lisa at starways.net
Sat Mar 30 21:22:29 PDT 2013
On 3/30/2013 9:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> : Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.
> ??? Who said we should listen to prophecy? Irrelevent quote.
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 02:02:28AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
> : R Arie deems my example as a proof that dismantles my argument, namely,
> : that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh on the
> : wrong day, their date is binding.
> : But I must disagree. On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they were
> : entitled to Pasken as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and consequently which
> : day is YKippur, nevertheless, he did not insist that they eat and make a
> : LeChaim to compel compliance; how much more so in a case where this special
> : power is not given to BD i.e. to Pasken and make a determination even when
> : they know it is wrong.
> R' Gamliel made him violate hotza'ah (aside the derabbanan of muqtzah)
> on YK. Is that different than had it been an invitation to a se'udah?
> And it's clear from R' Aqiva's response that the point was to force him
> to accept BD's qidush hachodesh. Not just make a reconciliatory display.
The cases are entirely different. The same evidence was available to
both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. If Rabban Gamliel had been
locked in a closet during the time the eidim were testifying and made
his decision anyway, and Rabbi Yehoshua had heard and questioned the
eidim, that would be a case more similar to what we're talking about.
You're sorely mistaken if you think I'm rejecting the determination of
poskim. Or as you said earlier in your response: "Lisa is arguing that
I should not be bound by the authority of accepted legislation or
interpretation, but by the Truth." That is a wholly untrue evaluation
of my position. I would thank you to refrain from reformulating my
words when I'm right here to clarify my intent.
You seem to be taking an extreme position that reality/facts are
irrelevant in the face of psak. If that's not the case, correct me.
Whereas I am saying that psak can be reconsidered in the face of new
evidence. I know rabbanim who have reconsidered their piskei halakha
when new evidence comes to light. And in case you think that this is
not the same as questioning the psak of earlier rabbanim, I would simply
point to deaf people as my proof. I haven't seen the recent article in
Ami Magazine called "Being Deaf and Jewish", but I do know that the
understanding of cheresh was reevaluated in the face of new evidence,
even though it effectively changed the psak of Tannaim and Amoraim!
> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.
I'm willing to bet that if they'd had concrete evidence showing how the
Yovel was counted back during Bayit Rishon, that would have trumped the
process. It's easy enough to say that process wins in the absence of
evidence to the contrary. I don't think anyone disputes that.
More information about the Avodah