What exactly was given at Sinai? (threads merged)

TammyTammy

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 8:48 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Quote:

My understand of the OP was that she was asking about the Torah Sheb'ksav -- the written Torah. I understood her question to mean that she was looking for proof that all 304,805 letters that we have in our Torah match the Torah that was given to Moshe on Sinai. I don't think she was asking about the Torah Sheb'al Peh at all.

The Rambam is saying that the entire Torah, both B'kesav, and B'al Peh were given by Moshe Rabbenu, from Sinai.
In Sefer hamada, hilchos Teshuva chapter 3 halacha eight, the Rambam declares that he who says that even one word of Torah (sheb'kesav) was not given from Hashem is a Kofer in Torah, including someone who says that Moshe said it on his own, but it is not from Hashem (Sinai). also one who says that it was from Hashem, but now He exchanged one mitzvah with another, and it is nullified ie. no longer relevant.

Cute, but no dice. Firstly, you're correct that the Rambam says that one who says that a word of the Torah is not from Hashem is an apikores. But I didn't deny the validity of any particular word, just the possibility that the spelling of some words may be wrong. Notice that the Rambam talks of various levels (pasuk, word) but does not state about letters. Furthermore, since the Rema seems to hold that there is a possibility of spelling errors (where no change occurs to the meaning of the text), does that make the Rema an apikores according to you?

Also, note that the Rambam says that a person can be lableled an apikorus if they say that part of the Torah doesn't come from HaShem. *YOU* added the word Sinai to the quote -- it's not in the text of the Rambam. So, I'm free to believe that parts of the Torah came later at Arvos Moav (or any point up to there).

Don't alter quotes to make my position look bad. If you find a Rambam that says that all five chumashim were given ON SINAI, then by all means bring it. Until then, don't attempt to paint me as an apikores for my views.

Quote:

Likewise someone who denies the Peirush - Torah she'b'al Peh, and one who denies its teachers'. (magideho) ie. the chachomim.
In halacha 6, of ch. 3 the consequences of being a Kofer, min or apikores is discussed.

Unless the I'm wrong about the OP, we're not discussing the Torah SheB'al Peh.

Tammy

TammyTammy

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 8:51 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

Quote:

Jew: Well, I was looking at this chapter over here about this wonderful manna we've been eating.
Moshe: Yes?
Jew: Well, it says that we're going to be eating this for forty years until we get to Canaan.
Moshe: So?
Jew: Well, Canaan is just a few days travel away from here. Why is it going to take us forty years to get there?
Moshe: Um, well... get back to me after Tisha B'Av.

Tammy don't you know the adage that the Torah speaks in the language of the lower worlds, but alludes to the spiritual worlds? And the truth is even stronger: that the Torah speaks (predominantly) in the language of the spiritual worlds, and (merely) alludes to the physical world.

That means that the meaning that we understand in our finite way is only a code for the inner, spiritual dimension of existence. So that for example in the phrase "Bo el Phaaroh", Phaaroh is the term used to refer to a level of G-dliness which is characterized by "ispariu kol nehorin" a wildly expansive revelation.

When we understand that, there cease to be what may appear as discrepancies in past, present, future and so on.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this answers my question. Can you please put it in simpler terms. My question was, if this pasuk was given on Sinai, what did the Jews think when they saw that they were not going to go into Eretz Yisroel for another 40 years? What would Moshe have answered them?

Tammy

TammyTammy

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 9:06 pm

[quote="Motek"]

TammyTammy wrote:

mali wrote:

Two of the 13 principles of faith:

I believe with complete faith that the entire Torah (both Oral and Written), which we now have is that which was given to Moses.

Quote:

So, how do you account for variations in the text such as that I've listed above? Or for the fact that a defective sefer Torah is not necessarily passul because we aren't certain about the status of our own Torahs?

Do you accept the 8th Principle or not?

How do you account for the Rema's halacha? Obviously, the Rema feels that the fact that there are variant spellings that might be legitimate. Ergo, if one assumes that the Rema accepts the 8th principle, that means that the 8th principle does not rule out variant spellings.

Based on that, I accept the 8th principle.

If you feel that this is not good enough for you and that I (and the Rema) am an apikorus because of it, then have the courage to come out and say it.

Tammy

Motek

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 9:37 pm

(I had hoped to modify my previous post but you responded before I did.)

amother wrote:

She insisted that there were parts that were added later or parts that were lost/changed throughout the ages.

Ask her to explain the Rambam's 8th principal.

The information in the Torah never changed. It was all given to Moshe at Sinai and there's another thread on this about how it was written.

Quote:

How do you account for the Rema's halacha? Obviously, the Rema feels that the fact that there are variant spellings that might be legitimate.

The Rema says we don't need to put away the Sefer Torah but can continue reading from it. Nevertheless, we have a standard text we follow. All the issues raised here about how the Torah was written are discussed in the Gemara.

The Rema did not have problems with emuna. You do and I've had the courage to say it before. You and your ilk who present the issues raised in the Gemara in this manner, end up casting doubts in people's minds (such as OP) and undermining people's faith. You do it sometimes by quoting legitimate sources in a self-serving manner, and other times by using sophistry (definition for those who don't know:) a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone (or oneself).

TammyTammy

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 9:53 pm

Motek wrote:

The information in the Torah never changed. It was all given to Moshe at Sinai and there's another thread on this about how it was written.

So, do you think that the parsha of Korach's rebellion, of the death of Aharon's sons, of Moshe hitting the rock, etc. were given at Sinai? Because in another thread, you stated that "future events" were NOT given at Sinai. You can't have it both ways... either it was given on Sinai (and Moshe knew all these things in advance) or else it was given after the fact to Moshe. Which is it?

Quote:

The Rema says we don't need to put away the Sefer Torah but can continue reading from it. Nevertheless, we have a standard text we follow.

Agreed, we have a standard text, and the sefer Torah does need to be fixed. But the point isn't the validity of the sefer Torah, it's the fact that the Rema admits openly that we are not expert in the exact spelling of the words. By openly admitting that we are not experts in the exact spelling, that is a de facto admission that there may be spelling errors.

Quote:

The Rema did not have problems with emuna. You do and I've had the courage to say it before. You and your ilk who present the issues raised in the Gemara in this manner, end up casting doubts in people's minds (such as OP) and undermining people's faith. You do it sometimes by quoting legitimate sources in a self-serving manner, and other times by using sophistry (definition for those who don't know:) a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone (or oneself).

If the Gemara addresses the issue of the pasuk in B'shalach that I mentioned, please tell me where it is.

If the Gemara explains how the events described above were given on Sinai and Moshe knew about them in advance and yet still acted as he did, please tell me where it is.

Tammy

TammyTammy

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 10:04 pm

Motek wrote:

For the record, taking the Rema at face value does not make me someone who lacks in Emunah. Being able to look at two different texts and see that they are not identical does not make me lacking in emunah. The fact that I can presume that many parts of the Torah were given after Sinai (until a point shortly after Moshe's death) does make me someone who lacks emunah.

You say that I am out to undermine people's emunah. How do you know that? Are you a mind-reader now? If I quote the Gemara that says that Yehoshua wrote the last eight pesukim to prove that it wasn't written at Sinai, how is that self-serving? How is that destroying people's emunah? If I take a look at the text and think to myself "gee, if Moshe knew that hitting the rock would cost him the chance to go into Eretz Yisroel, he would not have done it -- ergo he didn't know about it, and ergo, that was not given on Sinai" does that make me self-serving or engaging in sophistry? Or is it simply that I can actually think for myself instead of taking "Moshe received the Torah from Sinai" as completely literally which is illogical based on the text itself.

I believe that there is a God in the world. I believe he gave the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu. I believe that the essential meaning of every word is the same as when it was finally compiled. I believe the Torah was compiled into its final form in Arvos Moav, not at Sinai. I believe that HKBH will not give another Torah or change any of the commandments.

What do I not believe? I don't believe that it is impossible that no spelling errors were introduced during the intervening centuries (based on the Rema). I don't believe that Moshe was told on Mt. Sinai that he was going to hit a rock and lose his chance to go into Eretz Yisroel. I don't believe that the pasuk in B'shalach was given at Sinai -- it was very obviously given at the end of the journey in the Midbar. I don't believe that Moshe was given every detail of every mitzvah on Mt. Sinai -- some details (Pesach Sheini, laws of inheritance, exact punishment for chillul shabbos) were given later.

Does that make me an apikorus according to you?

Tammy[/list]

TammyTammy

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 10:23 am

mali wrote:

Tammy, I stand corrected with the B'shalach part. I looked it up, and indeed, Rashi stresses that Sefer Habris is Bereishis till Matan Torah, meaning, till the events of Matan Torah (and the Rebbe comments, that for example, the part with Moshe putting away Man was only written after the Mishkan was built). My apologies.

Mali, that's OK. No need to apologize.

However, that still doesn't answer the question about that one pasuk. You can't say it was written after the Mishkan was built either... that was in Year 2 in the Midbar but *before* the sin of the Meraglim which caused the decree to remain in the Midbar for forty years. The same question still applies.

Quote:

Back to the exact Torah - the fact that we're discussing Yatirs here just comes to show how accurately the Torah was passed down through the generations. I've never heard of being unsure about Yatirs and such; I know of smaller Sfeikos, such concerning pronunciation, like if we read the word זכר in the Parsha of Amaleik as "zeicher" or "zecher" (yatir I Wink

)

I agree that, compared to other documents, the accuracy of the Torah is very high. The fact that no words have been changed in a meaningful way (I.e. changes in meaning) is indeed amazing. Much younger documents have much wider variations. But the halacha as quoted by the Rema is accurate. My DH has been a ba'al kriah for a loooooong time and he confirmed for me that that is the halacha as he follows it... if he sees a mistake where it doesn't change the meaning/pronunciation, then he keeps going and tells the Rav about the error at the end of the davening. If he sees a mistake that changes something significantly, he stops right away.

Tammy

TzenaRena

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 1:41 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

that's exactly what I was saying! Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Furthermore, since the Rema seems to hold that there is a possibility of spelling errors (where no change occurs to the meaning of the text), does that make the Rema an apikores according to you

huh? I said that the Rambam does not write the word "letters". (However there are references to letters and tagim elsewhere, but not in this particular RamBam.)

Quote:

Also, note that the Rambam says that a person can be lableled an apikorus if they say that part of the Torah doesn't come from HaShem. *YOU* added the word Sinai to the quote -- it's not in the text of the Rambam. So, I'm free to believe that parts of the Torah came later at Arvos Moav (or any point up to there).

In my second post, I quoted the halacha in hilchos teshuva. In that halacha it does not say the word Sinai, but I added it in explanation - see the parentheses, I thought that was clear! But if you read the earlier post, where I quoted the hakdamah of the RamBam it does say Sinai, several times! I bolded it in those places.

In other words, Torah miSinai means Torah from Hashem, and the Rambam (in his hakdamah to sefer haYad) uses this term in reference to the entire Torah, sheb'ksav and b'al Peh.

Quote:

Don't alter quotes to make my position look bad. If you find a Rambam that says that all five chumashim were given ON SINAI, then by all means bring it. Until then, don't attempt to paint me as an apikores for my views.

same as above, it's in the hakdamah. see the earlier post. I'm not trying to paint you as anything Tammy. I'm only debating your ideas and assertions, and sorry to say some of them seem to fit into that category. Even though I think you are wrong, I don't consider you an apikores chas v'shalom!
Can we be friends? Smile

Quote:

Unless the I'm wrong about the OP, we're not discussing the Torah SheB'al Peh.

Tammy

Right, I'm just depicting a kal v'chomer, even the Sadducees admitted to the Divinity and eternity of every letter of Torah sheB'ksav.(lets put aside for the moment your argument of chasir v'yatir of a very few letters....) and they were still apikorsim because they didn't believe in Torah sheb'al Peh. It's total kefirah to start up with Torah Sheb'ksav, but the same goes for Torah sheb'al Peh. It's in the same halacha.

