The Development of the Torah – a Positive Thing or Not?

Rabbi Michi, I have also pestered the honor of his Torah several times with similar questions, who was the posek during the time of King Saul? Did our ancestors eat cheeseburgers? And I have not received an answer. In my opinion, the reason for this is very simple. Indeed, during the time of King Saul there was no posek. Moreover, toshav’a was hardly expressed in the life of the people (maybe small hints here and there). That is, toshav’a was very limited, and our ancestors certainly ate cheeseburgers!
Where do we find that the prophet conveyed some kind of toshav’a?
What tradition was there before?
“Development of a fixed Torah” ?… This is really going too far…

Doesn't the Rabbi believe that a prophet cannot dictate a law, except for the law of the hour? I didn't fully understand what is meant by precedents?
I don't understand whether the Rabbi accepts that the three qualities themselves were not given at Sinai, but at Sinai only the authority to demand sermons was given.
—
Benjamin,
It seems to me that the difference is that you seem to be asking in order to contradict or just for the sake of asking, and just in the style of the question it seems that way. I may be wrong, but that's how it seems to me at least.

Yeshayahu, this is my style, indeed it only seems that way to you, I ask in all seriousness in order to receive an answer.
Rabbi Michi refuses to answer me because within my question, in his opinion, the answer is already in the picture, so that I am not asking but merely presenting an argument that he must refute. As stated, apparently Damat, I would be happy if they would treat my words even if they seem like a ”slap” on the contrary, if I am wrong I would be happy if they would correct me.

Benjamin, I have written several times that I do not have time to write riddles. If you want to ask something, be respectful and explain it properly.

Yeshayahu, I meant the halakha as we know it now (Shulchan Aruch, etc.). In my opinion, the standards were given from Sinai, but this is dynamic halakha. I explained this in detail in the spirit of the law and in the article for the second root.

Rabbi Michi, I ask explicitly, in whose hands was the Masorah of the Tushva in the days of King Saul?

Do you want names? I don't have any. Chazal talk about Shimei ben Gera, for example. In Pirkei Avot the transmission of the Torah through elders and prophets is described. This is probably not the written Torah. See also Maimonides' introduction to the Pihaham.

Thanks, but how did they ask the prophet if the prophet cannot dictate a law?
And what is the Rabbi's opinion regarding the rabbinic laws, and not just the fixing of laws in the Old Testament, for example, throughout the Bible we find individual regulations (fasts, Purim, etc.). But it seems that the Sages significantly increased both the restrictions and the regulations. But if it is so desirable, as the people of the Great Knesset taught us in Pirkei Avot, why didn't they do it before? Why didn't the prophets do it? Can't we see from this that the Torah was not given on this basis?

It seems that at that time the prophet could dictate halakha. Not in the sky is an ethos that developed during the period of wisdom when prophecy ended. And even if a prophet cannot innovate anything, he can dictate something without innovating (i.e., instructing what was said at Sinai and not innovating something new).
See all the excuses regarding the case of Elijah that would cause problems even though he was a prophet. Some of them are given in the introduction to Rabbi Margaliot's book of the fat man.

I don't know if they didn't do this before. For example, there was a fasting scroll that was invalidated and repeated. And even if not, regulations are made when there is a need and not just for the sake of making regulations. There was probably less need. This can be linked to what I wrote above. If the halakha is the result of a prophet's instruction and the fire of fixed and written halakha, there is less need for regulations that maintain the established rules.

Good morning Rabbi, I agree that this is not about the written Torah, but it is certainly not about the Tosh”a as we know it today. To be honest, I searched for sources that testify to the appearance of the Tosh”a as we received it from the Chazal and I managed to bring up from the abyss a limited number of ancient customs that appear in the Mishnah and their sources are not necessarily Pharisaic. By the way, was Shimei ben Gera the head of the Sanhedrin? Rashi in 2 Samuel 16 claims that this was the case, did Rashi not know that the Sanhedrin was established near the time of Ezra?
Does the Rabbi have evidence regarding a prophet who functions as a judge of laws, is there evidence for this?
Was the law passed down from Sinai to Moses as a secret law from prophet to prophet?

I really don't understand this discussion. The sages tell us that there is a tradition about the oath. You think they are working on us just because you couldn't find documentation for it. In my opinion, documentation really doesn't matter, especially since there is nowhere to document it (the Bible doesn't deal with halakhic negotiations and halakhic issues).

There is no such tradition of the Oral Torah from Mount Sinai. It is clear that this is nothing more than a nice gimmick. And the Zealous certainly know this.

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it …. And the prophets transmitted it to the people of the Great Synagogue.
So much for the story of the Written Torah.
And from here begins the Oral Torah: And from here begins the Oral Torah. They said three things

They said. This is not what is written in the Written Torah. This is not what God said. This is what they said. Orally.

And the things are clear.

Already in the Prophets we can see that there was a law there that was probably based on the Torah, as in the haftarat of a month, where Saul assumes that David did not come because he was not pure, and the Shunammite woman whose husband tells her that it is neither Shabbat nor a month. Even among the Samaritans, the only sacrifice that can be offered without a temple is the Passover sacrifice (and not a fragrant offering). In the second house, the realization took shape (which had already begun with the later prophets) that this was not enough and that a full and thorough foundation of the law on the Torah was needed according to the rules of necessity.

I didn't understand, first the rabbi explained why they didn't use the Toshab'a because there were prophets and not in the sky, it is an ethos that developed in a later period when prophecy ended. But then he claims that the sages say that there is a tradition of Toshab'a and therefore it is clear that there was one even though we found no documentation in the Bible, because the Bible does not deal with halakhic negotiations?

And in general, if there is a prophet, why is there a priest needed? And it was not said, "Your prophets will teach your judgments to Jacob and your Torah to Israel."

I didn't say they didn't use the Toshveh, but it wasn't in its current form. The principles were there and the institutionalization, conceptualization, and codification came later.

A priest is needed to teach halakha and work in the temple. When there is a problem with halakha, maybe they turned to a prophet. Or the priest just worked in the temple..

I think we've exhausted it.