Hot answers tagged

29

Either what was posted on that forum is about half-correct, or your understanding of what was said was about half-correct. Traditional Judaism does believe that "[H]oly texts are the revealed word of the divine and thus cannot ever be contradicted by modern research, philosophy or belief systems." It is not true "[t]hat it is understood that the scripture ...


24

I agree with the answer Daniel gave, but I would clarify things slightly differently. 1) Orthodox Judaism believes that the Torah is the literal Word of G-d. This is one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith as brought down by Maimonides: "We do not know exactly how the Torah was transmitted to Moses. But when it was transmitted, Moses merely wrote it ...


7

The Talmud addresses this issue in Bava Kamma 41a: ת"ר ממשמע שנאמר (שמות כא, כח) סקל יסקל השור איני יודע שנבילה היא ונבילה אסורה באכילה מה ת"ל לא יאכל את בשרו מגיד לך הכתוב שאם שחטו לאחר שנגמר דינו אסור באכילה From the fact that it says "the bull shall be stoned" do I not know that it is neveilah (unslaughtered), and neveilah is forbidden to eat? ...


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, ...


3

For your first question about needing to be told that the bull cannot be eaten, see this answer. Your other question is asks why we care about ownership; we care because there are uses for the carcass besides food. An animal that you can't eat, but are allowed to benefit from, can be sold to non-Jews. Non-Jews have no prohibition against eating it. They ...


3

It's a broad question, I'll take a stab at it. The Talmud represents Jewish "law and lore", as one writer put it. Those interpretations of the Bible that have legal force still do; the other material, less so. So I'd distinguish between "Oral Torah" and the narrower "Oral Law." Do we now dismiss parts of the Oral Torah as incorrect? Some pages of the ...


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

While the talmudic passage quoted above is certainly relevant in this case, I don't think that it is necessary to even resort to such a source in this case. According to it's own interpretive methodology, the question was flawed from the beginning. The question was why the pasuq in Shemoth 21:28 needed to state "wa-lo ye'okhel eth besaro - and its meat ...


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

The Oral Tora is devine and was given to Moshe along with the written Tora on mount Sinai (see for example Midrash Sifra, Behar, 1: "וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני לאמר, מה עניין שמיטה אצל הר סיני והלא כל המצות נאמרו מסיני אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני, אף כולם נאמרו כללותיהם ודקדוקיהם מסיני"). However, there is a debate among what was included in ...


1

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 ...


1

In the end of הלכות יסודי התורה - פרק שני the Rambam says: יב צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁלֹּא לִדְרשׁ בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא לְאִישׁ אֶחָד בִּלְבַד וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹסְרִין לוֹ רָאשֵׁי הַפְּרָקִים וּמוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמֶץ מִן הַדָּבָר וְהוּא מֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ וְיֵדַע סוֹף הַדָּבָר וְעָמְקוֹ So ...


1

There are three general categories of understanding this Rambam. The obligation to teach one's child is limited to Torah SheBeksav (note, if there is a Rabbinic requirement to do it, the Rambam doesn't mention it according to that reading). The father's obligation to pay is limited to Torah SheBeksav, he just has to teach himself (or arrange others to ...



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