[Avodah] Asara B'Tevet

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 01:31:29PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 12/29/2015 09:30 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> I don't see it, because the BY doesn't quote "fascinating ideas"; this
:> is a work about how to reach halakhah lema'aseh.

: If the BY confined himself to opinions that are relevant to halacha
: lemaaseh then why would he quote an opinion that is guaranteed *not*
: to be lema`aseh, even if he agreed with it completely? ...

You're still looking at the issue as pegging the Avudraham's position
in one of two extremes. The BYU is a sefer of pesaq; thus, if he thinks
an opinion is worth explicit dismissal, that opinion isn't being thrown
out there for fun.

And yes, the BY usually skips hilkhisah dimishicha, but here is obviously
didn't, because it touches on the Tur's point. But to go to the opposite
extreme, and saying he is dealing with idle speculation, even less fits
the book.

And more relevantly, the hashkafic underpinnings of the idea that 10
beTeves might be unique can't be summarily dismissed. One can argue that
perhaps Rashi and the Rambam pasqened differently not only on technical
halachic grouns but because they also reject the hashkafic implication.
Or one can argue that perhaps the very fact that by 10 beTeves it comes
to a machloqes is enough to make the hashkafic point.

In general, I haven't seen a rule for how various rabbanim extrapolate
from machloqes to taam hamitzvah. Another example: RSRH makes much out
of the fact that according to the Rambam, it is the 8th string that is
tekheiles. Does that mean RSRH would hold like the Rambam, or is he
making a hashkafic point out of the fact that the shitah simply exists?

:                                  Even strictly halachic works include
: the occasional vertel or bit of agadeta, "yeinah shel torah", and this
: is practically agadeta, though of a halachic flavour.

I do not recall any in the BY, and for that matter, after OC 1, nothing
comes to mind from his SA either. It is certain rare enough to not be
the default position -- if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

: he repeated it for the same reason that we all do, almost every time
: the topic of Asara Betevet comes up; it's a startling idea, and also
: gives the fast a bit more importance, perhaps to make up for its
: short duration in the northern hemisphere.

Actually, it is repeated on-list annually because baalei agadah use the
idea so frequently someone heard a new variant. It is your opinion that
they are all off-base because the Avudraham's position isn't even worth
such consideration. I really would prefer to understand things in a way
that justifies the Chasam Sofer's or R' Yonasan Eibshitz's spending time
on the notion.

Apparently they take the "the fact it's even a shitah tells us something"
approach to this machloqes. Which would not be consistent with the just
for fun attitude you've been advocating.

BTW, the CS (derashah in Toras Moshe for Vayiqra - 7 Adar, vol II pg 9b
"kasuv") suggests that the reason 10 beTeves gives us more motive to
fast on Shabbos is that it's more like a taanis chalom than the other
fasts. The day HQBH gave us the sentence of churban bayis rishon was the
day he let Nevuchadnetzar lay siege to Y-m. And thus it's on 10 beTeves
that we are judged as to whether it will be rebuilt this year. Thus,
like a taanis chalom, 10 beTeves is a fast about a future event, not a
past one.

RYE (Ya'aros Devash, 2nd derashah for 9 Teves, vol I pg 32) says it's
because aschalta deparanusah adifah. I saw a LOR attribute the same
statement to the Benei Yisaschar as well, but I don't have a mar'eh maqom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
micha at aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507