<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I just grabbed a credible-looking article and trusted it.</blockquote><div> </div><div>It happens. The gemara in question was going through various additional obligations of the bnei noach, such as the issur of kililas Hashem, which is part of their seven. Rav Eliezer makes his statement about kilayim, but no means is provided through the gemara, rashi, tosafos, maharsha, etc. for connecting this one to the original seven. Searching online has people bending over backwards to say that it's some sort of bizayon to "correct" the beriyah through modification, and yet we have a chiyuv to do so through milah and, as the famous gemara says, we don't eat wheat - we eat bread. It is the tafkid of man placed within the world "l'ovdah ul'shomrah" - to protect and ENHANCE the world through our activities. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br></blockquote></div>
That is not the point. Of course the word chukosai appears many times in the Torah. But where else is it used of a specific mitzvah?<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>I provided two examples - avodah zarah and arayos - perek 18 and 20 clearly connect the term chukosai to those sets of lavin.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Doesn't he? Not specifically to the 7 mitzvos, but to laws that already exist. That's what the drasha seems to be: "es chukosai tishmoru" always refers laws that you already know about, that I've already told you in the past; otherwise how can I expect you to keep them? </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Beginning of this weeks parsha, there's a Rashi that handles that - "Mai shemitah etzel har sinai?" A: EVERY mitzvah was given, klalos upratos, at har sinai. Therefore, the command on kilei behemah was given at sinai with everything else, and the past tense reference (which, by the way, still isn't muchrach from the possuk - the lashon is an untensed, possessive noun, not a past-tense verb) still holds. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Here (and AIUI only here) the pasuk tells us specifically which laws it has in mind, so those must have been told earlier. But there's no record in the Chumash of this, so it must have been told long ago, to Adam or Noach. </blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>We have two specific mitzvos who have pratos that NEVER appear in the torah - tefillin and shechitah! Do we then say that these ALSO were given long before matan torah? Clearly, an absurd postulate!</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div>
Where is this expression used for Shabbos? I can't find it.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>"Es Shabsosai tishmoru" - Chazal understand this (Shamor v'zachor bidibbur echad) as an azhara specifically for lo sa'asei malacha, which means that this phrase (used multiple times) is, in fact, a tzivoy.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> I'm saying that it didn't exist, at all.</span></div>
</blockquote><div> </div><div>And yet the Avos kept it. Which means that it DID exist to a recognizable extent? </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Not because it's</span> <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">not mentioned, but because we know that it was commanded at Marah. </span></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>
And kilayim was commanded, along with everything else, at sinai.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Kilayim </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">we don't know anything about; ... so this </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">language hints to us that it's an old law.</span></div>
<div><br></div></blockquote><div>And we NEVER learn anything about tefillin and shechita (ka'asher tzivisicha) from the torah. Even the lashon of the ketores and shemen hamishcha says "asher tzivisicha," yet we aren't given clear instructions other than to "make it." With these, the presumption is that the details were provided as part of TSBP, and only hinted in TSBK. There does not appear to be a reason for the Rambam ignoring this method of explanation other than attempting to explain the source for Rav Eliezer's opinion in Sanhedrin, who is a das yachid in the gemara and against the chachamim. That achronim (such as the GRA) give it so much weight is a bit of a pliyah.</div>
</div></div></div>