[Avodah] lulav on shabbat

[Zev Sero]

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> But who tells you what the boundaries of "EY" are for this purpose?
>> How do you know that they aren't "whereever the shluchim went"?

> IMHO it is clear that the mechaber who only mentions EY agrees with
> the Ritva.

I don't see how you can know this, since *everyone* including the
Rambam, uses the terms "EY" and "galuyot" for the two zones.  If
someone doesn't specify exactly what he means by those terms *in this*
*context*, how can you decide that he holds like the Ritva and not the
Rambam (or vice versa)?

 
> In the Encyopedia talmudit they bring several achronim that paskim
> like Rambam and held that Petach Tikvah (the first city established
> in modern times outside of Jerusalem) should keep 2 days.  Since
> they presumably did not reach modern day Bnei Brak or even modern
> day Meah Shearim CI and Griz quietly kept a second day lechumra.

"Presumably"?  How can you possibly presume such a thing?  At most
it's a safek; they probably *did* reach that area, but maybe they
didn't.  In the case of Meah Shearim it's inconceivable to me that
there were no Jews on that site who kept one day; even if there were
no houses there, surely there were olei regel camping, or simply
people from Y'm out walking within the techum.  As for Bnei Brak,
while we can't guarantee that it *is* on the site of old BB, surely
we can't be sure that it *isn't*, and even if we could be sure of
that (e.g. if we found the remains of old BB elsewhere) we certainly
couldn't be sure that there wasn't some other Jewish settlement on
that site.   Thus any suggestion of keeping two days is by definition
a chumrah, even according to the Rambam.


> As I previously said this was keep secret from the public at the time.
> As it was secret obviously no exact reason was given for the chumra
> except that it was a chumra and not a psak.

Yes, you've said this several times, but how do you derive from this
that they didn't pasken like the Rambam?


> Nevertheless the standard psak in present times is like the Ritva.

How do you know?  Who explicitly paskens one way or the other?


> Of course the halachik boundaries of EY are subject to dispute and
> the question of 1 or 2 days in Eilat seems to depend on whether Eilat
> is in the halachik boundaries of EY

Huh?  Who even suggests that it is?


> (some say that extends to the Euphrates)

What has that got to do with Eilat?  The Euphrates is the *northern*
boundary, not the southern one!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher