Is the Torah Really Immutable?

The ninth principle Faithful transmission and that is that this Torah has faithfully been transmitted from the Creator, God - may He be blessed - and not from anyone else. And [so] it cannot be added to and it cannot be taken away from, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 13:1), "you shall not add to it and you shall not take away from it." And we have already elucidated this principle in the introduction to this composition.

This was the state of prophecy before Moses. But as regards Moses, you know what [God] said to him, what he said [to the people], and the words addressed to him by the whole nation: “This day we have seen that God doth talk with man, and that he liveth“(Deut. 5:21). The history of all our prophets that lived after Moses is well known to you; they performed, as it were, the function of warning the people and exhorting them to keep the Law of Moses, threatening evil to those who would neglect it, and announcing blessings to those who would submit to its guidance. This we believe will always be the case. Comp. “It is not in the heavens that one might say,” etc. (ibid. 30:12); “For us and for our children for ever” (ibid. 29:28). It is but natural that it should be so. For if one individual of a class has reached the highest perfection possible in that class, every other individual must necessarily be less perfect, and deviate from the perfect measure either by surplus or deficiency. Take, e.g., the normal constitution of a being, it is the most proper composition possible in that class; any constitution that deviates from that norm contains something too much or too little. The same is the case with the Law. It is clear that the Law is normal in this sense; for it contains “Just statutes and judgments” (Deut. 4:8); but “just” is here identical with “equibalanced.” The statutes of the Law do not impose burdens or excesses as are implied in the service of a hermit or pilgrim, and the like; but, on the other hand, they are not so deficient as to lead to gluttony or lewdness, or to prevent, as the religious laws of the heathen nations do, the development of man’s moral and intellectual faculties.

Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God. Comp. “Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know that the Lord is God (Deut. 4:35); “Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God” (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service; comp. “and to serve him with all your heart” (ibid. 11:13); “and you shall serve the Lord your God” (Exod. 23:25); “and ye shall serve him” (Deut. 13:5). But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. “And they shall make unto me a sanctuary” (Exod. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp. “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me” (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. “If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord” (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. “He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exod. 22:19); “For thou shalt bow down to no other God” (ibid. 34:14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. “And they shall minister unto me in the priest’s office” (ibid. 28:41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.

IT is also important to note that the Law does not take into account exceptional circumstances; it is not based on conditions which rarely occur. Whatever the Law teaches, whether it be of an intellectual, a moral, or a practical character, is founded on that which is the rule and not on that which is the exception: it ignores the injury that might be caused to a single person through a certain maxim or a certain divine precept. For the Law is a divine institution, and [in order to understand its operation] we must consider how in Nature the various forces produce benefits which are general, but in some solitary cases they cause also injury. This is clear from what has been said by ourselves as well as by others. We must consequently not be surprised when we find that the object of the Law does not fully appear in every individual; there must naturally be people who are not perfected by the instruction of the Law, just as there are beings which do not receive from the specific forms in Nature all that they require. For all this comes from one God, is the result of one act; “they are all given from one shepherd” (Eccles. 12:11). It is impossible to be otherwise; and we have already explained (chap. xv.) that that which is impossible always remains impossible and never changes. From this consideration it also follows that the laws cannot like medicine vary according to the different conditions of persons and times; whilst the cure of a person depends on his particular constitution at the particular time, the divine guidance contained in the Law must be certain and general, although it may be effective in some cases and ineffective in others. If the Law depended on the varying conditions of man, it would be imperfect in its totality, each precept being left indefinite. For this reason it would not be right to make the fundamental principles of the Law dependent on a certain time or a certain place; on the contrary, the statutes and the judgments must be definite, unconditional and general, in accordance with the divine words: “As for the congregation, one ordinance shall be for you and for the stranger” (Num. 15:15); they are intended, as has been stated before, for all persons and for all times.

The baraita continues: With regard to Moses the verse states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances” (Deuteronomy 4:14), and with regard to Ezra the verse states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordinances” (Ezra 7:10). And even though the Torah was not given literally by him, the script of the Torah was changed by him, as it is stated: “And the writing of the letter [hannishtevan] was written in the Aramaic script, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue” (Ezra 4:7). The term “hannishtevan” is similar to the word nishtana, meaning changed, alluding to the fact that the script had been changed. And it is written with regard to the writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace: “Then came in all the king’s wise men. But they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation” (Daniel 5:8), and the reason they could not read it is that it was written in the new script that Ezra would transmit. And it is written: “That he shall write for himself a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18), where “second [mishne]” teaches that it is written in a script that is apt to be changed [lehishtannot]. The baraita continues: Why is this script called Ashurit? Because it ascended with the Jewish people from Ashur when they returned from their exile in Babylonia. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in this script, Ashurit, which is in use today. Once the Jewish people sinned, it turned into an impairment for them and they began writing with a different script, Libona’a. Once they repented, the first script was returned to them, and they resumed writing with Ashurit script, as it is stated: “Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope; even today do I declare that I will render double [mishne] unto you” (Zechariah 9:12), meaning that God restored to the Jewish people this script that had been changed [nishtanna]. The baraita continues: If this script predates the exile to Babylonia, why is it called Ashurit? Because it is meusheret, beautiful and straight, in script. The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i: This script did not change at all, as it is stated with regard to the construction of the Tabernacle: “The hooks of [vavei] the poles” (Exodus 27:10). This teaches that just as the poles were not changed, so too, the hooks [vavim] were not changed. The letter vav in Ashurit script has the shape of a hook. Evidently, this is why the term for hook in the Torah is vav. And the verse states: “And to the Jews according to their script and according to their language” (Esther 8:9). This teaches that just as their language was not changed over the generations but remained Hebrew, so too, their script was not changed. The baraita continues: But if the script was in fact not changed, how do I realize the meaning of the phrase “a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18)? This serves to teach the halakha concerning the two Torah scrolls that the king writes, one that goes out and comes in with him, and one that is placed in his treasury. With regard to the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it very small, like an amulet, and he hangs it on his arm. As it is stated by King David: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” (Psalms 16:8). This verse alludes to the two Torah scrolls, one that is before him and one that is in his right hand. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not hold that the king must write and affix the second scroll to his arm, what does he expound from that verse: “I have set” (Psalms 16:8)? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥana bar Bizna, as Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: One who prays needs to see himself as if the Divine Presence is opposite him, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me” (Psalms 16:8). The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that this script was not changed at all, what is the reason “they could not read the writing” (Daniel 5:8)? Rav says: Because it was written for them in the obscure code of gimatriyya. It was written: Yod, tet, tav; yod, tet, tav; alef, yod, dalet, khaf; peh, vav, gimmel, ḥet, mem, tet. These letters correspond with: Mem, nun, alef; mem, nun, alef; tav, kuf, lamed; vav, peh, reish, samekh, yod, nun; this is based on the exchange of letters known as at bash, or the exchanging of a letter with its counterpart in the opposite place in the alphabet, e.g., alef, the first letter, for tav, the last letter. What did Daniel explain to them? The letters stand for the terms: “Mene mene tekel ufarsin” (Daniel 5:25). He then explained the meaning: “Mene”: God has numbered [mena] the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. “Tekel”: You are weighed [tekilta] on the scale and are found lacking. “Parsin”: Your kingdom is divided [perisat] and given to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:26–28). And Shmuel says: The writing used the correct letters for those terms, but instead of being written in order, the four words, mene mene tekel ufarsin were written vertically and were therefore meant to be read from the top down. If read in the usual way, from right to left, it says: “Mamtos nankafei a’alran.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Each word was written backward, so that read right to left, they spelled, Anem anem leket nisrapu. Rav Ashi says: They were written with the first two letters of each word reversed: Nema nema ketal pursin.

