← Library

Avodat HaMelekh on Mishneh Torah, Transmission of the Oral Law

Sefaria · Halakhah > Mishneh Torah > Commentary > Avodat HaMelekh > Introduction · 30 sections

1. 1.1

   All the mitzvot, etc., were given along with their interpretation. Our Rabbi, may his memory be blessed, in the introduction to his commentary on the Mishnah, indicated the source of these words in the Torat Kohanim, parashat Behar: all the mitzvot were given with their general principles, specific details, and nuances at Mount Sinai. Our Rabbi explained there that this refers to the general and specific principles, that is, the aspects we are to derive from the concepts of "klal" (general rule) and "prat" (specific rule) and from the other thirteen middot (methods of interpretation). And our teacher, the Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu, may his memory be blessed, added a reference to Torat Kohanim in parashat Tzav, where it is stated: "That which Hashem commanded…," including all of them. And in Torat Kohanim in parashat Bechukotai, in the verse "on Mount Sinai through the hand of Moshe," it is taught that the Torah was given with its halachot (laws), details, and explanations through Moshe from Sinai. It is explained there: "These are the chukim (decrees), referring to the midrashim, etc." And in the Talmud Yerushalmi, chapter 2 of Peah, we read: "The words, the things" include Mikra (Scripture), Mishnah, Talmud, and Aggadah, etc. And see in Avot de Rabbi Natan, where it says: "These are the chukim, mishpatim (laws), and torot (instructions)." And see in Megillah 19b the explanation of the verse: "And about them, according to all the words."

2. 1.2

   The term "Torah" refers to the Torah itself, and "the mitzvah" refers to its interpretation. Berachot 5, Gaon Rabbi Eliyahu (the Gra).

3. 2.1

   And he gave a book to each tribe. Our master, may his memory be blessed, in his introduction there mentioned its origin for Bava Batra, but according to our version of the Talmud, this passage is not found there, and it was later mentioned in the Midrash Rabbah, Parashat Vayelech. The Rosh cites this in the chapter of Arvei Pesachim, and see in the Or Zaruah HaGadol, part 2, Halachah of Motzaei Shabbat, section 89, and in the Mordechai, chapter of Arvei Pesachim. Similarly, it is found in the Midrash Shocher Tov, section 100.

4. 2.2

   And a book was given to the Ark forever. And in his introduction to the explanation of the Mishnah, he mentions that it was given to the Levites, and both versions are present in the Piskata of Rabah Kahana, Parashat V'Zot HaBerachá. It is written: "And one (book) for the tribe of Levi," meaning that if any of the other tribes wanted to erase something from the Torah, the tribe of Levi would have to take out their Sefer Torah and correct what was written in it. And this is also found in the Midrash Devarim, as well as in the Midrash Shocher Tov, where the version is as written by our master here.

5. 3.1

   "The explanation of the Torah was not written down. Gittin 60b: 'Things that are transmitted orally, you are not permitted to write them.'"

6. 3.2

   "For the elders, for Yehoshua, and for all the rest of Israel. See in Eruvin 54a: 'Such is the order of the Mishnah.'"

7. 3.3

   "He commanded him... and to all the rest of Israel. See in the Piskata Zutarta, Devarim 1:18, and 'And I commanded you' refers to the details of the mitzvot that were transmitted by tradition, such as shechita (ritual slaughter), the removal of bones from meat, and other mitzvot that are part of the tradition for Israel. Also see the Ramban on the Torah, who interprets the final part of the verse 'All the matters that you shall do' as referring to the Torah Shebe'al Peh (Oral Torah), which is the law transmitted to Moshe at Sinai."

8. 4.1

   "He taught... to the seventy elders and to Elazar. (In Sifrei, Parashat Matot: 'And Elazar the kohen said,' Moshe gave him permission to speak so that, when he would depart from this world, people would not say, 'During your master’s lifetime, you did not speak; now you speak.' And this is contrary to what is stated in the Talmud, which says that if a halachah is taught in the presence of one’s master, it must be said before him)."

9. 4.2

   "And Pinchas (Sotah 43a: 'And Moshe sent them, along with Pinchas'). 'Them' refers to the Sanhedrin, and in the Sifrei it says: 'Them and Pinchas,' which teaches that he was considered as worthy as all the others combined."

10. 4.3

    "And Yehoshua—these three received from Moshe. (It does not mention Kalev. See in the Talmud Nazir 56b: 'And Yehoshua and Kalev are not mentioned.' It seems that our master followed the interpretation of the sages, which we will see further on. And why did Moshe transmit to Yehoshua rather than to Elazar or Pinchas? For this reason, he listed them separately and included Kalev among the others)."

11. 4.4

    "And to Yehoshua, who was Moshe Rabbeinu’s disciple, he transmitted the Torah Shebe’al Peh (Oral Torah). (In Sifrei: 'And he commanded him in their presence and in front of...'. Here, the command refers specifically to the words of the Torah)."

12. 4.5

    "And he commanded him about it. And above, it is written that he commanded the elders, Yehoshua, and all Israel, whereas here he commanded only Yehoshua. The simple explanation is that 'he commanded them about it' means he commanded them to preserve the Torah according to the Torah Shebe’al Peh (Oral Torah), and this was commanded to all Israel. But here, 'he commanded him about it' means the succession of transmission, from person to person (he commanded Yehoshua regarding the words of the Talmud, as explained in the Sifrei in Parashat Pinchas). And in Piskata Zutarta on Va’etchanan: 'And he commanded Yehoshua,' he instructed him on the teachings of the tradition, referring to what is mentioned in the Sifrei. Much can be elaborated on all the details of this. It appears that our master distinguishes between three things: teaching, receiving, and transmission. Clearly, receiving and teaching are distinct, for even those who learned from Moshe are not called 'recipients' (mekablim); 'receiving' is something unique. Elazar, Pinchas, and Yehoshua, besides what they learned, also 'received' the Torah as they were among the recipients, yet the meaning of 'and to Yehoshua he transmitted the Torah Shebe’al Peh and commanded him about it' still needs explanation. See Rashi on Avot, and why it says 'he transmitted to Yehoshua and not to Elazar or Pinchas,' because Moshe did not wish to transmit it to anyone other than one who had fully dedicated himself to the Torah from his youth, as it is said, 'He did not depart from it.' And this follows the Midrash of the sages, but the full meaning still requires clarification."

13. 5.1

    "And he received it from me from the elders and from Pinchas. The prince and judge Yitzchak Abarbanel, in his introduction to the Avot tractate, strongly opposed our master’s words here, as the elders, according to the Seder Olam, lived many years after Yehoshua—14 years longer—and from their era to Shmuel’s, over 400 years. However, it is clear that the 'elders' mentioned by our master here are those who lived after Yehoshua, in all the subsequent generations, and not those who remained since Moshe’s time (and the Meiri wrote similarly in the introduction to the Avot tractate, that the elders mentioned there were not those from Moshe’s time, but those who lived in his era and afterward, as it is said: 'And Israel served Hashem all the days of Yehoshua and all the days of the elders who lived many years...', and their number is unknown). Pinchas himself lived many years, even until the time of the prophets, as he realized, for we find him in the story of the concubine at Gibeah. These elders belonged to the court of Pinchas, who was the head of the court, as we find in the sages’ tradition regarding the case of Yiftach's daughter, who said, 'I will go to the mountains.' See Midrash Rabbah, Bereshit 60, which asks, 'But wasn't Pinchas there?' and Pinchas responded, 'I am not required...', see this well, and note that our master omitted all the judges, as Pinchas was the head of the court, and the tradition came from him and his court, as mentioned."

14. 5.2

    "And David received from Shmuel. The aforementioned prince also questioned this, as David is not counted among the prophets, and the tradition was not transmitted to kings. This does not mean that David was not counted among the prophets (and what our master wrote in the Sefer HaMoreh, Part 2, Chapter 45, that David was not a prophet, does not contradict this, as the meaning in the Moreh is that he was not sent to prophesy, and the explanation is extensive). In the Seder Olam we have, David is counted among the prophets, as is the version of our master, Hananel, in Megillah 14, which states that Shmuel, David, and Ahijah were prophets. (Even if he were not counted among the prophets and tradition had not been transmitted to kings, David was head of the court, and the succession of tradition occurred through the Sanhedrin). Our master, by not counting Solomon among those who received the tradition, followed Rashi's version, which included Solomon, because Solomon's prophecy was not recorded. Even though it is said that Solomon was a prophet (see Sotah 48b in two versions of the Talmud), he was not counted because his prophecy was not written. See also the explanation of the Gra, who argues that Solomon might not have been counted among the recipients of tradition, as when David died, he was only 12 years old and not yet fit to receive the tradition from David."

15. 5.3

    "And Ahijah the Shilonite, who was a descendant of the Egyptians, received from David and the court. However, in an objection, the critic (Abarbanel) argues that this is incorrect, as Ahijah the Shilonite was a member of David's court. And see where Raavad’s intention is clarified, as, being an extremely old man, it would not be correct to say he received from David. Examine what is said about this. In Mishneh Torah Part 2, Rambam also adopts this interpretation, that until the generation of Yeravam, when Ahijah received prophecy, he was not among the recipients of the tradition, as observed. Indeed, given that it is written that Ahijah saw Amram, and Amram saw Yaakov, it stands to reason that Ahijah would have been around 60 years old when the Torah was received. See what Maharal of Elphandri writes on this, holding that this is the intent of the objection, though the details are unclear. What appears clear from Raavad’s intent is that we find among our earlier masters that they possessed the book of the order of the Torah recipients, as well as the order of the Tannaim and Amoraim, and used it, as Rav Sherira Gaon did in his letter, and also in the Halachot Gedolot in laws on debts and mourning, and also in the Ha-Kaneh book, and see Tosfot in Sanhedrin 29b, Shevuot 41a, and Avodah Zarah 35a, and other places, and also in the Machzor Vitri. For this reason, the words of the prince Abarbanel are surprising, as he chose an entire methodology for the transmission order, though it does not depend on logic, but rather on tradition, as stated in the book of the order of Torah recipients, where it is written that the order is: from Shmuel to Gad (and in some places from Shmuel to Natan and from Natan to Gad), from Gad to Shimei, from Yehoyada to Ahijah the Shilonite, and from Ahijah to Elijah (in some versions, from Gad to Ahijah and from Ahijah to Elijah). Clearly, this version was accepted by Raavad, hence he commented on our master’s words, saying that Ahijah received from David and his court, which is incorrect, as he received from the prophets who preceded him, merely being part of David’s court. This is the basis of his objection. However, according to our master’s intent and method, as mentioned above, only Yehoshua, a disciple of Moshe, was entrusted with the tradition so that he alone could pass it to others. After Yehoshua, the tradition continued to be transmitted only by the head of the court and his court, collectively. This is the process of transmission, and thus, although Ahijah the Shilonite received from Natan and Gad, as they lacked a court during David’s time, and at that time, David and his court were in power, there were no divided courts, so our master did not include in the transmission order anyone other than those who received from David and his court, who received from Shmuel and his court. What Ahijah received from others is not counted in the transmission order, as they did not have the authority to transmit it alone to Ahijah without the court. Perhaps this is why our master skipped from Elijah and his court to Yehoyada and his court, even though the order of transmission in the book includes Mikhiyahu, Obadiah, Jonah, and Eliezer (and regarding what our master said about Yehoyada, the prince Abarbanel raised numerous objections, as Yehoyada was not a prophet, and high priests were not counted among the heads of transmission, and he did not see Yehoyada counted among the recipients of tradition in any versions, as the sages said that when a prophet’s name is mentioned along with his father's name, it is certain that he is a prophet, son of a prophet, as in the case of Zechariah, son of Yehoyada, the priest, mentioned in Chronicles. That he is not counted among the prophets is common, as many were not counted, and the details are extensive. Rabbi Meiri wrote that among them are Yehoyada and his colleagues, who prophesied in the days of Yoash, and among them Zechariah, etc., and see also Shekalim 5:6, a midrash discussing Yehoyada, the high priest, who prophesied concerning a sin and fault, and received offerings, etc. This version is mentioned regarding the recipients of tradition)."

16. 6.1

    "Yoel transmitted to Nachum, and Nachum to Habakkuk. In several versions we have, it is written 'and Yoel to Habakkuk,' but in the Munich manuscript, it is in accordance with the version of our master."

17. 7.1

    "Baruch ben Neriah received from Yirmiyahu, and Ezra and the Sanhedrin (Beit Din) received from Baruch. Also in this case, many disagreed with our master, including Rabbi Abarbanel, because Baruch is not listed among the prophets (this is indeed mentioned in the Mekhilta at the beginning of Parashat Bo, but in many other places, we find our sages mentioning Baruch as a prophet). It was clearly stated in Megillah 15 that Baruch ben Neriah, etc., all prophesied in the second year of Darius, and he is listed in the Order of the World among the prophets. In all versions, including in Rashi’s commentary and Rabbeinu Chaim’s in Megillah 14, and in Rabbeinu HaGaon’s Hilkhot Ketsubot, our Gemara version is 'Baruch ben Neriah, etc., prophesied for a specific occasion,' and perhaps for this reason, he was not counted among the prophets. However, indeed, in all versions of the Order of the Receivers of the Torah, it appears that Yirmiyahu transmitted to Ezekiel, Hulda to Haggai, Zechariah to Ezra, and our Rabbi omitted all these, as mentioned, because they did not have a Sanhedrin. Ezekiel was in Babylon, while the Sanhedrin was in Eretz Yisrael; and Hulda, certainly, did not have a Sanhedrin. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were in the Beit Din of Ezra, as we mentioned below, and indeed in the Order of Receivers of the Torah, which appears in Machzor Vitri and other sources, it is written that the 'Men of the Great Assembly' were Zerubbabel, Yehoshua, Nehemiah, and Mordecai. They do not mention Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Perhaps Malachi was not counted, because some believe that Malachi is Ezra himself, and that is why he was not counted in the Order of Receivers, while Zechariah and Ezra were. The origin of our master’s words about Ezra transmitting from Baruch ben Neriah has already been explained in the Gemara of Megillah 16b, where it is said that while Baruch was alive, Ezra did not leave him, and it is mentioned in the Midrash Shir Hashirim, as brought by Rashi."

18. 7.2

    "Payment of a hundred [and twenty] elders. It is revealed in Yevamot 17b and in the Jerusalem Talmud, Perek 1 of Megillah, Perek 5. Elders and thirty some prophets, and see in the Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot, Perek 2, Halachah 4, Halachah 3, 120 elders, of which eighty or so were prophets."

19. 7.3

    "The last of them was Shim’on HaTzaddik. Mishnah Avot, from the corners of the Men of the Great Assembly, and our master wrote that he was part of the hundred and twenty who formed the 'pure congress.' This does not mean that they came one after the other, like the elders and prophets, but that at the beginning of the Assembly, everyone was present (the minister Abarbanel in his introduction there). And see Rashi in Avot, from the corners of the Men of the Great Assembly, meaning at the end, those who were not with them at the beginning of the Second Temple, in the days of Ezra. And in this, there is great confusion, see in the order of the generations."

20. 7.4

    "He was the High Priest after Ezra. For in the fortieth year of the Temple's construction, Alexander had already ascended to destroy the Temple, and Shim’on HaTzaddik went out to meet him, as mentioned in Yoma 69 (see in the Midrash Rabah, Song of Songs, about the holiness of the Temple, that Ezra did not ascend at that moment, for if he had ascended, Satan would have risen to accuse, saying it would have been better for Ezra to serve as High Priest instead of Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak)."

21. 8.1

    "Shma'aya and Avtalyon, converts to righteousness. Gittin 57b and in the case of the High Priest in Yoma."

22. 9.1

    "Rabbi Meir, son of converts. See Gittin 57."

23. 11.1

    "And he received from his father and from Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua. See Yevamot, Chapter 4, and see Menachot 18. Rabbi said: When I went to learn the measures (of interpretation) of Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua, or some say, the measures of his interpretations from Rabbi Eleazar ben Shamua."

