Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)
“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.” These opening words of Pirkay Avos are ingrained in the psyche of the Jewish people. It can’t refer to the “Ten Commandments,” as it wasn’t just Moshe who “received” them; the entire nation heard G-d speak those words (even if they couldn’t discern the words of the last eight). In schools and Yeshivos worldwide, these words are taught to mean that G-d taught Moshe the entire Torah, start to finish - the Written Law and the Oral Law and everything they encompass - during the forty days that Moshe spent atop Mt. Sinai. Indeed, this is what the traditional literature seems to teach us as well. “Scripture, Mishnah, Laws, Talmud, Toseftos, Agados, and even what an earnest student is, in the future, going to say before his teacher, all of them were said to Moshe at Sinai” (Vayikra Rabba 22:1).
Yet, the Talmud (Menachos 29b) tells us that when Moshe saw G-d connecting “crowns” onto the letters of the Torah, he asked why. Upon hearing that there will be a great scholar (Rabbi Akiva) who will learn out “piles of laws” from these crowns, Moshe asked to be shown this scholar. G-d allows him to “sit in” on one of Rabbi Akiva’s shiurim (lectures), but Moshe was unable to follow what was being taught, which caused him to feel weak. After a student questioned Rabbi Akiva about the source for a particular law, with Rabbi Akiva responding that “it is a law that was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai,” Moshe’s mind is put at ease. If every law, every piece of Talmud, every valid point raised by every student in history, was taught to Moshe at Sinai, how could Moshe not have understood what Rabbi Akiva was teaching? Additionally, how could Rabbi Akiva claim that it was a law taught to Moshe, if Moshe himself didn’t know it and couldn’t follow the lecture? No matter how Rabbi Akiva arrived at his conclusion, once the law itself was taught, Moshe should have recognized it; why did it take Rabbi Akiva’s saying it came through Moshe to put Moshe’s mind at rest? Not only that, but why did Moshe even have to ask G-d the reason He was putting “crowns” on the letters in the first place? If he had been taught everything, shouldn’t he have already known that there would be “crowns” and why they were there?
Rashi (in Menachos) sidesteps these questions (whether on purpose or not) by saying that Moshe hadn’t finished learning all that he was going to be taught. Therefore, once he heard that he just hadn’t reached that part of the curriculum yet, his mind was put at ease. This would fit very nicely with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion (Chagiga 6a-b) that only the general categories were taught at Sinai, with Moshe being taught the details in the Mishkan; Moshe saw the “crowns” being added while still on Mt. Sinai, but wouldn’t be taught what they were for, or even the law details derived from them, until his private lessons with G-d continued in the Mishkan. However, Rashi (Vayikra 25:1) clearly follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who says that all the details were taught at Sinai (and repeated in the Mishkan and then again at Arvos Moav). [The Talmud (ibid) equates Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with Bais Shammai and Rabbi Akiva’s with Bais Hillel, so it is certainly understandable why Rashi (and the Rambam, Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah 1) follows Rabbi Akiva.] Nevertheless, Moshe seeing G-d adding the “crowns” before he had completed his lessons on Sinai can explain why he hadn’t already known why they were there.
The Maharsha (in Menachos), however, says that Moshe’s request to be shown the scholar who will learn “piles of laws” from the “crowns” was for G-d to “reveal to him those secrets of the connections (i.e. the crowns, which were connected to all those laws) that will be revealed in the future to Rabbi Akiva.” If they wouldn’t be revealed until Rabbi Akiva learned them out, they must not have been taught at Sinai. The Aitz Yosef (a commentary on the Ein Yaakov) says that although Moshe was taught all of the Oral Law, he wasn’t taught how each and every law that was to be transmitted orally was hinted to in the Written Law. Therefore, it wasn’t the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching that Moshe was unfamiliar with (as Moshe was taught all of them), but how those laws can be derived or remembered (“connected”) via the “crowns” on the letters. This approach isn’t fully satisfactory, though, as it doesn’t explain Moshe “feeling weak” and then “his mind being put at ease.” Did Moshe know that he wasn’t going to be taught the “connections” between the Written Law and the Oral Law? If he did, then not knowing them wouldn’t have been a surprise. He may have “felt weak” if he wasn’t able to comprehend how the connections were made (although limiting Moshe’s ability to comprehend is a bit hard to accept), but this “weakness” shouldn’t have been resolved when Rabbi Akiva attributed the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai (as it has nothing to do with his ability to follow the process of connecting the Oral Law to the Written Law). Likewise, if Moshe was not aware of these connections or that he was not going to be taught them, wouldn’t G-d have explained that to him when Moshe asked about the “crowns?” If his “feeling weak” was a result of realizing that he wasn’t going to be taught them, how does Rabbi Akiva’s attributing the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai alleviate this? More importantly, the Midrash (and its parallel in Koheles Rabbah 5:8) doesn’t say that “any law” that a student brings up to his teacher was taught to Moshe at Sinai, but that anything he “says,” meaning his suggestions for how to understand a concept, how to apply it, or how to connect it to the verse, not (just) the law itself. [It should be noted, however, that the parallel statements in the Yerushalmi (Pe’ah 2;4) and Koheles Rabbah (1:9/10) have it as “anything an earnest student will teach.”] The expression being anything other than “any law taught throughout the generations,” especially when it is not the teacher doing the “saying” but the student, indicates that Chazal were not limiting the things taught to Moshe at Sinai to just the laws themselves.
In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah (1), the Rambam explains what Chazal meant when they said that every detail was taught to Moshe at Sinai. [It should be noted that, from a practical standpoint, it makes absolutely no difference whether this was taught to Moshe at Sinai or in the Mishkan; either way the transmission was directly from G-d to Moshe, who then passed it along to Yehoshua (etc.).] “Here is an example for you: G-d said to Moshe, ‘you shall live in huts for seven days’ (Vayikra 23:42). Afterwards, He made it known that this obligation applies only to males, not females, nor does it apply to the sick or those who are traveling, [he was taught] that its covering (roof) can only be made from materials that grow from the ground and it cannot be covered with wool or silk or with vessels – even those made from materials that grow from the ground, such as pillows and clothing. And He made known that eating, drinking and sleeping in it (the succah) all sever days is mandatory, and that its inner area cannot be smaller than seven hand-breadths long by seven hand-breadths wide, and that the height of the hut cannot be less than ten hand-breadths.” This is true of all 613 commandments, “the commandment in writing and the details/explanation orally.”
Later (4), the Rambam creates five categories of law: (1) Details/explanations that were transmitted through Moshe that are hinted to in the Written Law and can be extrapolated from them; (2) Laws that cannot be derived from verses, but were transmitted through Moshe; (3) Laws that were not transmitted through Moshe, but can be extrapolated from verses; (4) Decrees made by the prophets and/or sages to ensure that the biblical commandments are not violated; and (5) Decrees made not to protect already existing commandments, but to help facilitate spiritual growth (such as learning the laws of Pesach a month prior) or societal needs (such as “pruzbol”). The latter three categories were not transmitted by G-d to Moshe and then from Moshe to Yehoshua (etc.), although it is theoretically possible that G-d shared them with Moshe but did not command/authorize him to teach it to the nation (possibly to allow for each generation to have an impact, making it a “living Torah”); the Maharsha’s understanding of Moshe’s request to meet Rabbi Akiva indicates that not everything was taught to Moshe, not that it was taught to him but he had to keep it to himself. [Just as there is no difference in the transmission process whether something was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai or in the Mishkan, there is no difference in the transmission process whether it was not taught to Moshe or taught to him but not transmitted to others.]
When articulating the role of the Sanhedrin (Hilchos Mamrim 1:3-4), the Rambam reiterates his position from his Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah that anything that was transmitted through Moshe will never become a matter of dispute. This position is not universally held (see Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon, end of chapter 2); a straightforward reading of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 88b) that the Rambam bases his next halacha (4) on indicates that disputes arose not only regarding new laws enacted, but regarding laws that had been previously transmitted, including those that originated from Moshe who was taught them at Sinai, but had been forgotten. Nevertheless, the Rambam is unequivocal that the disputes in the Talmud arose from differences of opinion about how to enact (or apply) new laws, and these laws did not originate at Sinai. These new laws could fall into any of the three latter categories described above, including the third category, i.e. laws derived from the verses through the system of extrapolation (the “13 attributes” read every morning at the end of “karbanos”). This system of extrapolation was taught to Moshe at Sinai, and he passed it on to be used in every generation to learn out new law details and apply them to any situation that arose (see Maharatz Chiyos on Berachos 5a). [The Ritva (Eruvin 13b) says that Moshe was taught all the possible outcomes using this system, and therefore they are all considered “the words of the Living G-d.”]
