[Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan

Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Wed Jun 8 15:25:45 PDT 2016


On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:21:18PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Bottom line as the Arukh Hashulchan points out in many areas the
: government regulations are the substitute for the bet din who are not
: knowledgeable to set standards in health, safety and other such areas.

Many accuse the AhS of writing things that would to appeal to the govt
censor. But not to distort the din, only in cases where he thought the
readership would realize he was obviously doing so.

Which means that the AhS can't be used as a ra'ayah, because those who
disagree will simply say he *obviously* couldn't have meant it.

But the idea that communal policy halakhah should follow the NIH (or
your country's equivalent) recommendations because the alternative is chaos
appears compelling. Assuming the poseiq things the gov't is being honest.

: In a related matter I have been attending for a while shiurim of R Michael
: Avraham on logic. The topic that he just began is the requirement to
: listen to rabbis. Rambam relies on the pasuk "lo tassur". Ramban disagrees
: and says that if so then every derabban becomes a de-oraita...

Doesn't the gemara explicitly say that indeed, every derabbanan *is*
a de'oraisa to justify saying "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu"
on the qiyum of a derabbanan? (Shabbos 23a)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 01:43:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:

: R' Meir Simcha in the Meshech Chochma on Shoftim has a fascinating
: explanation of the Rambam. He says that every din d'rabbanan is not
: necessarily a fulfillment of the will of Hashem and in fact may not be what
: Hashem wants. The proof is that the Rambam paskens based on the Gemara that
: a later greater Beis Din can be mevatel a takana of an earlier Beis Din. If
: every takana was the will of Hashem how could that be? ....

His Will  is eternal, but the situations it applies to are not. This
would be consistent with different batei din ruling differently based on
their audience.

Besides, eiu va'eilu applies to pesaqim on de'orasios. His Will apparently
includes conflicting laws.

: rebel against their words. The issur of lo tasur is an issur to rebel
: against the Chahamim, to not listen to them. Given that, we understand why
: sefeka d'rabbanan lekula because the act of doing the mitzva is not the
: main point, the point is listening to the chachamim, once it is a safek,
: there is no need to do the act because it is not so important (contrast
: that to a mitzva d'oraysa where the act is clearly and unequivocally the
: ratzon hashed) and is not considered a rebellion against the chachamim.

This seems to self-evident to me, I do not understand why the Ran needs
to say that every gezeirah was made to be safeiq lehaqeil. Lemaaseh lo
sasur cannot apply.

Rambam could say the converse of the Ran: When chazal established safeiq
de'oraisa lechumerah, they excluded lo sasur.

Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:51:58 +0300
: R' Elchanan in Kuntrus Divrei Sofrim has the following suggestion to
: explain the Ramban. He suggests that there really is no mechayev for dinim
: d'rabbanan. He says that why do we keep d'oraysa's? Because we want to do
: the ratzon hashem. The same applies to dinim d'rabbanan. We assume that
: whatever the chachamim were mesaken is the ratzon hashem and therefore we
: keep them because we want to do the ratzon hashem.
: 
: This R' Elchanan is a fascinating contrast to the Meshech Chochma I
: referenced who explains the Ramabam....

I blogged about this machloqes. It's related to whether someone who keeps
shemittah derabbanan can count on a bumper crop in year 6, and therefore
came up in the machloqes about hete mechitah.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/safeiq-derabbanan>

   R' Aharon Rakeffet... The following is primarily from his shiur of
   Dec. 19th, 1994 "Safek from Torah or Rabbanan" (starting at around 52
   min. in). <http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/709404> As is my norm,
   I add bits here and there.
   ...
   But why do we rule leniently for a rabbinic law? Isn't every rabbinic
   law really a Torah law of "do not veer from what they tell you,
   neither to the left nor to the right"?

   1- Ramban (on Seifer haMizvos, shoresh 1): The same Rabbis who made
   the rabbinic prohibitions and duties made them only applicable in the
   case of certainty. They desired to make a clear distinction between
   Torah and rabbinic law.

   2- [My own addition] R' Shimon Shkop allows us to say the same thing,
   180deg off. In Shaarei Yosher, he asks the question of why a sefeiq
   sefeiqah (a doubt added upon a second doubt) is ruled leniently.

