If, through the prohibitions of the rabbis, one transgresses the Torah,

שו”ת › If, through the prohibitions of the rabbis, one transgresses the Torah,

asked 5 years ago

In the opinion of Rabbi Bar Yitzchak, it is explained that disobedience to the rabbis is a prohibition, not a prohibition.
And it is permissible to issue a decree to a Carmelite woman, as the Lord has decreed, which rejects the Law.
A. Isn’t this evidence for the Rambam’s view that the source of the obligation to hear from the rabbis is from the law of non-repeal?
on. And so it is found that in all the rabbis, it is also transgressed against the law of non-restraint, as the Ramban asked, but here it appears that Rav Nachman takes this approach to the law, and this is a great omen.
And perhaps we will go so far as to prefer the Torah over the rabbis, especially those who feed the weak, because every rabbi is a do-not-doer, and a doer will not reject the Torah’s do-not-doer?!

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

Until you take me there, you have already gone to the issue of Chanukah on the second day of Shabbat: And where did we command? Without deviation. The Ramban, in his analysis of the first root, answers this (reference). But on your point, I don’t understand your argument. It is written that honoring beings rejects the Torah’s “T” (Truth) and the Gemara itself in the blessings says that the intention is only that “you shall not transgress,” meaning that honoring beings rejects only the prohibition of the rabbis. The phrase “you shall not transgress” is borrowed (at least according to the Ramban), and therefore there is no evidence against the Ramban. Regarding the preference, this reminds us of the words of the Menach who writes to prefer an explicit prohibition in the Torah over a prohibition learned in a lecture, because in the lecture there is the prohibition itself and also the statement “La Tesur” (also according to the Ramban). These are things that are of course without foundation in the HaMikhita. La Tesur” reveals that there is a prohibition in itself, and not an additional prohibition. And this is the ruling here.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

תם. replied 5 years ago

Why is the halakha so far from this law, the great honor of mankind, is it not permissible for us to rule on a Carmelite in the following way, and in particular, the rabbis, Carmelite and Shatzl, and as in the case of a dead person, a piece of cloth is placed on him and it becomes a basis, then it is simply that this ruling is only because the rabbis did not rule on it.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

It's not far, but very close. That's exactly what they say here, that they didn't decree respect for human beings in the place.

תם. replied 5 years ago

It would be more correct to write “Instead of the honor of the people, the rabbis will not be right” and so on’.
When you say about something that is rejected, you shall not do it in the Torah, it means that the non-existence exists, only that it is rejected as a kind of act that rejects the non-existence.
And in the particular that we mentioned, such as this non-existence in the Torah, such as in the old man and not according to his honor, does it also say there that the Torah cannot ignore the non-existence of the non-existence?

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

Again, you ignore explicit Gemaras. The Gemara itself sees that it says “You shall not do” and explains that it is about the rabbis. So why didn't they write “You shall not do”? This is difficult for the Rambam as well, especially since it is clear that even in his view it is not correct to transgress the Torah in any prohibition of the rabbis.
An old man and not according to his dignity is a rejection of the Torah, and there perhaps a rejection of the Torah as well (the Rishonim and the Achramim disagreed on this whether the rejection of the Torah is only about those who do it or also about those who do it wrongly).