[Avodah] listening to governments and derabbanan

Marty Bluke via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Wed Jun 8 22:30:47 PDT 2016


On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> 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)
>

The Ramban quotes the Gemara Berachos 19b that "kol mili drabbanan alav dlo
tasur asmichinu" meaning that the application to dinim d'rabbanan is only
an asmachta.

>
> 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.
>

That is not the Meshech Chochmas point. His point is that we as human
beings don't know Hashems will and therefore we can make mistakes when
making takanos. Because of that there is no intrinsic value in doing the
act that the Chachamim were mesaken, rather the value is in listening to
their words. Therefore if there is a safek there is no need to do the
action.


> : 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.
>

This is not the Ran it is the meshech chochma explaining the Rambam


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

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.
>

This is not the opinion of the Ramban. The Ramban quotes such a sevara and
then dismisses it saying "ayn eilu devarim hagunim". This is actually the
opinion of the Ran.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160609/44aba01c/attachment-0008.html>


More information about the Avodah mailing list