11

The Talmud is full of the standard procedure of the Sages interpreting Tanakh verses to learn various laws and behaviors.

Is there a way to tell when a Rabbi cites a Pasuk as a traditionally known מקור for a law (Torah law from Moses, like "כבד את אביך ואת אמך" as the source for honoring parents Mitzvah) or as a mere אסמכתא (rabbinic law using verse as a bassis) for his own opinion?

user15464
  • 11,447
  • 26
  • 103
Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • 6
    This is an excellent question! Usually we consult Rishonim, and there are often disagreements, so I would guess not. However, IIRC, there are sometimes indications in the language... – רבות מחשבות Aug 07 '18 at 21:47
  • While I don’t have a clear source for this, it seems clear to me from various sugyos that if two or more (usually eleven or twelve in these types of cases) Amoraim bring differing sources to a principle, the Gemara will always ask “what’s the difference?” If the Gemara fails to ask that question, it’s usually a good indicator that it’s an Asmachta. I’m not posting this as an answer because it doesn’t help in cases where the Gemara only brings one passuk. – DonielF Aug 08 '18 at 02:46
  • @DonielF In case of a מחלוקת it is obvious, but with single sayings it is very hard to tell – Al Berko Aug 08 '18 at 10:59

2 Answers2

2

HaRav Moshe Ben Yosef Trani (16th century contempory of Rav Yosef Cairo) wrote Kiriat Sefer on the Rambam which is dedicated to ascribing which laws are Derabbanan and which are Min haTorah. When studying Gemora look at the small Hebrew letter adjacent to the saying e.g. א. Then look at the margin in the Ein Mishpat for א which will say for example: מיי׳ פ׳ח שבת ה׳א a reference to the relevant chapter and Halacha in Maimonides (Rambam) which you can look up in Mishne Torah. Then look up the corresponding Kiriat Sefer on the very same Halacha which will indicate if it is an Asmachta derabanan or Mideoraisa.

b a
  • 24,685
  • 2
  • 54
  • 112
user15464
  • 11,447
  • 26
  • 103
  • Does this address machlokos between the Rishonim when some hold a Halacha is d’Oraisa and some hold it’s d’Rabbanan, or does it just follow one Rishon’s opinion? – DonielF Sep 18 '18 at 17:00
  • @DonielF if you would like to add another queston "when do the Rishonim argue that some hold a Halacha is d’Oraisa and some hold it’s d’Rabbanan" and then i could try and give you a few examples i know where the Rambam differs from other rishonim. But if you look up the vast majority of times you will find that they all agree about what is deoraita and derabanan. So yes Kiriat Sefer addresses the Rambam but its an incredible guide for the perplexed about what is an asmachta and what is deoraita. – user15464 Sep 20 '18 at 00:31
  • I wasn’t intending to ask a different question; I was just curious about this Sefer I’d never heard of before. – DonielF Sep 20 '18 at 01:55
  • 2
    @donielf in a lot of older editons of Mishne Torah it kiriat sefer appears at the back of each volume, unfortunately the modern editions including frankel edition which people use today, they cut the peirush out. Chaval al deovdin...you can use the link to access the sefer, i hope you gain much knowledge from it! – user15464 Sep 20 '18 at 02:05
-1

Shalom u'vracha! There are a few ways to tell. Generally, Torah law is explicit and limited to it's simple explanation. Drashot, asmachtot, and the like are more inclusive in their extrapolation to include what's not explicit. Halachot l'Moshe m'Sinai are Torah laws that have no explicit source but are recognized as fact due to their historical presence since the giving of the Tradition.

"En hamikra yotze midei pshuto" means that you must take the meaning of the pasuk for it's face value unless we have a tradition from Chazal that the true intention or tradition of understanding it is different than it's pshat/simple explanation. Drashot that expound a pasuk that don't fit with it's simple explanation in the name of one Rav/Tana/Amora, is likely an asmachta.

The practice of using the mikra to derive new or old teachings developed when the tradition of Torah began to weaken over the years from the time of matan Torah. The Chachamim of each generation were forced to revert to expounding the Written Torah in order to learn or revive the original Tradition that wasn't widely practiced. What was practiced, was generally law. New questions that weren't generally practiced, had to be learned through the expounding of the Written Torah according to the tradition they had, or learned, to derive the din. So when Chazal wished to introduce a Rabbinic law, they used their methods of expounding(to a lesser, but still authoritative, extent) to source their institution from a pasuk; like that of the Written Torah. The Rishonim are a good source to test whether a drasha is an asmachta or not, even though there are disagreements.

But the basic test is examining how close the drash is to the simple explanation of the pasuk. If it's not, it's likely an asmachta; unless the tradition dates back to matan Torah.*This clarification is not binding on every drash! It's merely a general guideline to differentiate between a mekor and an asmachta."

chacham Nisan
  • 867
  • 5
  • 17
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrin Hence the final sentence in the post. – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 02:09
  • 1
    @chacham Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Is this your own thought? I feel that the real answer is not your concluding paragraph “but the basic test...” but rather the immediately preceding sentence “the Rishonim are a good source...” I almost might recommend trimming the entire rest of your answer off and focusing solely on that line alone. – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 02:11
  • @DonielF It is based on the rule discussed above("en hamikra yotze midei peshuto") in comparison to drashot by other Tanaim & Amoraim. The Rishonim also learned the Talmud and Written Torah according to this rule. However, since they were closer to the time of redaction of the Talmud, and that of the masoret from Matan Torah, their assertions have more weight and are a good place to begin. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 09:20
  • So in general, by "There are a few ways to tell" you mean "There are a few ways to guess" – Al Berko Aug 22 '18 at 13:21
  • @AlBerko No, it's not a guessing game. Read the pasuk and interpret it simply; that's the general way unless we have a tradition that the simple interpretation is not it's intent. If the drash does not fit the simple explanation, and we don't have a tradition teaching otherwise, it's probably an asmachta. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 13:36
  • 1
  • if you use "probably" - it IS a guessing game 2. Me and you, we don't interpret it simply the same
    • – Al Berko Aug 22 '18 at 13:42
  • @AlBerko If you know Judaism well enough, you should know that there is almost always an exception to the rule. The Torah was made for normal people. If we don't interpret simply the same; then one of us is crazy. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 13:54
  • Everyone is someone else's weirdo... – Al Berko Aug 22 '18 at 13:59
  • @chachamNisan (The Torah was made for everyone - who are you to decide who’s crazy?) Let me ask you something: what is the “simple” understanding of “an eye for an eye”? What about celebrating Shavuos “on the morrow of the Sabbath”? You admit that there are exceptions to every rule, but there are many more from where those came from. Are you sure we don’t always reject the simple understanding unless we have a mesorah that it is indeed correct - that is, what you claim is the rule is actually the exception? – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 14:15
  • @DonielF Where did I decide someone was crazy? The simple understanding is as we understand it; however, we have tradition that goes otherwise. Same with Pesach and the Omer. The great thing is that we shouldn't need a mesorah for pshat; only to the contrary do we need a mesorah. That's what separated us from the Tzaddukim; they rejected the mesorah. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 14:23
  • @chachamNisan You’re not helping your case. How do you know whether something is a mekor or an asmachta? You said it was if it accorded with the Pashut Pshat then it was a mekor. How do examples like the ones I said above accord with that? – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 14:48
  • @DonielF Like I wrote in the post, if we have a tradition that is recorded NOT like the pshat, then the explanation is NOT like the pshat. Otherwise, it is explained like the pshat. We have no other way of arriving at new explanations other than the pshat, except for what is in the Talmud after the redaction of the Talmud. This should be clear to you. The cases you brought are explicit examples where the explanations are NOT like the pshat because we have a mesorah and NO ONE disagrees except kofrim. Drashot made without a mesorah to rely on, are probably an asmachta. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 14:59
  • @chachamNisan Aren’t derashos in general not the plain meaning? Not all derashos are from tradition. What about something where the Rishonim argue whether it’s a mekor or an asmachta, like Melacha on Chol HaMoed? – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 15:08
  • @DonielF Right; which is why they are probably an asmachta. Not sure about that machloket(can research it later). The nafka mina between a mekor and an asmachta is whether it is d'oraita or d'rabanan. Mekor means it's d'oraita and asmachta means d'rabanan. There are many other examples like "lo tochlu al hadam", tosefet shabat, and many more. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 15:15
  • @AlBerko Stick to the pshat. Ask Rav Mazuz, rosh yeshivat Kisseh Rachamim in Bnei Brak what he thinks about the pshat. Don't take my word for it. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 15:18
  • @chachamNisan Take a look at Rambam Mamrim ch. 2. It should be clear from there that there’s a clear difference between derasha and gezeirah. Tosefes Shabbos should also be clear is a d’Oraisa from the fact that there’s an actual machlokes on how to darshen the pesukim. The machlokes I refer to is quoted by Tosfos Yom Tov on the first Mishnah of Moed Katan, if that makes it easier. – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 15:23
  • @DonielF See Rambam on tosefet Shabbat who says there is no such thing min haTorah. There was no machloket with the drash of tosefet Shabbat among the Tanaim. Both drashot and gezerot are d'rabanan's. – chacham Nisan Aug 22 '18 at 15:29
  • @chachamNisan Re: tosefes Shabbos, see RH 9a - while everyone agrees to the concept, it’s a machlokes R’ Akiva and R’ Yishmael regarding how we know it. If you take a look at Tosfos there, it seems that even among the Ba’alei Tosfos they disputed whether it was a real derashah or not. Re: derashos and gezeiros, if they’re both d’Rabbanan’s, then why can a later Beis Din override a derashah but not a gezeirah? – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 15:39
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – DonielF Aug 22 '18 at 15:41