One of the main points of the article, that the arguments in the mishna are about small details, is expressed explicitly by the Ravaad. In the introduction to the ספר קבלה לראב"ד, the Ravaad [this is not the Ravaad who wrote the hasagos on the Rambam, but a different Ravaad who wrote his sefer in Spain around the year 1160] writes that all of the arguments are only about fine details of the mitzvos. There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah. As an example he says that there is no dispute if there is an obligation to light Shabbos candles or not, there are disputes about what may be used for this, but everyone agrees that you have to light them.
I can add, that this clearly shows the antiquity of the 'system'. Lighting Shabbos candles is a Rabbinic decree. Yet, if the tanaim argue about it, it was ancient enough that some details were not clear. Had this decree been recent, there would not have been a dispute about it. Similarly, there is a dispute if fowl and dairy together is a Torah prohibition or a Rabbinic one. Clearly, not eating fowl and dairy was forbidden for long enough that some fine details were lost. This was not a new decree, otherwise they would have known about it.
We see many times in the mishna, that there was an earlier 'system' in place. Some things were decrees from Ezra, who lived more than 500 years before the mishna was written. We see Hilel quoting the exact words from an earlier authority (Eduyos 1:3). The mishna in Eduyos (7:2) mentions an earlier mishna. There was an early 'system' in place. We see numerous times in maseches Eduyos how the sages learned or inferred Halachos from the words or examples of the earlier sages. Eduyos is full of citations from earlier sages, showing the antiquity of the system.
Another serious question is how did עם ישראל fulfill the מצווה of תפילין when they entered ארץ ישראל until this matter was finally decided? And other מצוות ?
"There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah"
That is a difficult statement. What is a 'teruah'? There are numerous permutations of kosher teffilin. With a bit of time, I could come up with a list of numerous mitzvos where the 'main part' is a machlokas. Of course, you can just redefine 'main part' to resolve the issue somehow.
As is topical, nearly every detail of the mishkan/beis hamikdosh is subject to a dispute over something. Even the height of the keroshim. I would have thought the height of the keroshim is a 'main part' of binyan hamishkon.
PS The very first mitzvah, peru u'revu, there is a machlokas about whether its two boys or a boy or a girl. That's a dispute over the 'main part' of the mitzvoh.
[The scene opens in a scholarly setting, with two characters engaged in a debate over Jewish law and tradition. They are seated at a table, surrounded by books and scrolls.]
CHARACTER 1 (a boy named "Fizzgiggle"):
Hark! There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah.
CHARACTER 2 (a girl named "Snickerdoodle"):
By the stars above, Fizzgiggle, that is a difficult statement. What is a 'teruah'? There are numerous permutations of kosher tefillin. With a bit of time, I could come up with a list of numerous mitzvos where the 'main part' is a machlokas. Of course, you can just redefine 'main part' to resolve the issue somehow.
CHARACTER 1 (Fizzgiggle):
[With a flourish of his quill] By my troth, Snickerdoodle, 'tis a puzzling matter indeed! As is topical, nearly every detail of the mishkan/beis hamikdosh is subject to a dispute over something. Even the height of the keroshim. I would have thought the height of the keroshim is a 'main part' of binyan hamishkon.
CHARACTER 2 (Snickerdoodle):
[Scratching her head in confusion and grepsing loudly] Verily, even the most fundamental aspects of our sacred texts can be subject to interpretation and debate. Take, for example, the very first mitzvah, peru u'revu. There is a machlokas about whether it's two boys or a boy and a girl. That's a dispute over the 'main part' of the mitzvah.
CHARACTER 1 (Fizzgiggle):
[In a dramatic tone] Alas, we are but mere mortals attempting to fathom the depths of divine law. Let us continue this discourse with humility and open minds, for the wisdom of our sages is as vast and mysterious as the ocean itself!
[They continue their discussion, delving deeper into the complexities of Jewish law and tradition, each seeking to understand the other's perspective while upholding their own beliefs and interpretations. Suddenly, a squirrel runs through the room, followed by a knight in shining armor riding a unicycle. The characters pause, then continue their debate as if nothing unusual had occurred. The scene fades to black as the debate continues, echoing through the ages. As the curtain closes, a goat appears on stage and eats it]
The Ravaad's point is that the arguments in the gemara and mishna are about small details, not the main points of the mitzvos. The Ravaad did not say anything about a machlokes rishonim in how to understand the gemara. This article was talking about the mishna and gemara, not rishonim and acharonim. We do not find the permutations that you describe in the gemaras.
The comments have moved beyond wider than the actual article, as happens. And anyway even that isn't true. Plenty of machlokas is about fundamentals. Like beis hillel and beis shammai on peru u'revu. A fundamental difference dispute over how to be mekayem the mitzvah. Hardly a 'small detail".
The machlokes about peru u'revu actually is a small detail. All agree that it is a mitzvah to have more children. Back in the good old days when all people observed the mitzvos, people would have had more than the minimum amount of children. (Polygamy helped with this!) Also, it's not really up to the person what gender the child will be.
Most people probably had more then the minimum, and people could not really determine the gender of the child. There is little to no practical difference between Beis Hilel and Shamai in this matter, so this is actually a small detail.
Aight, check it: dem comments be wildin', way bigger than the article itself, you know what I'm sayin'? And for real, even that ain't straight facts. There's plenty of back and forth about the basics. Like Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai on peru u'revu. It's a major showdown, how to get right with the mitzvah. That ain't just some small detail, nahmean?
שופר was one of the primary examples of עניין המצווה: that there is a מצוה to blow the שופר on ראש השנה, and make a certain number of sounds (please see תשובת רב האי גאון באוצר הגאונים על ר"ה בסוגיא זו(
The Maharitz Chayout in his sefer Mavoh LeTalmud explains that the Torah Baal Peh is based on the Torah She Bechtav. Hence the Tannaim seek proof for their drashot from the pesukim from the Torah . However they may have a Mesorah as to the halachah and may use a pasuk to help remember the halachah even if it is not conclusive or even far fetched or arbitrary.If their is a machloket about which pesukim to use and their halachot it may merely involve memory use for their position.
That is part of a big argument from that period between Maratz Chayes, Rav Hirsch,, Malbim, and Doros Harishonim, spanning the spectrum from all drashos are part of the system, to all drashos are just אסמכתא, and everything in between.
Rav Hirsch says pretty simmilar to Mahritz Chayes quoted above, the Malbim in the beggining of vayikra has a full system that it is a clear code to decipher halachos, while Doros Harishonim is very strong that no 13 middos work at all to bring back halachos and are all based on Mesorah or sevara, and drashos are only אסמכתא,. He cites how sometimes there are machlokes in drashos over something clearly derabanan. How that fits with the simple reading in most of shas beats me.
The reason is because it was in response to the challenges then from Accademia. Until then it was accepted it was a legitimate way of extrapolating halachos, just a מחלוקת רש"י ותוספות if the drashos like גזירת שוה were from sinai or just the tools were given and later implemented to rediscover forgotten halachos.
I don’t understand what you mean. There is a major dispute here. One side claims that everything was given at har Sinai and the derashos are just to remember things. The other side claims that derashos can create new halachos. This would seem to be a historical fact. They can’t both be right.
I didn't say to create new halachos. I said to rediscover forgotten ones. All agree all halachos were from sinai, as the Yerushalmi says כל מה שעתיד תלמיד להורות.
But yes, it should be a historical fact... if people cared to affirm so. It seems this was forgotten as it was not documented fully at a time when people accepted one option as obvious.
According to תוספות, All halachos were from sinai, and the way to find them in the torah were based on tools given at sinai. Not that they were used until they were needed.
Even Rashi agrees קל וחומר and בנין אב can be used later, only a גזירת שוה needs a mesorah from sinai, based on the teaching that אין אדם דן גזירת שוה אלא אם כן קיבלה מרבו, but there are many difficuties with that, and thats why תוספות holds even that was only used later . The meaning that one needs a mesorah from his Rebbi on a גזירת שוה doesn't mean back to sinai but to the time when they knew the system better.
Trying to prove the antiquity of the Oral Law is a fool's errand. It's a question of faith. You either believe all of it, as is, or none of it, or some mixture of both. My favourite piece of antiquity is The Passover Letter in the Elaphantine Papyri. Even tells us what Hametz actually is and what to do with it.
Trying to prove the historical existence of Alexander the Great and his empire is a fool's errand. It's a question of faith. You either believe all of it, as is, or none of it, or some mixture of both.
The Passover Letter in the Elaphantine Papyri is a fun read, no doubt. It might even surpass the Unabomber Manifesto in excitingness.
As I said above re the Oral Law, you either believe it lock stock and barrel, or you don't. With Alex, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no faith needed. Unless you go to an Aish seminar!
Alexander the Great has no proof, just various pieces of evidence, and is ultimately a matter of faith.
The Oral Law has tons of evidence, and can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. The great thing about the Oral Law is, it's true whether you believe it or not! Unless you go to a Sam Harris atheism seminar!
To my understanding, there is no direct firsthand documentary evidence that ALEXANDER ever existed.
And as Happy pointed out, it's not about proof but evidence. You are too short for this ride, mb.
In jurisprudence, there are multiple standards and burdens of proof. There is no certainty, just thresholds. A reflection of reality. You are unrealistic in the bar you set, and then don't bother to investigate the evidence or grant it the credence you should.
We are faithful to the Tradition as we have it. What did you expect that we can go back in time with a time machine!? Even matters that the are recorded are subject to doubts and factual criticism. Our Tradition is ancient but shows the organization,dedication and loyalty to truth. Hashem gave us the Torah under human circumstances and limitations. He expects us to be loyal to it as we have it. לא בשמים היה. ,We cannot expect more than that and neither does Hashem. We may raise questions but in the end this is the system we are committed to, As It is.
It's a misleading statement though. Science is also technically nothing more than faithfulness to a system. But no one would describe trusting the system as a fool's errand. The way you're saying it has an implication beyond the mere words you are using. Which is often the game people play in these conversations.
It is only logical that a מחלוקת implies that there is no straightforward halachah from Sinai.If ones attitude is that the Talmud as it stands is straight from Sinai that there is a problem.
No reason to see the Talmud like the in Torah She Bichtav.
What the Rambam is generally understood to mean is that there is no machlokes where one says, this is a halacha l'Moshe misinai and the other disputes it. The problem is, there seem to be several machlokes like this.
