Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 23, 2020 at 6:12 vote accept DonCorleone
Jan 26, 2016 at 15:31 comment added DonCorleone I used phylacteries because that's the typical example of why we need the Oral Law.
Jan 25, 2016 at 22:43 comment added sabbahillel @DoubleAA I just included that because the detail is not in there and DonCorleone used that as the example. Yes it could have been make square with a larger base of kosher leather and painted black with straps and ... (Even something as easy as this just keeps getting longer).
Jan 25, 2016 at 20:49 comment added Double AA @sabbahillel That's a really, really easy detail to include, and hence a bad example of a law that would be easily lost.
Jan 25, 2016 at 15:52 comment added sabbahillel @DonCorleone The mishnah is a written version of (a summary of) the Oral Law and was written only because the Jews were faced with extinction so that it could have been lost. It would not have been simpler because no matter how detailed the writing, there would have been details lost (such as what shape are "phylacteries")
Jan 25, 2016 at 15:31 comment added DonCorleone Isn't the Mishnah the oral law? I was under the impression that everything else is Rabbinic explanation/commentary. Wouldn't it have simpler to include for example; "You shall bind the phylacteries as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals at the hairline."?
Jan 25, 2016 at 14:08 history edited sabbahillel CC BY-SA 3.0
added 768 characters in body
Jan 25, 2016 at 3:16 comment added Monica Cellio But God didn't explain to Moshe about electricity and fax machines either, yet He explained enough to enable those interpretations. One could ask why that, the oral law that was later recorded in the mishna and g'mara, wasn't given in written form from the start. Was there an inherent value in having an oral transmission from the start? (Presumably yes, as had God wanted to write it all down, He could have.)
Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 history answered sabbahillel CC BY-SA 3.0