Q&A: The Authority of the Sages According to Nachmanides
The Authority of the Sages According to Nachmanides
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the discussion of rabbinic doubt, Maimonides writes that the source of the authority of the Sages is from “do not deviate.” Nachmanides disagrees with him and argues that we cannot derive this from there for several reasons: the plain meaning of the verse, the rule that in a rabbinic-level doubt one rules leniently, the fact that it speaks only about the Great Court, and more.
In order to explain from where, according to Nachmanides, the authority of the Sages comes if not from the verses, people have answered either that it comes from logical reasoning (Rabbi Shimon Shkop), or from God’s agreement with their words (Kovetz Shiurim), or from the acceptance of the nation (Beit Yishai and Rabbi Kook).
My question is: apparently this is very difficult for Nachmanides, since the Talmud itself understands that the authority of the Sages comes from “do not deviate,” as for example in tractate Shabbat 25: “And where did He command us? Rav Avya said: from ‘do not deviate'” and many other places.
Answer
Nachmanides himself, in his glosses to the second root, explains that this is an asmachta. But regarding the actual source according to his view, this really is a very difficult question. Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman already rejects the possibility that it is based on logic, since logic is Torah-level. But if it is neither logic nor a verse, then what source could there possibly be? He himself answers that it is because the will of the Omnipresent agreed with their view, but that just takes us back again to logic. The same is true of the acceptance of the nation. In my book Ruach HaMishpat (first section) and in the article on the first root, I suggested explanations. The explanation that seems correct to me is an essential explanation of the concept of asmachta, which Nachmanides himself mentions. It emerges from the verse, but does not constitute an implementation of it (and in my formulation there: it is a branching out from the verse, not a specification of it; see there at length).
Discussion on Answer
Not only that. After all, apparently according to “your approach,” the medieval authorities (Rishonim) (such as Nachmanides) have no authority at all. So the fact that he says this is an asmachta does not obligate us, and one could say that this is a full-fledged exposition and a full-fledged obligation.
What is the problem?
Who would say that this is a full-fledged exposition and a full-fledged obligation?
Good questions. I answered them in Ruach HaMishpat and in the above-mentioned article. One has to understand the meaning of this asmachta according to Nachmanides.
I didn’t understand.
When the Talmud wrote, “And where did He command us? — from ‘do not deviate’,” does it mean that this is only an asmachta? If so, then that’s not a very good answer to the question of where He commanded us…