Moshe didn’t have to be taught how electricity works in order to teach him whether it qualifies as something forbidden on Shabbos or not, and if so, how. Once the ground rules were taught to him and put into the halachic system, after electricity was invented they can be used to determine, based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, what its status is.
Included in what Vayikra Rabbah (and Koheles Rabbah and the Yerushalmi) say was taught to Moshe at Sinai was “Scripture.” This is expanded elsewhere to mean not just Chumash, but the Prophets and Writings as well (Berachos 5a), including Megilas Esther (Megila 19b). How could all of Tanach have been taught to Moshe at Sinai if the events hadn’t occurred yet? Did Moshe know that Korach was going to rebel well before he did? How could he send the spies to scout out the Land if he knew what the tragic outcome would be? Did G-d tell Moshe about the nation sinning with the “golden calf” (Shemos 32:7-8) by teaching him Parashas Ki Sisa? Was Moshe taught about the Levi’im assisting the Kohanim in the Mishkan/Temple even before the circumstances that necessitated them replacing the first-born had occurred?
In Berachos, Rashi doesn’t explain the word “Scripture” to mean the actual text, but that “it’s a mitzvah to read the Torah.” The Maharsha expands on this, adding the guidelines for reading the Torah (i.e. not by heart, with its vowels and cantillation), and says that the Prophets and Writings are a separate category because their laws aren’t the same as for Chumash. I have previously discussed what the Talmud meant when it said that Moshe was taught Megilas Esther at Sinai (www.aishdas.org/ta/5765/tzav.pdf, pg. 4), with the “bottom line” being that it was not the actual text that was taught to Moshe, but the authorization to include a future text about Amalek in the canon of Writings. In doing research for this essay, Baruch Hashem I found that the Maharatz Chiyos (in Megila) says this as well. This doesn’t mean that no part of the biblical text was given to Moshe at Sinai. As I discussed last week, Rashi (Shemos 24:7) says that all of Sefer Beraishis and most of Sefer Shemos was given at Sinai (before the public revelation), and I suggested that the Ramban might agree (albeit after the public revelation). We can add Terumah/Tetzaveh (and part of Ki Sisa) to that text, since the Mishkan was commanded at Sinai (during the first 40 days on Mt. Sinai according to the Ramban and during the third set of 40 days according to Rashi). All, or at least parts, of Parashas Behar was taught at Sinai, so it’s possible that this text was given to Moshe at Sinai as well. Since the Chizkuni says that the “tochacha” was the “Sefer haB’ris” described by Matan Torah, he would add Parashas Bechukosai (or at least a good portion of it) as being a text given at Sinai. (Whatever wasn’t given in text form at Sinai was given to Moshe in the Mishkan, either along the way, or all at once in Arvos Moav, when the complete Torah text was given to the nation.)
What about Agada, the non-legal parts of the Talmud and Midrash? Much has been written about the nature of Agada, and space is too limited (and time too short) to give it a full treatment (IY”H one day I hope to). For the purposes of our discussion, suffice it to say that the format of Agada, whether it be teaching spiritual messages through story-telling, or reconstructing history using the same system used to either reconstruct or construct law (after all, the law becomes what the Sanhedrin decides, but they can’t decide how old Rivka was when she married Yitzchok), just as Moshe was taught the system of determining laws, he was given the system (and permission) to expound verses that have no (direct) impact on what we should do.
Based on this, we can easily explain how Moshe did not know the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching, let alone how they were derived from the “crowns” of the letters, and why he felt better after hearing Rabbi Akiva say that it was based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai. These were laws that fell into the Rambam’s third category, so had not been taught to Moshe, and Moshe became unsettled when he wasn’t sure that Rabbi Akiva was using the system given at Sinai to figure these laws out. Once Rabbi Akiva explained that his method of learning them from the verses (and letters) was consistent with what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, he felt better.
“Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.” These opening words of Pirkay Avos are ingrained in the psyche of the Jewish people. It can’t refer to the “Ten Commandments,” as it wasn’t just Moshe who “received” them; the entire nation heard G-d speak those words (even if they couldn’t discern the words of the last eight). In schools and Yeshivos worldwide, these words are taught to mean that G-d taught Moshe the entire Torah, start to finish - the Written Law and the Oral Law and everything they encompass - during the forty days that Moshe spent atop Mt. Sinai. Indeed, this is what the traditional literature seems to teach us as well. “Scripture, Mishnah, Laws, Talmud, Toseftos, Agados, and even what an earnest student is, in the future, going to say before his teacher, all of them were said to Moshe at Sinai” (Vayikra Rabba 22:1).
Yet, the Talmud (Menachos 29b) tells us that when Moshe saw G-d connecting “crowns” onto the letters of the Torah, he asked why. Upon hearing that there will be a great scholar (Rabbi Akiva) who will learn out “piles of laws” from these crowns, Moshe asked to be shown this scholar. G-d allows him to “sit in” on one of Rabbi Akiva’s shiurim (lectures), but Moshe was unable to follow what was being taught, which caused him to feel weak. After a student questioned Rabbi Akiva about the source for a particular law, with Rabbi Akiva responding that “it is a law that was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai,” Moshe’s mind is put at ease. If every law, every piece of Talmud, every valid point raised by every student in history, was taught to Moshe at Sinai, how could Moshe not have understood what Rabbi Akiva was teaching? Additionally, how could Rabbi Akiva claim that it was a law taught to Moshe, if Moshe himself didn’t know it and couldn’t follow the lecture? No matter how Rabbi Akiva arrived at his conclusion, once the law itself was taught, Moshe should have recognized it; why did it take Rabbi Akiva’s saying it came through Moshe to put Moshe’s mind at rest? Not only that, but why did Moshe even have to ask G-d the reason He was putting “crowns” on the letters in the first place? If he had been taught everything, shouldn’t he have already known that there would be “crowns” and why they were there?
Rashi (in Menachos) sidesteps these questions (whether on purpose or not) by saying that Moshe hadn’t finished learning all that he was going to be taught. Therefore, once he heard that he just hadn’t reached that part of the curriculum yet, his mind was put at ease. This would fit very nicely with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion (Chagiga 6a-b) that only the general categories were taught at Sinai, with Moshe being taught the details in the Mishkan; Moshe saw the “crowns” being added while still on Mt. Sinai, but wouldn’t be taught what they were for, or even the law details derived from them, until his private lessons with G-d continued in the Mishkan. However, Rashi (Vayikra 25:1) clearly follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who says that all the details were taught at Sinai (and repeated in the Mishkan and then again at Arvos Moav). [The Talmud (ibid) equates Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion with Bais Shammai and Rabbi Akiva’s with Bais Hillel, so it is certainly understandable why Rashi (and the Rambam, Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah 1) follows Rabbi Akiva.] Nevertheless, Moshe seeing G-d adding the “crowns” before he had completed his lessons on Sinai can explain why he hadn’t already known why they were there.
The Maharsha (in Menachos), however, says that Moshe’s request to be shown the scholar who will learn “piles of laws” from the “crowns” was for G-d to “reveal to him those secrets of the connections (i.e. the crowns, which were connected to all those laws) that will be revealed in the future to Rabbi Akiva.” If they wouldn’t be revealed until Rabbi Akiva learned them out, they must not have been taught at Sinai. The Aitz Yosef (a commentary on the Ein Yaakov) says that although Moshe was taught all of the Oral Law, he wasn’t taught how each and every law that was to be transmitted orally was hinted to in the Written Law. Therefore, it wasn’t the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching that Moshe was unfamiliar with (as Moshe was taught all of them), but how those laws can be derived or remembered (“connected”) via the “crowns” on the letters. This approach isn’t fully satisfactory, though, as it doesn’t explain Moshe “feeling weak” and then “his mind being put at ease.” Did Moshe know that he wasn’t going to be taught the “connections” between the Written Law and the Oral Law? If he did, then not knowing them wouldn’t have been a surprise. He may have “felt weak” if he wasn’t able to comprehend how the connections were made (although limiting Moshe’s ability to comprehend is a bit hard to accept), but this “weakness” shouldn’t have been resolved when Rabbi Akiva attributed the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai (as it has nothing to do with his ability to follow the process of connecting the Oral Law to the Written Law). Likewise, if Moshe was not aware of these connections or that he was not going to be taught them, wouldn’t G-d have explained that to him when Moshe asked about the “crowns?” If his “feeling weak” was a result of realizing that he wasn’t going to be taught them, how does Rabbi Akiva’s attributing the law to what Moshe was taught at Sinai alleviate this? More importantly, the Midrash (and its parallel in Koheles Rabbah 5:8) doesn’t say that “any law” that a student brings up to his teacher was taught to Moshe at Sinai, but that anything he “says,” meaning his suggestions for how to understand a concept, how to apply it, or how to connect it to the verse, not (just) the law itself. [It should be noted, however, that the parallel statements in the Yerushalmi (Pe’ah 2;4) and Koheles Rabbah (1:9/10) have it as “anything an earnest student will teach.”] The expression being anything other than “any law taught throughout the generations,” especially when it is not the teacher doing the “saying” but the student, indicates that Chazal were not limiting the things taught to Moshe at Sinai to just the laws themselves.
