Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 55

Sun, 31 Mar 2013

• 1. A PURE START (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 2. Re: Kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Kitniyot (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Rice and Corn May be Eaten for the Entire Day of Erev Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Rice and Corn May be Eaten for the Entire Day of Erev Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 8. Which Day Is YK? Who Must Accept BD Pesak? (Meir Rabi)
• 9. Re: The 5th cup (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 11. Halakhah and Self-Transformation, was: Kitniyot (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Which Day Is YK? Who Must Accept BD Pesak? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Which Day Is YK? Who Must Accept BD Pesak? (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: Kitniyot (Zev Sero)

According to the Kabbalists, the 49-day Omer Count is a 49-step process 
of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection 
of one the forty-nine "sefirot." 
Here's what is very interesting. We begin that count with the total spirituality
of ridding ourselves, our houses and our minds of chametz, which is a metaphor
for corruption, impurity, arrogance, etc. We then start counting upward with the
goal of spiritually ascending the ladder. It would seem that the purity process of
no chametz would be a the conclusion of the counting -- not the start. So here is
one answer to that. 
We must learn to live in spiritual purity, always ascending the ladder of morality,
self-refinement and improvement, even surrounded by chametz. Hence, we must
always keep in mind and reflect on a life devoid of chametz even while living with
this cognitive dissonance.

ri

"Behold I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give, I give myself."  Walt Whitman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130329/873646e3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:31:38AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> What I meant to say is that yovel can't be counted toward the 7 year
>> cycle. Therefore, shemitah should be 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, and 8 years apart.
>> (As the Rambam says in the next halakhah, 1:7).

> It's a machloket.  Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir, I believe.

Yes, Eirukhin 24b.

R' Meir, Rashi (Eirukhin 32b), Rambam: skip yovel when counting shemittah
R' Yehudah, Geonim's qabbalah: count yovel

But that's off topic.

Getting back to our discussions: The Rambam gives his shitah on how
shemittah is supposed to work, but tells us it's trumped by the qabbalah
we got from the geonim.

Which I am using to buttress the idea that halakhah must be reasonable
in its application of the legislative and interpretive rules, but may
not be logical a priori.

And, related to the discussion about the Maharal, RCV, Hilkhos Shogegin
and Horios, thus one can't expect those not taught and practiced in
those rules to reason out the halakhah where the it no one accepted
ruling (by the sho'el's community).

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> A third instance, which I think is more logically similar to
> our topic of historical olive sizes is my advocacy and
> elaboration of the shitah (held by my rebbe among others)
> that the reason why bugs you can't see with your eye aren't
> a kashrus issue, and bugs born from microscopic eggs might
> as well be created abiogenically is that halakhah only cares
> about the world as directly experienced, not as we can
> indirectly (eg through instruments or otherwise confirmed
> theory) know it to be.

(wondering out loud....) Does the Torah really not care at all about what
we can't experience? Or does the Torah ignore those things as a concession
to human nature? Or maybe there's no difference? 

> Here I'm saying that our evolution as a community goes hand
> in hand with the evolution of halakhah. An accepted practice
> that was created via the legal process therefore has
> redemptive power even if the scientific assumptions behind
> it don't match reality. Like the magnifying-glass sized
> bugs, because it's not objective reality but subjective
> experience that changes people.

When you write "An accepted practice that was created via the legal
process", that sounds like it refers to d'rabanans. What of d'Oraisas? Does
a d'Oraisa have redemptive power if our perception (a.k.a. halachic
reality) doesn't match the scientific reality? 

You brought two examples which seem similar, but are actually very
different: microscopic creatures and microscopic eggs. Microscopic
creatures, in halacha, don't exist, and I suffer no spiritual ill-effects
for killing them on Shabbos. I have no problem with that, but the
microscopic eggs are another story entirely. 

The physical world encompasses domem (nonliving), tzomeach (vegetation),
chai (animate), adam, and Yisrael. Killing something of the first category
is impossible by definition, and killing something of any other category
would seem to be assur on Shabbos, except for one odd case: lice.

To see the oddity of this case, we do not need to acknowledge the claim of
modern science that lice are born just like any other creature. We can
already see the oddity through Chazal's eyes: Lice move of their own
volition, like any other insect. But because they seem to be born without
parentage, they seem to be considered inferior to any other life form, even
to plant life, and may be killed on Shabbos.

