What, and How, Moshe Taught

Now let's come back to the beginning again here in the Hakdama of Perush Hamishnayos.

דע כי כל מצוה שנתן השם למשה רבינו לא נתנה לו אלא עם פירושה.

The Torah She-Bichtav was accompanied by a תורה שבעל פה. ויהי השם אומר לו את הנוסח, the Torah She-Bichtav, ושוב אומר לו את פירושו ומדרשו. What are those two words, perusho u-midrasho? I'm not sure, but maybe what it means is the following. Let's take the example of the pasuk of mitzvas lulav.

ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר כפת תמרים וענף עץ עבת וערבי נחל.

So there's perusho. Simply when the Torah says kapos temarim, what min does that denote? So the perush, again, is that it refers to the lulav, an esrog, ve-chulu. Then the question is, how many lulavim is one supposed to take? So that already is a medrash on the fact that it's written chaser rather than malei. And maybe some dinim are simply what the words themselves, just on a level of pshuto shel mikra mean. That a sukkah provides tzel is pshuto is the perush, is the pshuto. That, ich veis, how many d'fanos you have in a sukkah is not the semantics of the word. It's not pshuto shel mikra, it's the midrasho. Maybe that's what it means, I'm not sure. I mean, either way, it's certainly the case that both of these types of things are included in what the Rambam is speaking about, and maybe that's what the two words here reflect.

וכל מה שכולל אותו הנוסח המוזכר. והיה סדר למודו לישראל כפי שאומר לך.

So this is a braisa in Masechet Eruvin, kayaduah, on daf nun daled.

היה בא אל האהל ונכנס אליו תחילה אהרן והיה מגיד לו את הנוסח שנמצא לו,

the Torah She-Bichtav, pa'am achas, umelamdo perusho, תורה שבעל פה. Again, lachora here, the Rambam, New York can mean New York City, it can mean New York State. There are words, there are terms that can be used in a more narrow sense or in a broader sense. So here, lachora, when the Rambam says perusho, he means it in a broader sense, including perusho, midrasho, etc. But rather than have repeating all those phrases time after time, New York City, New York State. So sometimes perush is more encompassing and sometimes it's more narrowly focused. U-mistalek Aharon. U-mistalek Aharon again, we generally translate mistalek to go away. So it does mean that here, it means, but it doesn't mean he goes away entirely. It means he goes away from where he was sitting in front of Moshe Rabbeinu. That initially, the first time, so if Moshe Rabbeinu is here, so Aharon is over there in front of him. After having heard the shiur once, so then mistalek Aharon, he moves away from that sort of talmid position in front of Moshe Rabbeinu, in front of the rebbe, ופונה לימין משה רבינו and he repositions himself to the right of Moshe Rabbeinu.

ונכנס אחר כך אלעזר ואיתמר בניו. ומגיד להם משה גם כן כפי שהגיד לאהרן.

Again, this is the Rambam reflecting the braisa in Eruvin and some of the comments that would make, it's lav davka the Rambam, but on the braisa itself. So apparently the Rambam is describing how Moshe Rabbeinu taught after Rosh Chodesh Nissan, right, when after Nadav va-Avihu died, because there's no mention of Nadav va-Avihu here. So the question is what happened from Yom Ha-Kippurim or ממחרת יום הכפורים? So basically Moshe Rabbeinu, the three forty day periods extended from Shavuos till Yom Ha-Kippurim. From Shavuos till שבעה עשר בתמוז and then till... so the three 40 day periods extend from Matan Torah, from Shavuos until Yom HaKippurim. And then Vayehi mimacharas in Parshas Yisro as Rashi explains is mimacharas Yom HaKippurim. So at that point Nadav and Avihu were alive, right? Nadav and Avihu died on Rosh Chodesh Nissan in on Vayehi bayom hashmini of the Chanukas of the miluim for the Mishkan. So I don't know, what's not, I don't know what happened during that half year and I don't know, it would seem to be a dochak that Nadav and Avihu were, I don't know, were excluded that this seder halimmud already was in effect beginning Yud Aleph Tishrei, but for some reason Nadav and Avihu were not, were not singled out the way Elozor and Isamar were. So I don't know, ayin lo what the pshat is here. ומגיד להם משה גם כן כפי שהגיד לאהרן. Moshe Rabbeinu said the same shiur obviously, right? So the question is does the Rambam perhaps mean, I mean he told Aharon everything Hakadosh Baruch Hu said, no more no less. So I mean obviously he's going to do the same, or no, maybe what it means is maybe Moshe Rabbeinu, when as the Braisa that the Rambam is quoting, is presenting, Moshe Rabbeinu gave the shiur four times. Maybe it means that he gave the shiur verbatim the same way four times. That it wasn't only that the tochen was obviously the same, but Moshe Rabbeinu repeated the shiur actually verbatim. Maybe that's what this line means: ומגיד להם משה גם כן כפי שהגיד לאהרן. I mean part of the significance of that would be, you know the Chazal say that חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו. That that when possible, so the talmid is supposed to not only transmit again the gist, the content of what the Rebbe said, but he's supposed to actually quote the Rebbe verbatim. Ad k'dei kach that the Gemara says that that even in terms of the pronunciation. You know the velt likes to, Reb Chaim had a havana in the shittas HaRavad by בעל חוב קונה משכון, right? Sugya in Bava Metzia in Shavuos, in בעל חוב קונה משכון. So the question is what level of achrayus if a bal chov, a malveh has security, a pledge for the chov, so what level of achrayus does the does the bal chov have for this? Is he חייב בפשיעה כשם שומרים, is he חייב בגניבה ואבידה כשם שוכר, is he chayiv even in onsin like like a shoel would be. So the shittas Rashi and the Ra'avad is that he's chayiv in onsin. So Reb Chaim has a famous hesber for that, and and the way Reb Chaim used to say it is in the mashkon liegt the chov. Dehainu that when the bal chov is given a mashkon, so it's not only the pshat that, you know just baalebatish, that it it functions as security, well if you won't pay me back the $500 you owe me so I have your gold watch and and you know I'll go pawn it and I'll I'll get the $500 that way. It's not just sort of a baalebatish security, but what it means is that the bal chov has a kinyan damim that $500 worth of value of the gold watch belongs to him and in that sense the chov... is now instead of just being this abstract debt has been translated into a kinyan damim in the mashkon. That's what Rav Chaim meant when he said in the mashkon likcha chov. Likcha means it inheres, literally it rests, it למד יוד גימל ת"ו, it inheres, it rests, it's contained within the chov is contained within the mashkon. So mameila when the baal chov doesn't matter how or by hook or by crook, if he loses the mashkon, he lost the chov. And that's the basis for the shitas haraavad that he's chayav beonesin. So the velt says that when Rav Ber used to give shiur on this sugya of בעל חוב קונה משכון so he used to say these words. He was always makpid to say in the mashkon likcha chov. He didn't just quote the tochen of what Rav Chaim said but he quoted Rav Chaim's actual actual words. Okay anyway maybe that's what this line means. ומגיד להם משה גם כן כפי שהגיד לאהרן ומסתלק again they go away from being in front of Moshe Rabbeinu.

ופונה אחד מהם לשמאל משה רבינו והשני לימין אהרן ונכנסו לאחר מכאן שבעים זקנים ומלמדם גם כן משה כפי שלימד את אהרן ובניו

ayein le’eil in terms of what this line means. ונכנסו לאחר מכאן המון העם כל מבקש ה' it was open. Open, no pre-registration required. No pizza served either but no pre-registration required. ומגיד גם להם כדי שישמעו כולם ממנו so that everyone had an opportunity to be to hear directly from Moshe Rabbeinu.

ונמצא כי אהרן שמע אותה הלשון ארבע פעמים ממשה ובניו שמעו ממנו שלוש פעמים והזקנים שתי פעמים והמון העם פעם אחת. ומסתלק משה מהם וחוזר אהרן ומגיד אותה הלשון שלמד אשר שמע ממשה ארבע פעמים כפי שאמרנו לכל הנמצאים ומסתלק אהרן. ונמצאו שבניו שמעו גם כן ארבע פעמים שלוש ממשה ואחת מאהרן. וחוזר אלעזר ואיתמר גם כן לאחר שנסתלק אהרן מגיד אותה הלשון עצמה

why? This supports the pshat we said before, osa halashon atzma, the shiur is being repeated actually verbatim.

