Timeline for Is there an underlying logic to the selection of detail in the Torah?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2019 at 7:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Feb 22, 2019 at 6:40 | answer | added | Alex | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 26, 2017 at 11:47 | comment | added | ray | read somewhere that the less familiar in daily life and more chance of being forgotten, the more details in the torah. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 20:43 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackJudaism/status/835228609128378368 | ||
| Feb 24, 2017 at 16:18 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | The more vessels (verbiage), the less light (interpretation). The more light (interpretation), the fewer vessels. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 16:16 | comment | added | Yaacov Deane | @Danno In general, the more compact the language, the more it is reliant on the interpretive rules of the Torah. Through proper application of the 32 rules of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi HaGalili many of the laws and their details found in Talmud can be seen as directly rooted in the 5 books of Moshe. Those rules are supposed to be a direct teaching handed to us by Moshe. It means that the written Torah itself becomes a much more dense method of communication. Or to put it another way, it becomes 'pregnant' with meaning, a source of life. This is the paradigm of vessel and light (כלי ואור). | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 15:21 | comment | added | mevaqesh | @Danno That was my understanding. Or more accurately, that writing something means it is not meant to have any flexibility. Not necessarily that not writing it, means that it is meant to have flexibility. After all, there could be other reasons to not write something. | I repeat that this is of course quite a controversial proposition. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 15:15 | comment | added | rosends | @mevaqesh would that mean that those elements left for the Oral Law are those that need to be flexible, but the ones in the written text don't? | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 14:57 | comment | added | mevaqesh | R. Moshe Sh'muel Glasner explains in the introduction of his Dor Harevii that the point of leaving the Oral Law oral, was that it be flexible enough to accomedate new circumstances. Needless to say, many sharply disagree with him. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 14:09 | history | edited | Loewian |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 24, 2017 at 13:47 | comment | added | Double AA♦ | he.wikisource.org/wiki/… | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 13:39 | history | asked | rosends | CC BY-SA 3.0 |