Hakdama Rambam 7

Hakdama Rambam 7

There are some debates in the Gemara...

And when you see in the Talmud [that] they are investigating and disagreeing with one with another in the pattern of investigation and bringing proofs for one of these explanations, and similar to these – for example, that which the statement of the verse stated, "the fruit of a beautiful tree," maybe it will be pomegranates or quinces or other [fruits] besides them, until (Sukkah 35a – Chapter 3) they bring a proof about it from that which it stated, "the fruit of a beautiful ( hadar ) tree," and [one teacher] said it is a tree the taste of its fruit and its [bark] which are the same; and another said, it is a fruit that resides ( hadar ) in its tree from one year to the next; and [yet] another said, it is a fruit that dwells upon all waters 

Multiple Choice

How does the Gemara prove the identity of the Esrog fruit?

• different proofs from the Posuk פרי עץ הדר

• tradition from Moshe

• Rashi and Tosfos

...that are not debates about the actual law

– they did not bring these proofs because the matter had become garbled for them, until it became known to them from these proofs. But [rather] without a doubt, we have seen from Yehoshua until now that they would hold a citron with the palm branch (lulav) every year. 

And there is no disagreement about it, but [rather] they were probing for the hint that is found in Scripture for this transmitted explanation [that the fruit in question is a citron].

Multiple Choice

Were the Rabbis in the Gemara really unsure about the identity of the Esrog fruit?

• Yes, that's why they debated the proofs

• No, there was never any disagreement in our history about which fruit it is

Multiple Choice

IF the Esrog identity was always known, why were the Rabbis in the Gemara debating different proofs about it from Pesukim?

• they were just trying to find hints to it in the Pesukim, in ADDITION to the tradition that was handed down

• in the time of the Gemara, the identity became fogotten because of the persecutions of the Romans

the same is for the other debates

And so [too], their proof about the myrtle (Sukkah 32b); and their proof about the laws of [destroying various] bodily organs (Bava Kamma 83b), and that is what one is obligated to his fellow, whose limb he has destroyed; and also their proof that the daughter of a priest which was mentioned there is married (Sanhedrin 52a); and all that is similar to it – is [all] according to this principle.

 And about all of these – even though they are transmitted from the mouth of Moshe – it is not said [that it is] a 'law of Moshe from Sinai,' as it should not be said that "the fruit of a beautiful tree" is a citron, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai'; or that one who injures his fellow pays money, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'

So which laws are called הלכה למשה מסיני?

As it has already become clear to us that all of these explanations are from the mouth of Moshe, but [also] have hints to them in the verse, or they extrapolated them by one of the ways of reasoning, as we mentioned. And therefore, only about anything that does not have a hint in Scripture and is not connected to it and it is impossible to extrapolate by one of the ways of reasoning, is it said [that it is a] 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'

Multiple Choice

So which laws are called הלכה למשה מסיני?

• Ones which have no hint in the Pesukim

• Ones which Moshe taught only to Yehoshua

• Ones which Moshe was taught on Har Sinai, as opposed to later in the desert