Sanhedrin 018

24:
Neta Reva'i is a Hebrew term that has its origins in Torah law. The term means "fourth-year plants", and refers back to the law as stated in Leviticus 19:23-25 –

While the terminology is rather quaint and surprising, the import of the law is quite clear: after a tree has been planted in Eretz-Israel its fruit shall not be eaten during the first four years' of its growth. The fruit of the first three years is completely forbidden, the fruit of the fourth year must be dedicated 'to God', and only from the fifth year onwards may the fruit of the tree be eaten 'normally'. The term 'dedicated to God' was understood by the sages as meaning that the fruit – or its equivalent worth in money – must be consumed in Jerusalem, the home of the Bet Mikdash, the palace of the Divine King.

25:
If the owner decides that he would rather not take the fruit to Jerusalem (because of the inconvenience?) he must 'redeem' it for its exact market value, and this evaluation must be done through the good offices of a fully qualified Bet Din of Three. This is stated quite clearly in Mishnah, Tractate Ma'aser Sheni 5:4 –

This amount, as fixed by the judges, he must take with him to Jerusalem where he must spend it on food and drink.

26:
The second tithe [Ma'aser Sheni] was similar in its function. The Torah commands [Deuteronomy 14:22-29] as follows:-

Obviously, if the farmer knows exactly how much the produce is worth he does not have a great problem. If, however, it is difficult to ascertain the exact value of the produce, then this value must be determined by a fully qualified Court of Three – just as explained in the previous section.

To be continued.

On March 13th I wrote that the difference is that the Written Torah offers a new revelation for each new understanding, while the Oral Torah offers a new interpretation.

Mark Lautman asks:

Isn't the Written Torah a one-time revelation for a particular circumstance, and the Oral is an effort to continue the revelation, or at least interpret it in different circumstances?

I respond:

Mark is making two statements here. As far as the first statement is concerned (that the Written Torah is a one-time revelation) we must say that not even the great sages of the past could agree on this! The Gemara [Gittin 60a] has Rabbi Yoĥanan quoting Rabbi Bena'ah as saying that the Torah was given 'scroll by scroll' – i.e. in separate batches, not as what Mark calls "a one-time revelation". On the other hand, that same Gemara quotes Resh Lakish (Rabbi Yoĥanan's great friend and younger contemporary) as saying that the Torah was given 'sealed' – i.e. "in one fell swoop", or as what Mark calls "a one-time revelation". If there is such a disagreement between great Amora'im such as these, who are we to decide between them?! However, it is clear that both sages accepted as axiomatic that the whole Torah was given by God to Moses during the forty years' wandering in the Sinai Desert – and that, of course, does not chime with the findings of modern scholarship at all. However, if Rabbi Yoĥanan is prepared to admit that the Torah was not given in one fell swoop but over a period of forty years, what is to prevent another sage for extending the period from forty years to four hundred years – or even four thousand years? And that is the meaning of the comment by Yosef Bonfils that I quoted in the shiur of March 13th: "Since we believe in the prophetic tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and prophetic?"

As far as Mark's second statement is concerned – that the Oral Torah is an effort to interpret the original revelation in different circumstances – I certainly agree.

Mark also writes:

There are some suspicions that parts of the Torah are … a symptom of two priestly clans, one descending from Moshe, another from Aharon.

I respond:

Mark is quoting the view of one scholar, Dr. Richard Friedman, as set forth in his book "Who Wrote the Bible?". Dr. Friedman makes this claim on several occasions in his book, but produces no evidence whatsoever for his surmise. I have searched his book through in vain for an explanation, a justification, a reference in the notes: nothing!

Mark continues [with my comments interspersed in italics]:

Clearly, the Torah as we have it today was not that written on Sinai. [I agree, but not for the reasons Mark sets forth below.] If nothing else, the glyph we read is not the Sinai script used by the Hebrews at that time. [This has been recognized by the sages for time out of memory: "Originally the Torah was given to Israel in the Hebrew language and in the original Hebrew script; in the time of Ezra it was renewed in the square characters and in Aramaic. Israel eventually chose for themselves the Hebrew language and the square characters, leaving to the Samaritans the original Hebrew script and the Aramaic language"] [Sanhedrin 21b] Does this mean that the Pharisaic/Rabbinic religion we practice is "made up"? How can we be sure that we truly obey G-d's will?

I respond:

This is the very basis of Rabbinic Judaism. We do not observe Torah; we observe Torah as interpreted by the sages. This right is stated explicitly in Deuteronomy 17:11

Mark:

I believe there are six mitzvah blessings that do not appear in the Torah: shabbat candles, megillah, Ĥanukah candles, reading the hallel, washing hands, and one other. [Actually there are seven: the five that Mark mentions with the addition of Eruv and Birkhot ha-Nehenin – the reciting of a Berakhah before eating food and so forth.] As time passes, it becomes harder for me to say these blessings, because they simply aren't written in the Torah.

I respond:

This is something that I do not understand at all. We are not Karaites who deny the whole of rabbinic tradition! There is hardly one mitzvah that is written in the Torah whose performance is not the result of rabbinic interpretation! For instance, there is nothing in the text of the Torah that "you shall bind [these my words] as a sign upon your hand and they shall be like frontlets between your eyes" to suggest that this text is to be written down on a piece of parchment which is then to be inserted into little boxes of blackened leather and attached to the upper arm and to the front of the head by black leather straps! All this is the result of interpretation! (And yet, the Sadducees, the spiritual forerunners of the Karaites in many ways, never questioned the institution of Tefillin as we understand it.)

The Written Torah is a compilation that screams out loud at almost every verse: "interpret me!" It was Rabbi Yehudah ha-Levi who "defied any judge to be able to administer justice simply on the basis of what is actually written in Parashat Mishpatim".