<div dir="ltr"><<<span style="font-size:12.8px">IOW, if there is no chiyuv de'oraisa to resist tei'avon to obey a</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">derabbanan, then how could the chakhamim create the meta-chiyuv in a</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">way that we would be duty-bound to obey? The meta-chuyuv too is versus</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">to'eivah, not rebellion. >></span><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">R Avraham's main thesis is that whenever we are stumped by a dichotomy the only way out is to find some middle ground. In our case there are two ways of learning from a pasukh</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">1) the case of interest is a detail of the pasuk (hitpartot) in which case it is a deoraisa</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">2) asmachta which makes it a derabbanan</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Basically, Micha's question is that whichever we choose for "lo tasur" we are in trouble.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">RMA's answer is that there is a third possibility what he calls his-taa-fut - branching out.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">This is something that comes from the pasuk but indirectly.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">He gives the example of a neder. The Torah says one must keep a neder. However, it is the human that decides exactly what the neder says.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">This third possibility is in between the first possibilities. This "branch" comes from the pasuk "to tasur" but creates a derabban and not a deoraisa. Someone who violates a derabbanan has not violated a torah prohibition.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">RMA also pointed out that the Ritva claims that there are two kinds of asmachta. One is just a device for memory and is a pure derabbanan. However there is a second asmachta which is really hinted at by the pasuk. Nevertheless it has a status of a rabbinic law.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">RMA the claims that both the Rambam and Ramban agree to this even though they seem to disagree. He the goes another step and says that nevertheless they have a disagreement. Rambam holds that chazal are representatives of G-d. However the Ramban disagrees as sees chazal as "shiluche didan" and we must listen to chazal as a natural extension that we accepted on ourselves</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">this covers about 100 pages out of 500 in his book!!<br clear="all"></span><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000099" face="'comic sans ms', sans-serif">Eli Turkel</font></div></div>
</div></div>