I heard that R JB Soloveichik זצ"ל stated that sometimes when it says Halachah Le Moshe Mi Sinai it may mean an ancient Halachah. To me that means that the Sanhedrin decided it long ago.
Shemoneh Esrei certainly wasn’t transmitted orally for a millenium and a half. It is a Rabbinical enactment. And according to the Amora Shmuel, Krias Shma is also a Rabbinical enactment, so it also wasn’t transmitted from Sinai.
Huh?? Did you read the essay? Where did I indicate otherwise? Shemoneh Esrei was transmitted orally from the time it was enacted. As was Krias Shema according to Shmuel.
“If Tannaim and Amoraim can debate such fundamental matters, such as how to recite Krias Shema, the text of Shemoneh Esrei, how Tefillin look, and hundreds or thousands of other examples, then this shows that the chain of transmission is faulty, and that such matters could not have been preserved orally for a millennium and a half.” Krias Shma (acc. to Shmuel) and Shmoneh Esrei were indeed not preserved orally for a millennium and a half.
שמונה עשרה was transmitted orally from the beginning of בית שני (the time of אנשי כנסת הגדולה) until the beginninh of תקופת הגאונים more than a millenium later. (Yes, there is a מחלוקת ראשונים if there was an original exact נוסח or not, but the רשב"א agrees that the basic framework and the topics and general נוסח was formulated in the time of the original enactment)
מצוות קריאת שמע was דרבנן according to שמואל, but it was a very old תקנה, since בית שמאי ובית הלל had a מחלוקת about details.
There was no fixed נוסח until the time of the גאונים. Even the number of ברכות was different in Eretz Yisroel and Bovel: 19 in Bovel, 18 in Eretz Yisroel.
I know that (I even taught a course about תולדות התפילה this semester, for the tenth time I think).
There is a מחלוקת החוקרים about it, if in א"י they joined את צמח with ירושלים to stay with 18 after תקנת ברכת המינים, while in בבל they didn't and had 19
That doesn't mean there was no fixes general נוסח. It merely means that there is a strong ראיה for the רשב"א
Have you ever seen סידור ארץ ישראל? The text is available on Wikipedia, just google נוסח ארץ ישראל. The text of the ברכות isn’t even similar to the text of the ברכות we say. You’ll see there that there were only 18 ברכות said in Eretz Yisroel, which is incidentally why the קרובץ for פורים does not have an insert for את צמח: it was written by R’ Elazar Hakalir, who davened נוסח ארץ ישראל. I don’t see how there can be a מחלוקת החוקרים about this.
I have the סידור א"י at home (מהדורת יאיר שאקי, מהדורה שניה כסלו התשע"ח)
I didn't say there was a מחלוקת about the number of ברכות in א"י and בבל, I said there is a מחלוקת if in א"י originaly had 17 and added ברכת המשומדים or they orig. had 18 and then joined את צמח and ירושלים to maintain 18 when they added ברכת המשומדים
All the ברכות in נוסח א"י are similar in content to those of נוסח בבל
Which is exactly what I meant when I wrote about a fixes general נוסח
That isn’t a fixed general נוסח! That’s just a list of topics which the ברכות need to be about, nothing else! (And even that wasn’t entirely fixed, as you concede.)
"......then this shows that the chain of transmission is FAULTY, and that such matters could not have been preserved orally for a millennium and a half. Or so they imagine. But the truth is precisely the opposite. If there was NO chain of oral transmission....."
Notice the subtle change? You do this sort of thing the entire time......
Well actually, this is a very important point. Most people don't question the Mesorah for the sake of questioning it "a little bit." What really happens is they don't believe in the Mesorah and they use these "questions" as "proofs" that the whole thing is faulty. And why not? Once it's faulty, who said this other part isn't? And this other part? Until the whole tower (in their stupid minds) crumbles. In real life however, if you follow the nature of the tradition, the better explanation is that there was something there to be debating about.
I'm not going to talk for Happy, but that's how I understood his point.
And btw if the transmission was at least as reliable as this article will allow it to be, the fact that it is more accurate than that kinda follows, because it turns out to be a reliable system worth trusting.
Fascinating, maybe yes, maybe not, depends on what the 'thing' is, really, but completely irrelevant to my particular point.
Plenty of people distrusted the medical profession with anything COVID related, yet generally believe the medical system is reputable. So I am not sure your statement is correct at all.
Needless to say, you are one of his minions. He did a crafty change bein reisha l'seifah and you couldn't care less. And your point about mesorah and questioning is complete waffle. But as a good yeshiva man, you happily ignore what the words actually say and substitute your own to justify the agenda.
Accurate and good writing and explaining should not need to rely on context. Because that is just a method of twisting.
And you need to learn that words mean what they say. "Innacurate transmission" is not the same as "no transmission". And a proof against "no transmission" is not a proof against 'innacurate transmission'. On the contrary, your proofs actually demonstrate 'innacurate transmission', becase in a system of accurate transmission no disputes should actually arise. Which is of course the reason you craftily changed to 'no transmission' in mid sentence. And your minions here happily don't care!
"Accurate and good writing and explaining should not need to rely on context. Because that is just a method of twisting."
Uh, thank you for your proposed writing rules, dear candidate for Czar of Writing. Let us know when you win the election. For now I will still use this thing called "context".
Context is used, in the professional world, as a bdi eved tool to interpet texts which have uncertainty or problems. The fact that you have a different approach, using context to distort words when they are actually quite clear, is classic yeshivish. Of course, when it suits you you cherry pick words and ignore context.
I don't know why you often give irrelevant responses. Happy made a subtle but significant change in mid-flow. If you don't realise the implications for the logic and debate, so be it.
To bonus questions:
מלכים ב פרק ה
(ג) וַתֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־גְּבִרְתָּ֔הּ אַחֲלֵ֣י אֲדֹנִ֔י לִפְנֵ֥י הַנָּבִ֖יא אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּשֹׁמְר֑וֹן אָ֛ז יֶאֱסֹ֥ף אֹת֖וֹ מִצָּרַעְתּֽוֹ:
(ד) וַיָּבֹ֕א וַיַּגֵּ֥ד לַאדֹנָ֖יו לֵאמֹ֑ר כָּזֹ֤את וְכָזֹאת֙ דִּבְּרָ֣ה הַֽנַּעֲרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵאֶ֥רֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל:
(ה) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֶֽלֶךְ־אֲרָם֙ לֶךְ־בֹּ֔א וְאֶשְׁלְחָ֥ה סֵ֖פֶר אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֵּלֶךְ֩ וַיִּקַּ֨ח בְּיָד֜וֹ עֶ֣שֶׂר כִּכְּרֵי־כֶ֗סֶף וְשֵׁ֤שֶׁת אֲלָפִים֙ זָהָ֔ב וְעֶ֖שֶׂר חֲלִיפ֥וֹת בְּגָדִֽים:
second would be shimon hatzadik
My answers:
1. עי' שקלים ו, ו
2. עי' אבן עזרא תהלים קלט, טז
יהוידע isn't the one talking in the mishna but being referenced. But yes, it is a mishna as opposed to mine.
Where does shimon hatzadik say a halachic statement?
I was thinking this
תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדרים דף ט עמוד ב
דתניא, אמר (רבי) שמעון הצדיק: מימי לא אכלתי אשם נזיר טמא אלא אחד;
תלמוד בבלי מסכת נדרים דף י עמוד א
אמר אביי: שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון ור' אלעזר הקפר, כולן שיטה אחת הן דנזיר חוטא הוי. שמעון הצדיק ורבי שמעון - הא דאמרן;
But maybe nazir choteh is Aggadic? I was assuming there's a נפקא מינה.
Nice!
What about chagai hanavi 2nd perek of kidushin?
(But these are not mishnayos tho)
That is a statement in the name of chagi, similar to that would be chagi in zevachim daf 60. this is the statement of shimon hatzadik himself.
For that reason I question happy's answer too, but to be honest, he only said mishna not braysa so mine is out too.
Or does bk 60b count where the gemara quotes the letter the sanhedrin send Dovid hamelech?
Or pinchas with Moshe Rabbeinu about איהו להוי פרונקא which happy eludes to in the comments below?
That is not their statement in the braysa but retelling their teachings.
Great article!
One of the main points of the article, that the arguments in the mishna are about small details, is expressed explicitly by the Ravaad. In the introduction to the ספר קבלה לראב"ד, the Ravaad [this is not the Ravaad who wrote the hasagos on the Rambam, but a different Ravaad who wrote his sefer in Spain around the year 1160] writes that all of the arguments are only about fine details of the mitzvos. There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah. As an example he says that there is no dispute if there is an obligation to light Shabbos candles or not, there are disputes about what may be used for this, but everyone agrees that you have to light them.
I can add, that this clearly shows the antiquity of the 'system'. Lighting Shabbos candles is a Rabbinic decree. Yet, if the tanaim argue about it, it was ancient enough that some details were not clear. Had this decree been recent, there would not have been a dispute about it. Similarly, there is a dispute if fowl and dairy together is a Torah prohibition or a Rabbinic one. Clearly, not eating fowl and dairy was forbidden for long enough that some fine details were lost. This was not a new decree, otherwise they would have known about it.
We see many times in the mishna, that there was an earlier 'system' in place. Some things were decrees from Ezra, who lived more than 500 years before the mishna was written. We see Hilel quoting the exact words from an earlier authority (Eduyos 1:3). The mishna in Eduyos (7:2) mentions an earlier mishna. There was an early 'system' in place. We see numerous times in maseches Eduyos how the sages learned or inferred Halachos from the words or examples of the earlier sages. Eduyos is full of citations from earlier sages, showing the antiquity of the system.
Isn't רבי עקיבה considered to have organized the Mishnah orally way before the final Mishnah organized
by רבי יהודה הנשיא?
Another serious question is how did עם ישראל fulfill the מצווה of תפילין when they entered ארץ ישראל until this matter was finally decided? And other מצוות ?
"There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah"
That is a difficult statement. What is a 'teruah'? There are numerous permutations of kosher teffilin. With a bit of time, I could come up with a list of numerous mitzvos where the 'main part' is a machlokas. Of course, you can just redefine 'main part' to resolve the issue somehow.
As is topical, nearly every detail of the mishkan/beis hamikdosh is subject to a dispute over something. Even the height of the keroshim. I would have thought the height of the keroshim is a 'main part' of binyan hamishkon.
PS The very first mitzvah, peru u'revu, there is a machlokas about whether its two boys or a boy or a girl. That's a dispute over the 'main part' of the mitzvoh.
[The scene opens in a scholarly setting, with two characters engaged in a debate over Jewish law and tradition. They are seated at a table, surrounded by books and scrolls.]
CHARACTER 1 (a boy named "Fizzgiggle"):
Hark! There is no machlokes about the main part of the mitzvah.
CHARACTER 2 (a girl named "Snickerdoodle"):
By the stars above, Fizzgiggle, that is a difficult statement. What is a 'teruah'? There are numerous permutations of kosher tefillin. With a bit of time, I could come up with a list of numerous mitzvos where the 'main part' is a machlokas. Of course, you can just redefine 'main part' to resolve the issue somehow.
CHARACTER 1 (Fizzgiggle):
[With a flourish of his quill] By my troth, Snickerdoodle, 'tis a puzzling matter indeed! As is topical, nearly every detail of the mishkan/beis hamikdosh is subject to a dispute over something. Even the height of the keroshim. I would have thought the height of the keroshim is a 'main part' of binyan hamishkon.
CHARACTER 2 (Snickerdoodle):
[Scratching her head in confusion and grepsing loudly] Verily, even the most fundamental aspects of our sacred texts can be subject to interpretation and debate. Take, for example, the very first mitzvah, peru u'revu. There is a machlokas about whether it's two boys or a boy and a girl. That's a dispute over the 'main part' of the mitzvah.
CHARACTER 1 (Fizzgiggle):
[In a dramatic tone] Alas, we are but mere mortals attempting to fathom the depths of divine law. Let us continue this discourse with humility and open minds, for the wisdom of our sages is as vast and mysterious as the ocean itself!
[They continue their discussion, delving deeper into the complexities of Jewish law and tradition, each seeking to understand the other's perspective while upholding their own beliefs and interpretations. Suddenly, a squirrel runs through the room, followed by a knight in shining armor riding a unicycle. The characters pause, then continue their debate as if nothing unusual had occurred. The scene fades to black as the debate continues, echoing through the ages. As the curtain closes, a goat appears on stage and eats it]
Well we have a rishon who actually knows Shas saying one thing, and Test saying another. Your opinion is therefore בטל ומבוטל.
P.S. Exactly how many permutations of tefilin are found in the gemara? This discussion was about the gemara and mishna.
None. The rishonim that discuss teffilin are all explaining the gemoroh dear.
The Ravaad's point is that the arguments in the gemara and mishna are about small details, not the main points of the mitzvos. The Ravaad did not say anything about a machlokes rishonim in how to understand the gemara. This article was talking about the mishna and gemara, not rishonim and acharonim. We do not find the permutations that you describe in the gemaras.
The comments have moved beyond wider than the actual article, as happens. And anyway even that isn't true. Plenty of machlokas is about fundamentals. Like beis hillel and beis shammai on peru u'revu. A fundamental difference dispute over how to be mekayem the mitzvah. Hardly a 'small detail".
The machlokes about peru u'revu actually is a small detail. All agree that it is a mitzvah to have more children. Back in the good old days when all people observed the mitzvos, people would have had more than the minimum amount of children. (Polygamy helped with this!) Also, it's not really up to the person what gender the child will be.
Most people probably had more then the minimum, and people could not really determine the gender of the child. There is little to no practical difference between Beis Hilel and Shamai in this matter, so this is actually a small detail.
Aight, check it: dem comments be wildin', way bigger than the article itself, you know what I'm sayin'? And for real, even that ain't straight facts. There's plenty of back and forth about the basics. Like Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai on peru u'revu. It's a major showdown, how to get right with the mitzvah. That ain't just some small detail, nahmean?
What ראב"ד הראשון means (following רס"ג), is that עניין המצווה is not disputed.
What exactly is meant by עניין המצווה in this context?
But clearly that is not what 'Shmuel' wrote above.
That תפילין are certain פרשיות within a בית, that should be worn.
Ok, but that doesn't work for everything.
Tell me, is the mitzvah to hear the shofar or to blow the shofar? That is a fundamental machlokas over how the mitzvah is performed.
You can't seriously answer that there is no machlokas that the mitzvah is connected with an animal horn.
שופר was one of the primary examples of עניין המצווה: that there is a מצוה to blow the שופר on ראש השנה, and make a certain number of sounds (please see תשובת רב האי גאון באוצר הגאונים על ר"ה בסוגיא זו(
The Maharitz Chayout in his sefer Mavoh LeTalmud explains that the Torah Baal Peh is based on the Torah She Bechtav. Hence the Tannaim seek proof for their drashot from the pesukim from the Torah . However they may have a Mesorah as to the halachah and may use a pasuk to help remember the halachah even if it is not conclusive or even far fetched or arbitrary.If their is a machloket about which pesukim to use and their halachot it may merely involve memory use for their position.
That is part of a big argument from that period between Maratz Chayes, Rav Hirsch,, Malbim, and Doros Harishonim, spanning the spectrum from all drashos are part of the system, to all drashos are just אסמכתא, and everything in between.
Could you expand on this please? Who says what?
Rav Hirsch says pretty simmilar to Mahritz Chayes quoted above, the Malbim in the beggining of vayikra has a full system that it is a clear code to decipher halachos, while Doros Harishonim is very strong that no 13 middos work at all to bring back halachos and are all based on Mesorah or sevara, and drashos are only אסמכתא,. He cites how sometimes there are machlokes in drashos over something clearly derabanan. How that fits with the simple reading in most of shas beats me.
And how can that be an argument in the 19th century? Shouldn’t the answer to that question be obvious and well known from the beginning?
The reason is because it was in response to the challenges then from Accademia. Until then it was accepted it was a legitimate way of extrapolating halachos, just a מחלוקת רש"י ותוספות if the drashos like גזירת שוה were from sinai or just the tools were given and later implemented to rediscover forgotten halachos.
I don’t understand what you mean. There is a major dispute here. One side claims that everything was given at har Sinai and the derashos are just to remember things. The other side claims that derashos can create new halachos. This would seem to be a historical fact. They can’t both be right.
The method of the 13 principles etc. are from
Sinai hence the fleshed out halachot are from Sinai
I didn't say to create new halachos. I said to rediscover forgotten ones. All agree all halachos were from sinai, as the Yerushalmi says כל מה שעתיד תלמיד להורות.
But yes, it should be a historical fact... if people cared to affirm so. It seems this was forgotten as it was not documented fully at a time when people accepted one option as obvious.
They can't both be right, true.
No. According to the Rambam derashos can create new halachos. Look at the Rambams introduction to mishnayos. This is exactly the point under dispute.
When you think about it this dispute is really what did they get at har Sinai? Everything, some things?
According to תוספות, All halachos were from sinai, and the way to find them in the torah were based on tools given at sinai. Not that they were used until they were needed.
Even Rashi agrees קל וחומר and בנין אב can be used later, only a גזירת שוה needs a mesorah from sinai, based on the teaching that אין אדם דן גזירת שוה אלא אם כן קיבלה מרבו, but there are many difficuties with that, and thats why תוספות holds even that was only used later . The meaning that one needs a mesorah from his Rebbi on a גזירת שוה doesn't mean back to sinai but to the time when they knew the system better.
for example, עתניאל בן קנז החזיר שלש מאות הלכות. According to Rashi that was done with קל וחומר, but according to others it was with the 13 middos.
You do know that the 13 middis themselves are disputed.
R' Yishmael has
כלל ופרט
פרט וכלל
כלל ופרט וכלל
As 3 of the 13 middos. R' Akiva on the other hand replaced these 3 with 3 different middos
ריבוי ומיעוט
מיעוט וריבוי
ריבוי מיעוט וריבוי
The Rishonim and Acharonim point out that these are mutually exclusive. You either use 1 set or the other with very different results.
Trying to prove the antiquity of the Oral Law is a fool's errand. It's a question of faith. You either believe all of it, as is, or none of it, or some mixture of both. My favourite piece of antiquity is The Passover Letter in the Elaphantine Papyri. Even tells us what Hametz actually is and what to do with it.
Cheers
Trying to prove the historical existence of Alexander the Great and his empire is a fool's errand. It's a question of faith. You either believe all of it, as is, or none of it, or some mixture of both.
The Passover Letter in the Elaphantine Papyri is a fun read, no doubt. It might even surpass the Unabomber Manifesto in excitingness.
Double cheers
Sorry, but you are being snarky,
I can prove Alexander's Empire. You are me or anybody else cannot prove the uninterrupted mesora of the oral law..
Nope. You cannot prove Alexander's Empire. You can bring evidence, which may or may not be convincing, but ultimately, it's a matter of faith.
As I said above re the Oral Law, you either believe it lock stock and barrel, or you don't. With Alex, it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, no faith needed. Unless you go to an Aish seminar!
Well, actually-
Alexander the Great has no proof, just various pieces of evidence, and is ultimately a matter of faith.
The Oral Law has tons of evidence, and can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. The great thing about the Oral Law is, it's true whether you believe it or not! Unless you go to a Sam Harris atheism seminar!
Cheers again, friend.
Too circular.
He specialises in being snarky.
Gobebla gook!
To my understanding, there is no direct firsthand documentary evidence that ALEXANDER ever existed.
And as Happy pointed out, it's not about proof but evidence. You are too short for this ride, mb.
In jurisprudence, there are multiple standards and burdens of proof. There is no certainty, just thresholds. A reflection of reality. You are unrealistic in the bar you set, and then don't bother to investigate the evidence or grant it the credence you should.
Then you say, "there's no proof!" Loser.
But there may be enough proof to make it considerably convincing or overwhelmingly convincing !?
You don't know, so your question (or assertion) is pointless. No.
A historian could give you a fair evaluation if he knew the basis for this accepted "fact'.
It's not just "faith" though. It's looking into it like a mentch and deciding if it holds up. And like heck it does!
To some it does, and to others it doesn't.
We are faithful to the Tradition as we have it. What did you expect that we can go back in time with a time machine!? Even matters that the are recorded are subject to doubts and factual criticism. Our Tradition is ancient but shows the organization,dedication and loyalty to truth. Hashem gave us the Torah under human circumstances and limitations. He expects us to be loyal to it as we have it. לא בשמים היה. ,We cannot expect more than that and neither does Hashem. We may raise questions but in the end this is the system we are committed to, As It is.
Well that depends on how well you look into it.
As I said, a fool's errand. In fact the word is emunah, which doesn't mean faith, but faithfulness. Faithfulness to a system.
אמונה means belief it is true. But how you believe it is true may be by faith or faithfulness or both.
Actually, Kuti, that is not at all a proper definition of אמונה.
The more appropriate word is bitachon.
It's a misleading statement though. Science is also technically nothing more than faithfulness to a system. But no one would describe trusting the system as a fool's errand. The way you're saying it has an implication beyond the mere words you are using. Which is often the game people play in these conversations.
re Kuzari Ha Sheni..I wrote an essay on that years ago. In 1842 the book
was translated into English, probably as a response to the
inauguration of the first Reform congregation in London in 1840, who,
significantly, identified themselves as“neo-Karaites” And as I have
said often, the British reform movement was not an offshoot of the
German one that found footing the United States, but was in fact the
defectors from the S & P community at Bevis Marks. German Reform did
eventually make some mark in Britain, but is positively Orthodox in
comparison to the S & P, and US versions of Reform, reflecting the strength of
enlightened Orthodoxy that dominated religious Judaism in the UK then
and still does today.
The Rambam states that any הלכה which is in dispute could not have been given to Moshe at Sinai.
A famous Rambam that many have great difficulty with.
It is only logical that a מחלוקת implies that there is no straightforward halachah from Sinai.If ones attitude is that the Talmud as it stands is straight from Sinai that there is a problem.
No reason to see the Talmud like the in Torah She Bichtav.
What the Rambam is generally understood to mean is that there is no machlokes where one says, this is a halacha l'Moshe misinai and the other disputes it. The problem is, there seem to be several machlokes like this.
I heard that R JB Soloveichik זצ"ל stated that sometimes when it says Halachah Le Moshe Mi Sinai it may mean an ancient Halachah. To me that means that the Sanhedrin decided it long ago.
That's already in the Rosh and other Rishonim. That doesn't answer the difficulties with this Rambam.
Yeah, what's a teruah?
tututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtututututututututututututututututututtutututututututututututututututututut
That's a קושיא on שיטת הרמב"ם
Indeed. Not the first is it? Just need to reintrepret the Rambam.
Of course
Shemoneh Esrei certainly wasn’t transmitted orally for a millenium and a half. It is a Rabbinical enactment. And according to the Amora Shmuel, Krias Shma is also a Rabbinical enactment, so it also wasn’t transmitted from Sinai.
Huh?? Did you read the essay? Where did I indicate otherwise? Shemoneh Esrei was transmitted orally from the time it was enacted. As was Krias Shema according to Shmuel.
“If Tannaim and Amoraim can debate such fundamental matters, such as how to recite Krias Shema, the text of Shemoneh Esrei, how Tefillin look, and hundreds or thousands of other examples, then this shows that the chain of transmission is faulty, and that such matters could not have been preserved orally for a millennium and a half.” Krias Shma (acc. to Shmuel) and Shmoneh Esrei were indeed not preserved orally for a millennium and a half.
In that paragraph I am just quoting a theoretical מכחיש המעתיקים. I make it very clear that there were many takanos chachamim.
שמונה עשרה was transmitted orally from the beginning of בית שני (the time of אנשי כנסת הגדולה) until the beginninh of תקופת הגאונים more than a millenium later. (Yes, there is a מחלוקת ראשונים if there was an original exact נוסח or not, but the רשב"א agrees that the basic framework and the topics and general נוסח was formulated in the time of the original enactment)
מצוות קריאת שמע was דרבנן according to שמואל, but it was a very old תקנה, since בית שמאי ובית הלל had a מחלוקת about details.
Not accurate. I doubt they davened 'mipnei chatoeinu golinu meartzeinu' etc during bayis sheini.
I didn't say they didn't change the נוסח after the חורבן
There was no fixed נוסח until the time of the גאונים. Even the number of ברכות was different in Eretz Yisroel and Bovel: 19 in Bovel, 18 in Eretz Yisroel.
I know that (I even taught a course about תולדות התפילה this semester, for the tenth time I think).
There is a מחלוקת החוקרים about it, if in א"י they joined את צמח with ירושלים to stay with 18 after תקנת ברכת המינים, while in בבל they didn't and had 19
That doesn't mean there was no fixes general נוסח. It merely means that there is a strong ראיה for the רשב"א
Have you ever seen סידור ארץ ישראל? The text is available on Wikipedia, just google נוסח ארץ ישראל. The text of the ברכות isn’t even similar to the text of the ברכות we say. You’ll see there that there were only 18 ברכות said in Eretz Yisroel, which is incidentally why the קרובץ for פורים does not have an insert for את צמח: it was written by R’ Elazar Hakalir, who davened נוסח ארץ ישראל. I don’t see how there can be a מחלוקת החוקרים about this.