Amazing! Plant life may not be killed - i.e. cut loose from the ground - on
Shabbos. The same for other birds, animals, fish, insects, whatever -- they
may not be killed in any manner, not only in way which cause loss of blood
(the av melacha of shochet) but by any other means, such as poison. But
lice, specifically because they seem to have no parents, *may* be killed on
Shabbos. And this made me realize that even plant life has a sort of
parentage, in the seed that once had been planted.

I had always thought that productivity was the main criteria for defining
"life" - harnessing of energy, transformation of food into body parts,
reproduction of future generations. Lice are quite active, but it seems
that these are secondary. To be the sort of life form that may not be
killed on Shabbos, what you really need are *parents*.

> Or, to put it another way, the "reality" halakhah exists to
> address aren't biological, chemical or physical, they are
> psychological, existential and spiritual. We care more about
> how humans are encountering the world than how the world is.
>
> Not because of a deprecation of science, but because the
> harder sciences a simply exploring a topic less related to
> changing people into more extact images of the Divine.

We are often told that it is a mistake to think that Mitzvas Kibud Av v'Em
is a result of the fact that we do have parents. Rather, HaShem designed
humans to have two parents, because otherwise there would be no way to
accomplish Mitzvas Kibud Av v'Em.

Perhaps a similar lesson can be learned from the louse. We would think it
to be just as important to Creation as any other insect, but perhaps Hashem
made its eggs too small to be seen, specifically to teach us the importance
of having parents.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5155e7b79f5fe67b7611dst01vuc

On 29/03/2013 3:11 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> To be the sort of life form that may not be killed on Shabbos, what you really need are*parents*.

Would it have been chilul Shabbos to kill Adam or Chavah, or any of the
animals created on the 5th and 6th days (such as the "shor par makrin
mafris")?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 09:39:05AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> How about by clan/subtribe?

And I had suggested, based on Maqom sheNahagu, that it's by location.
Which I still believe. We only have one real mention of minhag avos
in shas, and it refers to YT Sheini -- which is by location!

In the ideal, though, we are living in nachalos, and clan and location
correlate.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:49:36PM +0000, Arie Folger wrote:
: Arguably, R' Meir, this is one of teh worst examples you could have
: brought, since the conclusion of the sugya is exactly what you deny,
: namely, that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh
: on the wrong day, their date is binding.
...
: Of course, depending of how expansive or restrictive one wants to interpret
: that sugya...

Yeah, I don't think the sugya is relevent altogether, because I would
go with "restrictive". Qidush haChodesh isn't pesaq. It creates Rosh
Chodesh for reasons of its own. hazeh LAKHEM". As R' Aqiva says, it's a
special gezeiras hakasuv, "asher tiqre'u osam bemo'adim" and "'atem...
atem... atem...' -- 'atem' afilu shogegin, 'atem' afilu meizidin, 'atem'
afilu mut'in."

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:49:36PM +0000, Arie Folger wrote:
: Arguably, R' Meir, this is one of teh worst examples you could have
: brought, since the conclusion of the sugya is exactly what you deny,
: namely, that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh
: on the wrong day, their date is binding.
...
: Of course, depending of how expansive or restrictive one wants to interpret
: that sugya...

Yeah, I don't think the sugya is relevent altogether, because I would
go with "restrictive". Qidush haChodesh isn't pesaq. It creates Rosh
Chodesh for reasons of its own. hazeh LAKHEM". As R' Aqiva says, it's a
special gezeiras hakasuv, "asher tiqre'u osam bemo'adim" and "'atem...
atem... atem...' -- 'atem' afilu shogegin, 'atem' afilu meizidin, 'atem'
afilu mut'in."

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 3rd day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Chesed: What is perfectly
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            balanced Chesed?

R Arie deems my example as a proof that dismantles my argument, namely,
that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh on the
wrong day, their date is binding.

