So let's pick up here right after the Rambam finishes his pshat in the Agaddata, אין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו חוץ מארבע אמות של הלכה.
Which reads, וכאשר השלים מר רב אשי את חיבור התלמוד כפי שהוא, ביופי סידורו וגודל תועלתו עדות עליו כי רוח אלהין קדישין ביה.
So it's an amazing thing. The Rambam attaches so much importance and significance to the arrangement of how the how the divrei Torah, how shas is arranged, how the gemara is arranged. Yofi sidduro. That that's a reflection of the fact of, and I don't know if he means ruach hakodesh, he means some kind of extraordinary, minimally he certainly means some kind of extraordinary Siyata Di'Shmaya in in what he was doing. In the hakdama to Sefer HaMitzvos, which we've looked at before, when the Rambam is telling us about his plans for writing Mishneh Torah. וכאשר כיוונתי בדעתי התכלית הזאת to write a to compose a chibbur which would encompass kol haTorah kullah, the piskei Halacha of kol haTorah kullah, samti machshavti, I focused my thoughts, my attention, באיזה פנים אחלק החיבור ואסדרהו איך ראוי שיהיה. How should I divide it up? How should I how should I arrange it? אם אחלקהו כמו חילוק המשנה או אחלקהו חילוק אחר ואקדים ואאחר לפי מה שיחייב העיון שהוא היותר ראוי והיותר נקל ללמוד.
And the Rambam goes on to explain how he decided on the format that he that we're familiar with for Mishneh Torah, ונראה לי שהטוב שתהיה חלוקתו שיושם הלכות הלכות מקום המסכתות מהמשנה.
Instead of having piskei Halacha of Masechet Brachos, Masechet Shabbos, Masechet Eruvin, rather to have Hilchos Sukkah, Hilchos Lulav, Hilchos Tefillin, Hilchos Mezuzah, Hilchos Tzitzis, etc. It has implications le-dina for us as well, obviously in a much more modest setting. Even when a person has the material, a person's going to give a dvar torah, a person's going to say a shiur. A person has the material, he wants to present, he has the tochen, he has the content of the dvar torah that he wants to share, a person has to think what the best way is to organize and arrange the divrei torah. It's not just ein mukdam u-meuchar, just to have the tochen. Obviously the tochen is the ikkar, but it's of crucial importance how it's arranged, how it's organized, ad kedei kach that the siddur of Shas, the arrangement of the Gemara is a reflection of this extraordinary Siyata DiShmaya that Rav Ashi had. מה שנמצא מן התלמוד מחיבור רב אשי הם שלושים וחמש מסכתות, לפי שלא נמצא ממנו דבר על סדר זרעים אלא ברכות בלבד. ולא נמצא ממנו דבר על מסכת שקלים מסדר מועד, ולא מסכת עדיות ולא מסכת אבות מסדר נזיקין. ולא על מסכת מידות ומסכת קינים מסדר קודשים. וכן לא נמצא ממנו דבר על מהו מסדר טהרות אלא מסכת נדה בלבד.
But why that is, the Rambam doesn't tell us. אחרי כן נפטר רב אשי וכבר השלים את התלמוד כפי שהזכרנו בבבל. וכמו כן עשו חכמי ארץ ישראל כל מה שעשה רב אשי וחיברו התלמוד הירושלמי, ומחברו הוא רבי יוחנן. ונמצא מהירושלמי חמישה סדרים שלמים. אבל סדר טהרות לא נמצא להם תלמוד כלל, לא בבבלי ולא בירושלמי זולת מסכת נדה בלבד כמו שזכרנו. אבל יכול האדם לפרש את הסדר ההוא אחרי כן בקושי רב ויגיעה מרובה ולהסתייע בתוספתא וברייתות וללקט ההלכות המובאות ממנו בכל התלמוד וללמוד יסודות המסכתות וענייניהן מאותן הלכות כפי שתראה בפירושינו לאותו הסדר אם ירצה השם.
The Rambam says that in one's attempt to understand and navigate Seder Taharos without the benefit of Gemara, so he says that the absence of a Gemara obviously makes it very formidable, koshi rav, and it requires yegia meruba. But a person has to be mistayei'a b'Tosefta v'vraisos. So in the Hakdama le-Mishneh Torah the Rambam explains how ר' חייא חיבר התוספתא לבאר ענייני המשנה וכן ר' אושעיא ובר קפרא חיברו ברייתות לבאר דברי המשנה.
So both Tosefta and braisa are intended to shed light on. They're not independent. It's not that, not that, the sort of independent Tannaitic works. Everything is oriented towards, everything was geared towards Rabbeinu Hakadosh's Mishna. And Tosefta and Braisa are both intended to explain: Tosefta the very inyanei hamishna and the braisas the very divrei hamishna. That's what the Rambam here says, that absent Gemara on Seder Taharos, so we at least have to avail ourselves to the maximum of Toseftas and Braisas. והסכימו כל החכמים עליהם השלום שהאחרונים שבהם הם רבינא ורב אשי והתלמוד חתום וכל מי שקם אחריהם והייתה מטרתו אלא להבין דבריהם שחיברו בלבד ועליהם אין להוסיף וממנו אין לגרוע.
So the Rambam is clearly by paraphrasing the issurim of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra in reference to Shas. So the Rambam is clearly telling us that what we have in the Gemara is absolutely authoritative, right? Ad kedei kach that the Rambam associates the Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra. Since Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra, since Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra apply to Torah Shebiksav and Torah Sheba'al Peh, Torah Sheba'al Peh as well, the Rambam associates it with Gemara. So in the, again, coming back to the hakdama in Mishneh Torah, so the Rambam has as follows. If you, if you can find it on the computer, take a look. וכל בית דין שעמד אחר התלמוד. You see where that is in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah over there? וכל בית דין שעמד אחר התלמוד. וכל בית דין שעמד אחר התלמוד וכל מדינה ומדינה וגזר או התקין או הנהיג לבני מדינתו או לבני מדינות לא פשטו מעשיו בכל ישראל.
In the previous paragraph, the Rambam explained how right after the chibur hatalmud נתפזרו ישראל בכל הארצות פיזור יתר. That there was no more centralization. That we, we were scattered and fragmented into different communities with different batei din. That's what happened after chasimas hatalmud. So therefore, לא פשטו מעשיו בכל ישראל מפני רוחק מושבותיהם because the communities were very distant from each other ושיבוש הדרכים והיה בית דין של אותה המדינה יחידים ובית דין הגדול של שבעים בטל מכמה שנים קודם חיבור התלמוד.
Lefichach, says the Rambam, אין כופין אנשי מדינה זו לנהוג במנהג מדינה אחרת. If beis din in one locale makes a gezeira, a takana, issues a psak, so people living in a different location are not bound by it. ואין אומרים לבית דין זה לגזור גזירה שגזר בית דין אחר ממדינתו. וכן אם למד אחד מהגאונים שדרך המשפט כך הוא ונתבאר לבית דין אחר שעמד אחריו שאין זה דרך המשפט הכתוב בתלמוד אין שומעין לראשון אלא למי שהדעת נוטה לדבריו בין ראשון בין אחרון.
Now, here comes the key lines we want to focus on rabosai. ודברים הללו בדינים וגזרות ותקנות ומנהגות שנתחדשו אחר חיבור התלמוד.
These rules that I just laid down, says the Rambam. that every Beis Din's authority is only local, is true for all the gezeiros etcetera after chasimas hatalmud. אבל כל הדברים שבתלמוד הבבלי חייבים כל ישראל ללכת בהם.
Everything in shas in Talmud Bavli is universally binding. וכופין כל עיר ועיר וכל מדינה ומדינה לנהוג בכל המנהגות שנהגו חכמים שבתלמוד, ולגזור גזרותיהם וללכת בתקנותיהם.
Why is that? הואיל וכל אותם הדברים שבתלמוד הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל. ואותם החכמים שהתקינו או שגזרו או שהנהיגו או שדנו דין ולמדו שהמשפט כך כך הוא הם כל חכמי ישראל או רובם. והן ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו.
