The Problems With The "Dignity Of Man"

The gemara [Brachos 19b] says that כבוד הבריות the dignity of man, is so great, that is overrides a לא תעשה שבתורה. The gemara concludes that this לא תעשה is לא תסור which means only דיני דרבנן. [It also overrides דיני דאורייתא in cases of שב ואל תעשה where the rabbis have legislative power - see Rashi and Tosfos ד"ה שב ואל תעשה].

What is so troublesome about this holy gemara is that it NEVER TELLS us what the source is that גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה. It just takes it as a given. Why is it so pashut? And takeh [a French word meaning - "I would LOVE a cup of wine"], what is the source? Is it מדאורייתא or מדרבנן? If it is מדאורייתא then it is not גדול כבוד הבריות that is דוחה but a di-oraisa that is דוחה a דרבנן [according to the gemara that says that rabbinic enactments are only rabinic and לא תסור is an אסמכתא]? If it is only מדרבנן then how do we know that the דרבנן of כבוד הבריות trumps other דרבנן's? And it is such a strong דרבנן that it can even override דאורייתא's in cases of שב ואל תעשה.

Rashi in our sugya is ALSO silent on the issue, adding to my angst....

However, if we take route 160 and traverse the long road to Shabbos [81b], there Rashi lets us in on the secret. It is really מדאורייתא and is derived from the law that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו need not return a lost object which is stated in the words והתעלמת מהם - sometimes one need not return a lost object. So we see that כבוד הבריות is דוחה the mitzva of השבת אבידה [which is also a לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם which Rashi doesn't mention but I guess is understood]. Rashi says the same thing in Megilla [3b]. If that would make me feel better [it doesn't because then it is not just כבוד הבריות which is דוחה but a דאורייתא] then I am STILL not at ease. Because the gemara in Brachos mentions this source and REJECTS IT because matters of איסור cannot be derived from monetary matters. Thus, גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה [in matters of איסור] cannot be derived from the [monetary] law of השבת אבידה.

Why would the greatest talmudic commentator say something like that? There are big סודות here. I just don't know what they are...

Once we are already asking.....

The gemara says that דרבנן's are really only דרבנן and the pasuk לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך is but an אסמכתא. The Ramban uses this gemara to ask on the Rambam who holds that all דרבנן's are really מדאורייתא. How can the Rambam defend himself?

I would like to further share more comments on this gemara but, alas, other responsibilities beckon.

ועוד חזון למועד!

I am sending this post in an email to a top notch "gemara expert" besides the many תלמידי חכמים who read the blog and HOPE for some insight להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה!