While doing the daf on Makkot 11a I came across this [loosely based upn Shottenstein]
Rav states:
OK sh'ma minah
A. We don't take archaeology as proof positive of what normative Halachah should be. Otherwise discovering R Hiyya's T'fillin should create normative Halachah - but it does not, it is no better [and perhaps no worse]than recording an opinion
B. Was R Hiyya ever yotzei Mitzvat T'fillin with linen sown T'fillin?
While there is no evidence here, it IS likely to say the the Hilch'ta at the end of the sugya was NOT meant as retro-active, and is ONLY a go forward decision. Thus at one time allowing linen might have been a valid sheetah
C. If so, then my point years ago about Josephus seeing Torah scrolls written with "gold" ink would be similar. Maybe the halachah was still Rofefet in his time WRT to "Black Ink Only"
KT
RRW
Rav states:
I saw the Tefillin ... Of my uncle [R Hiyyah] that were sown with linen>
But the Halachah is NOT like that [rather they must be sown with sinews]
OK sh'ma minah
A. We don't take archaeology as proof positive of what normative Halachah should be. Otherwise discovering R Hiyya's T'fillin should create normative Halachah - but it does not, it is no better [and perhaps no worse]than recording an opinion
B. Was R Hiyya ever yotzei Mitzvat T'fillin with linen sown T'fillin?
While there is no evidence here, it IS likely to say the the Hilch'ta at the end of the sugya was NOT meant as retro-active, and is ONLY a go forward decision. Thus at one time allowing linen might have been a valid sheetah
C. If so, then my point years ago about Josephus seeing Torah scrolls written with "gold" ink would be similar. Maybe the halachah was still Rofefet in his time WRT to "Black Ink Only"
KT
RRW
2 comments:
Recent personal case...
I found a few measures of the length of Chizqiyahu's tunnel. Archeologists get from 525-537.6 meters. The plaque made at the time says it's 1200 ammos. Which means a minimum of 1150, with generous rounding. That in terms means a maximum possible ammah of 18.4in (longest tunnel measure, and assuming as small of a rounded number as possible on the plaque), but more plausibly significantly less than 18". And there are a number of marks on the Har haBayis which are multiples of 17.5" apart, well within the range of possible lengths based on the tunnel.
I was asked if I was arguing that we should in practice use a 17.5" ammah. And the answer is no -- the orality of Torah means that the ammah isn't supposed to be fixed over time.
Although I wonder what a rabbi would say to a diabetic or cilliac parishoner who needs to minimize his matzah intake. Could he, in this duress circumstance, use a kezayis computed from this ammah?
-micha
The 18" inch Amma has been a rule of thumb - or rule of cubit - for a long time
Many use it for their size of 'Arba Kanfot"
being the most sensible read does notnecessarily make it Halachically "normative"
Post a Comment