ומגידים אותה הלשון עצמה ששמעוהו ארבע פעמים כמשה באוזני כל הנמצאים ומסתלקים גם כן מלפניהם ונמצא כי שבעים זקנים שמעו אותה הלשון ארבע פעמים גם כן שתי פעמים ממשה ופעם מאהרן ופעם מאלעזר ואיתמר וחוזרים גם שבעים זקנים אחר כך מגידים אותה הלשון להמון העם פעם אחת נמצא שהעם שמעו אותה הלשון גם כן ארבע פעמים פעם ממשה ושנייה מאהרן ושלישית מבניו ורביעית משבעים זקנים. אחר כך נחלקים העם ללמד זה את זה מה שמעו משליח השם וכותבין את הנוסח במגילה.

Okay. In general, whether it's this aspect of the masorah, how Moshe Rabbeinu taught and transmitted, or whether it's the generations of the masorah that the Rambam traces in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah from Moshe Rabbeinu until Rav Ashi, until chasimas hatalmud, sort of what's the how would one classify these yedios? They're important, they're history, and but not stam history, but important historical yedios to be mechazeik, to sustain our emuna in shalsheles hamasorah. So I don't know, intuitively one senses that of course it's that, but it's more than that also, that there's a kiyum talmud, let's say if a person will make a Birkas HaTorah. And his plan is he's going to spend the entire day just memorizing the shalshelet hamasora from Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai down down to achshav. That's all he's going to learn from the time he wakes up till the time he goes to sleep tonight and he's not saying the psukim of birkas kohanim, he's not saying eilu devarim after birkas hatorah. That's what he's going to do. That's what he's going to do. So will that justify the birkas hatorah? So if a person is going to go on an archaeological dig and zoll zein that he knows he's going to find Noah's teiva, so that's very nice, that's very good and undoubtedly there are people whom that will be mechazek, be mechazek their emuna in Torah min hashamayim and it's a productive use of time, but it wouldn't justify his birkas hatorah, right? Lemaise he's engaged in an archaeological dig. And so too, right, the study of history as even if it's vital, it wouldn't justify birkas hatorah and yet right intuitively it's clear that the shalshelet hamasora whether it's this description of how Moshe Rabbeinu taught, whether it's the shalshelet hamasora of Moshe, Yehoshua, v'chulu, that it is Talmud Torah. But in what sense is it Talmud Torah? I don't know, but I was wondering as follows. This is what the, this is intended as a dimyon, it's a zecher l'davar, it's not a raya obviously. But if you take a look in perek aleph of Hilchos Talmud Torah, halacha yud aleph, aleph yud aleph, so the Rambam is quoting the Gemara in Kiddushin that אל תקרי ושיננתם אלא ושילשתם that a person is supposed to divide his Talmud Torah time into three parts because there are three different areas of Torah. There's Mikra, there's Mishna, and Talmud, or in the Rambam's phraseology there's Torah Shebichtav, there's Torah Shebal Peh, Torah Shebal Peh to the Rambam basically means halacha, and then there's Talmud. And then the Rambam sort of defines what each of these is in halachas yud aleph and yud beis. But in halacha yud aleph, so the Rambam is as follows:

חייב לשלש זמן למידתו שליש בתורה שבכתב שליש בתורה שבעל פה ושליש יבין וישכיל אחרית דבר מראשיתו ויוציא דבר מדבר וידמה דבר לדבר ויבין במידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן עד שידע היאך הוא עיקר המידות והיאך יוציא האסור והמותר וכיוצא בהן מדברים שלמד מפי השמועה ועניין זה הוא הנקרא תלמוד.

So the Rambam defines Gemara, Talmud, as basically building the bridge between Torah Shebichtav and Torah Shebal Peh. Again to illustrate, so we saw last week, maybe we'll get to it again this morning bli neder, im yirtze Hashem, that the Rambam illustrates with Hilchos Sukkah. So one of the dinim mipi hashuah, one of the peirushim that Moshe Rabbeinu taught us when he came down from Har Sinai is that s'chach has to be from gidulei karka. Now where that how the pasuk says that, Moshe Rabbeinu didn't, that's not included in the shmuah, in the Torah Shebal Peh. He told us when you learn pshat in the psukim correctly, so you'll find that s'chach has to be gidulei karka. You'll also find that it has to be דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה v'chulu. So we have Torah Shebichtav which

בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים, חג הסוכות תעשה לך שבעת ימים באספך מגרנך ומיקבך.

We have Torah Shebichtav. We have Torah Shebal Peh which tells us that the s'chach has to be gidulei karka, דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה, that holchei drachim, cholim, pturim from. contained within these psukim of חג הסכות תעשה לך of בסכות תשבו שבעת שבעת ימים. What Gemara does is is Gemara bridges the Torah she-bi-khtav and Torah she-be'al peh. How is the Torah she-be'al peh all compressed or or contained? So basically what it's part of Talmud to know what the source of the Torah she-be'al peh is. Again not source again on one level the answer to that is because Moshe Rabbeinu told us from Har Sinai, meaning what the but in this case it means what the what the source is in terms of of how this is contained, compressed within the within the Torah she-bi-khtav. Okay good. So here's again this is with a dimyon, okay so you need to we're shifting, we're okay we're not thinking literally. Maybe the pshat is, maybe the pshat is like this. Maybe the pshat is that even in terms of the עצם תורה שבעל פה, again the halachos, that it's also a kiyum Talmud Torah to know where the din of gidulei karka is expressed in the Torah she-bi-khtav. Maybe it's also a kiyum Talmud Torah to know how that shmuah, how that Torah she-be'al peh which is recorded, which is internalized in Shas, how that masorah reached us. Maybe that's also part of knowing the mekor ha-dinim. And and maybe sort of that's the the way that shalshelet ha-masorah is not only vital historical knowledge, but it's also also Talmud Torah. To to know the Rambam's 40 generations until chasimat ha-Talmud is is is not only vital historical knowledge, which it certainly is, but but also also a mitzvah Talmud Torah, I would say. ve-nachlokem continuing here in in the Rambam:

ראשי העם בין כל ישראל ללמוד ולדרוש עד שילמדו אותה הלשון וידעו קריאתו ומלמדים אותה גם כן את פירוש אותה הלשון הנתן מאת ה'. ואותה הפירוש הוא כללי עניינים היו כותבים הלשון

meaning they would write down

בסכות תשבו שבעת ימים, חג הסכות תעשה לך ומשננים על פה הקבלה,

but the Torah she-be'al peh remained oral.

וחכמים חכמים עליהם השלום תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה. ואמרו עליהם השלום בברייתא וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני מה תלמוד לומר בהר סיני והלא כל התורה כולה נאמרה מסיני אלא לומר לך מה שמיטה נאמרה כללותיה ופרטותיה ודקדוקיה מסיני

because we don't find that Moshe Rabbeinu received a tzivui on shmita on any other occasion. So clearly everything that Moshe Rabbeinu presents from shmita is what was given to him at Har Sinai. אף כל המצוות נאמרו כללותיהן ופרטותיהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני. Here comes the the example the Rambam gives, we saw last time as well, v'omar lecha mashal illustration.

הנה אמר לו השם בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים. וכן הודיעו יסודות עשיית הסוכה הזאת חוב על הזכרים ולא נקבות ואין חייבין בה חולים והולכי דרכים

again but without specifying how all this emerges from the pasuk. That wasn't part of the masorah. That's why that that's part of Talmud.

ושלא יהיה סכך אלא בדבר שגידולו מן הארץ ואין מקבל טומאה לא בצמר ולא במשי ולא בכלים אפילו מן הגדל בארץ כגון המחצלאות והבגדים אשר מקבל טומאה ושיעור האכילה והשתייה והשינה בה מידי יום ביומו. משך שבעת ימים ושלא יהיה בחללה פחות משבעה טפחים אורך על שבעה טפחים רוחב ולא יהיה בגובה פחות מעשרה טפחים וכאשר בא שליח השם עליו השלום נתנה לו המצוה זו פירושה וכמו כן שש מאות ושלש עשרה המצוות הן ופירושיהן נוסח המצוות נכתב במגילה והפירוש על פה.

So what this illustration also illustrates something additional. The Rambam doesn't mention like one very basic halacha in hilchos sukkos תעשה ולא מן העשוי. Right? תעשה ולא מן העשוי means that, I mean, there are different examples of it, but one example of תעשה ולא מן העשוי is, let's say you have a gadish, right? You have a haystack and the haystack is at least ten tfachim high and let's make it more than seven tfachim square in terms of its area. And then what the person does is he hollows out the gadish, the haystack, he hollows it out so that when he finishes hollowing it out he has schach on top which is at least ten tfachim above the ground and he has an area of seven by seven. But he never put the schach there, right? It's just that he hollowed out underneath so by default you're left with schach. So that's pasul mishum תעשה ולא מן העשוי. There are many other tziyurim also of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. חג הסוכות תעשה לך is תעשה ולא מן העשוי. So the Rambam doesn't mention that. Mi'idach gisa, he doesn't say etcetera either, right? He doesn't give us any indication that I'm just giving you a few examples but I really mean kol hilchos sukkah. So the pshat says and we'll see this, I mean here it's sort of an inference but a little bit later, I think we will get to it b'ezras Hashem shortly, I think we'll see it again, we'll see it explicitly. The Rambam's conception of תורה שבעל פה, the fact that every mitzvah which was given b'peirusha nitnu doesn't mean that there wasn't development in תורה שבעל פה. The pshat is that Moshe Rabbeinu did not teach the din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי and at whatever when the chachmei hamasorah recognized that drasha, so then that din became binding. And that, so what's sort of, what's the demarcation line between, what's the demarcation line between all the dinim of hilchos sukkah that Moshe Rabbeinu did teach and for instance a din such as תעשה ולא מן העשוי which he didn't teach? So lichora there's a clear difference, right? All the examples that the Rambam gives are sort of so just elemental in terms of they're definitional, like what is a sukkah? Right? Rambam also doesn't mention, right? He doesn't mention how many dfanos you have either, right? That's also not mentioned here in the list of dinim. So the dinim that you have here are sort of definitional in the sense that the Torah says בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים. There's a mitzvah of yeshiva basukkah. So as the, as Rashi on the first mishnah in sukkah that שם הסכך נקרא סוכה, that schach means something which is koreis sukkah shalom, right? Is a k... canopy. That the ikkar of the sukkah is the schach. So in terms of most elementary definitions without which the mitzvah has no pshat, so all of those dinim were told. תעשה ולא מן העשוי is sort of a chiddush, right? It's a specialized din. It's a chiddush. You know what a sukkah is. Okay, תעשה ולא מן העשוי is a psul. But basically, you know what a sukkah is even if you don't know the din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. If you don't know the din of what material is used for the schach, what the area of a sukkah is, then you don't know what a sukkah is. And if you don't know who's supposed to sit in the sukkah, so again, you don't have the aleph-beis of mitzvas sukkah. Mah she-ein kein, hayos that the dfanos, again, they're not the ikkar sukkah. The ikkar sukkah is the schach. Hayos תעשה ולא מן העשוי, again, it's a chiddush in not in what a sukkah is, but how you're supposed to build a sukkah. That type of din is that didn't have to be known on day one. The mitzvos had to be had to have basar vegiddim. They had to have a tzura from day one. But not necessarily that every prat had to be known. It's an important distinction. Let's go on a little bit. Vayehi ba'arbayim shana berosh chodesh shevat hikilam alav hashalom. Again, this is a pasuk in Devarim. ויהי בעשתי עשר חודש באחד לחודש, right? Hikilam alav hashalom and said to them:

הנה קרבו ימי למות ועל כן כל מי ששמע ממני הלכה או פירוש ושכחה יבא ויבאר אותה לו ומי שנסתפק לו איזה נדון יבא ויבארנו לו.

Amar hakasuv:

הואיל משה באר את התורה הזאת לאמר. וכך אמרו חכמים בספרי: כל ששכח הלכה אחת יבא וישנה וכל שיש לו לפרש יבא ויפרש. בירור על פי ההלכה שבעל פה ולמדה הפירושים במשך אותו הזמן שמרֹאש חודש שבט עד שבעה באדר ולפני מותו פנה לכתוב וכתב שלש עשרה ספרי תורה

gevilim kulam mibereishis ad lamed of Yisrael, le'einei kol Yisrael

ונתן ספר לכל שבט ושבט להנהיג על פי והשלש עשרה נתן ללוים

and said to them to take this sefer torah and put it in the aron, ושמתם אותו מצד ארון ברית השם. The Rambam makes a point of, right, it is a machlokes in the first perek of Bava Basra about the last about the last eight psukim in Chumash, from וימת שם משה עבד השם, whether Yehoshua bin Nun had to have written those because how can Moshe Rabbeinu be writing וימת שם משה עבד השם? It's not true. When Moshe Rabbeinu is writing it, it's not true. So one one tanna thinks that Yehoshua wrote it, and the other said no, all of Torah was written by Moshe Rabbeinu. So Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe Rabbeinu wrote them bedema, well whatever that means. So the Rambam makes a point, even though lich'ora, that doesn't seem to be any nafka mina ledina between, again, it just seems to be a historical question. But the Rambam sort of goes out of his way, I mean he could have said וכתב שלש עשרה ספרי תורה. It seems like he's going out of his way to say no, no, the tanna who says Moshe Rabbeinu wrote it is right. And similarly, you find the same thing in Hilchos Tefilla. In Hilchos Tefilla, where is it, one second, in פרק י"ג הלכה ו'. Again, this is also from the gemara in that same sugya in Bava Basra.

שמונה פסוקים שבסוף התורה, מותר לקרות אותן בבית הכנסת בפחות מעשרה.

Right, the gemara has a lashon, it's a whole big machlokes b'meforshim what the lashon means, that the last eight psukim in Chumash, yachid korei osan. So according to the Rambam, what it means is you don't have to have a minyan. Ordinarily... the list, all those things which require asara, is ein korin baTorah, but שמונה פסוקים שבסוף התורה, the last eight pesukim, you don't have to have a minyan. אף על פי שהכל תורה. Now, the reason you don't need a minyan is not because it's any less Torah, and what's more,

ומפי משה מפי הגבורה הן, הואיל ומשמען שהן אחר מיתת משה,

havei nishtanu. They stand out from all other pesukim in the sense that even though everything is from Moshe, again, making the point of saying that Moshe kasvan, right? הוי נשתנו לפיכך מותר ליחיד לקרות אותן. So somehow the Rambam consistently wants us to know that, no, that's the man de-amar whose opinion should be accepted, even though again practically le-halacha, let's say, this din of yachid korei osan is according to both both opinions.

אחר כך עלה להר בחצי היום בשבעה באדר כפי שנתבאר בקבלה. והיה זה מושל לפי השגתנו כי נעדר ממנו וחי עבורו.

Okay, so we're looking at those devarim nishgavim. לפי העילוי שהגיע אליו vis-a-vis us it was death, but vis-a-vis Moshe Rabbeinu it was just a transition in life.

וכך אמרו עליהם השלום משה רבינו לא מת אלא עלה ומשמש במרום. והדברים בענין זה ארוכים מאד מאד ואין זה מקומם. וכאשר מת עליו השלום אחר שכבר הנחיל ליהושע מה שניתן לו מן הפירושים, למדוהו יהושע ואנשי דורו. וכל מה שקיבל ממנו הוא או אחד הזקנים אין בו דין ודברים בלא נפלה בו מחלוקת.

Right, so the Rambam says that the perushim mekubalim which we heard from Moshe Rabbeinu, there was never machlokes because Moshe Rabbeinu taught it to us, we preserve the masora, so mi-meila there's no room for machlokes. ומה שלא שמע מן הנביא עליו השלום, meaning for instance, let's say a din of תעשה ולא מן העשוי or something.

ומה שלא שמע מן הנביא עליו השלום יש בו דין ודברים על המסתעף ממנו.

So there, there could be machlokes,

ונלמד הדין בהם בהיקש על ידי שלש עשרה מדות שניתנו בסיני, בין שלש עשרה מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן, ומאותם הדינים הנלמדים יש דברים שנפלה בהם מחלוקת והסכימו עליהם.

Sometimes there was a universal consensus. However,

ויש בהם שנפלה בהם מחלוקת בין שתי דעות. זה לומד למדה זו ונתחזקה דעתו וזה לומד למדה זו ונתחזקה דעתו, כי אופני הלימוד הנתונים לויכוח יקרה לנלמד בהם מקרה מאלו. וכאשר נופלת מחלוקת זו הולכים אחר הרוב כפי שאמר השם אחרי רבים להטות.

