[Avodah] Haarama

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 04:52:12AM -0400, Rich, R Joel wrote:
: So what is the underlying "message/purpose" of shmitat kesafim? Should
: one who can afford it not make use of pruzbol?

---- Tangent ----
    The gemara I'm about to discuss is a good opportunity to plug my
    QRST notation for shaqla vetarya. It served me in good stead over the
    years since I was bored in 9th grade and invented it for note-taking.

    a-p: statements made in the gemara
         e.g. a - Abayei: ....
    Q: qushya (although in those days it may have been question, or just q
       to make it "QRST", I wasn't using q = quf yet, RSM did that to
       me on Avodah)
       e.g. Qa1: A "kasha" on (a)
            Qa2: a second qushya
    R: ra'ayah
       e.g. Ra2: A ra'yah to (a)
    S: she'eilah
       A "shailah" that has no chance of being an upshlug.
       Note that I am keeping the numbers distinct for qushyos and
       she'eilos, that's intentional. I use T for both kinds of teirutzim
       and Ta1 has to be unambiguously referring to Qa1 or Sa1.
       e.g. Sa4: A she'eilah on (a)
    T: teirutz

    You also get into some uglier notation when asking qushyos on
    teirutzim or the like. e.g.:
    Ta1.1: the first of multiple teirutzim to Qa1
    Q(Ta1.1)2: the second qushya on the abover teirutz. Now this may
	       seem ugly, but once you learn the language, in 9 symbols
	       the sentence is clearly labeled as "the second qushya on
	       the first teirutz to the first qushya on (a).

    It isn't as clear as flowcharting, but contains the same information
    and can be written pretty quickly. And such involved examples are
    rare. But the system's specificity forces disambiguation and avoids
    fuzzy thought. Saying to oneself and one's chavruah that "R' Yishmael
    asks a qasha on it" can hide the fact that you didn't think through
    "Was that a kasha on the teirutz, or on the original statement by R'
    Aqiva?" I have caught myself not realizing I didn't really understand
    the sugya because of things like this.

    A feel for how it works and any value (and whether or not you would
    bother) can be gotten from the discussion below.
---- End Tangent ----

The mechanism of pruzbul is a discussion on Gittien 36a-b. Yes, Hillel's
takanah is a valid preecisting loophole, but how can a taqanah allo the
din to be totally eliminated?

a- Abayei: Shemittah is derabbanan bizman hazeh, as there is no
yoveil. (This may be in turn tied to the machloqes as to whether the
yoveil year is one of the 7, and drifts through the shemittah cycle, or
if shemittah deOraisa is years 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42 and 49 of yoveil,
and thus shemittah today isn't even the same cycle -- having no 8 yr
jump from yr 49 to the next cycle's yr 7.)

Qa1: The gemara is unhappy with this suggestion, since it means that
Hashem allowed loans that BD nullified.

b or Ta1 - Rava: Hefqeir BD hefqeir. Since BD can redistribute wealth
at whim, how can there by a problem?

Whether Rava is proposing an alternative to Abayei's (a) or an answer
tothe qushya is a machloqes rishonim. Thus, I wrote "b or Ta1". By being
forced to label the statement, someone practiced in the system can see
how it's ambiguous.

b - Rava: Unlike Abayei, it's not that shemittas kesafim is
derabbanan. Hillel had the power to uproot shemittah because BD can
redistribute wealth in general. Therefore, this limitation on taqanos
(that they can't uproot the din altogether) doesn't apply to fiscal issue.

OR

Ta1 - Rava: Abayei is right, the taqanah only modifies a derabannan. How
di the rabbanan anull loans that the Torah said were binding? Hefqeir
BD hefqeir.


So, back to RJR's original question of Sun, May 18, 2008 12:14 am
(reformatted into a list):
: Just listened to an interesting shiur by R' Bleich.  He mentions 3
: categories of haarama.

: The first is those where chazal felt negatively - where there was a
: "purpose" being lost (e.g. bringing tvuah in through roof so as to avoid
: matnot - since the purpose was to have a leisure class who could teach).

Tangent: Maaser is for that reason. Terumah, according to the Chinukh,
is giving up to shelukhei HQBH so as to acknowledge His role in the
successful crop. This is why maaser has a minimum, and terumah does not.

: The second was those that chazal were indifferent to (e.g. sale of
: chametz since there was no "mitzvah" to have chametz to get rid of
: [iirc he did mention possible to have just a little for biur]) and

: third those that chazal approved of (e.g. involving non-Jew in
: ownership of cow so as not to have bchor issue where would have to
: let it wander until had mum)

It seems to me that you're saying:

    1- To avoid defying an aggadic value
    2- There is no motive to make life difficult
    3- To implement an aggadic value

The line between 1 and 3 is blurry. "So as not to lose Y" can usually
be equally phrased as "So as to have Z" (where Y and Z are antonyms).

Abayei's (a) would boil down to "hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir". If
shemittah deRabbanan was in Hillel's day, it wouldn't even be a haaramah.
(Kind of like carrying in a karmelis that has an eiruv -- the takanah
was only on non-eiruv bound karmelios.)

And the purpose of it all is to lezeikher the deOraisa, that there is a
concept of shemittas kesafim, which is served by having to make a pruzbul.

If shemittah derabbanan was earlier than Hillel, Abayei would be
explaining pruzbul as 1/3 -- the poor weren't getting help / to help
the poor. Better mortgage interest than never affording a home.

Otherwise, if we say like those rishonim who have Raba saying (b) (the
mechanism of pruzbul is hefqeir BD hefqeir, then it's also 1/3 in the same
way.


However, HBDH might be outside haaramah and mean the power to do a
straight rewrite of fiscal law. Much like our discussion on another thread
of how much of CM is unchanging, and how much is defined by norm. Fiscal
law seems far from etched in stone -- sapphire tablets or otherwise.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 30th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        4 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Hod: When does capitulation
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  result in holding back from others?