Thinking about the question of whether there was a mitzvah for Pharoah to listen to Moshe triggered my wondering about a somewhat related question. Rashi cites derasha after derasha in explaining the halachos of korban pesach defined by the pesukim in our parsha, Shmos ch. 12. The Netziv takes note of the Torah’s language in emphasizing (12:28) that Bnei Yisrael did “ka’asher tzivah Hashem es Moshe” – the term “tzivah” as opposed to “ka’asher diber” is inclusive of Rabbinic explication in addition to the words G-d spoke. Yet, if the basis for Rabbinic authority is the mitzvah of “lo tasur” (as the Rambam writes), there seems to be no compelling reason for Bnei Yisrael to have accepted Moshe’s interpretation and derush of these pesukim, as the mitzvah of “lo tasur” was yet to be given. Why then did they listen?
We already discussed a similar question in the past. The gemara (Shabbos 87) tells us that as a result of Moshe’s interpretation of Hashem’s command, he added an extra day into the calculation of when the Torah would be given. R’ Elchanan asks: Granted that this interpretation was done through Moshe’s use of the 13 midos of torah sheba’al peh, but what authority or basis did those midos have prior to the commandment of “lo tasur’ being given? I don’t understand – why is R’ Elchanan bothered by this gemara and not bothered by the derashos galore on our parsha? I think I must be missing something but can’t figure out what.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I once spoke about when was Moshe accepted as a navi in Klal Yisroel. The sefer HaIkkarim holds it wasn't until matan torah that he had the status of a navi.
ReplyDeletehttp://nefeshchaim.blogspot.com/2008/01/parshas-vaeiramoshes-nevuah.html
> Why then did they listen?
ReplyDelete1) Because he was sent by God, had proof and the miracles to back it up. That was clearly enough.
2) If we accept the d'rasha that the Avos learned and kept the entire Torah, even eiruv tavshilin, then that clearly implies the oral law existed before Matan Torah. In fact it implies that the entire Torah was ba'al peh before Matan Torah and the sudden appearance of the completed Written Torah 40 years later was the chidush.
1) What proof? And since when is being sent by G-d or performing miracles a license to change torah? R' Eliezer was told "lo bashamayim hi" despite a bas kol, a river running the wrong way, the walls of the beis medrash caving in, etc.
ReplyDelete2) Torah existed even before the world, but that does not translate into a chovas hagavra. The Avos would not receive onshim for violating torah; disobeying the dinim of korban pesach carries a penalty.
1) The proof was his use of the phrase "Pakod pakadti" that Yosef said would only be used by a genuine messenger. Lo bashamayim hi only applied after Moshe said it at the end of the Torah since otherwise how could there been a matan Torah?
ReplyDelete2) I wasn't speaking about chovah and onesh, only existence. If the Avos observed it then it must have existed.
Pakod pakaditi proved Moshe's identity as goel, but what does that have to do with the right to be mechadesh or interpret halacha? Lo bashamayim applies to all dinim once they are give; it applies here because these dinim were given pre-mattan Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam writes (Yesodei haTorah ch. 9) that a navi who tries even to interpret the Torah counter to what we accept as mesorah, even if he does signs and wonders, is a navi sheker. Nevuah does not override halacha and cannot be mechadesh halacha. So you need a different mechanism, one apart from "lo tasur", which gave Moshe Rabeinu authority as posek and rebbe aside from his role as navi.
2) The question here is what makes the laws obligatory without "lo tasur". The Avos obeyed voluntarily.
Sorry, but once again I submit that the premise of your question is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteLo tasur is not the reason that Torah she be al Peh is a chiyuv. Lo tasur means that one has to listen to the Horaah of the Beis Din ha Gadol. That takes effect when there is a doubt as to something in halakha. You submit the question to the BDHG and you have to follow their psak. (It is also authority for derbannans, at least acc. to the Rambam.)
Torah she be al Peh is a chiyuv for the same reason Torah she be ksav is a chiyuv -- because Hashem commanded Bnei Yisroel to observe it through Moshe. That one is written down while the other isn't doesn't make it less of a chiyuv.
(The tsivuyim in this week's parsha were given prior to Ma'amad Har Sinai, but they still have the status of Torah. Like the mitzvos given at Marah.)
For that matter, the Avos WERE given the mitzvah of Milah. That was obligatory on them and their children -- even though it was not written down anywhere. That was Torah she be al Peh.
(I know we follow it because of the tsivui given to Moshe in Parshas Tazria. But the doros up to the Dor ha Midbar followed it because of the tsivui to Avraham.)
why did they have to listen at marrah?
ReplyDeletecould it be that they didnt have to listen until matan torah when it was taught again?
>>>Torah she be al Peh is a chiyuv for the same reason Torah she be ksav is a chiyuv -- because Hashem commanded Bnei Yisroel to observe it through Moshe.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Hashem tell you (except for lo tasur) to listen to the particular spin Chazal offer instead of your own? To listen to the words of Hashem is implicit in the whole concept of "tzivuy", but the words of Chazal are interpretation, not inherent in the tzivuy, otherwise every derabbanan turns into a d'orasya. That's the Ramban's whole kashe on the Rambam. See Kuntres Divrei Sofrim 1:14.
>>>why did they have to listen at marrah?
There was no concept of Torah as distinct from Nevuah pre-mattan Torah (Nefesh haChaim 1:22). The Minchas Chinuch's point that every violation of a din should also be an issur of violating the words of a Navi rings true. Mattan Torah created a different cheftza of Torah and a cheftza of Torah sheb'al peh with different parameters from nevuah.
Maybe the reason that Reb Elchonon asks on matan torah and not the derabannans of pesach is that for the benei yisroel to listen to Moshe does not require a chiyuv mitzva - as you quoted from the nephesh hachaim there was no distinction between torah and nevuah before matan torah.
ReplyDeleteHowever for Moshe to defer Matan Torah which Hashem agrees to because He gives the torah on the deferred date means that this mechayev is an absolute fact that has Torah force.
pc :-)
Good day, sun shines!
ReplyDeleteThere have were times of troubles when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in big initial investment.
Nowadays, I feel good, I started take up real income.
It gets down to choose a correct companion who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real deals, and shares the profit with me.
You can get interested, if there are such firms? I'm obliged to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Where did Hashem tell you (except for lo tasur) to listen to the particular spin Chazal offer instead of your own? To listen to the words of Hashem is implicit in the whole concept of "tzivuy", but the words of Chazal are interpretation, not inherent in the tzivuy, otherwise every derabbanan turns into a d'orasya. That's the Ramban's whole kashe on the Rambam. See Kuntres Divrei Sofrim 1:14
ReplyDelete1. Characterizing the interpretation of Chazal as "spin" is highly disrespectful and I must protest that.
2. You are correct that when Chazal darshen pesukim that is interpretation and therefore we require lo tasur.
You mistake is assuming that is what Moshe Rabbenu was doing. He wasn't -- he was simply transmitting the commandment of Hashem. Not all of that necessarily made it into the Torah she be ksav -- some of it was preserved as Torah she be al Peh. For example, a halakhah le Moshe mi Sinai.
The issue you do obliquely raise is whether a din which is implied through one of the middos she ha Torah nidreshes ba Hem is necessarily interpretation or simply a way for the Torah to hint at what was told directly to Moshe. Put a different way, are the 13 middos generative (of "new" halakha) or re-generative (of what was told to Moshe). There are sources in Chazal and Rishonim that go both ways.
IMHO, the answer is both. Some derashos clearly have to go back to Sinai. (For example, the Torah says not to do melacha on Shabbos but never defines that term. We learn from semichas ha Parshiyos that there are 39 Av Melachos listed in the Mishna. IMHO, that is something that must have existed since Sinai.) Others appear to be something generated in later generations as the need arose. IIRC, the Rambam says that any Mishna as to which there is no machlokes does go back to Sinai.
For that matter, it is clear that even when Moshe Rabbenu was asked shaylos, his answers were not through the normal process the BDHG would use. Take the parshos of Bnos Tslofchod and of Pesach Sheni. In each case, Moshe turns to Hashem with the question and receives an entire Parsha of Mitzvos. Did Bnos Tslofchod or the shoalim re Pesach need the possuk of lo tasur to obligate them to listen? No -- there was a direct tsivui from Hashem through Moshe. And that had the status of Torah, not merely nevuah.
This also answers your question about why R. Elchanan is bothered by the gemara in Shabbos in particular. There it is clear that Moshe was darshening on his own and not merely transmitting the tsivui of Hashem. IOW, he was acting as the BDHG -- which is the meaning of Moseh be makom Shivim Kai. For that you need lo tasur.
3. The issue of derabbanans is not relevant to this discussion. Derabbanans are legislation, not interpretation. You don't get misa for violating a derabbanan. You can get misa for violating a deoraysa, even if your chiyuv depends on a horaah of the Beis Din ha Gadol and an "interpretation" of the psukim.
There was no concept of Torah as distinct from Nevuah pre-mattan Torah (Nefesh haChaim 1:22). The Minchas Chinuch's point that every violation of a din should also be an issur of violating the words of a Navi rings true. Mattan Torah created a different cheftza of Torah and a cheftza of Torah sheb'al peh with different parameters from nevuah.
Not clear to me that this distinction did not begin prior to Mattan Torah, at least acc. to Rashi. The first Rashi in Chumash states that the first mitzvoh was HaChodesh Ha Zeh Lachem. That was before Mattan Torah, albeit by Moshe. He also states they received Mitzvos at Marrah.
One more thought:
ReplyDeleteThe last point you mention raises a more basic question. What was the status of commandments given by Moshe prior to Mattan Torah. But that is not limited to "Torah she be al peh." That question includes what is written and what is not.
What about korban Pesach. Were the Jews in Mitzrayim obligated to bring that as a Mitzvash ha Torah or because of a Tsivui of a Novi (Moshe)? That is a valid question, even though korban Pesach is written in our Torah she be ksav.
(Either way, you could have "oral law." To some extent you have to. For example, the Torah says you have to eat the korban Pesach with "merorim" but does not define that term. Clearly there was a Torah she be al Peh which defined it for them, otherwise how did they do the mitzvah?)
>>>The issue you do obliquely raise is whether a din which is implied through one of the middos she ha Torah nidreshes ba Hem is necessarily interpretation or simply a way for the Torah to hint at what was told directly to Moshe.
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the link on the post and trace the topic back, you will find that this has been discussed here before as a machlokes Tos. and the Maharal.
In any case, I specifically refered in my post to the *derashos* on the pesukim, which you admit require lo tasur, so I really don't understand how you have answered the question I raised.
>>>The first Rashi in Chumash states that the first mitzvoh was HaChodesh Ha Zeh Lachem. That was before Mattan Torah, albeit by Moshe. He also states they received Mitzvos at Marrah.
Mitzvah = chovas hagavra to obey. Nothing to do with whether something is a chefzta shel Torah or a cheftza of nevuah.
In any case, I specifically refered in my post to the *derashos* on the pesukim, which you admit require lo tasur, so I really don't understand how you have answered the question I raised.
ReplyDeleteBecause I admitted no such thing.
What I said was if the derasha was human generated, then you need lo tasur. But if it simply hints at something already told to Moshe, then it is a chiyyuv by virture of his being commanded that.
Is it really your position that nothing in Torah she be al peh (except maybe Halacha le Moshe mi Sinai) was given to Moshe?
What did the Jews in Egypt use for "merorim?" How did they know that qualified?
Mitzvah = chovas hagavra to obey. Nothing to do with whether something is a chefzta shel Torah or a cheftza of nevuah
That is NOT how Rashi is using the term in the first Rashi in Chumash. He says the Torah should have started with Ha Chodesh Ha Zeh Lachem because that is the first Mitvah that klal yisroel were commanded.
(There was Nevuah before to the Avos, but Rashi does not say to start there.)
>>>Is it really your position that nothing in Torah she be al peh (except maybe Halacha le Moshe mi Sinai) was given to Moshe?
ReplyDeleteAfter the fact we assume the truth uncovered was already latent in Torah, but that is a result of accepting the validity of the interpretation, not an a priori justification.
You have destroyed the distinction between halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai and derush. The answer to every kashe on a derasha raised by the gemara should be simple: G-d said so, what do you want from me? But we don't say that because derashos involve by definition an act of interpretation.
Moshe teaches Reuvain his neighbor that maror means whatever, and tells him he used a nice derasha to figure that out. Reuvain then thinks to himself, "But how do I know that G-d really meant that? If G-d meant it, then why is Moshe telling me that HE figured it out using this fancy form of logic called a derasha? And if G-d didn't command it, then why should I listen?"
>>>What did the Jews in Egypt use for "merorim?" How did they know that qualified?
The question is not "how did they know" (answer=derasha) but "why did they have to obey".
>>>There was Nevuah before to the Avos, but Rashi does not say to start there.)
I am speaking about the authority of derashos. Rashi is speaking about G-d issuing the command that we have in the text itself, so I don't see why this is relevant to begin with. All the word mitzvah means is commandment, and Rashi's only point is that the Torah should focus on commands, not stories. Whether those commands were a cheftza of torah from the moment they were given or became so after mattan Torah -- no proof from the text.
See the Rambam, Introduction to Sefer Hamitzvos, Shoresh Sheni. (He quotes himself in the hakdamah to Peirush ha Mishnayos).
ReplyDeleteIt is too long to quote here, but basically there is a category called "peirushim mekubalim mi Moshe" -- explanations which were received from Moshe. These are things which have never had any machlokes. But one can still bring a "proof" from the 13 Middos, because they act as a kind of "remez" to the halakha.
Other times, Chazal darshaned new halakha using the 13 middos and there could be (and often is) a machlokes.
So not everything that comes out of a "derasha" is the same. Some are simply ramazim to what is, essentially, a halakha le Moseh mi Sinai, although that name was reserved only for cases where there is not even a remez in the Torah she be ksav.
The hakdamah to Peirush ha Mishnayos gives a long list of examples -- such as the identity of the 4 minim on Succos. That is very much like my example of what "merorim" means.
Are any of the derashos Rashi cites in that Perek disputed? If not, then they fit in this category. They were commanded directly by HKBH to Moshe just as much as halakhos written in the Torah she be Ksav.
Some thoughts..
ReplyDelete1. The Rambam only ever says that we were recommanded in the mitzvos given to the avos at har sinai, not the mitzvos given to Moshe before har sinai
2. Rashi in ve'eschanan says:
שמור את
יום השבת, כאשר צוך פירש״י
קודם מתן תורה במרה
3. There are at least three opinions why we have 39 melachos - either becuase these are the melachos done in the mishkan (which according to rashi was commanded after matan torah) or becuase it says the word melacha 39 times in the torah or (yerushalmi) becuase this is a logical grouping
Either way it seems Moshe was given the reshus to categorise the melachos into avos and toldos. This is similar to the chachamim being given the reshus to decide what is a melacha on chol hamoed or what is hiddur in an esrog (not excatly the same..)
pc :-)
>>>Are any of the derashos Rashi cites in that Perek disputed?
ReplyDeleteMoshe Rabeinu did not teach Chumash with Rashi. You mean to tell me you can't find examples of derashos and dinim in korban pesach, chameitz, matzah, etc. that are subject to machlokes?
The examples of derashos that are hllm"s in disguise seem few and far between and usually catch the eye of someone. The source for this idea is really the Yerushalmi "kol mila d'lo mechavara mesamchin lei
min asrin sagin", you can invent whatever hooks in the text you like to support a halacha that otherwise has no basis. This explains perfectly why the gemara in the beg. of haChovel bounces back and forth between being doche derashos proving ayin tachas ayin = mamon but no Tanna even considers taking the pasuk literally. The din was known, they just needed a hook. See Nimukei Yosef there and MaharaTZ Chiyus who quotes that Rambam in Peirush haMishna.
P.C., re: the division into avos and tolados, see the Ch. of R' Leib Malin for a beautiful chakirah.
could you please give me the mareh makom of the imrei moshe. i looked at imrei moshe parshas bo and was unable to find it.
ReplyDeletethanks
Sorry, I lost the train here already -- What Imrei Moshe are we talking about?
ReplyDeleteI think #1s navi is different and must be adhere to, cause it's a shliach of hashem.
ReplyDelete#2 we know svara is tantamount to a pasuk. By the 13 midos, they are to interpret through Torah, a different kind of svara.