This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you.

THIS MONTH SHALL BE UNTO YOU THE BEGINNING OF MONTHS. This is the first commandment which the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Israel through Moses. Therefore it says here [that the Eternal spoke unto Moses and Aaron] in the land of Egypt, for the rest of the commandments of the Torah were given to him on Mount Sinai. It may be that the intent of the expression, in the land of Egypt, is to exclude the city of Egypt, just as our Rabbis have said: “In the land of Egypt. This means outside the city.”
Now Scripture should have first said, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, and so on to the end of the chapter. [Why then is the verse, Speak ye, etc., mentioned after the verse, This month, etc.?] It is because Moses and Aaron — [as mentioned in Verse 1: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month, etc.] — are in the place of Israel. Saying it to them is equivalent to saying it to Israel in all their generations. In the following verse, however, He repeats by saying, Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, in order to command them something which is not binding for all time, namely, the buying of the paschal offering in Egypt on the tenth day of Nisan.
According to the Midrashic interpretation, lachem (unto you) [in the verse, This month shall be unto you], means that “the Sanctification of the New Moon” is to be performed only by a Court of experts [as Moses and Aaron were]. And this is the reason it does not say at the beginning [of Verse 2], Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, since “the Sanctification of the New Moon” can be performed only by Moses and Aaron and their like.
Now the purport of the expression, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months, is that Israel is to count this as the first of the months, and from it they are to count all months — second, third, etc., until a year of twelve months is completed — in order that there be through this enumeration a remembrance of the great miracle, [i.e., the exodus from Egypt, which occurred in the first month]. Whenever we will mention the months, the miracle will be remembered. It is for this reason that the months have no individual names in the Torah. Instead, Scripture says: In the third month; And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month … that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the Testimony; And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, etc., and so in all cases. Just as in counting the weekdays we always remember the Sabbath-day since the weekdays have no specific name of their own, but instead are called “one day in the Sabbath,” “the second day in the Sabbath,” as I will explain, so we remember the exodus from Egypt in our counting “the first month,” “the second month,” “the third month,” etc., to our redemption.
This order of the counting of the months is not in regard to the years, for the beginning of our years is from Tishri, [the seventh month], as it is written, And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year, and it is further written, And the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year. If so, when we call the month of Nisan the first of the months and Tishri the seventh, the meaning thereof is “the first [month] to the redemption” and “the seventh month” thereto. This then is the intent of the expression, it shall be the first month to you, meaning that it is not the first in regard to the year but it is the first “to you,” i.e., that it be called “the first” for the purpose of remembering our redemption.
Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter when saying, “The names of the months came up with us from Babylon,” since at first we had no names for the months. The reason for this [adoption of the names of the months when our ancestors returned from Babylon to build the Second Temple], was that at first their reckoning was a memorial to the exodus from Egypt, but when we came up from Babylon, and the words of Scripture were fulfilled — And it shall no more be said: As the Eternal liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but: As the Eternal liveth that brought up and that led the children of Israel from the land of the north — from then on we began to call the months by the names they were called in the land of Babylon. We are thus reminded that there we stayed [during our exile] and from there, blessed G-d brought us up [to our Land]. These names — Nisan, Iyar, and the others — are Persian names and are to be found only in the books of the prophets of the Babylonian era and in the Scroll of Esther. It is for this reason that Scripture says, In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, just as it says, they cast ‘pur,’ that is, the lot. To this day, people of Persia and Media use these names of the months — Nisan, Tishri, and the others — as we do. Thus through the names of the months we remember our second redemption even as we had done until then with regard to the first one.

