Q&A: The Validity of Rabbinic Laws
The Validity of Rabbinic Laws
Question
Hello,
The Radbaz (Responsa 4:145) writes that a person must spend all his money in order not to eat something forbidden, even if the prohibition is only rabbinic, since all rabbinic decrees are grounded in “do not deviate.”
This is without addressing the dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides on the first root.
In your opinion, do his words reflect a general approach? And if so, Nachmanides’ objections are difficult. Or is this a stringency only with regard to the laws of eating forbidden foods?
Best regards,
Answer
Hello,
It does not seem that this is referring only to dietary prohibitions, because otherwise the rationale is beside the point (that they grounded it in “do not deviate”).
Many commentators take Maimonides’ view as self-evident, either because the Jewish law follows him (because of his status as a halakhic decisor) or because they were simply unfamiliar with Nachmanides’ view (especially in his glosses to the roots, which are not so well known). Admittedly, the Radbaz uses the wording that they grounded it in “do not deviate,” which sounds like Nachmanides. But that is also the language of the Talmud itself in tractate Sabbath regarding the Hanukkah candle, which is the source of Nachmanides’ statement, so it is not necessary to say that he meant specifically Nachmanides’ approach.
But beyond that, we find in several places that the attitude toward rabbinic laws that branch off from Torah law is as though they were Torah laws themselves. For example, the Ran holds that one is obligated to be killed rather than transgress even the rabbinic adjuncts of forbidden sexual relations.
Nachmanides’ objections need not be troubling, just as they are not troubling to Maimonides and those who follow his approach. As is well known, they can be answered fairly easily.
Discussion on Answer
Have a good week.
I didn’t understand your point. If you mean that a doubtful command is not a command — that is indeed correct. That is what Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains in his notes on Shev Shma’tata (Introduction 1), and I think that is also the meaning of Rabbi Shimon Shkop’s words in Gate 1. If I remember correctly, I wrote that there.
Have a good week.
While I was dealing with the issue of a blessing over dietary prohibitions, I saw in the responsum of Chelkat Yaakov (Orach Chayim, end of section 54), in the name of Rabbi Shimon Shkop, an answer to Nachmanides’ question on Maimonides: the prohibition of “do not deviate” applies only after the sages have prohibited something, and only once they have prohibited it does the Torah warn not to deviate from what the sages said. In truth, before they prohibited it, “do not deviate” has no force. And it is not similar to a doubtful case of neveilah, where the prohibition and the doubt arise simultaneously. Consequently, in a rabbinic-level doubt one rules leniently, because the Torah-level prohibition has not yet been activated.
If so, the dilemma you pointed to in your article on the first root is not binary — either it is Torah-level and therefore stringent, or it is rabbinic and then its force is unclear.
Best regards,