avakesh

Two messianic traditions - at once.

Who said that you can't dance at two Chasunos? At Meron all things are possible.

Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu tells and acts the story of Mar Ukva

Did G-d abandon Israel?

Although in this series we have tended to concentrate on literary and exegetical issues in an attempt to understand the interpretative methodology of Chazal, it is undeniable that many midrashim deal with important theological issues. Unfortunately, it is rare for a midrash to actually spell out the issue under consideration. Uncovering the theological problem is, of course, indispensable as the first step to understanding the proposed solution. It goes without saying that without that step both the problem and the solution will likely escape comprehension.

Let us take a look at a difficult passage found in Tanchuma ( Bachukisai, 2). First, let's present the problem in words of Avraham Ibn Ezra (Tehilim 89, 48)

"This author speaks of Israel in their exile for it is apparent to all that generation after generation passes but there is no redeemer. How long shall one who hopes, long, for one's days are short…. Why have you created us; we are nothing… The meaning is that every Jew anguishes in his exile that he will die and not see Hashem's salvation".

The aforementioned Psalm presents an impassioned plea. It starts with reviewing facts of history, G-d's deliverance of the Jewish people form Egypt and His promise to David to keep faith with the Davidic line no matter what their shortcomings.

Maschil of Ethan the Ezrahite.

2 I will sing of the mercies of HaShem for ever; to all generations will I make known Thy faithfulness with my mouth.

3 For I have said: 'For ever is mercy built; in the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness.

4 I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David My servant:

5 For ever will I establish thy seed, and build up thy throne to all generations.' Selah

6 So shall the heavens praise Thy wonders, O HaShem, Thy faithfulness also in the assembly of the holy ones.

7 For who in the skies can be compared unto HaShem, who among the sons of might can be likened unto HaShem,

8 A G-d dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and feared of all them that are about Him?

9 O HaShem G-d of hosts, who is a mighty one, like unto Thee, O HaShem? And Thy faithfulness is round about Thee.

10 Thou rulest the proud swelling of the sea; when the waves thereof arise, Thou stillest them.

11 Thou didst crush Rahab, as one that is slain; Thou didst scattered Thine enemies with the arm of Thy strength.

12 Thine are the heavens, Thine also the earth; the world and the fulness thereof, Thou hast founded them.

13 The north and the south, Thou hast created them; Tabor and Hermon rejoice in Thy name.

14 Thine is an arm with might; strong is Thy hand, and exalted is Thy right hand.

15 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne; mercy and truth go before Thee.

16 Happy is the people that know the joyful shout; they walk, O HaShem, in the light of Thy countenance.

17 In Thy name do they rejoice all the day; and through Thy righteousness are they exalted.

18 For Thou art the glory of their strength; and in Thy favour our horn is exalted.

19 For of HaShem is our shield; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.

20 Then Thou spokest in vision to Thy godly ones, and saidst: 'I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.

21 I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him;

22 With whom My hand shall be established; Mine arm also shall strengthen him.

23 The enemy shall not exact from him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

24 And I will beat to pieces his adversaries before him, and smite them that hate him.

25 But My faithfulness and My mercy shall be with him; and through My name shall his horn be exalted.

26 I will set his hand also on the sea, and his right hand on the rivers.

27 He shall call unto Me: Thou art my Father, my G-d, and the rock of my salvation.

28 I also will appoint him first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.

29 For ever will I keep for him My mercy, and My covenant shall stand fast with him.

30 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

31 If his children forsake My law, and walk not in Mine ordinances;

32 If they profane My statutes, and keep not My commandments;

33 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes.

34 But My mercy will I not break off from him, nor will I be false to My faithfulness.

35 My covenant will I not profane, nor alter that which is gone out of My lips.

36 Once have I sworn by My holiness: Surely I will not be false unto David;

37 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me.

38 It shall be established for ever as the moon; and be stedfast as the witness in sky.' Selah  

Suddenly the tone changes and lament, in fact, accusation replaces it.

39 But Thou hast cast off and rejected, Thou hast been wroth with Thine anointed.

40 Thou hast abhorred the covenant of Thy servant; Thou hast profaned his crown even to the ground.

41 Thou hast broken down all his fences; Thou hast brought his strongholds to ruin.

42 All that pass by the way spoil him; he is become a taunt to his neighbours.

43 Thou hast exalted the right hand of his adversaries; Thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice.

44 Yea, Thou turnest back the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle.

45 Thou hast made his brightness to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.

46 The days of his youth hast Thou shortened; Thou hast covered him with shame. Selah

47 How long, O HaShem, wilt Thou hide Thyself for ever? How long shall Thy wrath burn like fire?

48 O remember how short my time is; for what vanity hast Thou created all the children of men!

49 What man is he that liveth and shall not see death, that shall deliver his soul from the power of the grave? Selah

50 Where are Thy former mercies, O L-rd, which Thou didst swear unto David in Thy faithfulness?

51 Remember, L-rd, the taunt of Thy servants; how I do bear in my bosom the taunt of so many peoples;

52 Wherewith Thine enemies have taunted, O HaShem, wherewith they have taunted the footsteps of Thine anointed.

53 Blessed be HaShem for evermore. Amen, and Amen.

In wholly unprecedented fashion, the psalmist accuses G-d of violating his promise and… he provides no justification or answer [1]. This is not merely questioning or cry for an explanation - it goes beyond anything else in Tanach in boldness and daring. The theological issue is, of course, familiar to us - did the destruction of the Temple and scattering of the Jewish nation constitute voiding of the original covenant. What made the question more difficult is the undeniable fact that the Pentateuch does not seem to contain any prediction of this event [2]. Here is a reaction of one of Ibn Ezra's contemporaries (89,2).

"There was in Spain a great scholar to whom this psalm was difficult. He would not read it and could not hear it read because this author spoke harshly against Hashem."

To rephrase, the length of the exile and the violation of terms of the covenant with David present very serious theological issues [3].

The midrash Tanchuma (Bachikosai 2) asks and answers this question [4].

So it states: G-d will reject them for they did not obey Him (Hosea 9 ). The Holy One Blessed Be He said: I said that they shall be planted upon their land. When? If they walk in my ways. You did not do so but Children of Israel ascribed to Hashem things that were not so (Kings III, 17 ). You blamed me for what was not 'so' and I also placed upon you that which was not 'so' . I also placed upon you things that were not written in My Torah - Also every illness and every wound which is not written in this book of Torah (Deut. 28 ).

What are the things that you did that are not 'so' ? Isaiah said: They abandoned G-d, rejected the Holy One of Israel (Isiah 1 )…. With your sins you have made me merciless and turned the quality of Mercy into the quality of Justice., as it says, G-d became and enemy, he destroyed Israel (Lamentations 1 )…. Therefore Hosea said: What caused all this to happen to you? Because you did not obey, G-d has rejected you (Hosea 9 )

The midrash suggests that Jews went beyond the parameters of the original covenant when they "did not obey" and therefore G-d was free from His promises as well. Not only that, He acted justly by voiding his side of the violated agreement, as predicted in the verse of Deuteronomy 28.

This passage is a good example of a "theological" midrash. These passages tend to be among the most difficult, for one needs significant grounding in history, philosophy, theology and Jewish Thought to identify the issue under discussion and the answer being provided.

---

[1] That is not to say that commentators have not attempted to find such an answer in this very psalm or in the ones adjacent to it. See Ibn Ezra and Malbim, for example. Simple reading on the psalm, however, suggests that it does not aim to answer its own question, except perhaps in terms of accepting Divine decree in its last line.

[2] The issue is dealt with at length by Ramban, Abarbanel in Bachukosai and other thinkers. While the verses in Deut. 30 make best sense if understood as predicting redemption and return to the Land of Israel, those in Deut 4:25-31 and Deut. 28, 32 are more ambiguous and may be saying nothing more than that G-d will support and maintain, or avenge the Jews in the course of or in the period before their exile. In any case, the promises to David do not seem to have been fulfilled as of yet; neither is the length of our current exile anywhere explicitly predicted in Pentateuch.

[3] It is evidence of how acute these issues were in popular conscience that we find them echoed in repeated Jewish rebellions against Roma as well in rise and initial spread of Christianity.

[4] I quote the passage in a somewhat abridged fashion basing myself on the precedent of how it is brought down in Torah Shelema.

Chumros

We find that as generations unfold more and more halachic stringencies are enacted. During days of Moshe Rabbeinu only those prohibitions that were explicitly received on Sinai were proscribed. Moshe Rabbeinu enacted a nubmer of stringencies based on his perception of the spiritual needs of the nation. In later generations, be it at the time of the prophets or the Tannaim, the prevailing spiritual leadership instituted additional halachic stringencies and guidelines.

Shelah, Beis Chochma, vol1.

A provocative discussion about God

This segment presents Moshe Halbertal in a discussion about God, philosophy and Tanach. This conversation is heavily influenced by the kind of direct encounter with the Bible that I find profoundly wanting. Heshel and Lieberman are quoted but not Zohar, Ramak, Herrera, Kook, or Baal Hatanya. It is conducted as if the complexity of Kabbalistic thought is not a part of Judaism at all. In fact, Kabbala seemelssly resolves major contradictions of the sort that you will encounter during this discussion. The clip lacks reverence. Still, it raises some major issues that straddle the three conceptions of God, so I decided to post it anyway. My apologies to those who find it inappropriately irreverent.

Study and Prayer: A devotional guide

You have thought and sought, searched and questioned, been stymied and frustrated. Now taste of the sweetness of advanced Torah study applied to the basic questions of life. The most basic question is: "Who is man, what are his challenges, how can he, a limited, insignificant and profoundly physical being reach up to the Creator of all things, the Holy one of Israel"

Open to the methodology that is based on Halacha and you will see  that the Torah, on all its levels and  strata, is a unified whole that contains mysteries and answers beyond imagination. Why should your search be be based on Halacha? Because of the sheer multiplicity of opinions recorded in the classical sources. As one of my teachers commented: “When you are asked and do not know, say it is a “machloket” ( dispute). You will almost always be right”. An oversimplification it is (for the areas of agreement are much greater and fundamental whereas disagreements are few and involve details) but also true. A judicious selection of sources can support almost any position. A true scholar reaches toward the Truth by carefully sifting and considering his evidence in the light of tradition and precedent. Still there exists great danger of going astray in pursuit of  a falshy but incorrect thoght, a rejected opinion or a hypothetical suggestion in an obscure commentary. To avoid this undesirable result select all sources according to whether they confirmed to the final Halacha as reflected in the Rambam, Shulchan Aruch and the Codifiers.

Of course, there are many citations that are not well reflected in the Halachic corpus. Philosophical and Aggadic issues are prominent in any consideration of a prayer, for example, as well as many otehr issues of Divine Service,  and are often not explixitly cited in the Codes. Nevertheless, adherence to othis principle goes a long way to establishing and maintaining  intellectual intergrity in this kind of inquiry. More, it reveals to us in a very practical and real way a multifaceted and profound way of appreciating  the experience of life and can educate and can elevate. After all, in life you must also sift and select, bring close and push away, incorprate and reject.

So much for study - now about Prayer.  In a certain way prayer is life; it is described by the Talmud as such (Shabbat 10 ). Since prayer is offered by man expressing his innermost essence before the  One who cannot be bribed or fooled, true worship requires  the inner man to journey through his heart to the heart of Judaism and to its G-d who is each man’s Master and Redeemer. Prayer  resonates within a man’s soul. The analogy is to a musical instrument that produces physical vibration that resonate within the soul.The worshipper plays the the instrument of his body, mind, spirit and soul and the liturgy is his music. Some compositions are written for a violin or for a viola or for a guitar; Jewish prayer is written for the Jewish soul.. Through Torah study and rich devotional life, we come closed to the goal of finding Ribbono shel Olam.

All  piligramages require effort and application and “all gain is according to the effort[1]”

---

[1] Chapters of the Fathers 5,26

R. Yosef Sholom Elyashev on "Why study Talmud".

Chizuk in limud HaTorah is the foundation, the ikar of everything. WIthout it there is nothing....

A person can become frum, perform mitzvos and do everything, but until he is able to learn a blatt Gemara on his own one can never be sure that his mitzva observance will last.

Only when he opens a Gemara and learns a Gemara can we be certain that it will remain.

(as quoted  in the Spring 2008, N'Hagisa, Dirshu Magazine)

Why study so much Talmud?

Why study so much Talmud?

This is a question familiar to anyone who deals with people new to Orthodox Judaism, disaffected teenagers, or pretty much anyone who sincerely attempts to understand or enter our very complex, very multifaceted spiritual world. The issue is the emphasis on classic Talmudism, commentary and material, ethos and tradition. What provokes the question are two striking incongruities.

1.Talmud is interesting but it is also arcane and abstruse. The effort that is required to master and become an expert Talmudist is beyond anything known to "regular" people in the secular world while the subject matter is far removed from daily realities of modern living. Vessels and oxen, damages and vows, long gone and not fondly remembered social arrangements and off-putting (not to me, to others) sacrificial and purity rituals are hard to absorb for a mind nurtured on images, sound bytes and quick intuitive turns of the mind that characterize the modern mind and imagination.

2.The religious usefullness of Talmudic information it one step removed. It is foreign to modern consciousness and requires translation. While Tanach also comes from a world with a different conception of duty, individual purpose, and  cosmic order, it bridges the divide through the sheer poetry of its universal conceptions, the grandeur of its language of the heart and direct inspiration. The Talmud, while also carrying within it a grand and overarching religious conception, has to be mined and translated. Our daily religious life has been formed by the movements that came much after Talmud. It is much easier to draw inspiration from the wellspings of mussar, chassidus, even medieval philosophy and Bible commentary than from the Talmud itself. Talmudic aggada is often surreally beautiful and morally challenging but that is not what the yeshivos teach.

One can point out that even now, large segments of Jewry do not focus on Talmud to the extent that traditional yeshivos do. The curriculum of Tomchei Temimim, for example includes a substantial amount of chassidus and many Hesder yeshivos make space for philosophical and inspirational writings. Kabbala and practical skills and halacha is studied in many Sephardic yeshivos to a much greater extent than we Ashkenazim recognize. This has been true through the ages and much material that relates to this topic can be found in Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues (Feldheim, 1990)

There are, of course, good historical reasons for this. Ashkenazim always focused on the Talmud much more than Sefardim. It is almost a truism and much historical investigation has gone into this topic. The elitist nature of late 19th and 20th century yeshivos in Europe provides another explanations. No one came to the yeshiva in Eastern Europe who did not choose to be there. Three times as many young Jewish men attended university in Russia according to Czarist statistic than entered yeshivas (Stempfer, Hayeshiva Halitait Behithavata, Bilaik, Jerusalem). To become a Talmudic student meant a commitment to a life of poverty and low prestige, except for the very brightest who were fortunate to marry into a generous  and wealthy family. Only the Talmud could provide a challenge commensurate with the power of such a choice. Only it possessed the mystique, breadth and scope and sheer intellectual power to justify self-sacrifice of this order.

When the Yeshiva was transplanted to these shores, it was reconstituted  as an elitist institution. Of course, we rarely any longer see upperclassmen refusing to speak to freshman, or intellectual hazing of newcomers, or RosheuiYeshiva who are absolutely unapproachable for the first few years of attendance. The American environment has taken the edges of most these manifestations. However, one still not infrequently hears that the goal of yeshivos is to produce great scholars and not to serve the majority. This, of course, is unsuitable to the world in which every man learns for years after high school. However, in the parched American landscape of pragmatic materialism it still has drawing power and idealism to attract great many people to its banner.

I do not advocate universal concentration on Gemorro. As our communities grow and contain more and more diverse types of students, a more varied curriculum and choice of study options will be required. However, the flagship of our educational system must remain the old-style yeshiva. This is why.

I firmly believe that one cannot be Jewishly expert without a broad and wide knowledge of Talmud. I met too many bright, intelligent committed people, whose depth of learning I found shallow and amateurish because, while substantial it was superficial and poorly based because it did not include a good command of Talmud. Judaism is a civilization and Talmud is a paradigm of a living civilization. It s seas, islands, streams and ports are a model for any deep understanding of Judaism. Inasmuch as there is a Jewish way of thinking, reacting, feeling and transmitting, it is the Talmud that contains it and educates in it. Nothing else can take a boy and turns him an mere few decades into a Jew. Nothing else can awaken his powers, challenge his commitment, expand his vistas - and then deliver knowledge that teaches how to think, how to remember, how to systematize and organize, what to feel and how to grow morally and spiritually. To those who have had the experience this is elementary; to those who have not, what I say remains just words.

The Talmud is crucial for those who feel in themselves exceptional powers of integration of the self and the outside, those who aspire to lead Jews, those who are capable and confident of eventually finding God. To such men, Talmud is indispensable and the institutions that forcefeed it, are crucial incubators of growth.