In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah (1), the Rambam explains what Chazal meant when they said that every detail was taught to Moshe at Sinai. [It should be noted that, from a practical standpoint, it makes absolutely no difference whether this was taught to Moshe at Sinai or in the Mishkan; either way the transmission was directly from G-d to Moshe, who then passed it along to Yehoshua (etc.).] “Here is an example for you: G-d said to Moshe, ‘you shall live in huts for seven days’ (Vayikra 23:42). Afterwards, He made it known that this obligation applies only to males, not females, nor does it apply to the sick or those who are traveling, [he was taught] that its covering (roof) can only be made from materials that grow from the ground and it cannot be covered with wool or silk or with vessels – even those made from materials that grow from the ground, such as pillows and clothing. And He made known that eating, drinking and sleeping in it (the succah) all sever days is mandatory, and that its inner area cannot be smaller than seven hand-breadths long by seven hand-breadths wide, and that the height of the hut cannot be less than ten hand-breadths.” This is true of all 613 commandments, “the commandment in writing and the details/explanation orally.”
Later (4), the Rambam creates five categories of law: (1) Details/explanations that were transmitted through Moshe that are hinted to in the Written Law and can be extrapolated from them; (2) Laws that cannot be derived from verses, but were transmitted through Moshe; (3) Laws that were not transmitted through Moshe, but can be extrapolated from verses; (4) Decrees made by the prophets and/or sages to ensure that the biblical commandments are not violated; and (5) Decrees made not to protect already existing commandments, but to help facilitate spiritual growth (such as learning the laws of Pesach a month prior) or societal needs (such as “pruzbol”). The latter three categories were not transmitted by G-d to Moshe and then from Moshe to Yehoshua (etc.), although it is theoretically possible that G-d shared them with Moshe but did not command/authorize him to teach it to the nation (possibly to allow for each generation to have an impact, making it a “living Torah”); the Maharsha’s understanding of Moshe’s request to meet Rabbi Akiva indicates that not everything was taught to Moshe, not that it was taught to him but he had to keep it to himself. [Just as there is no difference in the transmission process whether something was taught to Moshe on Mt. Sinai or in the Mishkan, there is no difference in the transmission process whether it was not taught to Moshe or taught to him but not transmitted to others.]
When articulating the role of the Sanhedrin (Hilchos Mamrim 1:3-4), the Rambam reiterates his position from his Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah that anything that was transmitted through Moshe will never become a matter of dispute. This position is not universally held (see Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon, end of chapter 2); a straightforward reading of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 88b) that the Rambam bases his next halacha (4) on indicates that disputes arose not only regarding new laws enacted, but regarding laws that had been previously transmitted, including those that originated from Moshe who was taught them at Sinai, but had been forgotten. Nevertheless, the Rambam is unequivocal that the disputes in the Talmud arose from differences of opinion about how to enact (or apply) new laws, and these laws did not originate at Sinai. These new laws could fall into any of the three latter categories described above, including the third category, i.e. laws derived from the verses through the system of extrapolation (the “13 attributes” read every morning at the end of “karbanos”). This system of extrapolation was taught to Moshe at Sinai, and he passed it on to be used in every generation to learn out new law details and apply them to any situation that arose (see Maharatz Chiyos on Berachos 5a). [The Ritva (Eruvin 13b) says that Moshe was taught all the possible outcomes using this system, and therefore they are all considered “the words of the Living G-d.”]