   The Rashba (Shu"t 1:401) holds it's a variant on the notion of
   relying on majority...

   Rav Shimon explains sefeiq sefeiqa on other grounds, following the
   Rambam. Who said that a doubt in Torah law must be ruled stringently?
   It wasn't the Torah, it is rabbinic! ...

   So, rather than the Ramban's limiting the specific prohibition to
   only cases where we are certain about the realia, it's possible that
   we could limit the rabbinic enactment of ruling stringently on Torah
   law to have only been made about the other 612 laws. With the same
   consequent rationale.

   3- Rav Meir Simchah haKohein miDvinsk (Meshekh Chokhmah, Devarim
   17:11): A Torahitic prohibition describes something that is inherently
   wrong. The universe is made such that combining meat and milk is a
   problem (metu'af, meshuqatz).

   A rabbinic prohibition lacks that reality. Chicken and milk isn't
   inherently damaging, it is that it leads to error through habit or
   accident. Therefore, one needn't the same care when dealing with
   rabbinic extension as when dealing with the damaging or refining thing
   itself.

   4- Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Qunterus Divrei Soferim): Of course there is
   a reality to rabbinic statements. It is all revealed from the Creator,
   all the Ratzon Hashem yisbarakh (the Will of the Creator, blessed be
   He).  The difference between a derabbanan and a de'oraisa is the
   explicitness. Therefore it is less sacred, and violation involves
   lesser realities. A difference of quantity, not quality.

   Rabbi Rakeffet links Rav Elchanan's position to his belief in da'as
   Torah; both imply a belief that there is revelation of Hashem's Will
   today through the rabbis.

   5-  Shulchan Arukh haRav [another addition not in the lecture]: In a
   rare case of where the Shulchan Arukh haRav discusses the purpose of a
   law rather than just codifying practice, he discusses the significance
   of yom tov sheini shel galiyos, the observance of a second day of Yom
   Tov outside of Israel.

   He explains that there is no time in the heavenly realms. The supernal
   "Pesach" is not associated with any particular time. Hashem made a
   connection between that Pesach and the 15th of Nissan, giving us a
   worldly manifestation within time. The SAhR continues that the 16th of
   Nissan is connected to the very same supernal Pesach. The seder on the
   2nd night is a manifestation of the same metaphysical reality. What
   differs is  who draws down the connection, not what it is we are
   connected to.

   Perhaps this is generalizable to rabbinic legislation in general. This
   would result in an opinion similar to Rav Elchanan's in that it gives a
   reality to rabbinic law, rather than their just being pragmatics for
   how to keep Torah law. However, the opinions are also quite different
   in that it makes the rabbinic legislator a metaphysical engineer,
   building the reality, rather than a conduit of Hashem's revelation of
   that reality.

   And, to continue R' Rakeffet's thought, Chassidic attachment to the
   Tzaddiq is not the same as the Yeshiva World's notion da'as Torah.

   6- Seifer Me'iras Einayim (SM"A, Ch"M 67, #2): The berakhah that Hashem
   gives to those who keep shemittah , that they will have sufficient
   crops in the 6th year for the 6th, 7th and 8th years, is only when
   shemittah is mandatory by Torah law. (I.e. when the majority of the
   tribes are in their lands, and therefore there is a yoveil every 50th
   year.) Today, someone who keeps rabbinic shemittah gets no such
   guarantees.

   7- Chazon Ish (Deshevi'is 18, #4): The blessing did apply during the
   2nd Temple and after its destruction, for the heavenly court fulfills
   based on what's decreed down below.

   Rabbi Rakeffet identifies the SMA with the position of the Meshekh
   Chokhmah, and the Chazon Ish with R' Elchanan Wassermnn's. To my mind,
   it's possible that his position is more like the Shulchan Arukh haRav.

   However, this explains why the Chazon Ish was so willing to be
   stringent when it came to keeping shemittah. Had he felt that the
   observance didn't come with insurance from the A-lmighty, perhaps he
   would have ruled leniently.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 46th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         "unity" be over domineering?



More information about the Avodah mailing list