[Avodah] Zekhiras Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in Yemos haMashiach

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 12:53:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >Are you sure that "*nobody*" disputes it?
> 
> : The mishna presents it as an undisputed statement; if you think there's
> : some machlokes about it, it's up to you to name the person who disputes
> : it.
> 
> The mishnah doesn't discuss it.

Um, yes, it does.  It says, explicitly, "Mazkirin yetziat mitzrayim
baleylot".  And nobody says otherwise.  Therefore the fact that we
say it doesn't show that we hold like Ben Zoma, and therefore the
normal rules would indicate that in fact we hold like the Chachamim,
that we will say y"m biymot hamashiach.

 
> And as already noted by RDECohen, both sides of the machloqes
> presume that it's perfectly possible that ZYM wouldn't continue after
> mashiach. Otherwise, why would the Chakhamim waste a derashah to exclude
> a non-possibility which is kefirah?

Because there's an explicit pasuk that would seem to suggest otherwise?


> The gemara presents the beraisa as a continuation of the previous sugya,
> yes.

Which beraisa?


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