hebrewbooks.org/… אפילו דבר שהוא הלכה למשה מסיני מדברי סופרים קרינן ליה ואין שם מן התורה אלא דבר שהוא מפורש בתורה כגון שעטנז וכלאים ושבת ועריות או דבר שאמרו חכמים שהוא מן התורה והן כמו שלשה ארבעה דברים בלבד

... even a matter which halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai is designated 'from the Scribes,' given that nothing is from the Torah unless it is explicit in the torah, such as shatnez, kilayim, shabboth, arayoth or a matter that the Sages have declared to be from the Torah, of which there are only three or four such cases

reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/271b8q/… a good friend of mine pointed it out here if anyone interested in the source

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob Sorry I'm not seeing the relevance.

halocho lamosha meesinai doesnt really meany its from seenai but its from 7azal that attributes it to seenai.

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob I don't think that is what those words mean. But either way, do you see this as a contradiction to the Rambam I cited (who clearly is saying that he understands Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai to be from Moshe, just not in detail)?

that is exactly what it means. מדברי סופרים means that its from 7azal and not from Mosha Rabbeinu 3alow ha sholom. it is only attributed it to him by the sages.

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob The Rambam is referring to his count of Mitzvos, which ones get the status of being from the 613. The Rambam uses "divrei sofrim" to refer to things which are certainly from the Torah, the classic example is קידושי כסף which the Rambam clearly writes will incur a death penalty but he calls divrei sofrim. I think you are mistaken to make the two terms mutually exclusive.

source on that?

i dont know if you have mori qafi7's mt but i found an english translation for you on habad's website. Rav Kapach differs and states that the Rambam altered the text in his later years, and the correct version states, "All three are from the Torah." In explanation, he draws attention to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:1) and to one of the Rambam's responsa, and on this basis differs with the above principle.

He maintains that whenever the Rambam uses the expression midivrei soferim, he means that the practice is Rabbinic in origin and does not have the status of Torah law. The only practices that are considered to be ordained by the Torah are those explicitly stated in the Torah or mentioned by the Sages as having the status of Torah law. In this context, he explains the Rambam's approach. Originally [as evidenced by the Rambam's statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 213)], the Rambam thought that sexual relations are the only kiddushin that are effective according to the Torah.

For not only the effectiveness of the transfer of money, but also that of the transfer of a legal document is derived by the Sages only through Biblical exegesis. Afterwards, on the basis of certain passages that state that the effectiveness of the transfer of a legal document has the status of a Torah practice, the Rambam changed his opinion and wrote that the transfer of a document is also effective according to the Torah. This opinion is reflected in the Commentary on the Mishnah and the original version of the Mishneh Torah.

Even later, the Rambam accepted the opinion that the effectiveness of the transfer of money also stems from the Torah itself. This is reflected in Chapter 3, Halachah 20, and the corrected text mentioned above.(See Birkat Avraham, Responsum 44, in which the Rambam's son, Rabbenu Avraham, substantiates Rav Kapach's version of the Mishneh Torah.)

this is in regards to hilchoth ishuts halocho 2 chapter 1

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob I am not interested in a prolonged debate about this issue. The Rambam which I cited (Qafi7's translation, by the way) and the Rambam about how to blow shofar (also Qafi7's translation) are abundantly clear that the Rambam held there was some information from Moshe Rabbeinu which is being referred to. If you want to make it a contradiction, that's fine. I'd prefer what seems to me to be the simpler (and internally consistent) approach that the Rambam said what he meant and

meant what he said in both places, and in one he was just laying down qualifications for what is in the Minyan haMitzvos, as he himself writes that the point of the shorashim is to define what is counted, not what is Biblical.

@YEZ tehre is a different between halocho la moshna meeseenai and qabbolo

הפירושים המקובלים אין בהם מחלוקת

2 different things

but are closely related

@YEZ wat mori qafi7 rights is in in fact like rabbeinu abrohom ban ha rambam zl

@YEZ and if you quote mori qafi7 you must see everything which he brings down and not just a snip it here and there

@YEZ that is why one must learn entire rambam and entire mori qafi7 to actually talk about wat rambam really meant

@YEZ get yourself an updated rambam with/ mt from mori qafi7. it is most accurate :)

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob The Mishna he is discussing there says explicitly הלכה למשה מסיני. NOT a qabbolo. That's where he says those comments. About THOSE WORDS. You can ignore it if you like, but that's what he says about those words.

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob And I am not quoting "Mori Qafi7" I am quoting the Rambam as translated by him.

@yez tahts time point. your mt is wrong. anywhere הלכה למשה מסיני it means da rabbonon

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob That is not MT - THAT IS A MISHNA IN SHAS. That is the words of the Mishna, NOT THE RAMBAM, which the Rambam is COMMENTING ON. PLEASE PLEASE LOOK AT IT, AT LEAST BRIEFLY. It is the words of the Mishna. Tannaim. Shisha Sidra. Talmud. Whatever you want to call it.

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob Is the Mishna, as quoted by the Rambam, wrong? What am I missing here?

But I do appreciate the smug patronization and lecturing tone.

@yez right and what rambam zl says is taht halocho la mosha meesinai is midivrei saforim and therefore da rabbonon

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob So how do you read the Rambam at the end of Eduyos? You are just ignoring it for your convenience.

and this is the view of all the school of al 3andalussiyya

We are not having a discussion here. You are spouting without addressing my points. You can continue it without me.

@YEZ what has been passed by the sanhadreen is da rabbonon

but still must be followed

@YEZ refer back to : אפילו דבר שהוא הלכה למשה מסיני מדברי סופרים קרינן ליה ואין שם מן התורה אלא דבר שהוא מפורש בתורה כגון שעטנז וכלאים ושבת ועריות או דבר שאמרו חכמים שהוא מן התורה והן כמו שלשה ארבעה דברים בלבד

if it is not specifically written in the torah it is da rabbonon

end of discussion

@YEZ still not seeing what i am ignoring? halocho la mosha meesinai at all times is darabbonon. so what am i missing here?

>This is in the category of halakha l'moshe m'sinai - a law that has no legislative basis in the text, nor can it be justified by judicial reasoning or rabbinic exegesis. There is nothing in the text that lends itself to a peshat at dissonance with the law any more so than there is something present in the text that lends itself to a peshat in consonance with it.

Further, I would not agree that it is altogether apparent that laws in the category of halakha l'moshe m'sinai are literally Mosaic/Sinaitic in origin - rather the category attests to the antiquity and vetted provenance of the law. It is another way of saying "authentic" or "reliably incontestable" without being verifiable through standard procedural methods.

explanation from the thread i linked above

@MoriDoweedhYaa3qob you're right that מדברי סופרים usually means that something is מדרבנן. However, the teshubha of the Rambam isn't discussing הלכה למשה מסיני, which is why the correct version of the letter is probably the version cited in footnote 9 (to the link you have). This is preferred by S.Z. Havlin as well in his book מסורת התורה שבעל פה pg 49