[Avodah] min hatorah

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 05:22:09PM -0500, Zvi Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> He begins his chapter on Mevo HaTalmud by saying that most matters learned
> from Nach have the same status as anything learned from Chumash, based upon
> the references you and I have cited, as well as several others. So, it
> comes out that Chazal had a kabalah that these matters were in Torah
> Shebe-al Peh MiSinai, but knew that they were not indicated in Toras Moshe,
> or could not find any such indication. But they pointed out that they found
> that they were eventually committed to either explicit or drash-indicated
> writing in Nach.

An exception can be found in an oft-cited pasuq, in Yeshiah 57:13 (used
by many in / as an introduction to Shabbos morning Qiddush). Mentions
a number of shevusim, including masa umatan.

I can see how a pasuq in Tanakh can be cited to show there is some TSBP
that was already in place and in practice by the time the navi recorded
the. But how can we prove whether those pre-existing dinim are really
deOraisa? Seems that "mo "most matters learned from Nach have the same
status as anything learned from Chumash" could have numerous exceptions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 If you won't be better tomorrow
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   than you were today,
Author: Widen Your Tent      then what need do you have for tomorrow?
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF            - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov