[Avodah] Who First Said It? 6

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

RZS:
> At any rate, now that I've looked at this Chok Yaacov I can better
> answer your original question: who first forbade matza ashira on Erev
> Pesach?  The Chok Yaacov, after first making the same suggestion as
> the AHS ("ve'efshar dekavanas harav..."), then quotes the Maharil (Hil'
> Shabbos Hagodol) and the Hagohos SMaK (siman 219) that issur applies
> also on EP, becaues the reason is chashash chimutz, and says that this
> is in fact what the Ramo meant ("ve'achar zeh nimshach harav").
> So the answer (until a better one comes up) is the Maharil and the Smak.

Yasher Koach. That is AFAIK the earliest source - the Maharil. I have to
check the Smaq [I lent my Tu-SA out and I cannot check this Hoq Yaaqov
but I have seen it]

However the Derech Hayyim [by the N'sivos] is mattir until the 10th hour
as per RT. And it's unlikely he's ruling against Rema!

So it's shayach we're following Maharil but as per
    Noda Beehuda
    Shaarei T'shuva 484
    AhS 484:5
    And 
    Derech Hahayyim
There is no issur at the 4th hour at all, and probably not until the 10th.

The follow up question w/b besides this one lishna in Hoq Yaaqov what's
the next explicit source after Rema? But we can leave this offlist

The point is, the Rema is [mis]read to mean an issur of matzah Ahsira on
Erev Pesach but it's unlikely that's his kavvanah because of his silence
in SA 471:2 and the posqim listed who side with this read.

As such, since we don't know this minhag is for certain, it makes sense
to follow RT WRT shaleshudas - ein safeiq re: the minhag motzi the vaday
practice of RT

Plus, I was taught in Halachic metholodgy that maaseh d'rav or uvda d'Rav
trumps a simple p'saq, since actaully eating something is stronger than
voicing an opinion.

> You're the one spinning for all you're worth, creating a chiluk
> between EP and P with no basis *whatsoever*.

OY VAY! Not only do 4 posqim present a hiluq it's intuitively obvious?

I still don't see how pesach=erev pesach other than RZS is gozeir this
al pee da'ato! [See Ba'al Hamaor. Below]

Even posit a d'oraisso of tashbisu where is the d'oraisso of achila ?!
Aderabba ba'al hamaor posits that EP achila is a qiyyum of Tashbeesu!
So we have no evidence to expand the minhag - except broad construction

An authoritiarian attempt to make a syag on a d'rabbanan instead of the
slightly more libertaran s'yag on only a d'oraisso etc.

What Zev is REALLY saying, since we do it the sources must agree to it.
Absent the hard evidence - how can we be sure? Absent that Hoq Yaaqov
and the Maharil we'd be better off doing hard-headed analysis than
wishful dochaq's!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile