Q&A: It Shall Send Forth Its Roots
It Shall Send Forth Its Roots
Question
Good morning,
A picky note: in the chapter on time, you wrote about the eight days of the festival; sukkah applies only for the seven days of the festival.
Regarding the distinction between Torah-level law and rabbinic law, with your permission I will copy things I wrote about Rashi:
Rabbinic laws as the plain meaning of the verses in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah
In a number of places in his Torah commentary, Rashi brings rabbinic laws that make it seem he understands them to be the explanation of the verse.
Examples of this:
In the portion of Emor, Leviticus 23:26:
(23) And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: In the seventh month, on the first of the month, there shall be for you a day of rest, a remembrance of trumpet-blasts, a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work, and you shall bring a fire-offering to the Lord.
And Rashi explained: “A remembrance of trumpet-blasts” — a remembrance through the verses of Remembrances and the verses of Shofar-blasts, to recall for you the binding of Isaac, in whose place a ram was offered.
But Nachmanides wrote: “But all this is only an asmachta of rabbinic origin, and they explicitly said there: ‘One goes to a place where they blow the shofar, but one does not go to a place where they recite the blessings.’ Obvious: this one is Torah-level and that one is rabbinic.”
And similarly in the portion of Beha’alotekha, Numbers 10:10:
And on the day of your rejoicing, and on your appointed festivals, and on your new moons, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your peace offerings, and they shall be for you as a remembrance before your God; I am the Lord your God.
And in Rashi he again explained the verse as referring to Kingship-verses, Remembrance-verses, and Shofar-verses, which are rabbinic: “I am the Lord your God” — from here we learn Kingships together with Remembrances and Shofar-blasts: as it says, “you shall sound,” these are Shofar-blasts; “for a remembrance,” these are Remembrances; “I am the Lord your God,” this is Kingships, etc.
In the portion of Behar, Leviticus 25:9:
Then you shall make the shofar sound in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make the shofar sound throughout all your land.
And Rashi explained: “On the Day of Atonement” — from the fact that it says “on the Day of Atonement,” do I not already know that it is on the tenth of the month? If so, why does it say “on the tenth of the month”? Rather, to tell you that the blowing of the shofar on the tenth of the month overrides the Sabbath throughout your land, whereas the blowing of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah does not override the Sabbath throughout your land, but only in the religious court.
That is, when Rosh Hashanah falls on the Sabbath, they blow only in the religious court, and it implies that this is the law on the Torah level.
Nachmanides there wrote: “And our rabbi, because of his expertise in the Talmud, with everything before him like a set table, is unconcerned and states the baraitot without qualification, and they mislead other people. For it is known and clear in the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 29b) that all the blowings — of Rosh Hashanah and of Yom Kippur, and even optional ones — are permitted on the Sabbath, because it is a skill and not a labor; and by Torah law they would blow on the Sabbath of Rosh Hashanah and of Yom Kippur everywhere.”
More examples can be found, and I will bring one more, a bit different:
At the end of the portion of Shelach, in the section of tzitzit, Rashi wrote: “That you may remember all the commandments of the Lord” — for the numerical value of ‘tzitzit’ is six hundred, and with eight threads and five knots, הרי this totals 613.
The number of eight knots in tzitzit is not mentioned in the Talmud. In Menachot 39a it says: “It was taught: one should not use fewer than seven, and one should not add more than thirteen.” And the medieval authorities (Rishonim) there explain that the Talmud was speaking about a time when tekhelet was used; but in a time when there is no tekhelet, there is no insistence on the number of windings, and our practice is five knots. Rashi explained the verse in terms of a practice that does not match the original Torah law.
Maimonides’ position in Hilkhot Mamrim, at the end of chapter 2, is that one who observes a rabbinic commandment while thinking it is Torah-level violates “do not add.” It seems that Rashi did not hold like Maimonides, because according to Maimonides Rashi’s explanation could mislead people. Nachmanides on Deuteronomy 4:2 also agreed with Maimonides, and therefore his objections to Rashi are understandable. But the question still remains: why did Rashi, as a commentator focused on the plain meaning, explain verses by means of rabbinic laws?
Did you address Nachmanides on shevut? I’ve been very busy the last few days, and as a result I’m tired (not a free man), and I’m not managing to read with the desired care.
Answer
Hello,
Thanks for the comments.
As for your thesis about Rashi, I’m not sure I agree. In my opinion it is worth checking whether for Rashi these are actually Torah-level laws — meaning that he disagrees with Nachmanides’ assumption that this is rabbinic law. Regarding Remembrances, I once wrote that according to Rashi it really is Torah-level, and I also reconciled the Talmudic passages according to his approach. And perhaps that is also the case in the other examples here as well (I haven’t checked).
If you are correct in your understanding of his position, it seems to me that the claim that he disagrees with Maimonides about “do not add” does not explain his words. After all, he says that it is Torah-level whereas the truth is that it is rabbinic. Even if there is no prohibition in this, why mislead people? See also the dispute between Rashba and Tosafot in Rosh Hashanah 16b regarding the shofar blasts meant to confuse Satan. By the way, Maimonides is speaking about a religious court that institutes an enactment, not about a teacher who misleads students. I am not sure that a sage who teaches Torah and says about some law that it is Torah-level even though it is rabbinic violates “do not add.” There is reason to say that this applies only to a religious court, since their words are binding. And if they do not say that it is rabbinic, then from the listeners’ perspective there is one more Torah commandment, and so they have added to the Torah. But this still requires further analysis.
I don’t remember whether we wrote about shevut. The book was written many years ago, and was edited over about two years. To my regret, I don’t remember everything that is there.
Discussion on Answer
They added a commandment. See Maimonides there.
The question is what the commandment is that was supposedly added. And whether that added commandment was accepted by the entire Jewish people and included in the 613 commandments or not.
According to Maimonides, if a religious court does not make it known that its enactment is a rabbinic commandment, it is basically as if it added a commandment to the 613 and thereby violated the prohibition of “do not add.” Obviously it is not included, because it is a rabbinic commandment.
I didn’t understand what exactly was added here to the Torah. In practice, adding to the Torah could work like this: if one puts tzitzit on four corners, then someone might put five tzitzit on it, and that’s adding to the Torah — but here, what was added?