3

When Rambam says that a principle of faith is that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moshe, does he include both written and oral Torah, or only the written Torah?

If the former, to what extent? Since he speaks of the Torah that we now have, it cannot mean the Oral Torah in an abstract sense, but, it seems to me, must include some redaction currently in our possession. Does he mean the entire Talmud? Only the Mishnah?

Improve this question
14
  • 1
    Potentially related.
    – yoel
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:02
  • 1
    Note the Ani Maamin and Yigdal poems were not written by the Rambam. Are you sure the Rambam said "the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moshe"?
    – Double AA ♦
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:17
  • Come to that, I don't even know the original source. Is it in Mishneh Torah?
    – yoel
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:25
  • 1
    @yoel The original source is his commentary to mishnah (which is therefore the source I quoted in my answer)
    – b a
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:27
  • @yoel I recommend stating in the Q that your quote is from a poem which summarizes the 13 principles, and that you are looking for clarification of the Rambams original exact position.
    – Double AA ♦
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8

The Rambam, towards the end of his commentary to Sanhedrin 10:1, explicitly mentions the oral Torah.

... Similarly, the transmitted explanation of the Torah was also received from G-d. This is what we do nowadays with the forms of the sukah, lulav, shofar, tzitzis, tefilin, etc., which are the exact same forms that G-d gave to Mosheh. ...

Improve this answer
5
  • 2
    Well, he mentions פירוש המקובל such has the shape of a sukkah, tefillin and tzitzit. That doesn't sound like every possible detail in the Mishna is a requirement per se. In fact, it clearly would not apply to Mishna/Gemara that has to do with derabanans or minhagim; only interpretation of the Biblical (not Nach) text.
    – Double AA ♦
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:27
  • @DoubleAA What is your reason for a distinction between the shape of tefilin etc. and other oral laws? And derabanans and minhagim are obviously not part of the oral Torah (aside from the position of the Bahag quoted by Ramban on the first root of Sefer HaMitzvos)
    – b a
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:32
  • So now it's a question of what exactly he means by "the transmitted explanation". As you note, opinions on what we received at Sinai range from "the sources from which much of the Mishnah was redacted" to "the Talmud in its entirety, word for word".
    – yoel
    Jan 4, 2013 at 21:59
  • 2
    @yoel From the introduction to the Mishneh Torah, it would seem that Perush[ah] ha-Mequbal refers to the Mitzvah that Mosheh commanded "to the elders, to Yehoshua, and to all the rest of Israel"( Haqdamah sec. 3), and was passed from one generation to the next, which is called Torah shebe-Al Peh. This is distinguished from the Gezerot, Minhagot, Taqanot, and Dinin Pil'iyim that were enacted and decided in subsequent generations( Haqdamah sec. 25-27).
    – Tamir Evan
    Jan 5, 2013 at 17:31
  • @ba ("shape" isn't so different from "form") I was taking a minimalist position (ie what is the smallest set of things that have to be included in this definition), cf judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18735/… although TamirEvan points to some good points as to what the Rambam's personal Shittah is. That said, even if you think the Rambam's 13 principles are definitive, I don't know if that means we have to take his understanding of TShBP. In general though I'm very cautious about drawing precise lines in Ikarei Emunah.
    – Double AA ♦
    Jan 5, 2013 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .