[Avodah] D'rabanan vs. D'oraita

[Michael Makovi]

>The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah Siman 81 paskens that a Jewish baby
> is allowed to have a non-Jewish wet nurse, however the Shulchan Aruch
> says that you shouldn't do it because the non-kosher food will harm
> the baby spiritually.
>
> R' Marty Bluke

> ... In any case, we
> see clearly from the Ran that non-kosher is objectively poison and
> harmful even if you eat it b'heter.
>
> ....We see clearly that this idea that any non-kosher food is metamtem
> halev, meaning it has intrinsic effects, even if eaten b'heter<<
>
>  R' Toby Katz

These two ideas, were exactly what I was saying I don't hold by.

I might add that I like Rabbi Shelomo Danziger's interpretation of
RSRH, that Rav Hirsch took Kabbalah totally allegorically, contra the
interpretations of Dayan Grunfeld, Jakob Rosenheim, Rabbi Joseph
Elias, etc. We also all know that RSRH loves symbolic/educational
interpretations of mitzvot.

I'd have to look at Horeb and RSRH's Chumash to see what he says about
kashrut per se, i.e. whether it affects your soul intrinsically or
not.

But until then, I will note that at the end of Tazria-Metzorah, and at
the end of Balak, Rav Hirsch interprets tumah and taharah as
educational decrees, and AFAIK, he indicates nothing about intrinsic
effects.

In Bamidbar Rabbah, Parshat Chukat, a gentile asks Rabbi Yohanan about
the ritual of the parah adumah. Rabbi Yochanan makes something up
about magic and hocus-pocus, and the gentile leaves. The students see
through the ruse, and ask for the REAL explanation. Rabbi Yochana
replies, "By G-d, the dead do not defile and the heifer does not
purify; it is all a decree from G-d!". The midrash goes on to quote a
taam mitzvah from another rabbi, so apparently, "chok" does not mean
there is no taam; rather, there IS a taam, and this is davka the
significance of the mitzvah! The mitzvah is purely symbolic and
educational, without any intrinsic spiritual reality.

Mikha'el Makovi