<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Zev Sero <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zev@sero.name">zev@sero.name</a>></span> 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>Fwiw<br>I just saw the Taz in YD 87. He specifically calls the alleged error in the BY re: fish and milk as a Ta'us Sofer. <br>And the Sefer haSheetos qutoes this and attributes Ta'us Sofer to BOTH DM and Taz. IOw he does not make the above distinction.<br>
<br>I guess that iff I was in error in calling this a Ta'us Sofer at least I am in good company.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>