A question about the words of the Rabbi Shulchan Arba from the third root
Regarding the prohibition of fasting on Shabbat, the Rabbi Shulchan Arva (Rambam 201a) wrote that, in the opinion of the Rambam, it is derived from the commandment, “Eat it today,” and the reason he did not list such a prohibition in the number of commandments is because this is a prohibition that stems from the commandments and prohibitions of manna, which have not been practiced for generations.
Apparently, the length of Maimonides’ words in the third verse, for example, from what he insisted on saying there that the law of the one who steals the veil is not a literal interpretation of the text but rather an allusion, seems to indicate that in his opinion, if there was a non-temporal law included in the verses of the temporal laws, it would be worthy of being listed.
*****
I wrote this far before I read ‘Yishlach Sharishiu’. After reading it, I saw that on the one hand, according to the assumptions there, the question is strengthened, because it seems that the temporary commandments are of a completely different type (instructions rather than commandments, a lesser degree of prophecy). On the other hand, how happy I was to see there (Volume 1, p. 304) the question clearly stated and addressed. Allow me to admire your wonderful work!
There you wrote that one can learn from these verses a “matter” from Torah, but it is difficult to say so in the opinion of the Shulchan Arba itself (it seems that you did not intend to settle it there but to offer an alternative). And see the words of Rabbi Zvin (HaMoadim Be Halacha 2, p. 50) who tried to explain, based on the words of this Rabbi’s Shulchan Arba, why fasting does not postpone the pleasure of Shabbat, and according to what has been said, his words are harsh [A.E., it is said thus: When the prophets decreed fasting (probably a halachic fiction according to your view…), they had to learn from the parsha of Haman that there is a matter of eating on Shabbat, and therefore they probably qualified their decree and did not pronounce it on Shabbat.]
If we learn anything new about this over the years, I’d love to read it.
I no longer remember my sins. I will write from the freezer.
There may be a simpler explanation for why Maimonides does not mention this. Because it is not a literal translation of the Scriptures but a sermon. And of course, it may be a matter.
If this stems from the prohibition of manna, which is not practiced for generations, then this too would not be practiced for generations. I did not understand this explanation.
And as for stealing the veil, why do you assume it’s a temporary prohibition?
A. “The text is not a simple text, but a sermon” – a good explanation (to move to the second root), but certainly not in the language of the Rabbi Sh”a.
B. “It comes from a man who does not practice for generations” – I meant that we learn from the”matter” that in this, not a halakhic study but a meta-halakhic one.
C. Stealing the veil is learned from the verses “He shall not come to see as if he were swallowing the holy”, which according to Maimonides were only true in the wilderness and were therefore temporary. This is the simple explanation in the third root of the answer.
With thanks.
Of course, stealing the veil in itself is not a temporary prohibition. But I was precise in that the Rambam justified his exclusion by saying that it is not included in the literal interpretation of the Scriptures (and in the words of Chazal, “a hint”), so that if there were no such restrictions, the Rambam would have excluded it, even though it stems from temporary limitations.
Regarding stealing the cassava, this is only implied in the text, as explained in the Gemara Sanhedrin (“Hey Ramiza”).
I don't think that the precision is necessary. If it were not implied but written, it would be a temporary prohibition. But since we know from the Sages that it is not temporary, the question arises why it is not included. And the answer is that it is only implied.
“If it were not implied but written, it would be a temporary prohibition.” A nice innovation. I suppose, why don’t we separate within the temporary scriptures the temporary parts and the non-temporal parts? Suppose the instruction regarding the jar of manna teaches me something about the law of the remnant, why don’t I divide and say that the manna is a temporary commandment and the detail regarding the remnant is not temporary?
It is unreasonable to make such a separation. If these verses were spoken for their time, why would any detail within them be eternal? Some positive interpretive reason is needed to say such a thing.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
