Oral Torah
A. Why do you think there is a prohibition against writing down the Oral Torah?
B. After it was decided to write it, what did we lose from it, what was the price? How would the Torah have been different without this move?
thanks
Many have already emphasized this. The accepted explanation is that writing the Toshabap fixes and solidifies it. The whole essence of the Oral Torah is flexibility and adaptation to circumstances and interpretations. We see that today the books are treated as if they were the Torah from Sinai. This did not exist before they were written. When things are passed down orally, connotations and meanings can be conveyed, and the matter remains open and more flexible. This is what we lost from writing. But on the other hand, there was a consideration that important details would be forgotten. The Rabbi decided that the second consideration prevailed.
Did Rabbi cancel the prohibition or did he only allow writing the Mishnah as an exception?
[In the Gem’ a scroll of secrets is cited that Rabbi found with Rabbi Chiya, and the Hatts testified about Rabbi Nathan Adler, his teacher, who did not write the novellas of his Torah because he thought that no one would want them and he knew for himself that he would not forget them]
And even until Rav Ashi, they did not write the Gem’ [because there was no need]
Who said that until Rav Ashi they did not write? Rav Ashi edited the Talmud and did not necessarily write it.
He simply abolished the prohibition, since anything that is destined to be forgotten should be written down for that reason. We did not find that Rav Ashi needed to establish an additional permit.
”Anything that deserves to be forgotten deserves to be written down from that perspective”. True, but we see that before the Rabbis they did not always write. And if that is the case, everyone should carefully weigh the harm against the benefit when writing their Torah innovations, and perhaps only when there is great harm is it permissible to write.
In other words, the prohibition was not permitted, but only revealed to us that in a place of great necessity, ”they violated your Torah”.
In particular, according to the ’Haredim’ who believe that the prohibition is a matter of law’ [That is how I remember it, I do not remember where I wrote it]
We have not found anyone considering this, and I see no reason to think so. The oath has already been written and allowed to be written, and there is no point in limiting and restricting it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
