We are creating new "oral Torah" traditions even unintentionally, even non-rabbinically.

[@YahLion77]

I like how you think. It is important to be circumspect in Torah

[@tightjg2503]

Great video. I think important to read the five books of mosses in original Hebrew. without the new syntex or punctuation markings added above and below the letters/characters. just to see how much you can understand with just that.

[@TorahCentric]

That should be paid attention to, certainly. Thanks for the appreciation

[@KeenanModica]

Your videos are second to none.

[@TorahCentric]

That is nice of you to say. Thank you. I hope they are beneficial.

[@brenosantana1458]

What do you think is the work that one cannot do in the seventh day? It's hard to stablish a line. I think it's not exactly physical effort if one can save someone from a hole.

[@conniepayne931]

Love trumps the letter. If you're acting out of love to save another (or unburden another), then you're technically not breaking the law. Remember king David and his men were given show bread from the Temple which goes against the law, but the priest gave it out of love. Also the priests were 'working' on Shabbat with their priestly duties, profaning the Sabbath but were not condemned. Hope that helps you.

[@TorahCentric]

One might be curious as to whether this is said in the Torah itself. The sons of Aaron offered an offering to Elohim in Leviticus 10, yet they were struck dead because it differed from His command. The standard of judgment is not said to be defined by love. Judgment is clearly done through the letter of the law, and keeping the commands is reiterated over and over through the Torah. The priests at the Tent of Meeting indeed could be understood as working on Shabbat, however that was because of the explicit command itself. I think we need to be careful about accidentally letting later books set the frame for the Torah.

[@TorahCentric]

Physical effort is probably not the meaning of the requirement. "Serving", "doing deeds" (or making works), and "work" seem to be more accurate renderings in my view. I intend to go into this in more detail in the future. I want to continue studying more thoroughly before posting anything though.

[@ramblinwilly.2023]

This is a problem I’m running into. There’s many different opinions, but many laws need interpretative opinions. How far do we need to go before we realize that we just can’t be dogmatic on any level.?

[@Taylor-lm5op]

A good example of a law that needs interpretation is the date of Shavuot. Different Jewish sects calculate the date of Shavuot differently, because of the vagueness surrounding the text. I do personally accept the rabbinic interpretation of it. But there’s about 3 or 4 different conclusions of when Shavuot takes place on the Jewish calendar

[@Taylor-lm5op]

In the most general sense, there’s an Oral Torah. Reading the Written Torah sparks talking about it and writing about it. Even this KZbin video is technically Oral Torah. You also have to make Torah Law work under a foreign government and compromise with it. The Roman took away tzitzit partially by not allowing regular citizens to wear purple/blue. That’s why Hasidic tzitzit is white and doesn’t contain a blue thread

[@TorahCentric]

As you alluded to, there are some issues which certainly appear to be less clear cut, at least from today's perspective. It may not be possible to completely excise interpretation from the way we look at the laws of the Torah, but ideally we should not need to rely on non-Torah text points to clarify that. That's one of my main points about bringing this up is to promote self-awareness of what we are doing and how we are approaching things.

[@Taylor-lm5op]

The reason we need an Oral Torah from the sages is because a handful of civil laws changed from the time of Moses to the time of the Prophets. Leviticus 25:44 says to make the near-by nations (Canaanites) into slaves. This implies that Israel will dominate all the nations. Yet, because the nation of Israel sinned and turned away from the Torah (Judges 2), this law clearly changes! Jeremiah 17:4 says that God will make the Jews into slaves under Nebuchadnezzar. And it's only from the Babylonian exile that we even get the term "Jew". Since Judah was one of the few tribes left. We have been ruled under empires - hence why a lot of civil laws are over with. Judaism as a religion really wasn't formed entirely until after the Babylonian exile.

[@Taylor-lm5op]

And since the time of Nebuchadnezzar, we are not on that level of taking slaves from other nations, quite exactly. We've been slaves/citizens of other ruling empires (Persia, Greece, Rome, European nations, America). Torah implies that we would be a ruling empire, but that's not the case since we turned away from the Law. You're only reading the 5 Books of Moses and not reading the rest of the journey, it seems.

[@Taylor-lm5op]

"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." Yet, the verse says do not subtract. You subtract from the Torah by saying it's only the 5 Books of Moses. Oral Torah is clearly evident by Genesis 3:3 when Eve says an extra law was given to her, and this extra law not written down, but orally transmitted to Eve.

[@TorahCentric]

I don't recall saying 5 books of Moses because that's not actually my view. I also think we should distinguish between commands given to individuals and commands by which the people at large are judged (I might note the wording in Nm 15:22). Deuteronomy 30:10 is clear that the restoration of Israel hinges upon observance of written Torah.