24. 16.1

    "Rabbi Hanina bar Chama. See Avodah Zarah 10. He met Rabbi Hanina bar Chama, who was sitting. See Jerusalem Talmud, Chapter 4 of Taanit, Halacha 2, see Jerusalem Talmud, Niddah, Chapter 2, Halacha 7, and see Ketubot 103."

25. 16.2

    "In his court, etc., and Shmuel. See the refutation. See Mageni Shelomo, Chullin 5, regarding the case of Rabbi’s disciple Asya, which he established for his students. And regarding the refutation that Shmuel did not receive [the tradition] from Rabbi Hanina but only from Levi, and not from Rabbi Hanina. See Bikkurim 11, where Shmuel said, 'Rabbi Hanina said,' and the foundation of Ra’avad in Shabbat 108, which states that the Gemara says he heard from Levi, see there. And see Menachot, at the beginning of the Chapter of Tekhelet, and see the order of the generations, but it is not mandatory."

26. 16.3

    "For Rabbi Yannai. See Yevamot 92b, which states that Rabbi Yannai was a disciple of Rabbi. And see Bava Batra 154, which mentions that he contradicted Rabbi Yannai, his teacher. And see the order of the generations in all its references. It is questionable why it does not also mention Rabbi Hoshaya, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and Bar Kappara."

27. 17.1

    "Rav compiled (the Tosefta, which includes [Sifra and Sifrei]). See the commentary on the Mishnah and Berakhot 11, 18, Bava Batra 124, where it is referred to as the 'Sifra of Beit Rav.' Rashi, of blessed memory, explained that the term 'Sifra of Beit Rav' does not mean that Rav was the author but rather that he was the master in whose study house it was customary to learn this midrash. See Rashi in Chullin 66, but our master’s words are based on the tradition of the Geonim, as Rav Sherira Gaon clearly wrote in his letter. This should be examined further. See the Order of the Generations, letter A, page 4, and review carefully in the book Rav Pealim, letter S, page 45a, in the name of Hish’r of Candia, in his book Mezaref LeChochmah, and in additional editions, page 92. It is very important to examine all this. Also, see the preface to the book, in the explanation by Ra’avad on the Tosefta, where he discusses this. See the Gemara in Chullin 27a and how the Tanna quotes it here, and Rashi’s commentary there—review it well."

28. 17.2

    "Rabbi Chiya compiled the Tosefta to clarify the matters of the Mishnah, just as Rabbi Hoshaya and Bar Kappara compiled Baraitot to clarify the words of the Mishnah. (See in Jerusalem Talmud Horayot, 'The man to whom God gives wealth and honor...' and 'honor' here refers to the Tosefta, and 'all he desires' are the great Mishnayot, like the Mishnah of Rabbi Chiya, the Mishnah of Rabbi Hoshaya, and the Baraita of Bar Kappara. See also Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs, on the verse 'I will kiss you with refined wine'). Our master (Rashi) adjusted his expression carefully, writing that Rabbi Chiya compiled the Tosefta, while in Rosh Hashanah and Bava Kamma, he wrote that they compiled Baraitot. Also, regarding Rabbi Chiya compiling the Tosefta, he wrote that it was to clarify the matters of the Mishnah, whereas for Rabbi Hoshaya and Bar Kappara compiling Baraitot, he wrote that it was to clarify the words of the Mishnah. Here, our master shed great light on this complex matter."

29. 17.3

    "Rabbi Yochanan compiled the Jerusalem Gemara. This is also the opinion of Ra’avad in Sefer HaKabbalah, of Rosh Ba"tz in his response, section 251, and in Sefer Keritut by Rashi of Kinnon, Yemot Olam, Section 2, and Tzida LaDerekh in his introduction. However, many disagree with this, and further investigation is required."

30. 26.1

    "Similarly, Rabbi Akiva compiled the Mechilta. This is the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, which Ramban cited in his Torah commentary in various places, and the Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael is ours, which he received from Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKana. See in the Yichusim, which refutes those who claim that Rabbi Yishmael received it from Rabbi Akiva. Also, see Gaon Rabbi David Luria in his pamphlet *HaEchad Eliezer*."

Sefaria Community Translation. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: https://www.sefaria.org Licence: CC0. Source.