Q&A: Your opinion regarding the interpretive derivations of the Sages
Your opinion regarding the interpretive derivations of the Sages
Question
Hello
In the dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides about how to relate to the interpretive derivations of the Sages, Maimonides claims that what emerges from those derivations is a rabbinic law (innovative halakhot), whereas Nachmanides and most opinions say that the derivations create a Torah-level law.
What is your personal opinion on the issue—who is right? And what is the argument in favor of that?
Thank you
Answer
I explained that the concepts of Torah-level and rabbinic law in Maimonides are somewhat emptied of content. The answer depends on which practical implication we are discussing. Regarding punishment? Regarding human dignity? Regarding doubt? I explained that regarding doubt, even Maimonides agrees that one must be stringent, because the doubt depends on the essence of the matter and not on the command itself. Regarding punishment, Maimonides requires that there be a command in the Torah itself, and here I do not have a clear position. If the requirement for a command is only so that there be a warning, then a derivation, once it has become widespread among the public, is also a warning. Maimonides apparently understands that the condition for punishment is that the prohibition be written in the Torah itself and not merely derived from it. That sounds reasonable to me, but I am not certain.