Judaism is unique in its teaching that study is not merely a means but an end, not merely an end among ends, but the highest and noblest of human aspirations. Study of torah for its own sake is a sacramental act, the great of all mizvot. Throughout the generations Torah scholars were willing to live in poverty and deprivation in order to devote themselves to study. Every Jew, regardless of the degree of erudition he had attained, devoted a portion of his time to Torah learning. Those capable of doing so plumbed the depths of the Talmud. Others perused the Mishnah or studied the weekly Torah portion together with the commentary of Rashi. Even the unlettered recited psalms on a regular daily basis. To the Jew, Torah study has always been more than a ritual act. It has always been a religious experience.
The Jew has always perceived God speaking to him through the leaves of the Gemara, from the paragraphs of the Shulhan Arukh and the words of the verses of the Bible. The Sages long ago taught, kudsha berikh hu ve-oraita had,” God and Torah are one; the Torah is the manifestation of divine wisdom. god reveals Himself to anyone who immerses himself in the depths of Torah; the intensity of the revelation is directly proportionate to the depth of penetration and perceptive understanding. To the scholar, a novel illuminating insight affords a more convincing demonstration of the Divine Presence than a multitude of philosophic arguments. It is a form of divine confrontation which must be experienced in order to be understood. YIet is a relationship which every Jew may experience,e at least be-ze’er anpin, in minuscule form, through Torah study.
Judaism is fundamentally a religion of law, a law which governs every facet of the human condition. the Torah contains not merely a set of laws but also canons of interpretation as well as principles according to which possible internal conflicts may be resolved. Maimonides records the doctrine that the Torah will not be altered, either in its entirely or in part, as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. The divine nature of Torah renders it immutable and hence not subject to amendment or modification.
Although the Torah itself is immutable, the Sages teach that the interpretation of its many laws and regulations is entirely within the province of human intellect. Torah is divine but “lo ba shamayim hi” – “it is not in the heavens” (Deut. 30:12) it is to be interpreted and applied by man. A remarkable corollary to the principle of the immutability of the Torah is the principle that, following the revelation at Sinai,, no further heavenly clarification of doubt or resolution of ambiguity is possible. Clarification and elucidation are themselves forms of change. Since there can be no new revelation, a prophet who claims the ability to resolve disputed legal points by virtue of his prophetic power stands convicted by his own mouth of being a false prophet.
Once revealed, the Torah does not remain in the heavenly domain. Man is charged with interpretation of the text, reslution of doubts, and application of the provisions of its laws as to novel situations. The Gemara Baba Mezi’a 59b, presents a vivid illustration of the principle “lo ba-shamayim hi” in a narrative concerning a dispute between R. Eliezer and the Sages regarding a point of ritual law. R. Eliezer refused to be overridden by the view of the majority and went to great lengths in invoking heavenly signs in support of his own position. R. Eliezer had sufficient power to change the course of nature, to work miracles, and even to summon a heavenly voice in support of his position, but the Sages, quite correctly failed to be impressed. Interpretation of Halakha has been entrusted to the human intellect and, accordingly human intellect must proceed in it own dispassionate way, uninfluenced and unprejudiced by supernatural phenomena. …
Moreover, Jewish teaching recognizes that two conflicting conclusions may, at times, be derived from identical sources by different scholars. Which is correct? Both are correct! “these and those are the words of the living God,” declare the Sages (Gittin 6b). If two conflicting conclusions may be derived from the same corpus of claw, then both must be inherent therein. In the realm of theory both are correct, both are Torah. Of course, in matters of practice, in terms of psak halakha, of definitive halakhic ruling, there must be a means of deciding between the conflicting views, else legal anarchy would result. To this end Halakha , as a legal system, includes canons of psak, canons of judicial determination. While these may produce decisions which are of absolute binding authority, this does not imply that the view which is set aside is thereby rejected as a nullity. On the contrary, insofar as the study and pursuit of torah is concerned, such a view is of undiminished importance. No one has ever suggested that it is not necessary to recite birkhat haTorah, the blessing pronounced prior to engaging in :Torah study, before studying the words of Bet Shammai on the grounds that the normative decision is in accordance with Bet Hillel. In the eyes of God, both are of equal validity. Definitive psak halakhah is a matter of practical necessity, but not reflection upon transcendental validity.
The foregoing should not in any sense generate the impression that subjective considerations or volitional inclinations may ever be allowed consciously to influence scholarly opinions.Torah study requires, first and foremost, intellectual honesty. …Neither Hillel nor Shammai nor any of their spritual heirs engaged in sophistry in order to justify previously held viewpoints. The dialectic of halakhic reasoning has always been conducted in the spirit of “yikov ha-din et ha-har” – let the law bore through the mountain.” The law must be determined on its own merit and let the chips flal where they may.
“These and those are the words of the living God” is a dictum applicable only when fundamental prerequisites have been met. The corpus of Halakhah must be mastered in its entirety and accepted in its entirety as the content of divine revelation Canons of interpretation, which are themselves an integral part of the Torah itself, must be applied in an objective manner. Then and only then are the resultant conclusions the “words of the living God.” Then and only then may it be assumed that, from the time of the giving of the Torah, it was destined that these conclusions be reached. Since both conclusions are derived from accepted premises and both are defended by cogent halakhic argumentation, it follows that both are legitimate expressions of Halakhah and hence both are of equal validity. Of insights attained in this manner the Sages taught, “Even that which a conscientious student will one day teach in the presence of his master was already told to Moses art Sinai .” ( Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’ah 2:4).
R. J. David Bleich: Contemporary Halakhic Problems, introduction.