5 Comments

> I only wonder how I am to relate to its product.

In the very first mishna in shas, it seems that Rabbi Gamliel had to inform his children that what they thought was de'oraysa was only in fact miderabanan. It's clear throughout shas that the Chachamin enacted takanos (which this is literally one) without worry about how the maei ha'aretz would perceive it, with only the elite chachamim knowing it's true source.

In a related but somewhat analogous sense, we have the famous oven of Achnai, where the overall meta lesson is that following the chachamim is by definition תורת אמת.

Nothing has changed with the advent of the internet. The Torah is still ba'al pe'h, with all that accompanies it, including direct mesorah and/or semicha.

Expand full comment
author

People are allowed to be mistaken about a takana's origin - as were Rabban Gamliel's sons. And I have no idea how widespread (or predictable) their confusion was. But the Chasam Sofer *consciously* misled us on the איסור הלנת המת. As the Maharitz Chiyus observes, according to the Rambam at least, that's בגדר זקן ממרא.

Expand full comment

I think what Ploni meant is that throughout Shas we have dinei d'Rabanan derived from pesukim in the Torah. Sometimes the Gemara itself points out the din is d'Rabanan, sometimes we have to wait from Rishonim to prove it and say it's just an asmachta.

Expand full comment

that's a misreading. his children believed that chazal were maker the mitzva after chatzos. same question about rosh hashana &c. if he intended as you say, he would have said "sorry chumps we tikkuned it's till chatzos "

Expand full comment

I don't know, my understanding is based on peirush of the Bartenura, but I haven't studied the sugya in depth.

Expand full comment