![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ymarkovThere is a special group of halakhot classified by the rabbis as ‘A halakha of Moses from Sinai’: see Mishna ‘Eduyot 4:3; 8:7, Tosefta Sukka 3:1, p. 266: Yadayim 2:16, p. 683. It is a major rabbinic concept. In a sense, “the entire Tora,” including the oral tradition, is “halakha of Moses from Sinai”: see Nidda 45a: and cf. Arukh. s.v. mad (I); R. Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari III, 21, pp. 128-130; “Introduction.” Perush ha-Mishnayot, vol. 1, p. 16. Not all of these halakhot were originally designated as such. An opinion could have been registered in the Mishna as a halakha without any qualifications (see Mishna ‘Or/a 3:9), and upon consideration the Talmudic authorities would classify it as ‘A halakha of Moses from Sinai’; see Baba Batra 12b: Yerushalmi ‘
In the “Introduction” to Perush ha-Mishnavot, vol. 1, pp. 18-19, Maimonides recorded a list of most of the cases that were classified as ‘A halakha of Moses from Sinai.’ According to Maimonides, these halakhot have two characteristics. First, they have no legislative basis in the text of the Tora, i.e., they were neither ‘encoded’ (remez; see Appendix 31) in the text, nor can they be justified by judicial reasoning (din) or rabbinic exegesis. Therefore, they could not be included in the lesson on the Tora. For purposes of mnemonics, a teacher would ‘append’ (asmakhta) these halakhot to a term of the Tora; see “Introduction,” Perush ha-Mishnayot, vol. I, pp. 18-19; R. Isaac Bar-Sheshet, Teshubot ha-Ribash #294. However, since these attachments would not be included in the lesson, they could not be disseminated through regular channels. Rather, they ‘floated’ around and were occasionally forgotten; see Yoma 80a; Yerushalmi Pea II, 6. I 7a, cf.
The halakhot that were designated as ‘of Moses from Sinai” are those that although [i] have no connection with the text of Scripture. and Iii] although their chain of tradition cannot be fully determined, were, nonetheless, confirmed by thc rabbinic authorities as authentic. Once established as ‘of Moses from Sinai,’ it would be improper for a later sage to try to find some ‘support’ for it in Scripture: sec Zebahim 110a. Maimonides maintained that once a halakha had been classified as ‘of Moses from Sinai,’ the matter was settled and its status could not be contested. We have seen above (Appendix 32) that the status of a halakha is a judicial matter. This applies also to a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Its status is a matter of law, not of ‘history’! Prior to gaining the status of le-Moshe mi-Sinai, a halakha could be contested (see for example Yerushalmi Pe‘a I, I. I 5a: Hagiga I, 2, 76b; etc.). We should note that Maimonides distinguished between two classes of traditions attributed to Moses. One “about which there could not be any controversy at all” (“introduction” Perush ha-Mishnayot vol. I. p. 20: cf MT Melakhim 12:2); or what amounts to the same: “about which there never was [registered] a controversy” (MT Mamrim 1:3). Second, a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai “about which there is no controversy” (“Introduction,” Perush ha-Mishnayot vol. I. p. 16) – in the present tense! Before the court renderes a decision, a halakha has no standing. The rabbis reported that when a party presented a view not derived from Scripture, but claimed “thus I have received (kibalti) from my teachers,” the matter must be submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision (see Tosefla Pesahim 4:13-14, p. 165; Sanhedrin 7:1, p. 425; Sanhedrin 88b; MT Mamrim 4:1; cf. Mishna Eduyot 5:7, Perush ha-Mishnayot, vol. 4, pp. 322-323). The status ‘of Moses from Sinai’ does not imply that the halakha in question had been pronounced by Moses, but, rather, that although the chain of transmission cannot be fully traced, it has been confirmed as authentic, as if it were a halakha given by Moses at Sinai. Consider, for example, the law about levying tithes from lands in
…that even a matter which is halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai is designated ‘from the Scribes,’ given that nothing is ‘from the Tora’ unless it is explicit in the Tora… or something that the sages have declared to be from the Tora, of which there are only three or perhaps four cases.
The preceding meets the objections raised by R. Solomon Rafael Judah Leon Templo, Massekhet Halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai (Amsterdam. 5494/1734) 3a, 5a. etc.; see the response of R. Hiyya ha-Cohen de la-Ara, MishmerotKehunna (
The same applies to the expression “Truly, it was said” (be-emet amru) in rabbinic literature (see Mishna Kil’ayim 2:2, etc. etc.), which is usually treated as a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai; see Rashi on Nazir 54b, s.v. be-emet. It is an authentic tradition, whose chain of transmission could not be verified by standard procedure. It is nevertheless authentic, as “if it were a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai”; see Perush. R. ‘Obadya, on Terumot 2: 1.