I have the סידור א"י at home (מהדורת יאיר שאקי, מהדורה שניה כסלו התשע"ח)
I didn't say there was a מחלוקת about the number of ברכות in א"י and בבל, I said there is a מחלוקת if in א"י originaly had 17 and added ברכת המשומדים or they orig. had 18 and then joined את צמח and ירושלים to maintain 18 when they added ברכת המשומדים
All the ברכות in נוסח א"י are similar in content to those of נוסח בבל
Which is exactly what I meant when I wrote about a fixes general נוסח
That isn’t a fixed general נוסח! That’s just a list of topics which the ברכות need to be about, nothing else! (And even that wasn’t entirely fixed, as you concede.)
..
Agreed!
Very well written.
I just want to add that according to רש"י וחכמי אשכנז וצרפת the משנה was transmitted בעל-פה until תקופת הגאונים, as was the תלמוד בבלי.
Even better. Where is this Rashi?
Please see הקדמת רבי אייזיק שטיין לפירושו לסמ"ג where he brings all the רש"יs about it.
The סמ"ג says in his הקדמה : "לא נכתבו המשנה והתלמוד עד שעמדו בעולם אמונת אדום וישמעאל"
Thank you
I don't understand what you want to prove by that.
The bavli refers in itself to it being written down. Gittin I think. Eis la'asos. But the precise meaning of the gemoro is no doubt a machlokas :)
Where in גיטין?
If you mean ס ע"ב that's not what the גמרא says, but the תוספות רי"ד.
רש"י explains in a different way.
"......then this shows that the chain of transmission is FAULTY, and that such matters could not have been preserved orally for a millennium and a half. Or so they imagine. But the truth is precisely the opposite. If there was NO chain of oral transmission....."
Notice the subtle change? You do this sort of thing the entire time......
Well actually, this is a very important point. Most people don't question the Mesorah for the sake of questioning it "a little bit." What really happens is they don't believe in the Mesorah and they use these "questions" as "proofs" that the whole thing is faulty. And why not? Once it's faulty, who said this other part isn't? And this other part? Until the whole tower (in their stupid minds) crumbles. In real life however, if you follow the nature of the tradition, the better explanation is that there was something there to be debating about.
I'm not going to talk for Happy, but that's how I understood his point.
His counterproof says nothing to rebut 'innacurate transmission'.
Agreed, but you asked that to be his point.
And btw if the transmission was at least as reliable as this article will allow it to be, the fact that it is more accurate than that kinda follows, because it turns out to be a reliable system worth trusting.
No idea what you mean in your second paragraph, but at least you now agree to me in the first.
I mean that once a system is reputable, we can trust it even with things we aren't as sure about
Fascinating, maybe yes, maybe not, depends on what the 'thing' is, really, but completely irrelevant to my particular point.
Plenty of people distrusted the medical profession with anything COVID related, yet generally believe the medical system is reputable. So I am not sure your statement is correct at all.
Needless to say, you are one of his minions. He did a crafty change bein reisha l'seifah and you couldn't care less. And your point about mesorah and questioning is complete waffle. But as a good yeshiva man, you happily ignore what the words actually say and substitute your own to justify the agenda.
You have to learn about this thing called "context". As in, reading words in context of the sentence the words are in.
Accurate and good writing and explaining should not need to rely on context. Because that is just a method of twisting.
And you need to learn that words mean what they say. "Innacurate transmission" is not the same as "no transmission". And a proof against "no transmission" is not a proof against 'innacurate transmission'. On the contrary, your proofs actually demonstrate 'innacurate transmission', becase in a system of accurate transmission no disputes should actually arise. Which is of course the reason you craftily changed to 'no transmission' in mid sentence. And your minions here happily don't care!
"Accurate and good writing and explaining should not need to rely on context. Because that is just a method of twisting."
Uh, thank you for your proposed writing rules, dear candidate for Czar of Writing. Let us know when you win the election. For now I will still use this thing called "context".
Context is used, in the professional world, as a bdi eved tool to interpet texts which have uncertainty or problems. The fact that you have a different approach, using context to distort words when they are actually quite clear, is classic yeshivish. Of course, when it suits you you cherry pick words and ignore context.
准确且良好的写作和解释不应依赖于上下文。因为那只是一种歪曲的方法。
你需要明白，词语的意思就是它们所说的。 "不准确的传递"并不等同于"没有传递"。反对"没有传递"的证明并不是反对"不准确传递"的证明。相反，你的证据实际上证明了"不准确传递"，因为在一个准确传递的系统中，实际上不应该出现任何争议。这正是你狡猾地在句中改变为"没有传递"的原因。而你的追随者们在这里则乐此不疲！
If I call you a retard will you go away?
A word salad doesn't work within a "context," Happy. It's just a salad and it's all mixed up.
A faulty cahin of transmission, when it comes to minute details, is not better than no chain of oral transmission. It might even be worse.
We are not discussing 'worse' and not 'worse'.
Why not?
that's the point here.
No. No. No.
The havah minog is 'innacurate transmission'. That is not the same as 'none'. If you show NOT none, that says nothing about accuracy, does it?
Nobody serious disputes there is a chain of transmission. The question is it may be innacurate.
I think that you are unaware of the many חוקרים who denied (and deny) the whole chain of transmission רח"ל
I don't know why you often give irrelevant responses. Happy made a subtle but significant change in mid-flow. If you don't realise the implications for the logic and debate, so be it.
קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא!