[Avodah] two fictional sects

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:41:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> What are you talking about, it's clearly in the second person.  How can
> you possibly deny that, the words are right there on the page.  The
> Sanhedrin is addressing the Bavlim directly.  If these were not the
> Sanhedrin's words but Abaye's (or the stama digemara's) commentary, then
> Rashi would express his explanation in the third person...

1- Rashi writes:
    Shelo yis'asku baTorah veyishtakach sod ha'ibur mikem....

RZS is clearly focused on the "mikem", this being the word indicating
second person. The "yis'asku" rather than "tis'asku" conflicts that,
and person really can't insist which person it is written in.

2- As far as I know, no one is claiming that this generation of Bavliim
are the specific people who need to worry about the gezeira. The victims
are any future group that would be so threatened. Not the "you" of the
letter, anyway.

I'm saying that Abayei's or the stam's added explanation of a second
benefit to the taqanah, beyond the taqanah's own "hischazku minhag
avoseikhem" as an end to itself, would still plausibly be written that
way, even without speaking to the Bavliim. Just as Rashi used second
person when *he* wasn't speaking to the Bavliim.

But again, my arguiment revolves around my insistence that a letter from
the Sanhedrin doesn't change languages midstream, that the Aramaic is part
of the discussion of the letter. Othwerise, there is no reason to insist
that "hischazku minhag avoseikhem" is an end in itself. Although we saw
Rebbe and R' Yochanan in Pesachim did consider inherited chumerous to be
binding. Barring minhag hamaqom -- Reish Laqish's question -- or other
overriding factors.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?