Ikar #8 – Torah Min haShomayim

Vehayesod Hashmini.

והיסוד השמיני הוא תורה מן השמים והוא שנאמין שכל התורה המצויה בידינו היום זו היא התורה שנתנה למשה ושהיא כולה מפי הגבורה כל מה שהגיע אליו כולו מאת השם והגעה שנקראת על דרך ההשאלה דיבור ואין יודע איך היתה ההגעה אלא הוא עליו השלום שאליו הגיעה וכי הוא נחשב כסופר שמקריאים לפניו והוא מעתיק וכותב את כולה דברי הימים שבו וסיפוריו ומצוותיו וכך נקרא מחוקק.

So Vehayesod Hashmini, the Rambam as he does for each of the Yesodos begins with a word or a phrase which encapsulates the entire Yesod and then elaborates it. But it's clear that what the Rambam means by Torah Min Hashamayim is not only that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave the Torah, but that we have that Torah which was given Min Hashamayim. Right, and the initial elaboration that the Rambam has here of what that phrase Torah Min Hashamayim means is not just that millennia ago Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave a Torah, no, but that Torah is Metzuyah Beyadeinu Hayom. Just in terms of the semantics, how is that all compressed into the phrase Torah Min Hashamayim? So what distinguishes Torah from a Mitzvah Lesha'ah is its Nitzchiyos. Right, one of the Rambam's 14 Shorashim in the beginning of Sefer Hamitzvos as to which Mitzvos are included in the Minyan Taryag and which not,

השורש השלישי שאין ראוי למנות מצות שאין נוהגות לדורות. דע כי אמרם תרי"ג מצות נאמרו למשה בסיני

and Chazal associate that with תורה צוה לנו משה. So it means that the semantics of Torah is something which is Nitzchus, something which is for all eternity. Now, it's not for all eternity if it's lost somewhere in a Geniza. Nitzchiyos of Torah means that the Torah remains available, accessible, remains in our possession. And that's what when the Rambam again begins with that opening phrase Torah Min Hashamayim, it means that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave us the Torah Min Hashamayim, but that we retain and it remains with us that Torah Min Hashamayim. It refers to every word of Chumash.

ואין הפרש בין ובני חם כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען או ושם אשתו מהיטבאל בת מטרד

on the one hand, או אנכי ה' ושמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד. Hakol Mipi Hagevurah. Even though we don't see the significance of those Pesukim, and we obviously do have some appreciation for the significance of Anochi Hashem or Shema Yisrael, but all of Torah is Mipi Hagevurah from Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

הכל תורת ה' תמימה טהורה קדושה אמת. ולא היה מנשה בעיניהם כופר ומחטיא.

Menashe who represented the ultimate in kefirah rachmana litzlan was a kofer by virtue of

אלא לפי שחשב שיש בתורה פנים וקליפה ושדברי הימים הללו

what seem to just be the historical components vehasipurim and the narrative אין תועלת בהם שהן מאת משה vezehu inyan אין תורה מן השמים. When the Mishna says in Perek Chelek that someone says

אין תורה מן השמים זה אין לו חלק לעולם הבא,

it means

הוא זה שסובר שכל התורה כולה מפי הגבורה חוץ מפסוק אחד שלא אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אלא משה מפי עצמו וזהו דבר השם בזה.

Yisaleh Hashem mimashe omrim hakofer,

אלא כל אות ממנו יש בה חכמה ונפלאות למי שהבינם מהשם ולא תושג תכלית חכמתו,

the ultimate of chochmas hatorah cannot be apprehended,

ארוכה מארץ מדה ורחבה מני ים ואין לו אדם אלא ללכת בעקבות דוד משיח אלוקי יעקב שהתפלל גל עיני ואביטה נפלאות מתורתך. וכמו כן פירושה המקובל

when we say Torah min hashamayim, we mean not only the Torah shebichtav, we also mean the Torah sheba'al peh which accompanied the Torah shebichtav,

וכמו כן פירושה המקובל הוא גם כן מפי הגבורה. וזה שאנו עושים היום את אופן הסוכה והלולב והשופר והציצית והתפילין וזולתם הוא אותן האופן עצמו שאמר השם למשה והוא אמר לנו והוא מסר שליחות נאמן במשמשותה.

So the yesod of Torah min hashamayim encompasses both Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh. Now in Hilchos Teshuva in Perek Gimmel, which is the closest to a parallel in the Yad to the hagdama l'perek chelek where the Rambam enumerates those שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, again many of whom are those who deny one of the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim, so the Rambam in Perek Gimmel halacha vav says that hakofer batorah is one category of individuals rachmana litzlan שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא, and then the Rambam says in halacha ches that

שלשה הם הכופרים בתורה: האומר שאין התורה מעם השם אפילו פסוק אחד אפילו תיבה אחת אם אמר משה אמרו מפי עצמו הרי זה כופר בתורה.

V'chen number two,

הכופר בפירושה והיא תורה שבעל פה והכחיש מגידיה כגון צדוק ובייתוס.

And number three,

והאומר שהבורא החליף מצוה זו במצוה אחרת וכבר בטלה תורה זו אף על פי שהיתה מעם השם כגון הנוצרים וההגרים כל אחד משלשה אלו כופר בתורה.

So here in Hilchos Teshuva for some reason the Rambam lists hakofer batorah shebichtav and הכופר בתורה שבעל פה separately. In the hagdama l'perek chelek he combines Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh min hashamayim into one yesod, but in the Yad he lists hakofer batorah shebichtav and הכופר בתורה שבעל פה separately. I mean it obviously amounts to the same thing either way. The Rambam is affirming that belief in both Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al peh are absolutely min hashamayim, are absolutely indispensable for baseline belief. But sort of why the why does he systematize it differently? Why is it that in the Yad it is he calls it there is one type of kofer is hakofer batorah shebichtav, a second is הכופר בתורה שבעל פה, and here the whole thing is Torah min hashamayim in one? So the answer, I mean it's the even though the formulation is a little subtle, the answer is actually simple. There is another difference, again not contradiction, but difference in terms of presentation sort of determined, driven contextually. In the Hakdama Perek Chelek, the Rambam formulates things in the positive: what a person affirmatively, what a person affirmatively believes, right? So the first yesod is metzius Hashem, etc. In Hilchos Teshuva, the Rambam presents it negatively as those heretical beliefs for which a person Rachmana litzlan loses his chelek in olam haba, right? Gimmel Vav Elu Hein, and אלו הן שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא: haminim, h'apikorsim, hakofrim b'Torah. I skipped a bit. Haminim, h'apikorsim, hakofrim b'Torah. And then the Rambam says

חמישה הן הנקראים מינים האומר שאין שם אלוה ואין לעולם מנהיג.

So in the Yad, because the Rambam is presenting it apropos of sachar v'onesh and he's listing those who have no chelek in olam haba, so the Rambam is presenting it in the negative. And in Perush HaMishnayos, where it's not apropos of sachar v'onesh, but where he's just presenting what constitutes basic emuna according to the Torah, so the Rambam is presenting it in the positive. So that's sort of in a literary, again, driven by context, so in a literary vein it's different. Now when you think about it, and here comes just a little bit subtle, not very subtle. As an emuna, so you can't separate Torah She'b'chsav and Torah She'ba'al Peh. In terms of believing in Torah min HaShamayim, so a person belief in Torah min HaShamayim means הן תורה שבכתב הן תורה שבעל פה. If you're presenting it in the positive, you have to present it as one. There's no Torah She'b'chsav without Torah She'ba'al Peh, there's no Torah She'ba'al Peh without Torah She'b'chsav. As a kefira, you can say it: a person's kofer in Torah She'b'chsav or he's kofer in Torah She'ba'al Peh. As an emuna, it has to be presented as one. As a kefira, it can be presented as two. You can have a Karai, you can have a Karai. Now, as a kefira, so you can define that his kefira is that he denies Torah She'ba'al Peh. You can have a Menashe who maybe believes in Torah She'ba'al Peh, I don't know whether he did or he didn't, for the parts of Torah She'b'chsav in which he believes, but he denies this pasuk or whatever the case may be. As a kefira, so you can have a chalos kefira in Torah She'b'chsav and you can have a chalos kefira in Torah She'ba'al Peh. But as emuna, Torah Torah She'b'chsav and Torah She'ba'al Peh are one. Together they constitute Torah. Together they form a miktsha achas of Torah. So when you're presenting it in the positive, which is again contextually how the Rambam is doing it in Hakdama Perek Chelek, it's one. That's the lich'ora the pshat here. Now, again just rereading for a moment towards the end, וכמו כן פירושה המקובל. You see that rabosai? Right until this point the Rambam was talking about Torah She'b'chsav, now he speaks of Torah She'ba'al Peh: וכמו כן פירושה המקובל הוא גם כן מפי הגבורה. So Perusha HaMikubal, that phrase is a phrase that the Rambam first introduces in the Hakdama to Perush HaMishnayos, and he gives many, many examples. He gives an example, for instance, that when Moshe Rabbeinu is on Har Sinai, Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר וגומר. Hakadosh Baruch Hu told him that pri eitz hadar is an esrog. Pri eitz hadar is an esrog. And the sugya in the third perek in Maseches Sukkah that looks to establish that pri eitz hadar means esrog is not because there was ever any uncertainty as to what pri eitz hadar means, it's rather because when Hakadosh Baruch Hu told I'm telling it to you, so you know what, what it means, but you should know that this is something that can be derived, it can be elicited from within the Torah Shebichtav. And similarly the Rambam famously gives the example of ayin tachat ayin, Hakadosh Baruch Hu tells Moshe Rabbeinu that when he teaches him the pasuk of ayin tachat ayin, he says what that means halacha l'maaseh is mamon. That's the peirush hamikubal, and that's the whole sugya in the beginning of choveil of how can you prove it from within the psukim minei ubei, how can you bridge the Torah Shebichtav and the Torah Shebaal Peh. That's what peirush hamikubal means. Peirush hamikubal means that the peirush is received from Hakadosh Baruch Hu at Har Sinai as to what the pasuk means, but it's something that can through מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן also be elicited from the psukim themselves, and that is an important aspect of talmud torah to do so. That's what peirush hamikubal means. Now, in the hakdama to peirush hamishnayos, you'll take a look, so the Rambam distinguishes peirushim hamikubalim from halacha l'moshe misinai. He says given that there were that Moshe Rabbeinu received so many peirushim hamikubalim, so and yet we never find that ayin tachat ayin is referred to as a halacha l'moshe misinai. We don't find that pri eitz hadar being an esrog is referred to halacha l'moshe misinai, but it is a peirush hamikubal misinai. So what did Chazal use the term halacha l'moshe misinai to denote? So the Rambam says halacha l'moshe misinai means when Moshe Rabbeinu received a tradition that isn't misyacheis to something in the Torah Shebichtav. Moshe Rabbeinu received halacha l'moshe misinai that tfillin have to be black. It doesn't say that. That's not encoded in Torah Shebichtav. You can't find in וקשרתם אותם על ידך והיו לטוטפות בין עיניך, you can't find any trace of the fact that tfillin have to be black, and that's what it means as halacha l'moshe misinai, meaning that it's purely halacha l'moshe misinai. It's not also encoded within, hinted at, and therefore can be derived and elicited from the Torah Shebichtav. All the peirushim hamikubalim can. The fact that pri eitz hadar means an esrog, that can, it's הדר באילנו משנה לשנה etc. All these things can also be elicited from Torah Shebichtav and that's what the Rambam calls a peirush hamikubal. That's the Rambam's coinage. And he says that Chazal reserved the term halacha l'moshe misinai for that which isn't being misyacheis to something in the chumash, something which stands alone independently, purely based on that tradition, on the fact that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave it to Moshe Rabbeinu b'har sinai. Now, that being the case, the question is how come the Rambam doesn't mention halacha l'moshe misinai in the yesod hashmini? Obviously it is min hashamayim and we obviously know that and believe that. So why didn't the Rambam mention it here given that again, it's not, he so clearly differentiates what peirush mikubal refers to as opposed to what halacha l'moshe misinai refers to. So Gemara Tmura daf tes-zayin:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שנפטר משה רבינו לגן עדן.

When Moshe Rabbeinu was allowed to leave about to leave this world, Amar lo l'Yehoshua: שאל ממני כל ספקות שיש לך. Right? It's now or never. So Yehoshua answers him, Amar lo rebbi, כלום הנחתיך שעה אחת והלכתי למקום אחר? I never missed a shiur. I'm sure bin Nun that I was, I was there for every seder, I was there for every shiur. I heard everything. So I'm not, I received the entire mesorah from you. I have no questions.

כלום הנחתיך שעה אחת והלכתי למקום אחר? לא כך כתבת בי ומשרת יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל?

Right? Didn't you write in the Torah, meaning didn't Hakadosh Baruch Hu dictate to you to write in the Torah that ומשרת יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל? So Chazal say מיד תשש כוחו של יהושע that this wasn't an appropriate response, ונשתכחו ממנו שלש מאות הלכות. And he forgot three hundred halachos.

ונולדו לו שבע מאות ספקות. ועמדו כל ישראל להרגו. אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לומר לך אי אפשר.

I can't because Torah can only be given through Moshe Rabbeinu. So I can't. Leich vetroden bemilchamah. Go get busy with kibbush ha'aretz. So lichora it's klar that the lashon halachos in this Gemara means halacha l'Moshe miSinai. And whereas there has never ever been any perush hamikubal has ever been forgotten, some halachos l'Moshe miSinai were forgotten. Many obviously were not forgotten. We know that tefillin is supposed to be square, and we know that tefillin is supposed to be black, and we know that there's supposed to be nisuch hamayim on Sukkos. Obviously many many many halachos l'Moshe miSinai were not forgotten. The Rambam lists off what he says are most or all the halachos l'Moshe miSinai. He lists them in the Hakdamah l'perush hamishnayos, but many were forgotten. Many were forgotten. Perushim hamikubalim were never forgotten, but halacha l'Moshe miSinai were forgotten. So we said Torah min hashamayim, the yesod hashmini, the yesod hashmini what did we say? The Rambam is not just referring to a historical fact of what was given min hashamayim, but Torah min hashamayim means Torah min hashamayim as we have it today. So that's why the Rambam isn't mentioning everything that was given min hashamayim. He's mentioning that which was given min hashamayim which is beyadeinu and which is matzui beyadeinu today. Every pasuk in Chumash, every word in Chumash is of Torah she'bichsav is matzui beyadeinu today. Every perush hamikubal that was given to accompany to say what the pshat in the words in Chumash is is matzui beyadeinu today. Not every halacha l'Moshe miSinai is matzui beyadeinu today. And that's why again, yes of course it's min hashamayim and yes of course we believe min hashamayim, but the yesod hashmini is not as we said initially, right? What the Rambam means by Torah min hashamayim is not only in quotation marks, not only that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave it min hashamayim but that it's matzui beyadeinu today. So the Rambam therefore speaks of the Torah she'bichsav and again Torah she'ba'al peh which means the perushim hamikubalim and he doesn't refer to halacha l'Moshe miSinai. Velichora is the pshat. Earlier when the Rambam was talking about Torah she'bichsav min hashamayim, so the Rambam writes vechihu nechshav. I think this is he's quoting the Gemara in the towards the end of the first perek in Maseches Bava Basra here, that vechihu nechshav that he Moshe Rabbeinu was like כסופר שמקריים לפניו והוא מעתיק וכותב. That Moshe Rabbeinu was a sofer who was taking dictation, right? As it were, Hakadosh Baruch Hu you know is reading to Moshe Rabbeinu from the Torah and Moshe Rabbeinu is taking. Meaning in other words, and and this everyone, everyone agrees with, the Yesod Hashmini of Torah Min Hashamayim is that Torah Shebichtav is Dvar Hashem verbatim. Right? It's not only that the content and the substance of Torah Shebichtav is from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, no, the actual words, בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, those are the actual words of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not just that the, the ideas which are compressed into those words are mipi hagevurah, no, the actual words themselves. Moshe Rabbeinu took dictation, he wrote the actual words themselves. There is a difference of opinion, what about Nach? What, what about Nach? So there there's a difference of opinion. If you take a look, so amongst others, the the Abarbanel talks about it, the Malbim talks about it, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky talks about it. The Malbim insists that this is true for Nach as well, that that every word in Nach was verbatim given beruach hakodesh and and written down. Whereas the Abarbanel and later this is Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky, so they say more the mashal for Nach is the following. Let's, let's say you have a, I don't know, you have an artist who who paints a picture, and and then there's an exhibit of of his works, and and some art critic goes and he visits the the exhibit, and then he he writes his interpretation of of the painting. And then they go to the to the artist and they ask him what how he would rate the the critic's interpretation. And he says, incredible, everything he said was right on target, was was exactly what I was expressing, he didn't add anything, he didn't miss anything. So if you'll ask whose words are, whose choice of words in in the the critic's essay, so who who chose the words? So the the critic's words. But if you'll ask in terms of the content expressed, so the content one hundred percent which is being expressed is is that of the the the artist. So that's what what the Abarbanel says and and that's what Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky says, that's pshat by Nach. That that nevuah is is something which is a non-verbal medium. Right? What the the experience of of nevuah is not the navi is not hearing words. The the experience of nevuah is not a verbal experience, but it's something which the navi is then given the capacity to unerringly, unfailingly understand and interpret the nevuah which he, which he experienced. But but the actual choice of words then is from Yeshayahu and and it's not verbatim in that sense. The content is one hundred percent again, one hundred percent without being mosif, without being, without being megarei'a, it's one hundred percent from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but the actual words themselves are those of the navi. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky thinks that's the pshat in אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד. The same way no two people, unless one or both are cheating, no no two people write exactly the the same way, so too אין שני נביאים מתנבאים בסגנון אחד because at the end of the day, the choice of of words is that of the navi. So that difference of opinion, and the Malbim thinks that's not correct. The Malbim thinks that that even by nevuah, the beruach hakodesh, the navi is given the the actual words to to write down. Whoever, the Gemara tells us which of the nevi'im wrote each of the, each of the sifrei nevuah, so the the navi is given the actual, beruach hakodesh is is also given the actual words. That difference of opinion is about Nach, but las man depalig that when it comes to Chumash, so Chumash is verbatim Dvar Hashem. Could be that there's a נפקא מינה להלכה למעשה between this as well, and and that is as follows. The Magen Avraham writes that that when you say Mishnayot Eizehu Mekoman in in the morning, it's a funny assumption Magen Avraham thinks that people would say that, I don't know what he does, I don't know where he daven, I don't know he daven in some strange minyan where they said Eizehu Mekoman. But the Magen Avraham says that when you say Mishnayos Eizehu Mekoman in the morning, he says you have to understand what you're saying. There's no kiyum if a person says איזהו מקומן של זבחים and he doesn't understand what he's saying. So the Baal HaTanya writes in his Shulchan Aruch and in Hilchos Talmud Torah, the Baal HaTanya writes Bameh Devarim Amurim by Torah She'baal Peh. But by a pasuk Chumash, obviously it's not Talmud Torah in the highest level, it's not the optimal form of Talmud Torah, but by Talmud Torah, if a person opens a Chumash and he reads בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ, he's mekayem a mitzvah even if he doesn't understand. The question is what about Nach? What about Nach? It's very nogaya, let's say in I don't know, sometimes when we say Tehillim, unfortunately we don't necessarily understand what we're saying. So is there a kiyum hamitzvah in saying a pasuk from Nach without understanding? So lichora, that should depend upon this question. I think maybe the Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky even gives this nafka mina. I don't remember, I think he does. I'm not sure, I don't remember if he does or he doesn't. Lichora, that depends upon this question that if Nach is verbatim Devar Hashem, so then the same reasoning why by Chumash you have a kiyum Talmud Torah even without understanding would apply to Nach also. But if Nach is not verbatim Devar Hashem, it's that the content is 100% Devar Hashem, the content, but the words are the words of Yeshayahu, the words are the words of Yirmiyahu, so then the words themselves wouldn't be a mitzvas Talmud Torah if a person doesn't understand the content. So itachen that there's going to be a nafka mina l'dina. The other, I think this other nafka mina, I think רב זעליג עפשטיין זכרונו לברכה, the Rosh Yeshiva of Sha'ar HaTorah writes about, the other possible nafka mina to this question is whether or not מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן can be applied to Navi. So lichora, it's certainly the case that if you say like the Abarbanel and like Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that you would not apply מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן to Navi. But maybe according to the Malbim's approach that it's also verbatim Devar Hashem, so then maybe it operates by the same rules and maybe מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן would be applied there as well. And the third thing says the Rambam, we'll just begin it, we'll begin now בלי נדר אם ירצה השם, we'll come back to this again next week as well

