Dear kollel,
In Hilchos Bikkurim 1:3 the Rambam provides a list of the 24 matanos kehuna. Then in 1:12, he quotes chazal's listing of the 24 (from the Tosefta - Radbaz) , which has some slight differences. Given chazal provide a list, why does Rambam:
a) provide his own, b) prioritize it over chazal's?
The Radbaz says there's a machlokes in the Tosefta but that's still not a reason to provide an alternative view, instead of choosing a side.
I've looked at the nosei keilim and the likkutim at the back of the Frankel edition but can't find any comment on this. Do you have a suggestion for why the Rambam saw fit to add his own list first?
Thanks,
1) The Mirkeves ha'Mishneh on the Rambam (Hilchos Bikurim 1:3) writes that the Rambam followed the count of the Sifri. The Sifri in Parshas Korach (18:20) states, "24 Matnos Kehunah were given to the Kohanim...." The Sifri proceeds to count "Chatas" as only one present, and "Asham" as only one present. This is different from the Gemara in Bava Kama 110b which counts an animal Chatas as one present, and a bird Chatas as another present. In addition, the Gemara counts an "Asham Vadai" (which one brings when he is certainly liable for an Asham) and an "Asham Taluy" (which one brings when he does not know for sure that he is liable for an Asham; for example, there were two pieces of meat in front of him, one forbidden and one permitted, and he ate one but does not know which one. In such a case he offers an Asham Taluy) as two separate presents. The Rambam prefers the way the Sifri counts. It is not the Rambam's personal idea, but rather he took it from a different source in Chazal.
2) Perhaps we may understand why the Rambam preferred the Sifri's count to that of the Talmud Bavli with the help of the Ra'avad (Hilchos Keri'as Shema 3:6) who writes that it is the normal way of the Rambam to rely on the Talmud Yerushalmi. It seems that the Rambam relies on writings of Chazal from Eretz Yisrael, so perhaps this is why he prefers the Sifri. At any rate, there is no Halachic ramification in the way we enumerate the 24 Matanos, and thus the Rambam cited the Sifri because of the advantages that it possesses.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rabbi,
Thank you very much, that was very interesting. I subsequently had a closer look and saw references to the Sifri and Mirkeves ha'Mishneh in the Mekoros vTzionim so I apologise for not researching more carefully first.
The structure of the first perek still seems slightly unusual to me though and I wonder why none of the earlier meforshim comment on it (or on the issue the Mirkeves does). It's interesting that the Radbaz mentions a few times that the second count is from the Tosefta and discusses it, but doesn't worry about identifying the first.
Thanks,
Josh
1) (a) I agree that the first Perek is a bit unusual, mainly because the Rambam first cites one way of counting the presents and then writes that the Chachamim count it a different way, which implies that the first way of counting is different from that of Chazal. This is rather unusual in the Rambam, because he usually stays close to the Gemara.
(b) However, we may be able to explain the reason why the early Mefarshim do not comment on this, based on a statement of the Or ha'Chayim to Bereshis 1:1:3 (DH Da). He writes that while we are not able to disagree with Chazal on matters relating to Halachah, we do have permission to disagree on matters which relate merely to the explanation of verses, where there is no practical Halachic ramification at stake. Therefore, we can understand how the Rambam was able to count the 24 presents received by the Kohanim in a different way than that given by the Gemara, and why none of the Mefarshim question him on this, even if we say that they were not aware, for some reason, that there is a source for the Rambam's count in the Sifri.
(c) This may explain the fact that the Radbaz does not identify the first count, because even if it would be the Rambam's own personal count, that would also not present any difficulty.
2) In general, we need not be so surprised when we find that later commentaries achieved things that the earlier generations missed out on. We learn this from the Gemara in Chulin 6b-7a, which discusses the copper snake of Moshe Rabeinu that was destroyed by King Chizkiyah. How could it be that the kings Asa and Yehoshafat, who destroyed all the Avodah Zarah in the world, did not destroy this snake, which was being used as an idol? The Gemara (beginning of 7a) answers, "Our forefathers have left us room to become great." Rashi writes that if our children, when they come after us, will not find some problem that they can solve on their own, they will have no way of feeling accomplished. This is why Hash-m's Hashgachah gave King Chizkiyah the opportunity to destroy idol worship, even though one would have thought that Asa and Yehoshafat managed to destroy it all. It was all to help Chizkiyah achieve fame. In a similar way, we often find that Achronim say Chidushim which make us wonder why nobody though of that before them. The answer may be that the later scholars received a special Siyata di'Shemaya to reach ideas that one is surprised that the earlier sages did not attain. This gives us a special respect also for the later generations.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom