[Avodah] shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???

[Zev Sero]

On 15/08/2011 5:13 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> And I said that the theory behind the heter dates back to the gemara, and
> it's only its applicability to real situations that was new. The hava amina
> in the gemara is that the eivah couldn't be avoided, and the gemara says that
> in such a case, we violate Shabbos. Then it nullifies the assumption about
> the case. But the kelal WRT violating Shabbos stood unchallenged.
>
> Why isn't that a valid point for extrapolation?

Because "ein lemeidin...ela mitoch maaseh".  Until it's a practical psak,
we don't know on what other grounds it might have been dismissed, had the
grounds actually used not been available.  Only once it's accepted do we
know that it's valid.



>>> Pruzbul circumvents shemittah derabbanan.
>
>> But it works just as well with shmitta de'oraisa.  It just wouldn't be
>> ethical to use it to circumvent the intent of the mitzvah d'oraisa.
> ...
>
> I'm not sure it would be mutar.

It's an explicit Sifri, as Tosfos points out, which is why Tosfos says
the problem the gemara is discussing is the ethics, not the technical
validity.


> Abayei appears to be defending the  validity of pruzbul (Gittin 36b)
> not "mearly" its morality.

How do you see that?


> And it  follows up with a question about Hillel's Sanhedrin was still
> overturning the Sanhedrin that enacted shemittah derabbanan.  And
> that's when Rava invokes hefqer BD hefqer.

You're misremembering the sugya.  The question that causes Rava to bring
up HBDH is the exact opposite: the gemara asks how the rabbanan could
impose shmita if it doesn't apply mid'oraisa.  And on *that* Rava answers
that they did it by the power of HBDH.


> There is a machloqes Rashi and Tosafos whether Rava's answer replaces
> Abayei's or completes it. Ayin sham.

Rashi says that Rava's answer will also work for the chachamim who
argue against Rebbi, and hold that shmitta is d'oraisa.  Tosfos, who
points out the explicit Sifri that pruzbul works mid'oraisa, and
therefore says that the problem is ethical, says Rava couldn't give
his answer to the question on Hillel because HBDH doesn't solve the
ethical problem.



>> Since the intent of the rabanan in continuing it nowadays is zecher to
>> the time when it was d'oraisa, making a pruzbul fulfils that intent.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> In the case of mechiras chometz we have no idea what Hashems' intent was,
>
> I'm not sure we can pasqen a deOraisa based on taam hamitzvah, no matter
> how obvious it may seem.

Not sure what you mean here.  If we knew the intent of the mitzvah, then
it would be unethical to circumvent it, just as it would have been
unethical for Hillel to circumvent the purpose of Shmitta de'oraisa
(which we *do* know because the Torah tells us).


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
zev at sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
		                            - Yitzchak Rabin