The power of the wise in changing nature

Is this in your trilogy?

I think so. I don't remember right now.

Hello Rabbi.

You were surprised by the Shach who quoted the words of the Jerusalemite that "virgins return."
I assume the confusion is about the Jerusalemite and not the Shach, right?

The Jerusalemite had difficulty deciding how to sanctify the month, and it was determined that the procession would return by the end of the month of Adar 2.
You rejected here that: "I have always wondered about it, it is clear to me that it does not happen. But this has no implications for the Dina, since it is clear that this is a matter of establishing a formal halakhic line."

I consulted the Rabbinate in the Watchtower (Chapter 3, p. 144 of the Hoch Mochak) and I understood from his words that the reason you do not justify, as you do, that this is a "halakhic line," is for one reason. The Sages had a choice to determine a halakhic line that depends on days and not years. Instead of determining 3 years, they could have said 1095 days (365*3). If they determined years, it means that the year is the determining factor in the physical world in every situation.

And we will examine Yosef Si' Kap'd on Michash, section 18, regarding a nursing woman who "blood is curdled and becomes milk." There it is explained as above that the Sages intentionally did not say that the process lasted two years but twenty-four months, in order to benefit from the fact that in the year of conception there would be no month of conception at all.

I also tend to think that the Sages' determination will not change virginity in the physical world. I just wanted to explain why the Jerusalemite and the Nok did not think that this was a formal line (because a formal line is more appropriate to make regarding days and not years, as mentioned).
What do you think?

I'm not sure this is necessary in Yerushalmi. It is possible that he assumes that even if the line is formal, it must still be followed precisely (such is the way of halakha). And this may be the explanation in the half-word as well.
The explanation you gave from the Rabbinate is, of course, completely unnecessary. And perhaps the Rabbinate also meant the same thing.
Making a formal line of days must be complicated and illogical. Let them count 1095 days? Is that how it can work? It's pointless.

"He may assume that even if the line is formal, it must still be followed precisely (such is the way of halakha)."

I didn't understand: Who assumes? The Shekh?

Of course not. The Jerusalemite.

I didn't understand again.
Do you mean that the Jerusalemite did not come to describe reality but to establish a law? Not to make a claim about the world but to derive a norm?

This seems to me to be very narrow in its language: "Rabbi Avon said, 'I will call upon the Most High God, upon the God who will end me' (Psalms 57:3) - for three years and one day, and the court of justice will be established for his passing. The virgins will return, and if not, the virgins will not return" (Ketubot Pa"a 52).

Why did the Jerusalemite bring up the verse?
The commentators there explained that Rabbi Avin demanded that the Bible have a metaphysical effect, that the Bible below "calls to God," and God in response "ends upon him."
If this is nothing more than a normative statement, what was the verse cited for?

Maybe the verse is a reference or a reference. I raised a possibility.

Even if we assume that this was the intention of the Yerushalmi, it is difficult to say that the Rashba understood it this way.
The Rabbi in the House of the Dead wondered why menstruation is counted according to the formal calendar of the days of the month (and not according to the actual birth). And the Rashba answered him:

The writer said, "The honorable sages will inherit, but their questions are not the questions of the Shipura of the Jews (the sounding of the shofar of the determination of the month), for everything that the Rabbis below do, the Rabbis above agree with them, as it is written, that you shall read them, that you shall read them on their due time, and you shall establish them in fixed months and years, instead of cutting off leaven on Passover and slaughtering Passover and the punishment of Yom Kippur."
Also in the case of the minors, who said (Nada 442), a minor who is three years old and one day comes to the house, she is exempt, and no one is expected to be present for her, less than this. Both are exempt. Likewise, in the case of a minor who is nine years old and one day after that or less than this, we do not count for them days except for the years that are counted for full and incomplete months, and for months and leap and simple years according to the rules of the 24th.
And even in the new bodies, as the late Yerushalmi demanded, the inscriptions in 'La'l Gomer Ali' are small, a girl of three years and a day old, who has no virginity, are counted in the fourth and have passed the year of her virginity, and they return, O 'La'l Gomer Ali', as the saying goes.

His words prove that he understood the Jerusalemite in a metaphysical way. At first he talks about formal determinations, such as Pesach and Yom Kippur, he moves on to talk about formal determinations such as the coming of a large over a small or a small over a large, and then he adds (at the beginning of section 3) "And even in the innovations of the body yes." What is this addition? And why hasn't he spoken about the innovations of the body until now? After all, he spoke about the boundary between "small" and "small"?
I think what he means is that until now he has been talking about determinations that can only be formal, and now he is talking about the influence of Halacha on reality.

This also seems to be the case from the context. The Lord asks that the days of menstruation be determined according to the birth, and not according to the formal day of the Rosh Hashanah, claiming "and that the Gentiles will be saved"?! Does the blowing of the shofar of the Kiddush of the month cause menstruation? After all, the birth causes it. It seems to me that the Rashba could not have rejected his claim on formal grounds alone. It does not appear that because various laws (which are mainly related to the number of years) are determined according to the Torah, menstruation should also be determined according to it. Menstruation is not a matter of a date, but of a symptom, and therefore does not have to be related to a specific day; it can be related to sailing, or to an action such as jumping and eating garlic.
The Rabbi in Bedek HaBayit understood that the verse could be interpreted to count the days of menstruation according to the birth year. Why does the Rashba refrain from this? It seems to me that it is only for a metaphysical reason.

I'm not comfortable with the metaphysical assertion either, but I think it's unfair to distort the authors' intent because of it.

I don't see any necessity here. Exactly what I said can be said here too.
I will just note that even if this is not their intention, it is clear to me that they are wrong, but I was not convinced that they claim differently from me.