Forgetting Torah: The Power of Dispute (based on learning with Rabbi Aviva Richmond)

Why does forgetting frustrate us?

What are the benefits/disadvantages to forgetting something?

Yitzchak Hutner (Hebrew: יצחק הוטנר; 1906 – November 28, 1980), also known as Isaac Hutner, was an American Orthodox rabbi and rosh yeshiva (dean).
Originally from Warsaw, Hutner first studied the Torah in Slabodka. He then traveled to Mandatory Palestine where he became a student in the Hebron Yeshiva, and narrowly escaped the 1929 Hebron massacre. After this, Hutner returned to Europe, where he befriended Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Menachem Mendel Schneerson. he moved to the US in 1942 maintaining friendships with both long after they had all established their own institutions in the United States.
Pachad Yitzhaq Hanukah, Essay 3 (Rav Yitzhak Hutner, 20th c)
Translated by Aryeh Bernstein
Opening Context
One thing which is special to Hanukah, and only to Hanukah, is its presence at the end of the whole order of establishing holidays for the ages. The inner understanding of this fact is that with the establishment of the holiday of Hanukah, the roots of the whole order of holidays for the ages were closed off until the End of Days. "Az egmor be-shir mizmor Hanukat haMizbe'ah" – "Then I will complete, with song and psalm, the dedication of the altar." (from the first stanza of Ma otzur)
That is, until the establishment of the festival of Hanukah, we were missing one pillar on which could stand the bridge leading to the End of Days. With the establishment of the festival of Hanukah, the path is ready to walk on toward the completion in the future dedication/Hanukah, which will complete the song and psalm.

What is the holiday of Hanukkah completing according to this text?

Do you agree/disagree with this claim? Why?

Have we not received from the mouths of the Sages that Yose ben Yo'ezer and Yose ben Yohanan, who were during the days of the conflict with Greece, were the first ones to stand in a dispute in Torah law (the first dispute in the law of laying the hands on festivals). That is, that on account of Greece's darkening of Israel's eyes with the decrees it decreed "to make them forget Your Torah", this darkening-forced forgetting led to the first dispute in the Sanhedrin that sat in the Gazit Chamber.

What is Greece being accused of?

What do you think was the context/argument of the dispute?

"In this sense, the proliferation of opinions and dissenting positions in the War of Torah down to our day, continues in a straight line from the darkening of Israel's eyes via the forgetting of Torah caused by the decrees of Greece.
In this way, a superficial glance leads one to perceive the proliferation of opinions and dissenting positions as a remaining holdout from the redemption from Greece, for even with the whole redemption and salvation of the Hasmonite victory, the very same sorrow which was born in the polemic with Greece still rolls with us."
Pachad Yitzhaq Hanukah, Essay 3 (Rav Yitzhak Hutner, 20th c)

What began with Greece and has continued throughout Jewish history?

What emotion is evoked by the "forgetting of Torah"?

שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת אמר לו הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת

Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and I will write upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which [asher] you broke” (Exodus 34:1). The word “asher” is an allusion to the fact that that the Holy One, Blessed be God, said to Moses: Your strength is true [yishar koḥakha] in that you broke the tablets, as the breaking of the first tablets led to the foundation of the Torah through the giving of the second tablets.

"Sometimes, the canceling of Torah is its fulfillment, as is said, '...which you broke' – 'More power to you (Yasher Koach) for breaking them'" (TB Menahot 99b). The act of breaking the tablets is an act of fulfilling the Torah by way of canceling it."
Pachad Yitzhaq Hanukah, Essay 3 (Rav Yitzhak Hutner, 20th c)

What could this possibly mean?

Why would the rabbis suggest that God praised Moses with Yasher Koach when Moses broke the first set of tablets?

How is breaking the tablets an act of fulfilling the Torah?

וְאָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר): מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״חָרוּת עַל הַלּוּחוֹת״, אִלְמָלֵי לֹא נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ לוּחוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת — לֹא נִשְׁתַּכְּחָה תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: אֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חָרוּת״ — אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״חָרוּת״, אֶלָּא חֵירוּת. אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וּמִמִּדְבָּר מַתָּנָה״, אִם מֵשִׂים אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּמִדְבָּר זֶה שֶׁהַכֹּל דָּשִׁין בּוֹ — תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ. וְאִם לָאו — אֵין תַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ.

And, lastly, Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16)? This teaches that had the first tablets, the subject of this verse, not been broken, the Torah would never have been forgotten from the Jewish people, as the Torah would have been engraved upon their hearts. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Had the tablets not been broken, no nation or tongue would ever have ruled over them...

"But the Sages also said that "had the tablets not been broken, Torah would not have been forgotten from Israel" (TB Eiruvin 54a). We find, then, that the breaking of the tablets also had an aspect of making the Torah forgotten."
Pachad Yitzhaq

What is the connection between the breaking of the tablets and forgetting Torah?

In what ways did breaking the tablets create space?

"We learn an amazing innovation from here – that it's possible for Torah to be proliferated via the forgetting of Torah, such that in this manner it is possible to receive a "Yishar Koah" on account of forgetting Torah.
Go out and see what the Sages said, that "300 Halakhot were forgotten in the days of mourning for Moshe Rabbenu...and Othniel ben Qenaz restored them with his dialectics" (TB Temurah 16a).
Those words of Torah in the dialectics of restoring halakhot – those are themselves words of Torah that were proliferated only via the forgetting of Torah."
Pachad Yitzhaq

Why would we be given a Yasher Koach for forgetting Torah?

How does Torah proliferate if it is forgotten?

What are some examples of the proliferation of Torah?

"Moreover, every matter of dispute in Halakhah exists only via the forgetting of Torah. Nevertheless, so taught the Sages, "Even though these say pure and those say impure, these invalidate and those validate, these exempt and those obligate...these and these are the words of the living God"(TBHagiga3b,Eiruvin13b). We find that all differences of opinion and disputes of position are an expansion and embellishment of Torah born specifically by strength of the forgetting of Torah."
-Pachad Yitzhaq
"An even greater innovation emerges from this, for the degree to which the strength of Oral Torah stands out is much greater as revealed by difference of opinion than where it is by agreement of opinions. For included in that statement that "these and those are the words of the living God" is the principle that even the opinion rejected from Halakhah is a Torah opinion, provided that it is said according to the boundaries of the give-and-take of Oral Torah. This is because Torah is given according to the opinions of the Sages of Torah (the Ramban's language), and if they should arise as the majority later on and decide according to the rejected opinion, henceforth, the halakhah changes according to truth. (See Or Yisrael Chapter 30, in the note.)"
-Pachad Yitzhaq

What does this text intimate about future generations and Jewish law?

"And we find that the disputes of Torah sages reveal the strength of Oral Torah much more than their agreements. The war of Torah is not one aspect among the aspects of words of Torah; rather, the war of Torah is a positive creation of new Torah values, the likes of which cannot be found in regular words of Torah."
-Pachad Yitzhaq

What do you understand the bolded text?

"5. "Therefore, it is said in the book Wars of Hashem 'Et Wahev in Sufah'" (Bemidbar 21:14), and the Sages interpreted, "Even a parent and child or Rabbi and student are made to hate each other, but do not move from there until they are made to love each other" (TB Qiddushin 30b).
On first glance, these words come to teach us the Revuta in the size of the strength of the love connection embedded in the words of Torah, that is, that the strength of the love connection is so great that reliable friendship is promised even to those who previously hated each other.
According to this understanding, the revuta is that despite the hatred of the hour of dispute, love will come at the end and resolve it, and they won't move from there until they love each other. However, since the point was clarified to us that the war of Torah is a level of new, additional creation, beyond the level of general words of Torah, this clarification teaches us to know that the issue is not that the love at the end comes despite the previous dispute, rather, that that is the way love grows, that it is born and grows specifically on the ground of the previous dispute.
For all love reaches its highest peaks when two sides share a creative partnership, and two sides conflicting in halakhah are partners in creating a new Torah value, whose name is the War of Torah."
-Pachad Yitzhaq

In what way do you agree/disagree that act of dispute is how love grows?

How do you feel about the idiom "War of Torah"?