Moshe didn’t have to be taught how electricity works in order to teach him whether it qualifies as something forbidden on Shabbos or not, and if so, how. Once the ground rules were taught to him and put into the halachic system, after electricity was invented they can be used to determine, based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, what its status is.
Included in what Vayikra Rabbah (and Koheles Rabbah and the Yerushalmi) say was taught to Moshe at Sinai was “Scripture.” This is expanded elsewhere to mean not just Chumash, but the Prophets and Writings as well (Berachos 5a), including Megilas Esther (Megila 19b). How could all of Tanach have been taught to Moshe at Sinai if the events hadn’t occurred yet? Did Moshe know that Korach was going to rebel well before he did? How could he send the spies to scout out the Land if he knew what the tragic outcome would be? Did G-d tell Moshe about the nation sinning with the “golden calf” (Shemos 32:7-8) by teaching him Parashas Ki Sisa? Was Moshe taught about the Levi’im assisting the Kohanim in the Mishkan/Temple even before the circumstances that necessitated them replacing the first-born had occurred?
In Berachos, Rashi doesn’t explain the word “Scripture” to mean the actual text, but that “it’s a mitzvah to read the Torah.” The Maharsha expands on this, adding the guidelines for reading the Torah (i.e. not by heart, with its vowels and cantillation), and says that the Prophets and Writings are a separate category because their laws aren’t the same as for Chumash. I have previously discussed what the Talmud meant when it said that Moshe was taught Megilas Esther at Sinai (www.aishdas.org/ta/5765/tzav.pdf, pg. 4), with the “bottom line” being that it was not the actual text that was taught to Moshe, but the authorization to include a future text about Amalek in the canon of Writings. In doing research for this essay, Baruch Hashem I found that the Maharatz Chiyos (in Megila) says this as well. This doesn’t mean that no part of the biblical text was given to Moshe at Sinai. As I discussed last week, Rashi (Shemos 24:7) says that all of Sefer Beraishis and most of Sefer Shemos was given at Sinai (before the public revelation), and I suggested that the Ramban might agree (albeit after the public revelation). We can add Terumah/Tetzaveh (and part of Ki Sisa) to that text, since the Mishkan was commanded at Sinai (during the first 40 days on Mt. Sinai according to the Ramban and during the third set of 40 days according to Rashi). All, or at least parts, of Parashas Behar was taught at Sinai, so it’s possible that this text was given to Moshe at Sinai as well. Since the Chizkuni says that the “tochacha” was the “Sefer haB’ris” described by Matan Torah, he would add Parashas Bechukosai (or at least a good portion of it) as being a text given at Sinai. (Whatever wasn’t given in text form at Sinai was given to Moshe in the Mishkan, either along the way, or all at once in Arvos Moav, when the complete Torah text was given to the nation.)
What about Agada, the non-legal parts of the Talmud and Midrash? Much has been written about the nature of Agada, and space is too limited (and time too short) to give it a full treatment (IY”H one day I hope to). For the purposes of our discussion, suffice it to say that the format of Agada, whether it be teaching spiritual messages through story-telling, or reconstructing history using the same system used to either reconstruct or construct law (after all, the law becomes what the Sanhedrin decides, but they can’t decide how old Rivka was when she married Yitzchok), just as Moshe was taught the system of determining laws, he was given the system (and permission) to expound verses that have no (direct) impact on what we should do.
Based on this, we can easily explain how Moshe did not know the laws Rabbi Akiva was teaching, let alone how they were derived from the “crowns” of the letters, and why he felt better after hearing Rabbi Akiva say that it was based on what was taught to Moshe at Sinai. These were laws that fell into the Rambam’s third category, so had not been taught to Moshe, and Moshe became unsettled when he wasn’t sure that Rabbi Akiva was using the system given at Sinai to figure these laws out. Once Rabbi Akiva explained that his method of learning them from the verses (and letters) was consistent with what was taught to Moshe at Sinai, he felt better.
No comments:
Post a Comment