[Avodah] Al petach beito mabachutz

[Zev Sero]

A & C Walters wrote:

>> That's an accomodation for sh'as
>> It was suggested here that there was
>> some sort of "institution" that we should always light inside, even when
>> there is no sakana, in case there should ever be one,

> At the time of the chasima of the Talmud, there was a shhas sakono. 
> Therefore even if there is no sakono, it is irrelevant

Lots of things have changed since the time the Talmud was finally
determined to be "sealed".  But the Talmud does *not* say that one
should light inside, it gives a heter *bish'at sakana*.  It so
happened that the later stages of the "sealing" of the Talmud
happened under increasingly tyrranical Zoroastrian rule, and so it
was a "she'at sakana" for most of those years (though presumably
not during Mar Zutra's short reign).  But where is it even hinted
that this should apply when the sakana is over?


> much like a lot 
> of takonos like eating cholent because of the sadukim who didn't eat hot 
> food on shabbos even though there are no sadukim now.

There was no such takanat chazal.  The tzedukim disappeared after
the churban, and we know for a fact that Rebbi did not eat hot food
on shabbat.  There may have been a later minhag along these lines
after the rise of the Karaim, but that was well after the "sealing"
of the Talmud, and in any case there is certainly no such din today.


> The fact that originally there was a din to light outside is
> irrelevant; chazal were mevatel it

Chazal did no such thing.  There is not even a hint of it in the
gemara.


> and the talmud was closed and signed. fartig!

"Signed"?  That implies that there was a single moment - a ceremony
even - at which the Talmud was declared complete, and no further
changes were made.   No such thing ever occurred.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas