A Sheep is a Sheep, but an Ox is a Bear (too)
The Torah prohibits wearing garments made of wool and linen woven together. This, of course, is the (well-known) prohibition of Shaatnez. What about camel hair, is that prohibited to mix with linen? No. How about wool and cotton? No, that’s okay too. What about a tapestry of wool and linen to hang on the wall? That’s okay. Perfectly all right. Not only are these three questions not problematic on the Torah level, none of them pose Rabbinic issues either. They aren’t even the subject of Chumra (stringency). Wait, what about weaving Shaatnez garments for sale to non-Jews? That must be forbidden. No. D’rabbanan? Not even. (You’d just have to make sure the garments won’t be worn by a Jew.)

Get the point? The Torah prohibits wearing wool and linen garments. That’s it. Wool is wool; a sheep is a sheep.

So far, we’ve been working with D’varim 22:11. Let’s now go one pasuk earlier. D’varim 22:10 prohibits plowing with an ox and a donkey harnessed together. Can I use a horse and an ox? No. How about an ox and a donkey pulling a wagon together? No. What about a bear and a giraffe tethered together in the pre-circus parade through town? No. Not even that. Chumra or Rabbinic prohibition? Neither. Torah violation. The Torah in D’varim 22:10 prohibits tying a bear and a giraffe together. Because an ox is a giraffe and a donkey is a bear and plowing is parading and pulling a wagon. By definition of the pasuk.

Let’s get this straight. Wool is wool, but an ox can be a bear? 22:11 is specific. Exclusive. Not generalized. 22:10 is exactly the opposite. The pasuk and the mitzva is completely generalized. And not be Rabbinic decree. More than that. Torah law.

How can two almost identical p’sukim be so different in scope? And how do we know that one pasuk is exclusive and the other is inclusive?
The answer is as simple as it is profoundly significant. ORAL LAW.

When G-d dictated to Moshe the prohibition of ox and donkey together, He explained to Moshe the range of the mitzva and its applicability to other incompatible animals and other actions besides plowing. The Torah was just using a common example. And when He dictated the following pasuk, G-d explained to Moshe the severe limits of applicability of Shaatnez. And those explanations of the Written Word are a major part of the Oral Law, embodied by the Talmud (and other books of Rabbinic Literature).

It is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly under- stand Torah without the combination of the Written and Oral Law.

What does YOM mean in the Torah? Daytime, as opposed to nighttime? Yes. Sometimes. The full 24 hours of a day? Yes. Sometimes.

How do you know which? Torah Shel B’al Peh, the Oral Tradition.

Does BEN mean son, as opposed to daughter? Or does it mean child of either sex? Yes and yes. Sometimes. (In the matter of YIBUM - also this week’s sedra - the word BEN incorrectly rendered can change a mitzva into a capital offense - these are not trivial issues.) The Oral Torah gives us the answers.

The “other” main function of the Oral Law is to clarify Rabbinic Law. Together with the two facets of D’Oraita (Torah Law), we have the Package Deal of our commitment to Torah-true Judaism.

From our side, we can meet this commitment by having complete trust and confidence in the Chain of Tradition, by believing in the full scope of Revelation at Sinai, and by having Emunat Chachamim.