Putting the resident’s name in writing
To Rabbi Michael, greetings,
Thank you again for your lessons in Ra’anana.
I have a question/thought that I didn’t have time to ask you this morning, following a study I did on Shavuot, related and unrelated to the topic of the current series “Drabnan”.
The general issue is the status of the Oral Torah, after it was written.
Chazal say: Things that are said orally, you are not permitted to say in writing.
The Maharal explains the logic: Know that it is not appropriate for the Oral Torah to be written because the Oral Torah is the details of the commandments and the commandments, and this matter has no end and end, because the details have no end, and nothing would be complete if only a part were written, therefore the Oral Torah should not be written in its entirety, because writing indicates the purity that everything should be together, and indeed in the Oral Torah it is impossible as we said, but in the Oral Torah, since the matter of the oral is such that everything is not together, because when one speaks and then the second, the first has already spoken, and there is no purity in speaking, and therefore the Oral Torah should not be written at all. And the opposite is also true, because the Written Torah is complete and pure… (Tiferet Yisrael, I think, chapter 68*, Maimonides says similar things in the M’N, part 1, chapter 8a)
In a figurative way, the Gra says: “He shall eat my bread” – this is the written Torah, which is bread as mentioned above. Just as bread is perfect in all its needs and there is nothing left but to eat, so the Torah is perfect in all its needs. And he shall drink the wine of my mouth – this is the oral Torah, because it is mixed with everything, as I explained above…
As is known, in later times the Rabbis edited the oral Torah with the ruling “It is time to do the work for the Lord, they have violated your Torah.” It is common to think (perhaps) that this was a “small, technical deviation” in the course of history, that the Rabbis decided to put things in writing. But according to Chazal and Maharal above, the oral Torah today is in a “state of accumulation” that it should not be in, which is not true. According to the Gra’s parable, we have turned wine into bread, we have turned something that should be breathing, alive and developing, into something fixed and still. The very phrase “It is time to do the work for the Lord” is a very poignant expression! In other words, the Rabbis did what they did as a temporary command, but instead of restoring the situation to its former state, to the original pattern of the Toshab”a, we have continued the retrospective situation throughout the generations.
The fact is that the number of “innovations” up until the signing of the Mishnah/Talmud and since the signing is in completely different orders of magnitude. (You also addressed this in another context)
Is this a historical coincidence or a direct result of the writing of the Toshba?
What do you think? Have you seen any reference to the topic?
*By the way, the Maharal there also says something that reminds you of what you said today in class, although not the same thing (he does not distinguish between thought-cognition but rather divine-human intellect):
And you should also know that it is proper for the Torah to be written, not spoken, and the Oral Torah to be spoken, not written, because the commandment itself is like the Sabbath commandment not to do any work on the Sabbath day, because God made six days, etc., and the essence of the commandment is the Sabbath, because man rests on the seventh day. This is a divine commandment that teaches about a certain intellectual matter, but the interpretation of the commandment and the details of the commandment, how the recipient of the commandment should do it, does not teach about a mental picture like the essence of the commandment, which teaches about a mental picture of what the essence of the commandment is. But the Oral Torah, which is how the essence of the commandment should be done, does not teach about a mental picture of what the essence of the commandment is. Likewise, not to eat leaven and eat unleavened bread is certainly something that is the essence of the commandment, it teaches about a mental picture of God, but the details of the commandment, how the recipient, the person, should do the commandment, and how he should be careful of leaven, does not teach about a mental picture of God, like the essence of the commandment. This parable is that the house has attained its essence and its design is that it should be made something that will be a canopy and protect it until it is transmitted under it, and this is a design that is appropriate for a dwelling. But it should be ten cubits high and have an opening ten cubits high that it is appropriate for a person to enter there and stand there, this is a thing in itself and it is not just what is received from the very design of the house…
It is quite clear that originally this was a historical accident, but generations have changed and today it does not seem practical to return the study to the actual Toshbap. The things have already been written and it is not practical and right to erase and destroy all the books. Especially since nowadays, even though the things are written, there is a detailed and complex discussion around them so that it remains as Toshbap and can continue to develop (although this is not done enough). This is an accident that has become a true thing that is not worth reversing. R. Hutner writes something similar about the disputes. He claims that they are based on an accident (forgetting the Torah, the students of Hillel and Shammai who were not of any use to anyone) but today they have value because they reveal different sides that are all true. This has turned out to be a blessing.
Incidentally, Rabbi Hutner claims that all the disruptions in the Mishnah (such as the omissions of mahsra or okumitot, etc.) are so that the Mishnah remains a Toshbap that is not actually written (so that one would have to study with a rabbi to understand it).
Regarding the second passage you cited, I don’t think the Maharal’s words are related to the division I made in the lesson. He is talking about a distinction between Tosheva”p and Tosheva”k and not between Torah and Drabbanen (although in the following lessons it seems that the Rambam does indeed distinguish between these two divisions). He claims that there is a difference between the command to observe Shabbat and the principled idea of Shabbat (=Tosheva”k) and the details of how to do it (=Tosheva”p). It’s like the difference between the idea of a house and the details of its construction.
——————————————————————————————
Pine:
It is worth noting a similar phenomenon in Plato’s writings on the dialogues between Socrates and Phaedrus, where Socrates’ fear of putting information into writing is described, because people will begin to lose their memory once the information is written down.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Like when the calculator came along, people lost the ability to do calculations. But I think in the context we’re talking about, it’s something a little different. When things are written down, they’ll stick to what’s written and won’t use common sense and interpretation. It’s not exactly a loss of ability, but a different attitude toward things. Although it’s true that it’s likely to be followed by a loss of ability.
A bombshell question, with all the beautiful answer, it is still unclear why they canceled and are still canceling a temporary injunction for its author! Even if it is for the better, there is a violation of the Torah prohibition here because the Tosh'ak must be written, and the Tosh'ah can only be spoken!
I do not think that the calculator will prevent people from thinking and calculating, not at all, because the calculator was developed to shorten easy steps, and open up to more complicated exercises. So mathematics has deepened in recent centuries. And this is only a benefit.
If the Tosh'ah can be written (the current situation), they will stick to what is written and will not use common sense and interpretation... The very act of reading causes a person to reflect on what he is reading so that it will resonate in the brain and will use common sense. It is a clear fact that for every book that comes out, ten books are not like that! All of this is from the use of reason, of course (whether it's right or wrong, I can't determine, there are some...) Loss of ability to do what?
Dear Oren,
You said it well, the Torah is aware of this, my brother, it knowingly commanded: And memorize them. Anyone who changes the laws every day is assured that he is a son of the law.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
