The multiplicity of potential readings of the text means that the Torah anticipates different possibilities for interpretation in accordance with changing circumstances. The Torah proceeds from the assumption that, over time, the practical halakha may change in accordance with the circumstances of each generation, and no single criterion of practice can be applied to all generations or to all circumstances. In fact, this fundamental principle is set forth explicitly in the Jerusalem Talmud:
Had the Torah been given in the form of clear-cut instructions, the world would have been unable to exist. What does this mean? “And the Lord said to Moses” – [Moses] said to Him: “Master of the Universe, tell me the halakha!” [God] said to him: “Incline in accordance with the majority” – if there are more who favor acquittal, he is acquitted; if there are more who favor conviction, he is convicted. Thus the Torah may be explained in forty-nine ways to arrive at a conclusion of ritual impurity and in forty-nine to arrive at a conclusion of ritual purity” (Y. Sanhedrin 4:2, 22a)
According to the Jerusalem Talmud, God refused to give Moses a Torah that was unequivocal in its interpretation, for if He had, it would have not been fit for “eternal existence” (Penei Moshe, ad loc.). Instead, God gave him an eternal Torah of life, in which there are many different interpretative possibilities, all of them correct, and the decisions as to how to interpret it are the responsibility of the Sanhedrin in each generation.
The possibility of interpreting the Torah in accordance with the manner appropriate to it in each and every generation rests exclusively with the Beit Din HaGadol (Sanhedrin), in the ideal situation and conditions of the Jews dwelling in the land. Under those conditions, the Sanhedrin may rule, in accordance with their “ethical notions,” that a certain law of the Torah “pertains only to situations that no longer exist,” and, in light of changed circumstances, they are able to reinterpret the verses and God’s will in a manner that is appropriate to the new conditions that have arisen. It is the conjunction of the interpretation of the text and the decision of the Sanhedrin, in view of contemporary events, that allows for changes in halakha that are made on the basis of moral considerations, in step with changes in human society? Thus, Rabbi Kook maintained faith in the divine source of the Torah, along with its ability to be changed by the Sanhedrin in every generation, in accordance with changing circumstances. Rabbi Kook was well aware of the potential risks in stating such a view, and saw fit to emphasize that no such possibility exists at this time, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, “May God save us from such a view,” he said.
In the biblical period, of course, there was little compunction about severing limbs as a form of corporal punishment, allowing for the possibility that “an eye for an eye” was indeed followed literally at that time, as suggested by the author of Dor Revi’i. As the generations passed, and moral norms shifted, one who had maimed his fellow no longer had to have his own limb removed. The Sanhedrin therefore used its authority to interpret the verses in a different way, with the faith that this was God’s will and that the Torah had permitted this change from the outset.
Amnon Bazak – To This Very Day: Fundamental Questions in Bible Study p.406
The Sea Is Not Full 