And when the prophecy of a prophet is established according to that which we have established, and a name goes out for him (he becomes known as a prophet), like Shmuel and Eliyahu and the ones besides them, that prophet has the ability to do something that no [man of] flesh besides him can do. And that is that which I say: When he commands temporarily to negate a commandment from all of the positive commandments or he commands to permit something forbidden from the negative commandments, it is obligatory for us to listen to his word and to do his commandment – and anyone that transgresses it is liable for death at the hand of Heaven – except for idolatry, and this is explicit in the Talmud. And that is what they said (Sanhedrin 90a), "In everything that the prophet will tell you to transgress the words of the Torah, listen to him – except for idolatry." But [this is] on condition that this thing not stand forever, and not that he should say that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to negate this commandment all the days of the world, but [rather] that he command to negate the commandment for a reason and for a temporary need. And when they would ask the prophet himself about his commanding to transgress a commandment from all of the commandments that God commanded us through Moshe, his answer would be that the negation of this commandment is not established, but [rather] it is fitting to only do it now – temporarily – similar to, for example, what a court does with a temporary ordinance. [And it is] like Eliyahu did on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18), since he sacrificed a burnt offering outside [of the Temple, even though] Jerusalem was standing – and, in it, the Temple was standing [and] built. And anyone who does this deed without the commandment of the prophet is liable for excision. And the Holy One, blessed be He, warned about it in the Torah (Deuteronomy 12:13), "Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like." And one who does it is liable for excision, as it stated about one who sacrifices it outside (Leviticus 17:4), "blood shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; and he shall be cut off." But [if] they [would have] asked him, peace be upon him – at the time of his sacrificing on Mount Carmel – and they would have said to him, "May we do like this deed all the days of the world," he would have said to them that it is not permissible, and that anyone who sacrifices outside is liable for excision; but this deed was done according to a temporary need – to reveal the falsehood of the prophets of the Baal and to silence what is in their hands. And like Elisha did in his commanding to fight with Moav to cut all the fruit-bearing trees, as he said (II Kings 3:19), "'and you shall fell every good tree.'" And yet God prevented us from doing this in His saying (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them." And if they had asked Elisha if this commandment was negated, and if it was rendered permissible for us to cut down fruit-bearing trees when we besiege a city in the future, he would have said that it is not permissible; but [that] this deed was done now for the matter of a need. And I will bring you an example, and this fundamental principle will become clear to you for all of the commandments: If a man of prophecy – whose prophecy has become clear among us, as we have said – would say to us on the Shabbat day, that we get up – all of us, women and men – and we burn fire and fashion instruments of war in it and that [each] man should gird his instruments of war and fight with the men of place x and take their spoil and conquer their women on this day that is Shabbat; it would be an obligation upon us – we, who have been commanded by the Torah of Moshe – to get up immediately, as he has commanded us, and not to delay. And we would do all that he commanded with alacrity and enhanced love – without a doubt and without delay. And we would believe about everything that we would do that day, that it is a commandment, even though it is the day of Shabbat (resting) from lighting fire and the doing of work and killing and war. And we will look forward to a good reward from the Holy One, blessed be He, because we did the commandment of the prophet, which is the positive commandment of doing his word, as it is stated through Moshe (Deuteronomy 18:15), "'The Lord, your God, will raise up for you a prophet from among you, from your brothers, like myself; to him you shall heed.'" And the received tradition comes [to explain] (Sanhedrin 90a), "In everything that the prophet will tell you to transgress the words of the Torah, listen to him – except for idolatry:" for example, if he would say to us, "Worship this idol only today," or "Burn incense to this star at this time only," he should be killed. And there is nothing to listen to him about. And if a man should think in his heart that he is righteous and fears God and has become, 'elderly and coming of days,' and he say, "Behold, I am old and have come of days and I have such and such years and I have not transgressed any of the commandments during them ever, and [so] how can I get up on this day which is the Shabbat day, and transgress this prohibition [that is punished with] stoning, and go and fight; and I don't have the ability in me to do good or bad, and others can be found in my place and there are many people to do this thing"; this man is a rebel and transgresses the words of God and he is obligated in death at the hand of Heaven, as he transgressed that which the prophet commanded. And the One who commanded the Shabbat, He is the One who commanded about the words of the prophet and all that he decrees. And anyone who transgresses his word, is obligated, as we have mentioned. And that is what it stated in the verse (Deuteronomy 18:19), "And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in My name, I will require it from him.'" And included in this is that anyone who ties a permanent knot on the Shabbat day – while he is doing these tasks of labor – that is not needed to help him at the time of the commandment that the prophet commanded is obligated in stoning. And if this prophet that commanded us what he commanded on the Shabbat day and we did his word, [now] says to us that the boundary [within which one can carry on] Shabbat is two thousand ells minus one ell, or two thousand ells and an ell – and he supports this matter by [saying] that it was said in the way of prophecy and not in the way of investigation and reasoning – we will know that he is a false prophet and he should be killed by strangulation. And in this fashion, you have [what is required] to reason [about] everything that the prophet will command you about, and everything that you may find in Scripture about the matter of the prophet that contradicts something from the commandments. And this fundamental principle is a key to all of this matter. And only in this is the prophet distinguished from other people concerning the commandments. But regarding investigation and reasoning and discernment of the commandments, he is like the other sages who are like him, who don't have prophecy. As when a prophet follows a reasoning and one who is not a prophet, likewise, follows a reasoning; and the prophet says that the Holy One, blessed be He, told me that my reasoning is correct – do not listen to him. Rather [if there are] one thousand prophets – all of them like Eliyahu and Elisha – following one reasoning, and one thousand and one sages following the opposite of that reasoning, 'we lean towards the many.' And the law is like the words of the one thousand and one sages, not like the words of the one thousand glorious prophets. And so [too] did the sages say (Chullin 124a), "God!, If Yehoshua bin Nun had told me this with his [own] mouth, I would not have listened to him and not accepted it from him." And so also did they say (Yevamot 102a), "If Eliyahu were to come and say, 'We release [a levirate woman] with a soft sandal,' we listen to him; 'With a hard sandal,' we do not listen to him." They wanted to say [by this] that one cannot add or subtract from the commandments by way of prophecy in any fashion. And so, if the prophet testifies that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him that the law of x commandment is like this and that reasoning y is true – that prophet is killed, as he is a false prophet, as we have established. [This is] since Torah is not given after the first prophet, and there is nothing to add and nothing to subtract, as is is stated (Deuteronomy 30:12), "'It is not in the heavens.'" And we have not been permitted to learn from the prophets, but rather from the sages, the men of reasoning and discernment. It did not say, "and you shall come to the prophet who will be at that time, but rather (Deuteronomy 17:9) "and you shall come to the Levite priests, or the judge." And the sages already spoke about this matter very much, and it is the truth.

And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.”

§ The mishna teaches that a man may be secluded with his mother. Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: A man may be secluded with his sister, and live with his mother or with his daughter in a permanent arrangement, without concern. When he said this before Shmuel, the latter said: It is prohibited to be secluded with all those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, and even with an animal, as it is prohibited to engage in intercourse with an animal as well.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, what is different about these, the woolen cap and the wig, that the mishna permitted going out into the courtyard with them? Ulla said: So that she will not become unappealing to her husband. That would be the result if all ornamentation was prohibited. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And of her that is sick in her menstrual status [niddata]” (Leviticus 15:33), the Elders of the early generations said that this verse comes to teach us that the menstruating woman should be distanced from her husband in all senses, like a person ostracized [menudeh] by the Sages. This includes that she may not paint her eyes blue, and she may not rouge [pokeset] her face, and she may not adorn herself with colorful clothing. Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: If you do so, you are making her unappealing to her husband, and her husband will consequently divorce her. Therefore, extreme strictures should not be instituted. Rather, what is the meaning of that which the verse states: “And of her that is sick in her menstrual status”? She shall remain prohibited in her menstrual status even after the flow of blood has stopped until she immerses in the water of a ritual bath.