On Daf 8a, we learn towards the bottom of the amud, that Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Papa concerning the purpose of R"H L'shanim and that it is possible to say that he holds like Rav Zeira, who says that R"H L'shanim is for seasons.
2 questions:
1: In your insights on the Daf, you bring up the point that because Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak's shita was brought up after Rav Chisda's issue, one could say that Rav Chisda might hold like Nachman bar Yitzchak (about R"H L'shanim's being for Din). Can we say anytime whenever one shita is brought up after a case of finding what another amora is trying to say, that the first amora is holding like the shita brought up after? or does the gemara have to present this possibility?
2: You explain according to Penei Yehoshua that Rav Chisda holds like Rebbe Yossi, that a person is judged every day and that what is judged for us on Rosh Hashana is for the whole year. Yet, he brings up the point that the melech (Klal Yisrael) goes first before the tzibur (the oomos holam). Likewise, if the world gets judged every day, is the judgement renewed, like at tzeis and then Klal Yisrael is judged and then sometime later, the rest of the world is judged? Are there known times when these take place? and Is this daily mishpat opinion an opinion we can hold by?
Thank you very much. I wish you great things for all of your sincere effort.
AB, Troy, NY USA
When we suggested that R. Chisda might explain 'le'Shanim' like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, it was not specifically because the latter's opinion appeared after that of R. Chisda, but simply because it seems to be as much an option as that of R. Zeira.
As a matter of fact I would say that the very fact that the Gemara cites Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's opinion after that of Rav Chisda, makes it clear that Rav Chisda cannot hold like him, thereby answering the question that we asked, though leaving us to supply the reason why this is so.
Your second question refers to the P'nei Yehoshua's answer to the above Kashya. According to the P'nei Yehoshua's answer, why should there be a problem with R. Chisda's statement? Bearing in mind that the judgement takes place in the morning (as the Agados Maharsha points out on Daf 16a, based on the very Pasuk brought by R. Yossi "va'Tifkedenu la'Bekarim", the king will go in first, early in the morning, and the people afterwards (remember though, that Hash-m does not really need time to judge, but can do it all in a split second [see Sugya at the bottom of 18a]).
Personally however, I find the P'nei Yehoshua difficult, for a number of reasons, though I shall only cite one.
One of the many explanations to reconcile R. Yossi with the concept of Rosh Hashanah (Yom ha'Din) is that of the Ra'avan, quoted by the S'fas Emes, who explains that R. Yossi agrees that Rosh Hashanah is Yom ha'Din, only on Rosh Hashanah, the public is judged as one unit, whereas every day, each individual is judged. Now that goes well with R. Yossi's wording ' Adam Nidon be'Chol Yom' (implying individuals).
That being the case, R. Chisda, who talks about a king and a Tzibur going to be judged, cannot be referring to the daily Din of R. Yossi, but to that of Rosh Hashanah. Consequently, he could indeed establish 'Shanim' in the Mishnah with regard to Din (like R. Nachman bar Yitzchak), and we will have to find another reason why the Gemara declines to do so.
Finally, you ask about whether R. Yossi is an opinion that we can go by. We do not in fact, rule like him (seeing as he argues with a S'tam Mishnah!). In fact, the Ritva states that of the two explanations given by the Gemara on Daf 16a, to explain why we Daven for sick people nowadays, the second, establishing it like the Rabbanan of R. Yossi, is the accepted one.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.
1)
I think that this is all part of Hash-m (Kevayachol)'s dual 'Personality'. On the one hand, he is totally beyond comprehension, whilst on the other, we have to understand Him and learn from His Midos. From His point of view, He judges everyone simultaneously (I think that this is part of Hash-m's being One), whilst from ours, it is a process that goes with a Seider, and takes time.
2)
The Pasuk in Yisro refers to K'lal Yisrael as "Mamleches Kohanim ve'Goy Kadosh", which I assume, is a good source for Yisrael to be called 'Melachim'.
Also, Chazal have said 'Kol Yisrael B'nei Melachim'.
Regarding your second set of questions:
1)
You first write that R. Yossi relies on the blowing of the Shofar to bring in the Yovel, because of the possibility of the world being without slaves (in other words, if there are no slaves, there can be no Yovel); then you suggest as 'an argument for R. Yossi' that when there aren't any slaves, then 'all slaves are considered free', that the requirement is automatically fulfilled. Is this not a contradiction in terms?
Perhaps what you meant to say was 'an argument to counter R. Yossi'.
The truth of the matter is however, that if there are no slaves, then the requirement of setting them free has not been fulfilled, exactly as R. Yossi says. It is the act of complying with the Torah's requirement of setting them free that brings on the Yovel, not the fact that they are free.
2)
What you really want to know is how the Rabbanan will deal with R. Yossi's Kashya (irrespective of how the Rambam rules).
Even though nowadays there are no slaves, who says that this will not change? For a starters, Chazal, based on the Pasuk in Zecharyah 8:22, have said that when Mashi'ach comes, ten men from each of the seventy nations will hold on to each corner of each Jew's garment and go with him to Eretz Yisrael to serve him. I am not sure that this is speaking about slaves, but there is no reason why slavery should not be reinstated then. When it is, Yovel will be reinstated too.
Incidentally, there is no question that we hold like the Rambam, a. because this is generally the rule, in Zera'im and Taharos where the Ra'avad does not disagree with him, and b. because it is obvious that we will rule like the Chachamim, as the Mahari Kurkus points out.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.