Ramban Al haTorah

Monday we said that the Ramban stood two machlakim in זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק. The first one, which he doesn't really stick with, he clearly is more endorsing the second one, but the first one is that zakhor the peh refers to kriya mitokh hasefer and he says according to this understanding

ויסמך למקרא מגילה מן התורה. ונמצאנו למדים מן התורה בשני זכור.

Excuse me,

ונמצאנו למדים מן התורה בשני זכור ויסמך למקרא מגילה מן התורה.

So in that sentence, ויסמך למקרא מגילה מן התורה, l'khora a whole mahalach of the Chakhmei Sfarad is reflected. The question is as follows, it's a question both very simply in halacha and then also in... it's also as it were a philosophical question. Mitzvos d'rabanan, in halacha the question is why doesn't every mitzva d'rabanan constitute a violation of bal tosef? The philosophical form of the question is Toras Hashem temima, Hakadosh Baruch Hu's Torah is perfect, so you can't improve upon perfection. Right? Lu yutzayar you would have a painting which is exquisitely painted and as to the best of human ability and then you'll try to add a little bit more color to it, so it'll be בבחינת כל המוסיף גורע, because when you try to improve on something that's perfect, so then by definition you diminish and you demean. So Toras Hashem temima, so how can it be that there are mitzvos d'rabanan that add something? You can't add to perfection. So there are at least two schools of thought in the gedolei harishonim on this fundamental question. The Rambam is of the opinion, he talks about this in two places, he talks about it in the hakdama to the Yad and then not quite as elaborately he has it again in Hilkhos Mamrim. So the Rambam's answer is that every d'rabanan was designed and intended to either reinforce some core teaching of the Torah, some core value of the Torah, to protect or to facilitate kiyum mitzvos hatorah. And in that sense, so there's no such thing as an independent mitzva d'rabanan, and that's why it's not bal tosef, it's not bal tosef, and that's also again sort of philosophically the answer. If you put this perfectly painted portrait, if you put it behind the glass and you lock the glass, so you're not diminishing or demeaning the picture, you're just protecting and preserving the perfect picture. So that's what the Rambam says in the hakdama that all the mitzvos d'rabanan is חייבים אנו לקבלם ולשמרם and ואינם תוספות על מצות התורה and

ועל מה הזהירה תורה לא תוסיף ולא תגרע שלא יהא נביא רשאי לחדש דבר ולומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה במצוה זו.

So if one attributes the d'rabanan... How a de-rabbanan is presented and how it's designed. How it's presented and how it's designed.

אלא כך אנו אומרים שהנביאים ובית דין תקנו וצוו לקרות המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועות שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשוועתנו כדי לברך ולהלל כדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו כה' אלוקינו בכל קוראנו אליו.

So, A, it's clearly presented, it's delineated that it's not, ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu didn't tell us to read the megilla, הנביאים ובית דין תקנו וצוו לקרות המגילה בעונתה. But in addition, that's not enough, that doesn't suffice that it shouldn't be bal tosif. In addition, no, this de-rabbanan is not a new mitzvah, it's not an independent mitzvah. No, it's kedei lehodia, I'm just taking half of the Rambam's explanation, כדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה, to reinforce this core teaching of the Torah as to the efficacy of the tefillas ha-tzibur. So that's the Rambam's again, halachic, philosophic, philosophical answer to mitzvot de-rabbanan that they're not independent mitzvot, they're just means and instruments to uphold in different ways the mitzvot ha-torah or lav davka a formal mitzvah ha-torah, a core teaching, a core value in the Torah. le-chora that's the peshat, right, when you learn in Sefer HaMitzvos and so shoresh aleph is about not counting mitzvot de-rabbanan. So the Rambam is clearly very upset with the Geonim for having done so. So the she'ela is מה כל הרעש הזה? So when Rav Sa'adya Gaon counts mikra megilla and Chanukah, so Rav Sa'adya Gaon understands very well that they're mitzvot de-rabbanan. Rav Sa'adya Gaon thinks, no, that the minyan taryag includes mitzvot de-rabbanan, but it's not that he's promoting mikra megilla and Chanukah to mitzvot de-oraita. Okay, so the Rambam thinks that the number taryag refers to mitzvot min ha-torah and the Geonim held that it refers to mitzvot min ha-torah and mitzvot de-rabbanan. Okay, so that doesn't seem like the stakes are so great. But within shoresh aleph Sefer HaMitzvos, no, the Rambam le-chora what we're talking about now is why the Rambam is so strong in his disagreement with the Geonim. If you put mikra megilla and Chanukah in the same minyan taryag as achilat matzah and lulav. achilat matzah is a mitzvah. It's not justified in light of something else. You don't need to link achilat matzah to something else. It's a mitzvah. ha-borei baruch hu said ba-erev tokhlu matzot. netilat lulav you don't need to coordinate, you don't need to correlate with something else, it's its own mitzvah. But if you then put into this same list, this same minyan taryag, you then put mikra megilla and Chanukah, so you're saying, so you're implying, you're insinuating the same and that's le-chora why the Rambam is so makpid that mitzvot de-rabbanan can't be in the minyan taryag. So that was the, the Geonim obviously don't think that there is such an implication, that there is such an implication. Fine. So that's sort of one approach, the Rambam's approach to the question of de-rabbanan's. The other approach, again, which is reflected, it's not really presented in the Ramban, it's just sort of reflected because he's not, that's not what his focus is. His focus is what's the peshat in the derashas Chazal in Zacho Ve-Shamur, so it's reflected, not presented. But the other approach is as follows. When it comes to gezeiras de-rabbanan, so it's the same approach that a gezeira de-rabbanan, like the Rambam says, is not something which Chazal are saying is intrinsically asur. Ma'achalot asurot... Basar behemah be-chalav is is is intrinsically assur. Basar oph be-chalav is a harchakah. Okay, but but it's a harchakah. It's a harchakah. So again, it's the same explanation as the Rambam gives. It's not something which is independent. It's there to uphold Mitzvos HaTorah. But when it comes to the Mitzvos De-Rabbanan, not not the Gezeiras De-Rabbanan, the Mitzvos De-Rabbanan such as Mikra Megillah and Hanukkah u-chulu, so here the Chachmei Sefarad have a different approach. So first of all, the Rashba says in Rosh Hashanah Taz, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah Taz says

אמר רבי יצחק למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין ותוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין.

Right? Why do we have teki'os de-meyushav and teki'os de-me'umad? I mean the maximum number of kolos in which we're chayav, it's a machlokes tanna'im, but the maximum number of kolos that we're chayav min HaTorah is teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah, and you do that three times. That's the maximum chiyuv min HaTorah. So למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין? So okay, כדי לערבב את השטן or whatever that means. So Tosafos asks on that Gemara, Tosafos says why isn't it Bal Tosif? The Torah said to blow nine kolos, and we're blowing ich veis. Tosafos didn't have a hundred, that was the minhag came from the Orech, but we're blowing much more, we're blowing much more than nine. So Tosafos answers and says repeating a mitzvah is not Bal Tosif. Bal Tosif is when you sort of expand a mitzvah, but just repeating a mitzvah, and they compare it to a Kohen duchening twice in the same day. Let's say a Kohen will make the rounds, he'll he'll walk throughout the neighborhood and he'll go to every shul and duchen at the Shacharis in in every minyan. So that's not, that's not Bal Tosif. Repeating a mitzvah's not Bal Tosif. If the Kohen would add a berachah revi'is, that's Bal Tosif. When you blow extra kolos, you're just repeating the mitzvah. You're not, you're not expanding the mitzvah. And the Rashba says no, the teretz is different. The teretz is that De-Rabbanan are not subject to Bal Tosif. Chazal were allowed to add. Right? Not the Rambam clearly thinks that Chazal were also also mitzuveh in Bal Tosif, and then he explains why De-Rabbanan are not Bal Tosif. And the Rashba says no, Tosafos' kasha is not a kasha, because if it's a takkanah De-Rabbanan to blow teki'os de-meyushav and teki'os de-me'umad, so the same way they taught us to sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres in Chutz La-Aretz, even though if you would do that in Eretz Yisrael הישב בשמיני בסוכה ילקה, it would be Bal Tosif, and they told us to do it in Chutz La-Aretz because De-Rabbanan are not are not subject to Bal Tosif. That's what the Rashba says. You already see that there's clearly a different, a different ma'arachah than the Rambam's. But the one who fills it in and the one who explains it most elaborately is is is the famous Radbaz in Rosh Hashanah also Daf Taz, but commenting on a different line in the Gemara. The Gemara has the beraisa there of of why did the Torah tell us to bring the minchas ha-omer in Pesach, and why did the Torah tell us to bring the shtei ha-lechem on Atzeres, and why do we have the mitzvah of nisuch ha-mayim be-Chag? And in that same context, why do we why do we say Malchiyos Zichronos u-Shofaros? So the lashon ha-beraisa is that

אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אמרו לפני מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות מלכויות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם

etc. But the lashon ha-beraisa is אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא. So the Radbaz asks and says but the Gemara later in Lamed daled in Rosh Hashanah says that saying the pesukim Malchiyos Zichronos u-Shofaros is only De-Rabbanan. So how does this beraisa say אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא? How do you attribute it to Hakadosh Baruch Hu when when later the Gemara says מקום שמברכין מקום שתוקעין? makom she-tokin there's a mitzvah d-Oraisa, but makom she-mevarchin is only a mitzvah De-Rabbanan. So the Radbaz says no, because the peshat in an asmachta is that whenever Chazal introduce a new mitzvah, again, not not a gezeirah, a new mitzvah such as פסוקים מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות, such as lighting the Hanukkah, such as reading the Megillah, not not gezeiras, mitzvos De-Rabbanan. Whenever Chazal introduced a new mitzvah, so it was always because האירה התורה את רוחם. The Torah prompted Chazal to introduce the mitzvah. The Torah didn't explicitly legislate it, otherwise it would be a mitzvah min HaTorah. But me-idach gisa, the Torah prompted Chazal that Chazal should introduce that that that mitzvah. So the answer then of the Chachmei Sefarad to again the question of again both the halakhic form... and the philosophical form of the question of isn't it bal tosif and how can you improve upon Toras Hashem temimah is it's not bal tosif because bal tosif doesn't apply to Chazal. That's the, that's not, right? Very different than the Rambam's answer to that question. And then number two, in terms of the philosophical answer, is because the Torah itself, the Toras Hashem temimah itself, planted the seeds for this mitzvah d'rabanan. The Torah itself, the Toras Hashem temimah itself, he-ira es rucham, hinted to Chazal that they should make such a mitzvah. Lechora, again, so we have it more explicitly, again, in the Rashba that there's no bal tosif by d'rabanans, in the Ridva who says explicitly what asmachta means. But lechora this whole Torah must have been בית מדרשו של הרמב"ן. And that's what the Ramban means, ויש סמך למקרא מגילה מן התורה, means somewhere there is a smach for Mikra Megilla in the Torah because Mikra Megilla is a mitzvah mechudeshes mi-d'rabanan. A mitzvah mechudeshes mi-d'rabanan means that somewhere האירה התורה את רוחם. Somewhere there is an anchor in the Torah for this, for a new mitzvah mi-d'rabanan. Okay, we'll stop there.