So the Ramban says pshat that the Midrashei Chazal discern here in the smichus parshiyos a remez to מצות הדלקת נר חנוכה לדורות. So it yitachen that the Ramban's understanding of this medrash is part of a larger mahalach. It actually converges with where we're holding in yud gimmel ikarim also in the Thursday limud. The question is how mitzvos mechudashos miderabbanan don't violate the issur bal tosif. Meaning let's say when you have a gezeira derabbanan, so asu mishmeres lemishmarti, ושמרתם את משמרתי עשו משמרת למשמרתי. So it's clear that it's not a mitzva mechudeshas miderabbanan, it's a harchaka miderabbanan from the issur Torah. But what about how do you understand mitzvos miderabbanan? So the Rambam has in the Hakdama to the Yad after he lists the taryag mitzvos, so he writes that yesh mitzvos acheros ויש מצוות אחרות שנתחדשו אחר מתן תורה וקבעו אותם נביאים וחכמים ופשטו בכל ישראל כגון מקרא מגילה ונר חנוכה ותענית תשעה באב וידיים ועירובין.
Kol elu כל אלו המצוות שנתחדשו חייבים אנו לקבלם ולשמרם. Right, double lashon, lekablam to recognize the authority of Chazal to have instituted these mitzvos, to be mekabbel, and then uleshamram, and then practically to fulfill the mitzvos שנאמר לא תסור מכל הדבר וכולו ואינם תוספת על מצוות התורה ועל מה הזהירה תורה בל תוסיף ובל תגרע שלא יהיה נביא רשע לחדש דבר ולומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה במצווה זו להוסיף על מצוות התורה או לחסר אחת מאלה שש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצוות.
So initially the Rambam says that one factor which differentiates what would violate bal tosif from derabbanan's is that the chachamim is bal tosif is only if the new mitzva alleged new mitzva is attributed to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. So someone will claim that he received a nevuah and then Hakadosh Baruch Hu told them to add the following mitzva to the minyan taryag. אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן דרך מצווה דרך תקנה או דרך הוראה דרך גזירה אין זו תוספת שהרי לא אמרו שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה לעשות עירוב ולקרוא המגילה בעונתה.
So the mitzvos mechudashos Chazal do not attribute them to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Ve'ilu amru kein if they would have היו מוסיפין על התורה. אלא כך אנו אומרים but now the Rambam is gonna add a second stipulation also for derabbanan's to steer clear of bal tosif, שהנביאים ובית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה again, first reiterating the first point that it's nevi'im uveis din who were mesaken umetzaveh not Hakadosh Baruch Hu. שהנביאים ובית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועות שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשועתנו
lashon. כדי לברכו ולהללו וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כהשם אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.
So the truth is this is true of everything the Rambam mentioned, but just it's simpler to discern it, so we'll focus on the כדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה. The Rambam says that Mitzvas Krias HaMegilla comes to bolster our belief in the Torah's promise, the Torah's guarantee of the koach of tefillas hatzibbur. Of מי כהשם אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו. That's the what we're supposed to see in the story of the Megilla. How everything turns around based on the לך כנוס את כל היהודים, based on the tfillas haklal, and that it was a fulfillment of the Torah's guarantee of השם אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו. Or in other words, what this Rambam stipulates is that in order for a derabbanan to again steer clear of bal tosif, A, it has to be delineated as such. It's a takkana, it's not from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, not directly from Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but number two, it also has to link up with something min haTorah. It has to be intended to, it has to be designed to either safeguard or facilitate or bolster or reinforce something in the Torah. And that's why it's not bal tosif because it's not independent. Mitzvas matzah is not there to bolster netilas lulav. Netilas lulav is not there to bolster hanachas tefillin. To be a mitzvah means it's a mitzvah bifnei atzmah. There's no such thing as a derabbanan which is free-standing. There's no such thing as, oh, you know, it would be a good idea to have people to light a Chanukah licht to remember the miracle of Chanukah. No. What is it in the Torah that says that that's a value? If there's something in the Torah that says that that's a value, so then mitzvas ner Chanukah is coming to facilitate that. It's coming to foster that. So that's the Rambam's answer for how derabbanans are not bal tosif is again because they satisfy two conditions. Number one, they're identified as such, that there's no not only is there no representation made that הקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה, but on the contrary, no, Beis Din tiknu. And number two, that every derabbanan is there to protect or foster something min haTorah. Case in point, mikra Megilla, again the Rambam says more than one consideration mikra Megilla, but the one we're mentioning is mikra Megilla is there to impress upon everyone that אמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה מי כהשם אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.
Now when the Rashba in ראש השנה דף טז deals with this same question, so he says bal tosif doesn't apply to Beis Din, doesn't apply to Chazal, doesn't apply to the Sanhedrin. According to the Rambam, there's no exceptions. Bal tosif applies to anyone and everyone. And again, it's for these two the combination of these two factors that derabbanans are not bal tosif. But the Sanhedrin is subject to the issur bal tosif as well. And the Rashba says no. Rashba says there's no bal tosif. The lav of bal tosif applies to yechidim but doesn't apply to the Sanhedrin. Now the famous Ritva in ראש השנה דף טז, how does the baraisa say that אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אמרו לפני בראש השנה אמרו לפני מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות?
How does it associate the saying פסוקי מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות with אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא when the Gemara later in Rosh Hashanah is explicit that the פסוקי מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות So the Ridvash says because the pshat in asmachta the Ridvash says is not like the Rambam says that it's a mnemonic device, but an asmachta means that the Torah provided a remez for Chazal that they should be mesaken such a mitzvah. That's what an asmachta is. It's not pshuto shel mikra in the sense that the Torah was metzaveh and that it has the status and the chomer of a mitzvah d'oraisa, but it is something that's present in the psukim as a heira haTorah, the Torah looks to arouse the chachamim, to stimulate the chachamim that they should be mesaken. And in that sense, that's why it's sort of, that's what it means that אמרו לפני אמרו לפני because HaKadosh Baruch Hu provided a remez to the chachamim that they should be mesaken פסוקי מלכויות זכרונות ושופרות. The Ridvash and and the Rashba are two sides of a coin, meaning that according to the Ridvash conceptually mitzvos d'rabbanan really are new mitzvos, but the reason they don't violate Bal Tosif is because the Torah told Chazal, hinted to Chazal that they should be mesaken these mitzvos, which is again, in which which converges with what the Rashba says that Bal Tosif doesn't apply to the Sanhedrin. So it's again, it's two sides of a coin. What the Rashba says, the Rashba also is in Rosh Hashana tet-zayin and in a different, Rashba is responding to Tosafot's kashya. Tosafot asks that amar Rabi Yitzchak למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין, למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין?
Why do we have both tkiyos d'miyushav and tkiyos d'meumad? So Tosafot asks, why isn't it a Bal Tosif when the Torah was only mechuyav to blow nine kolos? So how can we have tkiyos d'miyushav and tkiyos d'meumad, it's Bal Tosif? So Tosafot answers it's not Bal Tosif to repeat a mitzvah. To expand the mitzvah or to invent a new mitzvah is Bal Tosif, but to repeat a mitzvah is not. To say that mitzvas lulav should consist of five minim instead of four minim, so you're expanding a mitzvah. In Eretz Yisrael to say that you should sleep in the Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres is expanding a mitzvah. To blow extra kolos is not expanding the mitzvah, it's repeating the mitzvah. The mitzvah is blow tkia truah tkia three times. You blow it a fourth time, you blow it a fifth time, a sixth time, you're repeating the mitzvah. That's not Bal Tosif. The Rashba says kushya me'ikra leisa. Tosafot's kashya is not a kashya because what Chazal institute is not Bal Tosif. Why? Because l'chora that's again, the Rashba and the Ridvash משלים אחד את השני, because the Torah itself provides an asmachta for the mitzvos m'chudashos. The Torah itself left a hint to the chachamim that they should introduce it. Yitachen that this whole approach to d'rabbanan's is מבית מדרשו של הרמב"ן. Because again, you not only have our Ramban who finds a smach in the Torah for Ner Chanukah, but the Ramban later in I think not Bechukosai, in Ki Seitzei, yeah, the Ramban later in Ki Seitzei זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק, כבר הזכרתי המדרש שדרשו בו בספרי
yakhol b'livcha כשאומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמורה הא מה אני מקיים זכור
she-tishaneh b'ficha. ולא ידעתי מה היא הזכירה הזו בפה אם לא מה שנקרא פרשת עמלק בציבור ונמצאנו למדים מן התורה בשנייה זכור ויהיה סמך למקרא מגילה מן התורה.
So it could be the pasuk of זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק and lo tishkach provides a smach for מקרא מגילה מן התורה. And l'chora what the Ramban means by that means somewhere there has to be a smach for it. Maybe this is it. So yitachen again that this whole approach again that we have in the later Chachmei Sfarad, in the Rashba. Is really מבית מדרשו של הרמב"ן that again the alternate, the alternate to the Rambam's havana of derabbanan. The Rambam's havana of derabbanan is that they're not bal tosif because they're not really independent mitzvos, because every mitzvah miderrabanan is really there to foster some mitzvah min haTorah. And the Chachmei Sefarad say that mitzvos derabbanan are not bal tosif because the Torah was meramez to Chazal that they should add these mitzvos. If the Torah was meramez to Chazal they should add these mitzvos, then obviously bal tosif wasn't intended for this. And itachen that's sort of the broader context to our Ramban here legabei Chanukah. Okay, we'll stop here.