Eruvin d'rabonnon? - Eruvin 2a
Rav Nissim Gaon asks on the side of the daf how could our gemara say that Eruvin is only d'rabonnon when the gemara on daf 21b and in Shabbos daf 14b says that Shlomo Hamelech instituted it. Doesn't that make it something more than a d'rabonnon? He answers that if it's not written in Tanach then it's still called a d'rabonnon. I find that interesting. We know that if it's written in Nach then that's not a d'rabonnon. Also, if it's something from Moshe then it's not a d'rabonon either even though it's not written in the Torah. I think that it's generally accepted that Eruvin is d'rabonnon by all the Rishonim but I don't know if anyone else has different explanations to explain the apparent stira. I was thinking though that our gemara isn't necessarily a proof. Maybe it all means is that the psul of 20 amos is from the Torah whereas by sukka it's based on the pasuk of "l'maan yaidu.." At first I thought that's what Rashi was saying but then I saw that he said that the entire din eruvin is only d'rabonnon. I think it's pretty clear that eruvin are definitely d'rabonnon but all I'm saying is that our gemara is not necessarily a clear proof.
posted by David @ 5:40 PM
2 Comments:
You're saying that if it's written in Nach then it's only d'rabonnon? I think that I have two proofs from what we've recently learned in daf yomi that isn't true.
1. This very Rav Nissim Gaon - he says that it's called d'rabonon even though it's from the neviim only because it's not written - implying that had it been written it would not be d'rabonon.
2. Tosafos in Shabbos 150a d"h v'dibur says "pirush min hatorah." He's explaining when the gemara asks "who says that dibur is asur" that it means to say who says it's asur from the Torah and not just d'rabonon. Nobody ever said it was asur min hatorah! At best it was from a pasuk in nach v'daber davar and yet Tosafos calls that d'oraysa. You can say (as I seem to remember seeing someone saying) that he doesn't mean it's d'oraysa but just that it's more than a d'rabonon because it's from nach.
OK, I guess we're agreeing here. My point is though that Rav Nissim Gaon is saying that something written in Nach is more than a d'rabonon but something from the neviim/Shlomo Hamelech is only d'rabonon if it wasn't written. That's what I found interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home