Hakdama 8

I think we left off about ובמותו מסר יהושע עליו השלום. Again, the word Yehoshua will be in all the translations. מה שקיבל מן הפירוש. You see that? u’vmoso masar Yehoshua. u’vmoso masar Yehoshua. ובמותו מסר יהושע עליו השלום מה שקיבל מן הפירוש. What he had received from Moshe Rabbeinu, peirush mekuhbal,

ומה שנדרש בזמנו ולא נפלה בו מחלוקת, ומה שנפלה בו מחלוקת ופסקו בו כדעת הרוב,

Zekeinim, right? Yehoshua masar l’Zekeinim.

והם שאמר עליהם הכתוב וכל ימי הזקנים אשר האריכו ימים אחרי יהושע. ושוב מסרו אותם הזקנים מה שקיבלו לנביאים עליהם השלום,

v’hanevi’im zeh lazeh.

ולא היה איזה זמן שלא היה בו חקירה וחידושים והיו אנשי כל דור קובעים דברי.

Well actually, let's stop at that line for a minute first. ולא היה זמן שלא היה בו חקירה וחידושים. So the Rambam is clearly of the opinion that on the one hand, Moshe Rabbeinu transmitted initially the basic information about each of the mitzvos that each mitzvah was actionable as it were based on the kabbalah which we received explicitly directly from Moshe Rabbeinu. So we knew and understood enough about Mitzvas Sukkah that right away we knew what the minimum height of a sukkah is, what the material of the schach is etc. So that’s on the one hand. M’idach gisa, the Rambam clearly says that there was development in Torah she'ba'al peh, that there were additional dinim which were elicited, which were embedded in the Torah she'bi'ksav to be derived through מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן and these were. So to follow up, I think the Rambam gave this example earlier in the Hakdama when he illustrated with Mitzvas Sukkah if you recall. Where did he give? Yeah. Back towards the beginning, so the Rambam says v’omar lecha mashal right after he quotes the Chazal that Rashi quotes in the beginning of Parshas Behar, והלא כל התורה כולה נאמרה מסיני. So right after that, the Rambam gave us an example of sort of what the masoret from Moshe Rabbeinu is.

הנה אמר לו השם בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים. וכן הודיעו יתעלה שהסוכה הזאת חובה על הזכרים ולא הנקבות.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu told Moshe Rabbeinu the pasuk in Parshas Emor of בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים. And then Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him again the basic halachos which make that mitzvah actionable. Who’s chayav? hazcharim v’lo hanekevos. But even among zecharim,

אין חייבים בה החולים ולא הולכי דרכים, ושלא יהיה סכך אלא בדבר שגידולו מן הארץ, ואין מסככים לא בצמר ולא במשי ולא בכלים ואפילו הם מן הגדל בארץ כגון המחצלאות.

It has to be a דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה, the schach. ושיהיו האכילה והשתייה והשינה בה במשך כל שבעת הימים. What does it mean to be yoshev basukkah? ושלא יהיה בחללה פחות משבעה טפחים על שבעה טפחים. But l'ma'aseh, the Rambam doesn't mention, let's say there's a din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי by sukkah. Right? So the Mishnayos say let's say you have bundles of hay and you have sort of imagine a solid cube of bundles of hay. So that's gidulei karka and it's eino mekabel tumah and then you'll hollow out, so you'll hollow out in a way that you're left with schach overhead and you're left with dfanos on the side. So you didn't put schach, but the schach just sort of emerged because you hollow out from underneath. So that would be a psul of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. So the Rambam doesn't mention that din. So I don't know how the Rambam knows and where you, there's no nafka mina l'halacha, it's just in terms of havana. But that perhaps is an example of what we're talking about here, that Moshe Rabbeinu told us the basic dinim, but there were other dinim which Hakadosh Baruch Hu wanted that the Chachamim should derive through מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. Okay, so that's perhaps an example of what we're talking about. Then the Rambam continues, back to where we are further in the hakdama.

והיו אנשי כל דור קובעים דברי אלו שקדמו ליסוד שעליו היו דורשים ומחדשים חידושים.

So what each generation discovered based on מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, that then became the starting point for the next generation's havana and iyun in Torah. So that's actually very interesting. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim in perek beis.

בית דין הגדול שדרשו באחת מן המידות כפי מה שנראה בעיניהם שהדין כך ודנו דין. ועמד אחריהם בית דין אחר ונראה לו טעם אחר לסתור אותו הדין הרי זה סותר ודן כפי מה שייראה בעיניו שנאמר אל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם אינך חייב ללכת אלא אחר בית דין שבדורך.

So the Rambam is of the opinion, the way he, the Kessef Mishneh quotes, but the way the Rambam pieces together and integrates various ma'amarei Chazal, the rule that

אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חברו אלא אם כן גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמניין

means when the previous Beis Din instituted a din d'rabbanan. When the previous Beis Din instituted a din d'rabbanan, so the koach of that din is the koach of that Beis Din. So if that Beis Din is gadol b'chochma u'v'minyan, then a lesser Beis Din can't come and overturn that din. But when an earlier Beis Din didn't, they weren't mesaken something with the koach of Beis Din. No, but they rather said this is what we think the Torah means. This is what we think the Torah means, this is the peshuto shel mikra. This is what we think the Torah means al pi מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. So that's not with the koach of Beis Din. So that the Rambam holds that a subsequent Beis Din doesn't have to be gadol b'chochma u'v'minyan to disagree. Even though they're not their equal, they can disagree. So the question is in light of that, how do you really understand what the Rambam's telling us here? Here it sounds like that each generation learned, again, became so absolute that it was the starting point for the next generation. And there was no difference for the generation after Yehoshua, for the Zekeinim, there was no difference between what Moshe Rabbeinu had transmitted and what had been נתחדש ונתבאר בדורו של יהושע ובית דינו. But in light of this din in the Rambam in perek beis of Hilchos Mamrim, so how do we understand that? I don't know, other than, well let's let's let's hold off and soon maybe we'll suggest half an answer. ולא היתה מחלוקת ביסודות המקובלים. We'll come to this be'ezras Hashem.

עד שהגיע הזמן לאנשי כנסת הגדולה. והם חגי זכריה ומלאכי ודניאל וחנניה מישאל ועזריה ועזרא הסופר ונחמיה בן חכליה ומרדכי זרובבל בן שאלתיאל. ונוסף על הנביאים הללו תשלום מאה ועשרים זקנים מן החרש והמסגר ודומיהם. וחקרו ודרשו גם הם כמו שעשו קודמיהם וגזרו גזירות והתקינו תקנות. והאיש האחרון של אותה החבורה הטהורה הוא הראשון לחכמים הנזכרים במשנה והוא שמעון הצדיק והוא היה כהן גדול באותו הדור. וקצת ימים שחריהם הגיע עד רבינו הקדוש עליו השלום.

So it's interesting. So when the Rambam is sort of describing the shalsheles hamesorah, so he describes the, as it were, the milestone of when we reach the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah. Then, for the moment, he skips over who the, who the links are in between, and then he fast forwards to Rabbeinu Hakadosh. Right? So he's, that he tells us how it goes from Moshe Rabbeinu to Ezra Hasofer and the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah, and then says, and then, you know, fast forwarding, the masorah continued until it reached Rabbeinu Hakadosh. Now what's interesting, because in a few lines he actually is going to go back and fill in who the links were between the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and Rabbeinu Hakadosh. So it's kind of funny that here he just fast forwards from the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah to to Rabbeinu Hakadosh. But the emes is, he does that a second time also. The Rambam in the hakdamah to Sefer Hamitzvos tells us about what his plan for Mishneh Torah is. Sefer Hamitzvos wasn't really intended by the Rambam as an independent work, it's more a companion to to Mishneh Torah. So in the hakdamah to Sefer Hamitzvos, he's telling us what he, what he has in mind to do with Mishneh Torah. And Vehaya hana'os etzli, what seems most appropriate to me is lehafil mimenu haarichos, to avoid, to avoid any unnecessary elaboration. And therefore והסמיכות בזכרון בעל הקבלה. I'm not, when I quote halachos in Mishneh Torah, I'm not going to say this is a halacha beshem Rav, and this is a halacha beshem Shmuel, and this is beshem Rabbi Yochanan. Ad shelo omar, I won't say

דברי רבי פלוני ולא רבי פלוני, אומר כך וכך בכל מאמר ומאמר.

I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to, as we know, from Mishneh Torah, right? Mishneh Torah doesn't tell us this is Rabbi Meir said this din, Rabbi Yehuda said this din. I'm just going to tell you the dinim. What I will do, now notice this rabosai,

אבל אזכור חכמי המשנה וחכמי התלמוד כולם עליהם השלום זיכרון כולל בתחילת החיבור.

In my hakdamah to Mishneh Torah, I'll introduce all the Tanna'im and Amora'im. And ve'omar, and I'll sketch, I'll, I will trace

כי דיני התורה כולה והיא תורה שבעל פה מקובלים מפלוני ופלוני עד עזרא עד משה רבינו.

So there were sort of two, I don't know, two markers. Why not מפלוני ופלוני עד משה רבינו? So there's something, there's the masorah Moshe Rabbeinu... from Ezra down to Rabbeinu HaKadosh, and that's exactly the same sense that one gets here as well, right? And that's why the Rambam is sort of initially fast forwarding. So the Masorah goes from Moshe Rabbeinu down to Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, again בראשו ובראשונה עזרא הסופר, from Anshei Knesset HaGedolah down to Rabbeinu HaKadosh. It could be, again, this is only half an answer because you'll see obviously why it's only half. It could be that somehow what the Rambam is telling us in Hilchos Mamrim, Perek Beis, Halacha Aleph, that the—I don't know if this is right, but maybe ayen alav that this din that what each generation said then became the starting point for the next generation was only true from Moshe Rabbeinu ad Ezra HaSofer. Why was it true even then? I don't know. That's why this is at best half an answer. And subsequent to Ezra, because again there is some kind of turning point here. Right? That's why both in Sefer HaMitzvos and here when the Rambam mentions the Masorah from Moshe Rabbeinu to Rabbeinu HaKadosh, it's there are two halves. There's Moshe Rabbeinu ad Ezra and there's Ezra ad Rabbeinu HaKadosh. And the din in Perek Beis in Hilchos Mamrim, that's true from post-Anshei Knesset HaGedolah ad Rabbeinu HaKadosh. Is there a tiyufta to that from the fact that I think the Kesef Mishneh says that the makor or one of the mekoros for the Rambam that you don't have to be gadol be'chochmah u've'minyan is from the Gemara of יפתח בדורו כשמואל בדורו. So that's prior to Anshei Knesset HaGedolah obviously. So maybe, maybe ein hachi nami that that is a pircha or maybe, maybe the Rambam holds that the leshonos are lav davka just sort of you know they're sort of representative figures and in reality the din wasn't noheg at at that stage. Ayen alav. The Rambam says וחקרו ודרשו גם הם כמו שעשו קודמיהם. The Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, like all the previous generations also again were me'ayen based on מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהם in the Torah She'biksav. However, what really sort of singles out the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah from previous generations is וגזרו גזירות והתקינו תקנות. Right? Most of the gezeiros and takanos we have go back to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. There were earlier gezeiros. The Gemara in Shabbos tells us that already bimei Shlomo HaMelech there was an issur muktzah. So there were gezeiros earlier. And we know that Shlomo תיקן עירובין ונטילת ידים. It's not that there was nothing before Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, but there was there was very little relatively speaking. Most of the gezeiros, takanos that we have are from that time of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. So maybe, maybe in light of that, maybe one sort of sees a certain omek to a Gemara in Sanhedrin. The Gemara in Sanhedrin chaf aleph amud beis says

תניא רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתנתן תורה על ידו לישראל.

Ezra was really worthy of being the one to be mekabel Torah and to transmit it to Bnei Yisrael. Imaleh kadmo Moshe. But he lost out. Moshe Rabbeinu lived earlier. Right? That's what the word says. Ezra he came too late. He was born too late. But mitzad hagavra who he was, ראוי היה עזרא שתנתן תורה על ידו. So maybe, maybe that correlates with the fact that it was the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah who are responsible for the majority. of gezeiros and takkanos we have that in a certain sense Torah was nitnah al yado. I guess, not that Torah was נתנה על ידו מן השמים lo bashamayim hi, but Torah was nitnah al yado, not not the Torah de'Oraisa, but the ikar of Torah de'Rabbanan takeh was ניתן על ידי על ידי עזרא. In terms of the suggestion, again I don't know if it's correct, that there's a difference between the Masorah from Moshe to Ezra and then from Ezra, the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah, down to Rabbeinu HaKadosh in terms of this din about being cholek on the previous Beis Din. So if it's correct, then the following mareh makom is is relevant. If it's not correct, it's a good Gemara tanach, so not too much harm here. Okay. The pasuk in Melachim talks about how Hakadosh Baruch Hu, how Nevuchadnezzar exiled the people from Eretz Yisrael. And amongst them, he exiled hecharash ve'hamasgeir. So the simple pshat, the literal pshat seems to be that a charash is is an artisan. It means the professional class as well, the artisans as well. Chazal say that charash u'masgeir refer to the Chachamim, that the Chachmei Yisrael were exiled by Nevuchadnezzar as well. So why the Chachmei Yisrael referred to as charash u'masgeir? שבשעה שפותחין נעשו הכל כחרשין. When they open, presumably meaning when they begin to speak, so נעשו הכל כחרשין. Chereshim mistama emphasizing the eino medaber aspect, right? I think. And masgeir is כיון שסוגרין שוב אינן פותחין. What does that mean? When they close something, it's not reopened. So Rashi says

כיון שסוגרים הלכה שהם סגורים בה שאינם יודעים להשיב לשואליהם שוב אין לה פותחן אחרים.

If the Chachamim, that group whom the pasuk refers to as charash u'masgeir, if they were not able to resolve a certain safek, no one else could either, right? כיון שאין שסוגרים, if they would leave something betzarich iyun, so no one else would be able to to resolve it. shuv einan poschin. I don't know, if what I was saying is correct, maybe the way the Rambam understands this Gemara is keivan she'sogrin, when they finalize something, that what was true until and and including this generation is when they finalize something, shuv einan poschin, it wasn't reopened for discussion. It's exactly and maybe this would even be a partial makor for what the Rambam is telling us, that at this stage of the Masorah, what every generation discovered became the starting point for the next generation, ayen sham. Okay, so here about Rabbeinu HaKadosh: וקץ הימים שאחריהם הגיע עד רבנו הקדוש, alav hashalom. והיה יחיד בדורו ומיוחד בזמנו. I have to figure out what the what those two phases are.

והיה האיש שקיבץ בו השם מן המידות החמודות והמעלות שזכה על ידם בעיני אנשי דורו לקרותו רבנו הקדוש.

ve'hayah shmo Yehuda.

והיה בחכמה ובורם מעלה גדול ביותר. כמו שאמרו מימי משה ועד רבי לא ראינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד.

Vehaya betachlis hachasidut, tachlis, the the ultimate in terms of chasidut, anavah, and harachakas hata’anugim. כמו שאמרו עוד משמת רבי בטלה ענווה ויראת חטא. So which of those two implies the harachakas hata’anugim? Yiras chet certainly implies chasidut because chasidut is lifnim mishuras hadin vis-a-vis a mitzvas asei means to do the maximum and vis-a-vis a mitzvas lo sa’asei means to take extra precautions to avoid the mitzvas lo sa’asei. So Ramchal has in Mesilas Yesharim that chasidim make their own seyagim. That the seyagim Chazal made are the seyagim which are hashavim le-kol nefesh. But let’s say that a person sees that for himself he has a certain weak point, he has a certain a certain susceptibility to something, so then he he makes his own he makes his own his own seyag. So that yiras chet certainly implies chasidut. Anavah matches up with anavah. Which of the two matches up with harachakas hata’anugim? The truth is that they both do. In Mesilas Yesharim at the beginning so Ramchal explains how how basically the most chet results from being overly gashmiusdig. And in that sense harachakas hata’anugim is an expression of yiras chet. But the emes is the harachakas hata’anugim is also an expression of anavah. I think Rav Itzele has in the hakdama to Nefesh HaChaim one of these when he’s when he’s giving us a profile of his father, Rav Chaim Volozhiner. So he describes what a what a tremendous anav he was and he says that it’s yadu’a that someone who’s an emesdike anav so all material and physical matters are are not he’s not nimshach at all. He’s not focused on them again obviously a person is is supposed to be focused to maintain health vechulu but not focused on them anything beyond what’s what’s necessary and what’s appropriate. And he says that that’s an expression of anavah. How is that an expression of anavah? How is that an expression of anavah? So there are certainly more crude expressions of ga’avah and that’s generally what we associate it with but when you think about it rabbosai so when a person sort of indulges in ta’anugim just leshem ta’anug not with any it’s not simchas yom tov it’s not oneg Shabbos there’s no no no sort of greater spiritual context to it just סתם לשם לשם תענוג so basically what he’s doing is he’s catering to himself. It’s it’s for me. That that’s what ta’anugim are it’s for me. And mimeila that’s what Rav Itzele tells us that a person who’s an emesdike anav so the madreigos of anavah meaning not not just the anavah of sort of you know avoiding the sur meira of arrogance and conceit vechulu and and the kochi ve’otzem yadi but but the emesdike anav. there can't be there can't be ta'anug hamiddos. So the hafskas ta'anugim is actually an expression of of both, of both of the yiras cheit as well as the anavah.

והיה צח לשון יותר מכל אדם ומופלג מהם בלשון העברית.

So clearly the the Rambam is only highlighting about Rabbeinu Hakadosh those qualities which were relevant to the pivotal role that he played in the history of Torah she-ba'al peh. Mistama Rabbeinu Hakadosh was a certain height, Rambam doesn't tell us what his height was, mistama he had a certain eye color, the Rambam doesn't tell us that either. It's not it's not relevant. But the fact that he was צח לשון יותר מכל אדם, his eloquence surpassed that of all people, ומופלג מהם בלשון העברית and his command of Loshon Hakodesh he just by far out-distanced everyone.

עד שהחכמים עליהם השלום היו לומדים פירוש מה שנסתפק להם ממילות המקרא מדיבור עבדיו ומשרתיו.

Right, Chazal—the where's the Gemara in Berachos? That the Chazal didn't know what certain words meant and then they heard amasei d'rebi using using the the word. So if if it rubbed off even on the even on the the domestic help, so this is something which is relevant to the historical role that Rabbeinu Hakadosh played. The need to express divrei Torah as clearly and eloquently and effectively as possible. It's interesting in this context the Rambam also has in hakdama to Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, again when he's telling us about his his plans for Mishneh Torah, he said v'chein ra'isi—I've also seen fit shelo achabrehu—this chibur of the Mishneh Torah that that I intend, שלא אחבר בו בלשון ספרי הנבואה. I'm not going to use Loshon Hakodesh from from Tanach, Biblical Hebrew,

לפי שהלשון ההוא קצר היום בידינו מהשלים ענייני הדינים בו—the

vocabulary is not there's not enough of a vocabulary for everything we have to talk about today. וכן לא אחבר בלשון התלמוד. I'm not going to to author to write to compose Mishneh Torah in Aramaic, לפי שלא יבינוהו מאנשי אומתנו היום כי אם יחידים—who's gonna understand if I write it all in Aramaic, he says you know, so who's gonna understand Mishneh Torah? ומילות רבות ממנו זרות וקשות אפילו לבקיאים בתלמוד. And to make full use of Aramaic, so then even those who who know how to learn Gemara, but there are hard words. אבל אחברהו בלשון המשנה כדי שיקל זה לרוב האנשים. But I'll write with the in Mishnaic Hebrew. So you see how much thought the Rambam gave in in writing Mishneh Torah to the language and that's sort of reflected in that he sees that one of the qualities Rabbeinu Hakadosh was endowed with in order to fulfill his historical task was being צח לשון יותר מכל אדם. והיה לו עושר והרחבה. He was fabulously wealthy. עד כדי שאמרו עליו ahorairei d'rebi the stable boy of Rebi הוה עתיר משבור מלכא was richer than the king. ולכן העביד רווחה לאנשי החכמה ומבקשיה. So he was able to support them, the anshei hachochmah,

וריבץ תורה בישראל ואסף את דברי הקבלה והמאמרים שנאמרו מימות משה רבינו עד ימיו. והיה הוא עצמו מן המקבלים.

Rabbeinu Hakadosh was one of the links in the mesorah. Ki hu kibel—now here the Rambam fills in what we said before that the Rambam had fast-forwarded and skipped. Ki hu kibel mi-Shimon aviv—and Shimon, who in turn mi-Gamliel aviv, in turn miShimon aviv, in turn miGamliel aviv, in turn miShimon aviv, in turn miGamliel aviv. Right, that’s why in our Mishnah HaShalem it’s התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן. There were two Rabban Gamliels, there’s a grandfather and grandson Rabban Gamliel. So the Mishnah is identifying which Rabban Gamliel we’re talking about, we’re talking about Rabban Gamliel HaZaken.

משמעון אביו מהלל אביו משמעיה ואבטליון אבותיו מיהודה בן טבאי ושמעון בן שטח מיהושע בן פרחיה ונתאי הארבלי מיוסי בן יועזר ויוסי בן יוחנן מאנטיגנוס איש סוכו משמעון הצדיק מעזרא שהרי הוא משיירי כנסת הגדולה. ומעזרא מברוך בן נריה רבו ומברוך נריה מירמיה וכן קיבל ירמיה בלי ספק ממי שקדם לו מן הנביאים

navi miNavi

עד הזקנים שקיבלו מיהושע ממשה. ומי שאסף את כל השיטות והמאמרים והחל בחיבור המשנה שהיא כוללת פירוש כל המצוות הכתובות בתורה.

So the Mishnah, the Rambam says, is the embodiment of Torah SheBa'al Peh. Again, Torah SheBa'al Peh means the halachot which tell us, which instruct us how to fulfill the mitzvot haktuvot baTorah. So the Mishnah is the embodiment of that. מהן, some of the dinim in the Mishnah are

קבלות מקובלות ממשה עליו השלום. ומהן הלכות שנלמדו בדרך העיון ואין בהן מחלוקת.

And others were the dinim as we mentioned before, which were discovered through the doros.

ומהן הלכות שנפלה בהן מחלוקת בין המעיינים וקבעו כפי מחלוקתם פלוני אמר כך ופלוני אמר כך. ואפילו אם יחיד חולק על רבים קבע דברי היחיד ודברי הרבים ועשה כך מחמת כמה עניינים מועילים מאוד שהזכירם במשנה בעדיות

v'ani azkiram. We'll talk about that later, says the Rambam. אך לאחר יסוד גדול שראיתי להזכיר כאן. Okay, let's continue here a little bit rabosai. What comes now is very, very yesodistik.

והוא, כי יש לטוען לטעון מאחר שפירושי התורה הם כפי היסוד שהזכרנו מקובלים ממשה כמו שאמרו על פיהם כל התורה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני, אם כן מה הן אלו ההלכות המיוחדות שאומרים בהן שהן הלכה למשה מסיני?

Given that so much of Torah is directly miMoshe MiSinai, why do we find only in a fraction of cases that Chazal refer to something as הלכה למשה מסיני? The Rambam is soon going to list the הלכות למשה מסיני. But given that כל התורה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני, it’s clear that what we received from Moshe Rabbeinu is much greater, much more voluminous than what Chazal refer to as

הלכה למשה מסיני. אם כן מה הן אלו ההלכות המיוחדות שאומרים בהן שהן הלכה למשה מסיני? הנה זה יסוד ראוי שתשגיח עליו. והוא, שהפירושים המקובלים ממשה אין בהם מחלוקת בשום פנים. שהרי עד עתה לא מצאנו מחלוקת שאירעה בזמן מן הזמנים ממשה עד רב אשי בין שום אחד מן החכמים.

There never has been a machlokes in any generation

שיאמר אחד מהם שמי שסימא עין אדם מסמין את עינו לפי שאמר השם עין בעין.

No one thinks that ayin tachat ayin is literal. No one thinks that halacha lema'aseh, the Torah intended ayin tachat ayin literal, other than the enlightened people in Saudi Arabia. But leaving them aside, no one else, no one else ever, ever thought that ayin be'ayin is literal. ואמר האחר כופר בלבד. There was never a machlokes.

ולא מצאנו גם כן מחלוקת במה שאמר השם פרי עץ הדר שיאמר האחד שהוא אתרוג והאחר שהוא החבוש או הרימון או זולת זה.

There's never been a question identifying that pri etz hadar refers to an esrog. No one has ever suggested that it refers to any other fruit other than the esrog. Similarly,

ולא מצאנו גם כן מחלוקת בעץ עבות שהוא ההדס. ולא מצאנו מחלוקת באמרו ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון כפות תמרים שהוא כופר.

Rambam goes on to give only a few more minutes on this. Let's keep going.

ולא באמרו ובת איש כהן כי תחל לזנות את אביה היא מחללת באש תשרף שהעונש הזה אינו מוטל עליה אלא אם כן היתה אשת איש דוקא.

No one thinks that the pasuk in Parshas Emor about a bas ish kohen refers to a penuyah.

וכן מה שעונש יתלה במי שלא נמצאו לו בתולים שתסקל לא שמענו חולק ממשה ועד עתה בזה כי אין זה אלא אם כן היתה אשת איש והיתה על כך הוכחה שלאחר קידושין זינתה בעדים והתראה. וכל כיוצא בזה בכל המצוות אין מחלוקת בהן לפי שכולם הם פירושים מקובלים ממשה.

That's the Rambam's famous phrase, peirushim mikubalim.

ועליהם ועל שכמותם אמרו כל התורה נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה מסיני. אבל אף על פי שהם מקובלים ואין מחלוקת בהם ממסורת הכתובים המוסכמים ניתן לדרוש את הפירושים בדרכי המידות והאסמכתאות וההוראות והרמזים המונחים במקרא.

So the Rambam says peirushim mikubalim, meaning when Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Har Sinai and he taught, as the Baraisa in Masechet Eruvin depicts, and he taught Torah, so he said pri etz hadar is an esrog and he said that anaf etz avos is a hadas. It's from Moshe MiSinai. נאמרו כללותיה ופרטותיה מסיני. But additionally, it's possible to then see within the Torah she-b'chsav how we can figure that out as well. We didn't need to discover that on our own, but we can bridge what Moshe Rabbeinu told us with the Torah she-b'chsav. And that's what the whole Sugya in Lulav Hagazul says. How do you know that pri etz hadar is an esrog? הדר באילנו משנה לשנה, etc. Ayin tachat ayin, we didn't have to figure out that it means mamon. Moshe Rabbeinu came down and said Ayin tachat ayin means you pay demei ayin. But that notwithstanding, it's also nittan from within the Torah she-b'chsav with מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן to figure out how we could have arrived at that conclusion on our own. And that's true for the whole category, the whole class of peirushim mikubalim. By contrast the Rambam goes on to say, I'm skipping a bit,

וכל הלכה שאין לה רמז במקרא ואין לה אסמכתא ואי אפשר לדורשה באיזו מידה על אותה בלבד אומרים הלכה למשה מסיני.

The term הלכה למשה מסיני is reserved for those things Moshe Rabbeinu told us that you cannot find in the Chumash. They're not there in the Chumash.

אחד עשר יום שבין נידה לנידה, גוד לבוד דופן עקומה.

There is no hint to these in Chumash. הלכה למשה מסיני means purely הלכה למשה מסיני as opposed to a peirush mikubal from Moshe Rabbeinu be-Har Sinai that can also, and it's an integral part of Mitzvas Talmud Torah to do this, that can also be rediscovered, that you can also bridge the Torah she-b'chsav and the Torah she-b'al peh. So הלכה למשה מסיני means that there's no remez in Chumash for it, mashe-ein-kein all the peirushim mikubalim have a remez in Chumash. Why would Hashem give certain halachos but a hint in the Torah and some without? I don't know. Fine. So that's a very clear clear distinction. We'll bli neder next week im yirtzeh Hashem we'll talk about that some more also. But here for now let's just raise the following question. Go back again to when the Rambam began his answer, right? So he says in light of what we've been talking about that every mitzvah came with peirushim mikubalim, right? Every mitzvah came with the fact Masechet Sukkah came with the fact that schach has to be from gidulei karka and the analogue to that by every mitzvah, so what is this rather limited class of הלכה למשה מסיני? Right, the Rambam posed that question. Now how did he begin, what's the answer after we make our way through to the end? That I mean, that's true, but that's true and it's very fundamental and it's very important to know, but l'chora it's got nothing to do with this question, no? Do you hear rabosai? You with me? The question which the Rambam raised is given the abundance of masoras that we have from Moshe Rabbeinu at Sinai, so what is it that sort of characterizes this very select group of הלכה למשה מסיני? It seems when we get to the end of the Rambam's answer that the Rambam says the distinction is הלכה למשה מסיני means it's purely למשה מסיני. It's not in Chumash. It's not in Chumash. Don't bother looking for it because it's not there. And that's what he quotes the Gemara in Sukkah. The Gemara in Sukkah seems to quote a pasuk for shiurim, she'shiur kezayis, she'shiur k'rimon, she'shiur k'grogres, and the Gemara says, what do you mean a pasuk? It's הלכה למשה מסיני. And the Gemara says, yeah, it's only an asmachta b'alma. It's not a real pasuk. So given that that's his answer, so why does he mention the fact that why does he mention the fact that perushim hamikubalim there's no machlokes? Do you hear the kasha rabosai? Yeah? Yes, no? Repeat it again. Yeah. There are countless traditions that go back to Moshe Rabbeinu MiSinai, far far more numerous than those Chazal refer to as הלכה למשה מסיני. So the Rambam says, so how do you understand that? Why do Chazal refer to nisuch hamayim as הלכה למשה מסיני and they never refer to ayin tachas ayin as הלכה למשה מסיני? But עין תחת עין ממון also go back to Moshe Rabbeinu MiSinai. So why is this הלכה למשה מסיני? Why is this designated, why is this labeled הלכה למשה מסיני and that's not labeled an הלכה למשה מסיני? That's the Rambam's question. The Rambam's answer seems to be pretty clearly that what הלכה למשה מסיני means is that it's purely הלכה למשה מסיני. It's nowhere else. It's only that oral tradition הלכה למשה מסיני. You cannot find it, you cannot detect it, you cannot discover it anywhere else. You can look high and low in the Chumash and and you won't find אחד עשר יום בין נדה לנדה. You you won't find those those dinim which are are referred to as הלכה למשה מסיני. Mah she'kein perushim hamikubalim, they're they're also from Moshe Rabbeinu MiSinai, but those you can find with מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן you can find, you can find it in the in the Chumash as well. You can find, you can, you can, you can reason that ayin tachas ayin can't be intended literally and you can prove that pri etz hadar again מתוך התורה שבכתב ובמידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן means esrog. Again, there was no suspense to it because Moshe Rabbeinu came down from Har Sinai and told us what it was. That's why whenever you have sugyas in the Gemara, so some sugyas the the sometimes the Gemara discovers a new din and sometimes the Gemara is engaging in what the Rambam's talking about where we're sort of connecting, we're bridging what the conclusion is that we already know with the pasuk. So for instance, let's say the famous Gemara in Yuma about what's the makor in the Torah that pikuach nefesh is docheh? So the Gemara gives a few mekoros from the Tannaim and the Gemara keeps asking, well that only tells you vadai sakana, what about safek? Okay, so maybe the din is only that vadai sakana is docheh? So it's clear that the Gemara knows what the din is. The Gemara knows what the din is. The Gemara is not establishing the din. The Gemara is looking to rediscover. So perushim hamikubalim are not purely למשה מסיני. That's why we don't use the term הלכה למשה מסיני. That's the distinction. Okay, given that that's the distinction that the Rambam is bringing out here, so why is he emphasizing, re-emphasizing again he said it once before, right? When we said we'd come back to it. He had said after introducing us to Rebbe, he said ואסף את דברי הקבלה והמאמרים והמחלוקת no that's not the line, I lost it, whatever he said it somewhere before, sorry. But why does the Rambam mention, begin his answer by saying that there's never been a machlokes about perushim hamikubalim? That's true, but it's not part of the answer, is it? The answer just seems to be what we just reviewed. Okay, so it’s late. Maybe next Thursday we’ll pick up with this kasha. So I was looking at the two things about the Rambam is anavah and shiflus. Okay, so you have instead of chasidus you have anavah and shiflus. Okay. So I had chasidus then anavah and shiflus. So I had I have chasidus, anavah, and shiflus. And then I had chasidus then anavah and shiflus. Shiflus haruach. Okay. Let me... So I had chasidus then anavah then shiflus. Or you had chasidus, and then I have anavah and shiflus. Shiflus haruach. Okay. So instead of chasidus, I have anavah and shiflus. And instead of chasidus you have shiflus haruach. Is there a way we can check? Yeah, definitely. Usually they they tell you when there are differences. I got this from a Bar-Ilan. I don't know. I mean, when I study the Rambam, it's easier to understand this translation because it's not so different. Shiflus haruach va-anavah. Rambam says v'od me'od hashafala is better, to be extremely humble so to speak. I think chasidus is two distinct things versus this is kind of one joint thing. Yeah, I'm guessing I'll change my mind. Thank you.