The OP's friend is in denial of the Torah sheb'Kesav, it seems, I would be afraid to hear what she (doesn't) believe about Torah sheb'al Peh, but we won't get into that.[/quote]

TammyTammy

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 2:21 pm

Tzena,

If we agree that the Rambam's point doesn't cover missing or added letters, then I apologize... I obviously misunderstood what you said.

I think that part of the argument that we are having may be a matter of definition, which is something that we should clear up before we continue.

When someone says that the Torah is MiSinai, it could mean one of two things:

(a) It could be that the person is just using "Sinai" as shorthand for HKBH , but they may not necessarily believe that the entire Torah was given on Sinai. This is my belief, as I'm fairly certain that Torah Sheb'ksav was not in it's final form until shortly before or shortly after Moshe's death. I don't think, for example, that Parshas Sh'lach was given on Sinai -- I believe that it was given to Moshe from HKBH at some point after the events described therein. That was what I meant by my comment of believing in Torah "miArvos Moav."

(b) It could also be that when a person says that they believe the Torah is given "MiSinai" that they believe that it was all given literally on the mountain. This is a belief that I do NOT subscribe to. I believe that Moshe got the Mitzvos contained within the later parshiyos on Sinai, but they weren't incorporated into the text until later on.

So, when you say...

Quote:

In other words, Torah miSinai means Torah from Hashem

...which definition do you mean? Because I believe in Torah from HaShem, but I don't believe that Moshe was handed a copy of the chumash as we have it today on Sinai. That didn't exist until Arvos Moav.

Once I know exactly what you mean by "Torah MiSinai," I can then proceed to my next question.

Tammy

TzenaRena

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 2:56 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

Quote:

a) It could be that the person is just using "Sinai" as shorthand for HKBH , but they may not necessarily believe that the entire Torah was given on Sinai. This is my belief, as I'm fairly certain that Torah Sheb'ksav was not in it's final form until shortly before or shortly after Moshe's death. I don't think, for example, that Parshas Sh'lach was given on Sinai -- I believe that it was given to Moshe from HKBH at some point after the events described therein. That was what I meant by my comment of believing in Torah "miArvos Moav."

(b) It could also be that when a person says that they believe the Torah is given "MiSinai" that they believe that it was all given literally on the mountain. This is a belief that I do NOT subscribe to. I believe that Moshe got the Mitzvos contained within the later parshiyos on Sinai, but they weren't incorporated into the text until later on

I'm sure it will very nice to get the clear picture, and I'll have to read up on that, meforshim and my 13 Principle book for that, but regardless, Torah MiSinai is the term that the Mishnah in Avos(1:1) uses : Moshe received the Torah from Sinai etc., the Rambam too uses this expression, so there's no need to make that a point of contention.
I have never heard the expression "Torah Me'Arvos Moav".

See Rashi's commentary in Behar( 25:1): "Behar Sinai What does Shmittah have to do with Har Sinai? Weren't all the mitzvos spoken from Sinai?, but just as Shmittah, all its generalities and particulars were spken from Sinai, so too all of them were said, their generalities and particulars , from Sinai. So it is learned in Toras Kohanim.

And it seems to me that this is it's explanation: Since we don't find shmittah of properties taught in Arvos Moav in Mishnah Torah, we learned that her generalities and specifics were all said at Sinai, and the Scripture comes and teaches us here on every dibur that wwas spoken to Moshe that they were all from Sinai, their Kellalim and their dikdukim and they were repeated and taught in Arvos Moav."

TammyTammy

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 3:02 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

Quote:

Tzena,

Right. As I said earlier, I agreed with you that the Mitzvos were given on Sinai. But that's not what I was after. Was Parsha of the Meraglim given to Moshe at Sinai? The parsha of Korach's rebellion?

*That's* what I'm trying to get your opinion on before we go any further. Do you believe that Moshe got a copy of our chumash on Sinai, or did the final version of it only exist after Arvos Moav?

Tammy