Principles and rules.

Why are there so many detail and so many particulars in Torah study? Are they all directly from Sinai or were they derived by some method of interpretation?

And G-d spoke to Moshe upon the mountain of Sinai , saying…

What is the meaning of Shemittah at Sinai? Are not all the commandments spoken from Sinai? However it is to indicate that just like Shemitah was given with all of its principles, particulars and details from Sinai [1] so were all the commandments given with principles, particulars and details at Sinai (Toras Kohanim, beginning of Behar).

This view appears to be that of R. Akiva in Zevachim 115b.

R. Akiva says: Principles and particulars were given at Sinai and reviewed at the Tent of Meeting and repeated a third time at Arvos Moav.

R. Ishmael says: Principles were said at Sinai and particulars were said at the Tent of Meeting.

The passage in Toras Kohanim appears to be saying that every commandment was transmitted to Moshe with its general principles as well as every detail. If so, however, we must ask about the need for details. Would it not be adequate to give him the principles from which the details could be derived? If particulars could have been so derived, why would they need to be given to Moshe? Alternatively, if all the details and particulars were explained at Sinai, what need would there be for principles?

It may be instructive to stop for a moment and consider the structure and method of Halachic discourse.

Traditional Judaism is a covenantal system of laws and customs based on Divine Will as revealed at Mount Sinai to the Children of Israel. To the uninitiated it may appear to be a casuistic system of law. Classic casuistry did not apply principles in a deductive or inferential fashion but, in common with the classic discipline of rhetoric, drew eclectically from the vast storehouse of classical writings and focused argument on cause and effect, before and after, possible and impossible, greater and less and the specific circumstances of a case. Those not intimately acquainted with Talmudic argumentation may initially perceive it similarly, and if so, the complaint voiced above would have been justified.

In fact, however, Halachic reasoning draws essentially and substantially on clarification and distillation of principles from the mass of precedent and text. It is, what is known as rule and principle based system; in consequence, argumentation about and definition of principles is what it is all about. It is therefore similar to any other legal or moral theory in use in modern world. It is, however, dissimilar in that the clarification of priniciples goes on behind the discussion of specific rules.

To define the problem farther, while there are certainly frequent references to Sinaitic tradition in the Talmud, there are also numerous passages that appear to indicate that certain laws were 'derived' from Biblical verses at one time or another. This then requires us to delineate the relationship between derivation and tradition.

Among the medieval authorities that took up this question, there emerged two schools of thought. One saw Talmudic evidence as demonstrating that Talmudic material was transmitted directly, teacher to student, from one head of academy to another, detail after detail. Nothing, no matter how trivial, was innovated, except those Rabbinic enactments that are clearly and unambiguously so identified. This view is expressed by R. Sherira Gaon in his Letter, R. Abraham ben Daud in the introduction to the Book of Tradition, R. Nissim Gaon in Mafteach L'Manuelei Hatalmud, and R Saadiah Gaon in his numerous anti-Karaite works. To quote a representative passage from Sefer Hakabbala: "… teachings of the rabbis of blessed memory, namely, the sages of the Mishna and Talmud, have been transmitted; each great sage and righteous man having received them from a great sage and righteous man, each a head of academy and his school, as far back as the men of the Great Assembly, who received them from the prophets of blessed memory. Never did the sages of the Talmud, and certainly not of the Mishna teach anything, however trivial of their own invention, except for enactments which were made by universal agreement in order to make a hedge around the Torah " [3]. How could then controversy and disagreement exist among Talmudic Sages? It is because some details of particular laws were forgotten in the course of exile due to relentless persecutions. The purpose of derivations then is to restore these details but never the major principles.

We must conclude from examining the passage in Toras Kohanim and Zevachim that this view follows the one Tannitic opinion believes that it is not possible to derive rules reliably from principles. Human beings do apply principles differently and often disagree with each other's translation of principles into rules. It is therefore, necessary to provide all the revealed rules from the outset, both to minimize disagreement and dispute and to demonstrate how principles are to be practically interpreted to yield rules. This view is expressed best by the Ramban in the introduction to his commentary to Brochos, where he draws a distinction between sciences that employ experiments and netween the method of Talmudic argument. The former can yield definitive proof but the latter only a presumption of being right. In this view, not only rules alone were given at Sinai but every possible range of opinion and every Halachic possibility were disclosed to Moses [4].  This is the view of R. Akiva.

In modern times, R. I.A. Halevy in Dorot Harishonim championed this view [5].

Maimonides presents a different account of the history of religious law and its transmission in the Introduction to the Mishna and relevant passages of his other works. He claimed that in addition to received laws the Sages derived new interpretations with the authority that the Torah has granted them. In this they made use of the thirteen rules of interpretation, commonly accepted legal principles and received definitions of terms [6], and disputes and controversies only occur in regard to these newly derived laws. Rambam wrote in the Introduction to the Mishna : " and likewise each person, as he heard and according to his ability, wrote for himself some of the explanations of Torah and its laws and things that became innovated in every generation - laws that they did not learn by tradition but they derived with one of the 13 techniques (of interpretation) and to which the High Court assented. So it went at all time periods."

This is why there were no disagreements before the students of Hillel and Shammai, not having learned sufficiently well from their illustrious teachers, attempted to carry forward the tradition [7]. Here too, disagreements resulted when later generations have lost some of the acumen and grounding of the previous ones. "… for when two people are identical in understanding and in study and knowledge of the principles from which they learn, there will not happen disagreements between them as to what they learn by the use of one of the principles of interpretation, and if there are disagreements, they will be few, as we never found disagreements between Shammai and Hillel except in a few laws, for their ways of study were similar and also the correct general assumptions that were held by one were also held by another". Rambam believes that logic alone can establish all details and in this he seems to follow R. Ishmael. Thus, principles were given at Sinai and particulars, were derived under Divine Guidance, in the Tent of Meeting.

In modern times, R. Meir Leibush Malbim subscribed to the position that derivations created law rather than simply restored them [8].

We conclude then that the disagreement among Tannaim may be, in fact, revolving around the central question of whether details of new laws are derived or transmitted and secondarily around the ability of logic to reliably and reproducibly bring rules out of principles. This very question divided the Rishonim as well and it remains one of the central controversies about the relationship of innovation and tradition.

1 Principles in Shemos 23:10-11; details in Parshas Behar.

2 For an extended discussion of this point, see M. Levin, I. Birnbaum, Jewish Bioethics, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25(4), 468-484, 2000

3 R. Sherira Gaon (Ch.2 of the Iggeret) follows the same view but he introduces another strand of thought. He suggests that in the years prior to writing down of the Mishna, each Tanna taught and organized the material that he had received in his own way. At the time of the Mishna there came to exist various formulation of the same material, each phrased and expressed in a somewhat different language and phrasing. "Some taught general rule; others added detail; and others expanded and offered many examples and analogies." Presumably, this itself may have led to different understandings and interpretations of the same original traditions. Rabbi elected to follow the formulations of R. Akiva and his students while relegating other collections to "external" status; this explain preponderance of certain names in the Mishna and its focus on citing later Sages.

4 See Ramban to Deut 11:17. This topic is tangential to our discussion; suffices to say that it is the students of the Ramban, Ritvo and Ran who gave voice to this view. It appears that if you don't believe that logic alone can guide one to the truth, something else must substitute. Some claimed that it was ongoing Divine Inspiration.  For the role of Ruach Hakodesh in choosing the 'correct' interpretation, see the above Ramban and Netsiv's introduction to Sheiltos, Igrot Moshe, introduction; and Chazon Ish, Kovets Inyanim.

5Dorot Harishonim I, 5, p. 487. R. Halevy maintains that rabbinic derivations do not create laws but serve solely to support and base received laws.

6 Such as torts, damages, etrog, sukah and the like.

7 In modern philosophy such an approach is called the coherence theory of truth - the truth is that which coheres best with the pre-existent premises and methods of deduction.

8 Ayelet Hashachar, Introduction to Hatorah Vhamitsva on Leviticus.

Weakness

Why did Hashem wait three months before giving the Bnei Yisroel the Torah, when the very purpose of Yitzias Mitzrayim was Matan Torah?  Rabbi Menachem Mendel Morgenstern, the Holy Kotzker explains: When Bnei Yisrael came out of Egypt, their sickness was such that they did not understand how much harm their slavery had caused. Hashem waited for three months to give them the Torah so that they could realize their own disabilities.  Realization of one's weaknesses is the first step towards rehabilitation.