Torah from heaven

Rabbi, what about the verse that says that Moses explained this Torah? We only refer to it with the conditions, so why did he explain it? Where is the explanation at all? In which tractate of his explanation is it found? Why is there no documentation for his explanation, just as there is documentation for the explanation of all the other commentators?!

On the other hand, how did the Toshvah give from Sinai as an explanation of the Toshvah if the Toshvah did not give it in its entirety on Mount Sinai when the two Torahs were received together?
And how does it work out that Moses consulted with God after the giving of the Torah, since the judgment had already been made, “It is not in the heavens”? I don’t understand!

On the other hand, if it is a matter of the fact that their delay does not affect their status, then how is it possible that it was made, “The law uproots the Bible”? Which is stronger? Who here is the unbeliever in the status of the Torah verses?

I am not sure I understood the questions. I will try to relate as I understood them.
1. Be'er Moshe does not necessarily mean explanation, but rather bringing the things themselves. But even if the intention is interpretation, then this is the Toshvah. The fact that the things are given in the name of the Tannaim or Amoraim does not mean that everything is their invention. In particular, there are things that are the LBM, and they are certainly attributed to Moses.
2. The Toshvah was also not given at Sinai, with the exception of a few things (interpretations of words, the LBM, and the standards of the sermon). And even if everything was given from Sinai, only the interpretation of part of the Toshvah given there is relevant.
3. Regarding Moses, the rule does not apply to the heavens. After all, he received the law of the daughters of Zelophehad or the Mokush from on high, like the entire Torah.
4. I did not understand the question.

1. All of Moses' explanations are the LBM, so why differentiate between the Toshva and the Toshva and the LBM? Isn't that unnecessary? Are you implying that the Tannaim introduced inventions into the Toshva? Is that true?

2. There is no such thing. To say such a thing is a very strong heresy. Rabbi, it is explicitly written that Moses explained this Torah with a good explanation: “And you wrote on the stones all the words of this Torah, explaining it well” and this is a reinforcement of ”Because Moses explained this Torah, saying”.
And if we give only part of the explanation given at Sinai, then how do we explain: “And you wrote on the stones all the words of this Torah, explaining it well” with a strong emphasis on the word ” All the words of the Torah!!!! It was literally written in its entirety and explained, not just a part of it.

3. Wait, let's check, is a wise man better than a prophet or not? Yes, then it should include Moses, and also because he too had already received the Torah and was commanded in it like everyone else.

4. You wrote that their lateness does not affect their status. The answer is from the Torah that in the Atav there are also later passages and despite this there is a rule that says that the halakha can displace the Bible. The answer is that the halakha disparages the Bible because it is stronger. So the rule you said that the fact that they are late (of verses) does not affect their status does not work. So then why would other things displace the status of the Tush”bek?

1. Not true. The Maimonides explains that the Halachah are only the laws received from Sinai and have no anchor (in the Midrash or commentary) in Scripture.
The Tannaim and the sages before and after them did not introduce “inventions,” but rather interpretations, decrees, and regulations.

2. I am happy and amazed by the decisiveness. But decisiveness is not an argument. I explained the meaning of “explained well.” Beyond that, there is no need for your view that the “explained well” includes all the interpretations and sermons. On the contrary, you are clearly wrong. “All the words of the Torah” is the Toshish, with the interpretations that existed at the time and of course without what was renewed later.
And by the way, even if it is heresy, it does not really interest me. I am discussing the question of what is truth, not what is heresy and what is not.

3. There is no connection between a sage being superior to a prophet. This is not a question of priority. Moses brought down the Torah itself, and if the rule “not in heaven is it” was applicable to him, then the entire Torah is invalid. Therefore, it is clear that he is excluded from this. Note that even if the rule “not in heaven is it” was received from heaven, we received it from heaven.

4. This is simply a lack of understanding. Halacha uproots/follows the Bible not because it is more or less important, but because Toshvah can take the verse out of its literal meaning and teach that its meaning is different. The Halacha Shevah does not say that the verse is wrong, but that its literal interpretation is wrong (or at least does not serve as Halacha).

1. I understand that the Halm”m are laws without an anchor - but why do I need such laws in the first place - what is the problem with the Halm”m being determined in the Tosh”k or the Toshve”p like any other law. For example, what is the point of the Torah writing that the tzitzit should be blue and not writing that the tefillin are black like the Halm”m. What is hidden here? What is the reason for this?
Question: Do the Halm”m have a law that is forbidden to write them, just as it was forbidden to write the Toshve”p at the time of Moses?
If you are talking about the Sages and the Tanais before them - then you are saying that they introduced interpretations, decrees and regulations - but I always thought that they should transmit the Toshve”p as it is. And how can I, the little one, distinguish between their interpretations and the “explanation” of Moses, who was the first to pass on the Toshvah?

If we say that Moses’ explanation is the Toshvah, then what are the words of God? Is the Toshvah not the words of God? Isn’t that what we agreed on?

The Rabbi claims that the Toshvah is renewed – so how can we distinguish and pass on the Toshvah as it was received one by one from Sinai, or does the Rabbi believe that the Toshvah is everything that was renewed over time, and then we must say that these innovations are new inventions that Moses did not know about at all – and again, this is illogical and untrue.
Is the Rabbi implying that the original Toshvah was written word for word at Sinai - word for word when it was given at Sinai, not word for word? And the text we have is only the words of the conditions, which are their interpretations, decrees, and regulations?

