Комментарий о цитате к Дварим 5:12

In fact [by reviewing the references to gemiri] in many places [throughout the Talmud], one is compelled to accept that [gemiri] does not refer to a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai. See Nazir 4b²¹The Netziv cites 5b. [which proves that the book of Shoftim relates], according to which Shimshon intentionally became impure by having contact with the dead by gemara gemiri lah.²²An act of killing in battle, not in self-defense, proves that he did not have the same status as a true Nazirite. One bound by the Nazirite vow sets himself apart for Divine service. He must abstain from all products of the vine, including grapes, and from intoxicating drinks, avoid proximity with dead bodies, and let his hair grow. [After attempting to find sources from the book of Shoftim,²³The verses are “With the jawbone of a donkey I have killed a thousand men” (Judges 15:16) and “He went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty men of them, and he took their clothing” (ibid. 14:19). The Talmud mentions that perhaps Shimshon avoided having contact with the dead by throwing the jawbone of the donkey, or that he took their clothing before killing them. the Talmud concludes (Nazir 4b) that these sources are inconclusive and the only way we know that Shimshon did defile himself with the dead is by tradition. [A tradition received from Moshe at Sinai could not possibly be used to provide an interpretation of a verse in a book of the Prophets which was written so much later than the time of Moshe.]²⁴The wording of the Netziv implies that he is following the interpretation of Tosafos on Nazir 4b, s.v. “ela gemara gemiri lah.” In addition, [the Gemara in] Berachos 28a states, “Gemiri, that we may promote [a person or thing] to a higher grade of sanctity, but we must not downgrade.” Yet we see in Menahos 99a that this same principle [not to downgrade] is derived from a Torah verse [and because a scriptural source is not cited when it is a law received from Sinai, this principle cannot have come from Moshe at Sinai]. Furthermore, in Hullin 9b, the Talmud notes “gemiri” [regarding the law that when there is a doubt if something became defiled in a public area, it is deemed to be pure]. Yet this ruling is derived from the laws of sotah²⁵A woman suspected of committing adultery who was required to drink the bitter waters (see Devarim 5:12–31). [and if it is a law received from Moshe at Mount Sinai, there would be no need to derive it from the laws of sotah]. See also Kiddushin 37a, noting [that according to the first opinion stated in the Mishnah], the laws of orlah²⁶The fruit of a tree during the first three years after the tree was planted, which may not be eaten. and kela’im²⁷The forbidden mixing of heterogeneous plants (see Vayikra 19:19). are not applicable outside the Land of Israel [and that this law] is hilchesa gemiri lah. Yet Shmuel [in Kiddushin 38a] is of the opinion that these [same laws] are hilchesa medinah [a law that people of the provinces had voluntarily accepted upon themselves, which obviously occurred after the time of Moshe].[It is clear that after analyzing the use of the term hilchesa gemiri lah and variations thereof in various parts of the Talmud, the phrase cannot possibly mean a law received from Moshe at Sinai.] This [observation that hilchesa gemiri lah refers to a tradition from previous generations rather than a law that was received from Moshe at Sinai] has also been noted in the responsa of the Havos Yair (ch. 192) and in the Tosafos Yom Tov on Sotah 2:2.

Maintain: – המוך is an infinitive in the place of an imperative, as “Keep (שמור) the sabbath day” (Deut. 5:12); “Go (הלוך) and call” (Jer. 2:2). And he says:

Do not be distressed that the wording is variant. Although it is far removed from its antecedent, many Hebrew sentences exhibit the same construction: the interpolated verse is not a part of the quote. Words are like bodies, whereas meanings are like souls. One can fashion two different utensils that perform the identical function. For example, “fraudulent” [: 17] is synonymous to “false” [Exodus 20: 13] — for everything false is fraudulent. Moreover, “Remember” [Exodus 20: 8] is similar to “Keep” [: 12], as I have already explained. Moshe added the words as God your God has commanded you, referring to the assembly at Mount Sinai.

זכור — This word REMEMBER which opens this commandment here and שמור “observe” which opens it in Deuteronomy (5:12) were spoken in one utterance. Similar is, (Exodus 31:14) “Everyone that profaneth it (the Sabbath) shall surely be put to death”, which apparently is in contradiction with (Numbers 28:9) “And on the Sabbath day [ye shall offer] two lambs”, a command necessitating actions which, if done for any other purposes on the Sabbath, would involve a profanation of that day. Similar is, (Deuteronomy 22:11) “Thou shalt not wear a garment of two kinds, [as of woollen and linen together]” and (Deuteronomy 22:12) “Thou shalt make thee tassels”, for the performance of which command wool and linen may be employed in combination. Similar is, (Leviticus 18:16) “The nakedness of thy brother’s wife” (the prohibition of marriage with her), and (Deuteronomy 25:5) “her husband’s brother shall come unto her” (he shall marry her). — This is the meaning of what is said (Psalms 62:12) “One thing did God speak, these two things did we hear” (Mekhilta). זכור — This word expresses the verbal action without any reference to a particular time (the infinitive), similar to, (Isaiah 22:13) אכול ושתו “to eat and to drink”; (II Samuel 3:16) הלוך ובכה “to go and to weep”; and the following is its meaning: take care to remember always the Sabbath day — that if, for example, you come across a nice article of food during the week, put it by for the Sabbath (Beitzah 16a).