Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The Talmud is full of the standard procedure of the Sages interpreting Tanakh verses to learn various laws and behaviors.
Is there a way to tell when a Rabbi cites a Pasuk as a traditionally known מקור for a law (Torah law from Moses, like "כבד את אביך ואת אמך" as the source for honoring parents Mitzvah) or as a mere אסמכתא (rabbinic law using verse as a bassis) for his own opinion?
HaRav Moshe Ben Yosef Trani (16th century contempory of Rav Yosef Cairo) wrote Kiriat Sefer on the Rambam which is dedicated to ascribing which laws are Derabbanan and which are Min haTorah. When studying Gemora look at the small Hebrew letter adjacent to the saying e.g. א. Then look at the margin in the Ein Mishpat for א which will say for example: מיי׳ פ׳ח שבת ה׳א a reference to the relevant chapter and Halacha in Maimonides (Rambam) which you can look up in Mishne Torah. Then look up the corresponding Kiriat Sefer on the very same Halacha which will indicate if it is an Asmachta derabanan or Mideoraisa.
Shalom u'vracha! There are a few ways to tell. Generally, Torah law is explicit and limited to it's simple explanation. Drashot, asmachtot, and the like are more inclusive in their extrapolation to include what's not explicit. Halachot l'Moshe m'Sinai are Torah laws that have no explicit source but are recognized as fact due to their historical presence since the giving of the Tradition.
"En hamikra yotze midei pshuto" means that you must take the meaning of the pasuk for it's face value unless we have a tradition from Chazal that the true intention or tradition of understanding it is different than it's pshat/simple explanation. Drashot that expound a pasuk that don't fit with it's simple explanation in the name of one Rav/Tana/Amora, is likely an asmachta.
The practice of using the mikra to derive new or old teachings developed when the tradition of Torah began to weaken over the years from the time of matan Torah. The Chachamim of each generation were forced to revert to expounding the Written Torah in order to learn or revive the original Tradition that wasn't widely practiced. What was practiced, was generally law. New questions that weren't generally practiced, had to be learned through the expounding of the Written Torah according to the tradition they had, or learned, to derive the din. So when Chazal wished to introduce a Rabbinic law, they used their methods of expounding(to a lesser, but still authoritative, extent) to source their institution from a pasuk; like that of the Written Torah. The Rishonim are a good source to test whether a drasha is an asmachta or not, even though there are disagreements.
But the basic test is examining how close the drash is to the simple explanation of the pasuk. If it's not, it's likely an asmachta; unless the tradition dates back to matan Torah.*This clarification is not binding on every drash! It's merely a general guideline to differentiate between a mekor and an asmachta."
