For kiddushin, why does Rambam say kesef is “mi'divrei sofrim” but doesn't say that for shtar?Pesach/Passover Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Best answer contest: Second quarter of 5779 To celebrate Mi Yodeya's tenth birthday, let's divide and conquer the entire…Difference between the RamBam and Talmud Kiddushin 82a in list of jobs that posul a King/High Priest?What were the Rambam's sources?Destruction of Angel Worship SitesWhy doesn't the Gemara learn kiddushei kesef from Eliezer initiating kiddushei kesef as a shaliach for Yitzchak?No criminal punishment for rapists in Judaism?How can the Rambam say that Kiddushin is a Mitzvah, against the Gemara?How did the Rambam write about kidney removal?Why for a divorce does a woman do many different actions, but doesn't do them for Kiddushin?Is a kiddushin valid if one just gives a ring but doesn't say “harei at mekudeshes li?”Why does Rambam count learning from Midos in 613 Mitzvos?
Did Deadpool rescue all of the X-Force?
When a candle burns, why does the top of wick glow if bottom of flame is hottest?
For a new assistant professor in CS, how to build/manage a publication pipeline
Can family of EU Blue Card holder travel freely in the Schengen Area with a German Aufenthaltstitel?
Catmull-Clark and Doo-Sabin Subdivision Codes
Can an alien society believe that their star system is the universe?
If my PI received research grants from a company to be able to pay my postdoc salary, did I have a potential conflict interest too?
Fundamental Solution of the Pell Equation
Would "destroying" Wurmcoil Engine prevent its tokens from being created?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Is it possible to add Lighting Web Component in the Visual force Page?
Is the Standard Deduction better than Itemized when both are the same amount?
Is there a kind of relay only consumes power when switching?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
Are there mentions in Hinduism about instruments which allows one to know others thoughts and influence them? And is it sinful?
When the Haste spell ends on a creature, do attackers have advantage against that creature?
Did MS DOS itself ever use blinking text?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network
SF book about people trapped in a series of worlds they imagine
Denied boarding although I have proper visa and documentation. To whom should I make a complaint?
What is the meaning of the simile “quick as silk”?
Why wasn't DOSKEY integrated with COMMAND.COM?
How to Make a Beautiful Stacked 3D Plot
For kiddushin, why does Rambam say kesef is “mi'divrei sofrim” but doesn't say that for shtar?
Pesach/Passover
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Best answer contest: Second quarter of 5779
To celebrate Mi Yodeya's tenth birthday, let's divide and conquer the entire…Difference between the RamBam and Talmud Kiddushin 82a in list of jobs that posul a King/High Priest?What were the Rambam's sources?Destruction of Angel Worship SitesWhy doesn't the Gemara learn kiddushei kesef from Eliezer initiating kiddushei kesef as a shaliach for Yitzchak?No criminal punishment for rapists in Judaism?How can the Rambam say that Kiddushin is a Mitzvah, against the Gemara?How did the Rambam write about kidney removal?Why for a divorce does a woman do many different actions, but doesn't do them for Kiddushin?Is a kiddushin valid if one just gives a ring but doesn't say “harei at mekudeshes li?”Why does Rambam count learning from Midos in 613 Mitzvos?
In Hilchos Ishus 1:2, the Rambam writes:
לִקּוּחִין אֵלּוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵם. וּבְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. בְּכֶסֶף. אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. בְּבִיאָה וּבִשְׁטָר מֵהַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכֶסֶף מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is from the words of the Scribes
Most Rishonim (ex: Kesef Mishnah) don't take this phrase at face value and explain why the Rambam used the phrase "divrei sofrim." As summed up in the Steinsaltz intro to Kiddushin:
They explain that the Rambam distinguishes between laws that are clearly written in the Torah (or are derived from a straightforward reading of the Torah) and those laws that are derived from some of the hermeneutic devices applied by the Sages. Halakhot derived in that manner are referred to by the Rambam as divrei soferim even though they have the same level of seriousness and severity as laws that are clearly learned from the Torah.
My question TL;DR:
Why did the the Rambam say shtar is from the Torah if (like kesef) it ALSO requires a limmud?
Namely, if shtar is not explicitly written in the Torah and its acceptability is learnt out via a hekesh ("ויצאה והיתה" Kiddushin 9b ) AND following the opinions that hekesh is considered to be a part of one of the 13 Hermeneutical principles (see "במנין המידות" in this link), why didn't the Rambam also say shtar is "divrei sofrim?"
rambam kiddushin-eirusin maseches-kiddushin hermeneutics
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
|
show 2 more comments
In Hilchos Ishus 1:2, the Rambam writes:
לִקּוּחִין אֵלּוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵם. וּבְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. בְּכֶסֶף. אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. בְּבִיאָה וּבִשְׁטָר מֵהַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכֶסֶף מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is from the words of the Scribes
Most Rishonim (ex: Kesef Mishnah) don't take this phrase at face value and explain why the Rambam used the phrase "divrei sofrim." As summed up in the Steinsaltz intro to Kiddushin:
They explain that the Rambam distinguishes between laws that are clearly written in the Torah (or are derived from a straightforward reading of the Torah) and those laws that are derived from some of the hermeneutic devices applied by the Sages. Halakhot derived in that manner are referred to by the Rambam as divrei soferim even though they have the same level of seriousness and severity as laws that are clearly learned from the Torah.
My question TL;DR:
Why did the the Rambam say shtar is from the Torah if (like kesef) it ALSO requires a limmud?
Namely, if shtar is not explicitly written in the Torah and its acceptability is learnt out via a hekesh ("ויצאה והיתה" Kiddushin 9b ) AND following the opinions that hekesh is considered to be a part of one of the 13 Hermeneutical principles (see "במנין המידות" in this link), why didn't the Rambam also say shtar is "divrei sofrim?"
rambam kiddushin-eirusin maseches-kiddushin hermeneutics
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
2
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
2
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
1
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
2
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05
|
show 2 more comments
In Hilchos Ishus 1:2, the Rambam writes:
לִקּוּחִין אֵלּוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵם. וּבְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. בְּכֶסֶף. אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. בְּבִיאָה וּבִשְׁטָר מֵהַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכֶסֶף מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is from the words of the Scribes
Most Rishonim (ex: Kesef Mishnah) don't take this phrase at face value and explain why the Rambam used the phrase "divrei sofrim." As summed up in the Steinsaltz intro to Kiddushin:
They explain that the Rambam distinguishes between laws that are clearly written in the Torah (or are derived from a straightforward reading of the Torah) and those laws that are derived from some of the hermeneutic devices applied by the Sages. Halakhot derived in that manner are referred to by the Rambam as divrei soferim even though they have the same level of seriousness and severity as laws that are clearly learned from the Torah.
My question TL;DR:
Why did the the Rambam say shtar is from the Torah if (like kesef) it ALSO requires a limmud?
Namely, if shtar is not explicitly written in the Torah and its acceptability is learnt out via a hekesh ("ויצאה והיתה" Kiddushin 9b ) AND following the opinions that hekesh is considered to be a part of one of the 13 Hermeneutical principles (see "במנין המידות" in this link), why didn't the Rambam also say shtar is "divrei sofrim?"
rambam kiddushin-eirusin maseches-kiddushin hermeneutics
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
In Hilchos Ishus 1:2, the Rambam writes:
לִקּוּחִין אֵלּוּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה הֵם. וּבְאֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית. בְּכֶסֶף. אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר. אוֹ בְּבִיאָה. בְּבִיאָה וּבִשְׁטָר מֵהַתּוֹרָה. וּבְכֶסֶף מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.
And taking a wife as such is a positive commandment of the Torah. And a woman is acquired through three means: money, a contract, or through intercourse. Marriage through intercourse and by contract is from the Torah, and by money is from the words of the Scribes
Most Rishonim (ex: Kesef Mishnah) don't take this phrase at face value and explain why the Rambam used the phrase "divrei sofrim." As summed up in the Steinsaltz intro to Kiddushin:
They explain that the Rambam distinguishes between laws that are clearly written in the Torah (or are derived from a straightforward reading of the Torah) and those laws that are derived from some of the hermeneutic devices applied by the Sages. Halakhot derived in that manner are referred to by the Rambam as divrei soferim even though they have the same level of seriousness and severity as laws that are clearly learned from the Torah.
My question TL;DR:
Why did the the Rambam say shtar is from the Torah if (like kesef) it ALSO requires a limmud?
Namely, if shtar is not explicitly written in the Torah and its acceptability is learnt out via a hekesh ("ויצאה והיתה" Kiddushin 9b ) AND following the opinions that hekesh is considered to be a part of one of the 13 Hermeneutical principles (see "במנין המידות" in this link), why didn't the Rambam also say shtar is "divrei sofrim?"
rambam kiddushin-eirusin maseches-kiddushin hermeneutics
rambam kiddushin-eirusin maseches-kiddushin hermeneutics
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
asked Apr 2 at 2:48
alichtalicht
3,0491636
3,0491636
2
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
2
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
1
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
2
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05
|
show 2 more comments
2
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
2
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
1
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
2
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05
2
2
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
2
2
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
1
1
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
2
2
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.
Here is the key paragraph:
והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה
This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.
Here is the key paragraph:
והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה
This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
add a comment |
Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.
Here is the key paragraph:
והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה
This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
add a comment |
Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.
Here is the key paragraph:
והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה
This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
Rambam discusses this exact question in a responsum (1:150 in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) to R. Pinchas the Judge. He tells R. Pinchas to read his Sefer Hamitzvot where he lays out the rule that a mitzvah that is derived via one of the 13 principles of exposition is not called d'oraita unless the Sages explicitly say so. Kessef which is derived via a gezeirah shavah and is not explicitly said to be d'oraita by the Sages, is hence not considered d'oraita. Shtar, though derived via a hekesh, is explicitly stated by the Sages to be d'oraita (see the discussion in Kiddushin 9b). Thus, Rambam had no choice but to refer to kessef as divrei soferim and shtar as d'oraita even though ideally shtar would also have been referred to as divrei soferim.
Here is the key paragraph:
והתשובה על זה שודאי כך הייתי אומר שהכסף והשטר מדבריהם הואיל ומן הדין באו לולי הא דאמרינן בהדיא בענין נערה מאורסה דאמרינן הערה מאורסה דאמר רחמנא בסקילה היכי משכחת לה פירוש מדאמר קרא נערה בתולה מאורסה שמע מינה בודאי שיש מאורסה מן התורה בלא ביאה ובמה ושקלו וטרו וסוף המימרא אמר ר' נחמן ביר' יצחק משכחת לה כגון שקידשה בשטר הואיל וגמר ומוציא גומר ומכניס שמע מינה שלדברי הכל השטר גומר ומכניס ועל זה סמכתי ופסקתי שהשטר מן התורה
This responsum is cited by Ramban in his objections to Rambam's second principle of mitzvah counting, and Ramban's citation is further cited by R. Joseph Karo in his commentary to Hilchot Ishut 3:20.
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
edited Apr 2 at 21:48
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
answered Apr 2 at 4:54
AlexAlex
24.1k157136
24.1k157136
add a comment |
add a comment |
2
Notably, as per the Rambam's own opinion in Shoresh 2 regarding what's a d'Oraisa and what's a d'Rabbanan, it would seem that Shtar and even Bi'ah (according to the conclusion of the Gemara) are Divrei Sofrim.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 2:57
@DonielF what do you mean by Shoresh 2?
– alicht
Apr 2 at 3:02
2
At the beginning of Sefer HaMitzvos, the Rambam sets forth the principles by which he determines which mitzvos are Biblical and which are Rabbinic. In Shoresh 2, he explains that if it relies on the rules of derash, it doesn't count as a d'Oraisa. The Ramban argues vehemently on this point alone, concluding that the rest of the Shorashim he agrees with entirely but has no idea what the Rambam was thinking with this particular one.
– DonielF
Apr 2 at 3:03
1
mistake, I remembered this Rashi in BM 48a but its an other topic קאי באבל. משום דברים שבאו על כך לכלל מעשה אבל מעות לא קנו מדאורייתא ונפקא מינה לענין איסורא כגון אם קידש בו את האשה לר' יוחנן הוו קדושין דמדאוריי' קנייה ודידיה הוא לריש לקיש לא הוו קדושין:
– kouty
Apr 2 at 6:54
2
Note we have other Girsaot on this Halakha and it seems the Rambam changed his mind a few times trying to decide what to write
– Double AA♦
Apr 2 at 12:05