בלי נדר אם ירצה השם. ויסוד הדת הזאת והוא שתורת משה זאת לא תבטל.

Working backwards, we find this phrase that the Torah is referred to as Toras Moshe. I think the Rambam is referring to it, we find it in Chazal as well, the Mishna in Kesuvos, when it talks about when a husband has grounds to divorce his wife and not have to pay the kesuva, so it says if she's עוברת על דת משה. And das Moshe means dinim d'Oraisa. So there too, Torah is being referred to as das Moshe. And of course the source for hein for Chazal, hein for the Rambam, is the pasuk, זכרו תורת משה עבדי. The pasuk in Malachi, the concluding pasuk of nevuah, זכרו תורת משה עבדי. Now obviously it's not Toras Moshe in the sense that Moshe Rabbeinu is the source of anything, but it is Toras Moshe in the sense that all of Torah is conveyed to us via Moshe Rabbeinu. Hein Torah she-biksav, hein תורה שבעל פה. And that's what's reflected again in the designation of Torah as Toras Moshe. Habittul,

והוא שתורת משה הזאת לא תתבטל ולא תבוא תורה מאת השם זולתה ולא תהיה בה תוספת ולא יגרע ממנה לא בכתב ולא בפירוש.

So yesod hashemini is nitzchiyus of Torah, and then yesod hateshi'i is the immutability of Torah. Torah doesn't change. There aren't going to be addenda, there aren't going to be deletions rachmana litzlan.

לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו. וכבר בארנו אותו היטב ביסודות הזה בהקדמת החיבור הזה.

So it's interesting, the Rambam says that the pasuk of

בל תוסיף ובל תגרע, לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו,

expresses, encapsulates this yesod of the immutability of Torah. So under no circumstances would it ever be permissible for you to be mosif or goreiya. Aye, but maybe a person will receive a nevuah telling him to be mosif or telling him to be goreiya? So the Torah says no, that can't happen, that won't happen, which is why לא תוסף ולא תגרע is categorical, because again, what's at the core of בל תוסיף ובל תגרע is the immutability of Torah, right? That's how the Torah can state this so categorically, without exception, because heyos that that Torah is immutable, that Torah does not change, Torah will not change, so mimeila, that's how this lav of bal tosif, the lavin of bal tosif and bal tigra are again, have no exceptions, because of this yesod of the immutability of Torah. Okay, we'll stop here.