So this is what we mentioned before, that the Rambam be-ferush says that there was development in Torah she-be'al peh. That Moshe Rabbeinu taught us the most basic, most elementary dinim, but the others such as for instance תעשה ולא מן העשוי, how many defanos, so that is something that the Chachmei ha-Masora were supposed to further uncover through מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן. Fine. But here I just I just want to leave off with one kasha. Again, so what does the Rambam tell us? That Moshe Rabbeinu the most basic elementary definitional elements of mitzvos, those were all from Moshe Rabbeinu. Again, some of the specialized halachos, not definitional, right? There's I mean again, what material the schach is, who's chayiv in in Yeshivas Sukkah is definitional. תעשה ולא מן העשוי is not definitional. And again, hayos that the sukkah is the schach and not the defanos, the number of defanos is not definitional either. Fine, okay, so that's where the line is drawn. So and and what's more the Rambam says that by the perushim mekubalim לא נפלה בו מחלוקת because we we received and preserved the masora. That's the way the Rambam presents it in the Yud-Gimmel Ikkarim as well. If you look in the Yesod ha-Shemini, so there too, the Rambam says...

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

Fine. Okay, all that is good and clear. So here's the kasha, rabosai. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah of askin Rabbi Abbahu be-Keisari. Rabbi Abbahu, an Amora, second generation of Amora, Rabbi Abbahu is a talmid of Rabbi Yochanan. That Rabbi Abbahu was misaken be-Keisari that we should blow tashrat. Why? Because sipukei misapka lei whether the truah of the Torah means shvarim, ginuchei ganach, whether it means what we call truah, yelulei yelil, or whether it means both, גנוחי גנח ויבולי יבלי, or what we call shvarim-truah. Okay. So very famously, the Ran quotes Rav Hai Gaon and says sipukei misapka lei doesn't mean literally there was a sofek. Blowing shofar every year, there's no real, there's no room for this to be forgotten. What it means is that min ha-Torah, truah doesn't denote one specific call. Truah in the Torah can refer to a shvarim, it can refer to what we call a truah, it can refer to what we call shvarim-truah. And therefore, all three permutations are kosher min ha-Torah. People who didn't realize that thought that there was such a basic dispute. So Rabbi Abbahu said, you know, that people shouldn't have the wrong impression, we need to have a uniform practice. And therefore, everyone should blow all three. Everyone should blow tashrat, everyone should blow tashat, everyone should blow tarat. But it doesn't mean that there was a real sofek. That's what the Rishonim quote from Rav Hai Gaon. Now, we would expect that the Rambam would certainly, certainly endorse that Rav Hai Gaon because lichora, what a truah is, so there's a posuk in Chumash, יום תרועה יהיה לכם. יום תרועה יהיה לכם in Rosh Hashanah, יום תרועה יהיה לכם. Lichora, what truah denotes, I mean, that's basic, that's definitional, like, you know, what materials do you use for schach? It's not less definitional than the fact that schach is from gidulei karka. And lichora, it's pashut that Moshe Rabbeinu told us what truah means. And the Rambam says what Moshe Rabbeinu told us in terms of peirushim mekubalim is לא נפלה בו מחלוקת כלל. So lichora, we're anticipating when we open the Rambam Hilchos Shofar, it's 100% clear that he's going to follow Rav Hai Gaon. But life is exciting and full of surprises, rabosai. So when you open the Rambam in perek gimmel Hilchos Shofar halacha beis, so lo ve-hineh the Rambam writes

תרועה זו האמורה בתורה נסתפק לנו בה ספק לפי אורך השנים ורוב הגליות ואין אנו יודעין היאך היא.

And then the Rambam goes on to tell us what the boundaries of our sofek are. So what's pshat in this? How does this one case integrate into the Rambam's whole approach? Now, it is true, but I don't know, is there more to be said than this? One's instinct is yes. Now, it is true that the shikcha that the Rambam is describing is not complete. It's not that we... forgot what a teruah is. No idea what a teruah is. No, we know that a teruah is one of three things. It's either what we call shevarim, what we call teruah, or what we call shevarim teruah. So in that sense, there isn't complete shichichah. It's not as if we have no idea what what what constitutes a melacha on Shabbos. No, it's not that we had no idea what a teruah is, but instead of having the certitude that it means this, we know it means either A, B, or C. But is is there more to be, is there more to be said here in terms of just how this integrates in into the Rambam's whole whole framework? If you take a look in the Frankel here, so the Frankel has a mareh makom to the Ritva in Rosh Hashanah lamed daled where the Gemara of be'abi avos, lamed daled. But the Ritva says something I don't, also challenging to understand, but whatever he says doesn't seem to be peshat in the Rambam. It seems to be his own his own understanding of of what the sofek is and and how the sofek arose. Okay, so ayen alav, maybe we'll we'll leave off with with that kashya. Okay rabosai, thank you very much, gut shabbos.