The Relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah

Dear Rabbi, How are you these days? I would appreciate your response to several questions that intrigue me and raise interest in me regarding the tension between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah: There are several things I would like the Rabbi to clarify for me regarding the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. I would appreciate it if the Rabbi could provide explanations, examples, and sources if possible for the following questions: a. It is known that there is a Written Torah, namely the Tanakh, and there is an Oral Torah, namely the Mishnah, Talmud, and Midrashim. Is there tension or contradiction between these two parts of the Torah? Is the Oral Torah an expansion and interpretation of the Written Torah, or does it stand on its own? b. Can it be said that the Written Torah is the foundation and the Oral Torah is intended to interpret and explain it, or should they be seen as equally valuable sources for understanding the Torah and the ways of the Almighty? c. Can the Oral Torah contradict the Written Torah, or is it subordinate to it and always needs to be reconciled with it? Are there situations where the Talmud and Midrash "bypass" the plain meaning of the scripture? d. At the time of the completion of the Talmud, was the Oral Torah seen as equal in value to the Written Torah or still merely as an aid to understanding the scripture? When approximately did this transition in perception occur? Is there significance or symbolism in the fact that the Written Torah was given to Moses at Sinai, while the Oral Torah was transmitted gradually from generation to generation? e. In what ways does the Oral Torah expand upon the Written Torah and add to it, and are there boundaries and limitations to this? Have sages throughout the generations tried to "reconcile" gaps between their understanding of the Torah and the plain meaning of the scripture? I would appreciate an answer. In hope for better days.

Hello:
I will try to answer the questions in a somewhat comprehensive manner, and I hope you will receive the answer to all the questions. 

The Written Torah was given to Moses at Sinai to be written down. 

The Written Torah does not contain all the details necessary to understand it. God left many details that were transmitted to Moses orally. 

Let's take, for example, the commandment of tefillin. The Torah states, 'And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes'.  What does 'frontlets' mean? Where is 'between your eyes'? How exactly should the Torah portions be placed on the head and hand? Inside a bag, or perhaps the portions themselves without any cover?  So it is clear to us that there are many details that the people of Israel received orally. 

This order was meticulously planned regarding what would be written and what would not, and therefore there is a prohibition on orally stating things included in the 'Written Torah', and there was a strict prohibition on writing parts that were transmitted as 'Oral Torah'. 

Only after the destruction of the Temple did the sages permit partially writing down the Oral Torah. Because they saw that due to the many troubles and exiles that the people of Israel are experiencing and will experience, many details would be forgotten. And they said, 'It is time to act for the Lord, they have violated Your Torah'. Meaning, sometimes the sages have the power to violate and annul a commandment of the Torah, so that it can exist for a long time. 

In the first stage, it was permitted to write only the 'Six Orders of the Mishnah'. These are six orders containing the distilled essence of all parts of the Torah, each matter in a few words. Each 'order' in the Mishnah contains a certain general topic. The names of the orders are:

Zeraim - where all the laws of plant growth and all the commandments related to them are concentrated. Also included are the laws of prayers and the various blessings on food.

Moed - where the laws of holidays and festivals throughout the year are concentrated.

Nashim - all the laws of marriage, divorce, the obligations of the husband and wife in marriage, and more.

Nezikin - all the laws of damages, agreements, and monetary judgments.

Kodashim - all the laws of the various sacrifices that were in the Temple. 

Tahorot - all the laws of purity and impurity.

Each 'order' in the Mishnah includes several 'tractates'. Each 'tractate' details a specific topic from the general topic of the 'order'. For example, in the order 'Moed', there are tractates on different holidays: 'Rosh Hashanah', 'Yom Kippur', 'Festival of Sukkot', 'Festival of Passover', and more.

The Mishnah serves as a kind of short signs, a reminder of the entire Oral Torah. And intentionally does not cover all the details. 

After a few more centuries [-about 300 years], the sages saw that the Mishnah was not sufficient to prevent forgetfulness. Because the upheavals and troubles had increased so much that it would no longer be possible to remember through the brief Mishnah all the details. Then they permitted writing also the 'Gemara' - also known as the 'Talmud'. There is a much broader expansion on each topic and each detail. 

Even the Talmud does not contain everything that was transmitted orally, but it already contains many foundations in all areas of the Torah and commandments. 

According to what has been said, it is clear that the Oral Torah does not contradict and does not oppose the Written Torah. 

Rather, the Oral Torah comes to explain details that are not explicit in the Written Torah, thereby completing and clarifying the written text.

Moreover, within the Written Torah, many details are hinted at, written in a hidden manner. So countless details are hinted at in the style of the Torah's writing, in 'extra' or 'missing' letters in the text, in the order of verses, and in verbal comparisons between different commandments.

These methods are called 'the thirteen principles by which the Torah is expounded'. These methods serve as a key for the sages to understand from the Torah itself many details that explain and specify the Written Torah, and they belong to the 'Oral Torah'. 

Thus, there are things written in the Torah in the style of 'peshat' - simple explanation. There is also in 'remez', 'drash', and 'sod'. These are different levels that the text of the Torah includes, depth within depth. 

In the Talmud, this fact is very prominent, that all the words of the sages who transmitted the Oral Torah to us from teacher to student, are all based on the Written Torah and even hinted at in it, many pages of the Talmud are dedicated to clarifying the precise hint where the oral law is hinted at, within the verses of the 'Written Torah'.  

There are times when the sages expounded the depths of the verses, using the methods transmitted to them, to the extent that the conclusion seems to contradict the 'peshat' of the verse. But of course, this is not a contradiction, but a clarification and explanation of the peshat.

Let's take as an example the verse 'forty lashes', said about a person who committed certain offenses whose punishment is 'lashes'. And the sages interpreted the verse to mean that he should only be lashed thirty-nine times. But one who studies the Talmud will see that the sages did not come to 'dispute' the Written Torah, but to interpret it in depth and clarify its intention. 

Another example: the Torah states 'wound for wound' - the simple meaning is that one who inflicts a wound on his fellow will receive his punishment by having the same wound inflicted on him. But the sages explained that it means he should pay the injured party for the damage. 

 Conclusions:

The Oral Torah does not contradict the Written Torah at all. 

The Oral Torah interprets and clarifies the Written Torah. 

Many times it is possible to understand where  the rabbinic law is hinted at - in the Torah itself. Through certain and fixed 'codes'. 

Sifra Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael:

Rabbi Ishmael says the Torah is expounded by thirteen principles. From a fortiori inference. From analogy. From a generalization based on one text. From a generalization based on two texts. From general and particular. From particular and general. From general, particular, and general. You do not judge except by the likeness of the particular. From general that requires particular. And from particular that requires general. Any matter that was in the general and came out of the general to teach, did not come out to teach about itself but to teach about the entire general. Any matter that was in the general and came out of the general to require another claim similar to it, came out to ease and not to harden. Any matter that was in the general and came out of the general to require another claim not similar to it, came out to ease and to harden. Any matter that was in the general and came out of the general to be judged in a new matter, you cannot return it to its general until the text returns it to its general explicitly. A matter learned from its context, and a matter learned from its end, and also two texts contradicting each other, until a third text comes and decides between them.