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.
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.
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.
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.
"......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......
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
..
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.
"......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......