Thursday
In honor of Rabbi Shalom
A. The Lord of the Rings, 1911, and the Lord of the Rings, who is it that if he did not perform the evening of the Ring and there is a need for the Ring, is it permissible to perform it by changing (the R.N.) according to the law?
And according to the commentary on the halacha, it is not the opinion of the Rabbi, and his opinion does not require a change, and so the Gra wrote.
It is difficult for the Rabbi to look at page 6 of the pages of the Rif, and here to find an explicit statement that needs to be changed and corrected.
on. The rabbi wrote in one of his recent columns that in the case of a decree, a rabbinic judge who does not explicitly state a reason can give a reason.
And the Rabbi brought an example from the testimony of a woman, etc. Apparently, one can bring evidence to the Rabbi’s words from the Mishnah of Barish, 3rd ed.
Daviza and Z”al do not catch fish from the beavers in Yot, etc., and the early scholars debate whether the law is from the Torah or from the rabbis.
And the Rabbis wrote (ibid.) that this is the law of the rabbis, and the reason is that the use of a metaphorical metaphor as a work for a secular purpose is an example of giving a reason.
There is no hint from the Mishnah that this is the reason, but rather a “Zel” as the Rabbi says.
thanks
I didn’t understand. Where did I write that when no reason is given, it can be given? I wrote that when a reason is given, then there are opinions that the regulation can be canceled with the cancellation of the reason. And I certainly didn’t bring the testimony of a woman as an example, because this is not a regulation but a law of the Torah (which is taught in the Midrash). But you are right that in the beginning, reasons are given for regulations. But they are not used to cancel the regulations, but to define them (what is the scope of the obligation).
The Rabbi wrote that in the testimony of a woman, since it is a sermon, it is possible to explain on what basis the sermon was said that they were not wise, but today it is kosher, and I will correct that according to the system, this is a law of the Torah (Ramban) according to the Jerusalemite, who also explained the same reason for a daily need, even though the sermon does not mention anything.
So this is a sermon, not a rule. And it is true, I argued that in a sermon, its meaning can be speculated upon and the conclusion changed.
I didn't understand, is this correct evidence for the Rabbi's words or not?
Yes. But here no change is made as a result of taste, so it's just an interpretation and there are plenty of such.
It is possible to make a change according to what the Ramban defined, and in any case, when there is no definition, it is permissible, such as that it is not permissible to harvest for many days, the Ramban himself will admit it, and all this only based on the Ramban's interpretation in the mishna.
After all, it is evidence that there is a change as a result of a reason that is not written.
That it is possible is clear. I argued that it is usually not done (just as it is not required for a reason to be recited). Therefore, there is no evidence for my statement here.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
