<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Goldmeier</b> <<a href="mailto:goldmeier@012.net.il">goldmeier@012.net.il</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
so does that mean that when we take into account and mention how it is<br>d'rabanan as a reason "l'hakel", we are dmisplaced and in error?<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>This is a logic flaw in the above pre-supposition...
<br><br>Let's take 2 Cases:<br><ol><li>Explaining HOW a derabban MIGHT have an inherent humra </li><li>Explaining How A Derabban MUST have an inherent humra</li></ol>What I did was showed how poskim MIGHT treat Shemitta lehumra because it has a d'orraisso foundation
<br><br>You are now attmpting to show how poskim SHOULD or MUST treat a derabbanan lehumra.<br>I never made that demand upon poskim<br><br>I am only offering a rationale for what they have purportedly done already. <br><br>
Example:<br>If you were to ask me - how come chicken requires a 6 -hour wait for diary after all it is only a derabbanan?<br>Then I might answer: "well it is an extentsion of a D'orasisso" and can be treated as such
<br><br>Then you could turn around and ask: Well what about Sfeik Bssar bechalav derabbanan wtih chicken are we machmir like a D'orraiso?<br><br>I would answer that poskim do NOT treat that case strictly. The option to be stricter in one aspect does not necessarily imply a requirement to be stricter across the board
<br><br>I hope this helps<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Gmar Tov<br>Best Wishes for 5768,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>