6

Rashi says

What does the subject of Shemittah have with Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments stated from Sinai? However, [this teaches us that] just as with Shemittah, its general principles and its finer details were all stated from Sinai, likewise, all of them were stated-their general principles [together with] their finer details-from Sinai.

Yet, in all other mitzvos (Shabbos, for example), one who violates a Tolda of an Aveira has still Biblically violated that Aveira. However, one who violates a Tolda of Shmitta did not.

What does Rashi mean?

6
  • Only punishable derabanan, but maybe still assur deorayta. And maybe not. We would have to check somehow.
    – Double AA
    May 17 '12 at 20:17
  • 2
    That's all part of the "general principles [together with] their finer details". At Sinai all the details of the laws of Shemita were told, including the fact that only specific Tuldot are punishable.
    – Menachem
    May 17 '12 at 20:52
  • 3
    Shmuel Brin, I'm not following how your question is related to Rashi.
    – YDK
    May 17 '12 at 21:15
  • @YDK how is it "Keshem"? May 17 '12 at 21:39
  • 4
    Rashi's point is that no mitzvos nor their details were given as an addendum to the Torah, all were given from Sinai. I don't understand how that relates to whether there is an onesh on a tolada.
    – YDK
    May 17 '12 at 23:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .