חדש באתר: מיכי-בוט. עוזר חכם על כתבי הרב מיכאל אברהם.

Moses' journey from Sinai

שו"ת › Moses' journey from Sinai
0 תן קול הסר קול
שאל לפני 9 שנים

Hello Rabbi Michael, I wanted to ask you about the halakha of Moses from Sinai: The Gra, referring to the power of the halakha of Moses from Sinai, writes the following: 'The mezuzah is also kosher, but the halakha uproots the Bible, and so is the majority of this parasha and several parashas in the Torah; and they are from the greatness of our Oral Torah, which is the halakha of Moses from Sinai and it is transformed like a sealing material.' Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz uses these words of the Gra to determine: Because what is the meaning of the word, from the 'halakha of Moses from Sinai'? Not the content of the Oral Torah, but the very fact that there is an Oral Torah that is authorized by its own power to establish laws; this is the 'halakha of Moses from Sinai.'
1) Did the Gra mean that the halakha contradicts the Bible in certain cases? Or did he mean that the halakha contradicts only a simplistic understanding of the Bible, while the correct understanding of the Bible is the understanding reflected in the halakha?
2) Did the Gra mean that the halakha (for example, regarding an eye under the eye of money) was actually given to Moses from Sinai? Or was it only the validity of the methods of ruling that was given to Moses from Sinai, and then they ruled that an eye under the eye of money?
3) What does the Gra mean when he says "halacha uproots the Bible"?
4) What did the Gra mean by saying, "And it turns over like sealing wax"?
5) There is a legend narrated in the Talmud, according to which, before receiving the details of the Torah, Moses asked to see Rabbi Akiva, and God showed him as he was discussing the laws before his disciples. The Talmud relates: "God said to Moses: A man who is to come at the end of several generations, and his name is Akiva ben Yosef, will come to teach about every thorn and thorn of the law. Moses said before God: Lord of the universe, show him to me! He said to him: Turn back. He went and sat down at the end of eighteen rows (in Rabbi Akiva's study hall), he did not know what they were saying. His strength was exhausted. When they reached one point, his disciples said to him: Rabbi, where do you get it from? He said to them: The law came to Moses from Sinai! His mind (Moses) settled down. He returned before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said before him: Lord of the universe, you have such a man (Rabbi Akiva), and you are giving the Torah through me?! He said to him: Be silent! That is what came to my mind." From the above legend, we can understand that Moses did not understand what was being said in Rabbi Akiva's study hall. How is such a thing possible?
6) Why did Moses' mind settle after he heard Rabbi Akiva say "Halakha to Moses from Sinai"?

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

0 Answers
0 תן קול הסר קול
מיכי צוות ענה לפני 9 שנים
1) As far as I understand, the second answer is correct. The halakha is indeed against the Bible, and when there is a contradiction, it means that there is truth in both. For example, an eye for an eye of money (this is probably not the LBM, although I remember that in the introduction the Maimonides says yes, but this is presented here only for the sake of example), the Torah plainly states that the eye is actually taken out, and the sermon is the payment of money. According to my argument, both levels are true, meaning that the law actually takes out the eye of the harmdoer, and there is another level, which is the replacement of the eye with money. Hence, one opinion among the Sages emerges that the money paid is the eye of the harmdoer and not the damage. 2) I am not sure what the Gra himself was referring to, but in my opinion the truth is that the halakha was indeed given to Moses from Sinai (although sometimes the expression "halama" is used to express the validity of the law and not as a historical claim. And the Rishonim already insisted on this). Although the original halakha was not necessarily given in the form we are familiar with today. It undergoes processing and refinement over the generations, and everything is an interpretation and design of the halakha that was originally given. Thus, it is possible to reconcile the traditional perception that all the qualities of the sermon are the "halama", with the claims of the research that it is a later development. What was given at Sinai are the fundamental understandings (the forms of the sermon), but over the generations this underwent conceptualization and design and was put into a more permanent and formal pattern. Think of Aristotle's organon, which achieved and formalized logic. It is clear that logical arguments were also used before him, but the formulation and design of logic was done by Aristotle. And yet it is the same thing itself, except that it underwent conceptualization and consolidation. I discussed this in detail in my second book in the Talmudic Logic series (On the General, the Particular, and the General). 3) The expression "halakha uproots the scripture" originates in the Talmud. See Sota 16a (follows and uproots). 4) His intention is that the Bible is interpreted in both forms (the simple and the midrashic). See a good example in the introduction of Rabbi Menashe of Ilya (a student of the Gra) to his book Bynat Mikra, in the name of the Gra: "And when I heard some who insisted against me in this, because I was trying to seek the simple path in such a high and hidden matter, and the Gemara is known in Tractate Shabbat 63a, "Rav Kahana said, 24, there was a bar of Tammani, a sage, and he made it clear to him that the whole Talmud, and he did not make it clear that no Bible goes beyond its simple form," and this opened the way to trying to interpret each verse according to the depth of its simple form, and the sermon would be required. And I heard from here the holy Gaon Hasid, the great Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna, who often explained the error of those who believe that the rabbi should interpret the plain meaning of the text, and he gave as an example what they rabbied in the Gemara about the verse: "Worry in the heart of a man will be quenched: one said he will quench it from his mind, and another said he will quench it for others," and here they said about the right that it is the left that the tooth of rabbi is the right tooth, only the simple interpretation is: rabbi, that worry will quench the heart from the tongue of prostration, and sifa dekra proves. And a good word will rejoice, that is, on the heart, that it will rejoice the heart, but it was difficult for the razal who had to write rabbi, that worry is feminine like a noun, and even though the language of the Rabbah is known: "Anyone who does not have a spirit of life, remember him and name him," now they rabbied about every thorn that is a reason for praise." Pay close attention to his claims there (that the biblical language is intentionally not entirely suitable for either simplification or exegesis, so that we are forced to read it in both forms). 5) Because the words have been adapted into modern language (see my comments above, section 2). Just as the Rambam would not have understood the interpretations of R. Chaim of Brisk to his own words. The wording and form of analysis are modern, even though it is an interpretation and shaping of the words of the Rambam himself. And many who do not understand this scoff at R. Chaim who supposedly interpreted the Rambam against the intention of the Rambam himself. This is a fundamental lack of understanding. 6) Because he understood that this was a modern adaptation of his own words. See my words in section 2.

לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

השאר תגובה

© Copyright 2026,כל הזכויות שמורות  | 
Back to top button