master in the Polish town of Kock, before he was murdered in the Sobibor death camp. In 1934, Moshe Baruch departed from the family custom and, together with his brother Rabbi Yosef Aaron (1891-1942), published a collection of hassidic teachings titled Ateret Zvi. Moshe Baruch felt that he needed to explain why he was bringing hassidic teachings to the printing press, despite the fact that for the past four generations his Kotzker ancestors had not published their Torah. He therefore cited a heretofore unknown teaching from Menahem Mendel about transcribing Torah. According to Jewish tradition, the distinction between Written Torah and Oral Torah is sacred. What is written may not be transmitted orally and what is oral may not be written down. Over time the sharp distinction was considered untenable and the Sages permitted transcribing the Torah teachings. Thus, today much of the Oral tradition is preserved in hallowed tomes. Works such as the Mishna, Midrash and Talmud are studied earnestly and piously as foundational texts of the Oral tradition. The Sages linked this tectonic change in Jewish tradition to the verse It is a time to act for the Lord, they have violated Your teaching (Psalms 119:126)  the violation of the Oral Law through its transcription reflects time-sensitive needs and is done for the sake of the Almighty. cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); }); if(window.location.pathname.indexOf("656089") != -1){console.log("hedva connatix");document.getElementsByClassName("divConnatix")[0].style.display ="none";} According to the tradition reported by his descendant, Menahem Mendel had difficulty accepting this idea: Could this be the source of such a seismic change in Jewish tradition?! In context, the biblical verse talks disparagingly of those who violate Gods teachings. Menahem Mendel may have been troubled that such a verse could be the source for uprooting a mainstay of Jewish tradition  namely, that the Oral Law should indeed be oral and not written down! Moshe Baruch continued with his great-great-grandfathers pithy explanation:  And he  of blessed memory  said that it appears that in truth not everything was yet written.  It is difficult to definitively say what Menahem Mendel had in mind. The explanation, presented in six Hebrew words, is not fleshed out. Moreover, over the years the exact language may have been inadvertently altered. In addition, it stands to reason that the remark was originally offered in Yiddish. So it is likely that the exact wording and perhaps even the precise meaning have been eroded with the sands of time. From the words as they appear before us, it sounds like the Seraph of Kotzk was describing the transcription of the Oral tradition as an ongoing process. Writing down the Oral Law was not a onetime historical event; it is a continuous endeavor. Despite the Sages license to write, not everything has been transcribed. However, by saying that not everything was yet written it sounds like the Kotzker was suggesting that the Oral Torah could be entirely transcribed at some time in the future. LATER WORKS associated with Kotzk tradition would cite Moshe Baruchs tradition, though on occasion they would slightly alter the emphasis of the remark. Thus, for example, a 1940 collection of Kotzk teachings titled Emet Veemuna cited Menahem Mendel as saying:  And it appears that even though they permitted transcribing the Oral Law, nevertheless it is still in oral form.  This version does not speak to the enterprise of transcribing the Oral Law; rather it suggests that despite the license to write, the tradition remains oral. It is unclear whether this is inevitable or by choice. There may even be an antinomian chord being struck here: Despite the permit granted by the Sages, we continue to preserve the Oral Torah as God intended. A DIFFERENT reading comes from further in Moshe Baruchs preface, where he explained that the ongoing enterprise of Oral Torah was part of the evergreen quest for greater depth and new meaning in Jewish tradition. This inspiring approach suggests that the never-ending enterprise of Oral Torah cannot be written down. An element of Jewish tradition will always remain oral, even as we continue to write. The Torah is not a finite corpus; it continues to blossom, as successive generations plumb the depths of our heritage. In this way, the sacred distinction between written and oral is never violated, as an element of the Oral Law remains  perforce  oral. A SIMILAR line of explanation appears in the writings of the theologian and social activist Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972). Heschel was no outsider to the hassidic world. He was a scion of famed hassidic dynasties and grew up steeped in the hassidic ethos. Kotzk was particularly close to his heart: Heschels two-volume Yiddish work on the Kotzker and the struggle for truth was published posthumously in 1973. In his 1955 work God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism, Heschel referred to the Kotzker Rebbes teaching. First he changed the emphasis of the question:  Rabbi Mendel of Kotsk asked: How could the ancient Rabbis abolish the fundamental principle of Judaism, not to write down what is to be kept as an oral tradition, on the basis of a single verse in the book of Psalms? (p. 276). The problem, according to Heschel was not the creative interpretation that divorced the verse from its biblical context. Rather, it was the fact that a lone verse seemed to have the power to overturn sacred tradition. According to Heschel, Menahem Mendels answer was fuller than the sources we have seen thus far:  The truth is that the oral Torah was never written down. The meaning of the Torah has never been contained by books.  It is unclear whether the second sentence is part of Menahem Mendels answer or Heschels explanation of the Kotzkers answer. Regardless of who deserves credit, we have a slightly different take on the eternal orality of Oral Law: Even if the entire Oral Tradition could be and was indeed transcribed, it could never include the meaning. The words offered by Heschel echo a line in the continuation of Moshe Baruchs preface. Moshe Baruch noted that the Talmud declares that the Torah is boundless (Eruvin 21a), yet we see that the tradition is circumscribed by books that have a beginning and an end. Moshe Baruch explained that the Torah is infinite in its depth and inner substance. The essence of the Oral Law is not in the words  whether they are written in a book or transmitted orally  but in the depth, significance and relevance of those words. Indeed, tradition can never fully be encapsulated by the written word, because the life force of Torah is to be found in the quest for meaning. The writer is on the faculty of Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah.