<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=799013616-22072009><FONT face=Arial color=#808080>I'm reviewing
the sugya of pidyon shvuyim (gittin 45a). It occurs to me that to the best
of my knowledge the only discussions of whether something was historically done
"Brtzon chachamim" are all mishnaic. In general when the gemara brings a
proof from a maaseh shehaya iirc the question of brtzon chachamim is not raised
except here (by abaye) and similarly by abaye in moed katan 18b. Note that it
doesn't seem that abaye had a mesora that the actions were against the ratzon,
he just seems to posit it as a possibility. Isn't it always the case that
it is a possibility-why doesn't the gemara posit this every time? Perhaps
it knew the halachic result it wanted???</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=799013616-22072009><FONT face=Arial
color=#808080></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=799013616-22072009>
<P>She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu</P>
<P>KT<BR>Joel</P></SPAN></DIV><br><br><table bgcolor=white style="color:black"><tr><td><br>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE <br>
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL <br>
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, <br>
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is <br>
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us <br>
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. <br>
Thank you.<br>
</td></tr></table></BODY></HTML>