Sanhedrin, source of the Oral Torah

Hello. It is clear that the Sages did both types of things: they both found an anchor for existing laws and also created new laws by virtue of the interpretation and sermons of the verses. There is no dispute that they have the authority to do this by virtue of "You shall not depart." The Ramban disagrees with the Maimonides (see his observations on the first root) regarding regulations and decrees, but both agree regarding the interpretation and teaching of the Torah. As for who are the sages who have halachic authority by virtue of "not to be violated"? In principle, only the Sanhedrin sitting in the grove. But did all the sages of Israel agree to give authority similar to the Talmud (Tannaim and Amoraim), and it is accepted that this is valid. Is anyone who disagrees with them violating "not to be violated"? I am not clear. But he is violating the consent of the public (as in the case of Mount Sinai). It is quite clear that according to the renewed foundation of the Rambam, who believes that the ordination can be renewed "from below" with the consent of all the sages of the Land of Israel, it is likely that this consent also has validity. But here even those who disagree with him agree. The validity of this consent is either by virtue of public acceptance (see Beit Yishai, Sermons 315, which expanded on this), or perhaps by virtue of the regulation of "shlichiyotiyehu," in which the neighboring peoples of the Land of Israel saw the Babylonian sages as their emissaries. Regarding the removal of a word from the Torah, the Gemara says that it is possible to remove it by returning and not doing anything. However, several rishonim (the Ha-Abad in Tamim Da'im and the Rabbi Ba'al Ha-Tos, and others) wrote that when the time requires, there is permission to remove it even by standing and doing. And in fact, these things are explained by the Rambam in Hala Memariam 2:4 (removal by time). He attaches this to the authority to punish for something that is not lawful, and this authority certainly exists at this time as well (see Shulchan How this is consistent with Bel Tasif and Bat Tagra, the early ones have already dealt with this. See Tos and Rashba, 16:2. And the Rambam, 11:2, Memariam, 5:9, disagrees with the Rav: Since it is up to a court to rule and prohibit something that is permitted and its prohibition will stand for generations, and it is also up to them to permit Torah prohibitions for the time being. What is this that the Torah warned against adding to it or subtracting from it, not to add to the words of the Torah or subtract from them, and to establish the matter forever in a matter that is from the Torah, whether in the written Torah or the oral Torah? How is it that it is written in the Torah that a kid shall not be cooked in its mother's milk? From hearsay, they learned that what is written forbids cooking and eating meat in milk, whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a living creature, but the meat of a bird is permitted in milk from the Torah? If a court comes and permits the meat of a living creature in milk, then that is a deduction, and if it prohibits the meat of a bird and says that it includes the goat and it is prohibited from the Torah, then that is an addition. But if it says that the meat of a bird is permitted from the Torah and we prohibit it and inform the people that it is a decree that does not follow from the matter that it is obligatory, and they say that the bird is permitted because it is not interpreted that way. The animal is permitted, after all, it was not interpreted. And another came to say that even the meat of an animal is permitted except for the goat, and another came to say that even the meat of the goat is permitted. In the case of the milk of a cow or a sheep, it is not said except its mother, which is its species. And another came to say that even in the case of the milk of a goat, which is not its mother, it is permissible not to say except its mother. Therefore, all meat with milk is forbidden, even poultry meat. This does not add anything but creates a restriction to the Torah, and so on. +/The attainment of the R'Av'd/ Since there is a L'B'd to decree and forbid, etc. A. All of these will carry the spirit that everything that was decreed and forbade to restrict and preserve the Torah has no basis in it, you will not add to it, even if they established it for generations and made it a fallacy of the Torah and authorized it for reading, as they forgot in some of the rabbis' doctrines and read the reference in a book, and if it is subtracted according to the need of a time, such as Elijah on Mount Carmel, even this is a matter of Torah. It is a time to do for the Lord. They have violated your Torah, and you will not find an additional prohibition except in positive mitzvot such as lulav and tefillin and tzitzit and the like, whether for a time or for generations, whether it was established in a matter of Torah or not.+