4. When you say that the Toshvah can remove the verse from its place and interpret it differently - the same verse in question - then it is not clear to me why the interpretation of the verse can change according to the power of the Toshvah and displace it - if there is already an explanation of Moses on the entire Torah. For example - if you write an agreement with me - then you cannot say that we did not mean what we wrote in plain language. What does this mean? It follows that the Halacha is not the Toshvah because where did we find that the Toshvah is not the interpretation of the verses of the Torah? Note - When I say a simple interpretation, I mean an interpretation from which we can derive the intention of God for that verse. Therefore, there is no point in saying that the law uproots the scripture, but rather in saying that the law in certain cases is not according to the simple interpretation - which may be legitimate. But it is not like that - because in truth the law uproots the scripture - uproots the intention of God, and the proof of this is that it is not in the heavens, and further: as long as it is extended.

3. In my opinion, you did not understand this argument - what I mean is - if Moses did not uproot any verse from the Torah and was excluded from it, then those who came after him did because he knew everything firsthand, sorry, are you implying that the rules, for example, "the law uproots the scripture" did not come from heaven?

2. You are claiming here that the Toshish includes interpretations that were then - correct. So what is the point of the Toshveh? That Moses transmitted it orally? Again, you say that the Toshveh is renewed, and if it is constantly renewed, how is it possible to transmit it orally in the first place? And if it is renewed as you say, then that means it undergoes changes, so what is the point in the first place of "preserving its original wording" as given in the Sinai Toshveh?

By the way, Maimonides said that it is forbidden to take the words of the Toshveh out of their meaning.

You repeat yourself over and over again and write vaguely and unclearly. I will answer one more time and that is it. From now on, if you wish to continue, please ask one question at a time. Present the question and explain well what you are aiming for. I assume that this will also be useful to you (because as we learned from the rabbinate, a lack of explanation is a lack of understanding).

1. This is a completely different question. Several reasons can be put forward for this. In my book Ruach Ha-Mishpat, I proposed a picture that explains the place of each type of halakhic law, including the LBM. You can see a little more briefly, in my article on the second root.
By the way, regarding tekhel and black, there is a halakhic difference: tekhel is a separate mitzvah (although for the matter of the minyan, see Rambam and Rambam in the root of the 1st). In tefillin, the color is a detail in the tefillin mitzvah. Another language: the word “tekhel” The Torah in the mitzvah of tzitzit does not deal with the color of the threads (that the tzitzit threads must be dyed azure), but with adding dyed threads to the white threads. This is an addition of another mitzvah or part of the mitzvah.
Indeed, the halm is a toshvah and there was a prohibition against its authorship. A large part of it was interpretations of words and ideas in the Torah that was given to us in writing. Like a dictionary that accompanies a certain text and helps in deciphering and understanding it. There is of course also another part that included additions, which I discussed in my above article.

Regarding what you thought, you were wrong. The role of the sages is threefold: to transmit the tradition. to interpret it. to add regulations and decrees to it. See the controversy between the Rambam and the Ramban in the first root. Those who are skilled in the interpretation of the Talmud and Toshvet can usually distinguish between Torah and Rabbinical law. It is true that there are cases where it is difficult and disputes have arisen. This is how it is in our world, it is difficult to establish and refine everything to the end.

Toshvet is transmitted and expanded. It should not be transmitted “literally”. There is no sanctity in the language of Toshvet. The plan should be transmitted. These are not inventions but interpretations and legislation. I have already answered that.
What came down from Sinai is a tiny nucleus of Toshvet, and the great majority is a development and expansion that did not come down from Sinai. But the Torah was given on the basis of that will, and from our perspective it is as binding as what came down from there (the part created in authorized institutions – the Sanhedrin and the Talmud). The meaning of the sayings of Chazal “its details and generalities from Sinai. Everything that a future veteran student will learn was given to Moses at Sinai). The sayings are normative and not historical. They deal with the validity of things and not their origin.

4. Moses' commentary on the Torah apparently does not change. But as I explained, this is a very small kernel from the Tosheva”p (and this is without the meaning of the ”commentary” that the Torah deals with. We have already discussed this).
Halacha follows/uproots this scripture as my interpretation. And there is no connection whatsoever to ”not in the heavens”. If you insist on interpreting in a wrong way in order to complicate questions – don't be surprised that you don't find answers.

3. Apparently I still don't understand what you mean.

2. I didn't understand anything.

Sorry to interfere in the debate, but by "explain well", does the reference to the Book of Deuteronomy (Mishnah Torah) which was included in the Torah itself along with the other 4 Pentateuchs given by the mouth of the Hero, and not to the laws of Moses from Sinai and Moses' additional interpretation of the other Pentateuchs?

As I wrote, maybe yes and maybe no.

Y.D.

Thank you for your interesting comment.

Rabbi Miki - Thank you for your words. In any case, I still have to make an effort to understand with my understanding what I lack understanding of, there is no doubt about it.

From your response to Y.D.'s comment. Maybe yes, maybe no, I wanted to understand what the ”explained well” is in case it may not be!

Because I did not understand that you said that it probably does not change and if it is indeed the Book of Deuteronomy, then the answer is categorical that it does not change. And maybe yes, maybe not.

Honorable Rabbi, is it possible that I need to sit with you to understand something for confirmation, or is it possible that I can understand it in writing..

These large gaps make it very difficult for me (I no longer remember the previous stages of the discussion). It could be the Book of Deuteronomy, and it could be some elements of the Toshvah, and it could be the Toshvah itself. The books themselves do not change (unless there is some mistake), but according to all these possibilities, the Toshvah can certainly change over the generations (beyond the given elements which can be interpreted but not changed). What is not clear here?