But I must disagree. On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they were
entitled to Pasken as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and consequently which
day is YKippur, nevertheless, he did not insist that they eat and make a
LeChaim to compel compliance; how much more so in a case where this special
power is not given to BD i.e. to Pasken and make a determination even when
they know it is wrong.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130331/7fc4869a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/25/2013 12:59 AM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> On 3/24/2013 8:40 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> I've never understood why people look at v'heiveiti as a 5th lashon of
>> geula, particularly when it's implicit in v'hotzeiti.  V'hayiti seems
>> much more appropriate.
>>      
> Why is it implicit? Hotzeiti means we left Egypt, it doesn't say
> anything about coming to Eretz Yisrael.
>    

I see v'hotzeiti as being the opposite of physical exile.  But I grant 
you that isn't the only way to look at it.

Lisa

(BTW, if you keep the subject lines more constant, people could more
readliy follow the discussion in the archive.)

My position is my understanding of the Rambam as explained by RYBS: that
halachic authority stems from the acceptance by the masses of a ruling
based on halachic theory.

On the one side, this puts me at odds with RMR, who believes that halakhah
should be what's reasonable to me. Which implies that there is no binding
nature to rulings my community accepted that do not make sense to me.

On the other side, Lisa is arguing that I should not be bound by the
authority of accepted legislation or interpretation, but by the Truth.
Which of course means the Truth as I determine it to be -- and so
the two discussions overlap. But my main concern in my discussion with Lisa
is whether a halachic ruling based on errors in fact are still valid
and binding halachic process. IOW, that the process is about the legislation
and interpration of law, not fact, and thus can have incidences where the
law requires something we wouldn't have mandated had we known the facts
better.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:40:12PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Reb Micha suggests that it IS a Chiddush as we can see from the Gemaras
: need to justify Rav's breaking the convention --
: "Rav tan hu upalig" is only necessary because otherwise it /would/be a
: chiddush.

: And I say that ANYTHING that is a change from what we are familiar with is
: a Chiddush. I was and continue to refer however, to Chiddush as in change
: from the Gemaras and the Halachas basic principles, which are that we MUST
: stand by our own understanding and conclusions. So the REAL Chiddush is
: that such a convention was initiated and implemented.

Only to someone who accepts your given, rather than using the existence
of the convention as a proof that deferring does NOT violate any "basic
principles", that in fact, thinking for yourself is of value because
talmud Torah is of value, but not always the right way to decide halakhah.

: Reb Micha also disagrees with the principle that we MUST stand by our
: understanding of Halacha and not just accept the rulings of those we
: consider greater than us.
: Reb Micha suggests that perhaps this Chiyuv does not apply at all times. He
: proposes that there are those who are far more informed and far more in
: line with the right modes of thinking to decide Pesak and we should
: therefore suspend our own judgement.

No, I said there is no such chiyuv. We follow a law. Law means at times
being bound by what others legislated or interpreted.

...
: Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.

??? Who said we should listen to prophecy? Irrelevent quote.

On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 02:02:28AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: R Arie deems my example as a proof that dismantles my argument, namely,
: that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh on the
: wrong day, their date is binding.

: But I must disagree. On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they were
: entitled to Pasken as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and consequently which
: day is YKippur, nevertheless, he did not insist that they eat and make a
: LeChaim to compel compliance; how much more so in a case where this special
: power is not given to BD i.e. to Pasken and make a determination even when
: they know it is wrong.

R' Gamliel made him violate hotza'ah (aside the derabbanan of muqtzah)
on YK. Is that different than had it been an invitation to a se'udah?
And it's clear from R' Aqiva's response that the point was to force him
to accept BD's qidush hachodesh. Not just make a reconciliatory display.

I just don't think the power to be meqadeish the chodesh is one of pesaq,
and that this is generalizable to pesaq. Also, as per R' Aqiva's citation
of a calendar-specific pasuq.


On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 07:45:17AM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> I disagree. See my most recent blog post
:> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/03/tzav.shtml>.
:> The topic is the implications of the difference between a legislative
:> process and a fact-finding one, including the need to think in terms
:> of what gives a ruling authority, not what makes the most sense from
:> a historical or scientific perspective.

: Wadr, while the Sanhedrin, & probably tannaim & amoraim, are viewed as
: having real legislative powers, the legislative authority of I rishonim
: & achronim is in general viewed as quite limited to communal takkanot -
: & is normally NOT applied to the general halachic process.

Legislation and interpetation. In general I was careful to write both.
You picked up one of the few times I didn't remember / bother. As above,
I'm following RYBS in the assertion that the pesaqim in the SA have
[non-absolute but real] authority because the Rambam's statement about
a community accepting a halakhah applies to both new legislation and
to interpretations of existing law.

: The question of trying to understand what the Gemara & poskim meant -
: especially in terms of realia - has a long history - & I doubt you will
: find anyone prior to, say, 1800, who will so readily disassociate Halacha
: from objective truth or discounted attempts at discovering past practices
: - whether search for artifacts or manuscripts...

I though I forestalled this argument by (1) showing how many rishonim
were Constitutivists, ie believe that the law is defined by pesaq,
not pre-existing to be discovered by posqim; and (2) even the sole
known (to me) non-Constitutivist rishon, the Rambam does himself follow
the authority of the qabbalah of the ge'onim over the computed year
for shemittah.

If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.

I also mentioned the mizbeiach in bayis sheini that was based on a pesaq
about nisuch which would invalidate the mizbeiach in bayis rishon. And,
for that matter, the tubes in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini also would
be excluded by pesaq in use during bayis rishon. Were AKhG not yotzei,
because they didn't know the old-style mizbeiach? And if so, why didn't
chazal switch back once they realized the switch happened?

...
: The closest to rmb's position comes from the chazon ish's position that
: the fate of certain manuscripts, texts,& practices reflect divine 
: hashgacha - which is thematically related to
: the idea of continuous revelation..

Or the source I gave -- the Rambam's haqdamah, as explained by RYBS.
Which has nothing to do with siyata diShmaya. Not that I am denying the
notion -- just saying that I didn't go there. My whole point was that
halakhah is created by communal endorsement of a textual halachic-process
based pesaq, not by Divine Approval, not by historical study of prior
states of halakhah, etc...

: The idea of the community being able to determine its own norms to
: achieve meaning & redemption is appealing, but has a history. I doubt
: RMB is truly willing to endorse it..

I think you are inviting me to conflate textualism and mimeticism more
than the Rambam would.

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 4th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           imposition on others?

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 07:11:13PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: (wondering out loud....) Does the Torah really not care at all about
: what we can't experience? Or does the Torah ignore those things as a
: concession to human nature? Or maybe there's no difference?

I was arguing that the Torah has no reason to care too much about
things we can only know in the abstract. We are influenced by ideas,
so I can't say "at all", but I think that the level of influence is
below that which would impact halakhah.

This is my own philosophical invention to explain something I learned
from R' Dovid Lifshitz. It was RDL, not myself, who likened the eggs to
microscopic bugs and asserted that both are irrelevant for the same
reason.

My theory would not work if you feel that the primary function of
halakhah is not located in the self. Whether we say it's a means
to achieve deveiqus, sheleimus, refine the tzelem E-lokim, whatever,
most currently believed hashkafos do make halakhah about people, not
about what we are doing to other physical or metaphysical entities.

And my own take (since this is my theory, not a survey) is based on
NhC shaar 1's thesis that changes in the universes caused by mitzvos is
a consequence of changes in the self. It is only the human soul which
contains forces from all the olamos, so it is only via the human soul
in which activities in one plane can make changes in others.

:> Here I'm saying that our evolution as a community goes hand
:> in hand with the evolution of halakhah. An accepted practice
:> that was created via the legal process therefore has
:> redemptive power even if the scientific assumptions behind
:> it don't match reality. Like the magnifying-glass sized
:> bugs, because it's not objective reality but subjective
:> experience that changes people.

: When you write "An accepted practice that was created via the
: legal process", that sounds like it refers to d'rabanans. What of
: d'Oraisas? Does a d'Oraisa have redemptive power if our perception
: (a.k.a. halachic reality) doesn't match the scientific reality?

Our original discussion was about both legislation of dinim derabbanan,
or interpretation of existing law (derabbanan OR deOraisa). Both are
parts of legal process.

I would think that redemptive power comes from bringing our middos,
responses, and/or whatever your hashkafah most values in line with
Hashem's Will for what they should be. This means that the value of
an action is in how it impacts us on a gut level.

Whether that action is mandated by HQBH or by us.

I just focused on man-made law or man-selected interpretation of law
because of the context of overturning human decisions if:

1- (vs Lisa) earlier decisions in error went beyond what the metzi'us
required or

3- (vs RMR) they didn't make sense to the invidual, regardless of whether
they were mentored in the art of working the process.

But in any case, I hope my above exposition would make it clear that
it does. Because the redemptive power 

...
: I had always thought that productivity was the main criteria for
: defining "life" - harnessing of energy, transformation of food into
: body parts, reproduction of future generations. Lice are quite active,
: but it seems that these are secondary. To be the sort of life form that
: may not be killed on Shabbos, what you really need are *parents*.

Parents that are connected to the offspring in a way we can perceive
directly.

Isn't that presumed by your detourlooking at things by how it would have
seemed to Chazal?

: We are often told that it is a mistake to think that Mitzvas Kibud Av
: v'Em is a result of the fact that we do have parents. Rather, HaShem
: designed humans to have two parents, because otherwise there would be no
: way to accomplish Mitzvas Kibud Av v'Em.

: Perhaps a similar lesson can be learned from the louse. We would think it
: to be just as important to Creation as any other insect, but perhaps
: Hashem made its eggs too small to be seen, specifically to teach us the
: importance of having parents.

Clever!

:-)||ii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 4th day
mi...@aishdas.org        in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Chesed: When is Chesed an
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           imposition on others?

On 30/03/2013 11:02 AM, Meir Rabi wrote:
>
> But I must disagree. On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they
> were entitled to Pasken as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and
> consequently which day is YKippur, nevertheless, he did not insist
> that they eat and make a LeChaim to compel compliance;

If you had been around then, and made that argument, then he would have
made R Yehoshua eat as well.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Post slightly edited to (a) accept the Moderator's complaint, and to
reflect urther private channel additional info.


> On Mar 30, 2013 4:02 PM, "Meir Rabi" <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they were entitled to Pasken
>> as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and consequently which day is YKippur,
>> nevertheless, he did not insist that they eat and make a LeChaim to compel
>> compliance; how much more so in a case where this special power is not
>> given to BD i.e. to Pasken and make a determination even when they know it
>> is wrong.
>>
>
My dear friend, pardon me, but this is, eh, how should I say, a shtikl
unconvincing . R'Yehoshua' was asked to transgress the deOraitot of
hotzaah, as well as whatever travel entails, so what if he wasn't asked to
drink lechayim, too?

RMR replied that R' Yehoshua'
> was asked to do those things which permitted him to easily avoid
> transgressing anything, even in the slightest."

... to which I replied: Check the tosefta and ask yourself why only
R'Akiva's response calmed him down. Obviously, he was asked to do something
which was a transgression.

RMR then replied:
> He was not just upset for himself, he was concerned for the entire
> community. Rabbi Akiva's answer calmed him because he thereby
> knew that the community would not be doing the wrong thing

To which I replied: I do not think that it makes sense that he would have
been asked to do something which proves nothing. The whole point was for
him to show he accepted the psak.

To which RMR replied:
> The point was to diffuse a potentially extremely divisive showdown
> in which I think it is safe to assume, the general community was
> in favor of the renegade. So it was a show, and it succeeded in
> averting a uprising or a revolt and still permitted him to maintain
> the Halacha as he understood it

To which I replied:
1) But if so, why did RY not want to go?
2) That was the argument of Benei Beteira. R'Yehoshua' was unhappy with
that.

Then, the day got really going in Australia, while it was well into the
night in Germany, so we didn't continue our interchange, but I am sure that
RMR has also arguments to defend his perspective, so do not conclude that I
had the last word, unless he says so.
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130331/20d08714/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/03/2013 10:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (2) even the sole
> known (to me) non-Constitutivist rishon, the Rambam does himself follow
> the authority of the qabbalah of the ge'onim over the computed year
> for shemittah.
>
> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.

Shmita is rather like kidush hachodesh, in the sense that it depends on an
actual count.  You can't just calculate when shmita should be and decide
to keep it then, there's a mitzvah of "vesafarta lecha".  BD must keep a
count, and declare shmita according to it.  As I understand the Rambam,
he's saying that he holds that the BD back then counted it wrong, and had
he been in charge then he would have set them right, but right or wrong that
is the way they counted, so the shmita cycle is in the "wrong" place but
it's still the cycle.  He's only accepting the mesorah of the Geonim as a
matter of historical metzius, not as proof that his shita is wrong.  Without
this mesorah he would have assumed that the historical metzius matched his
shita, and that those who keep shmitah today on the "wrong" year are
mistaken.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 55
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)