Hot answers tagged

7

The verses before and after 21 point out that blood can't be eaten -- it has to be spilled on the ground. They also point to which animals can be eaten. But no where in them are there any explanations of how one is to slaughter the animal. So if verse 21 says "as I have commanded" but the laws of slaughter are not in the written text (does one have to use a ...


6

This is found in Shaarei Teshuva ch. 84 לרבינו האי ז"ל וששאלתם צורב"א מרבנן הוא כמו צרב'ת השחין דבר חם המתחמם באשה של תורה האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח אורייתיה קא מרתחא ליה שנאמר הלא כה דברי כאש ד"א צורבא מרבנן קשה בערבי קורין לחטים הקשות חנטא צריבא (צ"ל מנוגה) (מובהק) נגדו בערו גחלי אש ותרגם מזיו יקריה מבהקין גרסינן בשקלים תבוא מארה לאשה שיש לה בעל ואינה ...


5

You are probably referring to the proof from the text that oral torah exists Devorim 12.21. If the place the Lord, your God, chooses to put His Name there, will be distant from you, you may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat in your cities, according to every desire of ...


4

This is answered directly by Rambam in his introduction to the Mishna Torah. This authority to make new laws was taught directly by Moshe Rabbeinu as cited below from Deuteronomy 17:11. "The mitzvot given to Moses at Mount Sinai were all given together with their explanations, as implied by [Exodus 24:12]: "And I will give you the tablets of stone, the ...


4

The comments, above, approach the correct analysis. This question is discussed in detail in Talmud Shabbat 23a, near the middle of the page (as seen in the Sefaria site). There is a statement that says that one makes the blessing "Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to light the Chanukah light." It is a given that Chanukah, itself,...


3

As far as the main question is concerned, the Ramban in his debate with Pablo Christiani states (in the beginning of the section entitled "על האגדות") that the corpus of the Torah can be divided into three sections: The Bible, in which we all have complete faith The explanation of the mitzvos in the Talmud, which we also fully accept The midrashim, or ...


3

This is a famous disoute of the Rishonim corresponding to two versions of the Iggeret of Rav Sherira Gaon. To quote Wikipedia: The Iggeret exists in two recensions, a "French" and a "Spanish" recension. The "French" recension is in Aramaic, while the "Spanish" recension contains a higher proportion of Hebrew. The two recensions appear to differ on the ...


2

Why was Torah SheBe'Al Peh not allowed to be written? points out that the Oral Torah was forbidden to be written down. Additionally, the prophets would only show what somebody did rather than explicate a law. Thus, as an example, we see that Elkana (the father of Shmuel Hanavi) אֶלְקָנָה בֶּן יְרֹחָם בֶּן אֱלִיהוּא בֶּן תֹּחוּ בֶן צוּף אֶפְרָתִי went on ...


2

Written Torah and Oral Torah are different in kind. Written text is static, an orality is dynamic. Hashem didn't want to hand us halakhah, He wanted us to figure our which path we will take to redeem ourselves. This is an aspect of what it means when it says "these [the positions of Beis Shammai] and those [of Beis Hillel] are the Ideas of the 'Living' G-d. ...


2

The Talmud has it's basis in oral tradition, but in general it is not a direct transmission from previous generations. Here is what the Aruch HaShulchan wrote about the Talmud. It is found in his introduction, printed in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat, s.v. Vizehu HaMishna. 'Rabi Yehuda Hanasi had compiled all the laws with his colleagues into a short ...


2

The Rambam, in his introduction to the Mishna (and Oral Law in general) explains that the definitions of the Mitzvos were passed down from Moshe Rabbeinu, and there are no arguments on these. In this category is our interpretation of the פרי עץ הדר as the Esrog, that Shechita means the slaughter as we know it, that מלאכה on Shabbos means the 39 tasks, and ...


2

Yes, one could write down parts of the Oral Law for his own personal use. The Rambam writes this explicitly in his introduction to the Yad: רבנו הקדוש חיבר המשנה. ומימות משה ועד רבנו הקדוש, לא חיברו חיבור שמלמדין אותו ברבים בתורה שבעל פה; אלא בכל דור ודור, ראש בית דין או נביא שיהיה באותו הדור, כותב לעצמו זיכרון בשמועות ששמע מרבותיו, והוא מלמד על פה ...


1

According to one site, there is a machloket The minhag is to say the Pesukim of Birkat Cohanim and the משניות of Elu Devarim after Birchot HaTorah. If one didn’t learn then, it’s a dispute whether one fulfilled one’s obligation and so one should have intent to fulfill one’s obligation with the Bracha of Ahava Rabba ↑ S”A 47:9-10, Mishna Brurah 47:19-20 ...


1

In his dissertation, Rabbi Ezra Labaton has a lengthy discussion of the use of the term "sod" (actually 3 words in Arabic, in addition to the word "sod") by Rabbenu Avraham ben HaRambam. It seems very likely that this would be very similar if not identical to the usage of the Rambam. He writes (page 279): Rabenu Abraham uses the problematic word “סוד”...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible