Hakdama 9

But we left off with the kasha that the Rambam asks given as Chazal tell us that כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן ופרטותיהן מסיני. So there's a preponderance of perushim mikubalim miSinai, so what does the term halacha l'Moshe miSinai denote when it's used rather sparingly? So seemingly, ultimately the Rambam's answer to that is that the difference between what's categorized as halacha l'Moshe miSinai from the again, from that vast group of klalos uphratos is that the klalos uphratos even though they were ne'emru l'Moshe miSinai, they're not exclusively בעל פה למשה מסיני. They can also be discovered within the posuk. Within the posuk one can prove and establish that ayin tachas ayin is mamon. From within the psukim one can also establish that pri etz hadar is is an esrog vechulu. Mah she'ein kein, there is nothing in the Torah that tells you that tefillin have to be black. You cannot you cannot find it you cannot find it there. And what the phrase halacha l'Moshe miSinai means is it's purely halacha l'Moshe miSinai. It's not encoded, not hinted at in any form or fashion in in the Torah she'bichsav. Okay, so that's the answer, a very clear-cut distinction. So the kasha we left off with is so why is it that when the Rambam begins the answer, he says והוא שהפירושים המקובלים ממשה אין בהם מחלוקת בשום פנים. How is that pertinent to the distinction that he's about to draw? I think that's the kasha with which we left off. Let's skip a little bit. I think the Rambam writes in a teshuva that it's impossible for someone at any one moment to be remembering all of Shas. So the Rambam over here, he obviously didn't have time to think about this again and again. So he says, I'm listing what comes what occurs to me at this moment. He says maybe they're all the halacha l'Moshe miSinais, maybe it's most of them. He would have had to spend more time. The Rambam was a he was a busy person, he didn't have for this he didn't have he didn't have the time. So after the Rambam has his list of halacha l'Moshe miSinais, so then the Rambam has a summation where he talks about that there are five types of dinim, five types of halachos. You see where that is, rabbosai? What page in the in that... page mem. In in which... source? What where's it start with? I don't know, in this translation it's venimtza l'fi hayesodos. What what's the... על פי עיקרים אלה. Mashu kayotzei b'zeh.

ונמצא לפי היסודות אשר הקדמנו שחלקי הדינים המצויים בתורה הם חמישה חלקים.

You can categorize, you can classify all dinim in in five under five headings.

החלק הראשון הפירושים המקובלים ממשה. ממשה שיש להם רמז בכתוב או שאפשר לדרשם באיזו מידה ובזה אין מחלוקת כלל אלא שיאמר אדם כך קיבלתי יתבטל כל דיבור.

Good.

והחלק השני הם הדינים שנאמר עליהם שהם הלכה למשה מסיני ואין בראיות עליהם כמו שהזכרנו ובזה גם כן אין חולק בהם.

So the Rambam says, okay, you can't you don't argue on a peirush hamikubal. If Ravina says something in sevara, so Rav Ashi can push back. If Ravina says something מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, so Rav Ashi can say, no, I think that when you apply the מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, you'll come to a different to a different conclusion. You can't push back at what Moshe Rabbeinu transmits mi'pi hagevura. So, but the Rambam says it differently. The Rambam says it differently. The first one, and I think I once looked at the various translations, I think the difference is is clearly in the original because I think you have it in all the translations, but if if that's wrong, please correct me. The first one, by peirushim mikubalim, the Rambam says בזה אין מחלוקת כלל. By the second one, he says ובזה גם כן אין חולק בהם. He doesn't have that klal. But what what's your nusach? Mine says ואלו אין בהם מחלוקת לעולם, the other one says ואלו גם כן ממה שאין בהם מחלוקת. Right, le'olam, right? Klal or le'olam. The Rambam has that extra word by by the category of peirushim mikubalim that he doesn't have by הלכה למשה מסיני. So what's the pshat there? So lichora, it is as follows. When the Rambam says there's no machlokes on הלכה למשה מסיני, there seem to be an awful lot of gemaras against that. So for instance, let's say there's a din of aravah she'be'mikdash. In addition to the aravah that we have as part of our dalet minim, so there's another din of aravah she'be'mikdash which they would זוקפין על גבי המזבח וכו. That din of aravah she'be'mikdash, what's the makor for it? It's a machlokes between Abba Shaul, I think it's Abba Shaul and the chachamim. Abba Shaul says ערבי נחל לשון רבים, that ערבי נחל לשון רבים is not telling us or not only telling us that that we have to two aravos, but it's telling us that there's a din of aravah she'be'lulav and there's a din of aravah she'be'mikdash. And the chachamim say no, aravah she'be'mikdash has no pasuk, it's הלכה למשה מסיני. אחת עשרה יום בין נידה לנידה. So if a woman has a re'iya within the normal time of her cycle, it's a re'iyas niddos. If it's belo es niddosah, the Torah says, so then it's a re'iyas zivos. So how long how long the spacing at what point is it still too early for it to be es niddosah again? So there's a din of אחת עשרה יום בין נידה לנידה. If it happens within those achas esrei yom, so then that's belo es niddosah. It's too soon for it to be another re'iyas niddah. What's the makor for that din? Right, it's a machlokes whether it's הלכה למשה מסיני or whether it's a pasuk. So why does the Rambam say there's no machlokes on הלכה למשה מסיני? There's there's an awful lot of machlokos in them. So there's a famous gemara in Temurah, you're all familiar with it. Gufa. אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, this is tet-zayin amud aleph, I mean it was gufa so it was earlier, but gufa.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, שלשת אלפים הלכות נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה.

Later the gemara says no, maybe it was a different amount. Not that it was three thousand halachos. אמר ליה ליהושע שאל. אמר להם lo bashamayim hi. אמר... Later the Gemara says it wasn't three thousand, but it was

נשתכחו ממנו שלש מאות הלכות ונולדו לו שבע מאות ספיקות ועמדו כל ישראל להורגו. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לומר לך אי אפשר

because lo bashamayim hi. I can't tell you. Lech vesodein bemilchamah. So something was forgotten, three thousand, three hundred, some significant number of, in quotation marks, halachos were forgotten. Then the Gemara says also famously, bemasnisa shana

אלף ושבע מאות קלין וחמורין וגזירות שוות ודקדוקי סופרים נשתכחו בימי אבלו של משה.

1,700 again altogether kal vachomer, kalin vachamurin, gezeirah shavah, didukei sofrim etcetera. And amar Rabbi Abba, but here the Gemara says that

אמר רבי אבא אף על פי כן החזירן עתניאל בן קנז מתוך פלפולו.

So those were recovered. But the 300 or the 3,000 were not recovered. So the peshatus is that what halachos means in this context, it doesn't always mean this, but it sometimes means this, and lichora that's what it means in this context, means הלכה למשה מסיני. There was a degree of shichchah with regard to הלכה למשה מסיני. But that's what the Gemara says, that there was an element of shichchah with regard to הלכה למשה מסיני. But there wasn't ever shichchah by peirushim mekubbalim. When the Rambam says, hear this my friends, when the Rambam says again by peirushim mekubbalim, the Rambam said אין בה מחלוקת כלל אין בה מחלוקת לעולם. By הלכה למשה מסיני he says ein cholek aleihem. By הלכה למשה מסיני what it means is like this. If you come and you say שמעתי מרבותי ששמעו מרבותיהם ששמעו מרבותיהם that aravah she-be-Mikdash is הלכה למשה מסיני, there's no machlokes in the sense that you can't engage in debate. There's nothing to debate. Abba Shaul can't ask a kasha on that. You can say that lo kibbalti and that I think it's a pasuk, it's a derashah of arvei nachal, but you can't, if a chakham comes and says I think sevara such and such or I think על פי מדה שהתורה lo kibbalti me-rabosai. This was not part of what was taught explicitly to Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, or at least not told to him to transmit. I think such and such, so that's nitpas in machlokes, so you can argue. You can say no, what you're saying isn't mistaver and I'll bring you a rayah if I can and I'll say a better sevara and I'll tell you why על פי מדה שהתורה נדרשת בהם you should come to a different conclusion. It's nitpas in machlokes. It's nitpas in machlokes. הלכה למשה מסיני is not nitpas in machlokes in the sense that you can't, if someone says he has a kabbalah of aravah she-be-Mikdash as הלכה למשה מסיני, there's nothing to engage him on. On the other hand, you can't accept that kabbalah because a kabbalah has to be from one's rebbe. It's not, the kabbalah is vertical. It's not horizontal. So Abba Shaul can't be mekabbel that kabbalah. He can just say I don't have that kabbalah and I think it's this. But it's not nitpas in machlokes. There's no discussion, there's no debate in the Beis Medrash over it. So that when the Rambam says ein bahem cholek means it's not nitpas to argue about. You can't debate it. It's not nitan milchamto shel Torah shakla ve-tarya. But that's the extent of it. But there is machlokes in the sense that the same way there was shichchah and some were forgotten entirely, there's also shichchah in terms of some whether are they הלכה למשה מסיני or are they pesukim. מה שאין כן by peirushim mekubbalim, what distinguishes peirushim mekubbalim is that by peirushim mekubbalim there never was shichchah. There isn't a single peirush hamkubbal that was ever forgotten. There isn't a single peirush hamkubbal that was ever forgotten. You can understand what otherwise is a kushya chamura me'od in the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim. Take a look in the Hakdama l'Perek Chelek where the Rambam has the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim and you take a look at the Yesod haShemini. Okay, so it's the Hakdama l'Perek Chelek, haYesod haShemini. היות התורה מן השמים. Again, for each of the the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so the Rambam begins, he has a word or a phrase that that encapsulates the yesod and then he he elaborates it, he fleshes it out. So, haYesod haShemini, היות התורה מן השמים. Okay, now, V'hu, what what's the elaboration?

שנאמין כי כל התורה הזאת הנתונה על ידי משה רבינו עליו השלום שהיא כולה מפי הגבורה כלומר שהגיעה אליו כולה מאת השם יתברך בעניין שנקרא על דרך השאלה על דרך השאלה

excuse me

דיבור ואין ידוע איך הגיעה אליו הוא משה עליו השלום שהגיעה אליו דכי הוא היה כמי סופר שקוראים לו והוא כותב כל מאורעות הימים הסיפורים והמצוות ולפיכך נקרא מחוקק ואין הפרש בין ובני חם כוש ומצרים ושם אשתו מהיטבאל ותמנע הייתה פילגש ובין אנכי השם אלוקיך ושמע ישראל כי הכל מפי הגבורה והכל תורת השם תמימה טהורה וקדושה אמת וזה שאומר וזה שאומר שכמו אלו הפסוקים והסיפורים משה סיפרם מדעתו הנה הוא אצל חכמינו ונביאינו כופר ומגלה פנים יותר מכל הכופרים לפי שחשב שיש בתורה לב וקליפה.

Then the Rambam continues, I'm skipping a few lines,

וכמו כן פירוש התורה המקובל גם כן מפי הגבורה וזה שאנו עושים היום מתבנית הסוכה ולולב ושופר וציצית ותפילין וזולתם הוא בעצמו התבנית אשר אמר השם יתברך למשה והוא אמר לנו והוא נאמן בשליחותו.

I think there's actually in in the the other translations a phrase that wasn't here. Can can you read the beginning of the Yesod as as you have it there, please?

והוא תורה מן השמים והוא להאמין שכל תורה זאת המצויה בידינו היום הזה.

Oh, okay. המצויה בידינו היום הזה. Again here it's just compressed into kol haTorah ha'zos, but המצויה בידינו היום הזה היא התורה הנתונה למשה. So so what's glaring in terms of what the Rambam omits, so the Rambam says the Yesod haShemini of Torah min haShamayim, Torah she'biktav and Torah she'ba'al peh, right? It encompasses both. Not only is תורה שבכתב מן השמים, Torah she'ba'al peh is also min haShamayim. And and and the Rambam gives what what does Torah she'ba'al peh mean? So the Rambam says וכמו כן פירוש התורה המקובל, the perushim hamikubalim. Why doesn't the Rambam mention halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai? That's also min haShamayim. So why doesn't he mention it here? It's it's no less min haShamayim than Torah she'biktav and and perushim mikubalim. Why doesn't he mention it? So the answer is, and and hear this, this is very, very important, the Yesod haShemini when we say Torah min haShamayim, it doesn't just mean that historically there was a Ma'amad Har Sinai where HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah. It obviously means that, but it means much more than that. It means that that Torah that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave min haShamayim is be'yadeinu hayom in its entirety. That's what the Yesod haShemini is. The Yesod haShemini is not only so many millennia ago there was a Ma'amad Har Sinai where HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave a Torah. No, HaKadosh Baruch Hu gave a תורה נצחית מן השמים. What's the nitzchiyut if it's lost? There's no nitzchiyus if it's lost. When the Rambam says Torah min hashamayim, he means that there's a Torah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave a תורה נצחית מן השמים whose nitzchiyus—and again, nitzchiyus of Torah means that we have it—is assured. Ah, so that's why the Rambam doesn't mention הלכה למשה מסיני. Because there was shichacha. The Gemara in Temurah, there was shichacha on הלכה למשה מסיני. Avada, avada, it's no less min hashamayim in terms of historically, but it is different in that what the Rambam is talking about is Torah min hashamayim means תורה נצחית מן השמים which hasn't been lost and which will never be lost.

לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך מעתה ועד עולם.

So that said about the Torah shebichsav, it's said about the Torah sheba'al peh. It wasn't said about הלכה למשה מסיני. Why? I don't know. For whatever reason, for whatever reason Hakadosh Baruch Hu operated with that distinction. Oh, so kumteise and that's why heyosa the yesod hashmini is not just saying historically there was a Ma'amad Har Sinai where Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us the Torah, the yesod hashmini is saying hamatzui beyadeinu hayom. That the Torah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave so many thousands of years ago is the Torah we have now and that's what the Rambam is emphasizing again by the Torah sheba'al peh. That if Moshe Rabbeinu walked into our sukkah, he would recognize our sukkah. I don't know if he'd recognize all the posters, but he would recognize the sukkah. He'd recognize the sukkah. And when he saw a lulav and he saw us and he saw our tzitzis, he would recognize everything. Nothing has changed because that's what Torah min hashamayim means, what the yesod of Torah min hashamayim is is that the Torah nitzchis remains beyadeinu. And that's why the Rambam doesn't mention הלכה למשה מסיני. Avada, avada, it's of course min hashamayim, but it's not with that guarantee of לא ימושו מפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך עד עולם. V'hara'aya, the Gemara in Temurah. Oh, just a second. Now you come back to our original kasha. So we said like this: the Rambam asks what's the difference heyosa that kol hamitzvos

מה עניין שמיטה אצל הר סיני אלא לומר לך שמה שמיטה כללותיה ופרטותיה מהר סיני אף כל המצוות כללותיהן ופרטותיהן מהר סיני.

So what do we reserve the lashon הלכה למשה מסיני for? Why is הלכה למשה מסיני used so sparingly? So the answer is there's really two differences between perushim mikubalim and הלכה למשה מסיני. One difference between perushim mikubalim and הלכה למשה מסיני is the fact that perushim mikubalim is אין בהם מחלוקת כלל. That's difference number one. אין בהם מחלוקת כלל. Again, אין בהם מחלוקת כלל means that it can't be, it never happened that someone said no, there is no perush mikubal of ayin tachas ayin that it's mammon. It never happened. It never happened, it never will happen amongst chachmei hamasora. What other people say is not ba bar hacheshbon obviously. It never happened, it never will happen. That's difference number one. Meaning that what Hakadosh Baruch Hu assured is that the Torah shebichsav, again, which to be projected accurately has to be accompanied by the Torah sheba'al peh, that Hakadosh Baruch Hu assured that, that remains nitzchi. And therefore, again, that's what it means that the Torah sheba'al peh is that which is misyaches to the Torah shebichsav and was never ever and never ever will be forgotten. Mah she'ein ken, הלכה למשה מסיני which isn't misyaches to the Torah shebichsav. There's no pasuk, there's no remez, there's no tag in a Sefer Torah which hints to tefillin meruba'os, which hints to tefillin shchoros. So there, okay. Just so happens that those הלכה למשה מסיני we do have, but whatever the הלכה למשה מסיני, whatever those 300 or 3000 were, so that's different. What's Rabbi Meisels medayek from hamatzui beyadeinu hayom? Meaning isn't all that saying that everything we have today was given from Hashem? That is is that also saying that we have everything? Meaning how does Rabbi Meisels say that hamatzui beyadeinu hayom means that we have everything as opposed to just everything that we have still? What the words mean, hamatzui beyadeinu hayom means the is the Torah min Hashamayim, is the Torah min Hashamayim לא פחות ולא יותר. We don't have more, we don't have less. The Torah Hamtzi b'yadeinu hayom is the Torah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave min Hashamayim. He says that the Torah Hamtzi b'yadeinu hayom is כולם מפי הגבורה, but it could be that there were other things also that were mi pi ha'gevura that we don't have. Again, I don't think that's what the words mean and certainly the omission of Halacha L'moshe Misinai is proof positive that it means this way. Okay, let's go weiter. Okay, so we skipped a little bit here to get to where the Rambam had his summation of the five dinim. There's one confusing point here as follows. Again, when the Rambam in this passage where the Rambam is explaining the difference between when we or what Chazal reserve the term of Halacha L'moshe Misinai for, so he lists after listing several examples of peirushim mekubalim, if you'll see again this will be in all the translations because he uses the leshonos from Chazal: וזהו ענין אמרם כללותיה ופרטותיה. Again, that's what's in all translations.

כלומר העניינים שתראה אותנו דורשים אותם בכלל ופרט וכן בשלש עשרה מדות הם מקובלים ממשה מסיני. אלא שאף על פי שהם מקובלים ממשה לא נאמר בהן הלכה למשה מסיני שהרי אין אנו אומרים פרי עץ הדר הוא אתרוג הלכה למשה מסיני או חובל בחבירו משלם ממון הלכה למשה מסיני הואיל והוקדם לנו יסוד שהפירושים כולם ממשה ויש להם כמו שאמרנו רמזים במקרא או שנדרשים באופן מאופני הלימוד כמו שאמרנו. וכל הלכה—okay,

here comes the part which is a little bit

confusing—וכל הלכה שאין לה רמז במקרא ואין לה אסמכתא ואי אפשר לדרשה באיזו מדה על אותה בלבד אומרים הלכה למשה מסיני.

Okay, again, so the main point we understand, but show that just the detail here which is confusing is the Rambam says Halacha L'moshe Misinai doesn't have an asmachta, right? וכל הלכה שאין לה רמז במקרא ואין לה אסמכתא. Is it the same in the other translations? V'ein lo semach. Semach. Okay, actually maybe that will help.

ואי אפשר לדרשה באיזו מדה על אותה בלבד אומרים הלכה למשה מסיני. ולכן כשאמרנו שיעורין הלכה למשה מסיני הקשו על זה ואמרו היך קאמר עליהם שהם הלכה למשה מסיני הלא תראה שהשיעורין רמוזים בפסוק? ואמרו ארץ חטה ושעורה.

And the Rambam says what I'm telling you is a meforesh Gemara because when the Gemara says that שיעורין הלכה למשה מסיני, the Gemara pushes back and says no, you find a remez in the pasuk of eretz chittah u'se'orah.

ארץ שכל כולה שיעורין. והייתה התשובה בזה שהם הלכה למשה מסיני ואין להם מקור לדרשם ממנו באיזו מדה ואין רמז עליהם בכל התורה אלא שהסמיכום לאותו פסוק כעין סימן כדי שידעו אותם ויזכרום אך אין זה מענין הכתוב וזהו ענין אמרם קרא אסמכתא בעלמא.

So he just said initially that it doesn't have asmachta, and now he says no, you will find an asmachta for Halacha L'moshe Misinai. So l'chora it's clear, you hear the kasha and the teirutz, yeah? Yes, no? So l'chora it's clear that the Rambam, again, maybe it's better, the first time you have smach and the second time asmachta, it's a clearer translation. It's clear that the Rambam again means asmachta in two different ways. Asmachta, the first time he uses it when he says ein lo asmachta, it means it has no support in the pasuk. It has no support in the pasuk. Sometimes we refer to what's darshened as an asmachta. So for instance, I think we discussed once the Gemara in Berachos says a lashon that כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו אקרא דלא תסור we talked about this Gemara in Yud Tes Amud Beis maybe not.

כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו אקרא דלא תסור כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו אקרא דלא תסור

which for the Rambam doesn't mean an asmachta. It means that all DeRabbanans, whether it's gezeiros, takanos, or minhagos, that they're all rooted in, they're all anchored in, they all rest upon the pasuk of Lo Tasur. But it means drasha gemura. So asmachinu in that context, כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו אקרא דלא תסור means they rest, they rely upon, literally they lean upon, right? They lean upon the pasuk of Lo Tasur in the sense that Lo Tasur is the makor for kol milei DeRabbanan again in the sense of gezeiros, takanos, and uminhagos. Then you also find a lashon of asmachta where asmachta means that it's that sort of the retention of this din. There's a mnemonic device which we can use, this we can use this pasuk as a mnemonic device to remember shiurim. It's not what the pasuk is talking about. It's not implied in the pasuk. The pasuk doesn't mean it on any level whatsoever, but it serves as a mnemonic device. It's an asmachta in the sense that it's a mnemonic device. Ayin and Alef, maybe do a word search and see whether this holds true, that when it's used in the second sense, it will say asmachta be'alma. And that's what the be'alma means is it's not really an asmachta, it's an asmachta be'alma meaning again a real asmachta such as כל מילי דרבנן אסמכינהו אקרא דלא תסור. The pasuk really means that. It leans on the pasuk, it rests on the pasuk in the sense that Lo Tasur is the makor for kol milei DeRabbanan again in the sense of gezeiros, takanos, and uminhagos. But then asmachta be'alma, again that be'alma is sort of dismissive, right? Be'alma, asmachta be'alma means no, it's not what the pasuk means on any level whatsoever. v'ani, okay so then the Rambam and then he reinforces this double usage of asmachta or at least one of the two of the double usage when he introduces his list of halacha leMoshe miSinai.

ואני אמנה לפניך כאן את רוב הדינים שאמרו בהן הלכה למשה מסיני ואפשר שהם כולם שיתבאר לך כי נכון מה שאמרתי לך שאין מהם אפילו אחת שנדרשה באיזו מדה ואי אפשר לתלותה בפסוק אלא על דרך האסמכתא כמו שביארנו.

Okay, he doesn't repeat the asmachta be'alma because he says kemo shebe'arnu. And the Rambam says the reason I'm listing this is because you'll see that each time whoever calls it halacha leMoshe miSinai doesn't then connect it to a pasuk

באופן של מדה שהתורה נדרשת בהן, באופן של דרשה גמורה.

Now one of the halachos leMoshe miSinai we spoke about I think about kotz she'al tefillin, did we speak about that? I think so. But one halacha leMoshe miSinai that the Rambam has here, where is it? Sorry, one second. ערלה בכל מקום הלכה למשה מסיני. Orlah chutz la'aretz. Orlah chutz la'aretz, the Rambam says halacha leMoshe miSinai. It's a Gemara in Kiddushin. The Mishna says that Orlah chutz la'aretz is halacha and then there's actually a machlokes and then Gemara but we pasken like the view that says that what halacha means is halacha leMoshe miSinai. So the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros has a machlokes with the Geonim. Whether or not there is—so the din of orlah is that when you plant a tree, so for the first three years, the fruit, if it produces fruit in the first three years, is assur behana'ah, not only assur beachilah but assur behana'ah. Okay, so the Torah says

כי תבואו אל הארץ כי תבואו אל הארץ ונטעתם כל עץ מאכל וערלתם ערלתו את פריו שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים לא יאכל.

So what do you get all this source from? Halacha l'Moshe miSinai. The Rambam in hilchos ma'achalos assuros has a machlokes with the geonim, whether or not there's a din riva'i in chutz la'aretz. The Torah continues in parshas Kedoshim. In parshas Kedoshim, the Torah continues and says ובשנה הרביעית יהיה כל פריו קודש הלולים לה' that in the fourth year it's not assur behana'ah, but it's not chullin either. It has the same status. Neta riva'i has the same status as ma'aser sheni, which means that you have to—it has the same kedushas ma'aser sheni, you have to go eat in Yerushalayim, you can't, or you're not going to, so you have to be podeh v'chulo. So the question is, is there a דין רבעי בחוץ לארץ? So the Rambam quotes that the geonim say that there is riva'i bechutz la'aretz, and the Rambam says yeira'eh li that there's no דין רבעי בחוץ לארץ. So Reb Chaim in the sefer has as follows: he explains what the machlokes is between the Rambam and the geonim. He quotes that the geonim say pshat, that the geonim say—I forgot the Bahag someone, I forget who he quotes it from—that in light of the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, what does כי תבואו אל הארץ mean? If the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai says that orlah is noheges even chutz la'aretz, so how do you reconcile that with the pasuk of כי תבואו אל הארץ? So the geonim say כי תבואו אל הארץ is telling us, as it connotes by all mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz, that orlah didn't begin to be noheges until אחר שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו, with the exception of challah. When it came to trumos ma'asros, the other mitzvos hateluyos ba'aretz, so the Torah stipulates that the mitzvos didn't begin to be nohegos until after 14 years, the שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו. That's what ki tavo implies. Mah she'ein kein challah was bevo'achem. So the geonim say that's what ki tavo means. כי תבואו אל הארץ isn't limiting orlah to Eretz Yisrael, but it's telling us that just as ki tavo elsewhere implies after 14 years, that's true for orlah as well. But it's not intended to tell you that it only means in Eretz Yisrael. Says Reb Chaim, so the pshat in machlokes the geonim and the Rambam is like this: the geonim hold that in light of the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, the parsha in the Torah is talking בין בארץ ישראל בין בחוץ לארץ. So if in light of the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, the parsha is talking בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ, what do you do with the words כי תבואו אל הארץ? And the Rambam says no, the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai is not talking about the parsha in the Torah. Parsha in the Torah is talking about Eretz Yisrael. That's why it says כי תבואו אל הארץ, כי תבואו אל הארץ, and the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai is mechadesh that ein hachi nami, this isn't in the parsha in Chumash; you won't find it there in Chumash. So memeila for the Rambam that the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai is not being megaleh what's in the pasuk. So then the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai said orlah—so orlah yes, riva'i no. There is no Halacha l'Moshe miSinai of נטע רבעי בחוץ לארץ. Mah she'ein kein for the geonim, it's true that the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai said orlah, but the Halacha l'Moshe miSinai said that the parsha in the Torah is talking בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ. Okay, so keep reading in the Chumash, right after the pasuk says שלש שנים יהיה לכם ערלים, the next pasuk says uvashana harvi'is. So kumt ois in light of the hakdama here to the Rambam, so Reb Chaim's pshat is a thousand percent muchrach in the Rambam. Right? It has to be when the Rambam says—for the Rambam, if it's a Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, it has to mean that it's not beChumash. The Halacha l'Moshe miSinai isn't misyacheis to Chumash. Halacha l'Moshe miSinai is totally independent, totally free-standing, and it's mamash mefurash that that has to be the pshat in the Rambam. Now, how the geonim dealt with this kasha of the Rambam of why we find the lashon Halacha l'Moshe miSinai, I don't know, it's a tzarich iyun to try to try to understand that. I think Reb Chaim mentions in the sefer also that the Rambam, I think so, look it up please, double check, make sure this is correct. That the Rambam is explicit that you do not get malkos for orlah chutz la'aretz. And the Geonim hold that you do get malkos for orlah chutz la'aretz. Why? Because for the Geonim, the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai says that chutz la'aretz is בכלל הפרשה דכתיב באורייתא. So it's a lav min hatorah, lo yochal, so you get malkos. But for the Rambam, the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai again, and that's what the hakdama shows that that has to be what the Rambam means, that has to be the pshat in the Rambam. Orlah chutz la'aretz is not in the parsha. It's not in the parsha, so you don't have onesh. When something is Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai, there's no parshas onesh, there's no parshas onesh for it. Then I think that's all it says in the sefer beferush. And then the Rav zichrono l'vrocha used to add that Reb Chaim used to say, I don't know why Reb Chaim didn't write it, but Reb Chaim used to say, maybe because it doesn't say beferush so he wanted only what was a thousand percent muchach, but he used to say that the other nafka mina then that would emerge between the Rambam and the Geonim. Orlah, the Mishna says in Temurah is min hanisrafin. Right? Some issurei hana'ah, so you just can't have hana'ah, and so that people won't be nichshal on it, so you're supposed to bury it so it shouldn't be lying around, they're min hanikbarin. Right? The Mishna at the end of Masechet Temurah. And by other issurei hana'ah, so there's a din sreifa. Right? Famously it's מחלוקת רבי יהודה וחכמים by chametz. So orlah, the Mishna says in Temurah is min hanisrafin. Question exactly how do you know, where's the pasuk? Okay, so the Tosafos in Temurah talks about that. But orlah is min hanisrafin. So the question is, is that also true for orlah chutz la'aretz? Is orlah chutz la'aretz also min hanisrafin, that the mitzvah is to burn it? Or no, it would be min hanikbarin like chametz, like a shor haniskal, which is also be-hana'ah, but it would be min hanikbarin. So Reb Chaim said that klar, that heyos that for the Rambam, Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai is not putting orlah chutz la'aretz into the parsha, so אין לך בו אלא חידושו. The Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai didn't come and establish that there's a din sreifa by orlah chutz la'aretz, and there isn't, there isn't. Ma she-ein kein for the Geonim, no, if it's putting, if it's megaleh that orlah chutz la'aretz is בכלל הפרשה דכתיב באורייתא, so then whatever the makor is, a hekkesh to kilai hakerem, whatever the makor is that orlah is bi-sreifa applies to orlah chutz la'aretz as well. And the Acharonim have a diyun as well. I think the Malbushei Yom Tov has that diyun as well about whether orlah chutz la'aretz is bi-sreifa. Okay, we'll stop here. I'm a bit confused here regarding the case of an esrog, that they always knew that the fruit of an esrog is a pri eitz hadar, but now we just have a pasuk to prove it. So then why is there like a whole machlokes in the Gemara what the exact fruit is if they always knew it's the fruit? Oh, it's not a machlokes what it is. It isn't? Okay, fine, I'm sorry. No, the Gemara says betartzah, when the Gemara is trying to show how that perush hamukbal can be listed in the tora shebichtav as well. So the Gemara says betartzah, maybe a pri eitz hadar is a nice lemon or something. It's not actually arguing over what it is. No, it's saying how do you know, in the same way the Gemara is looking to establish the perush hamukbal of pikuach nefesh, so what's the pasuk that tells you the din? But it's not entertaining a what it's saying is how do you know, given that a perush hamukbal can always be found in the tora shebichtav as well, but from the tora shebichtav how do you know that? Doesn't it seem like from the tora shebichtav that it could have been the lemon? So no, and that's what the Gemara has different answers for. Okay, it's not trying to say no, really this is a fruit of. Okay, I see, thank you. You're welcome. Hopefully, hopefully, maybe Monday. And then there's a machlokes. There's a three-way machlokes in the mishna of what Eliyahu is going to come to do. Doesn't that mashma that there is even within the Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai there is machlokes what's going to happen? Of what is Eliyahu Hanavi going to do? They're arguing about the details of the Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. That's the whole point, that the Rambam says this is a masores mekubal. The one who says Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, so then what's the point? When it was given, what was the status of the masores? I think it was clear to the Gemara that when the Rambam says it's mekubal from רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai

שאין אליהו בא לטמא ולטהר לרחק ולקרב אלא לרחק המקורבין בזרוע ולקרב המרוחקין בזרוע.