<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Zev Sero <<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Richard Wolpoe wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
For example, just because BY states that fish and milk are not permitted together does not make it normative. We analyze this BY and E.g. the Rema in Darchei Moshe posits 'ta'us Soferim.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Actually he doesn't say it's a copyist's error, because the context<br>
doesn't allow for that. It's quite clear that the BY himself wrote<br>
milk, and meant milk. When the DM says "nitchalef lo basar bechalav",<br>
he means that the BY himself confused milk and meat. Needless to say<br>
that's a very bedochak explanation, but since there's no other mention<br>
of such a sakana the DM evidently feels forced to it.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Zev Sero </font></blockquote></div><br><ol><li>what in the context of the Darchei Moshe forces you to say his statement is NOT a reference to scribal or printer error?</li><li>There is no mention in any of the Rishonim AFAIK re: davening arbis late for Shavuos?nevertheless the Taz mentions it. Why can't the BY be adding/manufacturing a new halacah/humra/minhag?<br>
</li></ol>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>