According to the Rambam, Lulav is required by Torah law on the first day everywhere, and on the other days only in the Temple.
Zev Steinhardt
I’ve heard the analogy used of “hedge building.” The rabbinic laws are designed to further insulate Torah proscriptions so that there is less ambiguity and less chance of breaking the law accidentally. Rabbinic law “builds a hedge” around Torah law to ensure that people don’t even get close to it.
For instance, the Torah says not to eat a kid boiled in its mother’s milk. To ensure that this does not happen accidentally, Rabbinc law basically says, don’t take any chances, just never eat meat with dairy. I’m guessing here (and Zev or cmk can correct me if I’m wrong) the poutry proscription is just an extension of that. It may be theoretically possible to mistake beef or lamb for poultry and thus to accidentally transgress the Torah.
Rabbinic law is all about protecting Torah law. It never contradicts Toral law and (as far as I know) it’s never formulated independently of a preexisting Torah law.
Actually, Dio, I’m afraid that I am going to have to correct you.
The milk/meat (WRT non-fowl) is a Torah prohibition. It is derived from the fact that the Torah mentiones the “kid in its mother’s milk” prohibition three different times. Jewish tradition teaches that this was part of the Oral Tradition handed to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
The prohibition of fowl and dairy together, OTOH, is Rabbinic, as a “fence” lest one come to eat real milk and meat together.
Zev Steinhardt
I vaguely remember studying the differences in practices between the Pharisi and Saducci at roughly the time of the Romans. The Pharisi seem to have dominated; as I remember, our tradition of lighting two candles at Shabbat comes from the Pharisi.
Can anyone comment?
Joe
Thank you, Zev. I wasn’t quite sure where the Torah ended and Rabbinic law began with the milk and dairy thing, and I guessed wrong.
I hope I was at least accurate in trying to convey the intention behind Rabbinic law- that it emanates out from Torah law rather than just being a collection of arbitrary rules which are ever unanchored to the Torah.
Zev:
That Rambam is interesting, and I’ll have to look into it further. It seems pretty clear to me that the original justification for not doing lulav on the first day outside of Israel if it’s Sabbath is not “koach laakor” but that the date is in doubt. The extension of this to Israel itself and situations where there is no doubt is, I suppose, where “koach laakor” might have been a factor, but I’m not entirely convinced that it could have been done without some scriptural justification.
Sort of a follow on question…
The milk/fowl thing. As I understand it, Rabbinical Law says don’t mix the two.
So, what if you had a turkey sandwich with cheese? I mean, you would only be violating the rules of men, not Torah law, right? Is violating Rabbinical law viewed as a “sin,” and if so, how do you attone for it, if you do?
Rysdad:
Yes, the Rabbis derive their authority from the Torah, and as such, it is sinful to violate a Rabbinic law. There are some differences between Rabbinic laws and Torah laws (most notably in the realm of what to do when faced with a situation where you’re in doubt as to whether you’re likely to violate), but in the main, they are to be treated with the same weight.
And thusly, atoning for a Rabbinic sin is the same (nowadays, in the absence of the Holy Temple) as for a Torah sin - sincerely regret your deed, confess it, and resolve not to repeat it.
The Rabbis were given the authority by the Torah to decide cases as binding (Duet. 17:8-13). As such, Rabbinical commandments are considered as commandments - to the extent that even when one performs a Rabbinical commandment (such as lighting the Channukah menorah), one still uses the formula “Blessed are You… who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us…” The Talmud asks the question - how could we say “and commanded us” when God didn’t command us to light the menorah (or read the Megillah on Purim, or drink four cups of wine at the seder on Passover, etc.)? The answer is in the verse I quoted - God, in essence, commanded us to listen to Rabbinical directives.
Atonement for violating a Rabbinical commandment is the same as for violating a Scriptural commandment - regret, verbal confession (to God) and resolving not to do so again.
The only practical difference between a Scriptural command and a Rabbinic command comes into play in cases of doubt. For Scriptural commands, we have to be more stringent with regard to the commandments (i.e. if you have a piece of meat and you don’t know if it’s kosher or not, you cannot eat it) and we can be lenient in cases of doubt with regard to Rabbinic commandments.
Zev Steinhardt
I knew I was taking too long in my reply… 
Zev Steinhardt
So … can you get away with eating chicken fricasse [chicken in cream sauce] on the grounds that Gd doesnt forbid it, that the chicken/milk is an instrument of man and not gd?
What about fish and milk?
Oddly enough I lived with an orthodox guy, and had no trouble keeping the 2 kitchens separated. When I got the craving for a cheeseburger I simply went out to a diner=)
No, see Chaim’s and my answers above.
Not a problem.
Zev Steinhardt
So you don’t need an intercessor to confess? Just say it out loud and mean it?
I’d guess the Catholic priest confessional thing just seems like an unnecessary middle man since you can “get your confessions wholesale.”
Thanks, BTW, for answering these questions. I appreciate it a lot.
What would the difference be, were the Temple standing?
Yes, confession is done to God directly. No one else need hear.
Zev Steinhardt
Because, when the Temple was standing, for some Scriptural violations, you needed to bring a sacrifice. You would not need to do so for violating a Rabbinic command.
Zev Steinhardt
And in addition to the sacrifice, when the Temple stood, there was a duly-constituted Jewish court of law to administer earthly punishments other than sacrifices (e.g., whippings, death) for religious violations.
A couple more follow up questions (Let me know if you’re getting tired of this. I have an abyssmal knowledge of Judaism.)
-
Since I don’t think there is a “college of Rabbis” like there is in Catholicism, what happens if some Rabbis think there should be a Rabbinical law to follow on to a Torah Law and other Rabbis don’t?
-
Who gets to decide that, yep, here’s a new Rabbinical law?
-
How often is a new Rabbinical law instituted? I mean, are they mostly pretty ancient, or do they come about relativlely frequently?
-
Are you “grandfathered in” if you unknowingly broke a new Rabbinical law before it was widely disseminated?
-
(Here I show my lack of knowledge more fully) Why not build another Temple to replace the old one?
You’re right, there isn’t a central body, and as such, nowadays, such laws only become binding on the community if they accept it. Such laws are called gezairos (decrees) and do not even rise to the level of Rabbinic commandment. An example of this is the decree against polygyny promulgated by Rabbeinu Gershom about a thousand years ago.
Generally speaking, it was the leaders of the communities or the Sanhedrin who decided these matters.
As described above, there are no new Rabbinic commandments.
As with any other law, one is only guilty for knowing violations.
There are several reasons. Chief among them are that we lack the knowledge of the precise location of the Altar (it must be built on the exact same spot as the old one), we are all ritually impure from contact from the dead (one must be ritually pure to enter the Temple Mount area), there is a big mosque there right now, and that rebuilding the Temple is to be one of the tasks of the messiah.
Zev Steinhardt
Why does it have to be on the same exact spot? Why couldn’t it be consecrated somewhere else?