Whether to bend or to bend
Peace be upon you, Rabbi Michi!
The Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin tells the story of Reish Lakish who sees people plowing and singing in the seventh year.
The Gemara discusses what was the first part of the story, whether they saw the grove or the singer first.
And the claim is that the story is the other way around because if the order is as it appears in the Gemara, they could have made the same claim to Reish Lakish as Agiston. I don’t really understand the issue and I don’t understand the excuse. I would appreciate assistance.
Kind regards, Noam
In the future, please indicate the source. Sanhedrin 26a.
I didn’t understand what the problem was. If the case of the grove was first and their explanation was that it was an agiston, then in the second case they could also say an agiston. The agiston explanation applies to both cases. But if the singer was first and the explanation was the name of the winepress, this explanation does not apply to the plowing, so they explained that it was an agiston.
I thought perhaps to say that there is a greater innovation in the Agiston in terms of the Sages who discuss the transfer of land to the rightful owner. That is, in Zomer the likelihood that he is committing an akl is reasonable. To claim that it is a Gentile's land is already a greater good eye. This also connects with the continuation of the story in which Reish Lakish attacks the Sages later and thinks that they are disrespecting the seventh. Apparently a Ritcha from the Torah of a repentant person. What does the Rabbi think?
This is not what is written in the Peshat Gemara. The Gemara seems to say that the excuse for the second does not belong in the first and the first belongs in the second. It does not say that there is a hierarchy in the novellas.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