So how many factors does the Rambam point to here? Again, הואיל וכל אותם הדברים שבתלמוד הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל, that's one. Two: ואותם החכמים שהתקינו או שגזרו או שהנהיגו או שדנו דין ולמדו שהמשפט כך כך הוא הם כל חכמי ישראל או רובם,
that's factor number two. והן ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו,
that's factor number three. So the Rambam explains that the authoritativeness of Talmud Bavli owes to three factors. Number one, that everything in Talmud Bavli was accepted, there was a haskama, it was accepted by kol Yisroel. Number two, Talmud Bavli reflects the opinions, the input, the piskei halacha of either literally kol or at the very least rov chachmei Yisroel. And number three, these, those aforementioned chachmei Yisroel were the ones who had received the kabbola of Torah she-ba'al peh. So those three factors. Number one, that it was hiskimu kol Yisroel. Number two, that Talmud Bavli is the combined wisdom, gezeiros, takannos, chochmos of rov if not kol chachmei Yisroel. And number three, those same chachamim had received the kabbola of Torah she-ba'al peh. So these are three independent reasons, so how do they integrate? Lichora as follows. If you take a look in the beginning of Hilchos Mamrim, פרק א הלכה א. בית דין הגדול שבירושלים, right, the סנהדרין של שבעים ואחד whose place is in the lishkas hagazis in Mikdash, הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה והם עמודי ההוראה ומהם חוק ומשפט יוצא לכל ישראל.
So the Beis Din Hagadol, what defines the Beis Din Hagadol is that they are the continuity of the Torah she-ba'al peh, הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה, and the jurisdiction and they are the Beis Din of kol Yisroel. v'chala, when the Rambam tells us that the Talmud Bavli is, is the, again, the cumulative פסקי הלכה גזירות תקנות מנהגים of rov of kol chachmei yisrael, what he's telling us is, is that Talmud Bavli is, is therefore governed by lo sasur. That the same way lo sasur applies to beis din hagadol, beis din hagadol again, so, so what's the definition of beis din hagadol? הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה, right? They're the, the continuity of torah sheba'al peh. So that's what the Rambam is emphasizing here, ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו.
And hagahm that Ravina and Rav Ashi were not part of a beis din hagadol, there was no beis din hagadol at that point, but, but by virtue of the fact the Talmud Bavli is rov or chachmei yisrael kullan, so that gives them the same standing as the beis din hagadol. The chiddush of beis din hagadol is that these ayin aleph were the beis din of kol yisrael. That's what the chiddush of beis din hagadol is, that these seventy-one were מהם יצא הוראה לכל ישראל. Absent the beis din hagadol, so how does any, can you have any other body that will have that same authoritativeness? So the answer is yeah, because if you'll have, if you'll have a, if you'll convene kol chachmei yisrael or על כל פנים רובן, so they'll also be the beis din of kol yisrael שמהם יצא הוראה לכל ישראל. So the fact that conditions two and three are הם כל חכמי ישראל or rubon והם ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו
gives them the standing of, gives Talmud Bavli the standing of beis din hagadol. Because again, what defines beis din hagadol is הם עיקר תורה שבעל פה, A, and number two, that the Torah says that מהם יצא הוראה לכל ישראל. So no, no other beis din is assigned that status. That, that no other beis din is given that jurisdiction of מהם יצא הוראה לכל ישראל. But what happens if you mamash have kol chachmei yisrael or at least rubon k'kullan of kol chachmei yisrael? So מהם יצא הוראה לכל ישראל. So if you have that they're the, they are the recipients of the מסורת תורה שבעל פה, and then you'll, and then you'll convene, and that's effectively what Rav Ashi does in, did in Talmud Bavli was to convene kol chachmei yisrael, then they have the status of beis din hagadol and will be governed by lo sasur. And the first condition that the Rambam mentioned of הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל is because in general, by every gzera it has to be pashta b'chol yisrael in order to be binding. תקנת עזרא דעל בעל קרי wasn't pashta b'chol yisrael, so it's not binding me'ikkar hadin. So that's why the Rambam has these three conditions: basically, the conditions two and three is what makes Talmud Bavli the equivalent, the equal of beis din hagadol; then condition number one is a condition in general that even beis din hagadol was subject to in terms of their gezeiros being, being binding. The Rambam actually said earlier, if, if you look earlier here in the hakdama, if you see in the hakdama to Mishneh Torah, the paragraph of gam yisba'er mehem, he's talking about inyan shnei hatalmudim. So within that, that section of inyan shnei hatalmudim, there's a sentence that begins gam yisba'er mehem. דברים שגזרו חכמים ונביאים שבכל דור ודור לעשות סייג לתורה כמו ששמעו ממשה בפירוש ושמעתם משמעותי שאמר עשו משמרת למשמרתי וכן יתבאר מהם,
again all this is yitba'er mehem from Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, וכן יתבאר מהם המנהגות והתקנות שהתקינו או שנהגו בכל דור ודור כמו שראו בית דין של אותו הדור לפי שאסור לסור מהם שנאמר לא תסור מכל הדבר אשר יגידו לך ימין ושמאל.
So that's the pshat and that's what our Rambam here is also reflecting here in the hakdama when he says for all אין להוסיף ממנו ואין לגרוע. In Sefer Hamitzvos the leshonos are interesting. I don't know what the pshat is. Listening to Beis Din Hagadol is both a mitzvas asei and a mitzvas lo sa'asei. So in the mitzvas asei, Hamitzva Hakof-Yud-Dalet in the mitzvas asei היא שציוונו לשמוע לבית הדין הגדול ולעשות כל מה שיצוו בו מאיסור והיתר.
Okay, then when you have the twin mitzvas lo sa'asei in Shin Yud Beis, Hamitzva Hashin-Yud-Beis היא שהזהירנו מחלוק על בעלי הקבלה עליהם השלום ומצאת ממצוותם ומעשה התורה והוא אמרו לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך.
So here the Rambam doesn't say Beis Din Hagadol. He says al ba'alei hakabala, which lidvareinu the way we'll understand the Hakdama LeMishneh Torah is very meduyak, right? Because it doesn't necessarily, there is a heichatimtza for the Rambam regardless of how you say pshat in those three things, the Rambam says befeyrush regarding lo sasur on Talmud Bavli even though we're talking about after the time of when there's a Beis Din Hagadol. So why the Rambam was sort of mekatzer in the mitzvas asei to say לשון בית דין הגדול and here he refers to ba'alei hakabala, I don't know, tzarich iyun. But it's the lashon in the lo sa'asei does reflect what we're talking about, that that's the pshat in Beis Din Hagadol. Beis Din Hagadol means that body which has received and and is entrusted with a מסורת תורה שבעל פה and who's the Beis Din of Klal Yisrael. That's the definition of Beis Din Hagadol. The only way you can match that short of being a Beis Din Hagadol is to have רוב וכל חכמי ישראל. But that's what you have in Talmud Bavli and that's what the Rambam is explaining why Talmud Bavli is authoritative. And again the third condition of hiskimu kol yisrael is the same that even Beis Din Hagadol has to be poshit b'chol yisrael. Would the same definition apply to Yerushalmi also? So yes and no. Initially here in the hakdama, the inyan shenei hatalmudim, so he's talking about both Bavli and Yerushalmi, right? And then after that the Rambam says... The no part of the answer is, or seemingly the no part of the answer is, אבל כל הדברים שבתלמוד הבבלי חייבין כל ישראל ללכת בהם.
Skipping a couple lines, והוא שכל אותם הדברים שבגמרא הסכימו עליהם, etcetera. So now he's talking only about the Talmud Bavli. I'm not sure this will be the most efficient way but hopefully be'ezrat Hashem it will come out. With chasimas Talmud Bavli, so that was a dramatic shift. There was no analog to that with chasimas Talmud Yerushalmi. It remained the tekufas ha'Amoraim, the basic concentration of Chachmei Yisrael in, you didn't have this piece or yeser that the Rambam speaks of. There was no shift between before and after chasimas Talmud Yerushalmi. So in that sense, when Rabbi Yochanan authored the Talmud Yerushalmi, it wasn't binding Chisda and Rav Yosef, it wasn't binding on Abaye, it wasn't binding by Rava. With the chasimas Talmud Bavli, that also made the Yerushalmi authoritative. I think that's why the be-seifa, the Rambam talks only about Talmud Bavli. Initially he says ve'inyan shenei hatalmuden, because when the Rambam says that Talmud Bavli is כל חכמי ישראל או רובן. So he means all the generations of the Amora'im. He's not referring to the last generation, not referring just to the last generation of Ravina and Rav Ashi. He's referring to all the generations. So the authoritativeness of Talmud Yerushalmi, which is why you have things in the Yerushalmi which could be and were contested by Amora'im in the Talmud Bavli later. And the rule of thumb that most have that when there's a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi, you follow Bavli because halacha kebasrai. So there was no shift from with the chasimas Talmud HaYerushalmi. With the chasimas Talmud Bavli, so then that elevated the Yerushalmi also to a different level. Okay, hope that was somewhat coherent. Everything he says about the Bavli is true of the Yerushalmi, but it sets apart the Bavli and the Yerushalmi from what came afterwards. It doesn't set the Yerushalmi apart from the Bavli. Nothing, there's no shift there, nothing happened. If there were machloksim, doesn't that mean that neither one was pashut l'chol Yisrael? No, ein hachi nami, but let's say when the Gemara says, if the Gemara gives a psak halacha, which it sometimes does, so that is pashut l'chol Yisrael. Ein hachi nami, when you have, that's why we have so many machlokes rishonim how to pasken because there are many machlokesim with the... If the Gemara doesn't give us the psak halacha, which it sometimes does, so that is pashut bechol Yisrael. Ein hachi nami, when you have, that's why we have so many machlokos rishonim how to pasken, because there were many machlokos in where the Gemara doesn't give us the psak halacha. So there isn't, Talmud Bavli was pashut bechol Yisrael, but that if the psak isn't there, the psak isn't there. If you're left with a machlokos, you're left with a machlokos, which is why we have machlokos rishonim. And let's just continue a little bit more. וחיבר הגאונים את פירושיהן המרובים אלא שלא יכול אחד מהם להשלים פירוש כל התלמוד.
None of the Geonim wrote a perush on all of Shas lefi yedi'ateinu – that I'm aware of, it says. יש מהם שהפסיק מחמת קוצר ימי חייו. He just didn't live long enough. ויש מהם שהפסיק מחמת הטרדות בבני אדם בדיניהם. וחיבר גם כן חיבורים בפסקי הלכות מהם בערבית ומהם בעברית.
Halachot Gedolot, Halachot K'tuot, ve-Halachot Pesukot, ve-Hilchot Rav Achai, Shel'tot de-Rav Achai, ve-zulatam. וההלכות שעשה הרב הגדול רבנו יצחק זצ"ל הרי"ף יש די בהן מכולן.
The Rif sort of encompasses and surpasses everything the Geonim did. לפי שהן כוללות את כל תעלומות הפסקים והדינים שנזקקנו להם בזמננו
klomar zman ha-galut. וכבר בירר מהן את כל הטעויות שנפלו למי שקדם לו בפסקים.
It doesn't only encompass, but it also surpasses. Ve-ein lit'on – look at this line carefully, rabosai – ואין לטעון כנגדו אלא בהלכות מעטות ואינן מגיעות לעשר בשום פנים.
You can count the Rif's mistakes on the fingers of your hand and you won't reach ten. Right? ואין לטעון כנגדו אלא בהלכות מעטות ואינן מגיעות לעשר בשום פנים.
See, the Rav zatzal used to comment that if you go through Mishneh Torah, there's more, there's many more than ten places where the Rambam disagrees with the Rif. Here in this edition, they quote a Teshuvos ha-Rambam where the Rambam himself writes that he disagrees with the Rif in 30 or more places. So how do you reconcile these two? So the pshat is like this. In Masechet Kiddushin has a din that המקדש במלווה אינה מקודשת המקדש בהנאת מלווה מקודשת. So the way the Rambam understands it, what it means is that if previously the man had given this woman a halva'ah, he'd lent her a hundred dollars, and now he says, you can keep, you don't have to repay me those hundred dollars, so that's mekadesh be-milveh, so then she's einah mekudeshet. Hana'as milveh is he's extending the loan now and he says, I'm going to give it for a longer period of time. I'm going to give you the hundred dollars, instead of a 30-day loan, it'll be a 30-year loan. Then the Rambam says has a very funny line, ופירשו רבותי בהנאת מלווה דברים שאין ראוי לשמען. My rebbeim said, they learned pshat in hana'as milveh differently than I did, but ein ra'ui lishmo'an. So what was the point of that line? Why does the Rambam write that line? So the answer is as follows. Again, the Rambam says the Rif, his mistakes in all of Moed, Nashim, Nezikin, those parts of Kodshim like Menachot, Tefillin, Stam, which are nogei'a le-halacha, you can't find ten mistakes. And yet the Rambam disagreed with the Rif more than 30 times. So says the Rav. You can disagree with someone and say, I think, I see it this way, I hear what you're saying, I see it differently. Or you can say, oh what you're saying is poshut bageg. This is wrong. So the Rambam says, I disagree with the Rif more than thirty times. But in most of those cases, it's because I see it differently, but I can't tell you, I can't, I can't state definitively, you know, in absolute terms that what he said is wrong. I can tell you that I disagree, that I think this is, this is the way I see it. This seems to me to be the right way to see it, but I can't, I can't dismiss what, what the other opinion is as being categorically wrong. There's a handful of cases where I think the Rif is, is just wrong. And and that's the yishuv to, to the stira. So it's klor what the Rambam says is, Rambam says, you'll, you'll come across, I know you're going to come across what פירשו רבותי באנוס מלווה דברים שאינו ראוי לשומען. I want you to know it's not just that I disagree with them; they're wrong. And and that's what the point of this line is because don't, don't think it's just that I disagree. No, what, what they said is poshut bageg. And and that lechore is the pshat. So if, if you look in Igros Moshe and so Rav Moshe has, he has a teshuva here where, where someone was, the, the, his correspondent was, was sort of being somewhat apologetic about disagreeing with what Rav Moshe had said. And Rav Moshe said, no, adaraba, he said. Of course, if, if you again, assuming the person's higia l'horah, if you see it differently, then, then you're supposed to. And and I don't claim to have a monopoly on the truth. I say it the way I see it, and if you see it differently, then, then you should say differently. Again, talking to someone who's higia l'horah. Which meaning that for the most part, similar, analogous to the Rambam's Rif having less than ten mistakes, so Rav Moshe wasn't necessarily speaking with absolute certitude and negating other opinions. He's telling you the way he sees it. But there are occasional teshuvos. He has a teshuva, you look up there's a teshuva about is there any problem with esrogim from Shmita year. So a certain contemporary of Rav Moshe, for whatever reason, had come out very strongly saying there was. And Rav Moshe said, no, it's פשוטה טעות בדבר משנה. Meaning again, Rav Moshe was making the same point that's sort of similar to this Rambam in Hilchos Ishus of פירשו רבותי באנוס מלווה דברים שאינו ראוי לשומען. It's not just that I disagree with them; he's poshut bageg. What, what he's saying is is a taus bidvar mishna. When there's a disagreement, so a person always has to know what, you know, what the it's a disagreement about I see it differently, or no, it's a disagreement that this is, that this is poshut bageg. And and that's what the Rambam is saying here about the Rif, that the Rif's greatness was such that, that with all his countless psakei halacha, there's only a handful where, where I think you can say that, that he was wrong. Okay, so we'll stop.