[Avodah] two fictional sects

[Zev Sero]

On 22/04/2012 12:27 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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",

And "ta'avdu" and "tochlu".

> 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.

"That people should not learn torah" is the *decree*.  The result of that
decree will be that "*you* will forget how to set the calendar, and *you*
will make one day, and *you* will eat chometz on Pesach".  Not "they" ,
or "we", but "you", because it is the Sanhedrin speaking to the Bavlim.



> 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.

First of all, how do you know when this decree might hit?  It might happen
next year, or it might never happen at all, but one can never tell.  Second,
it makes no difference how many years or centuries in the future it might
happen, the point is that it might happen to you Bavlim.


  
> 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

"hizoharu beminhag", actually.

> 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.

Rashi is explaining the Sanhedrin's words, and *they* were speaking to
the Bavlim, so naturally he uses the second person.  If he were explaining
Abaye's or the stama digemara's words, he'd say "we will forget", or maybe
"they will forget", not "you".


> But again, my arguiment revolves around my insistence that a letter from
> the Sanhedrin doesn't change languages midstream

And I see no reason at all to believe that.  What basis do you have
to believe that they didn't mix languages, just as people today will
use English, Hebrew, and Yiddish in the same sentence?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
zev at sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
		 are expanding through human ingenuity."
		                            - Julian Simon